The Other McCain

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

The Law Was Made For Her Majesty, Not Her Majesty For The Law, Ye Peasants

Posted on | April 16, 2015 | 12 Comments

by Smitty

Her Royal Highness continues the coronation tour with demonstrations of Her Majesty both great and small:


Conservatives need to understand that Her Inevitable Inevitability is certain, and focus on cowering safely off to the side.

Category: Democrats, Hillary Clinton

The Crazy Is Always There

Posted on | April 16, 2015 | 35 Comments

Bill Schmalfeldt ranting, 2011. (Image via Thomas Anderson at Vimeo)

Deranged cyberstalker Bill Schmalfeldt was in court today in Carroll County, Maryland, facing charges of violating the peace order that prohibited him from contacting John Hoge. Reports that Bill would be representing himself in this case inspired much mirth online. It’s strange how, from a perspective of sanity — you know, among people who have an actual life — these weirdos seem to come and go. There was a time, a couple of years ago, when Schmalfeldt’s bizarre antics were a subject of regular updates here, but once he stopped harassing me, I stopped paying attention to the Neckless Wonder. Yet his insanity persisted to the point where now Schmalfeldt went to trial — and got off with a stern warning from the judge. Meanwhile, in Alabama . . .

Remember Roger Shuler? Sure you do.

He’s the Democrat lunatic who became Shelby County Jail inmate No. 288928 because of his bizarre vendetta against Alabama Republicans. Shuler came to my attention because, in 2012, he was promoting various lurid smears against me and others who had been targeted as enemies of Brett Kimberlin and Neal Rauhauser. Just another crazy weirdo on the Internet who had to push it to the limit:

A Shelby County blogger, who spent five months in jail before agreeing to remove stories from his website about the son of a former governor, has now been ordered to pay $3.5 million in a defamation lawsuit filed by a former campaign manager for Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange.
The blogger had written about an alleged affair between Strange and the campaign manager.
Jefferson County Circuit Judge Donald Blankenship on Monday entered a default judgment against Roger Shuler and his website Legal Schnauzer for $1.5 million in compensatory and $2 million in punitive damages. The judge wrote that all the elements for the judgment were present, including that a false and defamatory statement was made.
Jessica Medeiros Garrison, a Birmingham lawyer, filed the defamation lawsuit in 2013 against Shuler. She had managed Strange’s 2010 campaign for Alabama Attorney General and served as Chief Counsel and Deputy Attorney General in 2011.
“The facts are clear and the judgment speaks for itself,” Garrison stated in an email Tuesday to AL.com. “The absolute and blatant disregard for the truth has to come with consequences. I am very happy to finally be in a position to set the record straight,” she wrote.
Bill Baxley, one of Garrison’s attorneys, also said the ruling “speaks for itself.” He said he doubts his client will be able to collect any money from Shuler, who had his house foreclosed upon a year or so ago.

In 2013, I wrote an American Spectator column about Shuler, “Crazy in Alabama.” I also wrote a column about another Internet weirdo, Barrett Brown, “The Kook Who Knew Too Much.” In case you missed the news, Barrett Brown got sentenced to five years in federal prison.

Bill Schmalfeldt, Roger Shuler, Barrett Brown — some of my friends wonder how it is I manage to attract the attention of so many lunatic trolls. It’s as if I exude a magnetic force field of craziness, but the mystery is actually not so mysterious. About a dozen years ago, the Southern Poverty Law Center labeled me a “neo-Confederate,” and this was amplified by leftists (including gay columnist Michelangelo Signorile) who claimed I was a “white supremacist.” At the time, I was working as an assistant national editor at the Washington Times and my bosses advised me (“advised” in this context being a near-synonym for “ordered”) not to respond to these accusations. This enforced silence was unpleasant, as I was of course eager to refute these smears, but my bosses were probably correct: If your enemy is lying about you, why publicize their lies by commenting about them? The SPLC is a reprehensible organization that has subsequently been implicated in inciting violent maniac to attack the Family Research Council. To be smeared by the SPLC is a badge of honor and yet, because I did not immediately respond to the accusations against me when they first targeted me, this gave rise to the Internet Legend of Robert Stacy McCain, White Supremacist — with consequences that have been at times comic and at other times tragic.

In September 2009, while I was covering the Tea Party rally in Washington, D.C., Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs (whose blog had once been fairly important among conservatives) decided to unload the SPLC/Signorile “white supremacist” on me, and I fought a two-week blog war to prove my point: Charles Johnson is a worthless damned fool. Everybody at that time recognized that CJ had gone of the deep end. He had started losing his grip in October 2007, when he began smearing Pamela Geller as a “neofascist,” and his slow descent into madness (ranting against “creationists” and “climate denialists”) had been watched with quiet chagrin by Charles’s former allies. Once he attacked me, however, Johnson’s defection to the Left suddenly became a matter of public knowledge, and actually got noticed by the New York Times.

The Little Green Meltdown was big news back in 2009. It had the incidental effect of creating a sort of residual echo for the Internet Legend of Robert Stacy McCain, White Supremacist. Because there are many friends who can vouch for my bona fides, this doesn’t really bother me — “Don’t Give a Damn About My Bad Reputation,” as Joan Jett said — and my indifference to this really seems to make some people crazy.

Every once in a while, usually after I’ve had some notable success, my Twitter timeline will suddenly get a burst of craziness from trolls who think they have discovered the Hidden Secret of Right-Wing Racism. What has actually happened, however, is one of two things:

  1. Some idiot did a Google search and came up with the same stuff that I already dealt with back in 2009. “Asked and answered,” but the troll doesn’t know this.
  2. One of the Usual Suspects (perhaps one of Neal Rauhauser’s sockpuppet accounts) has decided to replay the same tactic that has failed so often before.

Now, I’ve got better things to do with my time than constantly reply to the same nonsense, so I usually ignore this stuff. “Oh, look, another idiot with 72 Twitter followers calling me a racist.” The problem is that some of these trolls become obsessed with me. Barrett Brown once wrote an entire book chapter about me, which his publisher rejected because who the hell cares about Stacy McCain, right? I’m just a guy with a blog. I’m not a politician or a TV star. Furthermore, there is the evidence that Sherlock Holmes would call The Dog That Did Not Bark: If I am really such an odious hatemonger, wouldn’t I occasionally, y’know, monger some hate?

That is to say, wouldn’t a white supremacist be blogging about white supremacy? Obviously, this isn’t who I am, because this is not what I do. Yet there is a certain type of person who thinks, “A-ha! I’m an expert at this Internet Detective stuff, so I will prove what an awful racist this guy is! I will expose him for the Evil Right Wing Hater that we all know he must be! And then I will become the Most Famous of All Internet Detectives! People will love me!”

So they run off chasing that phantom and, when they fail, they become convinced that I’ve played some kind of dirty trick on them by evading their Internet Detective skills and they go nuts. This explains my tendency to attract crazy trolls and, speaking of which, Charles Johnson has created a Secret Blog Commenting System that will allow him and his dwindling mob of kooks to discuss their weird obsessions without fear that someone will screen-cap their insanity.

Here, I’ve got $20 that says this latest Wile E. Coyote Acme Rocket Skates™ genius plan will fail. What will happen, I predict, is that someone inside the Secret Blog Commenting System will say something that pisses off Charles Johnson, resulting in one of his periodic spasms of ban-the-dissenters fury. Screen-caps of the Secret Blog Commenting System discussion will then be published, with embarrassing consequences for Charles & Friends. Of course, this will be of interest only to those of us who remember who Charles Johnson was, back when he really mattered, which was many, many years ago.





 

Category: Barrett Brown, Bill Schmalfeldt, Charles Johnson, Roger Shuler

Her Fakeness, Hillary Clinton

Posted on | April 16, 2015 | 75 Comments

David Martosko reports at the Daily Mail:

Hillary Clinton’s astroturf candidacy is in full swing in Iowa.
Her Tuesday morning visit to a coffee shop in LeClaire, Iowa was staged from beginning to end, according to Austin Bird, one of the men pictured sitting at the table with Mrs. Clinton.
Bird told Daily Mail Online that campaign staffer Troy Price called and asked him and two other young people to meet him Tuesday morning at a restaurant in Davenport, a nearby city.
Price then drove them to the coffee house to meet Clinton after vetting them for about a half-hour.
The three got the lion’s share of Mrs. Clinton’s time and participated in what breathless news reports described as a ’roundtable’ — the first of many in her brief Iowa campaign swing.
Bird himself is a frequent participant in Iowa Democratic Party events. He interned with President Obama’s 2012 presidential re-election campaign, and was tapped to chauffeur Vice President Joe Biden in October 2014 when he visited Davenport.
‘What happened is, we were just asked to be there by Troy,’ Bird said Wednesday in a phone interview. . . .
The other two, he confirmed, were University of Iowa College Democrats president Carter Bell and Planned Parenthood of the Heartland employee Sara Sedlacek.
‘It was supposed to be a strategy meeting,’ Bird recalled, ‘to get our thoughts about issues. But then all of a sudden he says, “Hey, we have Secretary Clinton coming in, would you like to go meet her?”‘
‘And then we got in a car — Troy’s car — and we went up to the coffee house, and we sat at a table and then Hillary just came up and talked with us.’

You can read the whole thing. The point isn’t so much that Democrats are being brought in by the campaign as “plants” at these events, but rather that the media are playing along and pretending that the events (and the people at the events) are “spontaneous.” That is to say, the media are just there to provide free campaign publicity for the Democrat. Meanwhile, the real journalism is in the National Enquirer:

The ENQUIRER learned the list of Hillary’s lesbian lovers includes a beauty in her early 30s who has often traveled with Hillary; a popular TV and movie star; the daughter of a top government official; and a stunning model who got a career boost after allegedly sleeping with Hillary. Hillary made the huge mistake of mixing public and private messages while using her personalized email server – before risking a massive scandal by refusing to make the documents public. . . .

(Hat-tip: Instapundit.) Can we believe this supermarket tabloid? Just remember it was the National Enquirer that broke the John Edwards cheating scandal. They’ve got more credibility than Rolling Stone.

 

Category: Hillary Clinton

The ‘Mechanism of Social Control’

Posted on | April 15, 2015 | 38 Comments

“Since sex is something men do to women . . . men dominate and control women. . . .
“In other words, heterosexuality is the foundation of the social structure of male dominance, and successfully attacking it could bring down the whole house. . . .
“Is consensual sexual activity which entails male dominance and female subordination a form of social control? . . .
“The need for a unified feminist theory of sexuality is clear. If one concludes, as many feminists have, that heterosexuality is the primary and most powerful mechanism of social control, then understanding its meaning in all forms is imperative if male dominance is ever to be overcome. . . .
“Heterosexual instrumentalism practiced at the interpersonal level allows men to dominate and control women, which, in turn, provides the underpinnings of a system where women are controlled in all settings.”
— S.P. Schacht and Patricia H. Atchison, “Heterosexual Instrumentalism: Past and Future Directions,” in Heterosexuality: A Feminism and Psychology Reader, edited by Sue Wilkinson and Celia Kitzinger (1993)

The authors of that quote were both professors of sociology. Professor Steven P. Schacht taught at Southwest Missouri State University and Professor Patricia Atchison taught at Colorado State University.

Professor Schacht is a rather extraordinary example of male self-hatred, which he has further expressed in a remarkable essay, “Teaching About Being An Oppressor: Some Personal and Political Considerations.” Click through and read it. No Onion satire could possibly exceed Professor Schacht’s absurdity. It might be helpful to know that he received his Ph.D. for a dissertation entitled “Obscene Telephone Calls as Instruments of Male Dominance.” Just in case you are not yet convinced that Professor Schacht is a textbook case of pathetic self-loathing, however, please read his essay “Why Men Should be Feminists”:

Perhaps like many men who claim a feminist identity, the path I traveled to grasp such an outlook has been meandering, often painful, and not well marked. The seeds of this very divergent course of personal being were initially planted by a woman who was, among many other beautiful things, an artist, a poet, a radical feminist, and my mother. She spent untold hours trying to share with me the anguish and the hope of her feminist vision.
In my pre-adolescent years I accompanied my mother on numerous pre-Roe v. Wade protest rallies — the chant “women unite, stand up and fight, abortion is a women’s right” still clearly rings in my ears — often helping her paint banners and signs to carry as we marched. She took me with her to anti-Vietnam protests at the University of Minnesota campus (1968-70), several rallies for George McGovern . . .
As one would expect, almost all of my mother’s friends were strong feminist women themselves. My mother’s feminist values in raising me were very much reflected and consistent with other important women in my childhood.

Did I mention that his father was a former Air Force pilot? How do you think that marriage turned out?

[M]y parents separated for several years during my mid-teen years, each taking turns living in the family home with the other maintaining an apartment. Since my father was a pilot and away for many days of the month, in a sense, their separation had probably already occurred years before their formal breakup. Both dated, my mother even publicly became a lesbian, openly stating and showing her affection for her female partners, while my father pursued flight attendants and other younger women. My parents eventually did reunite, but this was because of my mother becoming critically ill, and their personal differences remained quite apparent.

Professor Schacht’s mother died when he was 19. Honestly,  it seems easier to interpret his story not as proving “Why Men Should Be Feminists” but rather “Why Women Should Not Be Feminists.”

That is to say, if you are a woman whose hobbies include anti-war rallies, pro-abortion protests and campaigning for liberal Democrats, and all your friends are “strong feminist women” . . .

Well, there is a Greek island near the coast of Asia Minor. Perhaps you’ve heard of it. If the first phrase that comes to a woman’s mind when she thinks of heterosexuality is “mechanism of social control,” she might just want to take the shortcut to her ultimate destination — over there on the other side of the Mytilini Strait — rather than ruining some unfortunate guy’s life by pretending to enjoy heterosexuality.

As for “feminist men,” obviously there is no hope at all for them. Professor Schacht recounts his academic career:

I would only spend two years teaching at SMSU. Like many positions to follow, in spite of having high teaching evaluations and a quite active publication record, I was basically fired for being too radical, too feminist, too queer, and an obvious gender traitor of sorts. Consistent with my SMSU experience, since leaving graduate school in 1990 I have held six different positions, spent a year unemployed, been divorced twice, and am presently recovering from colon cancer. Moreover, during the early years of my return to my mother’s feminist ideals, I increasingly found myself being betrayed and rejected by men (especially those in academia). Conversely, many of my attempts for seeking acceptance from feminist women were met with a cool reception, often filled with indifference, mistrust, and even hostility.

There’s a song by Beck. Perhaps you’ve heard of it.

 

Category: Sex Trouble

‘Fempocalypse’

Posted on | April 14, 2015 | 39 Comments

Exactly how I never before noticed the blog “Owning Your Sh*t,” I’m not sure. This lady has got it nailed cold:

Okay, someone commenting on my last video scoffed at my assertion that unless our attitudes change, society will, sooner or later, reach a…well, let’s call it a “fempocalypse.” That is, that feminism will eventually help bring about an economic and social collapse.
Many people are simply unable to wrap their heads around that idea, because we’ve all been told, ad nauseum, that feminism is a cause of prosperity, when in reality, it is largely–perhaps entirely–a consequence of it.

Watch the video:

Here is a key paragraph:

“By prioritizing women in education at all levels, we have handicapped men’s ability to be as productive as the system needs them to be to maintain itself. By encouraging single motherhood and allowing women to banish fathers from their children’s lives, we’re creating half a generation of boys who risk becoming unemployable and expensive burdens on the system as adults, and half a generation of girls who are more likely to perpetuate and exacerbate the problem by becoming single mothers themselves.”

These two factors are interrelated. When you separate motherhood from marriage — by subsidizing illegitimacy and incentivizing divorce — you are consequently disincentivizing the behaviors necessary to successful marriage. That is to say, where women’s desire to become mothers requires them first to attract a man’s commitment to monogamy, mothers will teach their daughters (and other cultural institutions will support this teaching) how to be the kind of women men want to marry. Meanwhile, in a marriage-oriented society, men will strive to become the kind of men that women admire and respect, in order to obtain the benefits of marriage.

Break this connection, however, and the whole thing unravels. Men and women can behave however they wish, without really losing anything. If everybody is selfish and irresponsible, and if “society” (i.e., the taxpayer) enables these attitudes and behaviors, then why teach your daughter the virtues of the Good Wife? Or why teach your son to strive toward the kind of behavior necessary to attract and keep the Good Wife? Let him be a “playa” with a string of “baby mamas,” and so what? Furthermore, since women can’t rely on men to behave responsibly, “prioritizing women in education at all levels” is necessary so that women can fend for themselves. Why invest in education for boys, if males are just lazy, violent, selfish, unreliable creatures who contribute nothing useful to society?

These attitudes are part of a syndrome that is like a snowball rolling downhill, gathering momentum until, next thing you know, it’s Detroit.

“Owning Your Sh*t Is” is an awesome blog, and you should follow her (@girlwriteswhat) on Twitter, too.




 

Category: Economics, Feminism, Marriage

Canadian ‘Education Expert’ Is What You’d Expect Canadian ‘Education Expert’ to Be

Posted on | April 14, 2015 | 19 Comments

That is to say, he’s a dangerous pervert:

Benjamin Levin was consistent and “realistic” in his descriptions of sexual assault of children during online chats and never once stressed that it was all for fantasy, the Crown argued during day two of his sentencing hearing on child porn charges.
Crown counsel Allison Dellandrea read aloud several extremely graphic chat exchanges the former Ontario deputy minister of education had with undercover officers he believed were submissive mothers interested in having sex with their own children.
The 63-year-old married father of three repeatedly and consistently claimed to have had sex with his own daughters, starting at age 12 (though, as he told one of the officers, “I wish we’d started younger.”).
Levin — who was a member of Ontario premier Kathleen Wynne’s transition team — has pleaded guilty to the making of written child pornography, possession of child pornography and counseling to commit sexual assault on a child. . . .
Dellandrea took the court on a tour of the “depraved” online world the formerly well-respected education expert inhabited, suggesting he “wasn’t just dabbling in the child sexual abuse online world, he was a leader” there. . . .
As the sentencing got underway Tuesday, so too did a protest against Ontario’s revised sex-ed curriculum at Queen’s Park downtown. Critics of the Liberal government’s update to what students will learn in school about sex believe Levin’s pedophilic interest influenced the update — a charge the government denies.

You can read the whole thing. (Hat-tip: @SeverEnergia on Twitter.)

So, the “education expert” is a pervert and — this is relevant, in all honesty — his former boss is a lesbian.

The career of Kathleen Wynne is an object lesson in what I mean by “Feminism Is a Journey to Lesbianism.” In 1973, Wynne met the lesbian love of her life, Jane Rounthwaite. But in 1977, Wynne married Phil Cowperthwaite, with whom she had three children before leaving him for Jane Rounthwaite in 1991. That is to say, her husband was just a bill-paying sperm donor whose role in her life was, ultimately, to provide her and her lesbian partner with children and money. The Toronto Star did a big feature profile about Wynne that is a predictable exercise in progressive non-judgmentalism. The reader is presented with this remarkably weird saga and, well, how dare you point out the weirdness of it?

Feminists don’t believe that heterosexuality is natural for women, nor do feminists accept the validity of any moral concept other than Equality with a capital “E.” And what feminists mean by this sense of Equality is, of course, female supremacy.

“There are no Christian feminists, because feminism is a sort of narcissistic idolatry, wherein women deny God and instead worship themselves as their own divinity.”

Any man who becomes involved with a feminist must understand that she views him as irrelevant, superfluous, a disposable accessory, a bit player in the grand drama of her own life. The basic uselessness of males is one of the philosophical tenets of feminism. This makes it impossible for any feminist to genuinely admire, trust, respect or love any man. Whether or not she is actively homosexual, the feminist is always a lesbian in the philosophical sense, as various feminist scholars (including Adrienne Rich and Marilyn Frye) have explained. That is to say, a male may be a feminist’s roommate, her social companion and her occasional sexual partner, but he can never be the love of her life, because the feminist’s life is devoted to herself and to her love for women.

Feminists often claim that anyone who speaks of feminism in terms of “man-haters” and “lesbians” is merely expressing ignorant bigotry, but certainly no one could ever accuse me of ignorance, because I’ve read more feminist books than the average Women’s Studies major. Glancing around my desk at this very moment, I see Sarah Evans (Personal Politics: The Roots of Women’s Liberation in the Civil Rights Movement and the New Left, 1979), Jill Johnston (Lesbian Nation: The Feminist Solution, 1973), Dorchen Leidholdt and Janice Raymond (The Sexual Liberals and the Attack on Feminism, 1990) and Jone Salamonsen (Enchanted Feminism: The Reclaiming Witches of San Francisco, 2002). My point is not only that it is possible for an opponent of feminism to be knowledgeable about feminism, but furthermore to assert that the more you actually know about feminism, the more likely you are to oppose feminism — at least, that is, if you are an intelligent, honest, responsible, sane and normal person. Feminism is a movement that appeals to the stupid, the dishonest, the irresponsible, the insane and the abnormal.

“If Americans can be divorced for ‘incompatibility of temper,’ I cannot conceive why they are not all divorced. I have known many happy marriages, but never a compatible one. The whole aim of marriage is to fight through and survive the instant when incompatibility becomes unquestionable. For a man and a woman, as such, are incompatible.”
— G.K. Chesterton, 1910

We need not pretend that a normal, sane and responsible life is an easy thing to accomplish. Chesterton quite accurately summarized the basic problem of traditional married life. In order to find happiness — or even a tolerable level of peace — in a marriage, we must continually overcome the problems produced by the natural differences between men and women. Yet the traditional basis of marriage is also the moral principle of Christianity, to do unto others as we would have them do unto us, in accordance with the commandment of the Creator: “Male and female created he them” and “be fruitful and multiply.”

Because feminists reject Christianity, per se, they can never love men in the way a man naturally wants to be loved, a reality that the men in their lives cannot help but recognize. This is why you so often see “feminist men” — Bill Clinton, Anthony Weiner, Hugo Schwyzer — acting in such perverse, exploitative and abusive ways toward women. The “feminist man” accepts feminism’s negative verdict against himself, which consequently destroys whatever self-respect or morality he might otherwise have had. As I have sometimes pointed out, feminists actually despise the “male feminist,” viewing him (quite accurately) as a selfish manipulator who expects women to give him a cookie for advocating feminist causes.

Because he has no self-respect and recognizes no real standard of morality, the “feminist man” is quite often a very dangerous kind of pervert. Benjamin Levin, who served as the “education expert” in Kathleen Wynne’s campaign, is a perfect example of his type. And it’s not a good type.

Also, the phrase “Canadian pervert” is more or less redundant.




 

Category: Canada, Crime, Feminism, Gays, Sex, Sex Trouble

Her Majesty Worries About The Dermatological Condition Of Her Serfs

Posted on | April 14, 2015 | 6 Comments

by Smitty

Font due to Rick Wolff, hat tip due to Rare, image due to The Silence of the Lambs, creepiness due to Her Majesty.

Category: Hillary Clinton, humor

It Seems As Though @KurtSchlichter Doesn’t Hold Her Majesty In High Regard

Posted on | April 14, 2015 | 14 Comments

by Smitty

Great outing from the Colonel at Townhall:

. . .let the liberals solve this problem for us with their bizarre determination to nominate that glass-jawed, email-deleting cuckoldette. Yeah, non-coastal America is dying to elect someone who reminds everybody of their first wife, including women and the never-married.

The main thrust of Schlichter’s piece, though, is a cavalry charge up the Lefty middle.  Tap that glass jaw. Call the Lefty’s bluff via the legal system. It’s not a bad plan, given lots of time and resources.  A few questions for the Colonel, though:

  • Can you offer a breadcrumb or two? Your next couple of books could be How To Go To The Legal Mat With The Lefties, and What To Do About The Gastropodic Slime After You’ve Gone To The Legal Mat With The Lefties.
  • Can we part out the work? Quite a few conservatives view legal interactions like being covered with gastropods. Is supporting the ACLJ a possible option?
  • What about the problem of legalism, itself, as the issue? Many fear that, in wrestling the Lefty gastropods, we risk becoming them. What are your recommendations for skeletal conservation?

via Instapundit

Category: Instapundit
« go back — keep looking »