The Algorithm got me again.

I was forced to sit through the trailer for She-Hulk to watch a YouTube video I actually wanted to watch.

I had to suffer, so will you.

So let me get this straight…

Bruce Banner, super genius scientist becomes The Hulk.  He’s been The Hulk for years, saving the earth on multiple occasions.

A significant arc of the MCU was Banner learning to be able to control his mind when he transforms so he can be Smart Hulk.

She-Hulk becomes She-Hulk and is instantly, stronger, more capable, in control of her Hulk powers, and all-around better than Banner Hulk.

She’s also a successful attorney.

It’s a Hulk Mary Sue story with lots of “girl boss” moments.

It’s going to be fucking insufferable.

Woke Disney can’t lost money fast enough.

IRS Force!

?? pic.twitter.com/Oye4V3w3N6

— Young Americans for Liberty (@YALiberty) August 17, 2022

Normally I stand against Woke hiring standards, but not this time.

For a group of people who will he carrying guns for use against citizens like me, I’m fine with them being the most out if shape and incompetent people the government can hire.

If this is a selection of the 87,000 new armed IRS officers they are hiring, we’ll be fine.

This came across my internet feed from Wired.

I remember when Wired was a magazine about tech and tech culture.

Now it publishes reviews of genocidal fiction.

A Glimpse of a Future Without White People
Mohsin Hamid’s The Last White Man is a book about race metamorphosis—and the seduction of power.

WHITENESS IS A seduction. Whiteness is also an illusion. These are the twin motifs on which Pakistani writer Mohsin Hamid props up The Last White Man, his new novel about race metamorphosis and human morality. Anchored in the bare and elegiac prose Hamid has made his trademark style, the book springboards from a single unexplained incident. Anders, a white man, awakens one morning to a new reality: his skin has “turned a deep and undeniable brown.”

The transformation, of which Anders’ is the first—but not the only, and certainly not the last—elicits worthy exploration. What if whiteness were suddenly gone? Would the social order of life come undone? Would anything change? Where Hamid lands doesn’t exactly persuade.

WHITENESS IS A seduction. Whiteness is also an illusion. These are the twin motifs on which Pakistani writer Mohsin Hamid props up The Last White Man, his new novel about race metamorphosis and human morality. Anchored in the bare and elegiac prose Hamid has made his trademark style, the book springboards from a single unexplained incident. Anders, a white man, awakens one morning to a new reality: his skin has “turned a deep and undeniable brown.”

The transformation, of which Anders’ is the first—but not the only, and certainly not the last—elicits worthy exploration. What if whiteness were suddenly gone? Would the social order of life come undone? Would anything change? Where Hamid lands doesn’t exactly persuade.

It’s understandable why those who benefit from a particular standing would do anything to preserve it. The conscious seduction of power, of understanding the privileges from which one benefits and the life it affords, is, in part, about the necessity of control. I’d probably be upset and a little sad if I lost all of that, too.

Whiteness physically recedes but it never vanishes completely. It has a psychological grip; lest we forget, identity is more than a badge of flesh. The newly “dark people” of Hamid’s epic appear to embrace different outlooks but, really, what has happened is more of a costume swap than an adjustment of the soul. The characters operate in a kind of cultural drag, entombed in an unrecognizable self, a sort of living elegy of their former whiteness. What was once marked as difference is not understood anew; instead, they continue to see through white eyes, in spite of their brown skin.

First, let’s take stock that this is a book of which the premises is: let’s eliminate white people.  And understand exactly how ugly that is.

But more than that, this is the essence of race essentialism.  It is the belief that everything about a person or people is derived from their race.

If you took a personal raised in a certain culture and changed their skin color, race essentialists would believe that their culture changed.

That seems unlikely to me.

Making middle-class white people brown wouldn’t make them abandon their middle-class values, but this book postulates that it will.

Ironically, the perfect example of this us from the author’s own culture.

Chechen Muslims are, by definition, Caucasian.  They are very white.  Muslims from Indonesia are Asian.  There are more common cultural norms between those groups of different races than there are between Chechen Muslims and Eastern Orthodox Christians of Southern Russia, who are their neighbors.  Skin color has little to do with it, but culture and religion do.

But to the Left, eliminate white skin and all the cultural norms of “whiteness” vanish.  If it’s not absolute genocide, it’s cultural genocide.

This should be horrific by any standards, but for the Left, as long as it’s white people’s identity bring exterminated, it’s good.

If someone from Stormfront wrote a book about how every black person in America woke up white and all of a sudden the violence and crime in America’s cities dried up overnight and utopia was achieved, I don’t think that would get published and lauded on book review sites.

The Left are bigots and they hate you for who you are and what they believe your race dictates about you.

But they think they are your moral betters for it.

https://twitter.com/HunterAA6/status/1558990960931082241?t=5YVsG-Tv1I80ba9ogo0BWA&s=19

https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1557439495187881984?t=_DJ0b8WMYL1NR3aDiey9HA&s=19

There is a cure and all it takes is one dose…

As an Air Force Officer, I received an email with a confidential word in it. In less than 10 minutes, my office was raided, computer taken & I was escorted to a windowless room with one light bulb. I hadn’t even read the email.

Trump shouldn’t be allowed to wiggle out of this.

— Sarah Klee Hood (@SarahKleeHoodNY) August 15, 2022

Veteran status.

In the Soviet Union, every radical who wanted to be in the party needed to serve in the Soviet Military, usually as a political officer or some other non-combat role.

It was a credential that proved loyalty.

The Democrats used to hate the military.

Now, you can’t shake a stick without hitting a Democrat who was a military officer.

What happened, especially considering how the Democrats hated nation building and the war in Iraq, where most of them served?

They realized that a term as an officer in the military, especially in a non-combat role, was a credential that they could use to buy them credibility with moderates and independents.

It allows them to say “I’m a patriot, I served my country.”

Then they bash everyone over the head with it.

“I was in the military so I know you can’t own an AR-15.”

“I was in the military so I know Trump shouldn’t have confidential paperwork.”

“I was in the military so I’m fucking special and you’re not, you groveling peon.”

Look at the track record.

Buttigieg was an accountant with the Navy.

Ted Lieu and Pam Keith were JAG officers.

But every time they have the opportunity to use their veteran status as a cudgel in an argument  they do.

Compare them to DeSantis, who never brings up his Navy service in an argument.

If I politician pulls out the “I’m a veteran” card, my immediate response is now “fuck you in parade rest.”

It’s become a negative for me because the next thing out of their mouth is how their veteran status means they are better than me and justifies taking some of my rights away.

Amid an unprecedented and unjustified attack on the firearm industry, Smith & Wesson President & CEO issues strong statement: pic.twitter.com/6NHztbGIe4

— Smith & Wesson Inc. (@Smith_WessonInc) August 15, 2022

S&W learned its lesson from the Clinton capitulation. This S&W has a pair of balls on it.

George Orwell famously wrote:

“Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.”

That is the first thing that came to mind when I saw this headline:

Joan of Arc to be portrayed as non-binary in new Globe Theatre production, I, Joan

Joan of Arc will be portrayed as a non-binary character in a new production at Shakespeare’s Globe.

The French heroine, known for fearlessly leading the French in battles against English soldiers in the Hundred Years War, will be played by non-binary actor Isobel Thom in I, Joan.

I prefer the Daily Mail’s take on the story:

Shakespeare’s Globe Theatre is accused of ‘violating history’ by portraying Joan of Arc as non-binary in new play using the pronouns ‘they’ and ‘them’

A new production of I, Joan is billed as ‘powerful and joyous’ and ‘questioning the gender binary’.

But while it is yet to open at the world-famous venue on August 25, pre-publicity uses the pronouns ‘they’ and ‘them’ when referring to the French historical figure.

A separate post on the history on the warrior-saint even does the same thing, declaring ‘whoever Joan truly was, perhaps the most accurate descriptor for them is simply “icon”.’

This afternoon the theatre defended itself and confirmed the titular figure ‘Uses the pronouns ‘they/them’ in the show – and insisted Shakespeare would have approved.

There is a purpose to this.

It is always Year Zero for the radical Left.

For the vast majority of society, there are and there have always been men and women.

We’ve always known that there is a tiny fraction that doesn’t conform to this norm, and they were generally on the fringes of society.

Even when the Left finds other gender nonconforming identites in the non-Westerm world, such as “two-spirit,” they were fringe groups.  The much celebrated hijra of India are estimated to be at most 10 Million out of a population of 1.4 Billion.

It is the goal of the Left to normalize this abnormality.

So what they do is rewrite history, finding every tiny morsel of nonconformity to identify declaring that person to be one of them.

Making Joan of Arc transgender or gender nonconforming accomplishes that.

Another example is the famous Viking warrior of Birka.  A Viking grave was discovered full of weapons and artifacts indicating the grave belonged to a great warrior.  The skeleton in the grave turned out to be female.

Throughout history there have been famous female warriors.  We have no idea why this woman was buried with warrior honors.

But that didn’t stop ideological hacks masquerading as historians from declaring her “transgender, non-binary, or gender fluid.”

We’ve seen this before.

A decade or two ago, the trend was to make famous men of history gay or bisexual, such as Abraham Lincoln, William Shakespeare, and Leonardo DaVinci.

Their evidence is dubious at best, and usually falls along the lines of “he had a close friendship with another man and they lived together for a while.”  Ignoring that social customs were very different centuries ago.

But being gay is passe, so now it’s making historical figures trans.

And they are not going to stop.

Shakespeare’s Globe Theatre academic says Elizabeth I may have been non-binary in essay calling Virgin Queen ‘them’ after row over transgender Joan Of Arc play

An academic writing for the Shakespeare’s Globe Theatre has argued Queen Elizabeth I may have been non-binary in an essay.

In an essay on the Globe’s website, trans-awareness trainer Dr Kit Heyam referred to the Virgin Queen with ‘they/them’ pronouns, saying: ‘Elizabeth I… described themself regularly in speeches as “king”, “queen” and “prince”.’

Leeds-based Dr Heyam, whose pronouns are they/them or he/him, compared Queen Elizabeth I to 10th-century English ruler Æthelflæd, Lady of the Mercians, who ruled Mercia (what is now approximately the West Midlands) after the death of her husband.

Dr Heyam said Æthelflæd was ‘later described as “conducting…Armies, as if she had changed her sex”: to take on a male-coded military role was, in some sense, for Æthelflæd to become male.’

The writer and academic Elizabeth I chose to ‘strategically to emphasise their female identity or their male monarchical role at different points’.

Because this guy is totally objective:

This isn’t academic or historical research.

This is biased ideologues rewriting history to push an agenda today.

They are all Winston Smith, updating facts so that the LGBT party is always normal.