By Selwyn Duke

“LGBTQ+ rights are … a core part of our foreign policy,” said National Security Council spokesman John Kirby last week. He didn’t say if that would be Uncommon Core — but it certainly is to much of the world.

It also may be the hill the last of America’s global influence dies on.

Oh, this isn’t exactly new. In 2011, then-president Barack Obama used U.S. foreign aid as a cudgel to try to pressure African nations into embracing the homosexuality agenda.

It didn’t go well.

African officials described the effort as “abhorrent” and the agenda as “anathema” to most of their continent.

The year before, in 2010….

Read the rest here.

By Selwyn Duke

The timing of the tragic Nashville shooting, in which a MUSS (Made-up Sexual Status, aka “transgender”) individual killed six at a Christian school, is a bit odd. National Public Radio had just recently done a piece on how MUSS and other “LGBTQ” people are buying guns because, the story goes, they believe they’re imperiled by conservatives. As one sexual devolutionary NPR quoted put it, “If the world is dangerous, then you have to be dangerous back, and that very much has pushed me into where I am now.”

As for what pushed 28-year-old Audrey Hale into opening fire Monday at The Covenant School, which she once attended, the media largely pretend to have no clue. They don’t want you to have one, either. This is why, shamelessly, they often hide Hale’s MUSS status and instead focus on guns. Here’s how brazen it is, too:

(more…)

By Selwyn Duke

It’s said that love is blind. So perhaps National Public Radio’s (NPR) love affair with the “transgender” agenda explains why, in its name, the station has cast principle and diligence to the winds.

First there was the recent NPR puff piece on MUSS (Made-up Sexual Status, aka “transgender”) firearms owners in which the outlet, departing from its gun-control dogma, kindly called the packin’-heat sexual devolutionaries the “gun curious.” Now NPR has been embarrassed because, in its zeal to support the cause of MUSS men in women’s sports, it claimed there was “limited scientific evidence” that such males have a “physical advantage” over females. The station later issued a correction, but it turned out to be a distinction without a difference.

This story has been reported — and, in fairness, somewhat misreported — by conservative media. National Review, for example, wrote Saturday that “NPR Claims ‘Limited Scientific Evidence’ Men Have ‘Physical Advantage’ over Women in Sports.” This could be misconstrued because, especially in the 1990s and into the early 2000s, there actually was a feminist claim that normal men (i.e., those not taking testosterone inhibitors and female hormones, etc.) didn’t necessarily have an athletic advantage over women.

NPR’s contention, in contrast, is that there’s limited scientific evidence that MUSS men — who may be somewhat demasculinized owing to feminizing interventions such as the above — have an advantage.

Read the rest here.

By Selwyn Duke

“We only have 12 years to save the planet,” we may hear. “Man may only have 10 years left if we don’t ________” (fill in the doomsayer prescription). The truth, though, is that we don’t know if humanity has still one year or six months — or less.

And this reality was brought home by something that occurred March 12.

Read the rest here.

By Selwyn Duke

One thing you can say about leftists is, they sure are adaptable. They turned from “equality” to “equity” (officially sanctioned discrimination) and from freedom of speech to “hate speech” standards on a dime. They were anti-war in the ’60s and ’70s but by the 2000s had embraced Barack Obama, who once reportedly said he was “really good at killing people.” Then there was the NYC liberal who, reacting to an integration plan for his kid’s school, explained, “It’s more complicated when it’s about your own children.” And, now, lo and behold, notoriously anti-gun leftists have even embraced firearm ownership.

That is, for the “right” people.

Read the rest here.

By Selwyn Duke

Does “diversity” really now mean conformity of thought? This question arises with a Supreme Court case, Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, involving racial affirmative-action policies.

The defendants, Harvard and the University of North Carolina, have argued that diversity is a benefit. The former asserted in its court brief that “decades of experience and study prove ‘that diversity “lead[s] to greater knowledge” for everyone,’ and promotes ‘the tolerance and mutual respect that are so essential to the maintenance of our civil society,’” relates Newsweek’s James Piereson. Yet this argument might have just been blown up, the writer states, by a headline-grabbing little incident recently occurring at Stanford Law School.

On March 9, Stanford law students shouted down Fifth Circuit Judge Stuart Kyle Duncan at a Federalist Society event at their school. What’s more, not only did five administrators present allow the blatant disruption — in violation of Stanford’s policies — but diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) dean Tirien Steinbach actually fanned the flames. Taking the microphone and delivering prepared remarks, she claimed that Duncan “literally denies the humanity of people” and told him, “Your work has caused harm.”

Read the rest here.

By Selwyn Duke

Ever since Scottish reformer Robert Owen’s early 19th-century utopian “socialist” community dissolved after only a few years, people have been trying to make the “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” model work. They’re still trying and, of course, we’re told that past failures occurred only because “true socialism” was never implemented. Interestingly, this explanation may amount to the “no true Scotsman” fallacy (an “appeal to purity” to dismiss evidence against an ideal). Whether or not Owen was a true socialist or a true Scotsman, however, we also hear the recurring assurance that we simply need to have the “right people” effecting socialism. But then, to sell the idea, you need in addition the right people marketing it. The solution?

Recruit Jesus.

Yes, even many secularists believe the Christ can be the Savior — of socialism. Thus do we hear the claim “Jesus was a socialist!” with the implication, “Do you wanna be a heathen, you capitalist pig!”

Of course, this isn’t the first time a movement has recruited He who, were He in your corner, could be the ultimate salesman. 

Read the rest here.

By Selwyn Duke

Secession goes periodically in and out of pseudo-elite fashion. When a Republican is elected president, as in 2016 with Donald Trump, liberals in blue (mood) areas sometimes talk about leaving the Union to form their own republics. The media may call this understandable frustration. When leftists control the executive branch and start trampling the Constitution, as in now with the Biden administration, conservatives opine likewise. Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene has done this, warning that civil war is inevitable unless there’s a national divorce. Of course, when rightists do it, the media may call secession appeals “dangerous radicalism.”

But there’s another way we can label secession: as something already happening.

Read the rest here.

By Selwyn Duke

Recently, actor-cum-commentator Ben Stein was condemned in media for touting the “progress” the U.S. has made and saying that black Americans “never had it so good.” One website called his remarks a “racist rant” even though he was, in keeping with his personality, just calmly expressing his opinion. The worst thing about this story, though, isn’t that Stein may become a cancel-culture casualty.

In fact, the matter reminds me of philosopher G.K. Chesterton’s observation that the worst aspect of duels wasn’t that someone might die, but that they settled nothing about who was right or wrong. For as is always the case with these matters, Stein is criticized only for making a politically incorrect assertion involving race — and could suffer reputational and career death because of it — when the real issue is this:

Was he correct or not?

(more…)

By Selwyn Duke

Making totalitarianism truly total, China’s government is becoming the world’s first all-seeing state. But at issue aren’t just Beijing’s 200 million surveillance cameras — one for every seven citizens — which it uses to watch its people. Now the Chinese autocrats want to monitor another realm, one we’d always considered safe from intrusion: your mind.

What’s more, with so-called “brain wearables” currently being sold in our nation, China’s thought police may already be at work in the U.S.

Beijing has long been trying to control Americans’ thinking through what it calls the projection of “soft power.” It has bribed our schools and colleges into accepting its “Confucius Institutes,” which pump Chinese propaganda into young American minds. It has succeeded in censoring our movies — to ensure China is portrayed as its autocrats would prefer — by threatening to deny noncompliant filmmakers access to its huge market. Beijing has also bullied our businesses into doing its bidding (for example, into not portraying Taiwan as a country).

Furthermore, China has been improving its abilities to engage in cyberspying without detection

Read the rest here.