The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

‘Obsessed With Sex’?

Posted on | April 10, 2016 | 33 Comments

 

A stunning incident happened earlier this month at a debate in Toronto over immigration. This debate particularly concerned the flood of Muslim “refugees” that has provoked a crisis in Europe. The proponents on the open-borders side of this debate were Louise Arbour, former UN Human Rights commissioner and Columbia University history professor Simon Schama. Their antagonists were Nigel Farage, leader of Great Britain’s UK Independence Party (UKIP), and the incomparable Mark Steyn.

Farage and Steyn made extensive reference to the wave of violence that Muslim immigrants have unleashed in Europe, including the New Year’s Eve nightmare in Cologne, Germany, where hundreds of women were sexually assaulted. (See, “Muslim Rape Gangs Attack Women, and Feminists Won’t Say a Word About It.”) Because of liberal bias in the media, however, very few Americans — or Canadians, for that matter — are aware of the extent of what can fairly be called sexual terrorism that is being perpetrated in Europe. Facts that do not fit the liberal narrative have a remarkable tendency to elude the attention of editors at the New York Times and producers at CNN, so that unless you are in the habit of seeking out samizdat published by politically incorrect sources, you have never heard of The Rotherham Horror, nor are you aware of why Sweden now challenges South Africa for the title of Rape Capital of the World.

 

Because of the major media’s near-total suppression of stories like this, however, you have to be a “right-wing extremist” even to be aware of it, and the situation reminds me of an old Lynyrd Skynyrd lyric:

If you don’t know what I mean,
Won’t you stand up and scream,
‘Cause there’s things going on
That you don’t know.

Meanwhile, in Toronto, Steyn and Farage were enlightening the debate audience as to what’s going on in Europe, and the open-borders apologists responded rather flippantly. Ms. Arbour mockingly called Steyn and Farage “newborn feminists” — eliciting laughter from the predominantly liberal audience — and Professor Schama got an even bigger laugh when he sneered: “I’m just struck by how obsessed with sex these two guys are, actually. It’s a bit sad, really.” Well, that hit the trip wire with Steyn, who exploded like a Claymore mine:

“I made a decision tonight that I wasn’t going to do funny. I was going to be deadly serious. I’m slightly amazed at our colleagues’ ability to get big laughs on gang rape. Madame Arbour scoffs at the newfound feminists over here. I’m not much of a feminist, but I draw the line at 3-year-olds getting raped and the 7-year-old getting gang-raped in a basement. And when Simon tells us … we’re obsessed with sex — maybe we don’t get enough action in the Toronto singles bars — Madame Arbour, as she said, is a feminist of a certain generation, and those feminists were very clear, as Madame Arbour was very clear in Sudan, that rape is not about sex. Whatever Simon may say, rape is about power, which is what Madame Arbour says.”

Steyn then listed a series of sexual assaults committed by Muslim men in Germany, concluding: “These are all gang rapes in public places . . . and I congratulate you for getting big laughs for that, Simon. . . . It isn’t funny.”

Robert Spencer at Jihad Watch:

The Munk tradition is to poll the audience before and again after the debate. The first poll was 77% in favor of the motion, 23% opposed. After the debate, the pro side dropped to 55% and the con leapt up to 45%, a huge, 22% shift, revealing how a dynamic elaboration of the facts of the case can persuade people of the dangers of welcoming mass numbers from an alien culture into Western societies.

Mark Steyn himself has a good round-up of the post-debate reaction. The accusation from liberals that conservatives are “obsessed with sex” is, of course, highly ironic. For more than a half-century, liberals have advocated every manner of perversion, and feminists were even willing to defend President Clinton’s disgraceful debauchery in the White House.

“I would be happy to give [Bill Clinton] a blowjob just to thank him for keeping abortion legal. I think American women should be lining up with their presidential kneepads on to show their gratitude for keeping the theocracy off our backs.”
Nina Burleigh, 1998

Liberals have no moral principles whatsoever and, in fact, they actively seek to destroy morality. Not content to have banned Christianity from schools, they now use the schools to indoctrinate children in atheism.

Who is “obsessed with sex”? Perhaps the feminists, who have managed to gin up such a climate of sexual paranoia on university campuses that Rolling Stone was willing to publish Jackie Coakley’s false gang-rape tale, without basic journalistic fact-checking. Who is obsessed with sex? Perhaps the feminists, who take to Twitter to proclaim their herpes infections, or maybe the liberals like Bruce Springsteen, who canceled a concert in North Carolina to defend the “right” of men in dresses to share public restrooms with your daughter. Who is “obsessed with sex”? Maybe the Colorado public school teachers who are trained in a program called “A Queer Endeavor” to promote homosexuality in their classrooms.

Liberals are doing everything they can to destroy whatever remains of decency and religious morality in America, so that everybody has a “right” to be a herpes-infected feminist or a transvestite, and normal people have no rights at all, but it is conservatives who are “obsessed with sex”?

Yet where is Nina Burleigh, who called pro-life conservatives a “theocracy,” now that Muslim theocrats are rampaging across the globe? And where are the feminist “rape culture” mobs — who applauded when the captain of the Yale basketball team was expelled — now that women and children are being gang-raped by Muslim “refugees” in Europe?

Like the song says, there are things going on that you don’t know.




 

Comments

  • Daniel Freeman

    So much realtalk in one post. You rival Vox Day for the most dangerous American mind, and he’s in Italy so you win.

  • Fail Burton

    You see this same pattern of lying and lying by omission from feminists over and over again. That always poses the same question: where does their certainty and passion come from then? If rape is so prevalent among white males, why lie about it? If Muslims don’t rape, why iie about it? Why do feminists come pre-armed with power/privilege/punching up disclaimers of how they never use racial or sexual slurs if they don’t use them? How does not patronizing activities attractive to men equal exclusion? Am I excluded from Cosmopolitan? Why the lies about Gamergate which clearly contradict the truth? Why does Rolling Stone have to send out a Witchfinder-General? Why blimp up the demographic of transgender to many times its real size? Why call no-platforming and censorship a version of free speech, as did the wacky transgender pedo Sarah Butts?

    There’s a reason for that of course; the unerring target is the straight white male. One doesn’t need truth or logic to keep the cross-hairs there but serial lying. Feminism is a long string of lies, scapegoating, demonization theories and illogic which has no internal consistency or principles.

  • RS

    The sad thing is, the shift in opinion after Stein and Farage recited facts instead of Leftist quips was not greater than 22%. This tells us a number of things:

    First, there is a substantial group of people who are immune to reason and evidence. The cause of that condition may be different, i.e. a reliance on emotion, successful indoctrination, fear of being ostracized from a peer group, fear of admitting holding the wrong opinion, horror at admitting their own fallibility, etc. The etiology is irrelevant. The fact remains that–to wax biblical–their hearts are hardened.

    Second, this intellectual intransigence means they cannot even accept allies in the fights they should be waging. Yes, we can disagree as to whether there exists a “rape culture” in the U.S. and Canada. But why can we not agree that there are rape cultures flourishing in the world and agree on those that are?

    I think the answer to that question is rather simple: They know that the sum total of their positions does not pass rational muster upon the most cursory of examinations. Therefore, they cannot concede ground on any position, lest they might be compelled to acknowledge fallacies in the rest of their agenda. Simply stated, it’s emotional self-defense.

  • Pingback: Left Laughs at Gang Rape | Neoreactive()

  • RS

    Of course, here’s the real question: Why are Freeman, Burton, and I up at this hour to comment on an RSM blogpost?

  • mole

    But also consider this, Farage and Stein managed a 22% turnaround in only one airing of their “wrongthink” opinions. Now you see why there is so much stark terror to demonize people who hold the wrong opinions and preemptively slur them as “nazipedopatriachwifebeateretcetc” before anyone listens to them.

    Imagine if schools and places of learning really were places of inquiry rather than drone factories?

  • Fail Burton

    Intersectional lesbian ideology is amazingly successful at propaganda, lying and forms of semi-plausible illogic. Their lies make for short sound bytes while unpacking them requires a nuance and complexity which can leave eyes glazed. How many words do I have to use to push back against “marginalized groups” or “systemic racism?” They have been very clever in representing themselves as the logical successors to the civil rights and women’s movements of the early 60s, things which in fact they are the philosophical opposite of. It takes far longer to fisk the typical ignorant feminist blog post than it took the original moron to write it, since they are fact-free. They can just run around saying transgender are being murdered and beaten and women raped using stats which are essentially lies.

  • mole

    THIS IS A PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE PATRIARCHY…

    Ladies, the time has come to confess something we speak of privately as men but up until now have chosen to keep largely hidden.
    Its the shame of the Patriarchy so you can see why weve been so reticent about bringing it up so bluntly.

    A certain % of men, lets say 5% for arguments sake are scum. They will molest your kids, make lewd advances and grope you on trains, the sort of thing the Matriarchy tries to blame on “all men”.

    There are a number of laws and customs we had in place you seem keen on dismantling without taking into account that 5%.
    We segregate bathrooms not because the average man (or transgender) is a wild beast but because its the BEST way we know to keep that 5% from getting an opportunity to strike.

    By all means continue on with your fantasies of a “just and fair” world, but while you are doing that the 5% is even now drilling holes between toilet cubicles and calling themselves Loretta in anticipation.

    Theres dozens of other “social constructs” and “oppressive Patriarchal” stuff we have in place as well to minimize the opportunities for the 5% to get access to ladies and kids, but i guess YOU will have to relearn those lessons all over again.

    /PATRIARCHY OUT

    As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man

    There are only four things certain since Social Progress began.

    That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,

    And the burnt Fool’s bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire;

    And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins

    When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,

    As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,

    The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!

  • Daniel Freeman

    Why not?

  • mole

    A great example of that is the SJWs providing links to “proof” which are themselves written by mad old cat ladies or outright lies. But hey they have “peer reviewed SCIENCE!!!” on their side now.

    Part of the long march through the institutions is now there are bodies of bullshit already embedded in universities the SJWs can cite as “proof” of almost any crap they spout. Unless someone goes back and debunks the source texts of feminism its adherents can plug their ears and carry on.

  • DeadMessenger

    Thanks for keepin’ it realz, Daniel.

  • DeadMessenger

    I’d argue that straight white males are a target, sure, but so are any people of moral virtue, regardless of race or sex.

  • DeadMessenger

    It’s 4:20 eastern, I win. But then, I’m involuntarily unemployed.

  • DeadMessenger

    …the sort of thing the Matriarchy tries to blame on “all men”.

    Come now. Are you, or are you not, now blaming the actions of some ignorant twats on all women? I certainly don’t believe that way, and neither do any other women I personally know. And it’s not as if I’m living in a shack in the Appalachians (though I wish I were).

  • mole

    “the Matriarchy” isnt the average intelligent woman, its the subset that are trying to impose stupid ideas on everybody.

  • Fail Burton

    Lapland timezone.

  • Fail Burton

    So it’s your “room mate” now. Tired of pirate jokes? I have plenty about paid whores too.

  • Pingback: When rape became funny()

  • http://www.paganvigil.com NeoWayland

    You can’t have both a Patriarchy and a Matriarchy.

    By definition, one excludes the other.

    Which almost certainly means both definitions are wrong and we should use another model.

    ?I don’t think I’m always right, I just don’t think anyone is absolutely right. And that is why there is more to life than black and white.?

  • robertstacymccain

    “… there is a substantial group of people who are immune to reason and evidence.”

    Which is why I keep repeating: NEVER TALK TO A FEMINIST

    If a woman were rational, if she did not have an predisposition to self-pity and cruelty, she would never be a feminist in the first place. Attempting to debate with her will only (a) enrage her, and (b) reinforce her belief that anyone who criticizes feminism is “ignorant,” because (c) all intelligent people MUST agree with feminism.

    The circularity of feminist reasoning, and the dubious nature of its premises, can be easily demonstrated by any well-informed person skilled in forensics (ahem), but such a proof never persuades the feminist that her ideology is erroneous. She has staked her own sense of self-esteem in the prestige of the feminist cause, and she will therefore defend this cause against all enemies, no matter how skilled or well-informed they may be.

  • bob k. mando

    RS

    10 hours ago

    First, there is a substantial group of people who are immune to reason and evidence.

    Aristotle told you this, +2000 years ago.

  • Pingback: ‘Obsessed With Sex’? | Living in Anglo-America()

  • Paul Blair

    I’m still trying to figure out why the author decided to extend this piece to an attack on atheism.

  • Steve Skubinna

    A good working hypothesis is to assume that every progressive is a vicious evil bastard obsessed with seizing and holding power by any means necessary.

    These are not decent but misguided people. There is far too much evidence of the suffering and death they inflict whenever and wherever they take power to pretend that they just don’t understand.

    So make believe “Rape Culture” on prestigious campuses? Great, if it advances The Narrative. Actual rape culture that is not a metaphor for anything but actual physical rape? If it’s inconvenient, ignore it. If anyone brings it up, use ju-jitsu to turn it against them. Yuk it up because gang raping girls is a big laugh.

  • Steve Skubinna

    Funny how building progressive utopias always involves so much mayhem and destruction.

  • Pingback: Paul Ryan – The UnCandidate | Regular Right Guy()

  • Steve Skubinna

    The problem with mobs is that their intelligence is not that of the smartest member of the mob, but of the stupidest.

    And SJWs are a mob.

  • NRPax

    The look of shock and horror in the audience as Mark broke out the Cluebat on the idjits on the other side of the debate was a joy to behold. And then Nigel set their safe spaces on fire as they tried to run to them.

  • DeadMessenger

    I would only try to impose stupid ideas on you if I were married to you, lol.

  • Clark Coleman

    Where did he do that? He criticized the public schools for indoctrinating children into atheism. How is that an attack on atheism?

  • Shawn Smith

    Fen’s law in action: Leftists don’t actually care about any of the things they constantly lecture the rest of us about.

  • Pingback: FMJRA 2.0: Last Weekend In The Tax Mines : The Other McCain()

  • Pingback: News of the Week (April 17th, 2016) | The Political Hat()