The Other McCain

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

Commie Dopehead Sex Maniacs

Posted on | July 2, 2016 | 137 Comments

“Many young people turned to drugs and immoral lifestyles; these youth became known as hippies. They went without bathing, wore dirty, ragged, unconventional clothing, and deliberately broke all codes of politeness or manners. Rock music played an important part in the hippie movement and had great influence over the hippies. Many of the rock musicians they followed belonged to Eastern religious cults or practiced Satan worship.”
— America: Land I Love

Socialism, drug abuse and sexual perversion — during the 1960s, the connections between these phenomena were the subject of much discussion in America as university campuses erupted in protests, drug-addled hippies crowded into San Francisco and the so-called Sexual Revolution emerged in all its polymorphous variations. Naive dreams of “peace” and “love” in the groovy Age of Aquarius quickly came crashing down in the squalor, madness and murder of Altamont, the Manson cult, and the explosion that killed three Weather Underground terrorists. By 1970, any intelligent person who ever believed in all that hippie utopian nonsense had abundant evidence to inspire a reconsideration of their misguided idealism. Yet most of these young radicals never turned back from their destructive mission and the remaining survivors of the Sixties, now in their 70s or 80s, occasionally turn up in TV documentaries reminiscing fondly about how glorious it all was.

During a February radio interview, Texas Republican Rep. Louie Gohmert was asked about the surge of support for self-proclaimed socialist Bernie Sanders in the Democrat presidential primary. Gohmert blamed the influence of “hippies from the Sixties” who gained tenure as university professors and, by “teaching the teachers” had succeeded in “rewriting history and keeping [young people] from realizing socialism has never worked, it will never work in this world.” Gohmert’s quote was featured on left-wing blogs as one of those Crazy Things Republicans Say, yet it was a simple statement of fact. Anyone can examine, e.g., the career of Bill Ayers, the terrorist who became a professor of education. Gohmert cited the example of Ayers in a subsequent interview with Stuart Varney on Fox Business Channel in which he said, “If you go to teach as a professor in the universities and you teach the teachers, then the teachers go down and miseducate the young people.”

The phenomenon described by Gohmert is well-documented. Roger Kimball’s 1990 book Tenured Radicals: How Politics Has Corrupted Our Higher Education is a good starting point for anyone who wants to understand this problem. One of the great difficulties in explaining this to young people is that they know practically nothing about the Cold War and the reality of the Soviet menace. For more than 40 years, the central fact of American politics was that the United States was leading what John F. Kennedy called “a long twilight struggle” against the threat of Communist tyranny. However, because anti-American leftists have captured control of the teaching of history in our universities, what little students learn about the Cold War is taught from what can only be described as a pro-Communist perspective. In their 2003 book In Denial: Historians, Communism, and Espionage, John Earl Haynes and Harvey Klehr show the extent to which academic historians deliberately obscure and distort the truth about Soviet-backed espionage in the 1940s and ’50s. Academia’s commitment to indoctrinating students with an anti-American worldview can perhaps be best understood by examining how “McCarthyism” is presented as an irrational paranoia — a “witch hunt” that wrongly targeted innocent liberals with false accusations — when in fact, the American Communist Party (CPUSA) was a Kremlin-controlled instrument of subversion that harbored Soviet spies. M. Stanton Evans’ 2007 book Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America’s Enemies is a must-read for anyone interested in “McCarthyism.” What a careful reader discerns is that McCarthy was not, as he has been falsely portrayed by liberals, a man who ran around accusing people of being Communist spies. The FBI was doing an excellent job of breaking up Soviet espionage networks, and needed no help from Senator McCarthy in that regard. Instead, in his investigation of policies that permitted Soviet spies to infiltrate the federal government in the 1930s and ’40s, McCarthy was seeking to identify the officials responsible for lax security policies that had made this penetration possible. What almost no one knew at the time was that the Venona decryptions of Soviet diplomatic messages had enabled U.S. intelligence to learn specifics of the Soviet espionage operation. FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover passed along very valuable information to McCarthy, but because the source of this information was a closely guarded secret, it was impossible for McCarthy to show the proof of how he knew what he knew. This is why so many people wrongly believe McCarthy was “discredited” and that he was engaged in a reckless “witch hunt.” It is true that McCarthy was an imperfect man who made mistakes, but as Evans’ book amply documents, McCarthy was a patriot, and a better man than his enemies. Furthermore, as Evans demonstrates by citing the facts of case after case, Joe McCarthy was right.

Ignorance of Cold War history is a major reason so many young Americans are unable to understand why the collapse of the Soviet Union — “the Evil Empire,” as Ronald Reagan famously called it — proved the futility of socialism. If the Bolsheviks had been unable to bring about the egalitarian utopia promised by Marx and Engels, and if tens of millions of innocent people had died in the disastrous effort to implement “the dictatorship of the proletariat,” was this not sufficient proof that socialism was a deadly error? Yet the facts of Marxist-Leninist failure are deliberately obscured, and a dishonest version of Cold War history is promulgated, by the left-wing professors who dominate academia.

In a similar manner, the history of the Sixties has for many years been taught as a triumph of Progress, in which enlightened Youth overthrew the oppressive forces of right-wing bigotry and intolerance. Any young person who wishes to disabuse themselves of this counterfactual hippie mythology can start by reading Destructive Generation by Peter Collier and David Horowitz. They were both leading activists of the New Left during the 1960s, as editors of the radical journal Ramparts, but by the 1970s they had become disillusioned and, in the 1980s, emerged as supporters of Ronald Reagan. Until you have read Destructive Generation, you really can’t claim to understand what went wrong in the 1960s, and almost no one employed as a professor at any American university will acknowledge this lesson. Nearly every “educated” young person nowadays accepts without question the triumph-of-Progress narrative of the Sixties. This probably explains why recovering cocaine addict Tiernan Hebron, who graduated from San Francisco State University in 2014 with a degree in psychology, was arrested while protesting topless for Bernie Sanders. Read more

Category: History, Sex Trouble

Feminism’s Anti-Male Double Standard

Posted on | July 2, 2016 | 32 Comments

A consistent theme of feminist discourse for more than 40 years is a completely negative portrayal of male sexuality. Feminists are united in the opinion that whatever men do in regard to sex is always 100% wrong. Male attraction to women is condemned in feminist rhetoric as “objectification.” If a man admires a woman’s beauty, he has thereby degraded her as a “sex object,” according to feminist theory. If a man verbalizes his interest in a woman, feminists denounce this as “harassment,” and if he expresses his interest in a woman by any physical action — a kiss or a hug — feminists consider this sexual assault. Of course, feminists consider heterosexual intercourse to be inherently oppressive, a violent act of male domination — “PIV is always rape, OK?”

“Men are the enemy. Heterosexual women are collaborators with the enemy. . . .
“We see heterosexuality as an institution of male domination, not a free expression of personal preference.”
— Leeds Revolutionary Feminists, 1981

“Men affirm male superiority through use of the penis as a weapon against the female. . . .
“Because men want women’s sexual services for themselves only . . . men make women’s heterosexuality compulsory.”
— Dee Graham, et al., Loving to Survive: Sexual Terror, Men’s Violence, and Women’s Lives (1994)

“Far from being ‘natural,’ phallic sexuality is a moral and political activity. . . . Men’s sexual behaviour is not caused by hormonal dictates. . . . Anything and everything must be subordinated to penile activity if men are to be what phallic ideology requires them to be.”
— Denise Thompson, Radical Feminism Today (2001)

Paranoid hostility toward male sexuality (“Fear and Loathing of the Penis”) has defined the feminist agenda for decades, and anyone who criticizes feminism’s anti-male hate propaganda will be accused of “misogyny” — you obviously hate women if you don’t agree with feminist assertions about the universal evil of men. A 26-year-old lesbian feminist wrote the following on her Tumblr blog:

I think there is an interesting phenomenon growing up as a lesbian (which I jokingly refer to as the Be\Bang Dichotomy) where you’re not sure if you greatly admire a woman and want to be like them or if you have a huge crush on someone.
I think it’s interesting because the idea of admiring and respecting a woman and wanting to be her romantic and sexual partner are seen, within a heteronormative society, as conflicting ideals.
If respect is seen as tainted by sexual desire, there is something wrong with the way we frame sexual desire.
I think it’s another difference in lesbian attraction that makes it harder to understand our attractions and also contributes to internalized lesbophobia. If our attraction is seen as antithetical to our respect, admiration, and idolization of female accomplishment, it is hard to hold the two concepts together or recognize them happening in concert.

What? Who says a man cannot respect a woman he finds desirable as a “romantic and sexual partner”? In whose mind is “respect . . . tainted by sexual desire”? Oh, that’s right — it’s feminists who say this!

For decades, feminists have been reiterating the same two points:

  1. All males are intellectually inferior — Men are incapable of reason, and thus cannot grasp the distinction between women’s specifically sexual attributes and women’s other qualities. Only feminists are endowed with the superior intellect necessary to understand anything at all about women, and whatever a man might believe about women is always wrong because, of course, he is a man, and men are always wrong about everything.
  2. Male sexuality is intrinsically immoral — It is wrong for men to want sex, and wrong for men to enjoy sex. Feminism is a movement to eliminate every possible source of male happiness in life, especially including sex.

This is why feminists consider it “harassment” for men to flirt with women. Flirting with women might lead to sex, and sex makes men happy, therefore feminists insist flirting is a civil-rights violation. Men cannot even look at women without being guilty of sexist “objectification,” according to feminism, because looking at women makes men happy.

 

Why do you think Vogue magazine put Amy Schumer on the cover of its July issue? Isn’t it because men don’t like Amy Schumer? The same reason Glamour magazine put Lena Dunham on its April 2014 cover?

 

Why did fashion magazines decide that beauty is a bad thing? It’s because feminists took over as fashion magazine editors. So now it’s “fashion” to be ugly like Lena Dunham and “fashion” to be fat like Amy Schumer.

Remember: “Men are the enemy.”

Feminists do not collaborate with the enemy. Why would men want to collaborate with feminists? This is a profound mystery. It’s like when Lena Dunham said she is heterosexual. How? Why? With whom? Has any man actually gone public and admitted having sex with Lena Dunham?

But we are not allowed to ask such questions, nor are we permitted to notice that fashion magazines are now promoting a political agenda.

There is a double standard in operation, whereby feminists arrogate to themselves the right to demonize men, and men are not allowed to say anything in defense of themselves. Feminism is a synonym for shut up.




 

Category: Sex Trouble

Dear @LaurenDuca: Could You Please Define ‘Sexually Active’ More Clearly?

Posted on | June 30, 2016 | 51 Comments

 

Dear Ms. Duca:

Please pardon the rather unfortunate circumstances of this introduction, but while I was updating my blog readers on the latest lunacy from herpes-infected feminist Emily Depasse, I noticed you had interviewed Ella Dawson, Poster Child for the Feminist Herpes Epidemic.

If You’re Sexually Active, Getting
Herpes Is Practically Inevitable

Well, no, actually, it’s not “inevitable,” and to see such a misleading headline published at Teen Vogue is disturbing in the extreme.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the rate of “seroprevalance” (positive blood test) for genital herpes (HSV-2) was 6.6% for males ages 20-29, and 14.4% for females ages 20-29. As troubling as these statistics may be, they certainly do not suggest that herpes is “inevitable” for everyone who is “sexually active.”

Whereas it is the goal of herpes-infected feminists like Ella Dawson to “destigmatize” their disease, most people — surely including the young readers of Teen Vogue, to say nothing of these girls’ parents — would prefer to learn how to avoid the disease. As Ms. Dawson learned to her regret, condoms are ineffective at preventing herpes, a fact that exposes “safe sex” as dangerous myth, a misguided idea can be traced historically to the outbreak of the AIDS pandemic among gay men in the 1980s. Permit me here to recommend “The Origins of a Political Epidemic,” in the book Destructive Generation by Peter Collier and David Horowitz. This article was first published in 1983, when the AIDS epidemic was first making headlines, and when gay activists blocked the public-health measures which might have saved many thousands of lives.

“Everyone who preached free love in the Sixties is responsible for AIDS. . . . This idea that it was somehow an accident, a microbe that sort of fell from heaven — absurd. We must face what we did.”
— Camille Paglia

“Free love” — the delusional myth of sex without consequences, sex without commitment or responsibility — killed a lot of people in the 1980s and ’90s, Ms. Duca, including friends of mine. America ought to have learned a lesson from that bitter experience, but instead we have allowed the Condom-Industrial Complex to promote what might be called the Gospel of Latex Salvation: “Party on, kids. Just use a condom.”

Well, how did that plan work out for Ella Dawson?

“I was the editor of my campus sex magazine. I had some one-night stands. I explored my sexuality and what I wanted, and I met a guy at a party and he was amazing. He was super-charismatic and sexy and funny and brilliant and I fell really hard for him. We started seeing each other and then, three weeks later, I woke up with an outbreak of genital herpes.”
— Ella Dawson, September 2015

In other words, Ella Dawson was rolling the dice, ignorant of the risk despite the fact that she was majoring in Feminist, Gender, and Sexuality Studies at elite Wesleyan University (annual tuition $47,972). For that kind of money, you might think her professors would have bothered to inform this young genius that (a) condoms don’t prevent herpes, and (b) promiscuity increases your risk of being infected. Ella Dawson said she was “shocked” by her herpes diagnosis, which “didn’t make sense, as I’d never had unprotected sex in my life. . . . How could I have caught something when I had always been so careful?” Ella Dawson was a fool, who is now foolishly encouraging other young women to emulate her folly, and why is Teen Vogue assisting in this foolish project, Ms. Duca?

While it is true that anyone could become infected the first time they have sex, if their first partner already has the disease, anyone proficient in basic arithmetic can see that a combination of caution and a knowledge of risk factors can greatly decrease the likelihood of getting herpes. In 2010, the CDC reported that the herpes rate “was nearly twice as high among women (21%) as men (11%), and more than three times higher among African-Americans (39%) than whites (12%). The infection rate among African-American women was 48%.” For obvious reasons, risk is correlated with the number of sexual partners you have. The CDC found that about 27% of those who reported 10 or more partners during their lifetime are infected with herpes, whereas the rate was only 4% among people who reported having had just one sex partner ever. In other words, the difference between having one partner and having 10 or more partners is a 675% increase in your risk of contracting herpes.

If we analyze Ella Dawson’s story in the context of epidemiological data, we realize that when she began having one-night stands, each new partner represented an increase in her risk. We may suppose that Ella Dawson was not seeking partners with no previous sexual experience, and we may further suppose that the “amazing . . . super-charismatic and sexy” man who infected Ella Dawson with herpes had previously been with a lot of sexual partners. What was the total prior number of partners for each of them on that night in 2013 she “met a guy at a party”? According to the CDC, the genital herpes rate for males with fewer than five previous partners is 7.3%, which rises to 10.1% for males with 5 to 9 previous partners, and 19.1% for males with 10 or more previous partners.

In other words, to reach even a 1-in-5 chance of having herpes, a guy typically has to be with a lot of different women. You see, Ms. Duca, that the facts completely debunk the claim in your Teen Vogue headline that herpes is “practically inevitable” for anyone who is “sexually active.” And your cooperation with Ella Dawson’s effort to “destigmatize” herpes — spreading the message that this incurable disease should be considered innocuous because it’s “practically inevitable” — puts you in service of a propaganda technique known as The Big Lie.

There is no such thing as “safe sex.” That phrase was born during the 1980s as a result of the gay community’s belated recognition that the AIDS epidemic had been spread by, uh, specific types of sexual behavior that resulted in the transmission of a virus through the exchange of bodily fluids, to explain this problem in the most polite way possible.

“The present epidemic of AIDS among promiscuous urban gay males is occurring because of the unprecedented promiscuity of the last ten to fifteen years. . . . It has been mass participation in this lifestyle that has led to the creation of an increasingly disease-polluted pool of sexual partners.”
— Michael Callen and Richard Berkowitz, 1982

“I didn’t become a homosexual so I could use condoms.”
— Konstantin Berlandt, 1983

In 1982, the CDC reported that that the “median number of lifetime male sexual partners” for gay men diagnosed with AIDS was 1,160.

Repeat: One thousand one hundred sixty.

To comprehend what that means, if a man was diagnosed with AIDS at age 30, after having 1,160 partners since becoming sexually active at age 18, he would have had 97 different partners in an average year, i.e., nearly two new partners every week, or eight new partners per month. This was the “at-risk” population among whom the epidemic was incubated in the late 1970s and early 1980s (a story told in Randy Shilts’s book And the Band Played On). Extreme promiscuity under conditions of almost complete anonymity (i.e., bathhouses, “glory holes,” nightclub pickups, etc.) had become so widely accepted in gay culture in the 1970s that when public-health officials first urged gay men to use condoms during the, uh, specific types of sexual behavior by which the virus was spread, these official recommendations were suppressed.

Bill Kraus, a gay activist in San Francisco, was shocked by the refusal to publicize the earliest AIDS research findings: “How can these people do this? How can they try to suppress this data?” Kraus said in an interview quoted by Collier and Horowitz. “They intimidate people into silence by saying that they’re homophobic, anti-sex, and all kind of other things people don’t want to be called.” Gay radicals falsely blamed the Reagan administration for this epidemic and, in the ensuing propaganda wars, a bizarre new myth emerged: “Everyone is at risk of AIDS! We must teach ‘safe sex’ in every school and distribute free condoms to everybody’s kids!” Guess what happened to parents who raised common-sense objections to this agenda? They were called “homophobic, anti-sex, and all kind of other things people don’t want to be called.”

Well, Ms. Duca, you only graduated from college three years ago, so you have no direct memory of how the AIDS crisis of the 1980s helped fuel the Culture Wars of the 1990s, and I suspect your left-wing professors at Fordham and NYU never explained it to you the way I’ve explained it here. My purpose in relating this history to you is to explain how it was that Ella Dawson, an intelligent young woman majoring in Feminist, Gender, and Sexuality Studies at an elite university, could have been as ignorant as she was of the herpes risk. Because the “safe sex” ideology was created in response to AIDS — a disease that was predominantly transmitted via the exchange of bodily fluids between gay men during specific types of sexual behavior — the Gospel of Latex Salvation has tended to omit certain truths that are of particular interest to young heterosexual women. Examine this data, Ms. Duca:

Herpes simplex virus type 2 (HSV2)
seroprevalence, U.S. females
Total (ages 14-49) …….. 20.9
Age 20-29 ………………… 14.4
Age 30-39 ………………… 25.2
White ………………………. 15.9
Black ………………………. 48.0
1 lifetime partner ……….. 5.4
2-4 lifetime partners …. 18.8
5-9 lifetime partners …. 21.8
10+ lifetime partners …. 37.1

The total number of lifetime partners is the controlling risk factor in the prevalence of sexually transmitted diseases. By simple arithmetic, you see that the overall HSV2 infection rate (20.9%) is a little bit higher than midway between the rate for women with 2 to 4 partners (18.8%) and the rate for women with 5 to 9 partners (21.8%). In other words, the average U.S. female (ages 14-49) has probably had five or six sexual partners. A similar calculation reveals that a typical U.S. woman in her 20s has had no more than four partners. Your Teen Vogue headline claim that it is “practically inevitable” for anyone who is “sexually active” to become infected with herpes is not only false (e.g., even 63% of women with 10 or more partners remain herpes-free), but it also makes the dangerously misleading implication that there is nothing a young woman can do to reduce her risk of herpes. You describe the young fool Ella Dawson as someone who is “spreading sexual health,” yet her message — “Herpes is so common! More or less everybody has herpes! Let’s fight stigma!” — is certainly not healthy. Ella Dawson conflates HSV1 (cold sores) with HSV2 (genital herpes) as if the difference was irrelevant. She does not discuss the actual prevalence of HSV2 or the correlation of risk and the number of partners. In terms of prevention, all she says is “get tested regularly.”

Look at the data, Ms. Duca. If we know that females ages 20-29 have a 14.4% herpes rate, and that the infection rate for white females (15.9%) is substantially below the overall rate (20.9%), does mere bad luck suffice to explain how Ella Dawson got infected at age 20?

If one in six people had genital herpes, how was I the only person I knew to do the ultimate walk of shame from the student health center clutching a stack of STD pamphlets? . . . On a logical level I knew that getting herpes had nothing to do with my actions and didn’t say anything about my character; it was simply luck of the draw.

Alas, “luck of the draw” tends to become cumulative the more often you draw. Never in my life had I seen a poker hand in which a full house got beat by four of a kind until the night in Wheeling, W.Va., when I decided to shove all-in with a full house and . . . Well, “luck of the draw.”

Play enough poker and you’re likely to see even the most improbable things happen at least once, and the odds of me winning with a full house were much better than Ella Dawson’s odds of avoiding herpes that night in 2013 when she met Mr. Amazing Charismatic Sexy Guy at a party.

Ella Dawson can’t stop writing about the guy, who she says tricked her into thinking she had given him herpes, rather than the other way around, and really, how can we possibly know what the truth is? How many different women had he been with before he met her? How many guys had she been with before she met him? If Ella Dawson had never met this guy, but had instead continued her pattern of one-night stands and “exploring her sexuality,” wasn’t it likely that she would have gotten herpes anyway? The risks are cumulative, which is why Ella Dawson’s dismissive “luck of the draw” remark about her herpes infection is as wrong as the “practically inevitable” headline on your article, Ms. Duca.

There is no such thing as “safe sex.” We can be thankful to Ella Dawson for destroying the Gospel of Latex Salvation, but a herpes infection is never an accident, and Ella Dawson was not the victim of “a microbe that sort of fell from heaven,” as Paglia said of the AIDS crisis. Sexually transmitted diseases are correlated to behavior, and thus do not occur randomly. Like other behavioral phenomena — automobile accidents, for example — the fact that we cannot entirely eliminate risk does not mean we should not try to reduce risk. However, when we are discussing risks related to sexual behavior, we are apt to find ourselves accused of Thoughtcrime by people who insist they have a “right” to have sex with whoever they choose, however they choose to do it, without regard to avoidable risk — including the risk of spreading disease.

“Slut-shaming” is the new homophobia. The same way some gay activists in the 1980s used accusations of “homophobia” to suppress information that might have saved thousands of lives, now we see feminists deploy accusatory language — “misogyny,” “rape culture,” etc. — to suppress information that might help young women avoid risky sexual behavior. When you suggest to Teen Vogue readers that all “sexually active” women get herpes, this conveys the idea that it is futile to try to reduce their risk of becoming infected. Yet the vast majority of young women do not have HSV2, and most never will. Why? Because most women do not have a large number of sexual partners. Most women do not have one-night stands. Your headline implies that “sexually active” is synonymous with the high-risk behavior of recklessly pursuing hookups. Why? Because you’re afraid you might hurt somebody’s feelings? Because you can’t tell Teen Vogue readers to avoid dangerous habits?

“Oh, well,” you say, “herpes isn’t all that bad, and I’m careful, so there’s no chance of me getting AIDS.” Fine. Whatever. Here’s something to think about: Antibiotic-Resistant Gonorrhea.

This city is headed for a disaster of biblical proportions!
Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies!
Rivers and seas boiling! Forty years of darkness!
Earthquakes! Volcanoes! The dead rising from the grave!
Human sacrifice! Dogs and cats living together! Mass hysteria!

How many omens of doom do we need? How much more Old Testament wrath-of-God stuff will it take before people finally wake up?

Sincerely,
Robert Stacy McCain




 

Category: Sex Trouble

In The Mailbox: 06.30.16

Posted on | June 30, 2016 | 1 Comment

— compiled by Wombat-socho


OVER THE TRANSOM
90 Miles From Tyranny: Law Enforcement Sources Say Gun Used In Paris Attack Came From “Fast And Furious” Program
EBL: Coast Redwood – Sequoia sempervirens
Twitchy: So Terrible! Trump Chimes In On Clinton-Lynch Meeting


RIPPED FROM THE HEADLINES
American Power: Boris Johnson Withdraws From Leadership Contest, Upending Tories After Michael Gove Ambush
American Thinker: Heart Of Darkness – The Evil At The Core Of Modern Liberalism
BLACKFIVE: Book Review – A Certain Age by Beatriz Williams
Da Tech Guy: John Ruberry – Britain’s Reagan and Trump Moment
Don Surber: Fake Hate Crime Of The Day
Jammie Wearing Fools: House Dems Mistakenly Release Transcript Confirming Big Payments To Clinton Crony Sid Blumenthal
Joe For America: Fauxcahontas Warren Makes Anti-Trump Ad, Ends Up Humiliating Herself
JustOneMinute: I Believe It Is Prosperity For Our Time
Pamela Geller: Kerry Claims Istanbul Attack A Sign Daesh “Knows They Are Losing”
Shark Tank: NRA Releases New Anti-Clinton Ad Featuring Benghazi Survivor
Shot In The Dark: The Somme, Part I – The Accrington Pals
STUMP: Good News For Wednesday – The World Is Getting Better
The Jawa Report: Man Violently Attacked By So-Called “Anti-Fascists” While Police Stand Around And Watch
The Lonely Conservative: After Senate Dems Kill Zika Funding, NIH Says There’s No Money To Fight It
The Political Hat: The State – Stealing Your Children, Dividing Your Children, Indoctrinating Your Children
This Ain’t Hell: Seventh Circuit Judge Says Constitution Has “Absolutely No Value”
Weasel Zippers: State Dept Acknowledges 13-Year-Old Stabbed By Palestinian Is American – Seventh US Citizen Killed By Palestinians This Year


Shop Amazon Fashion – Up to 70% off Summer Savings
Shop Amazon Devices – All New Kindle 6-inch

Category: Linkagery

Anti-Marriage and Anti-Motherhood: Feminism’s War Against the Family

Posted on | June 29, 2016 | 53 Comments

 

Feminism is the ideology of the Darwinian Dead End. It is a rationalization of human extinction, a philosophy that justifies self-imposed sterility as more personally fulfilling than motherhood. Because feminists hate babies, they advocate abortion, promote contraception, and encourage hatred of men, marriage and heterosexuality, per se.

“Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the Women’s Movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage.”
— Sheila Cronan, “Marriage,” 1970, in Radical Feminism, edited by Anne Koedt, et al. (1973)

“We want to destroy . . . polar role definitions of male and female, man and woman. We want to destroy patriarchal power at its source, the family. . .. We want to destroy the structure of culture as we know it, its art, its churches, its laws . . .
“The nuclear family is the school of values in a sexist, sexually repressed society.”
— Andrea Dworkin, Woman Hating (1974)

“The first condition for escaping from forced motherhood and sexual slavery is escape from the patriarchal institution of marriage.”
— Alison M. Jaggar, Feminist Politics and Human Nature (1988)

“The view that heterosexuality is a key site of male power is widely accepted within feminism. Within most feminist accounts, heterosexuality is seen not as an individual preference, something we are born like or gradually develop into, but as a socially constructed institution which structures and maintains male domination, in particular through the way it channels women into marriage and motherhood.”
— Diane Richardson, “Theorizing Heterosexuality,” in Rethinking Sexuality (2000)

“Heterosexuality and masculinity . . . are made manifest through patriarchy, which normalizes men as dominant over women.”
— Sara Carrigan Wooten, The Crisis of Campus Sexual Violence: Critical Perspectives on Prevention and Response (2015)

Feminism is a movement devoted to destroying the family. Feminist theory condemns marriage and motherhood as institutions of “male domination,” which is why taxpayer funding for Planned Parenthood is sacred to feminists: The road to “equality” is paved with dead babies.

Misery loves company, and the leaders of this anti-male hate movement therefore encourage young women to pursue lifestyles that will lead them to the same attitude of embittered resentment that defines feminism. Crucial to this project is the promotion of abnormal sexual behavior.

“Sex is about reproductive biology,” as I have previously explained. “Human beings are mammals, and any eighth-grader can figure out what that means in terms of sex. Once you understand this scientific definition of sex, everything else is just details.” Rejecting this normal common-sense understanding of sex, feminists adopt intellectual theories that are directly hostile to the reproductive purposes of human sexuality. One obvious reason for this hostility is because so many leaders of the feminist movement are lesbians:

Australian feminist Denise Thompson described how “countless numbers of lesbians” joined the feminist movement [in the 1960s and ’70s] because it offered them “the possibility of a cultural community of women whose primary commitment was to other women rather than to men.” Furthermore, Thompson added, the rise of the feminist movement produced a “mass exodus of feminist women from the confining structures of heterosexuality” in such numbers as to raise questions about “the institution of heterosexuality in the consciousness of those feminists who, for whatever reason, chose not to change their sexual orientation.” . . .
Women “changed their sexual/social orientation from men to women,” Thompson explained, “in response to the feminist political critique of their personal situations of social subordination.” If the personal is political (as feminists say) and if women’s relationships with men are “confining structures” of “social subordination,” why would any feminist be heterosexual?

That quote from my book Sex Trouble is worth repeating because it helps explain why so many young women who mistakenly believe they can be both feminist and heterosexual discover that attempting this only results in personal misery. Heterosexual feminists become permanently unhappy in their romantic lives, because the movement’s ideology — a paranoid anti-male conspiracy theory — was so significantly influence by lesbians.

Left to right: Jill Johnston, Mary Daly, Marilyn Frye, Sheila Jeffreys.

Women who had no interest in marrying men or having children (Jill Johnston, Mary Daly, Marilyn Frye, Sheila Jeffreys, et al.) could demonize men as patriarchal oppressors and be celebrated by their feminist comrades for doing so. Yet any heterosexual woman who adopts this hateful ideology will find that her feminism causes decent, honest and intelligent men to avoid her. She is forced to seek boyfriends among the vile dregs of the “progressive” movement, and she will not find good men among the corrupt adherents of socialism and other immoral causes.

 

Heterosexual feminists like self-proclaimed “Shameless Slut” Paloma Brierley Newton are notoriously promiscuous. All decent men shun such women, so that in seeking male companionship, the heterosexual feminist invariably finds herself scraping the scum from the bottom of the barrel. This in turn leads to profoundly unhealthy outcomes.

“I am able to embrace my herpes positive status. . . .
“I have no shame in who I am. . . .
“I have sex, great sex. I write about sex. I talk openly about sex.”
— Emily Depasse, April 18, 2016

The disease-infected feminist Emily Depasse boasts of her “herpes positive status.” She is proud to call herself “The Carrie Bradshaw of Herpes” and seeks to “destigmatize” her disease, because otherwise someone might think irresponsible promiscuity is a bad thing. No one is really surprised to read Emily Depasse’s declaration on her blog: “I do not foresee myself having children, nor do I really want them. . . . Yes, I am self-admittedly too selfish to have children.” The Death Cult ideology of feminism celebrates selfishness for the same reason feminists celebrate lesbianism, abortion, and sexually transmitted diseases. Anything that leads young women toward the Darwinian Dead End is good, from the perspective of feminism, which is a Totalitarian Movement to Destroy Civilization as We Know It.

This destructive purpose explains why feminists are never content merely to ruin their own lives and wallow in their misery. No, the feminist must encourage others to emulate her self-destructive example.

Having made such a disastrous public spectacle of her life — her name is now practically synonymous with herpes — Emily Depasse’s future romantic prospects are obviously rather bleak. In addition to justifying herself with sour-grapes rationalizations, she must also disparage the aspirations of other women for whom marriage and motherhood are major sources of happiness. At her blog, Emily Depasse describes her decision to cease associating with a former friend who “became toxic” to her. What happened?

I think the one phrase that echoes in my head (probably more often than it should) was when this person said, “If you met the right man, you’d want to drop everything to get married right now. But you have goals and dreams and things, don’t you, Emily.” . . .
This person feels that her sole purpose in life is to be a wife and mother . . . But along her path to becoming a wife, she seemed to lose herself in the process. . . . Your quest for happiness and lack of self-esteem eventually manifests itself in all facets of your personality, and thus, you became a draining and toxic individual. . . .
From the moment I cut this person out of my life, I felt such a weight lifted from my shoulders. It felt freeing that my lips no longer had to mouth her name, or voice one more remark regarding my negative feelings towards her.

Translation: “Only women who lack self-esteem want husbands and families. Getting married and having children makes you toxic.”

The belief that marriage is incompatible with “goals and dreams and things” has been a central theme in feminist discourse for more than 50 years, since Betty Friedan compared suburban housewives to inmates of Nazi concentration camps (which implies that every husband is Hitler). Feminists have spent decades declaring that marriage is “slavery,” a prison of “male domination” from which women must “escape,” and this anti-marriage ideology has come to define the feminist movement to such a degree that young feminists now simply take it for granted. The young woman who calls herself a “feminist” in 2016 thereby effectively declares she has no desire for a husband or children. Having thus rejected human sexuality in its normal manifestation (i.e., as reproductive biology), the feminist may next begin to wonder, “Why bother with men at all?” Considering the low quality of men available as partners for the herpes-infected feminist, this is not an unreasonable question. No one would be surprised if Emily Depasse decided to reject the “subjugation of women by means of a phallocentric sexuality,” to quote Denise Thompson’s argument for “Lesbianism as a Political Practice.”

Feminism requires an all-encompassing contempt for men, based on a fanatical belief in male inferiority, and Emily Depasse has a proper scapegoat on which to focus blame for her misery. “The man who infected me just spat me out,” she writes, after she let him use her as “a living sex toy.” Alas, this was her choice, her decision. She practically stalked him for two years from the time they met until they finally had sex, and yet she is so invested in her victimhood that she cannot acknowledge her own bad judgment or her responsibility for having pursued him. Nothing that goes wrong in a feminist’s life can possibly be her fault, you see. The blame must be externalized, and every man in the world must be made to suffer in her campaign of sadistic revenge — “Male tears!”

 

Perhaps they are tears of pity, or maybe her father’s tears of shame at the way his daughter has brought such disgrace on herself and her family.

Anyway, today was #HeterosexualPrideDay on Twitter, and no one can accuse me of failing to do my part for the cause.




 

Category: Sex Trouble

In The Mailbox: 06.29.16

Posted on | June 29, 2016 | 1 Comment

— compiled by Wombat-socho


OVER THE TRANSOM
EBL: Play Misty for Me
Michelle Malkin: Outsourcing Security Is Dumb And Deadly
Twitchy: See How Much Illegal Immigration Is Costing Your State


RIPPED FROM THE HEADLINES
American Power: This Is A Real Headline On Britain’s EU Referendum, You Ignorant Unwashed Racist Rubes
American Thinker: Good Riddance To George Will
BLACKFIVE: Book Review – Hell’s Gate by Bill Schutt and J.R. Finch
Da Tech Guy: Some Satanic Traps For Christians Post Orlando
Don Surber: Turkey Needs Gun Control
Jammie Wearing Fools: Benghazi Report – Obama Skipped Intel Briefing The Day After, Went To Vegas Fundraiser Instead
Joe For America: The Return Of Clock Boy
JustOneMinute: Gay Lives Matter, Maybe, But Covering For The Orlando PD Matters More
Pamela Geller: Ted Cruz Holds Hearings On Obama Administration’s Coverup Of Islamic Terror
Shark Tank: “Marcodamus” Rubio Predicts Terror Attack In Turkey
Shot In The Dark: The Terrible Hours
STUMP: A Thought On Brexit And Nationalism – Contrast To The USA
The Jawa Report: Sandcrawler PSA – Lesbians And Gays Are Haram
The Lonely Conservative: No Wonder The White House Wants To Dismiss The House Benghazi Report
The Political Hat: Obama Claims AIDS Transmitted By H8
This Ain’t Hell: Gunnery Sergeant Geann Periera Saving The World
Weasel Zippers: Former Navy SEAL – Hillary Killed My Friends In Benghazi
Megan McArdle: Minneapolis Is The Wrong Place To Try A $15 Minimum Wage
Mark Steyn: The Insecure Security Line


Shop Amazon Prime Exclusive Phones – Blu at $49.99
Shop Amazon Prime Exclusive Phone – Moto g4 at $149.99

Category: Linkagery

SJW Feminist @SamanthaPajor Has Finally Solved the Terrorism Problem

Posted on | June 29, 2016 | 36 Comments

 

Samantha Pajor “is a freelance journalist living in Chicago. She runs one of Tumblr’s most popular feminist blogs, I Write About Feminism.” She supported Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign, which she celebrated as “a movement that centers the intersectionalities of economic equality, environmental stability, and social justice.” Not to put too fine a point on it, Samantha Pajor is an idiot, as she proved Tuesday.

 

Not content to spew this deranged nonsense on her Twitter account, Pajor then amplified her assertions on her feminist Tumblr blog:

The purpose of terrorism is to control others through fear.
We fight this by doing the opposite.
We empower people through compassion.
People who feel loved and accepted, people who are able to meet their basic human needs, do not become terrorists. They become healers.
This is why every small act of compassion, understanding, and respect for the dignity of others is so powerful, and why actions, small and large, that detract from compassion, understanding, and respect, are so dangerous. There’s no such thing as harmless bigotry.
This is a fight we can win.
We can win if we choose, every day, to do good. To heal. To fix. To speak. To love.

The terrorists who killed 36 people in Istanbul were devoted to ISIS, whose goal is to impose a global Islamic caliphate. These radical young fanatics were willing to die in a suicide attack to advance that cause.

Radical Islam will not be defeated by your pseudo-therapeutic psychobabble and pacifist “social justice” nonsense, Ms. Pajor. These vicious killers despise you and your “compassion, understanding, and respect.” The hateful ideology of radical Islam has no compassion for you, nor does any supporter of ISIS have any respect for feminists like you.

“The saddest thing I remember, during those terrible months, was this little girl, 12 years old. They raped her without mercy.”
— Amal, 18, who survived nearly a year in ISIS captivity

Islamic jihad is about raping girls and enslaving women, Ms. Pajor, and yet you dare speak of the “dignity” of these murderous monsters?

No, ma’am, we will not stop ISIS with “compassion, understanding, and respect.” We will stop them with high-velocity 5.56-mm fire, as well as .50-caliber rounds, JDAMs and other such weapons of war. ISIS will not be defeated by “intersectionalities of economic equality, environmental stability, and social justice,” but by the courage of heroic warriors like Charles Keating IV, Joshua Wheeler and Louis Cardin.

Navy SEAL Charles Keating, Army Sgt. Joshua Wheeler, Marine Sgt. Louis Cardin.

Obama administration officials have tried to avoid saying that there are combat troops in Iraq and Syria. But on [Memorial Day] Mr. Obama said three men “had given their lives in combat on our behalf.”
The service members, Staff Sgt. Louis Cardin, who was 27 years old, Petty Officer First Class Charles Keating IV, who was 31, and Master Sgt. Joshua Wheeler, who was 39, had all served multiple tours in the Middle East. Mr. Wheeler in October became the first to die in combat in Iraq since 2011.
Last May, there were about 3,000 troops in Iraq and none in Syria. Now, about 5,000 U.S. troops are in Iraq and about 300 in Syria. About 10,000 troops serve in Afghanistan.

These brave men died to defend you, Ms. Pajor, from the unspeakable brutality Muslims inflict on women wherever sharia law is imposed.

Since she is running “one of Tumblr’s most popular feminist blogs,” doesn’t Samantha Pajor have an obligation to tell her readers the truth about what sharia and Islamic jihad mean for women? Ah, but Samantha Pajor is a Democrat, and Democrats don’t care about the truth.




Category: Iraq, Islam, Sex Trouble, Syria, Terrorism, Turkey

ISIS Suspected in Terrorist Attack; 36 Dead, 147 Wounded at Istanbul Airport

Posted on | June 28, 2016 | 22 Comments

An attack at Istanbul’s Ataturk International Airport reportedly killed 36 people and left 147 others wounded Tuesday. A member of the House Intelligence Committee suggested ISIS was likely to blame.

The massacre in Turkey had “all the signatures of an ISIS attack,” Rep. Eric Swalwell, California Democrat, told CNN’s Don Lemon. The attack was made by three gunman, each of whom detonated suicide bombs, according to Turkish Prime Minister Binali Yildirim:

Police fired shots to try to stop two of the attackers just before they reached a security checkpoint at the arrivals hall, but they detonated their explosives, a Turkish official said.
“It became clear with this incident again that terrorism is a global threat. This attack, targeting innocent people is a vile, planned terrorist act,” Prime Minister Binali Yildirim told reporters at the airport.
“There is initial evidence that each of the three suicide bombers blew themselves up after opening fire,” he said, adding that they had come to the airport by taxi and that preliminary findings pointed to Islamic State responsibility.

UPDATE: Donald Trump weighs in:

UPDATE II: A surveillance camera inside the airport caught an amazing scene — as one of the gunmen charges through the terminal, he is shot by a policeman. The officer then approaches the wounded gunman before realizing that the terrorist is attempting to detonate his suicide vest. The officer runs away with seconds to spare before the terrorist’s vest explodes:

 

Category: Islam, Terrorism, Turkey
« go back — keep looking »