Skip to content

Jamil Jivani: Blacks as “Woke” Tokens

In the first of a five-part series “Even black men can be fired for not being ‘woke’ enough“, a radio talk show canceled by Canada’s Bell Media and iHeartRadio demonstrates how individuals who are black are only useful to “liberals” when they repeat the slogans of their white intellectual masters. Those who do not conform to the “progressive” stereotype are kicked off the plantation.

Writes Jamil Jivani:

Wokeness—a political agenda with a superficial commitment to diversity and inclusion—has become a global ideological movement. And, more than government policy, it’s big corporations pushing this agenda and punishing those who refuse to comply.

Weeks after George Floyd was killed in Minneapolis in 2020, Bell Media hired me to be part of the iHeartRadio talk network as a radio host. From my perspective, Bell Media/iHeartRadio recognized that despite its publicized commitment to valuing people from different backgrounds, they had yet to ever hire a fulltime black talk radio host in their Canadian market. What my experience made clear is that the company failed to consider what it would mean to sincerely engage someone from a black community, without expectations that we conform to the pressures of tokenism.

Elite institutions often make assumptions about a person’s political views based on what he looks like or where his parents are from. Soon after being hired, I could see that Bell Media/iHeartRadio erred in making the same assumptions. I felt that they were hoping to have hired a liberal stereotype of a black man who espouses their expected political talking points. Bell Media/iHeartRadio was not prepared for a black man who loves his country, rejects victimhood politics, maintains strong ties to his faith community, and shares heterodox views on a wide range of issues.

Read the rest.



Hannah Cox: Anti-Trust Is Anti-Capitalist

According to Hannah Cox, “Are we about to enter a new era of antitrust? If enemies of tech companies get their way, maybe. It’s been decades since the government brought a successful case against a company, and a look back at the history of antitrust indicates it probably never should have tried to begin with. “

This reminds us of Ayn Rand’s excellent identification of the nature of antitrust:

“The alleged purpose of the Antitrust laws was to protect competition; that purpose was based on the socialistic fallacy that a free, unregulated market will inevitably lead to the establishment of coercive monopolies. But, in fact, no coercive monopoly has ever been or ever can be established by means of free trade on a free market. Every coercive monopoly was created by government intervention into the economy: by special privileges, such as franchises or subsidies, which closed the entry of competitors into a given field, by legislative action. (For a full demonstration of this fact, I refer you to the works of the best economists.) The Antitrust laws were the classic example of a moral inversion prevalent in the history of capitalism: an example of the victims, the businessmen, taking the blame for the evils caused by the government, and the government using its own guilt as a justification for acquiring wider powers, on the pretext of “correcting” the evils.”

“Free competition enforced by law” is a grotesque contradiction in terms.” [“Antitrust: The Rule of Unreason,” The Objectivist Newsletter, Feb. 1962, 1]




Amy Peikoff’s List of 25 Things That Covidian Fascists Did That Crossed The Line

Amy Peikoff of Don’t Let It Go has an excellent list of “When did the Covidian fascists cross the line for you?

Here are a few of them…

4. Flip-flop on masks
9. Government protocols that deny early treatment
15. Mandating vaccinations for travel, restaurants, shopping, and other good things in life
16. Governments releasing official statements shaming the unvaccinated, sowing division
17. Mainstream media, refusing to help expose cover-ups about origins of the virus, vaccine injuries, data crimes, or other challenges to “the science”
22. In some places already, mandating the vaccines for kids, and even legalizing their administration without parental consent
23. Social media as an accomplice in pushing the narrative, banning, throttling, and labeling anything which questions “the science”
24. QR Codes for “vaccine status,” as an entree to social credit scores.

Read the entire list.

Video: Escaping North Korea with Yeonmi Park

  • World

Yeonmi Park is a North Korean defector and human rights activist trying to shine a light on the atrocities still being committed in North Korea by the current Kim regime. She wrote her experiences into a bestseller, ‘In Order to Live.’

United Nations Goes Into “Emergency Mode”

  • World

What does it mean for the United Nations to go into “Emergency Mode”?

It means using a crisis as an excuse to implement draconian measures, that have little or nothing to do with resolving the crisis, to expand your power to control people’s lives. As the saying goes politicians should “never let a crisis go to waste.”

Of course, the U.N. does not go right out and say it but speaks in code. Let’s translate that code into plain English as we examine their five action areas:

“Tackle the Pandemic”

“Tackle the Pandemic” means fighting #COVID19 with Covid Vaccination mandates, lockdowns of healthy people, and the prison of the healthy (unvaccinated people who are covid negative). It means creating vaccine passports, which are eventually enlarged to require obedience to mandates which have nothing to do with COVID, as the E.U. is attempting. As Eva Vlaardingerbroek has observed “Europe is headed towards a tyrannical regime of mass surveillance and control. We are turning into China and if we don’t prevent the introduction of compulsory vaccination in Austria, Europe will no longer be part of ‘The Free West’.”

“Transforming the global financial system”

“Transforming the global financial system” means a confiscatory global tax of the productive (#TaxTheRich) to transfer their wealth to socialist politicians and their cronies who believe they know how to better spend the money than those who earned it. Much mention is made for a global tax minimum to force low-tax states to increase their taxes, but when it comes to the advocacy of a global tax maximum they are notoriously silent.

“Taking urgent climate action”

“Taking urgent climate action” means to ban fossil fuels and cripple free countries – especially the United States – while China, “the world’s largest emitter of carbon dioxide” plans to build over 40 coal-powered energy plants over the next decade.

“Putting people at the center of the digital world”

“Putting people at the center of the digital world” sounds like a Microsoft commercial. What happens if you don’t like Microsoft’s way of putting you at the center of the world? Well, in a free market you can select another company. The U.N. seeks to put an end to this so there is no escape.

When that idea is taken over by the U.N. global monopoly its meaning changes to mean having the state take over the internet so it can impose censorship to battle “misinformation”, i.e., people who disagree with government officials.

Who decides what is “misinformation”?  Free people discussing and debating in the free-marker for ideas. Don’t be silly. The U.N. will. “Misinformation” means anything U.N. bureaucrat says is misinformation, or that their proxy in the private sphere (“independent” state-approved “fact-checker”) says is misinformation. The science is “settled”: thinking for yourself is a crime. It’s a brave new world.

“Delivering sustainable peace”

How is “delivering sustainable peace” different from just “delivering peace”? It has “sustainable” in it. Examples of past U.N. “sustainability” include giving moral sanction to communist china’s CCP dictatorship, allowing the Hutus to slaughter millions of Tutus in Rwanda, and condemning free countries like Israel.

Writes Ayn Rand on the expulsion of Taiwan (“Republic of China”) from the United Nations to appease Communist China:

When an institution reaches the degree of corruption, brazen cynicism and dishonor demonstrated by the U.N. in its shameful history, to discuss it at length is to imply that its members and supporters may possibly be making an innocent error about its nature—which is no longer possible. There is no margin for error about a monstrosity that was created for the alleged purpose of preventing wars by uniting the world against any aggressor, but proceeded to unite it against any victim of aggression. The expulsion of a charter member, the Republic of China—an action forbidden by the U.N.’s own Charter—was a “moment of truth,” a naked display of the United Nations’ soul.

What was Red China’s qualification for membership in the U.N.? The fact that her government seized power by force, and has maintained it for twenty-two years by terror. What disqualified Nationalist China? The fact that she was a friend of the United States.

The United Nations: One world united under one big jail.

In economics, the currency of success is how much money one accumulates by having people voluntarily buy your product, or service, in politics the currency of success is how many regulations you can accumulate that give you power over the lives of others so you can force them to do your bidding.

Novak Djokovic: Global Standard Bearer for Body Autonomy

  • World

Mark Dolan has made some excellent observations in his commentary, “Novak Djokovic has won the argument, game set, and match“:


  • Djokovic is a twofold hero…for a “brave battle he didn’t have to fight, he is a global standard-bearer for bodily autonomy.”
  • large parts of Australia have effectively become a police state
  • Djokovic willingly relinquished trophies as a matter of principle.
  • “How ironic that Australia should be the home of a kangaroo court.”
  • Zero Covid, lockdown policy has failed
  • the vaccine, whilst fantastic at preventing severe illness and death, has to be a matter of personal choice.

Related: Novak Djokovic: Deported for ‘Thought Crimes’ in Austrailia


Novak Djokovic: Deported for ‘Thought Crimes’ in Australia

The number one tennis player in the world, and reigning Australian Open champion, Novak Djokovic, was deported for the ‘thought-crime’ of being a symbol of those who opposed dystopian vaccine mandates.

According to the WSJ:

“Australia’s decision to cancel tennis star Novak Djokovic’s visa for a second time was driven by fear that letting him stay could foster antivaccine sentiment during a surge in Covid-19 cases, court documents show. Immigration minister Alex Hawke didn’t dispute Djokovic’s claim of a medical exemption from rules that travelers to Australia must be vaccinated against Covid-19, according to documents made public Saturday. Hawke, who canceled Djokovic’s visa on Friday, said allowing the player to stay could sway some Australians against getting vaccinated.”

[…] “Djokovic’s lawyer Nick Wood argued in a late-night court hearing on Friday that Hawke’s reasoning was flawed because he hadn’t considered that Djokovic’s deportation could have an impact on antivaccine sentiment.”

[…] “Hawke didn’t refute Djokovic’s contention that he posed a negligible health risk, documents showed. Djokovic has said his Covid-19 infection in December confers similar protection to a vaccine, the documents said.” [Australia Feared Letting Novak Djokovic Stay Would Fuel Antivaccine Sentiment, Stuart Condie, 15 Jan 2022″]

It is instructive to note that Djokovic was not finally deported for an invalid medical exemption (the Australian federal government ended up not questioning that validity in the final hearing), nor that he was a physical threat to others (as he tested negative for COVID), nor that he was unvaccinated (as he has “natural immunity” from previous COVID infections which exempts him from the vaccination).

Djokovic was deported because he may be seen as a symbol for “anti-vaccination sentiment” by the Federal government, according to Mr. Hawke, and that under section 133C(3) of the Migration Act he has the legal power to cancel the visa held by Djokovic “on health and good order grounds, on the basis that it was in the public interest to do so.”

Comments Mr. Hawke:

“Mr Djokovic is such a person of influence and status. Having regard to the matters set out above regarding Mr Djokovic’s conduct after receiving a positive COVID-19 result, his publicly stated views, as well as his unvaccinated status, I consider that his ongoing presence in Australia may encourage other people to disregard or act inconsistently with public health advice and polices in Australia.”

“In addition, I consider that Mr Djokovic’s ongoing presence in Australia may lead to an increase in anti-vaccination sentiment generated in the Australian community, potentially leading to an increase in civil unrest of the kind previously experienced in Australia with rallies and protests which may themselves be a source of community transmission.”

“These matters go to the very preservation of life and health of many members of the general community and further are crucial to the maintaining the health system in Australia, which is facing increasing strain in the current circumstances of the pandemic.”

(Note that in Australia’s population of those age 16 and over, more than 90 percent have been double vaccinated.)


This brings to my mind these wise words by Rav Arora:

“Honesty, nuance, and compassion are especially needed when it comes to personal health choices. We are only born with one body and we must make medically informed decisions at our own volition without governmental coercion or political pressure.”
Apparently not in the fascist state of Australia.

Avi Yemini has an excellent breakdown of the context surrounding his unjust deportation:

Related: Novak Djokovic: Global Standard Bearer for Body Autonomy

Adam Mossoff: Google’s Intellectual Property Theft Problem

Writes Adam Mossoff, in Big Tech has an IP piracy problem:

Years ago, Big Tech companies like Google decided that they profit more by stealing smaller companies’ intellectual property than buying or licensing it. Google, Apple, Samsung and others — with cash reserves in the tens, even hundreds, of billions of dollars — do not sweat legal fees, court costs or even damages they might have to pay for this theft. Google has a reported $142 billion in cash in the bank. This is far beyond what most companies make in total annual profits.

Big Tech thus takes what it wants. It then uses scorched-earth litigation tactics to beat up on complaining IP owners. It drags out litigation over many years and imposes massive litigation costs on IP owners seeking justice. Many IP owners don’t even file a lawsuit. They know it is ruinous and self-defeating to try to protect what is rightfully theirs.

Simply put, Big Tech benefits from stealing IP. The legal costs and potential damages, if ever issued after years of litigation, are paltry by comparison.

A few companies have fought back, and the results confirm this predatory infringement practice. The story of Google’s abuse of Sonos is one of the more telling ones.

Read the rest.

Image: Pixabay


Individual Rights: Paul Hseih Makes The Case Against Government Vax Mandates

In “Not Everyone Wants To Be Vaccinated. I’m OK With That“, Dr. Paul Hseih (who voluntarily chose to be vaccinated) writes:

For the record, I do not support making the vaccine legally mandatory. You have a right to decide what goes into your body. That’s one of the core principles of medical ethics – and of individual rights. As a corollary, others have the right to decide whether or how to interact with you in person, based on your decisions. A private business may choose to only allow vaccinated people to attend their indoor events, or a private employer may set vaccination as a condition for any in-person work with others. They also have that right.

And of course, everyone has a free speech right to encourage (or discourage) others to becoming vaccinated. Those who wish others to be vaccinated can make their best possible case in favor of the vaccine; those who oppose it can do likewise.

Paul Hseih also makes an interesting point, that just as the principle of individual rights means that private businesses (individuals) can require vaccination as a condition of employment (and association), they can also do the reverse:

For example, one private school in Florida is reportedly requiring that teachers not be vaccinated as a condition of employment, citing safety concerns. This is their right, and this is the flip side of a school’s right to require vaccination as a condition of employment. Similarly, media personality Joe Rogan has publicly encouraged young people not to get vaccinated. I don’t agree with these positions, but I respect their rights to express their views – and the rights of others to offer their best counterarguments (which many are doing.)

Ultimately, if the purpose of a vaccination campaign is to help the country return to “normal,” then a crucial part of that normal is a respect for individual rights and personal medical autonomy.

What about the case for vax mandates in legitimate government organizations, such as the police, military, and courts? That is a thorny issue, I lean on the side that the state can require such vaccines as a condition of employment, especially, in the case of the military (which is voluntary) to protect them from enemy viral attacks. (There could also be exemptions for those with natural immunity.)

Does Capitalism Have a Future?

Leftists utterly control American intellectual culture. They hate capitalism, seek to destroy it and replace it with socialism. Indeed they move regressively toward Communism. Does capitalism have a future? Mark Da Cunha, editor and publisher of Capitalism Magazine, joins Andrew Bernstein and Bosch Fawstin to discuss this critical question.

Binswanger: All Regulation is Over-Regulation

Conservatives complain about “over-regulation,” but all governmental regulation—regulation as such—is destructive and evil. Ayn Rand wrote that the premise of regulation is “the concept that a man is guilty until he is proved innocent by the permissive rubber stamp of a commissar or a Gauleiter.” Dr. Binswanger will argue that government must have “probable cause” before it can use force against someone—and he will discuss how this applies not only to business activity, but also to immigration, “public health” and gun ownership. Recorded live as part of The Objectivist Conference on August 31, 2021.

Ghate & Bayer: Roe vs Wade and the Right to Abortion

Philosophers Onkar Ghate and Ben Bayer have a timely discussion on Roe vs Wade and the right to abortion.

Topics covered include:

  • A brief history of abortion jurisprudence since Roe v. Wade;
  • Ayn Rand’s view of Roe and her support for abortion rights;
  • Why abortion rights are not grounded in a right to privacy;
  • Why activities don’t need to be concretely enumerated to be protected by fundamental rights;
  • Why we need abstract principles to state fundamental legal principles;
  • Why conservative sympathy for the reversal of Lochner v. New York implies a presumption in favor of government power;
  • Whether the potential to feel pain is the basis of rights;
  • How Roe v. Wade tries to balance competing interests, not to protect rights;
  • Why regarding life as sacred from conception is a baseless religious viewpoint;
  • Why it’s arbitrary to regard viability as the limit for justifiable abortion;
  • Whether religion or judicial philosophy motivates Justice Thomas;
  • Whether “individual responsibility” means a woman who chooses to have sex should carry a pregnancy to term;
  • The Supreme Court Justices’ unphilosophical approach.

Mentioned in the discussion are Leonard Peikoff’s essay “Abortion Rights Are Pro-Life,” Ben Bayer’s essays “Ayn Rand’s Radical Case for Abortion Rights” and “Science without Philosophy Can’t Resolve Abortion Debate,” and Tom Bowden’s “Justice Holmes and the Empty Constitution.”

An Open Letter to Elizabeth Warren on Natural Gas Prices

Senator Warren blamed natural gas CEOs for rising prices. Here’s how I would respond if I were them.

Dear Senator Warren,

Today, 12/7, is the deadline you gave natural gas CEOs to respond to your letter blaming them for rising natural gas prices—which you are in fact to blame for. Here’s how proud gas CEOs would answer you if they were not afraid of your political wrath.


Alex Epstein
Energy expert
Founder and President, Center for Industrial Progress Author of The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels and Fossil Future
Creator of

Tweet this | Email this

Dear Senator Warren,

In your letter you claim “concern about rising natural gas prices,” which you attribute to my and other “energy companies’ corporate greed.”

But if you want to avoid unnecessarily high gas prices, you must recognize that they are your fault, not ours.

There are three basic facts that explain unnecessarily high natural gas prices:

  1. Prices are determined by supply and demand, not “greed.”
  2. America has an effectively unlimited supply of gas.
  3. You and other anti-gas politicians have artificially restricted the supply of gas.


Fact 1: Prices are determined by supply and demand, not “greed.”

If we could control natural gas prices in our favor, why didn’t we do so during unprofitable 2015-20? Our profits are determined by a) the market price for our product and b) our efficiency.1

When prices go up, it is crucial that companies can profit for two reasons.

  1. We earned our profit through efficiency.
  2. Profits motivate and make possible investment, which lowers long-term prices.

Your railing against our profits is unjust and shortsighted.

Fact 2: America has an effectively unlimited supply of gas

Thanks to the shale revolution, aka “fracking,” which you have tried to ban, the US has enough natural gas to supply us and other nations for decades just with current technology—and for centuries with future technology.2

The only thing that can stop our industry from producing low-cost natural gas for America and the world—including the billions of poor people whose lives we improve—is politicians who coercively restrict our otherwise limitless ability to produce low-cost natural gas.

Fact 3: You and other anti-gas politicians have artificially restricted the supply of gas

When you and other anti-gas politicians place draconian restrictions on natural gas production and transport, and threaten to do far worse, supply goes down and prices go up.

The number one bottleneck to lower gas prices is a lack of pipelines and export facilities to transport natural gas from where it is drilled to markets throughout the US and around the world. You have contributed to this problem by avidly opposing pipelines and export facilities.3

Another major cause of unnecessarily high gas prices is a lack of investment in natural gas, caused by political threats to the future of natural gas. No one has threatened the future of natural gas more than you. You have even talked about imprisoning executives of our industry!4

The worst imaginable thing that could happen for natural gas prices is to ban fracking–which is a crucial technology for almost 80% of American natural gas. Yet you have advocated a policy of “ban fracking—everywhere.” Do you now see what a catastrophe this would be?5

Senator Warren, I am deeply disappointed that rather than doing the right thing and addressing your role in unnecessarily high natural gas prices, you are instead denying it and advocating a policy that will make things far worse: further restricting natural gas transport.

I must also add that your call to prevent the export of natural gas during a global energy crisis is particularly harmful. The American natural gas industry is, for millions of poor people around the world, their greatest hope to be able to heat their homes this winter.

Senator Warren, you owe the American public and our industry an apology for 1) your numerous actions to drive up the price of natural gas, 2) your denial of responsibility, and 3) your unjust attack on an industry that sustains billions of lives.


A Proud Gas Producer

You can read the letter in PDF form here and in talking point form here.

Here’s the Twitter version of my letter. If you use Twitter, please share it with Senator Warren (@SenWarren). If enough people bring attention to this letter there’s a good chance Senator Warren will feel compelled to respond.


1 U.S. Energy Information Administration – Natural Gas Prices

2 “On my first day as president, I will sign an executive order that puts a total moratorium on all new fossil fuel leases for drilling offshore and on public lands. And I will ban fracking—everywhere.”
“Most of the production increases since 2005 are the result of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing techniques, notably in shale, sandstone, carbonate, and other tight geologic formations.”
“The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates that in 2020, U.S. dry shale gas production was about 26.3 trillion cubic feet (Tcf), and equal to about 79% of total U.S. dry natural gas production in 2020.”



5 “On my first day as president, I will sign an executive order that puts a total moratorium on all new fossil fuel leases for drilling offshore and on public lands. And I will ban fracking —everywhere.”
“The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates that in 2020, U.S. dry shale gas production was about 26.3 trillion cubic feet (Tcf), and equal to about 79% of total U.S. dry natural gas production in 2020.”

Briley: Andrew Bernstein on The Threat of Race War

Philosopher Aaron Briley interviews Dr. Andrew Bernstein, philosopher and author of Heroes, Legends, Champions: Why Heroism Matters, about the rise of two destructive ideologies, how racism is making a cultural comeback, and what he thinks is the antidote to this ominous trend.

Dr. Bernstein has a four part series on the topic in Capitalism Magazine:

America’s Coming Race War: Capitalism’s Enemies Are Pushing America Toward a Race War (Part 1 of 4)
American collectivists/socialists are pushing the country toward race war.

America’s Coming Race War: The Contemporary American Left Embraces Racism (Part 2 of 4)
The contemporary hatred openly unleashed by the Marxist Left against whites–especially males–is eye-opening.

America’s Coming Race War: Post Modernism’s Monster Children The “Alt-Right” (Part 3 of 4)
Post-Modernism literally gave the most educated members of the generally ignorant white supremacist movement an au courant philosophy to intellectually bolster their racist beliefs.

America’s Coming Race War: Embracing Individualism Can Reverse The Racist Trend (Part 4 of 4)
We, the human race, must recognize the truth of–and embrace–the principle of color-blind individualism.