The Other McCain

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

‘Feminist Motherhood Has Failed’

Posted on | September 7, 2015 | 64 Comments

Only a feminist could describe pregnancy as “a woman growing the parasitic entity of a fetus in her,” and there is no limit to a radical lesbian feminist blogger’s absolute hatred of motherhood:

Motherhood is at the heart of patriarchy. Patriarchy, the rule of the fathers, is impossible without mothers who make them fathers in the first place.
Mothers have sex with men or at the very least obtain sperm from men to become pregnant.
Mothers give birth to the next generation of men.
Mothers choose men and boys over women and girls.
Mothers raise the next generation of men, pouring endless energy and devotion into the task.
Mothers raise their daughters to become mothers as well and teach them to pick men over other women.
Mothers, on the other hand, have failed gloriously to raise “new men”: Patriarchy is alive and kicking, and men contribute to it and benefit from it as ever.
Mothers do exactly what patriarchy wants them to do.

You can read the whole thing. She attempts to organize her thoughts in outline form, but it is a rather disjointed argument. What I found most interesting was this series of assertions:

5. Motherhood Undermines Female Solidarity
5. 1. Mothers Choose Their Sons Over Women
5. 2. Mothers Choose Their Men Over Women
5. 3. Lesbian Families Promote Hetero Families
6. “Feminist Motherhood” Has Failed
6. 1. Feminists Failed To Raise “Better Sons”
6. 2. Lesbians Fail To Raise “Better Sons”

She writes, “At this point in history, there are two, maybe three generations who were raised by mothers with a certain feminist consciousness. A good portion of these mothers would even be actively feminist in one way or the other.” And yet, you see, young women in the 21st-century insist they are still oppressed by patriarchy.

Why should this be so? Three alternative hypotheses:

  1. The “oppressive patriarchy” is a myth — Human nature is what it is, and what feminists denounce as “male supremacy” is simply the natural form of society created by biological imperatives, rather than a male conspiracy that systematically seeks to subjugate women for political purposes. Thus, “feminist motherhood” fails because human behavior tends to deviate toward the norm, so that most males will be masculine and most females will be feminine, no matter how consciously “gender-neutral” they may be raised.
  2. Differential fertility matters — It may be true that, more than 40 years after the eruption of the Women’s Liberation movement, young people in the 21st century are the third generation “raised by mothers with a certain feminist consciousness.” However, feminist rhetoric and ideology have been so consistently hostile to marriage and motherhood that there is likely an inverse correlation between women’s “feminist consciousness” and the number of children they have. The more a woman embraces feminism, the less likely she is to marry or have children, while the women most likely to have large families are religious conservatives who reject feminist ideology altogether. This factor operates on a global scale. Even if a majority of women in industrial societies embrace “feminist consciousness” — thus inexorably reducing birth rates — in the next generation, their societies will experience an influx of immigrants from societies with higher birth rates (and less “feminist consciousness”). We see how this operates, for example, in phenomena like the “Rotherham Horror,” where girls from the English underclass were victimized by the sons of Muslim immigrants. Because feminism is largely a middle-class ideology, it had no meaningful influence on poor white girls raised in England’s public-housing projects, nor on young men raised with the sexist attitudes of their Pakistani parents. What can feminists say about the outcome — hundreds of English girls raped and prostituted by gangs of predatory immigrant men — except perhaps, “Oops“?
  3. Feminists aren’t as smart as they think they are — Their claim that “gender is a social construct,” which is used to justify constant activism to fight against “sexism” in society, is a hypothesis that has been accepted on the basis of largely theoretical arguments. The radical lesbian feminist blogger makes note (6. 1. Feminists Failed To Raise “Better Sons”) of a case that I have myself noted: Tobi Hill-Meyer, the son of lesbian feminists who grew up to be a transgender pornographer. And there are even children of lesbian couples who have grown up to be conservative Christian opponents of same-sex marriage. Feminists have arrogantly assumed that their ideology endows them with superior wisdom, and that traditionalists are all just ignorant bigots. Well, these claims are subject to empirical proof, which can only be gathered over the course of decades, as we compare socioeconomic outcomes between generations of children raised with different values.

My belief is that what can be called “neo-traditionalism” — basically old-fashioned ideas about family life, yet providing sufficient flexibility to permit parents and children to adapt successfully to a changing society — will prove to be the superior strategy for child-rearing in the 21s century. This is what feminists, with their rigid concepts of men and women as collective groups in hostile opposition, completely fail to understand.

Parents are profoundly concerned with the well-being of their own children, which is not the same as a concern for “children” as an abstract group. In the same way, most mothers are not concerned with whether feminism succeeds in bringing about “equality” in some general way; rather, most mothers are concerned with how feminism will affect the lives of their own sons and daughters. However much any woman may embrace or reject feminist ideology, as a mother she will naturally place the interests of her own children above every other concern. She wants her children to be successful and happy and, we may presume, she hopes some day that her children will have their own children, because being a grandmother is the best thing in the whole world.

OK, maybe you don’t think being a grandmother is the best thing in the whole world, but in that case you’re wrong. Just ask my wife, because my wife is never wrong about anything. Our second grandson, Alexander, was born yesterday evening, weighing 7 pounds, 13 ounces. Baby and mother are both fine and healthy. Our first grandson James stayed with us overnight, and today we’ll all be going to the hospital to greet the latest addition to the (oppressive heteropatriarchal) McCain family.

You should hit the tip jar. Not only will it make my wife happy — and making her happy is Job Number One — but every time you hit the tip jar, you make a feminist sad, because “Motherhood is at the heart of patriarchy,” and “Patriarchy is alive and kicking.”




 

Category: Sex Trouble

Rule 5 Sunday: Summertime Girls

Posted on | September 6, 2015 | 4 Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho

Labor Day weekend is the traditional end of summer in most parts of the country, but here in Las Vegas it’s a little hotter a little longer, and quite a few of the casino resorts on the Strip have pools that double as nightclubs. Needless to say, the party keeps rocking right through September, with internationally renowned DJs playing the clubs for the pleasure of young ladies such as the ones we have here.

2010 Miss USA contestants relaxing poolside at Caesar’s Palace.

Randy’s Roundtable returns to lead off with Lara Alvarez, followed by Goodstuff with Cynthia Addai-Robertson and Ninety Miles from Tyranny with Morning Mistress, Hot Pick, and Girls with Guns. Animal Magnetism has Rule 5 Friday and the Saturday Gingermageddon, and First Street Journal pays tribute to the modern warrior maidens of Sweden.

EBL’s herd this week includes Chick Magnet Lindsey Graham, The Donald, Men are from Mars & Women are from Venus Because SCIENCE!, Lorena Wood, and an old fashioned walk with the Chairman of the Board and Doris Day.

A View from the Beach has The Girl of Summer 2015 – Hannah Davis, NY Democrats Make War on Tattoos, “Freight Train”, Did Neandertal Go to the Dogs? (cave girls), Cooties from Selfies?, Rock Star Indulges in Victim Blaming, and RIP Wrangler Jane.

At Soylent Siberia, it’s a coffee creamer in your spot, a Monday Motivationer with coordinated carpet, Tuesday Titillation Classical Bust, Humpday Hawt Rack ‘Em Up, Corset Friday with Lesbians, Napping in Terror QOTW, Weekender Poolside, and Bath Night Endless Possibilities.

Proof Positive’s Friday Night Babe is Beth Phoenix, his Vintage Babe is Francis Dee, Sex in Advertising is by Express Jeans, and of course there’s the obligatory (pre-season) 49ers cheerleader. At Dustbury, it’s a blast from the past with Debbie Gibson, and Rebecca Black.

Thanks to everyone for their linkagery! Deadline to submit links to the Rule 5 Wombat mailbox for next weekend’s Rule 5 roundup is midnight on Saturday, September 12.

Visit Amazon’s Intimate Apparel Shop

Category: Rule 5

Guardian Columnist Julie Bindel Says Put All Males ‘In Some Kind of Camp’

Posted on | September 6, 2015 | 125 Comments

 

England’s most influential radical feminist was asked whether she believes “heterosexuality will survive women’s liberation”:

It won’t, not unless men get their act together, have their power taken from them and behave themselves. I mean, I would actually put them all in some kind of camp where they can all drive around in quad bikes, or bicycles, or white vans. I would give them a choice of vehicles to drive around with, give them no porn, they wouldn’t be able to fight – we would have wardens, of course! Women who want to see their sons or male loved ones would be able to go and visit, or take them out like a library book, and then bring them back.
I hope heterosexuality doesn’t survive, actually. I would like to see a truce on heterosexuality. I would like an amnesty on heterosexuality until we have sorted ourselves out. Because under patriarchy it’s sh–.
And I am sick of hearing from individual women that their men are all right. Those men have been shored up by the advantages of patriarchy and they are complacent, they are not stopping other men from being sh–.
I would love to see a women’s liberation that results in women turning away from men and saying: “when you come back as human beings, then we might look again.”

Bindel’s suggestion of rounding up males “in some kind of camp” drew harsh attention from men’s rights activists (MRAs) at mgtow.com, the blog “HEqual” and at Reddit. What was most interesting, however, was the way in which other prominent feminists silently ignored this comment by Bindel, a militant lesbian who is a columnist for the British Guardian newspaper. What conclusion should we draw from the silence of “mainstream” feminists toward those who publicly express their movement’s anti-male/anti-heterosexual ideology?

Are we to suppose that Bindel’s fellow Guardian columnist Jessica Valenti actually disagrees with Bindel? Valenti is heterosexual and married to a man. Does she not bristle at the implied insult of Bindel’s assertion that, like other men, Valenti’s husband is complacently benefiting from “the advantages of patriarchy”? Or what about a young feminist like Laurie Penny, whom Bindel insults by name?

On the one hand you have got utter idiots like Laurie Penny who are simply coming out with the stuff that she does because she knows that the groups she is supporting, that are pro-trans, pro-sex work, and pro- other anti-women nonsense, are run by very high profile, powerful libertarian men. We know that she is doing it for a career move.

Considering that Laurie Penny is a fangirl of Bolshevik commissar Alexandra Kollontai, this accusation of being a mercenary puppet of “powerful libertarian men” is certainly shocking, and yet where is Laurie Penny’s rebuttal? Where is any feminist speaking out against Bindel’s forthright advocacy of “political lesbianism”?

Political lesbians are really crucial, because we were the ones that first said that women should be able to determine their own sexuality. We were the ones that said that all women can be lesbians and that heterosexuality is compulsory under a system of male supremacy. We were the ones that said that until women had a free choice, that we had to speak about heterosexuality as imposed upon us, rather [than] freely chosen. . ..
So I think political lesbianism has a crucial role, because it tells women that sexuality is political under a system of male supremacy. . . .
So radical feminism saw heterosexuality under patriarchy as massively problematic, because it benefited men and it disadvantaged women.

To this we might answer simply, “Cui bono“? Who benefits from heterosexuality? Is it true, as Julie Bindel asserts, that heterosexuality is “imposed” on women, to their disadvantage, by males who thereby derive an unjust benefit? She is certainly not alone in asserting this, as anyone who has read my book Sex Trouble understands. Yet decades of silence by “mainstream” feminists about their movement’s fundamental anti-male ideology has served to shield feminist gender theory — the social construction of the gender binary within the heterosexual matrix — from critical scrutiny. Whenever feminism begins one of its periodic resurgences, as in the early 1990s when a media publicity campaign gave rise to the movement’s so-called “Third Wave,” lesbianism always emerges as crucial to the agenda. The feminist movement at large denies that there is any evidence of causation in this correlation, and internal disputes about sexuality within the movement are generally ignored by the liberal media, which prefers to present feminism as a united and wholly respectable cause, dismissing the movement’s critics as irrational bigots.

 

Few outside the movement’s intelligentsia realize that the celebration of so-called “Lesbian Chic” circa 1993 was anathema to many radical feminists, who reject the “born that way” claims of the gay-rights movement, preferring instead to see lesbianism as “a challenge to the institution of heterosexuality and a form of resistance to patriarchal relations,” as Professor Diane Richardson argued in her 2000 book, Rethinking Sexuality. Probably any college sophomore who has taken even an introductory Women’s Studies class is familiar with this radical critique — a rejection of heterosexuality, per se — which has been endorsed by some of the most prominent feminist in academia, notably including Professor Charlotte Bunch of Rutgers University.

“Lesbianism is a threat to the ideological, political, personal, and economic basis of male supremacy. . . .
“Our rejection of heterosexual sex challenges male domination in its most individual and common form. . . .
“Lesbianism is the key to liberation and only women who cut their ties to male privilege can be trusted to remain serious in the struggle against male dominance.”
— Charlotte Bunch, “Lesbians in Revolt,” 1971

“I think heterosexuality cannot come naturally to many women: I think that widespread heterosexuality among women is a highly artificial product of the patriarchy. . . . I think that most women have to be coerced into heterosexuality.”
— Marilyn Frye, “A Lesbian’s Perspective on Women’s Studies,” speech to the National Women’s Studies Association conference, 1980

“But the hatred of women is a source of sexual pleasure for men in its own right. Intercourse appears to be the expression of that contempt in pure form, in the form of a sexed hierarchy; it requires no passion or heart because it is power without invention articulating the arrogance of those who do the fucking. Intercourse is the pure, sterile, formal expression of men’s contempt for women . . .”
— Andrea Dworkin, Intercourse, 1987

“Sexuality is to feminism what work is to Marxism: that which is most one’s own, yet most taken away. . . .
“As the organized expropriation of the work of some for the benefit of others defines a class, workers, the organized expropriation of the sexuality of some for the use of others defines the sex, woman. Heterosexuality is its social structure . . . and control its issue.”
— Catharine MacKinnon, Toward a Feminist Theory of the State (1989)

“Male sexual violence against women and ‘normal’ heterosexual intercourse are essential to patriarchy because they establish the dominance of the penis over the vagina, and thus the power relations between the sexes. . . . Men’s sexual violence against women is the primary vehicle through which the dominance of the penis over the vagina is established.”
— Dee Graham, Loving to Survive: Sexual Terror, Men’s Violence, and Women’s Lives (1994)

“Patriarchy . . . always depends on the ability of men to control women through heterosexuality. . . . Were large numbers of women to take responsibility for our own sexuality and in so doing reject heterosexuality, the very concepts of woman and man would be shattered.”
— Joyce Trebilcot, Dyke Ideas: Process, Politics, Daily Life (1994)

“There are politics in sexual relationships because they occur in the context of a society that assigns power based on gender and other systems of inequality and privilege. . . . [T]he interconnections of systems are reflected in the concept of heteropatriarchy, the dominance associated with a gender binary system that presumes heterosexuality as a social norm. . . .
“As many feminists have pointed out, heterosexuality is organized in such a way that the power men have in society gets carried into relationships and can encourage women’s subservience, sexually and emotionally.”
— Susan M. Shaw and Janet Lee, Women’s Voices, Feminist Visions (fifth edition, 2012)

Despite this ideology’s long history, most people are shocked when someone like Julie Bindel is caught saying in public what is actually taught to many thousands of university students every year within the academic Feminist-Industrial Complex. This shocked reaction is the result of a gap between feminism’s exoteric discourse (what feminists say when seeking support from the general public) and feminism’s esoteric doctrine (the beliefs shared among intellectuals and activists who lead and control the movement), as I have previously explained:

Like other movements of the radical Left, feminism preaches one thing to outsiders while teaching something else to insiders, and this deception is both deliberate and necessary. Feminists must conceal the truth about their agenda, because if taxpayers knew the ideology that is being propagated in our universities, this would cause such a political uproar that legislators would zero out the budgets of Women’s Studies programs and eliminate funding for much of the “research” done by academic feminists.”

For this reason, so-called “mainstream” feminists must maintain a discreet silence regarding Julie Bindel’s blunt expression of feminism’s anti-male/anti-heterosexual ideology. They must never reveal to the general public how much radical indoctrination and propaganda is being conducted at taxpayer expense. Bindel’s academic affiliations (she is currently visiting researcher at England’s Lincoln University) expose the extent to which radical feminism is subsidized by the “society” that feminists vow to destroy. Students are being taught this fanatical hatred of men in programs funded by male taxpayers with the approval of male officials, all of whom Bindel says should “have their power taken from them” so they can be rounded up “in some kind of camp.”

* * * * *

While radical feminism is subsidized by academia, my own research is funded entirely by readers who remember the Five Most Important Words in the English Language:

HIT THE FREAKING TIP JAR!




 

Whatever you can give — $5, $10, $20 — will be deeply appreciated.

UPDATE: Welcome, Instapundit readers! Good news:

  1. Our daughter-in-law just gave birth to our second grandson;
    and
  2. “Feminist Motherhood Has Failed.”

Basically, motherhood is not acceptable to feminism, ever.

 

Category: Sex Trouble

FMJRA 2.0: The Labor Day Weekend Show

Posted on | September 5, 2015 | 7 Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho

Rule 5 Sunday: Hot Babes In Space
Regular Right Guy
Proof Positive
A View from the Beach
Ninety Miles from Tyranny
EBL

Dear Feminists: You Think Too Much
Political Hat

FMJRA 2.0: For The Strength Of The Wolf Is The Pack…
The Pirate’s Cove
BlurBrain
EBL

‘Hit-It-and-Quit-It on Tinder’
The Camp of the Saints
Dalrock
Constantinople Not Istanbul

In The Mailbox: 09.01.15
Proof Positive

Godless Commies: The Critical Theory Cult and The Devil’s Pleasure Palace
Dark Brightness
EBL

Testicles Are Not a Social Construct
A View from the Beach
EBL

Murder City, U.S.A.
A View from the Beach

It’s 2015 and Everything Is Rape Now
Inoperable Terran

In The Mailbox, 09.02.15
Proof Positive

The Privilege of the Oppressed
Dark Brightness

In The Mailbox, 09.03.15
Regular Right Guy

A slow week for linkagery, with nobody having more than five links, but thanks to those of you who did link!


Shop Amazon – September Baby Sale (N.B. no actual babies for sale)

Category: FMJRA Award

Don’t Do This, Ever

Posted on | September 5, 2015 | 100 Comments

So-called “sexting” is such a disastrously bad idea that I shouldn’t even have to explain why it’s a bad idea. Here is the thing: The “sexting” participant provides his or her partner with evidence — a permanent digital record of text messages and images — that the partner can then use as he or she pleases. Any young woman who sends nude selfies to a guy can just presume that he will immediately show the photos to all his friends. They always do. That’s why guys ask for nude photos from girls, in order to display them to their buddies as trophies. Any guy who asks for a nude photo is a creep, and any girl who sends a nude photo is a fool. The fact that we now have laws against so-called “revenge porn” (i.e., the unauthorized distribution of nude photos and/or videos, typically as revenge against an ex-girlfriend) does not change the reality that only a fool would ever send a nude photo of herself to a guy, and it is not “victim-blaming” to say so, no matter what any feminist tries to tell you.

“But Stacy, all the kids are doing it!”

No, they are not, and that kind of peer-pressure excuse is part of the problem. Responsible adults do not endorse foolish behavior simply because it is common behavior, and “sexting” is foolish behavior. Even if you did want to engage in reckless promiscuity, it would be foolish to create a permanent digital record of such behavior. Trust me when I say that my kids have been sternly warned to avoid doing this, and to avoid associating with anyone who does it, because nothing good can ever result from it. (See also, “Hit-It-and-Quit-It on Tinder.”) Unfortunately, other parents have not perceived this danger and have not warned their children, thus leading young people into predictably disastrous results:

Later this month, a North Carolina high school student will appear in a state court and face five child pornography-related charges for engaging in consensual sexting with his girlfriend.
What’s strange is that of the five charges he faces, four of them are for taking and possessing nude photos of himself on his own phone — the final charge is for possessing one nude photo his girlfriend took for him. There is no evidence of coercion or further distribution of the images anywhere beyond the two teenagers’ phones.
Similarly, the young woman was originally charged with two counts of sexual exploitation of a minor — but was listed on her warrant for arrest as both perpetrator and victim. The case illustrates a bizarre legal quandry that has resulted in state law being far behind technology and unable to distinguish between predatory child pornography and innocent (if ill-advised) behavior of teenagers.
On July 21, 2015, the young woman took a plea deal whereby the felony charges were dropped, but she pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge, which will be expunged after she completes a year of probation. Over the next 11 months, she is not allowed to possess a cell phone, among other restrictions.

Professor Glenn Reynolds comments: “They’re too young to consent to naked pictures, but not too young to have their lives ruined for doing so.” Such is the libertarian reaction, but this is one of those instances (like the Kaitlyn Hunt case) where my social conservative impulse overrides every other concern. At first glance, the prosecution of teenagers for such behavior may seem unnecessarily draconian, yet we have to consider the alternative. What would be the consequences of a libertarian laissez-faire attitude toward minors producing what is, as a matter of law, illegal child pornography?

The laws against child pornography proscribe it in every manner — production, distribution, possession — and therefore, under existing law, the minor who takes nude selfies must be regarded as having committed a crime (production). Another crime (distribution) is committed when the minor transmits the nude selfies to anyone else, and the recipient of such a photo commits a crime (possession) the minute he or she views or downloads the illegal image.

In an age where digital photographic technology is ubiquitous, should minors themselves be exempt from prosecution under these laws? If you answer “yes” to that question, then you are saying that illegal images of your young son or daughter could be circulating online — every kid in school could see this stuff — and no crime has been committed unless an adult gains access to these images. No. We don’t want that.

A pornographic image of anyone under 18 is forever illegal. We may call this the “Traci Lords Rule,” in honor of a once-famous porn performer who lied about her age and started doing nude modeling when she was only 15, appearing in her first porn video at 16:

After being featured in the September 1984 issue of Penthouse magazine, Lords appeared in dozens of illegal videos between 1984 and 1986, and became one of the most sought-after pornstars of the era. In May 1986, when authorities discovered she had been underage while making all but one of her pornographic films, distributors were ordered to remove all her material to avoid the risk of prosecution for trafficking in child pornography. The withdrawal of her films cost millions of dollars and her case became the biggest scandal to affect the adult film industry.

No one at Penthouse knew Traci Lords was a minor, a student at Redondo Beach High School, when that pictorial launched her to porn stardom. Yet anyone today could conceivably be prosecuted for possession of child pornography if they have a copy of that 1984 magazine or an old VHS tape of any of the films Traci Lords made as a minor. It is contraband, like heroin, and no one can legally possess contraband. We return, then, to the case in North Carolina, where 16-year-olds are prosecuted as adults for having exchanged illegal images while “sexting.” Certainly, we may agree that these teenagers are “too young to have their lives ruined,” as Professor Reynolds says, but what is the alternative? What would be the consequences if law enforcement took a laissez-faire stance toward such behavior?

Any responsible adult must shudder to think of the conditions that might prevail if this behavior became normalized among high-school kids, because we know it would not stop there. If you give 16-year-olds a get-out-of-jail-free card for this stuff, how will you draw the line when the 15- and 14-year-olds do it? Next thing you know, the middle-school kids will be sending each other pornographic selfies, and there will be no feasible way to draw the line at all.

“But Stacy, all the kids are doing it!”

No, they are not — but even if it were that common, the law is still the law, crime is still crime, and evidence is still evidence.

Adults who grew up before this kind of digital technology existed may be tempted to think of stuff they did as teenagers that was illegal (or simply embarrassing in hindsight) and thus, in their mind, deserving of leniency. Be that as it may, there is no evidence of how much dope you smoked in 1976 or what you did with your girlfriend in 1986. Until quite recently, people didn’t have access to the kind of technology to produce digital evidence of everything they did, yet now such technology is everywhere, including your kid’s cellphone or laptop or tablet. Consider how these two North Carolina teenagers came to the attention of law enforcement:

The Fayetteville girl, Brianna Denson, was sexting with her boyfriend, Cormega Zyon Copening, the Sheriff’s Office said. The agency hit Copening with five sexual exploitation of a minor charges — four for making and possessing two sexually explicit pictures of himself and the last for possessing a copy of the picture that Denson made for him. . . .
The charges have already forced [Copening] off the football team at Jack Britt High School. He had been the quarterback. . . .
The Sheriff’s Office investigates sexting incidents several times a month, [Cumberland County Sheriff Ronnie] Mitchell estimated. “More frequently than we would like,” he said.
The investigations usually are into instances in which photos are shared among a group instead of just within a couple, he said. To his knowledge, Denson’s and Copening’s pictures weren’t shared with anyone else. He said they were discovered during an investigation of other explicit photos that were being shared among teens without the consent of the person or persons pictured.

It would appear that Copening and his high-school buddies were sharing around whatever nude photos of girls they had obtained and, when this activity came to the attention of authorities, the investigation led police to search Copening’s phone, a search that led to the discovery of Denson’s photos — illegal images, which any adult would be imprisoned for possessing — as well as “sexually explicit pictures of himself,” which are likewise illegal. District Attorney Billy West told the Fayetteville Observer that “in cases where the defendants and victims were willing participants and close in age, his office typically lets them plead guilty to a misdemeanor with a deferred prosecution.” Denson took the plea, and thus avoided “the life-ruining requirement that she register as a sex offender,” whereas it seems Copening is willing to risk a jury trial.

TAKE THE PLEA DEAL, BOY!

It’s for your own good. Yeah, I know, it seems unfair. “Everybody’s doing it” and “boys will be boys,” but this does not negate the evidence — the unmistakable digital proof — right there on your cell phone, evidence you were too foolish to think of as evidence, and you are the one responsible for that foolishness.

Stupid is as stupid does. Don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time.

 

Category: Crime

Our Supreme Dark Lord’s New Book,
And Other Stories

Posted on | September 5, 2015 | 25 Comments

— by Wombat-socho


By now, everyone who’s been paying attention to GamerGate (happy first anniversary!) or the Sad Puppies movement with regard to the Hugos should be familiar with, or at least recognize the name of, Vox Day, Supreme Dark Lord of the Evil League of Evil. I doubt that anyone since George W. Bush has caused so many on the Left to completely lose their shit, and W was nowhere near as successful at getting his hapless enemies to do EXACTLY WHAT HE WANTED. So it was with great interest that I ordered his new book, SJWs Always Lie: Taking Down the Thought Police, a book that is currently #1 in Politics on Amazon, further irritating the kind of people who need irritating. The book is an excellent tract on what kind of people SJWs are, what they do, and how to fight back – effectively. Vox chronicles the recent public shaming of people like Brendan Eich and Tim Hunt as examples how not to do it. He also chronicles in a brief but thorough manner the ongoing successful grind of GamerGate and the two-front war on the Hugos as illustrations of how to do it on a macro scale, and also includes helpful tips on how to take on and defeat SJWs in the workplace or in other organizations where one encounters these human cockroaches. Adding to the value of the book are not just a foreword but an afterword by Gandalf the Gay himself, Breitbart reporter Milo Yiannopoulos, who is almost always entertaining. Highly recommended; I don’t often say this, but this is a book you absolutely ought to read, especially in these wretched times when we’re beset by these deranged killjoys on every side.

Our favorite little arsonist applies the Broken Window Theory.

I also picked up an older work of his, The Return of the Great Depression, which while a bit dated -it was published in October 2009- gives an interesting perspective into where we’re going, why we’re in this handbasket, and how we got there to start with. Vox is a fan of the Austrian School of economics, so if you also subscribe to that view, there’s a lot in here you’ll find familiar. If, on the other hand, you’re more of a monetarist or (God forbid) a Keynesian, you’re in for some rude shocks. Clearly written, well-sourced, and measured in its judgments, this book is one hell of a bargain at $1.99, and I also recommend it.

As I mentioned in my previous book post, I’ve been renewing acquaintance with some old favorites that I haven’t seen in, oh, almost three years now; some of them, it’s been longer, since I never did unpack all my books when I was living in Alexandria. Anyhow, this week I reread Robert Frezza’s A Small Colonial War and Fire in a Faraway Place, the first two novels of his Suid-Afrika trilogy. These are the tale of a colonial world under an interstellar Japanese empire, settled by (mostly) Afrikaners and “cowboys” and dominated by a Japanese corporation, United Steel-Standard, which has let things get out of hand to the point where an Imperial task force is sent to restore order. One of the units in the task force is the 1/35 Rifle Battalion, originally from Finland and commanded by an unorthodox Russian officer, LTC Anton Vereshchagin. In the first book, Vereshchagin must find a way to defeat the Afrikaner Bund and its shadowy Order after they’ve successfully nuked most of the task force and its ships in the sky. In the second, set six years after the first, a new Imperial task force has arrived to put USS back in the saddle, and our plucky little band of Finns, Russians, “cakes” and Afrikaners are forced into rebellion. One of the reviewers made the claim that Frezza writes better than John Ringo, which I don’t think I agree with, but like Ringo, Frezza is not afraid to kill off characters when the plot requires it, even important characters. I found both books tragic, stirring, and very thought-provoking, and have a hard time believing that Del Rey has let them go out of print.

You may or may not remember the War World anthologies, set on the world of Haven in Jerry Pournelle’s CoDominium universe. They were very uneven in quality, written by authors ranging from Larry Niven and S.M. Stirling to Harry Turtledove and lesser-known folks like Susan Shwartz and Judith Tarr, and are currently being reissued by Pequod Press and Baen in a more coherent series arranged in chronological order, and with new stories added. But I digress; after the original anthologies, some of the stories written by Stirling, Turtledove et al were put into a pair of fixup novels, Blood Feuds and Blood Vengeance, which melded the ancient tale of Oedipus Rex with the state of affairs on Haven three centuries after a shipload of Saurons arrived to take possession, climaxing in an apocalyptic assault by a massive army of tribesmen, Bandari, and the rebelling “cattle” of the Saurons themselves on the Citadel, center of Sauron power on Haven. Half the fun is watching various characters, Sauron and others, go through their paces and fall prey to mistakes they can’t avoid making by their very nature, while other characters are trying and failing to warn them off. The plotline involving the Sauron cyborg Sigrid is particularly amusing, in its own twisted way. Not Hugo material, but excellent brain candy, highly entertaining.


Category: Books

In The Mailbox, 09.03.15

Posted on | September 4, 2015 | 2 Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho


OVER THE TRANSOM
EBL: Failure Theater?
Doug Powers: While Obama Was In Alaska Staring Down Glaciers…
Twitchy: Former Obama Adviser Dan Pfeiffer’s Attempt To Mock Mitt Romney Backfires
Red State: A Nation Of Laws No More (h/t Loyal Reader Brian E.)


RIPPED FROM THE HEADLINES
American Power: Refugee Shelter In Germany Firebombed
American Thinker: A Brief History Of White Privilege
Conservatives4Palin: Gov. Palin – What The President Didn’t See From Alaska
Don Surber: How To Protect A Weapon From Falling Into A Muslim Terrorist’s Hands
Jammie Wearing Fools: Clown Trump Exposed As Foreign-Policy Know-Nothing By “Third-Rate Radio Announcer”
Joe For America: Obama Surrogates Spearheading “War On Cops” – What’s Their Real Agenda?
JustOneMinute: The Future Of 9-1-1
Pamela Geller: Hungarian PM Warns Of Islam’s History, The “Ottoman Experience”
Protein Wisdom: RIP Dean Jones
Shot In The Dark: Food For Thought
STUMP: Happy September! Around The Internet, Plus The 80% Funding Club!
The Gateway Pundit: Just Like The Good Old Days – Democrats Dress As KKK To Protest Donald Trump
The Jawa Report: Jawas Versus TriCk 35-14 Final!
The Lonely Conservative: Foreign Policy Victory! Iran Promises To “Set Fire” To US Interests
This Ain’t Hell: Easley HS Student Gets Ticket For Flying POW/MIA Flag
Weasel Zippers: Mr. De Blasio’s Neighborhood – Thousands Sleeping On NYC Streets, Homeless Encampments Springing Up Everywhere
Megan McArdle: Why A Woman Can’t Be More Like A Man
Mark Steyn: Ice Follies Of 2035


Lord of Janissaries

Category: Linkagery

The Privilege of the Oppressed

Posted on | September 4, 2015 | 296 Comments

A court clerk in Kentucky want to jail because she would not issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple. Keep in mind that, in 2004, an amendment to the Kentucky state constitution defining marriage as one man and one woman was approved by 75% of the voters. To this fact, our nation’s liberal elite answer: Damn the voters, damn Kentucky and damn Kim Davis for thinking that her religious beliefs should be respected. The liberal elite — in particular, Justice Anthony Kennedy and four of his Supreme Court colleagues — have decided that Christian belief must be forcibly eradicated, and that the voters of Kentucky are not fit to govern themselves. Therefore, Kim Davis is a criminal.

This is what our nation’s liberal elite demands in 2015, because the liberal elite believes in a radical egalitarian ideology in which only those who are deemed “oppressed” have any influence or protection in American society. The law must judge every conflict according to a simple question: “Who is the greater ‘victim of society’ here?” The victims always win, and therefore the only way to “win” is to present yourself as a helpless loser, in order to demand that “society” give you whatever you want as compensation for your oppressed condition. That this kind of “social justice” mentality incentivizes failure and inspires fraudulent claims of victimhood (everything is rape now) is bad enough. Yet it also serves to destroy society’s ability to protect itself against real harms, as evidenced by a recent federal court ruling:

A federal appeals court has ruled that an illegal immigrant and convicted felon can’t be deported back to Mexico because he identifies as a transgender woman, which leaves him vulnerable to torture back in his home country.
Edin Carey Avendano-Hernandez was born male in Mexico, and claims to have been raped by his brothers and suffered other torments. In 2000, he illegally entered the U.S. and took up residence in Fresno, California. Avendano-Hernandez also started taking female hormones and began living openly as a woman in 2005. In 2006, he committed two separate drunk driving offenses, the second of which injured two people and resulted in a felony conviction. After serving a year in jail, he was deported back to Mexico in 2007.
Back in Mexico, Avendano-Hernandez claims to have been subjected to more harassment from family and neighbors and to have been raped by members of the Mexican army. He illegally entered the U.S. again and, after being arrested, petitioned for sanctuary in the U.S. under the U.N. Convention Against Torture (CAT), arguing that deporting him would violate the CAT because he would more likely than not experience torture at the hands of Mexican authorities. . . .
Now, a three-judge panel on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals says Avendano-Hernandez must be allowed to stay in the U.S., because he “more likely than not” will be tortured if returned to Mexico.
Judge Jacqueline Nguyen, an Obama appointee, chastised immigration officials for improperly handling Avandano-Hernandez’s gender identity. . . .
The belief that Avendano-Hernandez was raped and tortured in Mexico appears to be based entirely on his own claims, which were deemed to be “credible” by his immigration judge.

Read the whole thing at The Daily Caller. You see the court has decided that this convicted criminal, who otherwise would be ineligible for residency in the United States, now must be granted residency, merely because his/her “gender identity” would make him/her a victim of Mexican society if he/she were to be deported. The United States therefore must accept every foreign transsexual who can make it across the border, because “social justice” requires it.

Christians in Kentucky have zero rights, so Kim Davis goes to jail, while a Mexican criminal pervert has a “Get Out of Jail Free” card.





 

Category: Gays
« go back — keep looking »

    About

    This is an area on your website where you can add text. This will serve as an informative location on your website, where you can talk about your site.

    Subscribe to our feed

    Search

    Admin