All of us, every single man, woman, and child on the face of the Earth were born with the same unalienable rights; to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And, if the governments of the world can't get that through their thick skulls, then, regime change will be necessary.
"The Democratic party is a collection of interests who want to remain in power. The Democratic Party is the party of government. Its goal is to allocate money and power from the government to the collection of interests who back the… pic.twitter.com/FjT0AK0NAj
David Sacks is one of the Silicon Valley billionaires who is now supporting Trump and helping to raise money for his campaign.
The Democratic party is a collection of interests who want to remain in power. The Democratic Party is the party of government. Its goal is to allocate money and power from the government to the collection of interests who back the Democratic Party. In other words, it’s basically a collection of interests who want to loot the Republic.
Well obviously, no one’s going to vote for that. So they have to make it about something else. They choose a figurehead, they talk about how this is about saving democracy. They basically invent, hoax after hoax, lie after lie to basically maintain their power.
And I think what’s happened is, the mask has come off, the whole shell game has been revealed. It’s obvious that Biden was always a puppet for these interests who were hiding behind him. And now, it’s all being exposed.”
Carl Jung was slandered as a mystic quack for much of the 20th Century
He proposed crazy ideas in fairness:
- a living "unconscious" that could speak to you...
- a shared ancestral imagination
But two modern developments in Neuroscience may have shown that his CRAZIEST ideas were correct...
The historical longhouse was a large communal hall, serving as the social focal point for many cultures and peoples throughout the world that were typically more sedentary and agrarian. In online discourse, this historical function gets generalized to contemporary patterns of social organization, in particular the exchange of privacy—and its attendant autonomy—for the modest comforts and security of collective living.
The most important feature of the Longhouse, and why it makes such a resonant (and controversial) symbol of our current circumstances, is the ubiquitous rule of the Den Mother. More than anything, the Longhouse refers to the remarkable overcorrection of the last two generations toward social norms centering feminine needs and feminine methods for controlling, directing, and modeling behavior. Many from left, right, and center have made note of this shift. In 2010, Hanna Rosin announced “The End of Men.” Hillary Clinton made it a slogan of her 2016 campaign: “The future is female.” She was correct.
As of 2022, women held 52 percent of professional-managerial roles in the U.S. Women earn more than 57 percent of bachelor degrees, 61 percent of master’s degrees, and 54 percent of doctoral degrees. And because they are overrepresented in professions, such as human resource management (73 percent) and compliance officers (57 percent), that determine workplace behavioral norms, they have an outsized influence on professional culture, which itself has an outsized influence on American culture more generally.
Richard Hanania has shown how the ascendance of the Civil Rights legal regime, and its transformation into the HR bureaucracy that manages nearly all of our public and private institutions, enforces the distinctly feminine values of its overwhelmingly female workforce. Thomas Edsall makes a similar case in the New York Times, emphasizing how female approaches to conflict and competition have become normative among the professional class. Edsall quotes evolutionary biologist Joyce Benenson’s summary of those approaches:
From early childhood onwards, girls compete using strategies that minimize the risk of retaliation and reduce the strength of other girls. Girls’ competitive strategies include avoiding direct interference with another girl’s goals, disguising competition, competing overtly only from a position of high status in the community, enforcing equality within the female community and socially excluding other girls.
Jonathan Haidt explains that privileging female strategies does not eliminate conflict. Rather it yields “a different kind of conflict. There is a greater emphasis on what someone said which hurt someone else, even if unintentionally. There is a greater tendency to respond to an offense by mobilizing social resources to ostracize the alleged offender.”
Nowhere is this more apparent than in the realm of free speech and the tenor of our public discourse where consensus and the prohibition on “offense” and “harm” take precedence over truth. To claim that a biological man is a man, even in the context of a joke, cannot be tolerated. Instead, our speech norms demand “affirmation.” We are expected to indulge with theatrical zealotry the preferences, however bizarre, of the never-ending scroll of victim groups whose pathologies are above criticism. (Note well, however, that the “marginalized” aren’t necessarily at home in the Longhouse, as evidenced whenever non-white leftist women decry the manipulative power of “white women’s tears.”) Further, these speech norms are enforced through punitive measures typical of female-dominated groups––social isolation, reputational harm, indirect and hidden force. To be “canceled” is to feel the whip of the Longhouse masters.
The emphasis on “feelings” is rooted in a deeper ideology of Safetyism. Jonathan Haidt and Greg Lukianoff, in their 2018 book The Coddling of the American Mind, define Safetyism as “a culture or belief system in which safety has become a sacred value, which means that people are unwilling to make trade-offs demanded by other practical and moral concerns.”
While Haidt and Lukianoff focus their analysis on proto-woke novelties like “trigger warnings” and “microaggressions,” the cult of Safetyism is best exemplified in our response to the pandemic. Think of the litany of violations of our basic rights to personal freedom and choice over the last two years that were justified on the basis of harm reduction. The economy, our dying loved ones, our faith practices, our children's education, all of it served up on the altar of Safetyism. Think of the Covid Karen: Triple-masked. Quad-boosted. Self-confined for months on end. Hyperventilating in panic as she ventures to the grocery store for the first time in a year. Then scolding the rest of us for wanting to send our kids back to school, and demanding instead that we all abide by her hypochondria, on pain of punishment by the bureaucratic state. This person—who is as often male as female—is the avatar of the Longhouse.
The implications of the Longhouse reach yet further across the social landscape. The Longhouse distrusts overt ambition. It censures the drive to assert oneself on the world, to strike out for conquest and expansion. Male competition and the hierarchies that drive it are unwelcome. Even constructive expressions of these instincts are deemed toxic, patriarchal, or even racist...
At the 11 minute time stamp Biden mixes up the math twice and then corrects himself: “We have a thousand trillionaires in America… five hundred million dollars.” Trillionaires and millionaires are all really billionaires, Baby!
At 11:50, Biden begins to falter. He has a “tell”. He says, “Look.” This is what he always states, when he enters a confused fog. He is looking for the thought in his jellied brain which produces jams. Jake Tapper quickly rescued him before he finished his thought by curtly interrupting and saying, “Thank you”.
But the brain freeze, the gait, the slight gape in the mouth are not the real story. The real story is the pressured speech; what seems like racing thoughts. Anxiety… chemically-induced… or has the NSA wired his toes to give an electrical impulse to his poor ‘noggin.
What everyone missed? The Commander-in-Chief has FTD – Frontotemporal Dementia.
How do I know? I know, because I was a registered nurse in a Neuro ICU for several years. I cared for individuals with deep brain trauma and injuries.
Go to the 1 hour and two minute mark on the video. Listen for the next 27 minutes for the words “the idea that”. The fourth time, he says “the idea is that”. But also, during a one minute span of speaking he uses the phrase twice; which I find astounding. Be patient. Listen for it. How many times does he use this repetitive phrase in less than thirty minutes?
Nobody addressed these things: the pressured speech, what seem like racing thoughts, and a POTUS with frontal lobe dementia. It is a sad day for our nation.
Some subtypes of frontotemporal dementia lead to changes in language ability or loss of speech. Subtypes include primary progressive aphasia, semantic dementia and progressive agrammatic aphasia, also known as progressive nonfluent aphasia.
These conditions can cause:
Increasing trouble using and understanding written and spoken language. People with FTD may not be able to find the right word to use in speech.
Trouble naming things. People with FTD may replace a specific word with a more general word, such as using "it" for pen.
No longer knowing word meanings.
Having hesitant speech that may sound telegraphic by using simple, two-word sentences.
Making mistakes in sentence building.
Movement conditions
Rare subtypes of frontotemporal dementia cause movements similar to those seen in Parkinson's disease or amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS).
What I am hearing regarding Joe Biden. Ron Klain and Barack Obama are having a sit down with the President today. Jill Biden is insistent that Joe runs. Kamala is furious that she is not being considered as a replacement (Whitmer and Newsom are). Interestingly my neighbor in…
Thirty minutes after Hamas supporters first set up their operation outside a Los Angeles synagogue, they maced their first Jew. And the Los Angeles police did nothing.
Not until an hour into the terrorist rally outside a synagogue, did the LAPD finally step in, pushing back masked Jihad supporters in keffiyeh terror scarves from the entrance of Congregation Adas Torah (Congregation of the Bible) which they had occupied.
And then the mob, chanting calls for “intifada” and the destruction of Israel, moved outward to target two smaller synagogues attended by Persian Jewish refugees from Islamic terror in Iran.
“Billions of us will come and kill you,” a heavily accented Middle Eastern man in a keffiyeh unprompted rasped at me as I walked up. Only dozens had actually shown up, but they made up for it with bullhorns, robotic chants, and assaults in the middle of a Jewish neighborhood.
The Jewish counterprotesters had come waving American and Israeli flags while the other side was a sea of terrorist flags. A man wore an Antifa cap, another had come in ski goggles during 90-degree heat, while others toted bear spray, metal bottles, and other implements of violence.
There is no archived version yet, and the Opinion piece is hidden behind a paywall, but at least you know it's all but official; they're out to topple Biden.
CNN reporter John King revealed Democrat donors and elected officials are panicking after Biden’s “abysmal” debate performance.
During CNN’s post-debate show, John King stated, “Right now, as we speak, there is a deep, wide, and very aggressive panic in the Democratic Party.”
King continued, “It started minutes into the debate, and it continues right now. It involves party strategists, It involves elected officials, it involves fundraisers, and they are having conversations about the president’s performance.”
Some of those conversations include: “Should we go to the White House and ask the president to step aside?” Others of the conversations are about “Should prominent Democrats go public with that call?” added King.
This was the saddest moment of the evening: Jill Biden came over to husband Joe at the end of the debate. As President Trump walked away unaided, Jill took Joe by the hand and slowly led him as he stiffly took the few steps from the podium to the edge of the stage where she then helped Joe down the four or five stairs in front so he could talk with the CNN debate moderators, Dana Bash and Jake Tapper.
MAJOR UPDATE: Democrats are panicking, even Hasie K*nt says so.
Kasie Hunt @kasie
The voice, open-mouthed look, and visual contrast between President Biden and former President Trump all have Democrats I'm talking to nearly beside themselves watching this debate
CNN's Jonathan Karl says Democrats are saying "Biden is so diminished it's undeniable now."
They're wargaming replacing him.
CNN commentators declaring panic.
"I don't think there's any way to slice it."
"A sense of shock," says Axelrod.
Posted by: Blonde Morticia's office
More CNN commentary:
"That was painful. He didn't do well at all." --Van Jones
Can someone remind me when Congress voted to authorize an offensive war against Russia? I can’t imagine even a small percentage of Americans supporting such belligerence against a nuclear power pic.twitter.com/aOmIsfXTvR
Supposedly they're merely "allowing" US companies to bid on contracts to "repair" weapons systems in Ukraine.
But almost all of the people skilled in such jobs, and willing to enter hellish foreign warzones, are US military personnel.
And I seem to remember a long history of US governments claiming that no US personnel will be engaged in fighting foreign wars, only to discover later that "ex"-military people were hired by the CIA to just do that in the capacity of "military advisors."
Sometimes you "advise" foreign troops about how to shoot at the enemy by actually shooting at the enemy yourself. Lead by example, you know?
Teach by doing. Show them how to fight their war by taking over their war for them.
And then, once US personnel were involved, the government would declare that now America's honor and flag were at risk, and we had to Commit Fully to fighting the Foreign Communist Threat.
Domino Theory, you know. We have to fight them over there before the dominoes fall and then we're fighting them in Duluth.
Governor of Massachusetts -- a Loud and Proud "Sanctuary State" -- Travels to Border to Tell Illegals Not to Come to Massachusetts
The governor of Massachusetts deployed state officials to border communities to warn illegal immigrants not to go to her state because the migrant shelters are already full, according to a report from Politico.
Democratic Gov. Maura Healey is sending five state officials to several Texas communities from Sunday through Wednesday to inform non-governmental immigration organizations and other border officials that her state's emergency system is too overwhelmed and cannot accept any more migrant families, according to Politico. The actions come despite state and local policies that largely qualify Massachusetts as a "sanctuary" jurisdiction.
"This trip is an important opportunity to meet with families arriving in the U.S. and the organizations that work with them at the border to make sure they have accurate information about the lack of shelter space in Massachusetts," L. Scott Rice, a retired U.S. Air Force lieutenant general the governor chose to lead the shelter system, stated to Politico.
"It is essential that we get the word out that our shelters are full so that families can plan accordingly to make sure they have a safe place to go," Rice continued.
See how much lefties care about illegal immigrants?
The Supreme Court just ruled in the Murthy v. Missouri case that the Biden Administration can coerce social media companies to censor and shadowban people and posts it doesn't like. Congress will now need to act to enforce the Constitution since the Sup. Ct. won't.
To me, Jay Battacharya is one of the biggest heroes to have emerged from the Pandemic. And he is so because of a very simple idea.
In the early days of the COVID epidemic (I'm talking in February, 2020 to April 2020) while the media was lying that COVID killed 3 and 4 percent of people who had it, Jay Battacharya quietly did the research to provide a real denominator for the numerator.
You see, you can only claim COVID was killing 3% or 4% of people IF YOU HIDE THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY HAD CONTRACTED COVID AND SURVIVED.
And Jay Battacharya, a Professor of Epidemiolgy knew that, so he went out and got the number.
Read the following.
This is the man the Supreme Court said needed to be censored by the Government.
We don't really have a Constitution anymore, people.
Prior to spring 2020, Jay Bhattacharya was a well-respected but little-known epidemiologist and Stanford Medical School professor. But when the COVID pandemic broke out that March, Dr. Bhattacharya was thrust into a leadership role as coauthor of the groundbreaking Santa Clara Study, one of the first comprehensive looks at how the disease spread and impacted populations, and as one of the principals behind the Great Barrington Declaration, one of the first public declarations questioning the lockdown policies then being instituted worldwide. His public interrogation of these policies made him a target of public health officials in the US and abroad—including Dr. Anthony Fauci of the CDC and Dr. Francis Collins at the National Institutes of Health in Washington, DC—and placed him in a media spotlight. In this interview, Dr. Bhattacharya reflects on those battles, what we learned, and how we might better manage future pandemics.
COVID-19 antibody seroprevalence in Santa Clara County, California
Abstract
Background: Measuring the seroprevalence of antibodies to Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is central to understanding infection risk and fatality rates. We studied Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)-antibody seroprevalence in a community sample drawn from Santa Clara County.
Methods: On 3 and 4 April 2020, we tested 3328 county residents for immunoglobulin G (IgG) and immunoglobulin M (IgM) antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 using a rapid lateral-flow assay (Premier Biotech). Participants were recruited using advertisements that were targeted to reach county residents that matched the county population by gender, race/ethnicity and zip code of residence. We estimate weights to match our sample to the county by zip, age, sex and race/ethnicity. We report the weighted and unweighted prevalence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2. We adjust for test-performance characteristics by combining data from 18 independent test-kit assessments: 14 for specificity and 4 for sensitivity.
Results: The raw prevalence of antibodies in our sample was 1.5% [exact binomial 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.1-2.0%]. Test-performance specificity in our data was 99.5% (95% CI 99.2-99.7%) and sensitivity was 82.8% (95% CI 76.0-88.4%). The unweighted prevalence adjusted for test-performance characteristics was 1.2% (95% CI 0.7-1.8%). After weighting for population demographics, the prevalence was 2.8% (95% CI 1.3-4.2%), using bootstrap to estimate confidence bounds. These prevalence point estimates imply that 53 000 [95% CI 26 000 to 82 000 using weighted prevalence; 23 000 (95% CI 14 000-35 000) using unweighted prevalence] people were infected in Santa Clara County by late March-many more than the ∼1200 confirmed cases at the time.
Conclusion: The estimated prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in Santa Clara County implies that COVID-19 was likely more widespread than indicated by the number of cases in late March, 2020. At the time, low-burden contexts such as Santa Clara County were far from herd-immunity thresholds.
In a study published Friday, the researchers, many of whom hailed from Stanford University, noted that the results suggest that Covid-19 could be far more widespread than the official counts suggest.
Specifically, they estimate that between 2.5% and 4.2% of people in Santa Clara County may have antibodies. (The range is a result of different models used to extrapolate the test results to a representative population.)
“These prevalence estimates represent a range between 48,000 and 81,000 people infected in Santa Clara County by early April, 50 (to) 85-fold more than the number of confirmed cases,” the authors wrote.
Antibody tests look for signs that a patient’s immune system has had a response after being infected with the virus. Such tests are by no means perfect indicators that a person has truly been exposed, and studies show that there are varying levels of quality. Some of the tests are providing false reassurance, while others are offering false answers. As scientists have stressed, having a positive antibody result does not mean the person is immune to the virus.
But such tests can be helpful to researchers looking to get a more accurate sense of how widespread the virus is.
TRANSCRIPT ONLY
Dr. Bhattacharya returns to discuss the results of a study testing for COVID-19 in Santa Clara County, California, and one currently underway in partnership with Major League Baseball. We also discuss some signs of hope and specifics about how the economy can be restarted safely and efficiently.
Tuesday, April 21, 2020
PeterRobinson: A month ago I interviewed my friend, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, a Professor of Medicine here at Stanford who holds both an MD and a Doctorate in Economics. That interview went viral. More than a million people have viewed it on the internet, clips appeared on news shows of every kind, and Jay tells me that even his mother down in Los Angeles called to say she had seen it. In that interview you may recall, in that interview, Dr. Bhattacharya said that he would be testing on COVID-19 here in Santa Clara county and back with us now to talk about the results, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya. Jay, thanks for making the time and welcome everybody to this special plague time addition of Uncommon Knowledge with Peter Robinson.
JayBhattacharya: Thanks, Peter. Nice to be here.
PeterRobinson: Jay, the results. I'm quoting from your study which is available today through :. Have I got that right? All right. It's available through: and I'm quoting. Quote "the population-weighted prevalence of antibodies" "among those who tested here in Santa Clara County, "was 2.81%. "This implies that the infection is much more widespread "than indicated by the number of confirmed cases." Close quote. And I read this study carefully for the bit that a layman had the best chance of understanding. You've got to explain this to us, Jay. What briefly the results and then tell us how you conducted this study.
JayBhattacharya: Why don't we start with that first just so everybody has the idea of what we did. We drew a sample of people from Santa Clara county. Basically using a Facebook targeted ad strategy. So if you got a Facebook ad from us we were basically inviting you to come do a quick finger-prick blood test to see if you have antibodies present. We looked at basically 3,200 people in this drive-through testing facilities that we set up on the fly.
PeterRobinson: We're recording this on Friday. This is earlier this week or late last week?
JayBhattacharya: About two weeks ago I think.
PeterRobinson: Two weeks ago, all right.
JayBhattacharya: And so yeah, they took the finger prick, and then we just looked to see if the finger prick test showed evidence of antibodies to COVID-19. Now, why is that important? Because those antibodies imply very strongly that you had COVID-19 previously. Some sort of infection with SARS-CoV-2 virus which is the technical way to put it. Now 2.8, actually the numbers run, but depending on your assumptions that we've made, somewhere between 2.8 and 4%, which doesn't sound like a lot. That means somewhere between 96 and 98% of people haven't got--
PeterRobinson: Sorry, I have to ask laymen questions here. That sample of 3,000 and some odd people, you designed the Facebook ads to make that sample as random or as representative of the entire county as possible? Is that, you're trying to get a result that implies something for the larger population, but it's the larger population of what? Of the county?
JayBhattacharya: County, right. Although that strategy worked very well to some extent, we also had to make some adjustments because a lot of the richer parts of the county, they respond to the ads in higher rate than the poor parts of the county, but we know how many people live in each of these rich and poor parts of town. So, anyone who showed up from a poor part of the county, we counted essentially more than people who showed up from poorer county so that when we did the final estimate it represents the entire county, rich and poor alike at the right proportions as opposed to over counting the rich. So then basically with that number, with that procedure, we figured out about somewhere between 2.8 and 4% of Santa Clara County has had evidence of COVID infection. So what does that mean? First thing, right around the time when we were doing this study, there had been about 1,000 cases of COVID found of COVID infection. Active SARS-CoV-2 infection found within the county.
PeterRobinson: Right.
JayBhattacharya: So there's about two million people in the county. If 4% have it, evidence of infection, that means that there's about 85 times more people who've had it per person that actually identified having it.
PeterRobinson: That's the critical finding.
Jay Bhattacharya: Yeah and if it's on the low end it'd be 2.8 it'd be 50 times. So for every single person that the healthcare system in Santa Clara County has identified as having the virus actively in them, there are 50 people out there who had it, and that never showed up with a test of positive test. The COVID infection is substantially more common in the population than we realized prior to the study.
So, that's what Jay Battacharya was censored for.
A Stanford Epidemiologist was censored by the authority of the Supreme Court, for making the results of his Scientific study known to the public.
Seriously, WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS SHIT?
It's time to pack it all in.
Almost impossible to overstate how wrong so many news corporations were on the science of covid: - lab leak as conspiracy - efficacy of lockdown - harmlessness of school closures - recovered immunity - toddler masking - vax mandates
It's not just that Fauci and company got the facts about immunity after covid recovery wrong. They used the vast power of the government to censor and marginalize those who got the facts right.
So now I know what it feels like to be the subject of a propaganda attack by my own government. Discussion and engagement would have been a better path. pic.twitter.com/p5tqigdRgg
On Sunday, a synagogue in the largest Jewish neighborhood in Los Angeles hosted a small, privately advertised event for those interested in purchasing homes or second homes in Israel. "The Great Israeli Real Estate Event" at Adas Torah synagogue wasn't political and it had nothing to do with the Gaza war. But within moments of its noon start time, it became the backdrop to the worst antisemitic violence in Los Angeles since an attack on Jewish diners at a restaurant in 2021.
Over the course of several hours, with dozens of LAPD officers decked out in riot gear largely staying out of the fray, around 100 pro-Hamas activists attacked, bear-sprayed, harassed, and brawled with Jews up and down Pico Boulevard.
The police occasionally stepped in, but their main activity Sunday afternoon seemed to ensure that the activists were able to successfully shut down the front entrance to the synagogue, ruin the event, and harass Jews more or less with impunity. Dozens of video clips from Sunday afternoon have been posted online (a good roundup is here). The striking thing about the footage is that despite the significant police presence, there is scant footage of the police forcefully intervening in the numerous fistfights, brawls, and beatings.
I had come to the synagogue with my kids not to get caught up in a street battle but to learn a bit about real estate in Israel. As violence across America has grown without much pushback--especially in cities where Jews live--many Jews are thinking about alternative plans, or at least exploring their options.
It turns out that Hamas sympathizers have been keeping close tabs on events hosted by synagogues in America. They knew about the event in advance, and were putting out calls on social media via groups like Code Pink and the "Palestinian Youth Movement" to mobilize their keffiyeh-clad thugs to show up at Adas Torah at "12PM SHARP" ready for action. The same groups that promoted Sunday's violence, it turns out, had also shown up at similar real estate events earlier this year in Toronto, Montreal, and Teaneck, New Jersey.
The social media posts about the event were designed to generate maximum mob outrage: "OUR LAND IS NOT FOR SALE! This Sunday, a real estate event will be marketing homes in 'anglo neighborhoods' in effort [sic] to further occupy Palestine," reads one post. One doesn't need to be a scholar of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to note that there is no distinction made here between Israel proper and disputed territories. To them, all of Israel is Palestine, all of Israel should be destroyed, and every home inhabited by a Jew on any part of this land is a crime.
These public social media posts are quite open about the goal of violence. "The Nakba is ongoing and must be confronted! FROM THE BELLY OF THE BEAST / NO JUSTICE, NO PEACE."
But I knew none of this when I loaded my kids into my car and headed over to "THE BELLY OF THE BEAST," an American synagogue. My wife, who was out running errands, would meet us there.
[A]s I got closer, the truly meaningful spectacle came into view: behind the phalanx of LAPD, on the sidewalk in front of the synagogue, were the Hamas supporters. When I walked up to the police with my boys and asked if I could enter the synagogue, they told me not to come any closer and said that I should leave.
I asked calmly but incredulously, "Shouldn't you be making sure this place stays open?" The reply was: "You should leave."
Police were unwilling to confront, arrest, and prosecute bad actors. Jews were being policed in the name of "safety." In Los Angeles and other big cities, and on many elite campuses, the message from authorities is essentially: things would be so much easier if you stayed off campus, avoided the library, didn't go to your synagogue, and overall just stayed away from the mobs that regularly gather to confront you.
It's important to note that this approach applies only to certain kinds of people. If a hundred masked Christian Republicans, say, had gathered in front of a Los Angeles mosque on Sunday and assaulted Muslims, we would now be several days into a national news cycle about Islamophobia and injustice in America. There would be joint LAPD-FBI task forces kicking down doors, and press conferences, vigils, presidential speeches, and multipart investigative reports from numerous leading publications.
