In the wake of recent tragedies, the tired refrain from the Left to ban gun ownership has reared its dogmatic head for the umpteenth time. It seems the legacy media and the Left can find no other solution to curb crime and violence. Instead, they can only stamp their feet and demand a massive redaction or outright abolishment of the Second Amendment with little to no regard for facts or objective reality.  
Lost in all the hysterics and sophistry is just how effective a deterrent legal gun ownership is against crime. Though often buried by the Left, countless studies and data point to this being decidedly true. In fact, here’s how an unusual city ordinance passed in a suburb outside of Atlanta, Georgia proved just that. 
The Kennesaw city ordinance 
While Kennesaw, Georgia has grown quite a bit with the addition of Kennesaw State University, in 1982 it was a relatively quiet suburb of Atlanta with a population of about 5,000. At the time, Kennesaw City Council decided to pass an ordinance requiring all heads of households to possess a firearm at home. It began as a somewhat symbolic effort to protest the outright ban on handgun ownership in Morton Grove, Illinois. This new ordinance, however, would lead to startling results in crime reduction. 
Professor Gary Kleck, a lauded criminologist and Professor Emeritus at Florida State University, <a href="http://criminology.fsu.edu/faculty-and-staff/college-faculty/gary-kleck/">detailed</a> the outcome of the city ordinance in a 1988 <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/800663?seq=1">study</a> for the academic journal, Social Problems, that included an “89 percent decrease” in burglaries:  
<blockquote>“Finally, the deterrent effect of civilian gun ownership is supported by the experience of Kennesaw, Georgia, a suburb of Atlanta with a 1980 population of 5,095…To demonstrate their disapproval of a ban on handgun ownership passed in Morton Grove, Illinois, the Kennesaw City council passed a city ordinance requiring heads of households to keep at least one firearm in their homes. In the seven months following passage of the ordinance (March 15, 1982 to October 31, 1982), there were only five reported residential burglaries, compared to 45 in the same period in the previous year, an 89 percent decrease…This drop was far in excess of the modest 10.4 percent decrease in the burglary rate experienced by Georgia as a whole from 1981 to 1982, the 6.8 percent decrease for South Atlantic states, the 9.6 percent decrease for the United States, and the 7.1 percent decrease for cities under 10,000 population…”</blockquote>
Of course, this is just one of the many examples Kleck provides in his innumerable studies on the subject of legal gun ownership as a highly effective deterrent against crime.
In the <a href="https://americangunfacts.com/pdf/Crime-Control-through-the-Private-Use-of-Armed-Force.pdf">same study</a>, Kleck noted that “subway robberies decreased by 43 percent” in New York City after an armed citizen “used a handgun to wound four robbers.” Kleck was quick to point out that there may have been some correlative value to that finding due to an additional increase in police presence. Still, such transparency and academic rigor only bolster his comprehensive research.  
Elsewhere in the study, Kleck details how, in 1967, the Orlando Police Department trained some 2,500 women in the use of firearms after a spike in sexual assaults. As a result, incidences of rape plummeted by 89 percent in Orlando, while “[t]he rape rate remained constant in the rest of Florida and in the United States.”
Not only did training a large number of women in the proper use of firearms act as a massive deterrent against sexual assault, Kleck noted that it prevented other criminal activity as well, pointing out that it also lead to “a substantial drop” in burglaries throughout the city. 
Kleck’s tireless research going back decades alongside Kennesaw’s unusual but effective city ordinance demonstrates time and again that a civilian population trained in the proper use of firearms serves as an effective deterrent against violence and crime.
A deeper dive into gun ownership and crime prevention
Far from being some antiquated study, Kleck’s findings on the Kennesaw city ordinance are as true today as ever. Unfortunately, such details are often buried, hidden, or simply discarded by the legacy media in their dogged efforts to ban firearms. 
Writing for the Foundation for Economic Education, Lawrence W. Reed <a href="https://fee.org/articles/guns-prevent-thousands-of-crimes-every-day-research-show/">argues</a> that “[l]iberty isn’t the only thing likely to be lost when gun laws are passed to appease emotions over reason.”  
Reed then asks in the exhausting, decades-long debate, “How many lives are actually saved by gun ownership?” A compelling question the “grandstanders and ideologues” on the Left refuse to acknowledge or answer.  He offers some noteworthy facts which — at the very least — foster an actual discussion on the many merits of gun ownership: 
<ul>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Guns prevent an estimated 2.5 million crimes a year, or 6,849 every day. Most often, the gun is never fired, and no blood (including the criminal’s) is shed.</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Every year, 400,000 life-threatening violent crimes are prevented using firearms.</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">60 percent of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they knew the victim was armed. Forty percent of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they thought the victim might be armed. </li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Felons report that they avoid entering houses where people are at home because they fear being shot.</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Fewer than 1 percent of firearms are used in the commission of a crime.</li>
</ul>
The Heritage Foundation also provides an <a href="https://www.heritage.org/data-visualizations/firearms/defensive-gun-uses-in-the-us/">extensive database</a> of Americans who “successfully defended their liberties, lives, or livelihoods with the lawful use of a firearm.”
The database is reinforced by the findings of the CDC and provides conclusive evidence contrary to all the hubris and hoodwinking of anti-gun crusaders: 
“According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,” The Heritage Foundation continues, “almost every major study on defensive gun use has found that Americans use their firearms defensively between <a href="https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cdc-study-use-firearms-self-defense-important-crime-deterrent">500,000 and 3 million times each year</a>. There’s good reason to believe that most defensive gun uses are never reported to law enforcement, much less picked up by local or national media outlets…[I]t highlights just a fraction of the incredible number of times Americans relied on the Second Amendment — not the government getting there in time — to protect their inalienable rights. Despite the limitations on data, these confirmed cases of defensive gun use help prove that the ‘good guy with a gun’ is not a myth, but an integral part of American society.”
Finally, Amy Swearer of The Daily Signal gives a wise <a href="https://www.dailysignal.com/2019/02/01/a-month-of-crime-news-provides-evidence-in-favor-of-armed-civilians/">summation</a> of legal gun ownership after providing an extensive list of Americans who successfully defended themselves with a firearm in one month alone: “The exercise of Second Amendment rights in defense of self or others is not a rare or extraordinary event, but a daily occurrence in the lives of ordinary Americans doing ordinary things.”
What about the constant specter of mass shootings?
Charles C.W. Cooke’s brilliant 2018 <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2019/08/26/the-rush-to-restrict-gun-rights/?fbclid=IwAR2bxqB0PW7dgMSb8VIZ-QW0qwMcqXoiynTiRTyQ-TUTrzON7YiWfx3Zgs4">essay</a> for the National Review written in the wake of the El Paso shootings is proving to be a prescient piece on the pressing issue of mass shootings and gun control. To be sure, Cooke is quick to denounce the El Paso shooter as “a young white-supremacist man” compelled by an “abhorrent, villainous ideology.” 
Cooke, however, adamantly refuses to cede to the overtures from the Left that such horrific events serve as an indictment against “the United States as a whole” and — by extension — the Second Amendment. 
“Now, as ever,” Cooke writes, “the quality of a free society is measured by how that society protects its liberties when they have been abused, not by how well it celebrates them when they are under no strain. What happened in El Paso was an unconscionable disgrace, and, when we have finished reflecting upon it, we should exert great effort in considering how we might prevent its like from happening again. But if we turn against our key strengths in the process, we will achieve a Pyrrhic victory at best, and, at worst, end up dismantling our inheritance for a mess of pottage.”
Cooke also cites the findings of the RAND Corporation whose “relevant academic research… failed to find a single gun-control policy that has been proven to reduce mass shootings in the United States” at the time.
As heinous and frightening as mass shootings are, they do not contribute in any statistically significant way to the supposed data on gun violence. It’s the staggering and tragic spectacle of such macabre events that provide fodder to the many irrational arguments put forth by the detractors of the Second Amendment. 
In 2018, UC Davis Health<a href="https://health.ucdavis.edu/what-you-can-do/facts.html"> reported</a> that mass shootings contributed to only “0.2% of total firearm deaths.” 
More importantly, firearm-related homicides are far below the peak that occurred almost fifty years ago in 1974, according to the <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/08/16/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/">Pew Research Center</a>: 
“On a per capita basis, there were 12 gun deaths per 100,000 people in 2017 — the highest rate in more than two decades, but still well below the 16.3 gun deaths per 100,000 people in 1974, the highest rate in the CDC’s online database.”
Sadly, suicides dominate the majority of firearm deaths, indicating — once again — <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/khan-faith-in-a-dark-time">far, deeper and malignant issues in our nation</a> that so many refuse to consider or acknowledge. 
***
That something as simple as a city ordinance requiring gun ownership could dramatically cause the crime rate to plummet should be evidence enough on the merits of firearms as a deterrent. Yet, the fatiguing, dogmatic refrains opposed to the Second Amendment continue to drown out common sense, let alone actual data and evidence. As this shrill chorus continues to grow, one can’t help but conclude that many on the Left stand in opposition to the very idea of America itself. 
The views expressed in this piece are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Handgun

In 1982, One Georgia Town Required Everyone To Own A Gun. Here’s What Happened

Readers Pass

As COVID-19 vaccines continue to roll out all across the nation, many government officials are now reportedly considering some form of COVID “passport,” which would allow people to escape restrictions on travel or work. 
New York is already issuing an “Excelsior Pass” to residents which would provide proof of a COVID vaccination or a current negative test while attending public events. The European Union plans to roll out a “Digital Green Pass” for work and travel between nations. Israel has begun implementing a “green pass” for its vaccinated citizens to enter gyms, restaurants, and public venues. 
Here’s a breakdown of some of the major so-called “COVID passports” being considered or already in use, and the potential implications they would have on all of us. 
New York’s “Excelsior Pass”
Though mired in controversies, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo has announced a pilot program that provides individuals digital proof of either a COVID-19 vaccination or a recent negative test to “fast-track” reopening the state for business and travel. New York residents will be provided with a printable digital pass which will be scanned upon entrance to public events like ball games, concerts, and — potentially — airports.
“First announced in the Governor’s 2021 State of the State address and developed in partnership with IBM,” Governor Cuomo’s <a href="https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-announces-pilot-program-testing-excelsior-pass-madison-square-garden-and">website reports</a>, “the Excelsior Pass will use proven, secure technology to confirm an individual’s vaccination or a recent negative COVID-19 test through a confidential data transfer to help fast-track the reopening of theaters, stadiums and other businesses in accordance with New York State guidelines.”
Currently, the Excelsior Pass is voluntary. It remains unclear whether Cuomo and other Democratic officials will make such proof of vaccination compulsory to attend public outings in the near future.
Israel is issuing its “Green Pass” to its citizens 
So far, Israel is far ahead of the rest of the world when it comes to vaccinating its citizens, “with 55 percent of the population having received one dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine and more than 41 percent two doses,” according to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/07/world/israel-green-pass-covid.html">The New York Times</a>.
Currently, only those with proof of vaccination in the form of a “Green Pass” are allowed full access to public outings and gatherings, including indoor gyms and restaurants. 
“For the first time in months,” The Times continues, “restaurants have reopened, with restrictions on occupancy and social distancing and with indoor seating available only to so-called Green Pass holders, meaning people over 16 who are fully vaccinated…Event halls are reopening for Green Pass holders and gatherings of up to 1,500 people will be allowed in stadiums and arenas.”
<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/feb/28/green-pass-how-are-vaccine-passports-working-in-israel">The Guardian</a> reported that green pass holders will also get exclusive access to gyms, hotels, theaters, and concerts. 
The nation is grappling with “a host of legal, moral and ethical questions” as it implements its novel policy and “tries to balance the steps toward resuming public life with sensitive issues such as public safety, discrimination, free choice and privacy,” <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/18/world/middleeast/israel-covid-vaccine-reopen.html?searchResultPosition=1">The New York Times</a> also detailed. 
Israel’s health minister, Yuli Edelstein, insists that “[g]etting vaccinated is a moral duty” and [w]hoever does not get vaccinated will be left behind.” 
In some cities, “mayors wanted to bar unvaccinated teachers from classrooms while some hoteliers threatened unvaccinated employees with dismissal.”
So far, Israel’s vigilance toward the virus and vaccinations may not be readily accepted elsewhere in the world given its potential conflict with civil liberties.
The European Commission has plans to issue a “digital green pass”
The president of the European Commission (EC), Ursula von der Leyen, is advocating for a “digital green pass” to facilitate safer travel between nations for its citizens. According to <a href="https://techcrunch.com/2021/03/01/eu-to-propose-a-digital-pass-for-covid-19-vaccination-test-status-to-help-safer-travel/?">TechCrunch</a>, “the planned digital tool will aim to provide proof that a person has been vaccinated” from COVID-19. The pass will also display recent test results.
As the executive branch of the European Union, the EC is aware of the optics surrounding such a pass and is attempting to make sure it’s not viewed as compulsory or discriminatory. 
“The Commission is being careful to avoid calling the digital pass a ‘vaccine passport’ — as the notion of limiting people’s freedoms based on (still very) limited access to vaccines raises the ugly spectre of discrimination,” TechCrunch reports.
Still, the European Commission is feeling pressure from nations whose economies rely heavily on tourism to expedite such a pass to encourage travel again. Such an accelerated timeline may be fraught with a whole host of uncertainties, however. 
Echoing such concerns, French President Emmanuel Macron insisted that “a vaccine can’t be a precondition for travel,” according to <a href="https://www.politico.eu/article/commission-to-propose-digital-green-pass-for-travel-this-month/">Politico</a>. 
Data breaches and privacy protection are serious issues with such passes
Though officials argue that security and privacy are of the utmost importance, major technological issues remain at the forefront of such passes. 
Israel’s newly implemented green pass “uses an outdated encryption library” making it potentially susceptible to any number of hacks and breaches that one expert describes as a “catastrophe in the making,” according to Cat Ferguson of the <a href="https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/03/01/1020154/israels-green-pass-is-an-early-vision-of-how-we-leave-lockdown/">MIT Technology Review</a>. 
“The green pass is also a potential privacy nightmare, says Orr Dunkelman, a computer science professor at Haifa University and a board member of Privacy Israel,” Ferguson reports. “He says the pass reveals information that those checking credentials don’t need to know, such as the date a user recovered from covid or got a vaccine…Orr says. Crucially, because the app is not open source, no third-party experts can vet whether these concerns are founded.”
Governor Cuomo and EC president von der Leyen both insist that security remains a top priority for their respective passes. 
Cuomo states that “[r]obust privacy protections are woven throughout the digital health pass” and that private information is secured “using an encrypted digital smartphone wallet or printed credential” on his <a href="https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-announces-pilot-program-testing-excelsior-pass-madison-square-garden-and">website</a>. IBM has partnered with the Cuomo administration in developing and rolling out the Excelsior Pass. 
Such “robust” measures are not without legitimate criticism. Jenin Younes of the <a href="https://www.aier.org/article/your-right-to-refuse-a-health-passport/">American Institute For Economic Research</a> (AIER) argues “that once again, a <a href="https://abcnews.go.com/Business/winners-pandemic-economy-big-tech-lockdown-essentials-soar/story?id=72495436">big tech</a> company is benefitting from illiberal policies enacted in response to the pandemic” in reference to the Excelsior Pass.
Von der Leyen makes similar promises as Cuomo, stating in a <a href="https://twitter.com/vonderleyen/status/1366346729289904128?ref_src=twsrc%255Etfw%257Ctwcamp%255Etweetembed%257Ctwterm%255E1366346729289904128%257Ctwgr%255E%257Ctwcon%255Es1_&amp;ref_url=https%253A%252F%252Ftechcrunch.com%252F2021%252F03%252F01%252Feu-to-propose-a-digital-pass-for-covid-19-vaccination-test-status-to-help-safer-travel%252F">tweet</a> that the Digital Green Pass “will respect data protection, security &amp; privacy.” 
All these guarantees remain hypothetical, and the fact that passes are being fast-tracked in a somewhat haphazard manner does not bode well for data protection and security given the inherently precarious nature of such technology.
Ramesh Raskar, the head of the <a href="https://www.pathcheck.org/">PathCheck Foundation</a>, a global nonprofit “dedicated to containing Covid-19 and revitalizing the economy, while preserving privacy and individual liberty,” voiced such concerns over the pending passes being issued for all involved. 
“It’s not just about making sure you don’t have to hand over personal information to get into a bar, though: privacy is also important for those who are undocumented or who mistrust the government,” Raskar told <a href="https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/03/01/1020154/israels-green-pass-is-an-early-vision-of-how-we-leave-lockdown/">MIT Technology Review</a>. “It’s important for companies not to create another ‘hackable repository’ when they view your information.”
Will such COVID passports make vaccinations mandatory, especially in the workplace?
A major issue facing all of us is whether or not vaccinations will be compulsory for the workplace. As it stands, it seems that employers can enforce vaccinations for the most part. Whether they will or not remains to be seen.
Workplace rules are not hard and fast, especially regarding safety protocols. Professor Dorit Reiss who teaches law at the University of California Hastings told <a href="https://apnews.com/article/can-employers-covid-19-vaccine-mandatory-ba22c99f01f24ea3be7631ff751f0d82">AP News</a> that “[e]mployers generally have wide scope” when making workplace rules. 
As such, “employers can require employees to take safety measures, including vaccination.” The only potential workarounds would be to “sign a waiver or agree to work under specific conditions to limit any risk you might pose to yourself or others.”
AP News also reports that “[t]he U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has allowed companies to mandate the flu and other vaccines, and has also <a href="https://www.eeoc.gov/wysk/what-you-should-know-about-covid-19-and-ada-rehabilitation-act-and-other-eeo-laws">indicated</a> they can require COVID-19 vaccines.”
Though the tone and tenor from government officials presents vaccinations as a voluntary measure, it does share some resonance with the deeply <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/khan-unmasked-incivility-assaults-virtue-signaling-meltdowns-over-a-piece-of-cloth?%253Futm_source=facebook&amp;utm_medium=social&amp;utm_campaign=fedup">contentious issue of mask-wearing</a> that also began as a “<a href="https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/04/03/826219824/president-trump-says-cdc-now-recommends-americans-wear-cloth-masks-in-public">voluntary practice</a>” before becoming a <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/20/executive-order-protecting-the-federal-workforce-and-requiring-mask-wearing/">federal mandate</a> under President Biden. 
With the current administration at the helm, it does not seem at all farfetched that most of us will be compelled to provide proof of vaccination moving forward, particularly in order to continue working.
Just how necessary is the vaccine for many of us? 
Cogent arguments outside of embracing immediate vaccination are all but being drowned out by fringe conspiracies, disallowing any reasonable discussion to take place. <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/khan-plandemic-is-a-sloppy-seductive-mess">The anti-vaccine movement</a> continues to prattle on unabated in its echo chambers while “follow the science” has been reduced to an insufferable, dogmatic refrain by far too many. 
Jenin Younes voices tremendous concern over Cuomo’s Excelsior Pass, providing a rare and nuanced discussion in her aforementioned piece for <a href="https://www.aier.org/article/your-right-to-refuse-a-health-passport/">AIER</a>. 
Younes begins by unequivocally stating that she is “by no means anti-vaccine as a general matter” and understands that “Covid-19 vaccines can provide a substantial benefit to many people, especially vulnerable populations.” However, she asserts that the main risks and uncertainties surrounding the vaccines have to do with “the new nature of the technology” and “that they have <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucelee/2021/01/16/how-safe-are-covid-19-coronavirus-vaccines-heres-the-allergic-reaction-risk/?sh=1bec7fbf2074">received emergency use authorizations</a> rather than full market approval.” 
“It is, therefore, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMGWLLDSA3c">not unreasonable</a> for healthy, relatively young people to whom the virus poses a <a href="https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-age-sex-demographics/">negligible threat</a> to conduct a cost-benefit analysis and decide to forego vaccination in favor of potential natural immunity,” Younes argues. “Nor is it irrational for vulnerable individuals to make the same choice. Vaccination is – or should be – a personal decision based upon one’s assessment of the risks and benefits to oneself and others. By tying the ability to attend certain events to immunization status, Governor Cuomo is effectively using the coercive power of the state to influence people’s choices about their bodies and their health, and the degree to which they are willing to take on a risk for the benefit of other people.”
***
Though these so-called “COVID passports” are currently voluntary for the most part, legitimate concern is growing over such policies and procedures. Not only do they potentially risk our data and private information with unproven technology, they may also pose a threat to our deeply held freedoms and liberties. 
The views expressed in this piece are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

DENMARK-HEALTH-VIRUS

‘COVID Passports’ Are Coming. Here’s How They Are Already Being Used Across The World

COVID-19 Vaccine

The pervasive notion of “implicit bias” reared its spurious head once again during the recent confirmation hearings for Merrick Garland. Sen. John Neely Kennedy (R-LA) pressed Garland for a more succinct definition of the term, but to no avail. Garland insisted on its merits but refused to offer any further insights on how he would apply the supposed litmus test for prejudice as Attorney General.
Over the last decade or so, the Left has promoted implicit bias — also known as “unconscious bias” — as an effective metric to gauge all manner of prejudice. They argue the concept is rooted in sound science and hard data. As a result, widespread <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/coca-cola-racism-robin-diangelo-coke-b1806122.html">training protocols</a> are now being implemented and enforced all across our nation.
Regardless of Garland’s posturing, implicit bias needs to be abandoned as nothing more than junk science tearing at the already threadbare fabric of our society. 
What exactly is implicit bias? 
At its root, implicit bias is an inherently nebulous assertion that all manner of prejudice is deeply embedded in our subconscious whether we are aware of it or not. The concept draws from critical race theory and assumes that systemic racism and all aspects of privilege are fundamentally true.
Online progressive curricula such as <a href="https://www.racialequitytools.org/resources/act/communicating/implicit-bias">Racial Equity Tools</a> (RET) state that “[exposure] to structural and cultural racism has enabled stereotypes and biases to penetrate deep into our psyches.” Consequently, implicit bias “serves to justify racist policies, practices and behaviors that persist in mainstream culture and narratives.”
RET goes on to explain that prejudice has some supposed neurological connection. As such, individuals can only shed such bigotry through a process of “debiasing” wherein “individual neural associations can be changed through specific practices” and protocols. 
Echoing RET, <a href="https://medium.com/national-equity-project/implicit-bias-structural-racism-6c52cf0f4a92">The National Equity Project</a> claims that “it is critical that any learning about implicit bias includes both clear information about the neuroscience of bias and the context of structural racism that gave rise to and perpetuates inequities and harmful racial biases.”
Perhaps the most fatiguing aspect of implicit bias is that it’s being promoted as some serious scientific endeavor established by objective facts. As a result, it continues to go largely unchallenged. 
Why implicit bias is junk science 
Bluntly put, the idea that implicit bias is somehow rooted in scientific rigor is patently bunk. It ought to be relegated to the trash alongside craniometry, cold fusion, and the infamous <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_Capacity_Analysis">Oxford Capacity Analysis</a>. Unfortunately, it remains a growing cultural force backed by corporations and <a href="https://diversity.uiowa.edu/implicit-bias-training-and-resources">academia</a>. 
Writing for <a href="https://www.thecut.com/2017/01/psychologys-racism-measuring-tool-isnt-up-to-the-job.html">The Cut</a>, Jesse Singal argues that “[p]erhaps no new concept from the world of academic psychology has taken hold of the public imagination more quickly and profoundly in the 21st century than implicit bias.” This phenomenon is rooted in the “blockbuster success of the so-called implicit association test [IAT], which purports to offer a quick, easy way to measure how implicitly biased individual people are.”
The IAT is heralded by academia as some final and objective measure for prejudice. Singal notes that the IAT is “frequently written about by some of the top social psychologists and science journalists in the country” and is considered “the most sophisticated way to talk about the complicated, fraught subject of race in America.”
Singal, however, eviscerates the notion that the IAT can provide any meaningful and objective measure for prejudice, especially on any scientific level: 
<blockquote>
“Unfortunately, none of that is true. A pile of scholarly work, some of it published in top psychology journals and most of it ignored by the media, suggests that the IAT falls far short of the quality-control standards normally expected of psychological instruments. The IAT, this research suggests, is a noisy, unreliable measure that correlates far too weakly with any real-world outcomes to be used to predict individuals’ behavior — even the test’s creators have now admitted as such…There’s also a case to be made that the IAT went viral not for solid scientific reasons, but simply because it tells us such a simple, pat story about how racism works and can be fixed: that deep down, we’re all a little — or a lot — racist, and that if we measure and study this individual-level racism enough, progress toward equality will ensue.”
</blockquote>
In 2017, <a href="https://www.chronicle.com/article/can-we-really-measure-implicit-bias-maybe-not/">The Chronicle</a> reported that researchers analyzed decades of data on the IAT, including hundreds of studies from close to 100,000 participants, and found “that the correlation between implicit bias and discriminatory behavior appears weaker than previously thought.” The researchers also found “that there is very little evidence that changes in implicit bias have anything to do with changes in a person’s behavior.”
A piece for <a href="https://quillette.com/2018/08/24/the-problem-with-white-fragility-theory/">Quillette</a> by Jonathan Church points out the utter lack of sophistication and virulent dogmatism from the likes of DiAngelo that run completely counter to any scientific enterprise:
<blockquote>
“Scientists themselves can become so wedded to their theories that they give short shrift to reasonable objections that may arise from their audience, especially audiences not trained in their discipline. In fact, it appears that DiAngelo and her disciples have become so focused on white ‘illiteracy’ in the conversation about race that they are prepared to sacrifice the scientific method on the altar of fighting ‘institutional racism.’”
</blockquote>
What’s most fatiguing about implicit bias are the circular arguments and syllogistic contortions from those who insist on its scientific merits. Take this hopeless bit of reasoning from <a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-to-think-about-implicit-bias/">Scientific American</a>:
<blockquote>
“The IAT is a measure, and it doesn’t follow from a particular measure being flawed that the phenomenon we are attempting to measure is not real. Drawing that conclusion is to commit the Divining Rod Fallacy: just because a rod doesn’t find water doesn’t mean there’s no such thing as water. A smarter move is to ask, ‘What does the other evidence show?’”
</blockquote>
The authors’ fatiguing assertion of a logical fallacy to bolster their claim is, in fact, its own deductive fallacy of sorts. In effect, the authors are insisting that because racism exists, the IAT is a sound measure of it. They even readily admit that the IAT is inaccurate, stating that “[t]he stability of the test is low…And the correlation between a person’s IAT scores and discriminatory behavior is often small.” Instead of accepting their own findings, they double down on its inherent shortcomings and false outcomes.
The issue here is one of causality which the IAT — again, by the authors’ own admission — fails to demonstrate. At best, it barely registers a correlative value and that’s being generous. Again, they clearly state it’s an unstable and “flawed” metric. 
As though the authors can foretell such scrutiny they simply resort to dogmatism, arguing that “[t]here is a mountain of evidence — independent of any single test — that implicit bias is real” without, of course, providing such evidence outside of indulging a hopelessly circular argument.
What seems to be a far more accurate assessment is that many in the scientific community and academia lean so far Left that they simply wish to believe the IAT to be an accurate way to measure prejudice. Such a conclusion is as tragic as it is ironic: their own biases disallow them from objectively understanding a hopelessly inaccurate protocol meant to gauge bias.  
How implicit bias training is being implemented all across our nation
Implicit bias training first made headlines in 2018 when Starbucks announced it would shut down all its stores after an alleged racial incident occurred at one of its locations in Philadelphia. 
<a href="https://time.com/5294343/starbucks-employees-racial-bias-training/">Time</a> reported that “[m]ore than 175,000 Starbucks employees participated in the mandatory racial bias education program” that “placed an emphasis on encouraging some employees to become ‘color brave’ instead of ‘color blind.’ 
Most recently, Coca-Cola reportedly employed Robin DiAngelo’s bias training protocols to inculcate its thousands of employees. According to Evita Duffy of <a href="https://thefederalist.com/2021/02/20/whistleblower-coca-cola-uses-antiracist-training-that-tells-employees-try-to-be-less-white/">The Federalist</a>, this included such egregious pronouncements as “try to be less white” and that “[n]othing exempts any white person from the forces of racism.”
Duffy concluded that DiAngelo “implies that white people are, by their very skin color, oppressive, defensive, arrogant, apathetic, and so forth.” 
In 2018, DiAngelo told <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/05/28/racism-white-defensive-robin-diangelo-white-fragility/637585002/">USA Today</a> that “[w]hite people are bad at admitting implicit bias and therefore good at denying the realities of racism.” Ironically enough, <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/07/dehumanizing-condescension-white-fragility/614146/">black scholars</a> have rightly accused DiAngelo of racism for “openly infantilizing black people” and — by extension — other minorities as well. Of course, the Left refuses to acknowledge her particular brand of prejudice.
DiAngelo’s current reach in the workplace and beyond seems without measure at the moment as she continues to <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/antiracism-is-a-booming-business">build her empire</a> off dividing us even further, according to <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/coca-cola-racism-robin-diangelo-coke-b1806122.html">The Independent</a>: 
<blockquote>
“DiAngelo has done diversity training for businesses for more than 20 years and previously said she has experienced <a href="https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/08/white-liberal-racism-why-progressives-are-unable-to-see-their-own-bigotry.html">hostility from white people </a>when talking about race during her training. Her White Fragility book discusses the response white people have when their skin tone is mentioned. She argues that ‘wokeness’ also doesn’t deal with the problem of race, as it helps to avoid questioning one’s own unconscious racist bias.”
</blockquote>
Implicit bias is rooted in dogma, not science
Parsed of sophistry and academic hubris, implicit bias and its various offshoots, including “<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/khan-the-truth-about-the-anti-racist-movement-and-its-founder-ibram-x-kendi">antiracism</a>,” have far more to do with the rote dogma one associates with fanaticism. More than anything else, the adherents and advocates of implicit bias and antiracism echo the zealous trappings of nothing more than a cult. 
One is not even allowed to question the very tenets and foundations of implicit bias and antiracism without immediate accusations of either being racist or suffering “internalized racism.”
Black scholar and professor, John McWhorter, elaborates on this extremism in an essay for <a href="https://www.thedailybeast.com/antiracism-our-flawed-new-religion">The Daily Beast</a>: 
<blockquote>
“To say one is not to question is not to claim that no questions are ever asked. The Right quite readily questions Antiracism’s tenets. Key, however, is that among Antiracism adherents, those questions are tartly dismissed as inappropriate and often, predictably, as racist themselves. The questions are received with indignation that one would even ask them, with a running implication that their having been asked is a symptom of, yes, racism’s persistence.”
</blockquote>
McWhorter goes on the argue that implicit bias training, the mantras surrounding “antiracism,” and the constant proselytizing by the likes of Robin DiAngelo and Ibram X. Kendi signal a type of religious fervor with “White Privilege” being a corrupted, secular version of Original Sin though, of course, without any hope of atonement or salvation. Instead, “White Privilege” is a sin relegated to perpetuity wherein “to be white is to be born with the stain of unearned privilege” and that no matter the penance in the form of “unbiasing” or “antiracism”, one “will always harbor the Privilege nevertheless.”
***
Far from bringing us together, the notion of implicit bias fosters even more antagonism in our already deeply polarized nation. It pits us against one another by reducing each and every one of us to our skin color, and then confines us to it without any hope of transcending such mere superficialities. 
In fact, all implicit bias training does is endorse the most exhausting and troubling aspects of critical race theory and progressivism. It then disallows any substantive arguments against it by virtue of its very circularity. If you disagree with its methods and findings, you’re automatically guilty of prejudice or “internalized racism” in some hopelessly Kafkaesque manner.
Worse, it is growing into a kind of zealotry masquerading as some scientific finding. We must simply call this what it is: Outright and utter madness for all Americans, regardless of creed or color. 
The views expressed in this piece are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Kendi

‘Implicit Bias’ Is Nothing But Divisive Junk Science

Bias

Ibram X. Kendi

Racial Bias

Robin DiAngelo

These days, most professional athletes are forced to kowtow to “woke” culture. Any positions that run counter to such Leftist tropes — no matter how nuanced or insightful — are immediately devoured by cancel culture mobs. Just ask <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/drew-brees-will-stand-for-the-flag-but-adds-that-his-lack-of-awareness-hurt-a-lot-of-people?%253Futm_source=facebook&amp;utm_medium=social&amp;utm_campaign=fedup">Drew Brees</a> or <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/sports/former-nfl-player-marcellus-wiley-rips-black-lives-matter-after-it-removes-page-on-disrupting-nuclear-family-structure">Marcellus Wiley</a>. Some combination of peer pressure and genuine fears of reprisal now inform most athletes’ public statements on sociopolitical happenings. 
MMA and — in particular — the UFC are decidedly different. Athletes in the UFC hail from all over the world and it remains MMA’s top promotion. More importantly, fighters can still hold political views that go against the tidal progressive norms. Here are five outspoken conservative figures in the world of UFC.
Jorge Masvidal
One of the UFC’s most gifted Welterweight strikers, Jorge Masvidal was raised in the rough and tumble streets of Miami, as <a href="https://www.espn.co.uk/mma/story/_/id/27931280/from-miami-brawler-ufc-star-jorge-masvidal-always-bmf">ESPN</a> recounts: 
<blockquote>
“When Masvidal was 14, he suffered one of the worst beatings of his life. He’s been in so many altercations, he says it’s impossible to recall every one. But what he does remember is that in this specific encounter he was outnumbered, and it landed him in the hospital.”
</blockquote>
Masvidal began his fighting career in the <a href="https://www.espn.com/video/clip/_/id/27946975">backyard brawls</a> famously put together by underground fight legend, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kimbo_Slice">Kimbo Slice</a>. He currently holds the UFC’s BMF title after a lopsided TKO victory over Nate Diaz due to a <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MqBNf_hHW4o&amp;ab_channel=MMAWeekly.com">somewhat controversial stoppage</a>. He also holds the record for fasted KO in UFC history with his <a href="https://gfycat.com/enchantinggaseousasianwaterbuffalo">epic flying knee</a> against Ben Askren in UFC 239. 
During the 2020 presidential election, Masvidal came out in full support of Donald Trump. His father is a Cuban immigrant who witnessed firsthand the horrors and atrocities of Communism under the Castro regime, according to <a href="https://www.sportbible.com/australia/mma-news-ufc-star-jorge-masvidal-declares-his-support-for-donald-trump-20201014">Sport Bible</a>.
“It’s understood Masvidal’s father arrived in Miami after fleeing communist-led Cuba as a teenager &#8211; and it was his own experiences which ultimately played a big role in shaping Masvidal’s political beliefs in the United States.”
Certainly, Masvidal’s apprehensions were not unwarranted when he expressed concern over Joe Biden, stating, “We either re-elect President Trump and keep American great again, or we let Joe Biden and the radical left take us down the slippery slopes of socialism and misery.”
Masvidal shared his most insightful reasons for supporting Trump on Dan Le Batard’s podcast, <a href="https://www.espn.com/radio/play/_/id/29509325">South Beach Sessions</a>, according to <a href="https://www.mmamania.com/2020/7/24/21337269/ufc-superstar-jorge-masvidal-explains-his-support-for-president-donald-trump-mma-espn-covid">MMA Mania</a>. The UFC fighter discussed how he’s had to fend off spurious accusations of racism and how the former president contributed to minority communities all across our nation in meaningful ways: 
<blockquote>
“When people would say I’m racist because I would pick a certain person, that lets you know where this is going as a society. They’re using now that to wipe away all the good (Trump) has actually done for my community. The lowest unemployment for Latin and Black people, that gives us dignity. That gives my community dignity. People are working and making more money. The pay gaps that have happened in the middle class are nice, are good. It’s numbers, it’s facts. He’s actually helping out my people. And I’m supposed to not give credit for that?”
</blockquote>
Colby Covington
Colby Covington, the former welterweight champion of the world, first gained widespread notoriety in 2018 after posing with President Trump in the oval office, proudly displaying his new belt. Since then, Covington has remained a vocal supporter and friend of the Trump family, even answering a <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERX4j9cZ4ss">call</a> from President Trump in the middle of a press conference after his 2020 victory over Tyron Woodley.
Echoing the antics of “The Notorious” Conor McGregor (who himself called Trump a &#8220;phenomenal President&#8221;) and — to a lesser degree — Chael Sonnen, Colby Covington has relished his role as a top heel in the UFC. According to <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YK8Tg_vliHs&amp;ab_channel=BeyondtheGameTV">Beyond The Game TV</a>, his more outlandish antics were for the sake of survival and relevancy as a fighter on the verge of being cut from the promotion.
In 2019, Covington explained to <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQRMxivohcI">Candace Owen</a>s the compelling reasons that lead to his rise as one of the UFC’s main “villains” in the game, as reported by <a href="https://www.mmafighting.com/2019/12/9/21002178/colby-covington-claims-the-ufc-was-going-to-release-him-before-his-now-infamous-filthy-animals-promo">MMA Fighting</a>:
<blockquote>
“I’ve never told this story before but three fights ago, before I fought the No. 2 guy in the world, this guy named Demian Maia, in Brazil, they had told my manager Dan Lambert that they weren’t going to re-sign me. They didn’t like my style, they didn’t like that I wasn’t entertaining, and this is before I really started to become an entertainer and really understand the entertainment aspect of this business. So before this fight they told me no matter what happens, I was ranked No. 6 in the world, ‘We’re not re-signing you. We don’t like your character. We don’t like your fighting style.’ And I’m getting paid $30,000 to go fight the No. 2 guy in the world. After you pay taxes and pay your coaches, you’re really going to get like, $5,000 or $10,000.”
</blockquote>
That’s not to say that him parading about in MAGA attire and openly supporting former president Donald Trump is just for show alone. His conservative convictions seem genuine outside of all the pomp and pageantry.
Of course, his support of Trump and conservatism alone has sent MMA journalists and “woke” mobs on MMA forums into furious fits about what a supposed monster Covington must be for such views.
In 2018, <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/colby-covington-compares-himself-to-donald-trump-2018-6">The Insider</a> declared Covington to be “the most controversial fighter in the UFC” who was similar to “Donald Trump in the worst ways possible” because he “likened his underdog status to Trump’s rise from unfancied Republican candidate to US President.”
Politics aside, Covington saves his best, most hilarious comments for his fellow fighters. According to <a href="https://www.fightful.com/mma/exclusives/ufc-225-s-colby-covington-talks-rafael-dos-anjos-matchup-spoiling-infinity-wars-talks-wwe?utm_source=TW-FightfulOnline&amp;utm_medium=Fightful.com&amp;utm_campaign=dlvr.it.organic">Fightful</a>, he once referred to Conor McGregor as a “little leprechaun” after the Irishman <a href="https://www.espn.com/mma/story/_/id/24885232/the-conor-mcgregor-bus-attack-words-were-there">launched a dolly</a> at a bus full of fighters in an apparent fit of inebriated rage:
<blockquote>
“He’s a coked up little leprechaun. It’s funny how I put a tweet that King Colby the bounty hunter was coming after him, he turned himself in. He knows what would happen. I would dunk that nerd underwater and make him quit.”
</blockquote>
Does Covington ever cross the line? Perhaps. Some of his animus seems rooted in frustration and fatigue rather than self-promotion. He was kicked out of American Top Team after referring to fellow training partner and former UFC champion, Joanna Jedrzejczyk, as “ugly” and “washed up,” according to <a href="https://www.sportskeeda.com/mma/has-colby-covington-crossed-line-trash-talk">Sports Keeda</a>.
Regardless, what most don’t realize or, frankly, refuse to acknowledge is that Covington is a genuinely good man with an unparalleled work ethic, as routinely evidenced by his unmatched conditioning in The Octagon.
<a href="https://streamable.com/fcdq1k">This recent clip</a> of Covington breaking character to give MMA advice to a young Latino fan demonstrates who the conservative fighter really is behind the scenes. Covington tells the young man to avoid partying and drinking, to fortify his mind, to “find a way,” and “never stop believing” regardless of the odds to achieve success.
<a href="https://www.sportscasting.com/ufc-fans-reluctantly-agreed-that-colby-covington-made-a-good-point/">Sportscasting</a> explains the distinction between Covington as a man and as a UFC fighter the best:
<blockquote>
“While it may seem confusing, Covington, as a person, is very different than ‘Colby Covington,’ the UFC fighter. That’s because ‘Colby Covington’ is actually an act that the real Covington’s put on whenever the cameras are around him. This is the same thing as what WWE wrestlers do, as wrestlers, more often than not, have to put on a fake persona whenever they’re working.”
</blockquote>
Henry Cejudo
While not quite a household name, Henry Cejudo remains one of the UFC’s most decorated athletes even in quasi-retirement. He’s a 2008 Olympic Gold medal wrestler who held both the Bantamweight and Flyweight belts in the UFC.
According to <a href="https://gazette.com/ufc-champion-henry-cejudo-on-charged-political-topic-the-son-of-immigrants-to-being-on/article_a0c5761a-98cc-11e8-b271-d73f18d816fb.html">The Gazette</a>, Cejudo considers himself “a very prideful American” who rose up from the mean streets of downtown Los Angeles against all odds to become one of the top wrestlers and fighters in the entire world:
<blockquote>
“The son of undocumented Mexican immigrants who was born into a two-bedroom apartment about 10 miles from the Staples Center…Cejudo made sure his story was known in a time when tensions over immigration on the southern border are particularly charged.”
</blockquote>
A 2015 piece in <a href="https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-sports/henry-cejudo-ufcs-immigrant-son-fights-for-the-american-dream-51458/">Rolling Stone</a> detailed how Cejudo gives back to his community and continues to be a role model and inspiration to others:
<blockquote>
“Cejudo works with various charities, outreach programs and non-profit organizations, including the Special Olympics and Beat the Streets Wrestling. In 2011 Cejudo published a book, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/American-Victory-Wrestling-Dreams-Journey/dp/0451232038">American Victory</a>, that detailed his treacherous journey to Olympic glory. He says the response was more meaningful than any trophy or medal.”
</blockquote>
In 2020, Cejudo gave his full support to the reelection of Donald Trump. At a Latinos for Trump rally in Phoenix, Cejudo explained why, including mentioning his own undocumented father who “was deported when Henry was six years old.” The fighter certainly didn’t mince his words either, according to <a href="https://www.12news.com/article/news/politics/champion-wrestler-fighter-henry-cejudo-firmly-in-trumps-corner/75-11effa01-8081-4f9e-b565-b416cc9861f4">12 News</a>:
“My dad wasn’t the best human. He came to this country as a foreigner, broke the law, and was deported…I’m going to tell you as an immigrant’s son, that you come to this country, and you break the law, and, rightfully so, you should pay the consequences.”
Cejudo will likely return to the UFC in 2021. <a href="https://www.espn.com/mma/story/_/id/30175330/former-ufc-champ-henry-cejudo-says-right-price-unretire-year">ESPN reports</a> that he will “unretire…for the right price.” 
Gina Carano
Gina Carano is not just a famous actress the Left is desperately trying to cancel, she was also truly a pioneer in MMA. Well before the likes of Ronda Rousey and Amanda Nunes, Carano was “the face of women’s MMA” and “was responsible for helping female fighters gain mainstream credibility,” according to <a href="https://www.sportscasting.com/was-mandalorian-star-gina-carano-actually-a-good-mma-fighter/">Sportscasting</a>. Her only MMA loss came at the hands of <a href="https://www.sherdog.com/fighter/Gina-Carano-16535">Cris Cyborg</a>.
Now, of course, Carano is facing down Leftist mobs for daring to voice conservative views. Her character, Cara Dune, from the popular show, “The Mandalorian,” has been canceled. 
As Madeleine Kearns of the <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/02/gina-carano-wont-be-canceled/">National Review</a> reported, Disney fired Carano for “anti-Semitism” surrounding <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/its-time-to-uncancel-americans">a clumsy social media post</a> comparing “cancel culture” and Leftist witch hunts to Nazism and the Holocaust.
Kearns argues that “it would be more accurate to say that Carano was fired for tweets and comments she made that had identified her as a conservative.”
“The specific offense (and pretext for her firing),” Kearns continues, “was a rather underwhelming instance of Godwin’s law (the rule that all Internet debates sooner or later lead to trite comparisons being made with Nazi Germany). Speaking of cancel culture, Carano asked, ‘How is [Nazi hatred of the Jews] any different from hating someone for their political views?’ Previous examples of her supposed moral unfitness included her use of ‘boop/bop/beep’ in her Twitter profile (mocking the transgender-pronouns trend), her stated belief that Epstein did not kill himself, and suggesting that ‘expecting everyone you encounter to agree with every belief or view you hold is f***ing wild.’”
Dana White
Though not an MMA athlete, UFC president Dana White deserves mention given that he wears his conservatism on his sleeve. It’s also mainly because of White that so many UFC fighters can voice such seemingly “controversial” opinions without any fear of reprisal from the organization, unlike almost all other professional sports organizations at the moment. 
MMA journalist, Karim Zidan, inadvertently demonstrates White’s willingness to adhere to the tenets of free speech in a piece for <a href="https://www.bloodyelbow.com/2021/1/11/22224984/ufc-mma-fighters-donald-trumps-far-right-propaganda-capitol-riots-feature">Bloody Elbow</a> meant to deride the UFC president. Zidan writes, “White’s laissez-faire approach to regulating speech emphasizes the promotion’s position on the political spectrum.” That “laissez-faire approach” is one of the very principles our nation was founded upon.
Zidan even quotes White in full to — albeit, accidentally — drive home the point: 
<blockquote>
“These guys all have their own causes, things, their own beliefs. We don’t muzzle anybody here. We let everybody speak their mind.”
</blockquote>
White also campaigned for Donald Trump in 2020, as did <a href="https://mmajunkie.usatoday.com/2020/09/president-trump-mind-blowing-ufc-photo-colby-covington-ali-abdelaziz">many UFC fighters</a>. The UFC president even spoke at the Republican National Convention where he focused on the success of the “pre-pandemic economy and unemployment numbers,” according to <a href="https://mmajunkie.usatoday.com/2020/08/dana-white-stump-speech-donald-trump-republican-national-convention-2020-election">MMA Junkie</a>. 
White also pointedly called out the failed leadership on the Left that demanded defunding the police in the wake of the riots and protests that raged all across our nation for months: 
<blockquote>
“Before the pandemic … we weren’t facing the lawless destruction that now is occurring in a few of our great cities. It blows my mind how quickly some of the leadership in this country has forgotten the critical role first responders play in our society. Police departments, and other law enforcement, and even some fire departments, have faced opposition from many in this country. But they are always the people who are asked to step up when things are at their worst and put themselves at risk. That has certainly been the case during this ongoing pandemic.”
</blockquote>
***
The UFC remains the last bastion in American sports where athletes can freely speak their minds without risk of being canceled or forced to publicly apologize. How long this will last remains to be seen, especially with sponsors like ESPN and its parent company, Disney, to consider. Hopefully, Dana White — alongside various MMA athletes — will keep fighting the good fight inside and outside The Octagon.

UFC 245: Ultimate Media Day

‘The Most Conservative Sport’: 5 UFC Stars Who Don’t Hide Their Right-Wing Opinions

Dana White

Free Speech

By now, most are familiar with the astronomical rise of GameStop (GME) shares in recent weeks, spurred on primarily by retail investors on Reddit’s sub-forum, r/WallStreetBets. A calamitous drop in price followed shortly after the historic run as <a href="https://thehill.com/policy/technology/536272-robinhood-restricts-trading-on-companies-targeted-by-reddit-users?rl=1">various brokerages</a> seemingly caved to the demands of hedge funds that stood to lose billions after heavily shorting GME.
The real story, however, may just be how many in the legacy media chose to vilify this grassroots movement of individual investors who had banded together to rally behind a stock they believed in. The likes of Time, CNBC, and The New York Times all seemed to give brazen support to Wall Street and hedge funds while actively maligning these retail investors by casting their financial gains as some abhorrent or immoral venture. 
Time tried to frame it as an “alt-right movement”
<a href="https://time.com/5933931/gamestop-stock-market-reddit-money/">Time</a> decided to heed the insights of James Cohen, an apparent <a href="https://www.jamesncohen.com/about">specialist in memes</a>, who cast the surge in GameStop shares as some anarchical movement. Cohen insisted that it had “nothing to do with actual money” and was — instead — “a nihilistic approach to disenfranchisement” akin to “the Joker.” 
Taking it a step further toward the absurd, Time sought out the progressive wisdom of Ryan Broderick — <a href="https://influence.co/nofilter/ryan-broderick-garbage-day-newsletter">a former writer for BuzzFeed</a> — to reduce Wall Street Bets into some vicious, regressive horde. Though Broderick cautioned that he didn’t “want to go so far as to say that there’s like a fascist or authoritarian bent here,” he did state that the subreddit employed “the memes of the far right.”
From these so-called experts, Time deduced that the GameStop rally was really just a manifestation of the “alt-right”:
“No matter where you divine the source of WallStreetBets’ anger, it’s difficult not to see remnants of other, often far right, meme movements. The reveling in chaos, the delight in upsetting a system, the pride in being inscrutable to mainstream media, it all reflects many of the <a href="https://mashable.com/2017/05/05/alt-right-memes-france-world/">alt-right meme campaigns</a> that were used in 2016 to tout Donald Trump’s candidacy.”
Frankly, what’s most outlandish is the subtext behind Time’s farfetched summary and analysis. Never mind their erroneous conclusion, apparently any association with Trump and conservatism automatically precludes some kind of arcane and malevolent intent that must be thwarted.
CNBC also echoed the “alt-right” narrative while inadvertently validating the GameStop movement
While attempting to explain the surge in GME shares, Eamon Javers of <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/28/gamestop-republicans-warn-of-trump-style-populist-revolution.html">CNBC</a> offered some positive insight on the situation almost by way of irony or accident.  He argued that a variety of factors were involved, including a “healthy dose of skepticism of the media, and a belief in fake news.” 
Javers continued: “There are scores of similarities between former President <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/donald-trump/">Donald Trump</a>’s ‘Make America Great Again’ movement and the GameStop surge. There is a sense of fighting back against disrespect of the elites, belief that systemic rules have been written to benefit insiders at the expense of regular people, and new internet technologies that widely distribute power that was once held exclusively by a small group.”
If such a comparison is warranted, it actually validates r/WallStreetBets and the GameStop movement. Americans are fed up with elitism and rightly so, especially when championed to exhaustion by so many in the legacy media. That the same media would attempt to paint the movement as the comeuppance of the ignorant rabble and defend the hedge funds all but proves Javer’s point even further, though he clearly intended otherwise in the piece.
The New York Times had the audacity to claim “greed and boredom” was behind the movement
At the peak of the GME’s share price, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/27/business/gamestop-wall-street-bets.html">The New York Times</a> ran a piece written with an odd mix of condescension and conceit toward mainly average, hard-working Americans by the authors’ very own admission. 
The piece even opened with a detailed description of the retail investors who were taking part in the GME surge:  
“A real estate salesman in Valparaiso, Ind. A former line cook from the Bronx. An evangelical pastor and his wife in Huntington Beach, Calif. A high school student in the Milwaukee suburbs.”
The nexus of the movement — r/WallStreetBets — was written off as a “juvenile, foul-mouthed Reddit page” and emphasized that the bigwigs on Wall Street referred to such individual investors as “dumb money.”
The authors then argued that such individuals were simply “propelled by a mix of greed and boredom” and not a sincere desire to better their lives through a meaningful attempt at financial gain. 
It should also come as no surprise that this particular piece against r/WallStreetBets was co-authored by none other than Taylor Lorenz, who has been described as an <a href="https://greenwald.substack.com/p/the-journalistic-tattletale-and-censorship">expert at smear campaigns and cancel culture</a>. Glenn Greenwald refers to the work of Lorenz and the cabal of “NYT’s tech reporters” as “mainstream corporate journalism” who abuse their influence to “demand censorship of spaces they cannot control.” It seems that r/WallStreetBets is such a space.
The Washington Post accused r/WallStreetBets of sexism in a bizarre piece
In an odd but entirely expected attempt to twist the story into something about gender and race, <a href="https://www.thelily.com/women-are-missing-from-the-gamestop-news-experts-blame-this-fratty-subreddit/">The Lily</a> — a product of The Washington Post — published a piece denouncing r/WallStreetBets as a “boy’s club” that dared to have an “avatar of a white man in a suit, with slicked-back hair and sunglasses.”
That the culture of the subreddit eludes new users and has somewhat of a learning curve was seen as a sure sign of something insidious. 
A woman interviewed for the piece complained that the “jokes are often told with a ‘wink, wink, nod, nod’’ and that “[i]t’s never entirely clear whether commenters are serious.” Her frustration forced her to conclude that r/WallStreetBets is “not a fun place to be if you are not a white man.”
Of course, the article conveniently disregards the various subreddits centered around feminism, transgenderism, and a whole host of other progressive “isms” that are equally difficult to navigate for new users, if not more so, given that participation on such subreddits is wholly contingent upon being “one of them.” 
More importantly, the larger context seems to suggest that the goal of legacy media outlets like the Washington Post was to slander r/WallStreetBets and other retail investors in GameStop as sexist, privileged villains. 
The GME rally exposed much of the media as nothing more than corporate shills
The media’s apparent efforts to <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ToOGrUQ7ME&amp;ab_channel=TheHill">protect the hedge funds</a> against r/WallStreetBets proved far more absurd than the voluminous rise in GME shares. Various commentators scrambled to explain what was occurring while simultaneously trying to salvage Wall Street by demonizing the many retail investors who had banded together. 
Alex Shepard of <a href="https://newrepublic.com/article/161126/gamestop-rally-cnbc-reddit-stocks">The New Republic</a> insisted that “[n]etworks like CNBC and Fox Business are in league with the hedge funds they supposedly cover” and that the situation discloses “not just…how the stock market works, but also…how financial media works.”
Shepard detailed the ensuing media chaos in full: 
“This was an argument you heard again and again from the titans of financial media as this chaotic, Reddit-driven assault on Wall Street’s sense and sensibilities progressed over the course of the week: What was happening with GameStop was fundamentally wrong. The free market, after all, had decided that the value of the flailing video game retail empire was around $18 a share; now it had multiplied twentyfold because a bunch of bored gamers with stimulus checks and time on their hands were in it for the lols. CNBC’s Carl Quintanilla took to Twitter to question the merits of fiscal stimulus itself, writing, ‘How does [Federal Reserve Chair Jerome] Powell endorse trillions in fiscal stimulus on a day like this,’ with an image of the booming stock prices of GameStop, the currently shuttered movie theater chain AMC, and other companies being boosted by the subreddit r/WallStreetBets.”
Suddenly, free market advocates in the media were abandoning their philosophical positions in droves. Shepard noted that the likes of <a href="https://twitter.com/SquawkCNBC/status/1354408089970221056">Joe Kernan of CNBC</a> began arguing for more market regulation when they’d staunchly been against such measures in the past.
Writing for <a href="https://www.city-journal.org/gamestop-and-the-truth-wars">City Journal</a>, Bruno Maçāes put forth a similar argument as Shepard, stating that many in the financial media “rushed to condemn a group of investors for the sin of not caring about the inherent value of a company — as if the world hadn’t long ago forgotten what those words mean.”
Maçāes also pointed out the many economic oddities occurring all across the financial and political world, particularly in light of the pandemic and the strain the collective response has put on so many Americans. That strain, in part, compelled the push behind GME, much to the dismay of the financial world: 
“[T]he U.S. stock market ended 2020 at all-time highs, even as the country entered a massive economic recession…Just as Twitter, Facebook, and Amazon had rushed to ban versions of the world they saw as dubious only a few weeks ago, financial institutions ranging from the Securities and Exchange Commission to the online trading platform Robinhood were now being called upon to restore order and truth. A trader at a large broker in New York, who amusingly requested anonymity, told the Financial Times that we used to live in a world where everyone watched Jim Cramer; now, he said, we live ‘in a world where it is coming from a lot of social media platforms. In many ways, it is a lot more democratized, but it is more difficult to understand how much of it is real.’”
It’s this very democratizing of the markets that so many in the financial media feel compelled to thwart. Sadly, in large part, they succeeded when <a href="https://thehill.com/policy/technology/536272-robinhood-restricts-trading-on-companies-targeted-by-reddit-users">brokerages halted the trading of GME</a> and other stocks heavily touted by r/WallStreetBets and elsewhere. 
Dan Dixon of <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jan/28/anarchy-in-jokes-and-trolling-the-gamestop-fiasco-is-4chan-think-in-action">The Guardian</a> offered a bit more of a neutral take, arguing that much of the mainstream media is clueless and “struggles to explain events like this because the events are arranged to be indescribable, irreducible, by those external to it.” 
Reddit and r/WallStreetBets remain largely foreign terrain to the likes of CNBC, Time, and other media outlets. Aside from what seems to be ulterior motives in support of the hedge funds, they can only ascribe chaos and malfeasance to the circumstances surrounding the surge in GME by virtue of their own willful ignorance.
***
The GameStop rally should have been hailed as a victory for many Americans, especially during the unprecedented financial hardships brought on by the pandemic and the restrictive policies surrounding it. Instead, much of the legacy media chose to castigate and condemn it while also giving shameless support to billion dollar hedge funds.
The views expressed in this piece are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Reddit Wall Street Bets

How The Legacy Media Tried To Vilify Reddit’s ‘Wall Street Bets’ During The GameStop Fiasco

GameStop

Reddit

Wall Street

While Conor McGregor remains one of the few household names in the UFC — transforming MMA into equal parts sport and spectacle with his brash antics and elite striking — his meteoric rise as the promotion’s most recognizable star may be fast plummeting back to earth. McGregor just suffered another brutal loss, this time a second-round TKO in a rematch against Dustin Poirier, marking the first time in his MMA career that he’s ever been finished with strikes. 
Worse, he’s now ranked outside the top five of the Lightweight division and far removed from title contention. Though still the UFC’s most bankable star, McGregor’s reign as a top Lightweight contender and as one of the most feared fighters in the promotion may be coming to an end. 
Those crippling calf kicks 
Much has already been made of <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_YT_B_Anzs&amp;ab_channel=BJJSCOUT">Dustin Poirier’s calf kicks</a> against McGregor in their recent rematch. After all, they were instrumental to his win. Poirier employed the strike to perfection, hobbling McGregor in the second round to set up a flurry of punches that lead to the stoppage.
McGregor’s coach, John Kavanagh, discussed how effective this strategy was for Poirier in an interview with <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FU-L1gd0jo&amp;feature=youtu.be&amp;ab_channel=ESPNMMA">Ariel Helwani of ESPN</a>: 
<blockquote>
The fact that Dustin threw it is not that surprising. It was certainly part of our training, to deal with leg kicks. How devastating a technique it was somewhat caught us out. In the gym, when you’re throwing that technique, you’re not trying to kick your partner as hard as you possibly can, and you’re also wearing shin pads, kick pads. … You can build up a false confidence – ‘I feel it, but it’s not that bad.’ Then it’s only in fighting that you get tiny gloves and no shin pads…From October 2018, coming up two-and-a-half years almost, he had 40 seconds of feeling what kicks feel like with no pads on, and punches with four-ounce gloves. So, yeah, that is one thing you cannot replicate.
</blockquote>
It’s easy to pick apart a fighter’s game after a devastating loss as many <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpC7yn1hS4k&amp;feature=emb_title&amp;ab_channel=LukeThomas">MMA pundits</a> are now doing. Brett Okamoto of <a href="https://www.espn.com/mma/story/_/id/30800465/ufc-debate-conor-mcgregor-michael-chandler-dustin-poirier-fight-next">ESPN</a> believes that McGregor definitely “shouldn&#8217;t be fighting for a UFC title in his next bout.” While that makes sense, Okamoto also points out that McGregor “hasn&#8217;t won a 155-pound fight since 2016.” As such, the noted MMA analyst and commentator now ranks McGregor outside the top 10 of the Lightweight division. 
It’s no longer hyperbolic to suggest that McGregor’s star has fallen now that opponents are able to exploit some telling holes in his game. Those holes may not be easily remedied without a major shift moving forward.
McGregor’s fighting stance is now a Catch-22 for him 
What made McGregor so susceptible to Poirier’s kicks was his wide fighting stance and the fact that he placed so much weight on his lead leg when throwing his deadly and beautiful<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Fzc_kSFO9A&amp;ab_channel=MindSmash"> left hand</a>. Poirier was able to hack away at McGregor’s leg with relative ease with little to no checks or counters from his opponent. 
Herein lies a legitimate Catch-22 for McGregor: if he narrows his stance he’s more susceptible to takedowns. If he keeps it the same, leg kicks remains a legitimate threat unless he’s willing to improve upon and change his already excellent skillset — not always an easy task for a storied fighter as we’ve seen with so many others, including BJ Penn and — most recently — Tony Ferguson. 
Former UFC Welterweight and Middleweight champion, George St-Pierre, expounded upon this conundrum while speaking on the <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCHvo1G2qHE&amp;ab_channel=MichaelBispingPodcast">Michael Bisping Podcast.</a>
“In MMA…because of the takedown and the size of the cage…stance[s] are wider…[I]f you’re legs are wide open and you’re going to try to shield it like Muay Thai style, you won’t have the time to do it because your legs are too wide. Unless you fight with a stance [with] your legs are closer, but if you do, your vulnerability will be compromised [to takedowns] standing up. So there’s no perfect way, there’s always a counter to the counter.”
Conceivably, McGregor could shorten his stance into more of a traditional Muay Thai position to counter leg kicks, as St-Pierre suggests. Former UFC Featherweight champion, Jose Aldo, has <a href="https://twitter.com/aidenh25/status/1274856058658467840?s=20">demonstrated</a> the effectiveness of such a stance against leg kicks to perfection. However, Aldo is able to fight in such a narrow stance because his sprawl is second to none. The Brazilian fighter has some of the best takedown defense in the entire game, according to many including <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMStR0TcLKg&amp;feature=emb_title&amp;ab_channel=ChaelSonnen">Chael Sonnen</a>. McGregor simply does not have the same ability and is compelled to keep a wider stance as a result. 
That’s not to suggest that McGregor is poor at grappling either. He’s decent against takedowns, can often get back to his feet with ease, and is quite competent on the ground. The problem is that much of the competition in the Lightweight division is now comprised of elite grapplers like Charles Oliveira, Tony Ferguson, and now Michael Chandler. They are all leagues above McGregor in the grappling department and are all still excellent strikers.
Lightweight champion, Khabib Nurmagomedov, certainly <a href="https://www.vice.com/amp/en/article/mbdxkb/how-khabib-nurmagomedov-smashed-conor-mcgregor?__twitter_impression=true">exploited McGregor’s grappling deficiency to a fatiguing degree</a> in their championship bout in 2018. To be fair though, no one has yet to stop the grappling onslaught of the Dagestani fighter, including other noted grapplers. 
That he’s already reframing his defeat may be a good sign 
Like most great athletes, Conor McGregor is a master of reframing his defeats, and his TKO loss to Poirier is no exception. In a recent <a href="https://www.instagram.com/p/CK13ACrpSaz/?igshid=1vrjx9xbqfata">Instagram post</a>, McGregor gave Poirier some kudos for the victory but mainly focused on what he himself did well, casting Poirier’s win as, essentially, a fluke. McGregor even posted an edited clip of the fight alongside his statement that only showcased his success in the bout: 
<blockquote>
Some highlights from my last fight! What a trilogy I now have on my hands. Exciting! With a handle on the leg kicks I will get back to having fun in there. I was in second gear cruising this fight. Best condition I’ve ever been in. After the wrestling and clinch exchanges my shots still held their pop. First time for me with this so I am very encouraged to keep going. It was the first time I did not use/nor need the stool between rounds also&#8230;
</blockquote>
McGregor expressed some frustration with Poirier’s debilitating leg kicks but insisted that his “shots [were] sharp” and that he was “in full control” of the fight otherwise.
While some might find this delusional, such confidence is integral to his future success, especially in a sport as volatile as MMA. 
Will the “Notorious” McGregor Return?
Since his defeat to Khabib Nurmagomedov, a kinder Conor McGregor has emerged. The arrogant bravado and bluster that gave so much swagger to his swing have given way to a more affable, even gentler McGregor. 
In the lead up to his second fight against Poirier, McGregor stated, &#8220;I love Dustin, I think he&#8217;s a good fighter. He&#8217;s even a great fighter, you know?” according to <a href="https://www.firstpost.com/sports/conor-mcgregor-vs-dustin-poirier-2-preview-and-prediction-plucky-irishman-to-pick-apart-american-in-short-order-9232221.html">First Post</a>. 
However, now that he’s faced two consecutive losses in the Lightweight division that both ended in spectacular fashion, it may be time for McGregor to manifest his “Notorious” moniker again. 
At the peak of McGregor’s success, his novel and vicious trash-talking toward his opponents leading up to the fights served as a very potent form of psychological warfare. He could get under an opponent’s skin like no other. He employed a combination of wit and a mean streak to unsettle his opponents, and it proved highly effective. 
McGregor was able to completely unsettle the usually stoic Jose Aldo — who was undefeated in the UFC at the time — in their Featherweight championship bout in 2015.  
He focused on Aldo’s impoverished background with brazen insults like, “[I]f this was a different time I would invade his favela on horseback and kill anyone that is not fit to walk,” according to <a href="https://www.foxsports.com/ufc/gallery/conor-mcgregors-20-most-savage-insults-to-ufc-opponents-111016">Fox Sports</a>. 
McGregor would end up winning that fight in 13 seconds with a perfectly timed counter left hand as an enraged Aldo uncharacteristically bum-rushed him with a wild lead hook. 
Of course, all that trash-talking backfired in 2018 in his Lightweight championship bout against Khabib Nurmagomedov. McGregor would even attempt to rationalize his insults in the middle of the fight claiming, “<a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/general/mma/conor-mcgregor-vs-khabib-fight-brawl-watch-video-ufc-229-its-only-business-a8575441.html">it’s only business</a>,” to no avail. The Dagestani fighter manhandled him to a submission victory with a brutal neck crank in the fourth round. 
Still, McGregor has had the most success when able to channel his “Notorious” side. The dilemma for him is that it can make him incredibly effective inside the cage, but hopelessly self-destructive outside of it. He almost blinded another UFC fighter when he <a href="https://www.espn.com/mma/story/_/id/24885232/the-conor-mcgregor-bus-attack-words-were-there">launched a dolly</a> at a bus in the lead up to the fight against Nurmagomedov and even <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ftw/2019/08/22/conor-mcgregor-apologizes-punching-man-pub-dublin-ufc-mma/39998357/">punched an elderly man at a pub</a> over a perceived slight in 2019. 
His “Notorious” side is a Faustian pact, a deal with the Devil, and McGregor may finally be aware of it now. If he can channel his “Notorious” side in the Octagon only, it will benefit him, but such a feat for his tremendous ego may prove too tough a challenge.
***
Countless fighters rise and fall like Icarus with melted wings as opponents adapt and adjust and the sport itself matures. We just witnessed Dustin Poirier masterfully exploit a telling hole in McGregor’s game. It now remains to be seen if this most recent loss spells the end of McGregor as a top contender and potential champion in the Lightweight division. He still ranks among the sport’s elite strikers, but the mounting deficiencies in his game may signal that Conor McGregor could fast become yet another relic of the fight world in the ever-evolving sport of MMA.
The views expressed in this piece are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

UFC 257: Poirier v McGregor

Not With A Bang, But With A Whimper: Is This The End For Conor McGregor?

Conor McGregor

Sports

With the mayhem that unfolded in the Capitol building still fresh on everyone’s minds, David Bauder of the <a href="https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-capitol-siege-riots-media-8000ce7db2b176c1be386d945be5fd6a">Associated Press</a> attempted to explore the terminology used to describe the events that took place on January 6th. Unfortunately, his efforts were really just a kind of duplicity masquerading as some candid, nuanced discussion. Yes, “words matter,” but not when employed with such a high degree of subterfuge. 
Initially, Bauder openly pondered what exact terms befit the violence on Capitol Hill. It seems rioting, chaos, and mayhem were too lackluster and inopportune. Perhaps, it was an “insurrection, domestic terrorism, or even a coup attempt,” Bauder opined. He finally settled on labeling it a “siege,” as though yielding to such a brazen and belligerent term that brought to mind moats and catapults made his bias any less evident. 
Most concerning, however, was his attempt to make the Capitol Hill riots somehow distinct from the months of looting and destruction during the BLM protests over the summer that laid waste to cities all across our nation. 
Bauder argued that the very use of the term “riot” in relation to the BLM protests was now “fraught with racial connotations” because “it…too quickly applied to situations involving Black Americans.” 
In fact, the <a href="https://twitter.com/APStylebook/status/1311357910715371520?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1311357910715371520%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&amp;ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fnews.yahoo.com%2Fap-stylebook-discourages-riot-expands-201233563.html">AP Stylebook</a> has completely redefined such terms along obtuse and distinctly racial lines. For much of the media, referring to the BLM protests as a “riot” or in any potentially negative capacity is now deemed, essentially, racist: 
<blockquote>“Focusing on rioting and property destruction rather than underlying grievance has been used in the past to stigmatize broad swaths of people protesting against lynching, police brutality or for racial justice, going back to the urban uprisings of the 1960s.
Unrest is a vaguer, milder and less emotional term for a condition of angry discontent and protest verging on revolt.
Protest and demonstration refer to specific actions such as marches, sit-ins, rallies or other actions meant to register dissent. They can be legal or illegal, organized or spontaneous, peaceful or violent, and involve any number of people.”</blockquote>
And now we approach the crux of the matter: David Bauder and the AP are not attempting to discuss the complexities of language and meaning under volatile circumstances. They are simply trying to monopolize and manipulate definitions to further a dishonest progressive agenda. 
Apparently, a whole collection of terms can be used to describe the violence and chaos that occurred on Capitol Hill, but not even the term “riot” is allowed to describe the burning buildings, the destruction of small businesses, or the rampant looting that <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/cnn-mocked-for-fiery-but-mostly-peaceful-protests-tv-chyron-shown-in-front-of-kenosha-fire">took place before our very eyes</a> during the BLM “protests.”
In her piece for <a href="https://hotair.com/archives/jazz-shaw/2021/01/15/associated-press-explains-difference-riot-riot/">Hot Air</a>, Jazz Shaw drives the point home: 
<blockquote>“What should the press call it when a mob in Portland or Seattle or New York or Philadelphia suddenly breaks off from a demonstration and begins throwing Molotov cocktails at police cruisers, burning down precinct stations and federal courthouses, physically assaulting law enforcement officers, breaking windows, and looting businesses? It certainly sounds like a ‘violent public disorder’ by ‘three or more people,’ doesn’t it? So it’s a riot.”</blockquote>
Something even more pernicious is at play, though, as our very language is being racialized and contorted by the AP and other major legacy media outlets to conform to decidedly progressive beliefs like “<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/antiracism-is-a-booming-business">antiracism</a>” or “systemic racism.” 
By adding endless qualifiers to definitions specifically for black Americans in the name of “social justice,” they are yielding to a virulent kind of racism. In effect, they assume an inferior standing for black Americans within the broader culture and treat them as automatons bound by history and race rather than as individuals with equal amounts of agency. 
Lauded black scholar, <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/07/dehumanizing-condescension-white-fragility/614146/">John McWhorter</a>, refers to this patronizing disregard for agency on the part of antiracism crusaders as “an elaborate and pitilessly dehumanizing condescension toward Black people.”
Glenn Loury, a renowned black professor and economist, also elaborates on this inherently racist notion for <a href="https://www.city-journal.org/glenn-loury-on-systemic-racism-trump-blm">City Journal</a>:  
<blockquote>“The removal of agency is a deep concern of mine. The tone of the conversation here in the U.S. in the last ten years has shifted to notions of systemic racism, white supremacy, and so on, as if those facts alone determine the outcomes in the schools and neighborhoods and prisons of America…I think that is a bogus argument, an argument of surrender, and it leaves one, oddly, petitioning the putative oppressor to save you from the consequences of his oppression.”</blockquote>
Loury adds that “[s]tructural racism is a bluff” and “a bullying tactic” meant to shut people up. If David Bauder’s piece alongside the AP’s new guidelines for terms like “riot” is any indication, Loury’s assertion is proving correct. 
The ongoing manipulation and monopolizing of language by the likes of the Associated Press should be a genuine cause for concern as divisions deepen all around us. It’s not meant to add nuance or complexity to our understanding. It’s meant to constrain us even further. While the Orwellian undertones seem self-evident, the prejudice that informs such tactics is not. Now more than ever, it’s imperative that we strive toward honest assessments of events in our nation, regardless of optics or outcomes. 
The views expressed in this piece are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Atlanta BLM

Associated Press Admits They Use Race To Choose Between ‘Protest’ And ‘Riot’

Associated Press

Black Lives Matter

Protests

Riots

In many respects, the legacy media remains a greater driving force behind the COVID-19 pandemic than the actual virus itself. Their incessant fear-mongering at the outset of the pandemic has morphed into endless goal shifting as the crisis drags on in search of the current narrative. 
Worse, constant gaslighting has left countless Americans confused and exhausted. Now we are being <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/coronavirus-variant-dominant-us/2021/01/15/4420d814-5738-11eb-a817-e5e7f8a406d6_story.html?fbclid=IwAR253EeW6cO8kHB-vylSvRaEjqdhyjgSSu926sDN_zEenvXMWVVXYuXa3qs">overwhelmed with headlines</a> about an even more contagious strain of COVID-19 looming on the horizon, just as vaccines have become available.
That the pandemic served as political fodder for the Left only exacerbates the level of deception. It’s increasingly difficult to gauge what exactly is going on or has transpired given the inordinate amount of half-truths and outright misinformation being doled out by the media. 
Here are five times the media changed the pandemic narrative to suit various agendas outside of the truth.
“Flatten The Curve”
It seems like a lifetime ago that so many experts insisted that life could return to some semblance of normality once we “flattened the curve” by imposing temporary lockdowns in March of 2020. 
At the time, the argument was that restrictive measures would slow the spread of the virus and limit the chances that hospitals and health workers throughout the nation would be overwhelmed with sick patients. 
We came together as a nation, and it worked. We flattened the curve, according to <a href="https://healthblog.uofmhealth.org/wellness-prevention/covid-19-curve-has-unflattened-fast-now-what">University of Michigan Health</a>: 
“Cities and states hit hard by the new coronavirus ‘flattened the curve’ of a rising tide of cases by cutting back on the kinds of interactions that can spread the virus from person to person. More than 100 years after the 1918-1919 flu pandemic, the same steps that worked against that deadly virus also slowed the new one.”
The narrative began to shift, in large part, because many on the Left sought to gain political capital from the ongoing pandemic. Media pundits on the Left began to argue that conservatives continued to somehow bear the sole burden of the spread of the virus. And, of course, no policy decision made by the Trump administration could be cast in a positive light. 
That Ezra Klein of <a href="https://www.vox.com/2020/7/1/21308809/covid-19-coronavirus-2020-trump-election-polls-polarization">Vox</a> could argue that Trump chose “to politicize basic public health measures” without a hint of irony would almost be comical if it was not such a brazen and outlandish hoodwink.
In July of 2020, David Harsanyi of the <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/the-lefts-coronavirus-narrative-is-a-myth/">National Review</a> wrote that “liberals are busy concocting a narrative that holds that the failures of the American response to coronavirus have been the fault of Trumpian nihilists in the Red States” even though “New York’s death rate has been ten times larger than Florida’s” at the time. 
“Let’s remember that initial national lockdown efforts were intended to flatten the curve so that hospitals wouldn’t be overwhelmed with COVID cases,” Harsanyi continued, “not to shutter the economy in perpetuity (or until a Democrat wins the White House) to ensure that no one gets sick anymore. Other than the New York area, which is led by a governor who made perhaps the single most deadly <a href="https://www.propublica.org/article/fire-through-dry-grass-andrew-cuomo-saw-covid-19-threat-to-nursing-homes-then-he-risked-adding-to-it">policy mistake</a> in the entire crisis, this goal has largely been achieved.”
“Follow the science”
One of the most dogmatic refrains from the media and the Left during the pandemic has been “follow the science.” The phrase has been conveniently employed to allow the pandemic narrative to shift as needed.
It’s also acted as both an attempt to censor, silence, and rebut innumerable reasoned arguments advocating for <a href="https://gbdeclaration.org/">better, more nuanced policies</a> rather than wholesale restrictions. 
Dr. Vinay Prasad, an oncologist and health policy researcher, argues in his piece for <a href="https://www.medpagetoday.com/blogs/vinay-prasad/89856">Medpage Today</a> that drawing policies from science — even good science — is a limited endeavor because “[s]cience cannot make value judgments.”
“Science does not determine policy,” Prasad continues. “Policy is a human endeavor that combines science with values and priorities. In other words, science can help quantify the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/22/health/coronavirus-schools-children.html">increased risk</a> (or lack thereof) of school reopening on SARS-Cov-2 spread, and help quantify the educational losses from <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/02/opinion/remote-learning-coronavirus.html">continued closure</a>, but science cannot tell you whether to open or close schools. Making the decision requires values, principles, a vision of the type of society we want to be. How much do we care about the kids that rely on public school? Is it enough to offset a theoretical (but unsubstantiated) risk of viral spread? On this topic, I agree with others that we have <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/18/opinion/coronavirus-school-closures.html">chosen poorly</a>.”
Prasad also breaks down the exceedingly partisan role science has come to play in the pandemic. His list includes confirmation biases in the form of “credentialism,” yielding to science in a rote, dogmatic manner devoid of critical evaluation, and, most importantly, the censoring of sound arguments just because they may go against the prevailing narrative. 
Prasad contends that “[s]cience is the idea that we must confront, discuss, debate, and refute ideas. Using brute force, the power of the platform, to proclaim the truth is antithetical to our creed.”
The effectiveness of masks
Early on in the pandemic, the media inundated us with reports that masks were considered ineffectual and even a potential detriment to limiting the spread of COVID-19 by health officials.
In March of 2020, <a href="https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-cdc-says-americans-dont-have-to-wear-facemasks-because-of-coronavirus-2020-01-30">Market Watch</a> reported that “people shouldn’t wear face masks to prevent the spread of the infectious illness, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the U.S. surgeon general.”
In an April 2020 interview with Dr. William Schaffner, a professor of preventative medicine and health policy at Vanderbilt University, <a href="https://time.com/5794729/coronavirus-face-masks/">Time</a> reported that masks would “not likely to be effective against respiratory illnesses like the flu and COVID-19.” Schaffner added, “[T]he CDC would have recommended it years ago…It doesn’t, because it makes science-based recommendations,” emphasizing that no study or data to date indicated masks would prevent the spread of the novel virus.
Dr. Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases — who remains at the helm of tackling the pandemic — insisted early on that masks “do not provide the level of protection people think they do. Wearing a mask may also have unintended consequences: People who wear masks tend to touch their face more often to adjust them, which can spread germs from their hands,” according to <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/preventing-coronavirus-facemask-60-minutes-2020-03-08/">CBS News</a>. 
<a href="https://abcnews.go.com/Health/cdc-offer-conflicting-advice-masks-expert-tells-us/story?id=70958380">ABC News</a> reported that the World Health Organization (WHO) also offered some judicious advice at the time, adding, “If you are healthy, you only need to wear a mask if you are taking care of a person with COVID-19.” 
While countless redactions now exist by the WHO, the CDC, and health officials concerning masks, the arguments made against wearing them were not without merit at the time. Improper use, poor hygiene, and the overall ineffectiveness of cloth masks, in particular, were the reasons being presented by health officials.  
While “masks are still likely to prevent infected people from transmitting the virus,” according to a recent piece in <a href="https://reason.com/2020/11/18/masks-not-very-effective-at-protecting-wearers-says-new-danish-study/">Reason</a>, currently, there still exists no hard data or substantive study to provide definitive proof that masks prevent the spread of COVID-19. At best, strong correlative information has emerged that indicates properly worn masks might be an effective prophylactic in preventing transmission. 
That’s not an argument against the idea of masks either. Rather, it demonstrates that the volatile and polarizing subject of masks does not exist on some binary of “hard facts versus empty hubris,” though the legacy media would have us think otherwise. 
BLM rioters and protesters were given a free pass to gather by the thousands
Many on the Left and in the media who railed against anti-lockdown protests grew hopelessly silent as thousands of protestors and rioters assailed cities across our nation during the various BLM protests. 
Worse, many politicians may have conspired to disallow contact tracing at such super spreader events. In June of 2020, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio explicitly told health officials that no one who tested positive for COVID-19 be asked if they attended a BLM protest, according to <a href="https://www.thecity.nyc/coronavirus/2020/6/14/21290963/nyc-covid-19-trackers-skipping-floyd-protest-questions-even-amid-fears-of-new-wave">The City</a>.
“The hundreds of contact tracing workers hired by the city under de Blasio’s new ‘test and trace’ campaign have been instructed not to ask anyone who’s tested positive for COVID-19 whether they recently attended a demonstration, City Hall confirmed to THE CITY.”
Worse, even epidemiologists tracking the virus could not square their own political biases with their responsibilities. 
When asked about the BLM protests and riots, Catherine Troisi, “an infectious-disease epidemiologist at the University of Texas Health Science Center,” told <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/06/us/Epidemiologists-coronavirus-protests-quarantine.html">The New York Times</a> that she “certainly condemned the anti-lockdown protests at the time” but was “not condemning the [BLM] protests now.” Troisi reflected on her own cognitive dissonance, stating, “I struggle with that…I have a hard time articulating why that is OK.”
Unlike Troisi, over a thousand other health officials openly declared their biases and consequent hypocrisy in an open letter. Published by <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/05/health/health-care-open-letter-protests-coronavirus-trnd/index.html">CNN</a>, these officials were “advocating for an anti-racist public health response to demonstrations against systemic injustice occurring during the COVID-19 pandemic.”
In other words, these health officials were only willing to support mass gatherings that aligned with their own political views. They even dared to suggest that the thousands who attended BLM protests and riots were not at risk of spreading the highly contagious virus but anti-lockdown protestors somehow were because they were “rooted in white nationalism.”
“However, as public health advocates, we do not condemn these gatherings as risky for COVID-19 transmission. We support them as vital to the national public health and to the threatened health specifically of Black people in the United States…This should not be confused with a permissive stance on all gatherings, particularly protests against stay-home orders. Those actions not only oppose public health interventions, but are also rooted in white nationalism and run contrary to respect for Black lives.”
The generous portrayal of Dr. Anthony Fauci in the media
If his glamorous cover story for <a href="https://www.instyle.com/news/dr-fauci-says-with-all-due-modesty-i-think-im-pretty-effective">InStyle</a> magazine in the middle of the pandemic is any indication, Dr. Anthony Fauci remains a darling of the legacy media. He is now poised to continue his role as chief medical advisor for the incoming Biden administration.
Though he boldly declared in his InStyle interview that he believes “everybody thinks I’m doing more than an outstanding job,” Fauci has backtracked on so many of his pronouncements during the pandemic that it’s hard to keep track.
Emma Colton of the <a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/here-are-faucis-biggest-flip-flops-and-backtracks-amid-the-coronavirus-pandemic">Washington Examiner</a> provides a telling assessment of Fauci and argues that he “has flip-flopped or been proven wrong on a host of different coronavirus measures and recommendations since the virus first hit the United States last winter.”
Colton’s cogent summary exposes many of Fauci’s reversals and contradictions, including his initially referring to lockdowns in March of 2020 as “draconian,” insisting that masks were unnecessary, and minimizing the role of asymptomatic transmissions at the beginning of the pandemic.    
“Fauci, the leading White House coronavirus task force member,” Colton continues, “has changed positions or faced scientific data proving his stances are flawed on <a href="https://twitter.com/dcexaminer/status/1319003063672332288?s=21">issues ranging from mask wearing to the severity of the virus</a> and from asymptomatic spread to effective treatments for patients, among other issues, since January.”
***
Much of the narrative surrounding the pandemic has shifted from a public health crisis to a craven opportunity for the media and the Left to exploit to their advantage given their tremendous influence. This has lead to angst, confusion, and further divisions in our already deeply polarized nation as well as <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/we-are-now-witnessing-the-deadly-impact-of-covid-19-lockdowns">untold suffering and hardship</a>. 
The views expressed in this opinion piece are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

White House Coronavirus Task Force Holds Daily Briefing

Five Times The Legacy Media Flip-Flopped On The Pandemic

Anthony Fauci

COVID-19

Legacy Media

Lockdowns

The slow erosion of masculine ideals has been occurring for the better part of four decades, spanning film, television, and fiction. Currently, men are often only presented as bumbling oafs or as malevolent figures upholding the supposed “patriarchy.” When they are rarely presented in a positive light, it’s only often done in a limited or disqualifying manner. Rather than presenting masculinity as a complex set of principles ranging from fortitude and grit to compassion and humility, it’s reduced to brute and simple overtures. 
With suicide and addiction rates skyrocketing among men, it’s more important than ever before that true masculinity is celebrated in our storytelling. Here are nine examples in film and fiction that emphasize manliness and masculine ideals. 
Frodo Baggins in “The Lord of The Rings” Trilogy
J.R.R. Tolkien’s timeless tale of courage and perseverance was written under the specter of both World War I and World War II. What makes Frodo Baggins so compelling as the hero of the tale is his decidedly “unheroic” physical stature. He’s a diminutive hobbit with no obvious physical gifts that one often associates with heroes. What he has though — far beyond anyone else in the story — is a moral compass, unrelenting courage, and a willingness to sacrifice himself for the sake of others.
While Tolkien was a devout Catholic and lifelong friend of C.S. Lewis, the inherently religious nature of his work is too often cast aside. Tolkien <a href="https://denvercatholic.org/the-catholic-origins-of-the-lord-of-the-rings-and-other-truths-about-j-r-r-tolkien/">himself described</a> “The Lord of The Rings” as a “fundamentally religious and Catholic work.”
In “<a href="https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/21921247-moments-of-grace-and-spiritual-warfare-in-the-lord-of-the-rings">Moments of Grace and Spiritual Warfare in The Lord of The Rings</a>,” Anne Marie Gazzalo explores the decidedly religious and Christian dimension of Frodo’s heroism in Tolkien’s work:
“His body seems too small for all that he endures but not so his heart. Fear, fatigue, cold, hunger, and thirst torment him, but he continues out of love. Frodo’s struggle shows that there are, in fact, two quests going on: his to destroy the Ring and the Ring’s to dominate and destroy him. Despite the despair that it causes, which both fills and empties him, the Ring-bearer remains as intent upon saving everyone as Denethor is not. Frodo’s torn heart still beats, and it pushes past terror and hopelessness because of Sam’s blessed aid and his own battered and bleeding will to do so. Both hobbits teach us the great value of redemptive suffering.”
Dutch in “Predator” 
While easily one of the greatest action films ever made, what makes “Predator” — and so many other films in that genre from the 1980s — so compelling is that the heroes live by clear moral codes. There’s no nervous handwringing. Instead, decisive thinking and strength of will are valued and rewarded.
The hero of the film, Major Alan “Dutch” Schafer, embodies classic masculine archetypes including courage, fortitude, and an intrepid spirit often at a premium these days in much of film and fiction. 
It’s easy to dismiss such classic action films as simple when, in fact, they embody timeless moral themes like many of the very best tales and fables throughout history. And all the campy dialogue is just icing on the cake to boot. 
Andy Dufresne in “The Shawshank Redemption”
Frank Darabont’s screenplay adaption of Stephen King’s story is a rare instance where a great story is made even better on the screen. Falsely accused of murdering his adulterous wife, Andy Dufresne is sentenced to life imprisonment. Like McMurphy in “Cuckoo’s Nest,” he’s given a choice <a href="https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/shawshank_redemption/quotes/">echoed</a> by Dufresne’s close friend in prison, Ellis Boy “Redd” Redding: “Get busy living or get busy dying.” 
What Dufresne represents to so many is a sense of resilience and hope against the worst of odds. This is not the Polly Anna optimism of, say, some silly New Age trope. It’s the hope one finds in Viktor Frankl’s “Man’s Search For Meaning.” The hope that Dufresne holds onto is precarious and demands much of his own volition. Only when we finally witness all that he has endured and suffered do his words ring with truth and not pretense: “Hope is a good thing, may be the best of the things. And a good thing never dies.”
Randle McMurphy in “One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest”
Randle McMurphy is not a man of high virtue in either Ken Kesey’s novel or Miloš Forman’s fantastic film adaptation. He’s actually a bit of a rascal and a con man trying to save his own skin at the outset of the story. However, he emerges as a defiant, laughing soul and a hero of sorts in the story and film by standing up against the unending cruelties that infest the asylum. 
It’s McMurphy’s unwillingness to accept the procedural oppression at the hands of Nurse Ratched that finally sets him apart as <a href="https://www.sparknotes.com/lit/cuckoo/quotes/character/randle-mcmurphy/">the protagonist</a>, though she seeks to quell it: 
“She saw that McMurphy was growing bigger than ever while he was upstairs where the guys couldn’t see the dent she was making on him, growing almost into a legend. A man out of sight can’t be made to look weak, she decided, and started making plans to bring him back down to our ward.”
McMurphy — and the story in a broader sense — represents the overarching need and desire in men, especially, to challenge all that seeks to crush us into diminutive and effete beings, not only with indignation but — more importantly — with levity and grace:
“He knows that you have to laugh at the things that hurt you just to keep yourself in balance, just to keep the world from running you plumb crazy.” 
Doc Holliday in “Tombstone” 
Val Kilmer’s portrayal of the fabled gunslinger is certainly one for the ages. Even with Death constantly tapping on his shoulder in the form of tuberculosis, Doc Holliday refuses to concede to grief or mortality. His wisecracks betray his wan complexion throughout the Western. He remains as cool as ever and is easily the most compelling character in the film. 
“But honestly, a lot of us are really watching because of Val Kilmer’s performance as Doc Holliday,” <a href="https://decider.com/2019/05/21/every-doc-holliday-quip-in-tombstone-ranked/">Decider</a> argues, “Wyatt’s hard-drinking, hard-gambling gunfighter best friend. Doc is a fascinating character, part comic relief and part Greek chorus for the film, who’s as ready with a quick pistol shot as he is with a quick verbal harpoon.”
Boss Spearman in “Open Range”
Played masterfully by Robert Duvall, Boss Spearman exemplifies a grizzled sense of wisdom and character found in men of certain age and experience. Though the film is very much a classic Western, it often delves deeper than most. Spearman is tasked with finding the delicate moral balance between violence and fighting while upholding a sense of righteousness and virtue. 
Based on <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lauran_Paine">Lauran Pain’s</a> 1990 novel, “The Open Range Men,” screenwriter Craig Storper stated, “These characters don&#8217;t seek violence…But the notion that it’s sometimes necessary&#8230; is the Western’s most fundamental ideal,&#8221; according to <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20121224151547/http://blogs.amctv.com/movie-blog/2012/06/story-notes-trivia-open-range.php">the AMC Blog</a>. 
Spearman recognizes this grim necessity in protecting those in need when <a href="https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/open_range/quotes/">he tells the corrupt Marshall</a>, “Man’s got a right to protect his property and his life, and we ain’t lettin’ no rancher or his lawman take either.”
Alyosha in “Brothers Karamazov” 
Though the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grand_Inquisitor">cynical Ivan Karamazov</a> often receives the most attention and praise for his dark insights in literary circles, Alyosha serves as the moral and religious compass in Dostoevsky’s masterpiece. His strength resides in his compassion, humility, and understanding even as his siblings fall apart. In many respects, Alyosha and his mentor in the novel, Father Zosima, represent Christianity as Dostoevsky had finally come to know it.
Alyosha’s <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/alyosha-karamazov">hope</a> resides in “the secret of renewal for all, the power that will finally establish the truth on earth, and all will be holy and will love one another, and there will be neither rich nor poor, neither exalted nor humiliated, but all will be the like the children of God, and the true kingdom of Christ will come.”
Unlike so many of Dostoevsky’s religious characters that are hamstrung by their sense of piety and virtue (such as in “The Idiot”), Alyosha’s Christianity in “Brothers Karamazov” becomes a source of liberation, freeing him from the earthly travails of of existence. 
Ethan Hawley in Steinbeck’s “The Winter of Our Discontent”
While Steinbeck doesn’t have the lyrical deftness of Fitzgerald or the intellectual acuity of Faulkner, he was an expert at expressing sentiment without cliché and at exploring the many complexities that hound men.  Ethan Hawley in “The Winter of Our Discontent” is no exception and may be his most relevant character today.
In many respects, Ethan Hawley faces the same struggles so many men face. A former soldier who is now a grocery store clerk, financial ruin lurks around the corner and his home life is in disarray. Hawley does his best to maintain a brave disposition even as wounds open up inside of him. Inevitably, like countless men today, suicide becomes the sad, seductive choice as his failures inside and outside of himself mount. 
The loss Hawley feels is all the more pronounced because of the mercurial nature of hope. Near the end, Hawley bleakly states, “It’s so much darker when a light goes out than it would have been if it had never shone.” 
[Spoiler Alert]
It’s when Hawley steps into the turbulent waters of the Atlantic Ocean to end his life that he’s reminded again of his sense of purpose as a man and as a father. Defiance and courage swell inside of him higher than the tides he seeks to embrace as he struggles back to shore:
“A surge of wave pushed me against the very back of the Place. And the tempo of the sea speeded up. I had to fight the water to get out. I rolled and scrambled and splashed chest deep in the surf and the brisking waves pushed me against the old sea wall…I had to get back…Else another light might go out.” 
Philip Marlowe in any Raymond Chandler Novel
His crass charm and quick wit have made Philip Marlowe the blueprint of the hard-boiled detective for more than a century. The appeal of Chandler’s iconic character continues to reside in both an ability to quarter no bull while also drawing from a depth of genuine character hidden beneath his rough exterior. 
Marlowe’s endless sarcastic quips almost act as a smokescreen to his high character. “The Big Sleep” provides just one of <a href="https://www.esquire.com/uk/culture/news/a6742/raymond-chandler-quotes/">many examples</a>: “I don’t mind if you don’t like my manners. They’re pretty bad. I grieve over them during the long winter evenings.” 
Mike Schuster of <a href="https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90180169">NPR</a> describes Marlowe as “cool, smart, world weary, even droll. He dressed in dark gray suits, lived in lonely rooms, worked in empty offices.” The settings of Chandler’s character were “filled with dangerous men and fickle women.”  However, “Marlowe was tough, sure, but not cold.” 
Marlowe is very much a “modern-day knight” who “despite his misanthropic streak, [is] just an honest detective trying his best to survive in a dishonest society,” according to <a href="https://www.shmoop.com/study-guides/literature/big-sleep/philip-marlowe">Shmoop</a>.  
“So in ‘knightly’ terms, we could say that Marlowe is on a quest for justice, dedicated to serving his lord with honor and loyalty, despite any sexual or financial temptations and threats of physical harm that come his way. Plus, since he’s got a strong sense of morals, we might also say that Marlowe is deeply invested in a personal code of chivalry.”
Evan Hamilton in Raymond Carver’s “Bicycles, Muscles, Cigarets”
While “Cathedral” is Carver’s best known short story and is fantastic in its own right, “Bicycles, Muscles, Cigarets” perfectly captures the love of a father for his son and the importance of standing up for one’s own friends and family.
Evan Hamilton’s son, Roger, is accused of stealing a friend’s bike with two other boys, Gilbert and Kip. Fair-minded as ever, Evan insists that his son own up to his part and pay back a third of the cost for the missing bike. Mr. Berman, Gilbert’s father, shows up, refuses to shake Evan’s hand, and blames the whole fiasco on Roger.  
An old-fashioned fistfight ensues between the two grown men after Mr. Berman digs his shoulder into Evan on his way out. Roger quickly gets the best of the other father:
“They rolled on the lawn, Hamilton wrestling Berman onto his back and coming down hard with his knees on the man’s biceps. He had Berman by the collar now and began to pound his head against the lawn.” 
Later, Evan reflects on witnessing his own father in a scrap: “But now he recalled his father’s own fistfight as if it were all there was to the man.” 
However, it’s not the fleeting pride of winning a fight that makes the story and Evan Hamilton so compelling. It’s the love and devotion for his son and unwillingness to cede to any bullying even if fighting may not have been the best choice in the matter. That love is reflected in Roger’s words as his father tucks him in for the night: 
“Dad? You’ll think I’m pretty crazy, but I wish I’d known you when you were little. I mean, about as old as I am right now. I don’t know how to say it, but I’m lonesome about it. It’s like — it’s like I miss you already if I think about it now.” 
Guido Orefice in “Life is Beautiful” 
“Life is Beautiful” is a film of staggering proportions filled with a rare combination of levity, charm, and depth rarely done well in film. Roberto Benigni’s portrayal of Guido Orefice drives the film. It was “the role he was born to play,” according to the late <a href="https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/life-is-beautiful-1998">Roger Ebert</a>. 
Forced to endure the horrors of a concentration camp, Orefice refuses to allow his 5-year-old son to bear witness to the atrocities. Instead, “Guido constructs an elaborate fiction to comfort and protect his son.”
Orefice embodies love and sacrifice and it reaches transcendent levels in the 1997 film. 
“But ‘Life Is Beautiful’ is not about Nazis and Fascists,” Ebert continues, “but about the human spirit. It is about rescuing whatever is good and hopeful from the wreckage of dreams. About hope for the future. About the necessary human conviction, or delusion, that things will be better for our children than they are right now.”
***
Men — young men, in particular — no longer have examples in storytelling to serve as guideposts in character and wellbeing except in rare instances. Instead, most current examples in film and fiction tend to vilify men or reduce masculinity to an effete husk. Still, others reinforce a virulent form of cynicism in the form of “incels” or “red pill” aficionados. Increasingly, one must reach into the past for compelling, overtly masculine characters in film and fiction. Perhaps, that is where change for many can and will be found. Who are your favorite examples?
The views expressed in this opinion piece are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Predator Movie

11 Characters In Film and Fiction That Epitomize Masculine Ideals

Masculinity

Though increasingly popular, antiracism remains a corrosive prescript that is only drawing us further apart. Worse, the extremist ideology has itself become a booming industry. Robin DiAngelo and Ibram X. Kendi — the main founders of the so-called antiracism movement — are profiteering off this bogus notion. Their books continue to sell out. Expensive workshops and speaking engagements dominate calendars. Corporations are donating millions to the cause. And now many, many more are trying to capitalize on the spurious trend.
Robin DiAngelo has built an empire on anti-racism 
Beginning with her bestselling book, “White Fragility,” Robin DiAngelo continues to rake in millions of dollars as one of the most prominent advocates for antiracism. 
As a part of the services she offers, <a href="https://www.robindiangelo.com/services/">DiAngleo insists</a> that “racism is the foundation of Western society” and that “all white people benefit from the racial hierarchy, regardless of intentions.” 
Kyle Smith of the <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/07/the-capitalist-genius-of-the-anti-racism-industry/">National Review</a> likens her to the “P.T. Barnum of our time,” a “televangelist” of sorts, and “a great American capitalist marketing genius, up there with the inventor of the pet rock or the people who figured out how to get rich by creating prestige brands of water.”
While Smith’s assessment of DiAngelo may verge on hyperbolic, the numbers certainly bear out. DiAngelo “was making up to $150,000 a month, on eight to ten gigs, even before the George Floyd killing…not counting book sales, which are prodigious.”
DiAngelo continues to make a killing in the emerging antiracism industry because her “business model is predicated on racism as unfixable,” according to Maureen Callahan of the <a href="https://nypost.com/2020/08/06/peddling-the-idea-that-all-white-people-are-racist-for-profit/">New York Post</a>. DiAngelo’s book, “White Fragility” has already “made her a reported $2 million so far,” and she apparently charges “$30,000-$40,000 for a few hours” of diversity training, depending on the client.
<a href="https://reason.com/2020/08/14/uconn-will-pay-white-fragility-author-robin-diangelo-20000-to-train-school-administrators/">Reason</a> reported that the University of Connecticut paid DiAngelo $20,000 in June 2020 for a three-day seminar on antiracism and “that DiAngelo and other diversity lecturers often charge in the $10,000 to $15,000 dollar range for a few hours of work.” 
Even worse, the university did not hire DiAngelo for a public speaking engagement. She was hired to “train” school administrators in private “with the explicit expectation that they will put her recommendations into practice,” with little to no critical evaluation. 
As so many on the Left and in academia dogmatically yield to DiAngelo’s spurious notions on race and racism, it’s imperative that we remind ourselves that her absurd assessments are, in fact, racist. 
In a recent piece for <a href="https://www.city-journal.org/white-fragility">City Journal</a>, Coleman Hughes argues that DiAngelo’s work is “zealotry disguised as scholarship,” and treats people of color as “a homogenous mass of settled opinion with little, if any, diversity of thought — a kind of CRT-aligned hive mind.” 
Not only are whites monolithic in all manner of thought and experience, so too are blacks and other minorities, according to DiAngelo. Needless to say, such vapid generalizations are the hallmarks of bias and prejudice. 
Hughes continues: “The second unstated assumption in White Fragility — and this is where the book borders on actual racism — is that black people are emotionally immature and essentially child-like. Blacks, as portrayed in DiAngelo’s writing, can neither be expected to show maturity during disagreement nor to exercise emotional self-control of any kind. The hidden premise of the book is that blacks, not whites, are too fragile.”
John McWhorter, an esteemed black scholar and professor of linguistics at Columbia University, takes it up a notch and outright condemns DiAngelo’s work for “dehumanizing” and “infantilizing” black people in his piece for <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/07/dehumanizing-condescension-white-fragility/614146/">The Atlantic</a>. He labels “White Fragility” a “racist tract” that “diminishes Black people in the name of dignifying us.”
“In 2020 — as opposed to 1920 — I neither need nor want anyone to muse on how whiteness privileges them over me.” McWhorter writes. “Nor do I need wider society to undergo teachings in how to be exquisitely sensitive about my feelings. I see no connection between DiAngelo’s brand of reeducation and vigorous, constructive activism in the real world on issues of import to the Black community. And I cannot imagine that any Black readers could willingly submit themselves to DiAngelo’s ideas while considering themselves adults of ordinary self-regard and strength. Few books about race have more openly infantilized Black people than this supposedly authoritative tome.”
In fact, many are now finding DiAngelo’s work comparable to the likes of white supremacist, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Duke">David Duke</a>. While, ideologically, they may seem at odds with one another, Jonathan Chait of the <a href="https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/07/antiracism-training-white-fragility-robin-diangelo-ibram-kendi.html">New York Intelligencer</a> insists that their “extremes begin to functionally resemble each other despite their mutual antipathy” because DiAngelo and the antiracism industry “literally replicate anti-Black racism.”
Ibram X. Kendi and the Center for Antiracism Research
Unlike DiAngelo, Ibram X. Kendi can hide behind the curtains of academia to avoid growing criticism, aided further by virtue of being a person of color. As a result, his <a href="https://www.bu.edu/antiracism-center/the-center/founder-statement/">Center for Antiracism Research</a> at Boston University continues to receive millions of dollars to promote its specious claims. 
In August 2020, Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey <a href="https://www.bu.edu/articles/2020/jack-dorsey-bu-center-for-antiracist-research-gift/">donated $10 million</a> to the Center for Antiracism Research. <a href="http://www.bu.edu/articles/2020/center-for-antiracist-research-rockefeller-foundation-grant/">The Rockefeller Foundation</a> awarded the center $1.5 million in October of 2020. <a href="https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/06/25/metro/bu-anti-racist-center-gets-15-million-gift-vertex-launch/">Vertex</a>, a biotech firm, matched the Rockefeller Foundation with a $1.5 million donation of its own. 
These are only a few of the notable donations, grants, and endowments the Center for Antiracism Research receives to <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/khan-the-truth-about-the-anti-racist-movement-and-its-founder-ibram-x-kendi">promote its unintellectual and divisive agenda</a> — ironic given just how storied a school Boston University is.
To be sure, Kendi’s work is — at best — anecdotal and filled with high emotion. Most often, it’s bereft of substance or sound argument. His claims certainly do not warrant an entire center for “antiracism research” at a prestigious university. 
In fact, <a href="https://www.city-journal.org/how-to-be-an-antiracist">in his review of Kendi’s bestselling book</a>, “How to be an Antiracist,” Coleman Hughes titles his piece, “How to be an Anti-Intellectual,” reinforcing the argument that antiracism has little to no intellectual or academic merit whatsoever. 
Hughes contends that it’s nearly impossible to “interpret Kendi’s arguments as factual claims subject to empirical scrutiny or as diary entries to be accepted as personal truths,” and that “the book reads like a seeker’s memoir or a conversion story in the mold of Augustine’s Confessions” rather than a work supported by evidence and scholarship. Such a fundamental lack of academic rigor explains why “Kendi also cherry-picks his data” to exhaustion and is unable or unwilling to even cite his sources, according to Hughes. 
“Worse than the skewed approach to data in Kendi’s book are the factual errors. Citing an entire <a href="https://amzn.to/2pW5qTb">book</a> by Manning Marable (but no specific page), Kendi claims that in 1982, ‘[President Reagan] cut the safety net of federal welfare programs and Medicaid, sending more low-income Blacks into poverty.’ I could not find any data in Marable’s book showing that the black poverty rate rose during Reagan’s tenure. In fact, the opposite appears to be true, according to the Census Bureau’s historical poverty <a href="https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/income-poverty/historical-poverty-people.html">tables</a>: the black poverty rate decreased for every age group between 1982 and the end of Reagan’s tenure in 1989.”
That such egregious errors litter Kendi’s work should be genuine cause for alarm given his meteoric rise in popularity and the millions of dollars his Center for Antiracism Research continues to receive. 
 The emerging, lucrative role of antiracism influencers
Now that the likes of DiAngelo and Kendi have shown that antiracism can be a lucrative venture, many more are seeking to capitalize on it. Various influencers on social media and elsewhere have positioned themselves as so-called “allies” in the antiracism cause in the hopes of profiting from the destructive trend in the form of online courses, workshops, and seminars. 
Chrissy Rutherford and Danielle Prescod have used their tremendous influence in the fashion world to further champion the works of Kendi and DiAngelo, and now seek to monetize it. 
The two women claim to have “extensive, first-hand experience encountering racism in the industry,” according to the <a href="https://cfda.com/news/chrissy-rutherford-and-danielle-prescod-launch-consulting-agency-2bg">Council of Fashion Designers of America</a>. 
Both women “experienced viral moments” on Instagram speaking out in support of the antiracism ethos, garnering upwards of 5 million views “thanks to the support of celebs like Ariana Grande.” 
Rutherford echoed Kendi almost word for word in her <a href="https://www.instagram.com/tv/CAyf_7mHGPP/">Instagram post</a>: “It’s not enough anymore to just be like, ‘I have good intentions. I’m not racist.’ You need to actually take the time to educate yourselves to be antiracist. And that’s where white people are falling short right now,” she told her followers. “Antiracism is the name of the game right now. And that’s it.”  
Taking advantage of the moment, Rutherford and Prescod “had a mutual epiphany” regarding their burgeoning roles as “allies” in the antiracism movement: “We need to teach them — and charge them,” according to <a href="https://www.elle.com/culture/a34763375/anti-racism-industry-profile/">Elle</a>.
The profile piece on the two fashion influencers in Elle goes on to boldly state that though “America’s economy is crumbling…the business of allyship is booming.”
Rutherford and Prescod have now formed 2BG (2 Black Girls), a “consulting agency…which aims to guide brands towards becoming more equitable and inclusive,” according to <a href="https://www.harpersbazaar.com/fashion/designers/a33502374/chrissy-rutherford-danielle-prescod-2-black-girls/">Harper’s Bazaar</a>. 
Certainly, Rutherford and Prescod are not alone in their antiracism endeavors, particularly as a business venture.
Claiming to be a “highly sought-after anti-racism educator,” <a href="https://www.moniquemelton.com/shop-shine-classes">Monique Melton</a> offers a series of courses — ranging from $97 to $497 — on antiracism. She also offers a <a href="https://www.moniquemelton.com/21-challenge">Black Liberation 21 Day Challenge</a> “designed to build a daily practice of anti-racism,” as well as a “12-week interactive online course” for $3500. 
The tech-savvy are jumping on board as well. <a href="https://www.nudgetext.com/ally">The Nudge</a>, a messaging app that provides a series of encouraging reminders to its users, now offers one geared specifically toward antiracism.
“For $5,” <a href="https://www.elle.com/culture/a34763375/anti-racism-industry-profile/">Elle</a> details, “participants could sign up for something called The Ally Nudge, a monthlong antiracism education program developed in collaboration with longtime diversity and inclusion consultant Akilah Cadet. During its first month, over 10,000 people signed up for The Ally Nudge in 1,700 cities.”
One can also subscribe to <a href="https://courses.checkyourprivilege.co/">Check Your Privilege</a>, “a shame-free space for white folx to show up learn and be held accountable on their anti-racism journey.” The site offers courses ranging from $20 to $1800. 
Lost in all the “allyship” and advocacy is just how deleterious the very notion of antiracism is fast becoming to our society. The likes of Kendi and DiAngelo have built influential empires that are infinitely more analogous to the pernicious effects of televangelism than the heroes of the Civil Rights era. Many now seek to follow in their dangerous wake and profit off of the cause to our collective detriment.  
The views expressed in this opinion piece are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Ibram X Kendi

‘Antiracism’ Is A Booming Business

Anti-Racism

Racism

White Fragility

Basic biology and psychology — whose accuracy is supported by a litany of scientific facts — are currently lost on the transgender movement, with the Left now deeming such analytical realities as prejudiced and antiquated, especially when it comes to the most vulnerable in our society — children. We must vehemently fight against the radical advocates of transgenderism who have begun preying upon children under a false guise of compassion.
Irreversible surgeries, puberty blockers, hormone dependency, and other untold consequences await children allowed to transition before adulthood. Defending such procedures and decisions is equivalent to treating children like guinea pigs. By all scientific metrics, their bodies and, most importantly, their minds are not, at all, sufficiently developed to handle or make such monumental decisions. Yet, here we are, forced to witness children undergo dire procedures while not even being able to vote, drink, or serve their country. 
The developing brain in childhood and adolescence is incapable of such life-changing decisions
It’s imperative to recognize that a child’s brain is in a constant state of development and incapable of fully grasping the mental and physical significance of changing one’s gender. Though transgender activists and parents report all sorts of anecdotal evidence — even regarding toddlers supposedly exhibiting gender dysphoria — there is no scientific basis outside of sentimental hubris to support these claims. 
Increasingly, the legacy media completely foregoes the crucial aspect of the developing brain in childhood and adolescence in favor of a dogmatic yielding to transgender activism. <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/jun/15/trans-transgender-children-gender-family-project">The Guardian</a> audaciously framed the debate as “people who think…gender dysphoria will fade by adulthood” versus “the vast majority of mental health professionals who study gender dysphoria insisting that affirming a child in whatever way they express their gender is beneficial to their mental health.” 
In 2017, Kimberly Shappley told <a href="https://www.goodhousekeeping.com/life/parenting/a43702/transgender-child-kimberly-shappley/">Good Housekeeping</a> that she struggled with her “beliefs and convictions” because her 18-month-old son “began exhibiting very strong female characteristics.” 
In a bizarre and unethical twist, a child psychologist encouraged Shappley to question her 4-year-old son’s gender identity. 
“While family was questioning whether Kai was gay,” Shappley continued, “a Christian friend of mine, who is also a child psychologist, asked me: ‘Have you noticed Kai’s feminine behavior?’ It was such a gentle question, as opposed to the harsh accusations of others. I said, ‘I’ve noticed, but I figure she’ll just grow out of it.’ I can laugh at that now. It’s so clear, in retrospect, that this was not a passing phase. But when my friend asked me that, I still wasn&#8217;t ready to accept it. As I continued to watch my child developing, my friend started pointing out red flags that there was something very real going on. She told me that Kai being transgender may be something I needed to consider.”
The reality is that a child’s brain is in a constant state of development and incapable of making such a drastic decision, especially at such a tender age. <a href="https://www.urmc.rochester.edu/encyclopedia/content.aspx?ContentTypeID=1&amp;ContentID=3051">The University of Rochester Medical Center</a> reports that even teenagers are not fully capable of making rational decisions, much less a 4-year-old. The human brain is only fully developed at around the age of 25. This helps explain why rash decision-making and high emotions beleaguer adolescents. 
“In fact, recent research has found that adult and teen brains work differently,” The University of Rochester reports. “Adults think with the prefrontal cortex, the brain’s rational part. This is the part of the brain that responds to situations with good judgment and an awareness of long-term consequences. Teens process information with the amygdala. This is the emotional part…In teen’s brains, the connections between the emotional part of the brain and the decision-making center are still developing — and not always at the same rate. That’s why when teens have overwhelming emotional input, they can’t explain later what they were thinking. They weren’t thinking as much as they were feeling.”
Neuroscientist Sandra Aamodt echoes this fundamental fact on the developing brain. She told <a href="https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=141164708">NPR in 2011</a> that “brain scans show clearly that the brain is not fully finished developing until about age 25.” She added “that the part of the brain that helps you to inhibit impulses” is not fully developed as a teenager, let alone as a toddler or a 4 year-old. 
How, then, can parents like Kimberly Shappley even consider burdening their children with the consequences of such an enormous decision? It’s not only unethical beyond measure, it’s unjust and unfair regardless of the desires or behaviors a child or teenager may or may not be exhibiting. 
What seems most at play in parents who compel their children to transition is a desire to appear “noble and brave” in their respective progressive communities, often to the detriment of their children’s wellbeing. Shappley goes on to explain that her family is now surrounded by “transgender men and women who are leaders in the community” who “encourage Kai to be proud of who she is and where she comes from” while “building a stronger community together.”
The untold consequences of puberty blockers on children
Increasingly, the medical community now recommends puberty blockers and a lifetime of hormone therapy when allowing children to transition.  In fact, many medical professionals are demanding that the age for transitioning procedures be lowered from the current age of 16. 
In 2017, <a href="https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/transgender-kids-eligible-for-earlier-medical-intervention-under-new-guidelines/19909/">NBC Bay Area</a> reported that “[a] team of international doctors is working to rewrite the clinical guidelines for how and when to medically treat transgender children,” and “are now considering allowing children to undergo hormone therapy at earlier ages in order to change their bodies.”
What many of these doctors fail to report are the multiple long-term and drastic side effects these so-called therapies have on children. In fact, due to the overwhelmingly politicized nature of gender dysphoria in children, the dire consequences of such therapies are, essentially, hidden or ignored. 
<a href="https://www.stlouischildrens.org/conditions-treatments/transgender-center/puberty-blockers">St. Louis Children’s Hospital</a> reports that puberty blockers can “lower bone density,” have an adverse effect on growth, and stunt the development of genitalia. Worse, the novel use of puberty blockers in children at such an increasingly higher rate makes “other possible long-term side effects” a complete mystery. 
Dr. Eric Vilain — a UCLA pediatrician and geneticist of some controversy — <a href="https://newsroom.ucla.edu/stories/ucla-faculty-voice-what-should-you-do-if-your-son-says-hes-a-girl">spells out</a> the immense challenges a gender dysphoric boy faces over a lifetime if allowed to transition: “In late childhood she will need hormones to block puberty; she will then take estrogen for the rest of her life. Eventually, she may want genital surgery. Although this surgery is usually satisfactory, side effects requiring additional surgery are not uncommon.”
Gender dysphoria in children is more of a phase than a permanent state
It’s increasingly difficult to comprehend whether a child may legitimately be suffering from gender dysphoria or if the child’s parents are actively encouraging confusion, motivated by misguided moral grounds rooted in progressivism and — in some instances — <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/10-year-old-boy-dressed-drag-pictured-naked-amanda-prestigiacomo">the errant pageantry</a> associated with such choices. 
Regardless, quite a few studies suggest that gender dysphoria in children is unlikely to persist in children. Only “10%-25%” of children “will continue to have gender dysphoria after the onset of puberty,” according to <a href="https://www.mdedge.com/pediatrics/article/109858/mental-health/how-young-too-young-optimal-age-transitioning-transgender?sso=true">MDedge Pediatrics</a>.
Dr. Eric Vilain also <a href="https://newsroom.ucla.edu/stories/ucla-faculty-voice-what-should-you-do-if-your-son-says-hes-a-girl">argues against the overarching narrative</a> “that gender dysphoric children have the minds and brains of the other sex, adult transgenderism is inevitable, and early transition to the other sex is the only humane option.”
“Gender dysphoric children have not usually become transgender adults,” Vilain continues. “For example, the large majority of gender dysphoric boys studied so far have become young men content to remain male. More than 80 percent adjusted by adolescence.”
Vilain adds one crucial caveat to his findings, stating that “the available research was conducted at a time when parents almost always encouraged their gender dysphoric children to accept their birth sex.” However, when coupled with what we know regarding the developing brain in children and adolescence, the active encouragement of gender dysphoria on the part of parents — particularly with the aid of medical treatments like puberty blockers — becomes more a form of abuse rooted in neglect and manipulation than some adamant stance advocating for the wellbeing of one’s child. 
The steadfast work of Abigail Shrier to save our children from the “social contagion” of transgenderism
Though the Left and the legacy media have excoriated her book, “<a href="https://www.amazon.com/Irreversible-Damage-Transgender-Seducing-Daughters/dp/1684510317">Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters</a>,” investigate journalist Abigail Shrier continues to ring the alarm bells on the “sudden, severe spike in transgender identification among adolescent girls” in her recent piece for <a href="https://quillette.com/2020/11/07/gender-activists-are-trying-to-cancel-my-book-why-is-silicon-valley-helping-them/">Quillette</a>. 
“Between 2016 and 2017,” Shrier writes, “the number of females seeking gender surgery <a href="https://www.plasticsurgery.org/documents/News/Statistics/2017/body-contouring-gender-confirmation-2017.pdf">quadrupled</a> in the United States. Thousands of teen girls across the Western world are not only self-diagnosing with a real dysphoric condition they likely do not have; in many cases, they are obtaining hormones and surgeries following the most cursory diagnostic processes. Schoolteachers, therapists, doctors, surgeons, and medical-accreditation organizations are all rubber-stamping these transitions, often out of fear that doing otherwise will be reported as a sign of ‘transphobia’ — despite growing evidence that most young people who present as trans will eventually desist, and so these interventions will do more harm than good.”
Shrier also emphasizes the fact that “most teenagers are not in a good position to approve irreversible alterations to their bodies” due to their developing minds and bodies. She also adds that “suffering from trauma, OCD, depression, or any of the other mental-health problems…are comorbid with expressions of dysphoria.”  
To be sure, gender dysphoria was “vanishingly rare” in girls up until recently. Shrier refers to the current trend as a “social contagion” that targets “high-anxiety, depressive (mostly white) girls who, in previous decades, fell prey to anorexia and bulimia or multiple personality disorder.”
Ironically enough, given how the Left castigates her, Shrier “fully support[s] medical transition for mature adults.”
Given the exponential rise in gender dysphoria in children, it’s imperative that we examine the root causes of such a phenomenon. Mounting evidence suggests that it’s more of a trend, a “social contagion” in children often unwittingly encouraged by peers and their very own parents. 
Regardless, we must stand opposed to any medical procedures that risk irreversible damage to their developing minds and bodies on the basis of science and morality. It seems increasingly evident that to do otherwise is tantamount to abuse.
The views expressed in this opinion piece are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Trans Flag

How The Transgender Movement Is Treating Children Like Guinea Pigs 

Gender

Transgender

The onslaught of progressive gender norms alongside feminism in mainstream culture has reduced masculinity to an effete and empty husk. Men are being told to exhaustion that inherent masculine qualities are toxic and must be exorcised from their very being in order to fit in and be accepted by society at large. On a daily basis, we are inundated with progressive moral tropes in film, music, television, and the legacy media. 
Young men, in particular, have been told to eradicate every element of traditional masculinity, leaving them directionless and at the mercy of a mainstream culture that offers nothing with regards to <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/khan-men-must-learn-to-uphold-the-common-good-again">guidance or character</a>. As result, countless men are turning on themselves at unprecedented levels. 
Harry Styles’ Vogue cover was not an act of defiance but a “virtue signal” of the highest order
Harry Styles’ “historic” cover photo of him wearing a dress for the pages of Vogue was not some grand act of subversion or a nod to countercultural tropes. Instead, the viral photoshoot and interview signal a complete cultural acquiescence to progressive ideas on gender and an attempt to appear “enlightened,” to <a href="https://twitter.com/benshapiro/status/1328342542287589381?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1328342542287589381%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&amp;ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.esquire.com%2Fstyle%2Fmens-fashion%2Fa34700057%2Fben-shapiro-harry-styles-vogue-cover-dress-controversy%2F">the detriment of masculinity</a>. Such antics are a cornerstone of mainstream culture now.
To be sure, countless artists and musicians before Styles have presented themselves in various stages of drag in the past — from David Bowie, The New York Dolls, and Prince to Motley Crue and Twisted Sister. Such gender-bending choices were either attempts at artistic provocation or simply a silly attempt at marketing under some garish countercultural guise. They were not, however, attempts to encourage men to abandon traditional masculinity and demarcations of gender altogether. 
Jonathan Evans, the style editor for <a href="https://www.esquire.com/style/mens-fashion/a34700057/ben-shapiro-harry-styles-vogue-cover-dress-controversy/">Esquire</a>, tried in vain to draw this analogy in defending Styles and only ended up contradicting himself in full measure: “Or how about Prince? The Purple One,” Evans argued. “Arrived a little later than Bowie. Guy slithered around in frilly shirts and frock coats wearing heaps of eyeliner. Owner of a falsetto sent down by the gods themselves and then drenched in honey and ambrosia. Women loved him. HUGE in the ‘80s. Had his fashion acolytes, no doubt, but did not, remarkably, trigger the collapse of manhood and masculinity as we know it.”
Evans then concludes his piece by stating that men should be “less concerned than ever with how they&#8217;re supposed to dress” even if “that means wearing an actual dress.”
Evans’ arguments stand in opposition to one another. On one hand, he argues that Styles is simply making a provocative, theatrical nod to the past that doesn’t threaten masculine norms at all. On the other, he insists that men casually wearing women’s clothing should be readily accepted and quotidian. 
Styles himself echoes the supposed limitations of traditional gender norms in <a href="https://www.vogue.com/article/harry-styles-cover-december-2020">his interview for Vogue</a>, insisting that his choices are less about style and more in accord with progressive virtues: 
<blockquote>What’s really exciting is that all of these lines are just kind of crumbling away. When you take away ‘There’s clothes for men and there’s clothes for women,’ once you remove any barriers, obviously you open up the arena in which you can play. I’ll go in shops sometimes, and I just find myself looking at the women’s clothes thinking they’re amazing. It’s like anything—anytime you’re putting barriers up in your own life, you’re just limiting yourself.</blockquote>
The Left has framed Styles’ photoshoot and interview as a moral act of courage and bravery meant to further diminish traditional gender norms and masculinity itself.
<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2020/nov/16/harry-styles-vogue-cover-dress">The Guardian</a> referred to the Vogue cover as “representative of a growing exploration of gender-fluidity and non-binary dressing taking place, popular among the very millennial and Gen-Z shoppers Vogue is targeted towards.” While the <a href="https://www.thedailybeast.com/harry-styles-vogue-cover-may-be-historic-but-it-isnt-radical">Daily Beast</a> made the impudent argument that Styles &#8211; as a “white cisgender man” &#8211; was actually not doing enough amid the supposed need for “continued LGBTQ activism.”
Philip Zimbardo and “The Demise of Guys”
Lauded Stanford psychologist and professor, Philip Zimbardo, details the detrimental effect mainstream culture is having on men today in both his book and <a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/hero/201205/the-demise-guys">essay</a> entitled “The Demise of Guys.” While Lombardo emphasizes the pernicious effects of pornography and incessant gaming, he also places significant blame on mainstream culture and their assault on masculinity.
He argues that men now face exhausting double standards with expectations often completely at odds with one another:
<blockquote>Society wants guys to be upstanding, proactive citizens who take responsibility for themselves,” Zimbardo <a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/hero/201205/the-demise-guys">writes</a>, “who work with others to improve their communities and nation as a whole. The irony is that society is not giving the support, means or places for these young men to even be motivated or interested in aspiring to these things. In fact, society — from <a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/politics">politics</a> to the media to the classroom to our very own families — is a major contributor to this demise because they are inhibiting guys’ intellectual, creative and social abilities right from the start.</blockquote>
While Zimbardo insists that men are “investing too much time and energy…playing video games and watching freely available Internet porn,” he does not discount “widespread fatherlessness and changing family dynamics, media influences, environmentally generated physiological changes that decrease <a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/testosterone">testosterone</a> and increase <a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/estrogen">estrogen</a>, [and] the problematic economy” as being major contributing factors as well. 
Boys are increasingly being taught to devalue themselves in school
While the impact of porn and gaming and the consequent apathy and malaise they’re inducing in men are increasingly evident, the likes of Zimbardo don’t completely address the elephant in the room. As feminism and other manifestations of identity politics take hold of our society, men are actively being taught to devalue themselves beginning in childhood and adolescence. 
In 2015, <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/11747413/We-must-stop-indoctrinating-boys-in-feminist-ideology.html">The Telegraph</a> reported “on a programme in London Schools in which two American women, one a former sex crime prosecutor, ‘re-programme teenage boys’ sexual manners so they are fit for a feminist world”.
The late feminist icon, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doris_Lessing">Doris Lessing</a>, was dismayed by the treatment of boys in schools and considered men to be “the new silent victims in the sex war.”
Lessing elaborated on her own experiences at the Edinburgh book festival in 2001, according to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2001/aug/14/edinburghfestival2001.edinburghbookfestival2001">The Guardian</a>. She was appalled “at the unthinking and automatic rubbishing of men which is now so part of our culture that it is hardly even noticed” and how “[y]oung boys were being weighed down with guilt about the crimes of their sex.” 
“I was in a class of nine- and 10-year-olds, girls and boys,” Lessing said, “and this young woman was telling these kids that the reason for wars was the innately violent nature of men…You could see the little girls, fat with complacency and conceit while the little boys sat there crumpled, apologising for their existence, thinking this was going to be the pattern of their lives.&#8221;
Christina Hoff Summers’ assessment echoes Lessing as well. Her seminal essay for <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2000/05/the-war-against-boys/304659/">The Atlantic</a>, “The War Against Boys” details how education is failing boys. She argues that boys are fast becoming the “second sex” in schools across the nation rooted in rampant feminist ideas less true today than when she wrote her essay in 2000. 
<blockquote>In the view that has prevailed in American education over the past decade, boys are resented, both as the unfairly privileged sex and as obstacles on the path to gender justice for girls. This perspective is promoted in schools of education, and many a teacher now feels that girls need and deserve special indemnifying consideration.</blockquote>
Summers followed up her essay more than a decade later for <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2013/09/how-to-make-school-better-for-boys/279635/">The Atlantic</a> reporting that “[b]oys in all ethnic groups and social classes are far less likely than their sisters to feel connected to school, to earn good grades, or to have high academic aspirations.” 
Lessing’s remarks and Summers’ findings almost two decades ago are proving sadly prescient. Boys continue to fall behind in school while girls continue to excel and the numbers bear out, according to <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/11/23/why-girls-do-so-much-better-than-boys-in-school/">The Washington Post:</a>  
<blockquote>When family characteristics and neighborhood income were controlled for, white boys in Florida were 5.5 percentage points less likely than white girls to be kindergarten ready. The gap between black boys and girls was significantly wider, at 8.4 percentage points. Why were black boys so much worse off? The researchers calculate that about half of these racial differences are explained by the fact that boys are more sensitive to family disadvantages than girls.</blockquote>
While the cited study may not establish a direct causal link between feminism and underachievement among boys, it’s reasonable to argue that it plays a significant factor. As more and more <a href="https://www.aasa.org/content.aspx?id=44754">school curriculums yield to identity politics</a> and Marxist ideas such as <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/how-the-left-is-rewriting-american-history-to-push-their-radical-agenda">Critical Theory</a>, the needs of boys are marginalized even further while notions of masculinity continue to be vilified into oblivion.
Of course, such progressive agendas fail to recognize their own contradictions. The same people who proselytize feminism and toxic masculinity are those who insist that gender is some “fluid construct” even in the face of biological evidence. 
Writing for <a href="https://www.city-journal.org/html/gender-construct-16117.html">City Journal</a>, Heather Mac Donald exposes this hopeless contradiction: 
<blockquote>A foundational tenet of academic feminism holds that alleged differences between males and females are socially constructed. This credo usually maximizes the opportunities for charging sexism, yet it will be discarded in an instant if acknowledging the innate biological and psychological differences between men and women yields an additional trove of feminist complaint.</blockquote>
The only hope for boys and men alike is to recognize gender differences and their respective needs without resorting to tired aspersions. Christina Hoff Summers contends that “we must acknowledge the fact that boys and girls are different” and dismiss “gender scholars [who] insist that the sexes are cognitively interchangeable and…that any talk of difference only encourages sexism and stereotyping.” 
Men are committing suicide in unprecedented numbers
Men are now turning on themselves in droves., with addiction and suicide skyrocketing in the last decade. In the UK, suicide is the leading cause of death for men aged 20 to 49, killing “three times as many British men as women.” As surreal as it sounds, “if you are a man…you&#8217;re more likely to die from [suicide] than cancer, road accidents or heart disease,” according to <a href="https://www.esquire.com/uk/culture/a9202/britain-male-suicide-crisis/">Esquire</a>. 
Sadder still, is the stigma that men who kill themselves are obvious in their despair.
“It is still the case that the type of men we think die by suicide are the unwell, the disturbed, the unlucky; who stumble at life&#8217;s biggest hurdles and are too weak to get back up. Most of us like to think we&#8217;re made of sterner stuff. We don&#8217;t know that 75 per cent of people who take their own lives have never been diagnosed with a mental health problem, or that only five per cent of people who do suffer from depression go on to take their own lives,” <a href="https://www.esquire.com/uk/culture/a9202/britain-male-suicide-crisis/">according</a> to Sam Parker. 
Globally, men account for more than <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/nov/02/men-account-for-76-of-suicides-in-2014-says-charity">80% of all suicides</a>. In America, the suicide rate is the highest for middle-aged white men, according to the <a href="https://afsp.org/suicide-statistics/">American Foundation for Suicide Prevention</a>. That middle-aged White men are vilified by the Left for upholding the supposed “patriarchy” while basking in their “white privilege” makes such a harrowing statistic seem like less of a coincidence upon examination. 
Psychologist Helen Smith, who authored the book “<a href="https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/15985426-men-on-strike">Men on Strike,</a>” offered much-needed insight amid this suicide epidemic in an interview with the <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/2013/09/losing-men-interview/">National Review</a> in 2013:
<blockquote>How many of these men had decided to kill themselves because they could no longer see their children, had a broken relationship, or were involved in a bitter divorce? Ironically, even when you look at the suicide statistics, most concern seems to be about women who kill themselves. Apparently, our society cares so little about men that those who kill themselves are hardly news.</blockquote>
Smith pointedly states that we live in a “culture that often treats men as if there is something inherently wrong with masculinity, with what makes them different from women — and looks to feminize them.” She adds that “We are too busy trying to figure out what is wrong with girls and women, and men’s psychological issues go by the wayside.”
Mainstream culture continues to marginalize and vilify men to a fatiguing degree. Young men, in particular, are increasingly at a loss. The prohibition of masculinity is stunting men and ostracizing them to the fringes of society. As a consequence, men are losing the ability to rise to the occasion when faced with hardships and obstacles. Instead &#8211; out of increased dejection and despair &#8211; they’re choosing to succumb and, finally, give up. 
The views expressed in this opinion piece are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Chicago’s drag kings are out to destroy ‘toxic masculinity,’ one sequin and pelvic thrust at a time

The Prohibition of Masculinity Is Ruining Men

Culture

Feminism

Menu

Sharif Khan