Posted on | November 30, 2015 | 3 Comments
— compiled by Wombat-socho
OVER THE TRANSOM
EBL: GOPe Panic
American Irony: The Liberal Insult Generator
The Political Hat: Modern Educayshun
Doug Powers: Former NYC Mayor With Multiple Mansions And Jets Calls Ted Cruz “Crazy” For Not Accepting Climate Change “Reality”
Twitchy: Oklahoma Wesleyan President Applauded For Wake-Up Call to Special Snowflakes
RIPPED FROM THE HEADLINES
American Power: Oxford U. Women’s Rugby Team Strips Down For Charity
American Thinker: Islam, Rape, And The Fate Of Western Women
Conservatives4Palin: The Curious Case Of Black Advocates And MSM Hate For Dr. Ben Carson
Don Surber: If Abortion Is A Right, Why Can’t CNN Say It?
Jammie Wearing Fools: In Effort To Fight So-Called Climate Change, Obama Recycles Dire Predictions
Joe For America: Rahm Emanuel Should Resign Now
JustOneMinute: The Most Transparent Administration EVER!
Pamela Geller: Police – U. Missouri Professor Beat Teenage Relative For Not Wearing Hijab
Protein Wisdom: And As 2015 Draws To A Close, We Have Another Darwin Award Nominee! Congrats California!
Shot In The Dark: Komissar Kim Norton, MkKarthyist
The Gateway Pundit: 14,000 Illegal Immigrants Disappear From Sweden Without A Trace
The Jawa Report: Um Jihadi Not Proud
The Lonely Conservative: Good News – Judge Rules Against Teenager’s Global Warming Lawsuit
This Ain’t Hell: Gun Control And The Colorado Springs Shooting
Weasel Zippers: More Than A Year After His Death, Michael Brown Lies Without A Headstone
Megan McArdle: What Really Scares Helicopter Parents
Mark Steyn: Premature Explodiation
Posted on | November 30, 2015 | 43 Comments
Progressives only have one good trick, and men keep falling for it.
They keep calling you a coward, so that you’ll do or say whatever they want to prove that you are not a coward.
If they want you to accept a group of outsiders, they call you a xenophobe to dismiss any rational concerns you might have about the motivations of strangers. . . .
If you reject any demand made by any woman, you’re “just afraid of a strong woman.” This accusation has been repeated so many times that a substantial portion of the population actually seems to believe that men are at the very core of their being constitutionally terrified by any woman with “attitude.” . . .
You can read the whole thing. The claim that critics of feminism are afraid of “strong women” is as easy to disprove as this: Have you ever met my wife? Or, have you ever seen my wife angry? Trust me, you don’t want to see her angry. Yet my wife is also cheerful, kind-hearted and generous, whereas feminists are resentful, cruel and selfish — they are simply bad people, which is why everybody hates feminism. It is a shabby hustle, a three-card monte game, for unhappy women to claim that their anti-social personality traits are actually virtues.
Feminists routinely engage in moral reversals, psychological projections, and self-serving rationalizations. The woman whose hostile, domineering, my-way-or-the-highway attitude makes her unpopular — she had few friends in childhood and, as an adult, is often alienated from her parents and siblings — resorts to the flattering rationalization that she is “strong,” and that others are envious or fearful of her strength. Similarly, a feminist will rationalize her promiscuity as “empowering” and claim that anyone who disapproves of such whorishness is envious or fearful of women’s sexual power. Perhaps the greatest of these fraudulent tropes, however, is the feminist’s claim that her membership in an identity-politics groupthink mob — the True Believer in a Mass Movement rigidly defined by a collectivist ideology — proves how independent-minded she is! What is most insulting about feminist tactics (which very much resemble DARVO Syndrome) is their arrogant assumption that the rest of us are so stupid we can’t see through their bogus intellectual three-card monte hustle.
— Robert Stacy McCain (@rsmccain) November 30, 2015
An experimental suggestion: Go on Twitter and send a link to this post to a prominent feminist — Jaclyn Friedman, Laurie Penny, Amanda Marcotte, et al. — and ask her to respond to it. Does she deny that the feminist movement is a three-card monte hustle wherein unhappy women use reversals, projections and rationalizations to explain their own misery, to justify their own anti-social traits and to excuse their own failures by shifting blame to others? In other words, impugn her motives, just as feminists do to their critics — whom they invariably accuse of “misogyny” and other such Thought Crimes — and see if she is willing and able to defend herself against accusations of intellectual fraud.
Good luck with your experiment. After the feminist blocks you on Twitter, you might try logging out of your account and checking her timeline to see if she’s complaining about “harassment,” which is a feminist synonym for criticism. Feminism is always a lecture and never a dialogue. The feminist is a totalitarian, who is never willing to debate her critics, but instead always seeks to silence her critics.
It is entirely rational to fear feminism, as anyone must fear the sound of jackboots marching through streets covered in broken glass.
To truly understand feminism, begin by reading Eric Hoffer's classic on totalitarian psychology, THE TRUE BELIEVER. https://t.co/W2AiiVSOHq
— Robert Stacy McCain (@rsmccain) November 30, 2015
— Robert Stacy McCain (@rsmccain) November 30, 2015
Why are feminist leaders such awful people? F.A. Hayek explains this in Chapter 10: "Why the Worst Get on Top." https://t.co/PpF05NhEkI
— Robert Stacy McCain (@rsmccain) November 30, 2015
Opposition to feminism is not a result of ignorance, but of knowledge, arising not from an irrational “phobia,” but from an understanding of what deceitful monsters feminists truly are.
+ + + + +
My research into radical feminism is funded by readers in response to the Five Most Important Words in the English Language:
Whatever you give — $5, $10, $20 — is most sincerely appreciated.
Posted on | November 29, 2015 | 7 Comments
— compiled by Wombat-socho
As promised, the post-Thanksgiving Rule 5 Sunday contains no turkeys (well, none that I know of, though EBL may have tucked a few mutants into her links) but instead a fine collection of pulchritudinous Ducks, namely the young ladies of the University of Oregon’s cheerleading squad. As usual, many of the links below lead to pages that may be NSFW; the management is not responsible for any ill effects on your relationships, employment, or wrist joints caused by clicking on those links at the wrong time – or at any time, for that matter.
Leading off this week is Politically Incorrect Conservative, who serves up Rule 5 Texas BBQ style, and also second helpings. Goodstuff chips in with Diana Rigg and the golden age of futurism with Sharon Stone. At Ninety Miles from Tyranny, it’s Morning Mistress, Hot Pick of the Late Night (with bonus beautiful gals!) and Girls with Guns; second helpings were also served up: Morning Mistress (Patriotic Double Trouble!), Hot Pick of the Late Night, and more Girls With Guns. Animal Magnetism had Rule 5 Friday I and II (has atlatl content), as well as the Saturday Gingermageddon with extra ginger. The Last Tradition serves up Eva Marcille, Gigi Hadid, Emanuela De Palma, and Anna Lynne McCord. First Street Journal proclaims Vive le France! and carries on with the Marseillaise.
A View from the Beach brings us Another Fish Monger – Luiza Barros, The Ginger Terror Threat, Broomstraw Controversy Roils Curling World, “Bartender”, Wednesday Wakeup, Gone Fishing. . ., Misremembering the 90s, Interpol Chief Commits Heresy, Can the Redskins Defrock the Saints?, “Wherever Is Your Heart”, Holy Cannoli – Elisabetta Canalis, Jeggings?, Have a Good Thanksgiving!, I Just Hope This Doesn’t Affect Clothing Sales, False Advertising, Sci-Fi Sweety Hit With Alimony and Child Support, How Sarah Palin Made Adele a Star, Can the Redskins Defang the Panthers?, and “Crossing Muddy Waters”.
Soylent Siberia serves up your weekly coffee creamer at the Bistro D’Bodaciousness, Monday Motivationer Easy Rider, Tuesday Titillation Indira, Humpday Hawtness Rachel, Vintage Fursday Classic Monique, Latent Lingerie with Cocktails, T-GIF Friday, Weekender Clam Buffet, and Bath Night with Leonard’s Lesbians. For an encore, Military Bearing, Monday Motivationer Penthouse View, Tuesday Titillation, Humpday Hawtness Kimber, Have A Soylent Thanksgiving!, Latent Lingerie, and Weekender Archetype.
Proof Positive’s Friday Night Babes were Paulette Goddard and Hope Solo, his Vintage Babes were Ingrid Pitt and a squad of seven, Sex in Advertising was covered by Elsa Pataky and Marilyn Monroe, plus the obligatory 49ers cheerleaders for the bye week and week 12! At Dustbury, it was Mary Nolan, Taraji Henson, Rakul Preet Singh, and Chase Kennedy.
Thanks to everyone for their linkagery! Dealine to submit links to the Rule 5 Wombat mailbox for next week’s Rule 5 roundup is midnight on Saturday, December 5.
Posted on | November 29, 2015 | 15 Comments
The apocalyptic candidate scene has been roiled by recent news events and polling, with SMOD and Cthulhu suffering brutal, senseless damage to their support. SMOD campaign manager Magnus McCrater was doing a minor version of that sweet meteor’s meltdown with the news of the new apocalyptic candidate, Moloch: “What is this cheap piece of human manufacture, this Moloch? How can a candidate focus on the votes of people that are denied legal status of any sort, much less the vote?”
Cthulhu’s campaign was equally derisive, we think, if High Priest Mephistopheles von Badenworsen is to be understood. By anyone sane: “Oh, sure, you fools can get a piece of the rock [SMOD], and you can dally with the iron stove that eats kids [Moloch], but rest assured, Cthulhu will devour all of you, body, mind, and soul! Ph’nglui mglw’nafh Cthulhu R’lyeh wgah’nagl fhtagn! Ahahahahahah!”
What, precisely, are they worried about? A recent Spew poll in Iowa shows that the comparatively young candidate Moloch, only being as old as recorded history, surging in popularity, with:
Undecided, but committed to nihilism in general: 15%
Cutting open a few voters to look at the steaming internals, the reasons were as messy as the entrails:
- Moloch has a strong track record of delivering death, with well over 50 million slain since Roe v. Wade in 1973. Piled on top of a heap of small human parts at his Planned Parenthood altars, Moloch has found turning name recognition into support a trivial exercise.
- Cthulhu is as old as time. SMOD is thought to be relatively young on the geologic time scale. The SMBH, while malevolent on a galactic scale, is mostly a talking point for astrophysicists who’ve suffered bad divorces. Moloch, then is the O’Malley of the doomsday set. (We should note that the Doomsday Machine, itself, is rumored to be courted by more than one campaign in a Vice Presidential/cleanup role.)
- The SMOD’s tragectory is still being recalculated; it’s by no means certain that The Asteroid can make the inaugural, especially with that little wedgie and the flying saucers shooting at it.
- Meanwhile, Cthulhu’s High Priest states that Cthulhu’s Atrocity Accounting staff is still quibbling over American involvement in destabilizing the Middle East. At issue is whether that means ISIS atrocities can be counted in the overall senseless destruction needed to wrest Cthulhu from his malevolent dreaming in time to campaign. Supporters retaining a modicum of sanity are starting to wonder if Cthulhu is in it to win it in 2016, or merely offering a diabolical tease.
This blog, while previously a staunch Cthulhu supporter (lesser evils being such a bore) has shifted support to Moloch:
— MOLOCH (@MOLOCH_GOD) November 29, 2015
Posted on | November 29, 2015 | 23 Comments
. . . because, obviously, most of them are sincere in their desire to destroy Western civilization as we know it. However, we cannot ignore the way campus “diversity” operates as a shakedown racket:
With their campuses rocked by social justice protests, anxious Ivy League presidents are trying to appease campus radicals with huge payouts to left-wing identity programs. Peter Salovey, the president of Yale, apologized to protesters (“we failed you”) and wrote a campus-wide letter promising to create a new “university center” for the study of “race ethnicity, and other aspects of social identity.” He also pledged to double the budget for the African American, Native American, Asian American, and Hispanic cultural centers, and to devote new resources to “educating our community about race, ethnicity, diversity, and inclusion.”
Not to be outdone, Brown University President Christina Paxson has answered protests by unveiling a $100 million program for creating “a just and inclusive campus community.” Among the budget items: “expand mentoring resources for students of color, LGBTQ+ students, and first generation college students”; create “workshops” to “foster greater awareness and sensitivity on issues of race, ethnicity, sexual orientation and gender identity and expression”; and “promote university-wide research and academic programming on Power, Privilege, Identity and Structural Racism.”
There is no doubt that there is still racism, sexism, and homophobia on college campuses, just as there is everywhere else in our society. But the idea that it can be stamped out with still more diversity training, still more cultural centers, and still more identity studies programs is a fantasy.
What makes me the most angry about this is that every intelligent person should be able to recognize this “social justice” hustle for the phony scam it so obviously is. Anyone who has read Tom Wolfe’s 1970 classic Radical Chic and Mau-Mauing the Flak Catchers understands how this bogus game operates and, as Friedrich Hayek so eloquently explained, “social justice” is a mirage. There is no such thing as “social justice,” which is why SJWs Always Lie.
The politics of “Equality” is fundamentally dishonest, because human beings have never been equal at any time in the past, nor is it possible that we will be equal at any time in the future. Activists and politicians who promise to bring about “equality” through social-engineering schemes and so-called “progressive” economic policies are engaging in deceit that begins with the false assumption that every kind of inequality is evidence of injustice. It’s wrong for some people to have more than others, the “progressive” would have us believe. To quote Ronald Reagan: “We have so many people who can’t see a fat man standing beside a thin one without coming to the conclusion the fat man got that way by taking advantage of the thin one.”
Question: What percent of students at Ivy League universities have ever watched a video of that 1964 speech?
Probably about the same percentage who know who Friedrich Hayek is, which I’m going to guess is a tiny single-digit minority. Our nation’s elite universities are home to some of the most ignorant people on the planet.
Posted on | November 29, 2015 | 91 Comments
Aloof. Angry. Alienated. Robert Lewis Dear Jr. was a dangerous kook, who inspired fear among his neighbors in North Carolina:
“He was the kind of person you had to watch out for,” one neighbor said. “He was a very weird individual. It’s hard to explain, but he had a weird look in his eye most of the time.” . . .
In Anderson Acres, neighbors said they recognized Dear from television news coverage of Friday’s shootings, in which police said he killed three people, including a police officer, and wounded nine others. They said he looked more beaten down than the last time they had seen him, and that his beard was new — but that he was the same aloof, angry man they remembered. . . .
“He complained about everything,” said another neighbor who, like others, spoke on the condition of anonymity, saying that he feared for his security. “He said he worked with the government, and everybody was out to get him, and he knew the secrets of the U.S.A. He said, ‘Nobody touch me, because I’ve got enough information to put the whole U.S. of A in danger.’ It was very crazy.” . . .
“He was weird. Everyone kept an eye on him.” . . .
“He was really tightly wound. You could see that from the stress on his face, from the way he acted.”
The paranoid weirdo had a record of frightening behavior:
He had a history of run-ins with neighbors and police, including arrests for alleged cruelty to animals and allegedly being a “peeping Tom.” He was not convicted in either case.
Pamela Ross . . . was married to Dear nearly 20 years ago. . . .
Dear’s problems with the law date to 1997, when his then-wife reported to police that Dear had assaulted her, according to reports filed with the sheriff’s office in Colleton County, S.C., where Dear lived at the time. She declined to file charges against him but told police she reported the incident because she “wanted something on record.”
Colleton County police released reports of at least seven other episodes in which Dear . . . had disputes or physical altercations with neighbors or other residents. . . .
In May 2002, a woman who lived next door to Dear in Walterboro, in Colleton County, complained to police that Dear had been “making unwanted advancements” toward her since she and her husband had moved in a year earlier.
The woman told police that she had seen Dear hiding in the bushes next to their house at 5:30 a.m. She “heard her guard dog barking and saw Mr. Dear looking into her house.” . . .
[In North Carolina, another] neighbor said that Dear would carry a stick as he rode his trail bike, and he would slow down and try to bait dogs in the area. He also said that Dear swung the stick at his dog several times.
The neighbors said that Dear’s behavior seemed to change last year, and he seemed angrier.
“The last time I saw him, I waved and smiled. He just stared and glared back at me. It was disconcerting,” one said.
Cruelty to animals, incidentally, indicates a high risk of psychopathic disorder. So, how did this scary nutjob — who had so frequently come to the attention of law enforcement in South Carolina and North Carolina — make his way to Colorado?
Dear moved to Colorado last year, when he bought a five-acre plot of land in Hartsel, about 40 miles west of Colorado Springs, according to Jim Anderson, the real estate agent who brokered the deal. The previous owner said that Dear paid $6,000 for the vacant land.
“He said he wanted a cheap piece of land to put a camper on,” Anderson said. . . .
Anderson also said that Dear arrived with a woman, but he did not know her name. Colorado records show that Stephanie Michelle Bragg was registered to vote at the same address earlier this year.
Her ex-husband, Michael Bragg, said she moved to Colorado with Dear about a year ago. Michael Bragg said he had two daughters, ages 19 and 15, with Stephanie Bragg, who had worked as a waitress at a Waffle House. Bragg said he believed that his ex-wife met Dear online.
Great. A divorced Waffle House waitress goes online looking for love and finds this weirdo loner. This connection somehow leads him to Colorado and now three people are dead. How many times have I warned against “online dating”? Not often enough maybe. But I have repeatedly warned that Crazy People Are Dangerous:
You let enough kooks run around loose — as has been the policy in this country since we de-institutionalized the mentally ill in the 1970s — and people adjust their expectations. People become accustomed to encountering weirdos, freaks and lunatics, jabbering madness to themselves on street corners or posting deranged nonsense on Tumblr blogs. You’re not even supposed to notice there is anything strange about these wild-eyed nutjobs roaming around with facial piercings, tattoos and purple hair.
That was my warning in July after Tyrelle Shaw, a/k/a “Mr. Talented,” was arrested for a series of attacks on Asian women. I issued similar warnings in connection with Dallas shooter James Boulware, mass murderer Aaron Alexis, psychotic professor Deborah Frisch, notorious stalker Diana Napolis (a/k/a “Curio Jones) and many other similar cases. Our society has been persuaded by liberals that the demented and deranged should never be criticized because criticism might hurt their feelings. Wackos and lunatics are very sensitive people, we are required to believe, and deserve our sympathy. We should never be afraid of these psychotic misfits, according to liberals who are eager to convince us that maladjusted loners are perfectly harmless.
Liberals tell us it is heartless and “mean-spirited” to suggest that public safety would be best served if mentally ill people with histories of dangerous behavior were locked up in psychiatric wards. Americans are told that it’s OK to let delusional and antisocial freaks roam around free in our society, because what could possibly go wrong?
When one of these dangerous kooks who roam among us finally commits an act of crazy violence, however, liberals quickly rush to tell us that his insane actions have some kind of political significance and that the proper response to this atrocity is — wait for it — more liberalism. Another crazy killer, therefore, vote Democrat!
Liberalism would be laughable, if it were not so deadly.
Reminder: Crazy people are dangerous. https://t.co/OnsyWqSIHl
— Robert Stacy McCain (@rsmccain) November 28, 2015
— Robert Stacy McCain (@rsmccain) November 29, 2015
Posted on | November 28, 2015 | 1 Comment
— compiled by Wombat-socho
Top linker this week:
- Batshit Crazy News (11)
This is what I get for taking a weekend off around here. Next time I’ll pack my laptop and get some work in while I’m on the road, even if it’s only the FMJRA and Rule 5 Sunday, which were clearly missed.
Posted on | November 28, 2015 | 38 Comments
The question is: why? What caused the decline? We may attribute it to many causes, and surely many have contributed. But one above all strikes me. Not merely competition from the right, nor a betrayal by the center?—?but the irrelevance of the left. Yet. “Left” and “right” aren’t poles on a fixed spectrum. Indeed, what I hope to demonstrate is that in many respects, left has become right, the center has vanished, and the right has become left. And so I will conclude this series of essays by proposing a new political typology altogether.
It’s a well-written essay, and worth reading in full. But I think the author may be standing too close to the problem.
Step back and consider the real thing that has changed in the last century: technology. If you don’t believe me, go shop at Borders.
Those managing Political Correctness–the Democrats, the Codpiece Media, academia, Hollywierd–are, as haque points out, attempting to “conserve” something: the power of The Anointed.
Technology is a hellfire missile coming right through that political correctness. Technology exposes (some of) the details of the corruption that people generally infer is going on in high places. But, more importantly, technology raises the question of why those places are so flipping high in the first place. Why should I listen to abject nitwits of either party tell me things I know are untrue, skip over facts I know are key to understanding an issue, and recommend courses of action I know will worsen a situation, and end up being precisely the opposite of the “solution” proclaimed by the no-talent rodeo clown du jour?
Improvement will come when the audiences wise up and understand that efforts to manipulate them emotionally (I think the latest Politically Correct twaddle is the sin of cultural appropriation) and just laughs, tweets, and blogs them to a comfortable oblivion.
The same goes for political candidates. Sure, it’s all theater; the medium reduces candidates to mere reproducers of bumper sticker philosophy; and the last guy that (traditionally) knew everything was Erasmus. But that’s no excuse for the shallow, boorish celebrity air-headery we see in Donald Trump, who seems mostly to be #OccupyResoluteDesk giving it the Full Bullworth.
Reject all this Political Correctness. Reject the idiocy. Reject all the argumentum ad hormonum. Reject the propaganda-based fear-mongering, e.g. the anthropogenic global climate warming change (or whatever they’re calling it this week) noise and demand calm, factual arguments.
Because if anything can save the Enlightenment from Political Correctness, it’s technology empowering people to laugh at these nitwits.keep looking »