Duke Lacrosse Accuser Confesses that She Made it All Up

"Believe women" was always an idiotic principle. The only principle we should ever follow is Believe Evidence. Back in 2006, DNA exonerated these three men, but the DA forged ahead anyway. Then the media credulously jumped on the bandwagon because the false story fit their male-bashing race-baiting narrative. Now the woman who falsely accused these three innocent men has confessed that she made the entire thing up (She is now in prison for murder of her boyfriend in 2016).

This article by Ted Balaker is titled: “I testified falsely”Woman who accused three Duke lacrosse players of rape admits she lied. Excerpt from this article: "The court threw out the charges, DA Mike Nifong was disbarred, and the students forced Duke into a settlement for defamation."

Ten years ago, I produced a documentary short for FIRE that features K.C. Johnson, co-author of the book Until Proven Innocent: Political Correctness and the Shameful Injustices of the Duke Lacrosse Rape Case. Here’s how Johnson summarized the episode:

This was a case that served different agendas of differing groups. For [the DA] Mike Nifong, he wanted guilt because it would help his cause in the primary. For the Duke faculty members, portraying their own students as racist advanced an on-campus agenda of making more hires dealing with race, class, and gender, and requiring more courses in race, class, and gender.

And for The New York Times, this was a case that fit very much the basic assumptions of a typical Times journalist that white, male athletes were out of control, with both sexual and racial connotations, and that advancing this would sort of advance a broader ideological agenda of The Times. And so it was almost a perfect storm of a case in which a variety of different groups could exploit the case for their own purposes

.

Continue ReadingDuke Lacrosse Accuser Confesses that She Made it All Up

Corporate Media Outlets Ignore New Study Questioning Effectiveness of DEI

Study concluding that DEI is ineffective, and perhaps counterproductive, ignored by "news" media because it runs against the prevailing narrative. This excerpt is from Colin Wright's article: "Why Was This Groundbreaking Study on DEI Silenced? Two leading media organizations abruptly shelved coverage of a groundbreaking study that went against their narrative":

In a stunning series of events, two leading media organizations—The New York Times and Bloomberg—abruptly shelved coverage of a groundbreaking study that raises serious concerns about the psychological impacts of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) pedagogy. The study, conducted by the Network Contagion Research Institute (NCRI) in collaboration with Rutgers University, found that certain DEI practices could induce hostility, increase authoritarian tendencies, and foster agreement with extreme rhetoric. With billions of dollars invested annually in these initiatives, the public has a right to know if such programs—heralded as effective moral solutions to bigotry and hate—might instead be fueling the very problems they claim to solve. The decision to withhold coverage raises serious questions about transparency, editorial independence, and the growing influence of ideological biases in the media.

The NCRI study investigated the psychological effects of DEI pedagogy, specifically training programs that draw heavily from texts like Ibram X. Kendi’s How to Be an Antiracist and Robin DiAngelo’s White Fragility. The findings were unsettling, though perhaps not surprising to longstanding opponents of such programs. Through carefully controlled experiments, the researchers demonstrated that exposure to anti-oppressive (i.e., anti-racist) rhetoric—common in many DEI initiatives—consistently amplified perceptions of bias where none existed. Participants were more likely to see prejudice in neutral scenarios and to support punitive actions against imagined offenders. These effects were not marginal; hostility and punitive tendencies increased by double-digit percentages across multiple measures. Perhaps most troubling, the study revealed a chilling convergence with authoritarian attitudes, suggesting that such training is fostering not empathy, but coercion and control.

The implications of these findings cannot be downplayed. DEI programs have become a fixture in workplaces, schools, and universities across the United States, with a 2023 Pew Research Center report indicating that more than half of U.S. workers have attended some form of DEI training. Institutions collectively spend approximately $8 billion annually on these initiatives, yet the NCRI study underscores how little scrutiny they receive. While proponents of DEI argue that these programs are essential to achieving equity and dismantling systemic oppression, the NCRI’s data suggests that such efforts may actually be deepening divisions and cultivating hostility.

Wrighty's article includes details of the study, showing strongly that exposure to DEI causes people to be more divisive. In short, DIE does the opposite of what it pretends to do. Yet, major news outlets that have often reported on work by the Network Contagion Research Institute (NCRI) refuse to report on this particular study, despite the widespread implementation of DEI and the potential widespread harm caused gy these programs.

Continue ReadingCorporate Media Outlets Ignore New Study Questioning Effectiveness of DEI

Recommended Documentary Focused on the Flaws of DEI: “Am I a Racist?”

What's wrong with simply rewarding people based on merit? What's wrong with hiring and promoting those who excel? Many prominent DEI advocates are horrified by this idea. They divide all people into two (count'm, two) "colors" and urge us to treat people in special ways based on their "colors." In his the new documentary "Am I a Racist," Matt Walsh goes undercover to demonstrate many of the deep flaws of modern day DEI. This includes a surreal interview with today's best-known modern-day practitioner of racecraft, Robin DiAngelo.

Continue ReadingRecommended Documentary Focused on the Flaws of DEI: “Am I a Racist?”

Why Martin Gurri is Voting for Trump

Martin Gurri's thoughtful analysis of the considerable flaws of both candidates. The Founders of this Country must be weeping in their graves.

"Kamala Harris or Donald Trump—the empty pantsuit of elitism or the eternal master of disaster? We must pick one or the other on November 5."

Here is Gurri's overview of the Democrats:

There are only two vital forces in American politics today: those who wish to control everything, and those who wish not to be controlled. The antagonists are roughly equal in number but vastly disproportionate in strength. True to its nature, one side controls virtually all the institutions that hedge the life of the voters. Also true to its nature, the other side spends most of the time fighting with itself.

The forces of control own the White House, the Senate, the media, the universities, the mainstream churches, the federal and state bureaucracies, most corporations, most digital platforms, and the entirety of American culture. Homegrown control freaks can also rely on assistance from Control International, the cabal of like-minded elites that runs the United Nations, the European Union, and any number of nation-states from Britain to Brazil.

Why the itch to control? Nietzsche would explain it as pure will to power, and that’s a perfectly adequate account.

The Democratic Party is the party of control.

Excerpt re Harris:

So here is the most compelling reason I will be voting against Harris and the Democrats in November. I was born in Cuba. I recognize the stench of hypocrisy emanating from those who conceal lust for power behind a buzz of salvationist jargon.

If the control accumulated by the administration had been used for good—if the world were calm and at peace, say, or the American public brought to unity as was promised—we might have been convinced it has some merit. But there’s a reason Biden is no longer on the ballot. There’s a reason Harris is running away from her administration’s policies. At home and abroad, the last four years have been a rolling disaster—and the voters know it. This crowd understands institutional control and nothing else. Out in the world, failure has been habitual, horrendous, epic in its dimensions.

Where to begin? For motives I am hard put to explain, the Biden-Harris people encouraged millions of illegal aliens to swarm into our urban centers. They mismanaged the response to the Covid-19 pandemic, relying (naturally) on harmful school closures, lockdowns, and mandates, all based on contrived falsehoods, and they utterly botched the persuasion campaign for the vaccines. They inflated, indebted, and overregulated the economy. They spent trillions but were unable to build or achieve much beyond a handful of charging stations: We can guess where the money went. They promoted grotesque stereotypes based on race and sexual preference, a policy that sowed division and reaped distrust...

China is aggressively expanding its military, particularly its navy, even as our own military has atrophied because of antique equipment and low enlistment rates. We can’t even deploy all our warships because we lack the personnel to do so.

There are too many leaks in the dike and not enough fingers—not to mention an absolute dearth of strategic thinking to identify where our priorities lie in a dangerous world.

This, then, is my secondary reason for voting against Harris. I’m not sure we can survive four more years of such toxic levels of incompetence.

Harris is not helped by her recent interviews. Brett Baier tells her the numbers: 79% of Americans think the country is on the wrong track and you and Joe Biden have been in charge for the past 3 1/2 years. Harris: It's Trump's Fault.

Continue ReadingWhy Martin Gurri is Voting for Trump