The Other McCain

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

Bill Schmalfeldt’s Clown Show, and a Certain Dog That Has Not Barked

Posted on | January 4, 2014 | 14 Comments

That is Bill Schmalfeldt’s clumsy summary of certain allegations made by Brett Kimberlin in the Maryland lawsuit Kimberlin v. Walker, et al., but Schmalfeldt doesn’t say this, does he? No, he cites no source for these claims, but merely repeats them as if they were statements of fact, which can be dangerous. Is the irony here intentional? John Hoge doesn’t seem to care for ironic interpretations:

That tweet accuses Aaron Walker and me of stealing money. Theft is a crime. If Bill Schmalfeldt has evidence that I have stolen money, he should give that information to law enforcement. If he doesn’t, he would be well advised to publish a retraction.
That tweet accuses Aaron Walker and me of attempting to force someone to commit perjury. That is a crime also. If Bill Schmalfeldt has evidence that I have attempted to force someone to commit perjury, he should give that information to law enforcement. If he doesn’t, he would be well advised to publish a retraction.
Very soon.

It’s an odd thing: Brett Kimberlin can allege any damned thing he wants in a lawsuit without any risk that a false allegation would be deemed libelous, even while his Maryland suit would seem to rest on his claim that persons reporting on legal actions against Kimberlin thereby commit defamation, harassment, stalking, etc.

Meanwhile, ignoring Kimberlin’s own unusual theory of defamation, Schmalfeldt treats the allegations made in Kimberlin’s legal actions as if they were gospel truth, and without any apparent fear that Hoge or Walker might sue for defamation.

There is a problem, however, which any reader of Sherlock Holmes mysteries would recognize as the dog that did not bark.

As Hoge says, perjury and subornation of perjury are both criminal offenses — not civil torts — and if the sworn statements which Tetyana Kimberlin made in her criminal complaint of July 29 were deliberate falsehoods, why isn’t the state of Maryland prosecuting Brett Kimberlin’s wife for the crime of perjury? Furthermore, if one believes Brett Kimberlin’s claim that Hoge and Aaron Walker somehow influenced Tetyana to make statements which Hoge and Walker knew to be false, why is the state of Maryland not prosecuting them for that crime?

In case you have forgotten the charge in this alleged effort “to force Tonya Kimberlin to perjure herself,” of which Bill Schmalfeldt wishes to remind his readers, here is the July 29 complaint:

Charges State v Kimberlin (Redacted)

The charge was subsequently dropped, for reasons that were never fully explained to me. However, the only people who accuse Tetyana Kimberlin of having perjured herself are (a) Brett Kimberlin, and (b) Bill Schmalfeldt, although for some reason neither of them seems interested in a criminal prosecution of that case.

What we have instead is a $1 million civil suit, in which I am named as a defendant because . . . Well, why do you think this is?

Bill Schmalfeldt says I am dragging Tetyana Kimberlin “through the mud once more,” but he’s the one accusing her of perjury! And it was Bill Schmalfeldt who recently raised the subject of how, he says, Tetyana was enticed “to run off with a PIZZA BOY!”

So if I quote Bill Schmalfeldt, I’m defaming Tetyana?

The rule seems to be that Bill Schmalfeldt can write anything he wants about anyone and never suffer consequences, but if you dare quote him, you’ve committed a hateful atrocity. Whatever.

Here is an allegation from the Kimberlin v. Walker, et al., lawsuit:

What I find interesting about this allegation is that it involves only Walker and Hoge. I have never filed a civil suit, a peace order or a criminal charge against Brett Kimberlin and yet find myself a defendant in this lawsuit. It seems to be Kimberlin’s theory that I have somehow conspired with Walker and Hoge in these “false, malicious filings” from which they have allegedly “enrich[ed] themselves.”

Kimberlin’s conspiracy theory is false, and if either Hoge or Walker have been enriching themselves, they’ve managed to keep it a secret from me. Certainly, I’ve never seen them cruising around in Ferraris or lighting their Cohibas with $100 bills. Meanwhile, however, Bill Schmalfeldt has doubled down on stupid, making more unsourced accusations against Walker, Hoge and Ali Akbar.

Save some of those Cohibas for me, you guys.

 

BOMBER SUES BLOGGERS





 

Category: Bill Schmalfeldt, The Kimberlin Files

This Was Probably Predictable

Posted on | January 4, 2014 | 26 Comments

Ace of Spades:

American troops spilled their guts fighting Al Qaeda in Fallujah in 2004.
And now, AQ has driven out all representatives of the Iraqi government and raised its flag over government buildings.

Like nature, Islamic extremism abhors a vacuum:

Black-clad Sunni militants of Al Qaeda destroyed the Falluja Police Headquarters and mayor’s office, planted their flag atop other government buildings and decreed the western Iraqi city to be their new independent state on Friday in an escalating threat to Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, whose forces were struggling to retake control late into the night.
The advances by the militants — members of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or ISIS — came after days of fighting in Falluja, Ramadi and other areas of Anbar Province. The region is a center of Sunni extremism that has grown more intense in reaction to Mr. Maliki’s Shiite-dominated government in Baghdad and the neighboring civil war in Syria. . . .
The group’s fighters cut power lines in Falluja late in the day and ordered residents not to use their backup generators. In one area of Falluja, a militant said over a mosque loudspeaker: “We are God’s rule on Earth! No one can defeat God’s will!”

Donald Douglas at American Power:

This is specifically a result of the Obama administration’s foreign policy, and it’s going to come back a bite the U.S. and our allies for years to come.

Yep. And like I said, predictable.

 

Category: Iraq, Islam, Terrorism

Everybody Hates Cathy Brennan: Troll Under the Bridge on the Crazyville Road

Posted on | January 4, 2014 | 96 Comments

The unstable isotope of insanity that is feminism reached critical mass a few months ago when radical feminist Cathy Brennan threatened legal action against the socialist magazine Jacobin, which published an article by Samantha Allen that included this:

A small but vocal band of activists known as “Radfems” see transgender women like myself as a blight on the feminist movement, but — because their views are not representative of the feminist movement as a whole — many trans-inclusive feminists refer to them as TERFs, or Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists.
The chief TERF figurehead is a Maryland attorney named Catherine Brennan who once served as a liaison on the American Bar Association’s Commission on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity. In July of 2012, a petition circulated to have Brennan removed from that position because, to put it mildly, she flatly rejected the “Gender Identity” half of her job description.
Apart from a sordid internet history of harassing, misgendering, and mocking trans people, Brennan co-authored a letter with Elizabeth Hungerford to the United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women, to argue against — yes, against — legal protections based on “gender identity or expression.”

Yeah, she’ll sue you: “Catherine Brennan, whose views are critiqued in the essay as being transphobic, has instructed her lawyer David Diggs to prepare litigation against Jacobin magazine.”

Truth is an unassailable defense, however, and it is difficult to answer “no” to the question, “Is Cathy Brennan transphobic?”

Among other things, Brennan has engaged in “doxing” transgenders, most notoriously a 17-year-old high school student, a June 2012 incident that inspired one advocate to write:

Cathy Brennan you potentially jeopardised this youths life to satisfy your hate of all people diverse.
I have resisted in the past contacting your law firm and exposing you as the vile monster you are, but you are really really trying my desire to remain above your contemptuous behaviour. Quit this Brennan or I will.
You are despicable Cathy Brennan. I will tell you that to your face. Use that for your next screen grab.

Is that as bad as it gets? Actually, no. While attending a July 2012 radical feminist conference in Oregon, Brennan sent this photo to a transgender journalist named  Marti Abernathey:

Brennan’s transphobic zeal is, at some level, entirely rational.

That is to say, once you buy a ticket on the baby-killing man-hating lesbian feminist express bus to Crazyville, it makes perfect sense. A transgender porn performer named Drew Deveaux coined the term “cotton ceiling” to describe the division between genetic women (called “ciswomen”) and “transwomen”:

Basically, it means that cis queer women will be friends with us and talk day and night about trans rights and ending transmisogyny, but will still not consider us viable sexual partners.
The term cotton ceiling is a reference to the “glass ceiling” that second wave feminist identified in the workforce, wherein women could only advance so high in the workforce but could not break through into positions of power and authority. The cotton represents underwear, signifying sex.
The theory of the cotton ceiling is useful in identifying the dynamic trans women are experiencing, and is meant to open up conversation around desirability’s intersections with transmisogyny and transphobia.

Ri-iiight. If you were a radical lesbian feminist, wouldn’t you be angry about this? This wasn’t the trip you signed up for, after all. By blurring the line between male and female, transgenderism challenges your radical feminist commitment to man-hating.

To combat this existential threat to her radical worldview, Brennan created an anti-transgender blog called “Pretendbians,” which is funny as hell, if you’re a right-wing sexist homophobe like me. As a lesbian feminist, Brennan feels she is at liberty to say stuff about trannies that would make Fred Phelps blush with shame.

Transgender “inclusion” is the trendy left-wing cause now, so everybody hates Cathy Brennan, e.g., feminist Aaminah Khan:

Cathy Brennan . . . is a lesbian radical feminist who’s made it her life goal to stalk, humiliate and endanger the lives of trans women, whom she believes are “fake” women trying to destroy feminism by infiltrating it. . . .
Cathy Brennan is a despicable human being, and if she hates you, you know you’re doing something right.

The anti-Brennan backlash has gathered such momentum that when Brennan went to court against black feminist Phylicia Sampson, the latter was able to raise more than $4,500 for her legal defense:

Revolutionaries always end up fighting each other this way. The feminist movement has clearly reached a stage analogous to Stalin’s NKVD sending Ramon Mercader to assassinate Leon Trotsky. And of course, there is the “white privilege” accusation:

Sorry You’re A Vanillacentric
Privileged Trans Oppressor
. . . Why should the trans community have respect for a group of racist white radical feminists who have attacked our humanity and femininity for four decades with deleterious effects on our lives?  . . .
[Brennan] also published the pre-transition names of trans feminine activists who have called out her vile behavior, used her access to the legal system as an attorney to frack with the legal gender change of another trans critic . . .
Oh yeah, did I forget to mention she was on the opposing side when Baltimore County, MD was debating passing trans human rights coverage? . .
Trans community, you cannot ignore in the vain hope she will go away someone who has the access to policy making tables that Brennan has and the willingness to use it against us. It’s a dangerous combination when you have a trans bigot willing and unrepentantly able to not only express anti-trans attitudes, but is actively working to inject them into policies that will have deleterious effects upon the entire trans community not only here in the United States but around the world.

Yes, that’s it: Welcome to the transgender Two-Minute Hate, with Cathy Brennan in the role of feminism’s Emmanuel Goldstein.

How much further down the Crazyville Road can these radical moonbats travel before they begin killing each other in the manner of Cambodia, Yugoslavia or Rwanda? When that happens, I’m sure, they’ll find a way to blame it on the heteronormative patriarchy.

But all we ever wanted was for them to fix us sandwiches . . .

PREVIOUSLY:

 


Category: Feminism

What The Flu-Shot Is A “Federal Dollar”?

Posted on | January 4, 2014 | 8 Comments

by Smitty

Great article over on Town Hall by Conn Carroll about ObamaCare. Worth reading in full, but I’d like to pick up where he ends for a bit of a rant on a fundamental conceptual flaw that cuts across so much of our jacked-up contemporary thinking (emphasis mine):

We already see this happening in Massachusetts where all of Obamneycare’s cost containment claims have been exposed as complete frauds. Yes, almost everyone in Massachusetts does have health insurance, but the state simply can’t afford it. Don’t believe me? Just ask Obamacare architect Donald Berwick who is running for governor. His website explains:

In the Massachusetts state budget, almost every key line item has gone down by 20%, 30%, or 40% in real terms since 2000 except health care, which has gone up by 60%. In 2013, 43% of state expenditures are for health care – that’s more than double what we spend on education.

Berwick’s solution? “It is time to explore seriously the possibility of a single payer system in Massachusetts,” Berwick writes.
And that is where the only common ground will ever be on health care policy in Washington: allowing states to choose their own health care futures. If California, Massachusetts, and New York want to become single-payer health care systems, fine, let’s reform Medicare, Medicaid, and Obamacare to let them do that.
But, if Indiana wants to provide their citizens more freedom, and use federal dollars to set up health savings accounts for the uninsured, then Medicare, Medicaid, and Obamacare ought to be reformed to let them do that, too.

Our “dollar” shows up in Article 1 Section 9 of the Constitution. But it’s Just. A. Dollar. Sure, we’ve blown off our original requirement for solid metal backing for the currency. See Ron Paul for pertinent rants.

And, yes, I do understand the intent of this common usage. The point of this rant is to underscore the problem with accepting artificial distinctions like “federal”, “state”, and “local” dollars. No. There is only one currency, the dollar. Dollars expended by government are ultimately taxpayer dollars, and, sooner or later, overtly through taxation, or covertly through opportunity costs, are going to come from those taxpayers, sure as the wool comes from the sheep.

The term of art “federal dollars” is just a ruse to quell fears that, somehow, the pain is going to fall on voters, who might punish their collection of rodeo clowns at election time. We’ve pretty much seen that there is no other feedback loop in the system; no amount of wanton jackwagonry on ObamaCare (or Fast & Furious, or Benghazi, &c) can trigger any laxative effects at the White House.

Let’s start a campaign to let the dollar be the dollar, reform the Federal Reserve, have budgets, and otherwise quit living this Peter Pan Progressive Pot Party. Extremist, I know. Can’t help it.

Category: Health Care

Feminists Accused of ‘Transphobia’: Competitive Victimhood Derby

Posted on | January 4, 2014 | 70 Comments

“If gender is inherently detrimental as the radical feminists maintain and if trans identification occurs in part because gender is rigidly interpreted and represented through normative modalities of behaving, then there will be unceasing dissonance between these two groups.”
— Julian Vigo, “The Left Hand of Darkness”

Following up on last night’s post, “Mental Illness and Radical Feminism,” I arrived at a feminist blog that rejects capitalization:

this is what our oppression consists of and what it is. men get to name it (sex, fucking, knocked up, mother, father) men get to execute it (intercourse, impregnation) and men get to enforce it (rape, heteronormativity, marriage, and legal remedies and lack thereof for sexual and reproductive offenses). note that i am considering rape to be the violent enforcement by men of womens sex role as fuckholes and breeders.

Well, OK, then. Notice the sequence “rape, heteronormativity, marriage” that radical feminism views as equally forms of oppression, assigning women to a “sex role as fuckholes and breeders.” This particular blog, by the way, has an entire category about “PIV” (penis-in-vagina) which is what “heteronormativity” is all about, eh?

By the time a feminist reaches the radical point at which normal sexual intercourse is regarded as inherently oppressive, she has already marched a good distance down the Crazyville Road. Sane, normal people become the Enemy and, in order to maintain her delusions, the feminist seeks out the company of her fellow radicals, who share and confirm these extreme beliefs. The maladjusted thereby exile themselves to a sort of voluntary asylum, where they only encounter lunatics like themselves.

So, RadFem 2013 was a conference in London, which resulted in a gigantic controversy because radical feminists insisted on excluding the “transgendered” from their female-only event, and one of the featured speakers, Australian lesbian feminist Professor Sheila Jeffreys, was about to publish a new book, Gender Hurts: A Feminist Analysis of the Politics of Transgenderism, that was deeply offensive to the “T” people represented in the LGBT acronym.

How crazy did that conflict become? At one point in April, the venue tried to cancel the event after discovering that “certain language was used and some statements were made about transgender people that would go against our equalities and diversity policy.” Another RadFem conference organizer, Cathy Brennan of Baltimore, was meanwhile all over Twitter announcing “transwomen are men” and comparing them to MRAs (men’s rights advocates). Brennan’s outspoken hostility to transgenders led her to take legal action against a transgender activist:

A Twitter message about spitting led Towson lawyer and lesbian advocate Cathy Brennan to file for a peace order against a transgender advocate.
Phylicia Sampson, a 28-year-old Baltimore resident, and Brennan, 42, were engaged in a heated debate on the social media site when Sampson wrote that she wanted to spit in Brennan’s face.
Baltimore County Distict Court Judge Barbara Jung ordered Sampson to stay away from Brennan’s home and place of employment, and to cease contact, according to the peace order. . . .
Brennan, a former member of the Boards of the Gay and Lesbian Community Center of Baltimore, said she has been a gay activist since 1995, but is of the opinion that transgendered women are male and should not have access to “female spaces.” . . .
Brennan said she met Sampson, a graduate student, through mutual friends in fall 2011, and had invited her into her home on several occassions.
“At some point, we came to a fork in the road because she believes transwomen are women,” she said.
Brennan said Sampson had been sending her a slew of aggressive messages and continued to do so even after Brennan asked her to end their communications.
“I’m afraid of this person at this point,” said Brennan, who added that she has received several death threats for her stance. “I take [threats] very seriously.”

The Competitive Victimhood Derby is ultimately a zero-sum game, you see. There can only be one winner, and the transgender claim to equal victimhood is rejected by radical feminists, who view this as an attempt to usurp their own categorical claim.

It’s like a traffic jam on the Crazyville Road, where two politicized groups of wackjobs are compelled by the implicit logic of their arguments to fight each other for supremacy. Therefore, “equality” as codified by British law is oppressive:

How have men/queers/transactivists been so successful at shutting down female-only space? It stems back to the slow, evolving, way the debate about “equalities” cancels out women’s oppression in favour of “gender-based” oppression. . . . By calling it “gender-based” violence, there is political space to deny the structural power men have over women and claim that violence comes from all individuals, equally.
As radical feminists, we know that the true source of women’s oppression, and other oppressions, are embedded in the institutions, systems and structures of society and that this, together with cultural norms, creates “patriarchy”.
Patriarchy is never going to acknowledge that oppression is enshrined in the very fabric of society. The myth of the state, as a neutral arbitrator, supporting the rights of equally competing interests/groups within society, props up that fabric. . . .
Unsurprising then that the Equality Act 2010 has been used with such relish by male extremist groups and queer/transactivists to try and stop radical feminists naming our truths.

Transgender activists are actually part of the patriarchy! Somehow, they prevent radical feminists from naming their truths!

Crazy? Sure. But you only reach this kind of radical insanity by passing every exit along your journey down the Crazyville Road.

Do not for a moment doubt what “truths” were named at RadFem 2013:

Sheila Jeffreys then went on to discuss compulsory heterosexuality and lesbian feminism.  She noted that it was very strange that so many women in this modern resurgence of feminism are not becoming lesbians as they did in the second wave, despite the horrific tidal wave of male violence and creepy male sexuality that is even more visible culturally.  Some reasons she thought this might be were that mixed-space organizing was dulling women’s revolutionary impulses.

The fight for “female-only space” is necessary to radical feminism because only within such space can “women’s revolutionary impulses” lead them to becoming lesbians, as all feminists should be.

They are all about “transcending the norms of gender,” you see.

Men are obsolete, and nobody’s fixing sandwiches for us anymore.

 

Category: Feminism, Gays

Late To The Antarctic Rescue News, But I Brought Beatallica

Posted on | January 3, 2014 | 12 Comments

by Smitty

Sure the East Coast is under a chill, but how about those Global Worming researchers at the nether pole? After we rejoice in their safety, and admire their tenacity, let’s enjoy just a little riff at their expense:

May 2014 be the year that the “experts” learn they can’t just phone it in on their credentials, but really need to publish some models, raw data, and let there be actual public debate, in lieu of the Orwellian cramdowns of the last decades.

Seriously. Let’s push candidates who’re not turning public policy into kickback schemes. This mostly means shoving incumbents out the door, so that research can be research, and not pretexts for more inane policy.

 

Category: Global Warming

Mental Illness and Radical Feminism

Posted on | January 3, 2014 | 47 Comments

A remarkable uproar has been inspired by a radical feminist’s opposition to heterosexual intercourse, which she terms “PIV” (penis in vagina) and denounces as always rape:

First, well intercourse is NEVER sex for women. Only men experience rape as sexual and define it as such. Sex for men is the unilateral penetration of their penis into a woman (or anything else replacing and symbolising the female orifice) whether she thinks she wants it or not — which is the definition of rape: that he will to do it anyway and that he uses her and treats her as a receptacle, in all circumstances — it makes no difference to him experiencing it as sexual. That is, at the very least, men use women as useful objects and instruments for penetration, and women are dehumanised by this act. It is an act of violence.
As FCM pointed out some time ago, intercourse is inherently harmful to women and intentionally so, because it causes pregnancy in women. . . .
Men, by whom we are possessed, colonised and held captive, are the sole agents and organisers of PIV. Men dominate us precisely so we can’t opt out of sexual abuse by them; intercourse is the very means through which men subordinate us, the very purpose of their domination, to control human reproduction.

Every sane person’s first reactions:

  1. Is she crazy?
    and
  2. Who is this woman?

The second question is unanswerable, because the absence of any biographical information on her “Radical Wind” blog makes it impossible to know anything about the author. This serves an ideological purpose: Her claims about her own experience cannot be fact-checked, so that she is free to tell any self-serving lie. Anonymity also serves the useful purpose of concealing anything in her biography that might undermine her credibility.

We do not know the author’s age, education or occupation, although we can deduce from linguistic clues (e.g., “organizers” and “behavioural”) that she is British; we can deduce from a reference to “mass” that her family was Catholic; and we know that she attended university. She also offers a tendentiously anti-male sexual history of herself, using “trauma-bond” as a term for “falling in love” with a man:

When I was really young I always wondered what it meant to “be in love” . . . I never “fell” in love with anybody when I was young, and was always wondering whether I was normal or not. . . .
Anyway, a few rapes / PIV / abusive relationships later, as I was still adolescent, I “fell in love”, or so I thought. . . .

(What she discloses here is that her earliest sex acts with men, as a teenager, did not involve romantic feelings on her part.)

Needless to say, this first experience was extremely painful. The guy was something like 13 years older than me, I was still a minor, and my “love” to him would be all the more strong that he was very fleeting, would contact me only every now and then when he needed to fuck (rape) me. I was too grateful for him paying any attention to me to be even aware of his abusive behaviour, or understand what it meant. I was confused that he only wanted to see me sporadically, instead of starting a relationship, which is the way in which this love is supposed to be expressed. If he liked me enough to “desire” me, why didn’t he want a relationship?

(So, after a series of loveless sexual relationships as a teenager, and while still underage, she became involved — and “fell in love” — with a man about 30 years old. The rather unusual nature of her early sexual/romantic history is not explained, nor does the author even seem to realize that her particular experience was so extraordinary as to be quite literally abnormal.)

Not knowing whether he “loved” me or not made me constantly anxious. The emotional distance, neglect and constant waiting for him made the pain acute.
Fast forward a year, I finally realised that he’d used me and had no respect for me. I decided to give up on hoping that he’d “fall in love” (= get into the promised relationship). The instant i’d done that, I felt such an amazing sense of freedom. It felt like all the weight of the world had suddenly disappeared!! I wasn’t tied, bonded to him anymore. I was independent. I didn’t have to live my entire life according to him, waiting and yearning for him. The illusions suddenly fell apart and I saw him as some useless guy. I told myself: never again will I be so naïve with a man! I was unlucky I thought, and I should just have picked a better man, and been more careful.

(Again, note the lack of awareness that her experience was abnormal, and the inability to see her unusual situation objectively.)

The problem was, that over the next five or six years, this pattern kept repeating and repeating and repeating itself. Every man I trauma-bonded to either was only interested in using me for PIV (rape) or had no interest in me at all. I thought something was wrong with me, maybe I wasn’t pretty enough, skinny enough, boobed enough, outward going enough, mature, seductive, whatever. I couldn’t get it what it was that I lacked. I didn’t understand why I accumulated so many failures. Why did they never stay? Why was I so unlucky in “love”? Alternatively, I wouldn’t trauma-bond but then i’d be fully aware that I didn’t want the PIV and physical invasion (when I wasn’t so much aware of it with the others, because of the trauma-bonding) and it would be even more humiliating. I was still too grateful for the attention though to ward them off, so it would be painfully disgusting and i’d hate myself for what I perceived was self-betrayal.
When I was “attracted” they didn’t want, but when I didn’t want, they wanted. It didn’t make sense.

So, to summarize: After a few loveless adolescent sexual trysts, but while she “was still a minor” — perhaps 17 — the author fell in love with a man about 30 years old who exploited her and did not reciprocate her romantic feelings.  Then she entered into a pattern of relatively short-term sexual relationships with men (a) toward whom she was “attracted” and who did not reciprocate; or (b) for whom she had no such attraction, but with whom she had sex because she felt “grateful” for their attention.

From this sketchy (and unverifiably anonymous) history, we can approach an answer to the first question: Yes, she is crazy, which is to say her behavior has been irrational and self-destructive, and her inability to cope with disappointment — “I didn’t understand why I accumulated so many failures” — led her to adopt an extreme anti-male worldview, i.e., radical feminism. But this is all radical feminism actually is, the elaboration of mental illness as a political philosophy. Sane, normal and happy women don’t become feminists. However, as the realities of sexual behavior in our culture becomes increasingly abnormal — and widespread sexual promiscuity is, historically speaking, abnormal — fewer women are sane and happy, so feminist beliefs become more commonplace and abnormality is thereby normalized.

Returning to a sane culture, however, would require both sexes to abandon much that we have been taught to consider “progress” and, therefore, feminist insanity will become more common.

Remember pro-abortion “Queer Feminist” Sarah Alcid?

“Heteronormativity and gender roles also rear their ugly heads on Valentine’s Day. Gifts for ‘him’ or ‘her’ are clearly divided and marked and it’s almost impossible to find cards that represent queer couples. . . .
“It’s not hard to see why Valentine’s Day is problematic for many feminists. Celebrated traditionally, Valentine’s Day magnifies many of the very systems of domination that we work to critique and dismantle.”
— Sara Alcid, “Valentine’s Day: What’s A Feminist To Do?” EverydayFeminism.com, Feb. 14, 2013

Anyone who is not a feminist would describe this as the word-salad gibberish of a lunatic, but because feminism has become so commonplace, fewer people have the sanity necessary to recognize it for the madness it actually is, and it is now widely considered “hate” to disagree with these baby-killing lesbian man-haters.

 

 


Category: Feminism

In Which @alternatekev and @jaydot Conspire to Suppress Free Speech

Posted on | January 3, 2014 | 22 Comments

Both Heartiste and Return of Kings are so-called “game” blogs, that is to say, they are male-oriented sites about maximizing sexual opportunities for single guys (“players”), an attitude that I — as a Christian traditionalist — do not endorse. For obvious reasons, however, “game” guys are hostile to feminism which is why, from time to time, I’ve taken notice of some of their arguments.

Anyway, Return of Kings (ROK) did a blog post about the Arapahoe High School shooting that argued “women’s selfishness makes men kill.” This offended Kevin Conboy (@alternatekev) and another person with the Twitter handle @jaydot, who then evidently plotted to delete both ROK and that site’s ally, Heartiste, from the WordPress software platform.

Why Is WordPress Employee Kevin Conboy
Threatening To Delete Blogs He Disagrees With?

Is A Blubbering Inner Party Leftoid
Trying To Silence Chateau Heartiste?

As a result of protests against their Thought Police act, both (@alternatekev) and @jaydot have switched their accounts to “protected” status, which is the Twitter equivalent of waving the white flag of surrender. This controversy is not about whether you endorse “game” (I don’t) or whether those blogs are offensive (which sometimes they are). Rather, this is about the totalitarian impulse to suppress the voices of those with whom The Enlightened Forces of Progress and Equality™ disagree.

Notice that The Benighted Enemies of Progress and Equality™ — that’s us, my friends — are not the ones doing this. We aren’t trying to get obnoxious feminists banned from the Internet.

A couple weeks ago, a feminist disciple of Andrea Dworkin wrote a post declaring that “PIV” (i.e., penis-in-vagina, otherwise known as heterosexual intercourse) “is always rape.”

Rather than trying to get this insane lesbian feminist freak (but I repeat myself) banned from the Internet, normal people reacted by criticizing her ideas, e.g., “Any Inkling I May Become a Feminist is Now Gone.”

This is how you win arguments — by arguing.

People who can’t win arguments instead try to silence their antagonists.

 

Category: Feminism
« 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