The Other McCain

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

Friday Fiction: 100 Word Challenge

Posted on | July 24, 2015 | 1 Comment

by Smitty

Torn, bleeding, naked, the little girl managed to pull herself up the river bank, miles downstream from the wreck of the family fishing trip.

Years on, she would wonder why God had even bothered to spare her, alone, while so cruelly taking her parents and siblings.
She never had an explicit answer under the sun. But as she grew into a woman of grace and power, the fact that she had been to the brink of death meant that she never lost perspective amidst lesser adversities, and her life’s impact was arguably greater.
Didn’t bring back her family; but honored them.

via Darleen

Feminist Tumblr: She Loves Your Tears, You ‘Whiny’ #GamerGate ‘Baby Men’

Posted on | July 23, 2015 | 79 Comments

She was asked her opinion of Anita Sarkeesian:

“I like that she is doing what she does and I drink the tears of whiny piss baby men who are upset that a woman has the nerve to analyze videogames from a feminist perspective”

This anonymous radical feminist is 25 years old, but provides no information about her education or background. She is a tabula rasa. We know nothing about her except for her all-encompassing hatred of males, who are always wrong about everything:

Male Opinions Are Not Objective Facts
Men are socialized since birth to think their feelings and thoughts are the objective truth. They are taught they are generally right about something, unless contradicted by another male with equal or more authority. men subconciously believe they are firmly right about things so much they won’t even consider alternative perspectives unless it comes from a place of higher authority.
Men are socialized to believe women are inherently wrong, and that is why women are “crazy”, because it is so difficult for men to even consider the possibility that they don’t know shit. This is why men often offer strong opinions on topics they just heard about, especially if they’re contradicting a woman.
This is because people will respect a man’s opinion and give his words weight even if he has zero background in the subject because men are considered credible by default. Women are considered wrong by default and must argue their way to display their truth, no matter how strong their credentials.
Men probably have to tell themselves they’re logical all the time just to keep up the lie that feeds their ego. Thinking is difficult work for a man who is used to instantly being told he is right, while women are constantly being argued against and therefore exploring the topics more deeply and doing more thinking.

A summary translation: “Men know nothing. Everything any man claims to know is an expression of his own arrogant prejudice. No woman should ever trust any man, because all men are fools.”

She got more than 1,800 notes for that denunciation of males, basically a restatement of what Rebecca Solnit argues in her popular feminist book Men Explain Things to Me. Could I make a counter-argument? Perhaps, but why bother? Feminists never listen to anything a man says. We understand why feminism’s First Rule for Men is, “SHUT UP!”

This is why feminism is not about equality. No feminist wants to be “equal” to that despicable subhuman creature, the male. Feminism means males must be silenced, because no male has any truth to speak. Men are stupid and untrustworthy; feminists have a monopoly on truth and virtue. From the feminist perspective, everything about males is invalid, inferior, irrelevant, bad and wrong. Therefore, every woman must gratefully embrace the knowledge imparted to her by feminists. By invoking this crypto-Marxist totalitarian concept — women as a revolutionary class, led by an intellectual vanguard — feminists thereby anoint themselves as Omniscient Arbiters of Truth.

Any 25-year-old feminist with a Tumblr blog can join the pantheon of Olympian Goddesses who dispense immortal wisdom to the Sacred Sisterhood. Oh, did I mention she wants to “Desexualize the Female Body” because “F–k Your Fascist Beauty Standards”?

You see her feminism involves a sort of sour-grapes rationalization. Men do not value her opinion because (a) men are stupid and inferior, and (b) men “think their feelings and thoughts are the objective truth.” She is disappointed that men “sexualize” women, evaluating her in terms of her desirability as a romantic companion. This involves “beauty standards” that are “fascist,” by which she means that beauty is undemocratic because it is not equally distributed among all women. Some women are more beautiful than others, and this is wrong because . . .?

Well, it’s just wrong. How dare you ask a feminist to explain herself?

Like all radical egalitarian philosophies, feminism appeals to the ambitious malcontent who, feeling herself somehow disadvantaged by the status quo, dreams of a utopia in which women will be treated according to a “fair” standard, which is to say, a standard that will make her Queen Bee of the hive. A woman who declares that she is “oppressed” by “male supremacy” usually means nothing more than this: Men don’t treat her the way she would like to be treated, and so she wants to destroy civilization as we know it, and institute a gynocracy in which women will be empowered to inflict humiliating punishment on men. Whatever else feminism may be, it is always in large measure a sadistic revenge fantasy whose strongest appeal is to women of unlimited cruelty. If any man doesn’t like her “feminist perspective,” his disagreement proves he’s a “whiny piss baby,” and she will celebrate by drinking your tears.

She hates you. She really, really hates you. You’re probably “a fedora wearing doritos munching mountain dew drinking reddit bro.”


In The Mailbox, 07.23.15

Posted on | July 23, 2015 | 1 Comment

— compiled by Wombat-socho

Da Tech Guy: Questions For Rep. Gutierrez
EBL: An Honest Conversation On Rape Culture
Doug Powers: Hillary Campaign Focused On Bringing Down Wall Street By Accepting As Much of Their Money As Possible
Twitchy: “Imagine How The Babies Feel” – Margaret Sanger Superfan Hillary Clinton Says @PPact Under “Concerted Attack”
Vox Popoli: #PPGate (h/t Daniel Freeman in yesterday’s comments)

American Power: Taking Down Ta-Nehisi Coates
American Thinker: The Cold Civil War
Conservatives4Palin: Gov. Palin – Planned Parenthood? Shut It Down!
Don Surber: Tweet Of The Day
Jammie Wearing Fools: Finally, An Obama Success Story – Gun Production Has Doubled
Joe For America: Montana Dumps Michelle’s Lunch Program, Loses Federal $$$ – But Sanctuary Cities Still Get Funding?
JustOneMinute: At Least It’s Not Just Republicans
Pamela Geller: ISIS Video Of Child Beheader Sends Shockwaves Across World
Protein Wisdom: Carly Fiorina – How To Handle The Media
Shot In The Dark: Pro And Con – Twin Cities Summer
STUMP: Chicago/Illinois Watch – Don’t Think You Can Escape To The Suburbs
The Gateway Pundit: Trump Mocks “Pathetic Smattering” Of Open Borders Protesters Sent Out To Harass Him
The Jawa Report: Ministry Of Irony – Syrian Christians Flee ISIS Intolerance For Sweden Where They Encounter More Muslim Intolerance
The Lonely Conservative: Documents Confirm IRS Used Donor Lists To Target People For Audits
This Ain’t Hell: Sinking CNN Refloats The Swift Boats
Weasel Zippers: Pelosi Demands DOJ Investigation Of Group That Caught @PPAct Selling Baby Body Parts
Megan McArdle: Policing Reddit Could Kill Reddit
Mark Steyn: I’ve Got A Crush On You, Baby

Unplanned: The Dramatic True Story of a Former Planned Parenthood Leader’s Eye-Opening Journey across the Life Line

Feminism as Totalitarian Ideology

Posted on | July 22, 2015 | 58 Comments

“If we accept that gender is constructed and that it is not in any way ‘naturally’ or inevitably connected to sex, then the distinction between sex and gender comes to seem increasingly unstable. In that case, gender is radically independent of sex, ‘a free-floating artifice’ as [Professor Judith] Butler puts it, raising the question as to whether ‘sex’ is as culturally constructed as gender; indeed, perhaps sex was always already gender, so that the sex/gender distinction is not actually a distinction at all. Butler dispenses with the idea that either gender or sex is an ‘abiding substance’ by arguing that a heterosexual, heterosexist culture establishes the coherence of these categories in order to perpetuate and maintain what the feminist poet and critic Adrienne Rich has called ‘compulsory heterosexuality’ — the dominant order in which men and women are required or even forced to be heterosexual.”
Sara Salih, Judith Butler (2002)

“Only the disciplined mind can see reality, Winston. You believe that reality is something objective, external, existing in its own right. You also believe that the nature of reality is self-evident. When you delude yourself into thinking that you see something, you assume that everyone else sees the same thing as you. But I tell you, Winston, that reality is not external. Reality exists in the human mind, and nowhere else. Not in the individual mind, which can make mistakes, and in any case soon perishes: only in the mind of the Party, which is collective and immortal. Whatever the Party holds to be the truth, is truth. It is impossible to see reality except by looking through the eyes of the Party.”
George Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four (1948)

Feminist gender theory, explained by Professor Salih in her synopsis of Professor Butler’s influential 1990 book, Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity, is totalitarian in two senses of the word. First, it is a political invention, a belief system that claims to define reality in order to advance the claims of a group to exercise complete power. Second, feminism is a totalitarian movement in that its adherents employ methods of terroristic intimidation to silence those who dissent from feminist ideology. This is most evident in academia. On those rare occasions when any critic of feminism appears on a university campus, they are met by angry mobs of feminist protesters.

In October 2014, when columnist George Will gave a speech at Miami University in Oxford, Ohio, more than a thousand students signed an open letter claiming that hosting this Pulitzer Prize-winner “sends the wrong message . . . about the tolerance of rape culture and predatory sexual behavior at Miami University.” Chanting and waving signs, dozens of students protested outside Will’s speech, angry about a column he’d written four months earlier. Will’s column explained how the Obama administration was coercing universities to comply with policies based on the bogus 1-in-5 campus rape statistic.

What none of the protesters did (because they could not do) was to refute the facts as Will stated them in his column.

Facts mean nothing to feminists because they are determined to use political power to force others to accept their ideological claims: “Whatever the Party holds to be the truth, is truth.”

A decade ago, feminism’s hegemonic power in academia was demonstrated when Larry Summers was forced to resign as president of Harvard University after he had dared to suggest that there are “innate differences” between men and women. Like Winston Smith, he believed “that the nature of reality is self-evident” — men and women are different — and yet feminist ideology denies this self-evident reality.

Feminism declares that the categories “male” and “female” are fictional constructs through which people are “forced to be heterosexual.” This claim of oppression by the “dominant order” of a “heterosexist culture” is a core principle of feminist theory.

“In terms of the oppression of women, heterosexuality is the ideology of male supremacy.”
Margaret Small, “Lesbians and the Class Position of Women,” in Lesbianism and the Women’s Movement, edited by Charlotte Bunch and Nancy Myron (1975)

“The radical feminist argument is that men have forced women into heterosexuality in order to exploit them . . .”
Celia Kitzinger, The Social Construction of Lesbianism (1987)

“There are politics in sexual relationships because they occur in the context of a society that assigns power based on gender and other systems of inequality and privilege. . . . [T]he interconnections of systems are reflected in the concept of heteropatriarchy, the dominance associated with a gender binary system that presumes heterosexuality as a social norm. . . .
“As many feminists have pointed out, heterosexuality is organized in such a way that the power men have in society gets carried into relationships and can encourage women’s subservience, sexually and emotionally.”

Susan M. Shaw and Janet Lee, Women’s Voices, Feminist Visions (fifth edition, 2012)

Feminists see normal sex roles as “oppression” by “male supremacy,” and deny that heterosexuality is natural. These claims predictably lead feminists into hopeless confusion. The UCLA student newspaper published a column “calling for the government to provide women with free tampons in order to promote gender equality.” However, in order not to offend transgender activists, the editors of the UCLA Bruin felt the need to include a disclaimer:

Editor’s note: This blog post refers to individuals who menstruate as women because the author wanted to highlight gender inequality in health care. We acknowledge that not all individuals who menstruate identify as women and that not all individuals who identify as women menstruate, but feel this generalization is appropriate considering the gendered nature of most health care policies.

Winston Smith could not be reached for comment.


In The Mailbox: 07.22.15

Posted on | July 22, 2015 | 9 Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho

EBL: Political Correctness And Leftist Madness
Da Tech Guy: An Open Secret, Or, Hollywood’s Other Cosby Shoe
Michelle Malkin: Medical Monsters Vs. Life-Saving Angels
Twitchy: Liberal Logic – Obama Administration Calls On Schools To #RethinkDiscipline Because Of Suspension Disparity

American Power: Crush Planned Parenthood
American Thinker: A Golden Nugget Hidden In The Trump Spectacle
Blackmailers Don’t Shoot: Just To Add Some Traffic…
Conservatives4Palin: Gov. Palin – The Proper View Of he Presidency
Don Surber: Obama’s Top General Regrets Leaving Iraq
Jammie Wearing Fools: Now From The McDonald’s Secret Menu – The McGangBang
Joe For America: Time To Actually ARM Our Armed Forces?
JustOneMinute: Spring Break 2016
Pamela Geller: Senators Demand Obama Turn Over Missing Key Documents From Iran Deal
Protein Wisdom: Drag Queens Banned From Pride Event “Because They May Offend Transgender People”
Shot In The Dark: Parts Is Parts
STUMP: Roundup – Chicago, Greece, Portugal, And Much More!
The Gateway Pundit: Obama Bundler Tries To Buy Off Rape Victim
The Lonely Conservative: Another Obama Accomplishment – 3 Million More Kids Living In Poverty
This Ain’t Hell: VA Chief Indicted – 50 Counts Of Falsifying Medical Records
Weasel Zippers: Obama Nixes Lines In New Citizens Oath Of Allegiance Pledging To Take Up Arms To Defend U.S.
Megan McArdle: Americans’ Air Conditioning Habit Is Eco-Friendly
Mark Steyn: The Knees Have It

Shop Amazon Outlet – Clearance, Markdowns and Overstock Deals

Random Feminist Craziness

Posted on | July 21, 2015 | 57 Comments

Why did Harriett Williamson (@harrietpw) lash out at #GamerGate this way? I have no idea. Her account is currently suspended, which suggests that she sent this message during some kind of Twitter meltdown. Ms. Williamson is a British lesbian who hates men so much that when a man suggested she could be heterosexual, she “wanted to . . . punch him in the face.” This is an odd dynamic about lesbians that men generally don’t understand. Most lesbians are insulted if any male expresses interest in them; the very idea of heterosexuality is abhorrent to them. As a general rule, lesbians actively loathe males and do not like to be anywhere near men. Of course, there are exceptions, but Harriet Williamson is not one of them. She is not one of those “girls who have been rejected by the heterosexual dating market.” She despises males, and wants it to be known that men should avoid her.

You see, Ms. Williamson has issues. She suffered depression while attending university, and this may have been related to her insecurity about her socioeconomic status in class-conscious England. So when she lashed out at #GamerGate, we could say this was symptomatic of Ms. Williamson’s hostile antisocial attitude. A typical feminist SJW, really.

Meanwhile, a feminist discussion of male sexuality (which is to say, rape) took an interesting turn on Twitter:

This is a typical expression of Fear and Loathing of the Penis, a phenomenon rampant on feminist social media nowadays. Not every feminist is a lesbian, but none of them ever discuss male sexuality except in terms of danger and violence. Lesbians like Ms. Williamson, who are at least honest about their loathing of males, don’t bother me nearly so much as heterosexual feminists whose sadistic personalities lead them to seek relationships with men in order to degrade and humiliate men.

Can anything be done to end this feminist insanity? I doubt it. There is not enough Thorazine on the planet to treat them all.


In The Mailbox, 07.21.15

Posted on | July 21, 2015 | 9 Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho

EBL: Separated At Birth – Bamiyan Buddhas And…?
Da Tech Guy: Ted Cruz As The Fourth Doctor Who vs. Media Minions Of The Master – er, Mistress
Louder With Crowder: Caitlyn Jenner Wins The 1976 Olympics!
Doug Powers: Latest Scott Walker Outrage – GOP Presidential Candidate Advises Illegal Alien To Follow The Law
Twitchy: Monsters Part II – Butchery Haggling? This Shocking Second Planned Parenthood Video Will Make You Sick

American Power: The Right Lays Off Gaffe-Prone Donald Trump
American Thinker: Obama’s Horrific Nuke Deal And You
Conservatives4Palin: Tomi Lahren’s Epic Takedown Of Obama’s “Half-Baked” Policy Toward Chattanooga And Islamic Terrorism
Don Surber: James Hansen’s Latest Whopper
Jammie Wearing Fools: #BlackLivesMatter – Black Confederate Flag Supporter Killed After Being Run Off The Road
Joe For America: Wounded War Vets Show Their “Confidence” And Much More In Sexy Pinup Calendar
JustOneMinute: Kicking The Ashes
Pamela Geller: U.S. Authorities Seek To Revoke Citizenship Of Terror-Tied Oregon Imam
Protein Wisdom: By The Way, How Many Dead Babies Does It Take To Buy A Lamborghini?
Shot In The Dark: Veni Vidi Vi. Or EMACS If You’re A Wuss.
STUMP: Go Somewhere Cheaper, Young (And Old) Man!
The Gateway Pundit: Trump Leads GOP With 22% After Post-Iowa Poll, No Drop After McCain Remarks
The Lonely Conservative: Never Mind Planned Parenthood Selling Body Parts, Let’s Talk Abut What Donald Trump Said
This Ain’t Hell: Army Recruiting Command Addresses Armed Civilians Outside Recruiting Facilities
Weasel Zippers: Jihadi Work Accident – Two ISIS Leaders Killed When Their Convoy Drives Over Their Own IED
Megan McArdle: Remember “Memogate”? Makers Of A Dan Rather Film Don’t
Mark Steyn: Gunfire At The Cold-Call Corral

Shop Amazon – Top Gift Ideas

Congratulations, ‘Dishonest Fascists’ — #GamerGate Destroys Max Read

Posted on | July 21, 2015 | 78 Comments

“Never underestimate your enemy,” is a maxim of military strategy. Before you decide to go to war on the Internet, first consider the fate of Max Read, who was riding high as editor of Gawker until he decided that insulting #GamerGate was a smart move. He chose poorly.

Custer at Little Bighorn, the French at Dien Bien Phu — military history offers many parallels to Max Read’s fateful miscalculation, but perhaps the best would be Gen. John Sedgwick. On May 9, 1864, Sedgwick was directing the placement of Union artillery near Spotsylvania, Virginia. Annoyed that his men were ducking to avoid fire from Confederate sharpshooters a thousand yards away, he said: “Why are you dodging like this? They couldn’t hit an elephant at this distance.” A moment later, Sedgwick was killed by a bullet from one of the Confederates whose marksmanship he had disparaged. Hubris, meet nemesis.

The resignation Monday of Max Read as editor-in-chief of Gawker, along with his executive editor Tommy Craggs, will not likely be interpreted by major media as a vindication of #GamerGate, because most of the media share the same shallow prejudice that led Read to declare his disdain for #GamerGate as “a small, contemptible crusade . . . of dedicated anti-feminist internet trolls.” Well, he who laughs last, et cetera:

Tommy Craggs, the executive editor of Gawker Media, and Max Read, the editor-in-chief of, are resigning from the company. In letters sent today, Craggs and Read informed staff members that the managing partnership’s vote to remove a controversial post about the CFO of Condé Nast — a unprecedented act endorsed by zero editorial employees — represented an indefensible breach of the notoriously strong firewall between Gawker’s business interests and the independence of its editorial staff. Under those conditions, Craggs and Read wrote, they could not possibly guarantee Gawker’s editorial integrity.

So, in departing from the Web site he helped destroy — because Gawker’s foolish war against #GamerGate has cost them more than a million dollars in ad revenue — Max Read inflicts still more damage, by declaring that there is no longer any “editorial integrity” at Gawker. Because “editorial integrity,” apparently, means smearing private citizens at the behest of extortionists. Or, to quote the Headline of the Year:

Gawker Staff Smears Feces On Itself, Boards a
Schoolbus Loaded With Gasoline and Napalm, Then
Intentionally Drives That Schoolbus Into a Cargo Train
Transporting Toxic Waste and Retarded Clowns

The weird thing about this is that Max Read and other Gawker staffers seem to have no clue what led to their fateful error:

What Craggs and Read fail to accept is that this is not an editorial board with a scoop of monumental importance who are being shut down by some squeamish money managers because the story rubs certain powerful interests the wrong way.  They are defending a gutter trash post that would never have been written, much less put up, if the site had any integrity of any kind, editorial or otherwise, and if they actually did care about the writing staff and their fellow editors as they claim, they wouldn’t want to put the future of the entire company at risk by leaving it up there to be Exhibit B in Hogan’s lawsuit.

Yes, Gawker is being sued by pro wrestling legend Hulk Hogan and if they had a lick of sense (which they obviously don’t) they would not have published a shabby story that made them look recklessly irresponsible.

“Exhibit B,” indeed.

“This most recent scandal . . . is not an anomaly. It’s exactly what you get when you mix bad leadership, bad incentives, and selfish, self-loathing people. . . .
“It is essentially a twelve-year spree of destruction, pain and waste. . . .
“No wonder Gawker crosses the line. They have no idea where it is.”

Ryan Holiday, New York Observer

It is not as if Gawker publisher Nick Denton had no prior notice that Max Read is a hubristic fool. Consider how Read reacted when they lost a major advertiser in October 2014:

On October 1, the computing giant Intel pulled its ads from Gamasutra, a trade website for game developers, over an essay called “‘Gamers’ don’t have to be your audience. ‘Gamers’ are over” by a journalist named Leigh Alexander. . . .
Intel surrendered to the worst kind of dishonesty, and we allowed it to do so without ever calling it out. So let’s say it now: Intel is run by craven idiots. It employs pusillanimous morons. It lacks integrity. It folded to misogynists and bigots who objected to a woman who had done nothing more than write a piece claiming a place in the world of video games. And even when confronted with its own thoughtlessness and irresponsibility, it could not properly right its wrongs.

Really, Max? Did you not stop to think of the psychological projection involved in accusing Intel of “thoughtlessness and irresponsibility”?

It was you, Max, who supported Sam Biddle when he celebrated the “bullying” of gamers and declared “nerds should be constantly shamed and degraded into submission.” Yeah, Max, I’m sure you and your buddies at Gawker laughed it up at that little joke, while you were congratulating yourselves on your “editorial integrity.” And as for those “misogynists and bigots” you contemptuously dismissed?

“They couldn’t hit an elephant at this distance.”

You see how #GamerGate became nemesis for Gawker. This was assymetrical warfare. Whereas liberals are used to attacking people whose instinct is to flinch and apologize when accused of ThoughtCrime — sexism, racism, homophobia, etc. — gamers are like Homey D. Clown: Homey don’t play that, see? They take pride in their disdain for political correctness because, in the world where they work and play, nobody gives a damn about anything but the fun of winning:

In its arrogance, the media thinks its usual tactics of smear and shame will work on gamers as it has on so many other people, but gamers are a completely different breed. They’re technologically adept, incredibly persistent, and professionally trained trash talkers. They have little to lose and consider this a fight for their home.
In a battle of insults and patience, gamers will win every time.

When a friend, Beth Haper, first alerted me to the cultural significance of #GamerGate, I was skeptical. Really? A bunch of gamers were going to expose the bias and corruption of the media? This seemed improbable, but the fact that #GamerGate was arrayed against feminists drew my interest because, of course, I was working on a book (Sex Trouble, $11.69 in paperback, $1.99 on Kindle) about radical feminism’s War on Human Nature. Let us stipulate that #GamerGate is not “political” in the usual Left/Right Democrat/Republican way that Americans typically think about politics. Nevertheless, as fate would have it, the exposure of the Zoe Quinn/Nathan Grayson connection made gamers aware how unscrupulous women could exploit feminist politics and how unprincipled journalists were willing to assist this tawdry little racket. (See “The #GamerGate vs. Gawker War.”)

In war, your allies are whoever is fighting your enemies, and the motives of your allies matter far less than their skill in battle. Say what you will about #GamerGate, they are skilled and determined fighters.

Operation Disrespectful Nod is making believers of anyone who ever made the mistake of underestimating them. Just ask Max Read.

General Sedgwick could not be reached for comment.


« go backkeep looking »