The Other McCain

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

Rule 5 Sunday: The Week Between

Posted on | December 27, 2015 | 11 Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho

This may be the longest week of the year; the week that stretches between Christmas and New Year is traditionally one in which little (if any) constructive work gets accomplished, except possibly in accounting departments scrambling to get all the year-end numbers to the boss and the last withholding payments off to the IRS and the state revenooers. Not that this has anything to do with my choice of appetizers for this week, actress Eliza Dushku, best known for her roles as Faith in Buffy the Vampire Slayer and its spinoff Angel, as well as Tru Calling and Dollhouse.

Talk about a “come hither” look.

As usual, many of the following links are to images normally considered NSFW; the management is not responsible for any horrible consequences caused by your failure to exercise discretion with regard to when and where you click on them.

Goodstuff leads off this week of slack with Ann Margret “and udder assorted treats”; next up is Ninety Miles from Tyranny with Hot Pick of the Late Night, Christmas Eve Girls With Guns,  and Christmas Day Morning Mistress, Animal Magnetism with Merry Rule 5 Christmas and the Saturday Gingermageddon. The Last Tradition chips in with Top Ten Rule 5 and Yendi Phillips, and First Street Journal praises American Servicewomen In Art.

EBL serves up Santa Seagals, Miss Colombia, Vintage Hollywood Christmas, Minneapolis City Council Doxxing Rule 5, College Football Cheerleaders, and Vintage Hollywood New Year’s.

A View from the Beach offers A Blue Christmas with Leighton Meester, And May All Your Christmas Earworms be Bright, Time for Santa’s Little Helpers, “Ave Maria”, Midnite Christmas Music from Bert, “Hark the Herald Angels Sing”, Morning Christmas Music – Sort Of, Gone Fishing . . ., Israeli Babe Confined for Tax Evasion, Can the Redskins Buffalo the Bills?, Mmmmm, Gingerbread Cookies!, and Ape-Wolf Alliance Lasts 33,000 Years

Proof Positive’s got Holiday Babes and Vintage Holiday Babes, Victoria’s Secret has Sex in Advertising covered, and of course, there’s the obligatory 49ers cheerleader. At Dustbury, it’s Selena Gomez and Selen Soyder.

Thanks to everyone for their linkagery! Deadline to submit links to the Rule 5 Wombat mailbox for the next Rule 5 roundup is midnight on Saturday, January 2.


Visit Amazon’s Intimate Apparel Shop

Category: Rule 5

The Value of Motherhood

Posted on | December 27, 2015 | 63 Comments

 

Charles Murray (@charlesmurray on Twitter) co-authored with the late Richard Herrnstein one of the most controversial books of the 20th century, The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life (1994). When it was first published, the harsh criticism from liberals — who claimed the book was practically neo-Nazi propaganda — led me to believe that it really was a bad book.

Liberal propaganda works this way. If enough people tell you they see smoke (sexism, racism, homophobia, etc.) you tend to assume that there must actually be some kind of hateful fire. So in 1994-95, after reading numerous reviews, articles and op-ed columns condemning The Bell Curve as crypto-racist pseudo-science, I just assumed the critics were correct. It wasn’t until 1996, when I made a dismissive remark about The Bell Curve in an Internet argument, that I found myself challenged: Had I actually read the book? So . . .

Charles Murray’s critics were not merely wrong, they were dishonest (because SJWs Always Lie, as Vox Day has recently explained). The recognition that I had been scammed, hoodwinked and bamboozled by liberal smears of The Bell Curve angered me. The first 125 pages of the book, which have nothing to do with the subject of race, are perhaps the most valuable part of The Bell Curve. Standardized testing and nationwide recruiting by elite universities have resulted in cognitive segregation, the creation of something very much like a caste system. The educational apparatus by which high-IQ children are tracked into “gifted” programs in elementary school and “honors” programs in high school, with the goal of sending every smart kid in the country to an elite university, has the effect of dissolving the social and cultural affinities between the elite caste and the vast majority of Americans. (At age 11, I was placed in an experimental “gifted” program, the first of its kind in our community. I hated it — a ridiculous waste of time, a burdensome “honor” conferring no actual benefit — and rebelled against the system, becoming a teenage hoodlum in middle school.) Once you get past page 125 of The Bell Curve, really, it is an attempt to explain why liberal policies have failed to eliminate socioeconomic disparities between racial and ethnic groups. If you keep in mind that the argument is about the efficacy of public policy — what the government is doing in our name, with our tax dollars — the accusations of “racism” directed at The Bell Curve must be recognized as an attempt to silence a cogent criticism of five decades of blundering, misguided wastefulness. “The Ivy League is decadent and depraved.” But I digress . . .

On Saturday, the Harvard-educated liberal snob Matthew Yglesias smeared Charles Murray by way of attacking Donald Trump, with the unintended consequence that a quote by Murray was called to my attention and, considering my own interest in radical feminism, I asked Murray via Twitter, “Did you ever tackle the ‘innate differences’ controversy that got Larry Summers fired at Harvard?” He replied with a link to an AEI paper he published in 2005, “The Inequality Taboo”:

The president of Harvard University offered a few mild, speculative, off-the-record remarks about innate differences between men and women in their aptitude for high-level science and mathematics, and was treated by Harvard’s faculty as if he were a crank. The typical news story portrayed the idea of innate sex differences as a renegade position that reputable scholars rejected. . . .
One such premise is that the distribution of innate abilities and propensities is the same across different groups. The statistical tests for uncovering job discrimination assume that men are not innately different from women, blacks from whites, older people from younger people, homosexuals from heterosexuals, Latinos from Anglos, in ways that can legitimately affect employment decisions. . . . Affirmative action in all its forms assumes there are no innate differences between any of the groups it seeks to help and everyone else. The assumption of no innate differences among groups suffuses American social policy. That assumption is wrong.
When the outcomes that these policies are supposed to produce fail to occur, with one group falling short, the fault for the discrepancy has been assigned to society. It continues to be assumed that better programs, better regulations, or the right court decisions can make the differences go away. That assumption is also wrong. . . .

Here we may interrupt to point out that the phrase “innate differences” refers to average differences between groups. Anyone who watches the NBA cannot help but notice that most of the players are black. This doesn’t mean, however, that there are no good white, Asian or Hispanic basketball players. Nor does it mean that all black people are good at basketball. Also, it does not mean that the NBA is engaging in discrimination. Whenever we see any disproportionate outcome that might be explained by average group differences, we must keep in mind that such differences do not tell us anything about any individual‘s potential, abilities or tendencies, and it is generally a mistake, in a free society, to leap to the conclusion that discrimination causes disparities in outcomes. (The Bell Curve carries many such disclaimers, by the way.) Now, we return to Charles Murray’s 2005 article:

The technical literature documenting sex differences and their biological basis grew surreptitiously during feminism’s heyday in the 1970’s and 1980’s. By the 1990’s, it had become so extensive that the bibliography in David Geary’s pioneering Male, Female (1998) ran to 53 pages. Currently, the best short account of the state of knowledge is Steven Pinker’s chapter on gender in The Blank Slate (2002). . . .
Regarding women, men, and babies, the technical literature is as unambiguous as everyday experience would lead one to suppose. As a rule, the experience of parenthood is more profoundly life-altering for women than for men. . . . Among humans, extensive empirical study has demonstrated that women are more attracted to children than are men, respond to them more intensely on an emotional level, and get more and different kinds of satisfactions from nurturing them. Many of these behavioral differences have been linked with biochemical differences between men and women.
Thus, for reasons embedded in the biochemistry and neurophysiology of being female, many women with the cognitive skills for achievement at the highest level also have something else they want to do in life: have a baby. In the arts and sciences, forty is the mean age at which peak accomplishment occurs, preceded by years of intense effort mastering the discipline in question. These are precisely the years during which most women must bear children if they are to bear them at all.
Among women who have become mothers, the possibilities for high-level accomplishment in the arts and sciences shrink because, for innate reasons, the distractions of parenthood are greater. To put it in a way that most readers with children will recognize, a father can go to work and forget about his children for the whole day. Hardly any mother can do this, no matter how good her day-care arrangement or full-time nanny may be. My point is not that women must choose between a career and children, but that accomplishment at the extremes commonly comes from a single-minded focus that leaves no room for anything but the task at hand.

You can read the whole thing, to which I wish to add this: It does not matter whether male-female differences, as they relate to parenting, are “innate” or “socially constructed.” Biological realities of pregnancy and nursing mean that women have a greater personal investment in parenthood. Without any resort to Darwinian explanations, there are numerous practical reasons why we should expect mothers to be more nurturing than men. Furthermore, we would also expect mothers to be more nurturing than women who avoid motherhood. Radical feminists scoff at any suggestion that women’s greater tendency toward nurturing is a matter of hard-wired neurological differences. Radical feminists deny that there is any such thing as “human nature” which could explain women’s behavior in terms of a “maternal instinct.” Radical feminists generally eschew motherhood and many of them abhor heterosexuality, per se. Women’s Studies textbooks assert that only social and cultural influences (e.g., “compulsory heterosexuality”) explain why most women desire husbands and babies. Because they have no “maternal instinct” nor any romantic or sexual interest in males, radical feminists seem to assume that other women are under the spell of some sort of patriarchal brainwashing: “Most Women Have to Be Coerced into Heterosexuality.”

Why is this abhorrence of men, marriage and motherhood so common among radical feminists? Because they are intellectuals — academics, authors and journalists — and their chosen careers force them into a competition against males that makes it impossible for them to view men as anything other than hostile antagonists. In the ruthless competition for tenure-track professorships, the ambitious female academic has every incentive to avoid the “distractions” of marriage and motherhood.

There is a reason why “lesbianism and feminism have been coterminous,” as Professor Bonnie Zimmerman said, and the disproportionate overrepresentation of lesbians on university faculties is surely not a coincidence. One of the most outspoken critics of Larry Summers in the 2005 “innate differences” controversy was a lesbian professor named Denice Denton, who committed suicide not long after she became chancellor of UC-Santa Cruz. The anti-male/anti heterosexual ideology of feminism (“Fear and Loathing of the Penis”) is pervasive in academia. One consequence is that college-educated women are encouraged to believe that motherhood is a task for which only stupid women are suited. No intelligent woman could possibly find pleasure in caring for small children, according to the anti-natalist fanatics who insist that motherhood is nothing but patriarchal oppression.

“I don’t particularly like babies. They are loud and smelly and, above all other things, demanding . . . time-sucking monsters with their constant neediness. . . . I don’t want a baby. . . . Nothing will make me want a baby. . . . This is why, if my birth control fails, I am totally having an abortion.”
— Amanda Marcotte, March 2014

Feminism is not only man-hating, but also baby-hating, and insofar as feminism is the official philosophy of women in academia, a major function of our higher education system is to discourage intelligent women from having children. This means that each subsequent generation of American children will have less intelligent mothers, and yet feminists seem unconcerned about the potential consequences of this dysgenic trend. The Census Bureau issued a report in April that demonstrated the scope of this problem:

Not a high school graduate
Lifetime births (average) ….. 2.6
Childless ………………………….. 11.6%

Bachelor’s degree
Lifetime births (average) ….. 1.8
Childless ………………………….. 19.9%

As I summarized this data, “High-school dropouts, on average, had 44% more children than women who had college diplomas. Childlessness was 72% more common for college graduates than for high-school dropouts.” What does this mean? The future will be an increasingly stupid place.

An electorate with more stupid voters is good for the Democrat Party, I guess, which may explain why feminists don’t give a damn about the emerging Idiocracy. Anything that helps Democrats is OK with Amanda Marcotte, but this trend that feminists have done so much to encourage should concern all Americans who have children and grandchildren.

Feminism stigmatizes motherhood. Feminists deny that the mother caring for her own children is doing valuable work. Feminism teaches that husband is a synonym for oppressor, and feminists proclaim that not only are fathers unnecessary to the well-being of children, but that fathers — like all other males — are a violent and terrifying menace.

“All women are prisoners and hostages to men’s world. Men’s world is like a vast prison or concentration camp for women. This isn’t a metaphor, it’s reality. Each man is a threat. We can’t escape men.”
— Radical Wind, August 2013

These are the ideas taught by Women’s Studies professors in our universities. Ideas Have Consequences, Richard Weaver observed, and we cannot safely ignore the consequences of feminist ideas.

My stake in America’s future is not merely a matter of rhetoric and ideology, but flesh and blood. “The personal is political,” after all.




 

Category: Education, Family, Intellectuals, Sex Trouble

FMJRA 2.0: Walking In The Shadow of The Big Man

Posted on | December 26, 2015 | 2 Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho

Rule 5 Sunday: Pre-Christmas Shopping Frenzy Edition
Animal Magnetism
Ninety Miles from Tyranny
A View from the Beach
Proof Positive
Batshit Crazy News

You’re Too ‘Empowered,’ Darling
The Pirate’s Cove
First Street Journal

FMJRA 2.0: Achtung Baby
The Pirate’s Cove
A View from the Beach
Batshit Crazy News

What Went Through The Moderator’s Mind At The #DemDebate
Batshit Crazy News

Off To The Side
Batshit Crazy News

The Feminist-Industrial Complex: Guilt and Queer Theory in Wisconsin
Something Fishy
Living In Anglo-America

Victims of ‘Cissexist Heteropatriarchy’
Dark Brightness
The Daley Gator
Batshit Crazy News

RETURN OF THE BRIDE OF THE SON OF THE BEAST OF LIVE AT FIVE 12.21.15 CONQUERS THE MARTIANS
Batshit Crazy News

The Feminist-Industrial Complex: Lesbians ‘Learning How to Scream’
Living In Anglo-America
First Street Journal
Batshit Crazy News

In The Mailbox, 12.22.15
Proof Positive
Batshit Crazy News

LIVE AT FIVE: 12.23.15
A View from the Beach
Proof Positive
Batshit Crazy News

The Elite Who Are Destroying America
First Street Journal
BlurBrain
Bruce Hanify
Batshit Crazy News

LIVE AT FIVE: 12.24.15
Proof Positive

The ‘Brilliant’ Fool McGeorge Bundy
Batshit Crazy News

Donkey Cartel, R.I.P.
Batshit Crazy News

‘Intense and Overwhelming Narcissism’
The Pirate’s Cove
Batshit Crazy News

Top linker this week:

  1.  Batshit Crazy News (13)

Thanks to everyone for their linkagery!

Shop Amazon – Year End Deals on Magazines

Category: FMJRA Award

Doxed Lives Matter

Posted on | December 26, 2015 | 32 Comments

Alonda Cano (@People4Alondra) says her critics are racist.

The tactic of “doxing” — publishing someone’s home address and other personal information on the Internet in order to expose them to harassment — was made notorious by hackers associated with the “Anonymous” conspiracy. Vox Day explains how “social justice warriors” (SJWs) use these scorched-earth tactics:

The fact is that SJWs are out to disqualify, discredit, and disemploy everyone who does not share their dedication to social justice ideals. . . . Cross them, even inadvertently, and they will attempt to destroy you, your career, and your family.

A Democrat in Minnesota has adopted this attitude:

A Minneapolis City Council member is drawing criticism for what some see as an effort to publicly shame constituents who objected to her involvement in Wednesday’s Black Lives Matter rally at the Mall of America and the airport.
Council Member Alondra Cano, who represents the Ninth Ward, has been accused of “doxing” — posting personal information about people who criticized her for supporting the Black Lives Matter events — on Twitter.
Stephen Dent, who said he had previously contributed to Cano’s campaign, wrote to her and told Cano she was unfit to serve on the council by “closing private property” and “supporting illegal actions.”
Cano then tweeted Dent’s email address and phone number to her roughly 2,000 followers.
“What she did to me and others put a huge chill on our democratic society,” Dent said in a phone interview early Thursday. “It has broken my trust with public officials in the city of Minneapolis.” . . .
Dent said that as a 62 year old gay man he understands discrimination and is sympathetic to the aims of Black Lives Matter but does not believe Cano should have been participating in the protests.
As for posting his cell phone and email address, “I understand the law allows her to do this. But what she did was unethical,” said Dent, who said he is an organizational psychologist and author. He said he has filed an ethics complaint with the city.

Via Memeorandum. More at Powerline, Gateway Pundit and Daily Caller.

 

Category: Crime, Democrats, Racism

‘Intense and Overwhelming Narcissism’

Posted on | December 25, 2015 | 78 Comments

Feminists coined the term “Peak Trans Moment” to describe the point at which they became disgusted with transgender ideology. One woman who related her experiences complained that transgender activists “expect to co-opt feminist time and attention away from their own issues to trans issues, and they expect it as their right.” Why aren’t transgender activists supportive of women?

Their intense and overwhelming narcissism won’t allow it, and anyway, they have no genuine concern for women, because women are nothing more than a sexual resource to them.
These are the same kind of men who transition, identify as a “lesbian”, and then immediately expect some kind of Welcome Wagon gift basket of sex for it.

In other words, the transgender movement is about selfishness and entitlement, and these misguided men in dresses exploit “feminism” as a means to recruit women to participate in their delusional fantasies. Having their counterfeit womanhood accepted by women is an essential part of the transgender fetish. Relating the story of “a very socially-awkward man who had never had a successful relationship with a woman” before deciding to “transition,” the feminist summarizes the psychology of what we might call Transgender Rage Syndrome:

They feel like failures as men; well, what is a woman to them but a failed man? Therefore they must be “women.” And being a woman is a life on easy mode according to them, so after they transition they start to get angry. Where is all of the constant fawning attention they were expecting? Where are the pajama parties and makeovers and shoe-shopping and cocktails with the “girls” that’s owed to them? Why are their expectations and needs not a constant priority with the women they meet?

This is an insightful analysis, but where did transgender activists get their ideas of using “gender” as a weapon to manipulate others? Where did this victimhood mentality originate? Oh, that’s right — feminism.

If “the personal is political,” as Carol Hanisch said, who can define the limits of this ideology? If radical feminism is just the rationalization of personal grievance — a means of converting hurt feelings into a political “cause” — then what kind of reactions would we expect, as the logical obverse, from men who “feel like failures as men”? A proliferation of perversity and insanity, perhaps?

Radical feminists are complaining about the unintended consequences of a social revolution they have deliberately fomented, but who is to blame for their failure to study history? They are quite like those Bolsheviks — Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamenev, Bukharin — who were later purged and murdered by Stalin. “The dictatorship of the proletariat” was a more brutal tyranny than the Tsarist regime. The Bolsheviks had endorsed the annihilation of the Romanovs, and had no legitimate defense when they themselves were targeted for annihilation in The Great Terror.

Those who invoke “social justice” and “equality” as the slogans of revolution seldom consider such sobering lessons of history. Other revolutionaries no less determined (and, in their own minds, no less well-intentioned) have been responsible for creating the most deadly nightmares in human history and many revolutionaries were killed by the monstrous dictatorships they helped create.

That a feminist revolution might have negative consequences for women — including feminists themselves — should have been obvious long ago. In 1995, Wellesley College economics professor Julie Matthaei (“a Marxist living in a modern-day commune in Cambridge”) published a treatise called “The Sexual Division of Labor, Sexuality, and Lesbian/Gay Liberation: Toward a Marxist-Feminist Analysis of Sexuality in U.S. Capitalism,” which is included in the 2007 textbook anthology Queer Economics edited by Joyce Jacobsen and Adam Zeller. Professor Mattaei argues (pp. 217-218):

The feminist movement of the 1970s and 1980s was closely linked to lesbianism. On the one hand, lesbians had a higher stake than heterosexual married women in accessing well-paid jobs, since lesbians did not have access to “family wages” through husbands. Furthermore, lesbians . . . were less fearful of losing their “womanhood” and attractiveness to men if they took on “men’s jobs” than were heterosexual women. Thus lesbians made up a disproportionate part of the ranks of feminists among all class and racial-ethnic groups. . . .
Furthermore, feminist analysis and the movement . . . have resulted in the “coming out” of many involved. First, feminists developed a critique of the sexual division of labor and of gender roles as being both restrictive to all and oppressive to women. Second, they directly criticized heterosexual marriage because of its subordination of women to men as unpaid servants and sexual objects. Third, many feminists put forth lesbianism as a viable alternative — even, some argued, the appropriate feminist choice, a form of resistance to patriarchy that is more symmetrical and egalitarian than heterosexuality. . . . Many of the leading early feminist theorists — such as Adrienne Rich, Andrea Dworkin, Gayle Rubin, Charlotte Bunch, Mary Daly, Audre Lorde, Barbara Smith, Cherrie Moraga, and Susan Griffin — were “out” lesbians. Fourth, feminism has brought like-minded women together as coparticipants in support and action groups, providing them with potential sexual/love partners.
In other words, feminist movement has encouraged women to challenge and even deviate from traditional gender roles; it has highlighted the oppressiveness of traditional heterosexuality, it has supported and even advocated lesbianism as an option for women; it has encouraged women to pursue “men’s” jobs . . . that allow them to survive economically without men; and it has brought women in close and cooperative contact with other like-minded women.

What this Marxist economist is saying, quite directly, is something that should be obvious to any intelligent student of the feminist movement, i.e., lesbians had a particular motive for attacking “men’s jobs” and “family wages,” and this economic motive explains why so many “early feminist theorists” were lesbians. However, if you do not share this lesbian-feminist hostility to “the oppressiveness of traditional heterosexuality,” then feminism’s attack on the economics of “family wages” becomes problematic. If you are a woman who hopes that your husband will be able to support you and your children on his salary alone — especially during the crucial period when your children are infants and toddlers — the feminist economic agenda is directly hostile to your interests. Feminist demands for “equality” amount to a demand (often justified by a rhetoric of “diversity”) that no man should ever be hired for “well-paid jobs” if any qualified female applicant is available. The economic agenda of feminism is about achieving “equality” through deliberate discrimination against males, and the preponderance of women in higher education (where female students are 57% of undergraduate enrollment) is just one example of how successful feminists have been in promoting anti-male discrimination.

Few critics of feminism ever pursue the subject to the theoretical level of analysis that Professor Matthaei provides, and thus never question the movement’s basic premise. Does “the sexual division of labor” in marriage really cause the “subordination of women to men as unpaid servants and sexual objects”? If so, doesn’t this suggest, as Professor Mattaei and others have argued, that feminist “equality” can only be achieved if women reject heterosexuality, per se?

Whatever your opinion of Professor Matthei’s analysis, such theories are widely accepted within academic feminism, and the question at issue is how men are likely to react when confronted by the consequences of these theories. Feminism’s success means that the economic basis of heterosexual relationships has been undermined, so that fewer men have sufficient income to support wives and children. The supply-and-demand mechanism of the marriage market has been drastically altered. Without “the sexual division of labor,” there is less basis for cooperative partnerships between men and women. In recent decades, the logic of marriage has been sabotaged by an ideological regime of androgynous “equality” that has the effect of fostering implacable hostility between men and women. Feminism demands destruction of the social order, and this predictably leads to the “war of all against all” (bellum omnium contra omnes) as Hobbes called it.

That many men have reacted badly to this should not surprise us. Most men do not understand feminism because most feminists are purposefully dishonest about what feminism really is and what they mean by “equality.” The ridiculous posture of Emma Watson as spokeswoman for the United Nations “He for She” campaign — telling men that feminism will actually help men, too — is typical of the deceptive propaganda about “equality” that the feminist movement employs. Feminists seek to confuse men and deceive them into supporting an anti-male movement, and many young men foolishly accept feminism’s “equality” rhetoric as if it were sincere.

One men’s rights activist (MRA) asked the question, “Why Is It Harder For Men To Challenge Their Sex Role Than It Has Been For Women?” We can answer this question quite easily: Failure is not attractive.

Women are attracted to successful men, and the competitive drive for success is therefore intrinsic to men’s “sex role.” Every attempt to escape this logic is doomed. The “very socially-awkward man who had never had a successful relationship with a woman” will find that pursuing a “transgender” delusion does not solve his problem. Winners win and losers lose and, ultimately, no political agenda can change this.

What are we to make of the spectacle of transgender weirdos with “no genuine concern for women,” whose bizarre fetishes are inspired by “intense and overwhelming narcissism”? Is it not true, in some sense, that these monsters have been created by feminists who “developed a critique . . . of gender roles”? It would be no trouble to cite the passages from Kate Millett’s Sexual Politics (1970), Shulamith Firestone’s The Dialectic of Sex (1970) and Andrea Dworkin’s Woman Hating (1974) which endorse the belief that there are no natural differences between men and women. If these feminist pioneers were correct, then why can’t a man be a woman? Or why shouldn’t feminists be expected to celebrate transgenderism as “a form of resistance to patriarchy”?

The false premises of feminist theory produce these contradictions, and yet feminists refuse to acknowledge or take responsibility for the problems that they themselves have caused. Feminists are dishonest, selfish and cruel. No feminist has ever actually believed in “equality,” a slogan they only invoke to legitimize their limitless hatred for men.

Feminism is irrational, because hate is always irrational.




 

Category: Sex Trouble

Donkey Cartel, R.I.P.

Posted on | December 24, 2015 | 58 Comments

Another promising young performance artist has been slain by social injustice and pistol fire, but mainly it was pistol fire:

Daquan Westbrook, a rapper with an extensive arrest record, has been identified as the man killed in an officer-involved shooting at Northlake Mall in Charlotte, North Carolina, on Christmas Eve.
Mr. Westbrook, 18, was a rapper who performed as “Donkey Cartel” and released a mixtape titled “Convicted Felon With a Weapon,” the cover of which shows him in a prison cell wearing an orange jumpsuit and making hand signs. . . .
Mr. Westbrook had a lengthy history of run-ins with the police, his record including at least 11 arrests since 2013, one of them related to the shooting of a 12-year-old boy.
According to the Charlotte Observer, the most recent arrests were in October and “were related to drugs, larceny and resisting arrest.”
A shoe store manager in the mall told CNN that the gunfight that prompted an off-duty officer to kill the gunman began when a group of people “ganged up” to attack a man.
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Chief Kerr Putney said at a Thursday evening news conference that while he could not specifically say the shooting was gang-related, the altercation involved two groups with a history of feuding. . . .
The subjects involved all have a history of gun violence, he said.
Chief Putney said Mr. Westbrook was carrying a gun and pointed it at Officer Thomas Ferguson when the off-duty policeman tried to break up the fight, at which several shots were fired. Several guns were found at the scene, Chief Putney said.
The officer then killed Mr. Westbrook.

Merry Christmas and R.I.P., Donkey Cartel.

 

Category: Crime

The ‘Brilliant’ Fool McGeorge Bundy

Posted on | December 24, 2015 | 53 Comments

 

Just yesterday, in describing the decadence of the Ivy League elite, I casually mentioned McGeorge Bundy, a Yale-educated policy “expert” in the JFK/LBJ administrations who played a prominent role in creating the Vietnam War debacle:

A descendant of the Boston Lowells on his mother’s side, a product of Groton, Yale and Skull and Bones, and a Harvard dean in his early 30’s, Mr. Bundy was the very personification of what the journalist David Halberstam, in the title of his 1969 book, labeled “The Best and the Brightest”: the well-born, confident intellectuals who led the nation into the quagmire of Vietnam.
After leaving Government in 1965, Mr. Bundy became president of the Ford Foundation, serving until 1979. He was then a professor of history at New York University for 10 years. In 1990, he joined the Carnegie Corporation of New York. He was chairman of its committee on reducing the danger of nuclear war and was its scholar-in-residence at the time of his death [in 1996].
“He was a man of notable brilliance, integrity and patriotic purpose,” said the historian Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., who served in the Kennedy White House with Mr. Bundy and counted him among his oldest friends.

McGeorge Bundy was a blundering fool. This cannot be repeated often enough. The “notable brilliance” of these “confident intellectuals” is always dangerous. McGeorge Bundy was a clever exponent of bad ideas, and the fact that Arthur Schlesinger Jr. was willing to praise such a fool tells you that Arthur Schlesinger Jr. was also a fool. Our understanding of history is warped by the tendency of liberals to protect each other’s reputations. Merely by supporting the Democrat Party and advocating liberal policies, any prominent fool can guarantee that he will be praised by the liberals who control academia and mainstream journalism. Only when you are aware of this bias and are always vigilantly on guard against pro-Democrat propaganda, can you read history critically, separating actual facts from liberal spin. But I digress . . .

After referencing Bundy in my discussion of the decadent elite Wednesday morning, I had no thought of following up, but late Wednesday night, while doing further research on radical feminism (checking the background of a Women’s Studies professor named Susan Hartmann), I stumbled onto a blog article titled “Explaining Patriarchal Funding of Feminism.” Included there was a link to a 2004 article by Kimberly Schuld, “How the Ford Foundation Created Women’s Studies”:

Women’s Studies professor and feminist author Susan M. Hartmann credits the Ford Foundation with being a substantive force that created the feminist movement. . . . It is safe to say that without the Ford Foundation, feminism would not have been successful in gaining such a strong foothold in academia, and by extension, politics. . . .
The first [Women’s Studies] program was established at San Diego State University for the 1969-70 school year and in 1970 there were approximately 100 women’s studies courses being offered at schools across the country. By 1971, more than 600 courses were being taught and by 1978 there were 301 full-fledged programs in operation. That number more than doubled to 621 programs by 1990.
In 1971, a group of feminists approached Ford president McGeorge Bundy with a request to involve itself in the feminist movement the way it had in the Civil Rights movement, essentially, creating it out of whole cloth. The result of those early discussions was a full-fledged women’s project to fund the small number of existing women’s advocacy organizations, and also to create a whole new field within academia known as “women’s studies.” In 1972, Ford announced the first $1 million national fellowship program for “faculty and doctoral dissertation research on the role of women in society and Women’s Studies broadly construed.” A 1996 article by Heather MacDonald reported that women’s studies programs had received $36 million between 1972-1992 from Ford and other foundations.

During a two-decade period, major foundations poured an average of $1.8 million annually into Women’s Studies programs, and the man who did the most to create this tax-exempt academic feminist boondoggle was none other than “brilliant” McGeorge Bundy.

Vietnam wasn’t the only quagmire he created, and perhaps not the worst. No ordinary fool can out-blunder a Yale-educated fool.




 

Category: Education, Intellectuals, Sex Trouble

LIVE AT FIVE: 12.24.15

Posted on | December 24, 2015 | 9 Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho


Our new theme song


TOP NEWS
IRAQI ASSAULT ON RAMADI STALLED BY DAESH DEFENSES

Iraqi troops carry the national flag as they patrol in a neighborhood in south Ramadi

General Sheghati says troops working to defuse mines, IEDs; Defense Ministry adviser says clearing may take 2-3 days
Iraqi forces evacuate civilians in Ramadi



Several Arrested In #Blacklivesmatter Protest At Minneapolis Airport
More dirtbags arrested in LA for blocking Highway 405

Rahul Gandhi Attacks PM Modi Over Azad Suspension
Demands probe into alleged cricket corruption, involvement of finance minister



POLITICS
Rand Paul Tweets Annual Festivus Airing Of Grievances

“I got a lot of problems with you people, and now you’re gonna hear about them!”

Complete list of grievances

Homeland Security Gearing Up For Year-End Deportation Raids

Poll: Trump 21 Points Up On Cruz In National Poll


Chamber Of Commerce Challenges New EPA Ozone Standard In Court

Feds Seize Over $1 Million In Cash From Disgraced Mass. Pol’s Safe Deposit Boxes

WaPo Pulls Cartoon Depicting Cruz’ Daughters As Trained Monkeys

TX Gov Abbott Orders Non-Religious Nativity Scene Removed From Capitol Rotunda

Incoming Democrat Governor Pushes To Gut Louisiana Food Stamp Reforms

Defense Dept. Downplays Daesh Capabilities After Report Of Air Defense Missiles



THE ECONOMY, STUPID
U.S. Crude Rises In Asian Trade As Supplies Tighten, Exports Loom: WTI $37.74, Brent $37.60
Holiday Shoppers Love The Gift That’s Never Returned
Confidence Rises To Five-Month High As Americans Cheer Discounts
Hyatt Hotels Attacked With Payment-Card Stealing Malware
U.S. New Home Sales Weaker Than Forecast For November
Disney CEO’s Pay Drops Three Percent – To $45 Million
YouTube Lashes Out At T-Mobile For Throttling Data Streams
Struggle Over “Free Basics” Internet Service Escalates In India
ASUS To Ship Smartphones With AdBlock Plus Enabled By Default In 2016
Super Mario Galaxy Lands On The Wii U Virtual Console
Uncharted 4 Delayed To April 26



SPORTS
Warriors Handle Jazz, Remain Unbeaten At Home

Klay Thompson scores 20 for the Warriors

Utah fades in fourth quarter, falls 103-85

Is Kirk Cousins Worth A Big Contract For Redskins?

Mavs Edge Nyets In OT, 119-118

Saban: I Don’t Ever See Myself Leaving Alabama


Pelicans Snap Streak, Beat Blazers 115-89

Miesha Tate: Rousey’s Going To Fall To Holm Again

Thunder Rout Lakers At Home, 120-85

Nats Talking To Murphy, Kendrick About Second Base?



FAMOUS FOR BEING FAMOUS
No, Courteney Cox And Will Arnett Aren’t Dating

Just friends, okay?

She’s still working on relationship with Snow Patrol rocker Johnny McDaid


Reality TV Star Teresa Giudice Released From Prison

Gary U.S. Bonds Rocks The Markets

Judge Forces Madonna’s Son To Spend The Holidays With Her

Charlie Sheen Vows To Cure AIDS

Another Trespasser Arrested At Chris Brown’s House

Jake Gyllenhaal’s “Mystery Woman” Revealed

Stacey Dash Goes To Police Over Twitter Hack – “I Won’t Be A Victim”



FOREIGNERS
Japan Court Clears Way To Restart Kansai Electric Reactors
Thai Court Sentences Migrants To Death For British backpackers’ Murder
Fire At Saudi Hospital Kills 25; 107 Injured
Christmas Celebrations Banned In Brunei, Somalia, Tajikistan
U.S. Embassy In Beijing Warns of Christmas Threats Against Westerners
Suspected Boko Haram Jihadis Attack Villages In Chad, Cameroon, And Niger
Violence Makes For A Solemn Christmas In Bethlehem
PM Cameron To Look Into U.S. Denial Of Entry To British Muslims
U.N. Security Council Endorses Libya Peace Deal, National Unity Government
Japan Approves Record Defense Budget As China Concern Grows



BLOGS & STUFF
EBL: Santa Paul
Louder With Crowder: A Thorough Rebuttal Of The Young Turks – Defending The Second Amendment
Doug Powers: A Presidency About Nothing – White House Steps Up Anti-Daesh Effort With Obama/Seinfeld Pairing
Twitchy: WaPo Makes Soldiers’ Deaths In Afghanistan All About Obama


American Power: British Muslim Denied Entry To U.S. Linked To Taliban, Al-Qaeda On Facebook
American Thinker: Psychological Warfare For Conservatives
Conservatives4Palin: Obamacare Officials Downplay Insurer Losses
Don Surber: My Christmas Gift To My Readers
Jammie Wearing Fools: Obama Celebrates “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”, Fails To Mention Lesbian Air Force Officer Killed In Afghanistan
Joe For America: War On Christmas Continues – VA Tears Down Christmas Banner, Baby Jesus
JustOneMinute: They’re Not All Pajama Boys
Pamela Geller: FBI Sued For Civil Rights Violations For Surveilling Muslims Near San Bernardino
Protein Wisdom: Hillary Clinton Channels Garrison Keillor
Shot In The Dark: Alondra Cano Doxxes The Halls With Abuse of Power, Fa La La La La, La La La Lawless
STUMP: All I Want For Christmas Is For the 80% Myth To DIE
The Gateway Pundit: Trump Warns Hillary Against Playing #WarOnWomen And “Women Being Degraded” Card
The Jawa Report: Sandcrawler PSA With Bonus Caption Contest – Media Bleeps Schlonged?
The Lonely Conservative: Yes, Democrats Are Still Trying To Ruin Your Holiday
This Ain’t Hell: Daniel Chang Saving The World
Weasel Zippers: Why W Never Left Washington On Holiday Until The Day After Christmas
Mark Steyn: Schlong Of Schongs


Live At Five is taking Christmas and Boxing Day off, and will return Monday, December 28. The FMJRA will run as usual on Saturday and Rule 5 Sunday will also post in a somewhat timely manner. Merry Christmas!


Still #1 In Kindle Cold War Books – What Did You Do In The Cold War, Dad? – Still Just 99 Cents
Shop Amazon – Holiday Gift Cards

Category: Live at Five
« go back — keep looking »