Today, I’ve been researching an update on Zinnia Jones, and you may recall that Zinnia is married to Heather McNamara. So while wading deep into the swamp of Zinnia’s YouTube channel — trust me, it’s crazy — I came across this video, in which Heather McNamara does a “guest column” about pro-sex feminism:
“The idea that any sexual preference whatsoever is legitimate and natural, and is probably only considered bad because patriarchy, is to deny how overwhelmingly the current ideals benefit heterosexual men at the expense of the rest of us. . . . Further to the point, this focus on expanding the ideals of beauty and sexiness so that everyone can have a slice, to further empowerment for women, is doing exactly the opposite of what feminists have been working toward for decades, and not for nothing. It keeps us locked in this asinine prison of a value system that teaches women they must be aesthetically pleasing to be sexually desirable, and sexually desirable to be whole.”
To this, my reply is, “One life, one wife.”
Which is to say, lifelong monogamous pair-bonding (otherwise known as traditional marriage) is the refuge from this “asinine prison.” Raising children with a moral value system that upholds this institution as sacred — so that marriage vows actually mean something — inhibits the influence of”current ideals” of “beauty and sexiness” as the be-all, end-all of women’s existence. Furthermore, the Judeo-Christian moral value system inhibits other such forces of cultural decadence as materialism, status-seeking and the lust for political power. Alas, we must confront a problem described by G.K. Chesteron: “The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult; and left untried.”
Our society is now so far gone in decadence, however, that feminists blame “patriarchy” for problems caused by modern secularism, including problems to which feminism itself has significantly contributed. Nor will the current revival of radical feminism do anything to solve these problems, and there is absolutely zero chance that feminism will ever change basic human nature. Beautiful women will always have advantages over less attractive women, just as tall men will have advantages over short men, and rich people (male or female) will have advantages over poor people. Just because I’m not a 6-foot-4 millionaire, however, doesn’t make me a victim of systemic oppression any more so than Heather McNamara is locked in an “asinine prison” because she is, uh, not thin.
Speaking of “somebody else,” what about Heather McNamara’s new “wife”? How does Zinnia’s expertise in “butt stuff” and sex toys figure into this relationship? Wouldn’t this be rather embarrassing?
Remember Jian Ghomeshi? He was the famous-in-Canada guy who was accused of rape and acquitted in a trial earlier this year. Some people might conclude that a “not guilty” verdict means that Jian Ghomeshi was, you know, not guilty. However, feminists in Canada had decided Jian Ghomeshi was guilty long before the trial began. To feminists, his acquittal meant that Jian Ghomeshi got away with it.
If you believe what feminists wrote about the Jian Ghomeshi case, rape is basically legal in Canada. Getting a rape conviction in Canada is so difficult, according to feminists, that Canadian women are raped routinely and the reaction from Canadian law enforcement is, “Tough luck.”
Because I hate Canada quite generally, I’m willing to believe this.
My attitude toward elite universities is the same. When I see feminists protesting about “rape culture” at Harvard or Yale, my reaction is to figure they’re right. Those boys with perfect GPAs and high SAT scores paying $50,000 a year to attend elite schools? Rapists, all of them.
The Ivy League Is Decadent and Depraved, as I keep saying, and I’m always willing to believe any accusation against a Harvard student. Rape, arson, kidnapping, murder, bestiality, treason — guilty! Hang ’em!
Canadian men are probably at least as bad as Harvard students, or perhaps even worse, which may explain why Canadian feminists are so angry. Anne Thériault is a Canadian feminist who declared Jian Ghomeshi guilty of rape as soon as the accusation was made:
I swear to God if one more person says “presumption of innocence” to me, I’m going to flip a table. At this point, the words have ceased to mean anything other than, “Stop talking about this thing that I don’t want you to talk about.” . . .
No one seems to care about how supporting Ghomeshi will influence other women who want to come forward about being raped or assaulted. . . .
Ghomeshi is, in the eyes of the law, innocent until proven guilty. This is an important part of our judicial system, and it should be respected. However — and I can’t emphasize this enough — the presumption of innocence should extend to all parties involved. The presumption of innocence does not mean that you should assume that these women are lying about being assaulted until proven otherwise.
Here is the fulcrum on which the whole matter balances.
Unlike most other crimes — armed robbery, possession of narcotics, vehicular homicide, etc. — rape accusations are frequently “he said/she said” disputes, where there is no corroborating evidence or testimony by witnesses to help us ascertain the truth. From the feminist perspective, however, “reasonable doubt” means that women are accused of lying and so, according to Anne Thériault, the accusation of rape should be considered tantamount to proof of rape. Guilty! Hang ’em!
The Canadian feminist lynch mob was ready to see Jian Ghomeshi go to prison, and infuriated when the judge acquitted him.
That headline on a column by Canadian feminist Meghan Murphy summarizes the most bitter aspect of the Ghomeshi case for them. Ghomeshi was a sort of hero to a generation of young progressive women in Canada, and he had no shortage of female companionship. He was a known womanizer, even more notorious in that regard than Bill Clinton. When multiple women accused Jian Ghomeshi of sexual assault, the case was not really just about him, but also about every other womanizer with a “progressive persona.” Feminists are to progressive guys what wildebeests are to lions on the Katanga Plateau, i.e., their natural prey.
Most conservatives suspect that the only reason guys get into progressive politics is because such movements attract a lot of slutty feminists who are fools for any dude who can talk a good line about “social justice.” And the reason feminists hate men so much, we suspect, is because so many feminists have had the experience of being used and discarded by the Jian Ghomeshi type of progressive dude. How many Canadian feminists did Ghomeshi have sex with? As many as he wanted, basically. The number’s probably more than 100, if not 200 or 300, because Jian Ghomeshi was a progressive celebrity in Canada, and feminists in Canada are certainly no less promiscuous than feminists anywhere else.
Because feminists are so often used by guys in “pump-and-dump” hookups — no romance, no callback, no respect — they tend to become embittered toward men quite generally, and this fuels a vindictive rage: Men must be punished to appease her wrath for the wrongs she has suffered. Therefore, whenever a rape case makes headlines anywhere, feminists everywhere demand a guilty verdict and a maximum penalty. There has never been an innocent man falsely accused, feminists expect us to believe, and doubt is impermissible. All skeptics are “rape truthers,” a term coined by Amanda Marcotte to describe the widespread reaction to the Rolling Stone gang-rape hoax at the University of Virginia.
Canadian progressives are scum, and I wouldn’t care if Jian Ghomeshi had been sentenced to life in prison. Frankly, if a mob of feminists kidnapped Ghomeshi, doused him in gasoline and set him ablaze, his fiery death would not bother me at all. One less Canadian on the planet? Good news! However, the immolation of Jian Ghomeshi would make Anne Thériault happy, and anything that makes Anne Thériault happy is wrong, so I guess there’s at least one reason why I should hope he doesn’t die in a fire.
Do you see the futility of this feminist Us-vs.-Them worldview, where all men are oppressors and all women are victims? The judge in the Ghomeshi case did not find the testimony of the accusers credible and, in fact, his ruling pointed out that Ghomeshi’s accusers were caught telling lies. The judge warned against the “dangerous false assumption that sexual assault complainants are always truthful.” This prompted Anne Thériault to declare her continued belief in Ghomeshi’s guilt, blaming the discrepancies in his accusers’ memories on “trauma.” All women tell the truth all the time, according to Anne Thériault and all men are rape suspects whose guilt is certain as soon as an accusation is made. The only way a man can avoid suspicion is to avoid women altogether. A man should never go anywhere he might accidentally encounter a woman, and he must make sure he can prove his alibi, otherwise Anne Thériault would have him sent to prison, were it in her power to do so.
Rape culture is the idea that sexual assault does not happen in a vacuum, but rather occurs because we are socialized in a way that normalizes and even celebrates sexual victimization of women. . . .
Everyone can agree that rape is objectively wrong, but problems crop up when we try to parse exactly what rape is and under what circumstances it occurs. . . . Most rapists are men we know and like: our neighbors and our colleagues and sometimes even our friends. . . .
Men we think of as nice guys.
Men who look just like everybody else.
What the absolute hell is she talking about? Everybody knows and likes rapists? Read the whole column and you discover that what Anne Thériault is doing here is trying to create a definition of the “sexual victimization of women” so elastic as to include nearly every hookup involving people who have been drinking. By Anne Thériault’s standards, just about every hookup that happens after a college frat party could be construed as rape. The Brock Turner case was egregious, but in reading Anne Thériault’s commentary on the case, you realize that this is not about Brock Turner, in the same way her commentary about Jian Ghomeshi wasn’t really about Jian Ghomeshi. No, Anne Thériault has a generalized resentment toward men, and these cases give her an excuse to point the accusing finger: “You’re all guilty! Neighbors! Colleagues! Friends! Nice guys! Guilty! Guilty! Guilty!”
By constantly reiterating this universal male guilt, Anne Thériault seeks to convince her readers of her own moral superiority. She is Saint Anne of the Sacred Gender, and the rest of us — especially the male “us” — are all wretched sinners, unfit to touch the hem of her garment.
This self-righteousness, and this infinite hostility toward men, are both part of a revenge fantasy that is sadly common among feminists. The main problem with the world, from the feminist perspective, is that too many women actually like men. All men deserve to be hated, and no man deserves anything except hatred, and Anne Thériault will never be satisfied until all women hate men as much as she does.
Translation: Anne Thériault has sometimes had a few too many drinks and made bad decisions. pic.twitter.com/oogR1r3kUU
“Extremely anti-gay, anti-bi, anti-trans rhetoric . . . is constantly creating a poisonous environment which leads to people hating themselves, people being violent towards one and other, to bullying, to abuse and it really needs to stop.”
— Ellen Page, June 15, 2016
There is a certain “Reichstag fire” element in the reaction by Democrats and the media (but I repeat myself) to the Orlando massacre. If you were a paranoid conspiracy theorist, you might be suspicious about how rapidly this crime — committed by a registered Democrat named Omar Mateen — was exploited to promote the Democrat Party’s agenda. However, as I often remind readers, liberalism is not a conspiracy, it’s a consensus: Everyone employed as a producer at CNN is a Democrat who therefore shares a a common set of core beliefs with all the Democrats employed at Harvard University, at the New York Times and in Hollywood. Republicans are deliberately excluded from working in higher education, the entertainment industry and the news media, and so this Democrat consensus produces a lockstep conformity so automatic that we may suspect that it is centrally planned by a secret cabal.
Yet the George Soros/David Brock/Sidney Blumenthal Axis of Progressive Evil doesn’t have that kind of power. They don’t need that kind of power, primarily because of how the Left has captured control of university campuses. Roger Kimball’s 1990 book Tenured Radicals and Dinesh D’Souza’s 1991 book Illiberal Education were prophetic warnings about how political correctness was being imposed in academia. Many conservatives reacted with mocking humor — “Hahahaha! Look at what these crazy kooks are doing!” — and failed to understand the significance of the Left’s academic hegemony, in terms of its long-term cultural influence. If socialism and atheism and other left-wing beliefs were being promoted by university faculty, and if students who opposed these beliefs were subject to punishment for speaking out against the Left, how long would it be before these intolerant “progressive” attitudes were diffused throughout the culture? College students were being quite literally indoctrinated by Marxist professors and taught to view opponents of socialism as evil.
Cultural Marxism produces an attitude of left-wing intolerance that routinely expresses itself through accusations of ThoughtCrime — “racist! sexist! homophobe!” — which are often simply slogans. In many cases, these smears have no relation to the actual beliefs of the person targeted by such attacks. The Left uses “racist” as a synonym for Republican, and this attitude was already apparent in academia 25 years ago. We now find such reflexive partisanship everywhere in the news media and the entertainment industry, which are controlled by people who would never knowingly employ a Republican. To watch CNN now is like watching a 24/7 campaign commercial for Hillary Clinton, and none of the people who produce this Democrat propaganda — Chris Cuomo, Carol Costello, Brooke Baldwin, et al. — seem the least bit embarrassed by their work as dishonest partisan hacks. CNN’s deliberately misleading coverage of the Orlando massacre, which they refuse to treat as a terrorist act of Islamic jihad, is reflected in every other liberal media venue.
Notice how journalists rush to provide free publicity for an interview on a Netflix show between a not-very-popular host (Chelsea Handler) and a not-very-popular actress (Ellen Page), promoting a not-very-relevant argument. The murders committed by Omar Mateen were not a result of generic “anti-LGBT rhetoric,” but were a result of Islamic jihad.
It is not rhetoric that kills people, otherwise I would already be dead. As a heterosexual white male Christian, I am more or less constantly assaulted by hate rhetoric from Democrats, who are determined to rid the world of Christians, white people, heterosexuality and the Republican Party (not necessarily in that order). Feminist baby-killers denouncing “toxic masculinity” and ranting about “rape culture,” mobs of angry black protesters seething with anti-white rage, atheists trying to eradicate Judeo-Christian morality — this is the Democrat Party in 2016.
Democrats hate Jesus. Democrats hate America and the Constitution. Democrats hate motherhood. Democrats hate babies and the Bible and, if you are a Republican, Democrats hate you — personally.
Ellen Page is Canadian. Why are Americans expected to listen to a Canadian lecture us about “creating a poisonous environment”? Also, Ellen Page is extremely short — barely five feet tall. If liberals think Americans need to be lectured about what violent anti-gay bullies we are, why can’t they find a full-grown American lesbian for this job? Why are we being lectured by midget homosexual foreigners?
Who hates America more, Ellen Page or ISIS? It’s hard to say.
What we notice, in these situations, is how the liberal media narrative is always determined by the political interests of the Democrat Party. Do you think liberals actually care about anti-gay violence?
Thomasena Mitchell and Kiara Johnson.
A chef at an uptown Charlotte restaurant told police she was attacked Saturday by a woman who hurled anti-gay slurs then body-slammed her to the ground.
“Never have I ever felt so alone,” she said. “I had seven girls staring at me, looking at me, with hate in their eyes.”
Charlotte police charged two 17-year-olds with misdemeanor assault and have asked the FBI whether the girls could be charged under the federal hate crime law. . . .
She said the assault occurred as she and a co-worker were walking home after work early Saturday evening. She said they passed a group of six or seven females and one male on Trade Street between Tryon and Church. Without any provocation, she said, one of the women yelled out:
“Hey, are you a stud?”
A stud is a euphemism for a masculine-looking lesbian. . . .
She said the woman then screamed a string of derogatory statements, including: “You’re a faggot. … You’re a queer….” . . .
Police arrested two teenagers about an hour later. Capt. Mike Campagna said that earlier in the day police had received reports about the group harassing other people.
Thomasena Michelle Chisolm and Kiara Marie Johnson were charged with misdemeanor assault. . . .
Both girls have been arrested multiple times before, but most charges were dismissed. Johnson was found guilty of breaking and entering earlier this year, and is awaiting trial on a larceny charge. Chisolm faces a trial on possession of a stolen motor vehicle.
Do you think CNN or the New York Times will notice a crime like this? No, of course not, because the perpetrators are black and the lesbian who got assaulted is white, and therefore it’s strictly local news.
The same principle explains why, when a bloodthirsty Muslim fanatic kills 49 people in Orlando, it’s not a story about the danger posed by bloodthirsty Muslim fanatic. Instead it’s an excuse to lecture Americans about how much we hate gay people. The principle that determines how the media covers such stories is always the same: “How can we report this in a way that helps the Democrat Party?” And this is why the media decides a Chelsea Handler interview with a not-very-popular actress is a Major News Story. The only people who hate America as much as liberals hate America are Canadians and ISIS, not necessarily in that order.
Milo Yiannopoulos (@nero on Twitter) has emerged in the past two years as one of the most controversial figures in New Media. When he appears on college campuses, students erupt in riotous protests. So where are the profile features by the New York Times, Esquire, Vanity Fair, GQ? Where is the TV news coverage of Milo’s campus speaking tour? Why isn’t Milo being interviewed by Stephen Colbert or Anderson Cooper?
The news industry seems intent on pretending Milo does not exist.
This is called “no platforming” — effectively marginalizing opposition to progressivism by denying opponents access to audiences. This practice has been used, for example, to prevent Christians from defending their faith against atheists, to prevent pro-lifers from debating abortion advocates, and to marginalize critics of global warming theory. In recent years, radical feminists who oppose the transgender cult have been “no platformed” by the National Union of Students in Great Britain.
On Wednesday, Milo was briefly suspended from Twitter — where he has 300,000 followers — on the same day he gave a news conference at the site of the massacre in Orlando. Milo is a very “out” homosexual, and you might suppose that his appearance at the Pulse nightclub would be considered newsworthy, except for three minor problems:
Milo is pro-Second Amendment.
Milo is pro-Donald Trump;
and
Milo is warning about the danger of radical Islam.
He is an un-person, from the perspective of the New York Times, CNN and other propaganda organs of the Democrat Party.
Video of Milo’s press conference (skip to the 12-minute mark):
You see why the media is determined to ignore Milo. The Left’s worldview requires not only the exclusion of facts and logic, but also the exclusion of people who don’t fit the stereotypes of the Left’s opponents.
They don’t need that kind of power, primarily because of how the Left has captured control of university campuses. 
