Quote of the Day
The simplest way to sum up modern progressive activists is this: they’re sociopaths who identify as empaths. Forever lecturing others about compassion, while themselves being brutally cruel.
This was never clearer than during Black Lives Matter mania, which saw almost the entire progressive elite pursue a frenzied vendetta against anyone suspected of ideological impurity.
Michael Deacon
November 7, 2025
Black Lives Matter made our elites lose the plot – and they’re finally starting to admit it
People wondered where it would end. Would the purity tests go as far as they did in the USSR? One never knows. Fortunately, some semblance of sanity gained traction and things turned around. I can see it at my employer. As near as I can tell anyone officially associated with the DEI staff, and many others only tangentially related, no longer work there. The scholarships which were only for “people of color” and the special mentoring programs only for women and minorities are all gone.
Then, the Democrat party paid a price for their involvement in the 2024 election. They are still paying. It remains to be seen if the debt will be repaid by the 2026 election. I’m not certain they have learned their lesson. Sociopaths are notoriously difficult to train. They can learn to not get caught, but changing their nature is an entirely different matter.
“The simplest way to sum up modern progressive activists is this: they’re sociopaths who identify as empaths. Forever lecturing others about compassion, while themselves being brutally cruel.”
Which makes them delusional. Poisoned food and 13 years + of brainwashing can have that effect on a person.
Toss in a societal structure, even one no wise based in reality.
And these unfortunate souls will feel right at home.
Let’s face it, not having someone around to hurt your feelings, feels good.
To me the real problem is with us, once again, we refuse to believe them to be who they are.
We refuse to act uncivil toward those that don’t give a wit for civility.
There is a good reason antifa stopped and turned around outside of Idaho during the BLM kerfuffle.
We need more of that.
They need to fear of God and well-armed Joe Normie again.
So about that “entire progressive elite”: it’s really not.
Now that you have me using Copilot regularly, I asked it to chime in. It says:
QUESTION: has any one in the “progressive elite” been critical of DEI?
ANSWER: Yes, several prominent figures within the progressive sphere have voiced nuanced or critical perspectives on DEI initiatives—especially regarding their implementation, effectiveness, and unintended consequences. These critiques often come from academics, policy analysts, and center-left think tanks rather than elected officials.
Notable progressive critiques of DEI:
– Richard D. Kahlenberg (Progressive Policy Institute): Kahlenberg argues that current DEI frameworks have alienated working-class voters, enforced ideological conformity, and neglected economic inequality. He proposes a shift toward “Integration, Equal Opportunity, and Belonging,” which emphasizes civic unity and class-based inclusion over race-essentialist approaches”
– Lee Jussim (Rutgers University psychologist): Jussim critiques the scientific basis and efficacy of diversity training, suggesting that many DEI programs may be counterproductive or ideologically driven. He points to weak evidence for microaggression training and questions whether diversity initiatives actually improve educational or workplace outcomes
– Peter Boghossian (philosopher and critic of ideological conformity): Though not a mainstream progressive, Boghossian has been influential in left-leaning academic circles. He argues that DEI often promotes ideological uniformity under the guise of inclusion, and that equity policies can lead to new forms of discrimination
– John McWhorter (Columbia University linguist): A self-described liberal who has criticized DEI for promoting race essentialism and suppressing dissent. He argues that some DEI efforts infantilize minority groups and undermine merit-based systems.
– Yascha Mounk (Johns Hopkins political scientist): While supportive of liberal democracy and inclusion, Mounk warns that DEI frameworks can erode civic unity and democratic norms when they prioritize identity over shared values.
– Zaid Jilani (journalist, formerly of The Intercept): Critiques DEI for being overly corporate and symbolic, often failing to address structural inequality. He’s skeptical of diversity training and race-based hiring mandates.
– Ruy Teixeira (Center for American Progress, now AEI): A longtime Democratic strategist who argues that DEI rhetoric and policies have contributed to political backlash and alienation among non-college-educated voters.
What was the time frame in which this awareness occurred?
McWhorter 2021, the others 2022, according to Copilot.
I don’t know about the others but Ruy Teixeira is an open apostate and has been for quite some time, certainly longer than 2022. Another point of caution about AI reliability.
” It remains to be seen if the debt will be repaid by the 2026 election.”
Nope. Don’t trust them. Keep them on the outside another decade or two until we’re sure.
I don’t trust any set of politicians for two decades. You want the Democrats out for that long? Okay. Then, rotate Libertarians or Constitutionalists into at least one branch of government for at least one term every few years.
Generally I’d like to agree with you, but experience says different. The GOP held the White House from 1980 to 1992, and as it turned out, the 1990s, although Clinton was in president, were not a left wing catastrophe, as reptilian as he and his wife were. Granted, they were not good times for Second Amendment activists, but that was largely because Clinton couldn’t make progress anywhere else, and in fact he ultimately failed there as well. In fact the uphill battles of the Nineties laid the foundation for the 2A victories of the past two decades.
I’ll accept Constitutionalists – especially strict Constitutionalists – any day of the week. Libertarians….well, they’re stuck out in the parking lot arguing about the width of the painted lines dividing parking spaces and whether those lines are sufficiently respectful of different vehicles. Amusing to watch, and politically deadly to deeply associate with.
But….Democrats are sociopaths, that’s been well estabished of late, especially with their current response to the Senate reaching a deal; they want power, only power, and will leverage anything to get it, no matter who, or how many, are hurt by it. “Blood on the floor,” politically speaking, is the default position for Democrats.
Republicans, aka “The RINO Brigade,” in Congress are only marginally better. They also want power, but it’s individual</i power, not the organizational power Dems strive so hard for, because Repubs are not unified in a single massive self-supporting block the way Group-Think Hive Mind Dems are.
I’d accept your proposal – the Representative and Senatorial “churn” the Foundng Fathers favored – were our society socially and politically healthy. Problem is, it’s not.
With Dems The Citizens have to be capable of applying sufficient pressure to drive Constitutionally based solutions, and that power must come from a unified citizen base and applied across the broad spectrum of what constitutes the Democrat Organization. In today’s America that is extremely difficult, and while not totally impossible, improbable to accomplish, certainly improbable over longer term. Trump became, and is, a unifying factor but just how many Trumps are there and can they be motivated to undergo the constant attacks he seems to thrive on (and remember, Trump is only a symptom, not a planned and delivered solution; there are more than a few offering that Trump constitutes the alternative to civil war, and I suspect there’s more than a small amount of truth in that).
Repubs, on the other hand, can be leveraged individually, and shifting several indviduals is considerably easier than doing so with the entire unified mass of Democrats. Indvidual Repubs respond to real threats of being voted out and witholding of campaign donations, trying the same with Dems only results in the Organized Mass uniting against the threat and moving money around to cover the shortfall. Not to mention the free advertising a Dem-friendly media provides 24X7, and the Taxpayer Supported Indoctrination Centers, aka “schools and universities”. . The Dems have an army of Soroses and Bloombergs eager to spend fortunes to gain power and leverage, Repubs – and especially the few real “conservatives” among them – seem to be woefully shortstaffed in that category.
So, yes, I’m in favor of sending Dems to the far reaches of the realm, at least until The Citizens can be reintroduced to the benefits of Constitutional Governance, and both understand and embrace it fully.
I doubt that can be achieved without a very bloody civil war, but I’m stil hopeful.
But the GOP did not hold all three branches of government from 1980 to 1992. And that is not two decades.
From 1989 to 1993, they didn’t hold any branch of government. Not really.
Pingback: Instapundit » Blog Archive » YEP, THAT’S THE LEFT: Sociopaths Who Identify as Empaths.
Pingback: “This Never Ends” – Newmark's Door