The Other McCain

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

The TrigglyPuff Party: How Democrats Created Insane ‘Social Justice’ Mobs

Posted on | October 14, 2018 | 2 Comments

 

Commenting on the irrational female rage unleashed by the Kavanaugh confirmation circus, Stephen Green remarks: “The Democrats have worked hard to lock down the Trigglypuff vote, but at what cost of even slightly more moderate voters?” But do such voters really exist?

We are more than 25 years into a cycle of increasing polarization that arguably began with Bill Clinton’s election as president. Clinton’s radicalism — remember the so-called “assault weapons” ban? — sparked a backlash that cost Democrats the control of the House that they’d held for 40 years. Everything thereafter increased the partisan divide: The budget standoff that led to the government shutdown, the Lewinsky scandal and the impeachment crisis, the Florida recount in 2000, the Iraq War, the recapture of Congress by Nancy Pelosi’s Democrats, Obama’s election in 2008, the Tea Party movement, on and on.

It is not the case that America’s politics have become more divisive because the Republican Party has moved further right. Liberal pundits, commenting from within their ideological cocoons, habitually apply labels — “far right,” “extremist,” “white nationalist,” etc. — to depict the GOP as beholden to a dangerous fringe, but this is just paranoid propaganda. The typical Republican voter in 2018 is actually no more “extreme” than his father was in 1988. Nor is the policy agenda of the GOP now any more “far right” than it was in the presidency of Ronald Reagan. The cause of the increased partisan divide is not that the Republicans have moved right, but that Democrats have moved left.

What happened, when did it happen and why did it happen?

Go back to George W. Bush’s presidency. In the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks in 2001, there was a surge of patriotic sentiment that was politically beneficial to Republicans, who won the 2002 midterms and were able to re-elect Bush in 2004, when Democrats nominated the anti-war candidate John Kerry. Unfortunately for the GOP, Bush’s premature “Mission Accomplished” claim about Iraq proved false. As the insurgency raged and the death toll among U.S. troops mounted, the anti-war protests on university campuses radicalized many students, who went seeking for a Democrat messiah, and embraced Barack Obama as their savior. The collapse of Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign in the Democrat primaries — which I witnessed firsthand on the campaign trail — was culturally significant in ways that were perhaps not entirely apparent at the time.

Who was it that enabled Obama to defeat Hillary? Young people radicalized by the Iraq War, in quite the same way as George McGovern’s 1972 campaign was driven by youth radicalized by Vietnam. While Obama also benefited from increased turnout by black voters, the true audience for his message of “Hope” and “Change” were under-30 voters, including a lot of white college kids who had no other frame of reference for politics and policy than the previous eight years of the Bush administration. Think about it: Those born in 1988 knew nothing of Reagan, and Newt Gingrich’s heyday occurred when they were in first or second grade. They were fourth-graders when the Lewinsky scandal made headlines, and barely into adolescence when 9/11 happened.

Given the notorious inadequacy of K-12 education in America, and the left-wing prejudice of university professors, were these young people ever taught anything about budget deficits or the actuarial problems of federal entitlement programs? Did their teachers ever expose them to any cogent criticisms of ObamaCare? I doubt it. The generation of youth who cast their first presidential vote for Barack Obama in 2008 were not motivated by any substantial knowledge of the public policy issues at stake. Rather, they were inspired by a sentimental attraction to an idea — Obama as the progressive Messiah who would save them from those evil Republicans, the party of war, greed, racism and homophobia.

 

Everything that has happened in politics in the decade since Obama’s election has been shaped by this messianic belief system fostered among young people, who don’t seem to comprehend how a national debt of $20 trillion — yes, trillion, with a “T” — imposes limitations on the ability of the federal government to provide them “Hope” and “Change.”

Because their political beliefs are fundamentally irrational — sorry, kids, there’s not enough money to pay for all that free stuff you want — these young people are prone to behave like spoiled children throwing a tantrum when they encounter any opposition or criticism. This explains the infamous frenzy of student rage at UM-Amherst two years ago:

Does everyone remember “TrigglyPuff,” the obnoxious feminist who repeatedly disrupted a 2016 event at the University of Massachusetts? While claiming to be a victim of oppression, Cora Segal was attending elite private Hampshire College ($63,512 a year, including room and board) and is, in fact, the daughter of a Harvard professor. Her sole claim to victimhood is her evident inability to say “no” to second helpings. . . .
Feminism is always a lecture, never a debate. Accusations of “harassment” are automatic as soon as anyone tries to engage a feminist in debate. However, when a feminist like “TrigglyPuff” deliberately disrupts a conservative event, this is justified as a protest against sexism, so that the claim of oppressed victimhood — the premise of the feminist syllogism — always serves the same rhetorical function: “Shut up!”

Having worked so hard to lock down the TrigglyPuff vote, as Stephen Green says, Democrats are now held hostage by the mob mentality of the identity-politics “social justice” coalition they’ve built.

 

This is what the Kavanaugh confirmation circus confirmed: Democrats are now the party of TrigglyPuff, of angry college girls driven to fits of insanity — a deranged mob clawing at the doors of the Supreme Court — by the irrationality of their “progressive” belief system.

What about those “slightly more moderate voters” who might be alienated by the Democrats’ surrender to extremism? They don’t seem to exist. Polls indicate that the Democrats’ advantage in the generic congressional ballot is holding firm around 7 or 8 points. Why?

Bias in the new media is more prevalent than ever — more than 90% negative coverage of Trump, nearly ignoring the good economic news — so if there are still persuadable voters out there, they have no information that would cause them to prefer Republicans to Democrats.

Therefore, it is entirely possible that Democrats may be rewarded for their insane mob behavior by voters who elect enough seemingly “moderate” Democrat candidates in swing districts to return the House Speaker’s gavel to Nancy Pelosi. As John Hoge and I discussed Saturday night on The Other Podcast, the polls now apparently indicate that Republicans will maintain their majority in the Senate, but what will this mean if Democrats control the House? Perhaps our only hope to prevent such a congressional gridlock is that some combination of GOP attack ads and a well-organized get-out-the-vote drive by Republicans will be able to turn back the “blue wave” Democrats are hoping for.

UPDATE: Welcome, Instapundit readers! As always, we ask readers to remember the Five Most Important Words in the English Language:

HIT THE FREAKING TIP JAR!



 

 

Category: Democrats, Election, History, Politics

FMJRA 2.0: Turn Your Radio On

Posted on | October 13, 2018 | 2 Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho

ConFFFFFirmed!
Daily Pundit
Trump’s Minutemen
Constitutional News Network
Freedom’s Back
The Deplorable Patriots
EBL

FMJRA 2.0: Away From Home
The Pirate’s Cove
357 Magnum
EBL
A View From The Beach

Rule 5 Sunday: Brennschluss
Animal Magnetism
Ninety Miles From Tyranny
A View From The Beach
EBL

Author of Smear Against Conservative Journalists Exposed as Foreign Agent
EBL

Those Karlie Kloss Rumors Were True?
EBL

The Last Kavanaugh Post, Ever
A View From The Beach
EBL

Anti-Male Georgetown Professor Uses Tumblr Blog to ‘Dox’ Her Critics
EBL

Taylor Swift, SJW
EBL

What Media Bias Looks Like
Catallaxy Files

In The Mailbox: 10.10.18
A View From The Beach
EBL

Darwinian Terrorist: Feds Arrest N.Y. Man in Election Day Suicide Bomb Plot
A View From The Beach
EBL

Coming Out as … MOGAI? The Weird and Dangerous World of Queer Feminism
Living In Anglo-America
Pushing Rubber Downhill
EBL

Late Night With In The Mailbox: 10.11.18
357 Magnum
EBL

Party of Science™ Update: Democrats Now Actively Consorting With Satan
Pushing Rubber Downhill
EBL

Top linkers for the week ending October 12:

  1.  EBL (13)
  2.  A View From The Beach (5)


Featured Digital Deals
Amazon Warehouse Deals

Category: FMJRA Award

Arielle Scarcella: Gay People Are ‘F–king Terrified’ to Criticize Trans Ideology

Posted on | October 13, 2018 | Comments Off on Arielle Scarcella: Gay People Are ‘F–king Terrified’ to Criticize Trans Ideology

 

Arielle Scarcella has 550,000 subscribers to her YouTube channel, which makes her one of the most popular lesbian YouTubers. Some of her videos have more viewers than the average program at CNN (but let’s be honest, CNN is barely more popular than the Hallmark Channel). Her popularity is the only reason Ms. Scarcella has been able to survive telling the truth about transgender activists, who have harassed her viciously for months because of her criticism of their bizarre ideology.

In a video this week, Ms. Scarcella explained that most gay and lesbian YouTubers are “f–king terrified to even touch on an trans topics — about the blatant misogyny that the SJW trans activists promote, about how the Left is so far left at this point that they are suggesting conversion therapy and hiding it behind the agenda of ‘queer’ progressiveness, about how some bisexual YouTubers have made videos and public statements saying that our ‘genital preference’ is a whole bias, when in reality it’s not a bias, it’s not a preference, it’s our sexual orientation and it’s not something we can help, about how little gay men are actually policed for their sexual orientation in comparison to lesbians — not very much at all.”

Fear of being labelled a “TERF” (trans-exclusive radical feminist) causes many lesbian YouTubers to avoid the topic of transgenderism entirely, Ms. Scarcella explains, because SJWs (social justice warriors) like Riley Dennis have specifically targeted the lesbian community as “bigots” for rejecting relationships with men who think they’re women.

 

Gay men are not similarly criticized for their own preferences, Ms. Scarcella explains, and remain silent about the abusive and misogynistic rhetoric of transgender activists “because they’re f–king terrified to stand up for lesbian and bisexual women.” She says many in the LGBT community fear the consequences of speaking out.

“How often do other LGBT YouTubers agree with what I have to say, but divert their eyes and don’t say anything on Twitter publicly because they’re terrified of being labeled a transphobe?” Ms. Scarcella asks. “How many of them are worried that corporate brands won’t want to work with someone who has the label of ‘transphobe,’ when that label isn’t even accurate? Nobody wants to talk about the fact that trans activists are literally making shirts and Tumblr and Twitter accounts with slogans like ‘Kill All TERFS’ and being praised by the media for doing so.”

 

When I first started covering the conflict between transgender activists and their radical feminist critics in 2014, it seemed to me that this was a fight between two camps of crazy extremists. Soon, however, I realized that (a) the radical feminists at least had the facts of biology on their side — e.g., women don’t have penises — and (b) transgender activists were exploiting “social justice” rhetoric in an attempt to bully women into having sex with them. Ms. Scarcella is exactly right when she says that it is only women, and particularly lesbians, who are being targeted by these intimidation tactics — sexual terrorism in the name of “inclusion.” Because gay men are not being “policed” for their preferences, as Ms. Scarcella observes, and because many corporate sponsors of LGBT activism wish to avoid intra-community controversy, the few personalities like Ms. Scarcella who do speak out are isolated as targets for the social media mobs of SJW Thought Police.

As a Christian, of course, I do not approve of homosexuality, and as a conservative, I reject the entire “social justice” ideology and its totalitarian jargon of “inclusion,” “diversity,” etc. However, as an American, I have a fundamental duty to defend the principles of ordered liberty (cf., Russell Kirk) enshrined in our Constitution, including the principle of freedom of association. If I am not invited to your home, I would be guilty of trespassing — and might lawfully be shot to death — if I tried to barge in your front door against your wishes. By similar reasoning, if a person declares that they do not desire romantic intimacy with any particular category of their fellow citizens, we are obligated to respect their rights in this regard even if (a) the basis of their choice is in some way offensive to our beliefs or (b) we are ourselves personally affected by the exclusionary nature of their choice.

Go back and read Justice Antonin Scalia’s dissent in Lawrence v. Texas (2003), in which he warned against the potential consequences of the Supreme Court striking down state laws against sodomy. While the bullying of lesbians by transgender activists was not among the outcomes that Justice Scalia enumerated, we can see how the majority opinion’s “Emerging Awareness” Doctrine (as I have called it) is deeply implicated in controversies like this. When the nation’s highest court declared that the ancient precedents of Anglo-American common law were somehow invalidated by the Fourteenth Amendment (a claim that certainly would have shocked the state legislators who ratified that amendment), it had the effect of opening Pandora’s Box, unleashing the destructive forces of what Matt Barber has called “Sexual Anarchy.”

We are now gradually discovering that, once a society begins destroying its own traditions, imposing new laws and redefining words in pursuit of vague abstractions of “equality” and “progress,” the harmful effects of this radicalism cannot be limited, and that the victims of the resulting chaos will include many radicals who had expected to benefit from the destruction of the traditional social order. Selah.

By the way, it would be the height of presumption for me to claim to speak on behalf of the lesbian community, but my own observations and experience indicate that, insofar as lesbians find any males attractive, their preferences are more or less normal. That is to say, it is only the confident, athletic, masculine man who can arouse in them any erotic interest at all. Like other women, the lesbian generally views effeminate males as weak and pathetic. So while a lesbian might, in a discussion of hypothetical scenarios, admit she’d be willing to give Channing Tatum a chance, she would be offended at the suggestion that she could (or should) be attracted to such a pitiable joke as Riley Dennis.



 

 

Category: Sex Trouble, The Transgender Cult

Late Night With In The Mailbox: 10.12.18

Posted on | October 13, 2018 | Comments Off on Late Night With In The Mailbox: 10.12.18

— compiled by Wombat-socho

Unfortunately Friday the 13th comes on a Saturday this month.
You still need to send me your links for the FMJRA and Rule Five Sunday.

OVER THE TRANSOM
Proof Positive: Gosnell – A Movie Review
EBL: National Farmers Day Rule 5
Twitchy: You’re About To See A Bunch Of Libs Attack Trump Over Robert E. Lee. Shockingly, It’s All BS
Louder With Crowder: Exposed – Top Five Rape Hoaxes Of All Time
The Camp of the Saints The Coming Calamity
According To Hoyt: Cleaning Up
Monster Hunter Nation: Wait. I Got Blacklisted From What Now?
Vox Popoli: Responses To IndieGoGo’s Retro-Cancellation

RIPPED FROM THE HEADLINES
American Thinker: Violence? It’s Not Only The Right That Will Bleed
Animal Magnetism: Rule Five All Politics Is Local Friday
BattleSwarm: LinkSwarm For October 12
CDR Salamander: Fullbore Friday
Da Tech Guy: The Obvious Question Everyone Is Ignoring In This Nasty Transgender Bathroom Story
Don Surber: Democratic Candidate Implodes In Arizona
Dustbury: Program Notes
First Street Journal: Money Isn’t Everything
The Geller Report: Hillary Finally Loses Security Clearance After Server Scandal, also, Tens Of Thousands Of Muslims Riot On Gaza Border
Hogewash: Team Kimberlin Post Of The Day, Pulsar In A Box, also, (Another) Team Kimberlin Post Of The Day
JustOneMinute: We Have Conquered Fear!
Legal Insurrection: Senator Cassidy Calls Out Anti-Kavanaugh Protester For Using Her Children, also, Cherokee Author Rejects Fauxcahontas Presidency “While She Appropriates My Identity”
The PanAm Post: Colombia’s Uribe Won’t Rule Out Intervention In Venezuela
Power Line: The AP Defends The Democrats’ Mobs, also, Glenn Simpson Would Prefer Not To
Shark Tank: Marco Rubio Warns The Chicoms Are Growing Repressive
Shot In The Dark: Angie Craig, Miracle Worker!
The Political Hat: Alyssa Milano & Humidors
This Ain’t Hell: Sometimes I Just Go Full Potato, also, Secret Squirrel Code Talkers
Victory Girls: Cruz v. O’Rourke – Texas Interests Or Hollywood Glitz?
Volokh Conspiracy: Proposed Constitutional Amendment Against Packing The Supreme Court
Weasel Zippers: Democrats Agree To Confirm 15 Federal Judges So They Can Go Home & Campaign, also, Neil Patrick Harris Recalls Getting Propositioned by Whoopi Goldberg When He Was Just 15
Mark Steyn: The Mark Steyn Show – Ann McElhinney & Phelim McAleer Return, also, Hell’s Brel


Featured Digital Deals
Amazon Warehouse Deals

Category: Linkagery

Party of Science™ Update: Democrats Now Actively Consorting With Satan

Posted on | October 12, 2018 | Comments Off on Party of Science™ Update: Democrats Now Actively Consorting With Satan

 

Earlier this month we reported (“Democrats Desperate to Stop Kavanaugh Nomination Resort to … Witchcraft,” Oct. 4) that anti-Trump pagans were conjuring Dark Powers in their doomed effort to prevent Brett Kavanaugh from becoming the 114th justice of the Supreme Court. Having learned nothing from their failure, they’re now doubling-down:

Witches plan to place a public hex on Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh through an occult ritual on Oct. 20 in New York City, an event sponsored by Catland Books, which describes itself as “Brooklyn’s premiere occult bookshop & spiritual community space.” The planned ritual has been advertised on Facebook.
“Please join us for a public hex on Brett Kavanaugh, upon all rapists and the patriarchy at large which emboldens, rewards and protects them,” reads the description for the event, “Ritual to Hex Brett Kavanaugh.”
“We are embracing witchcraft’s true roots as the magik of the poor, the downtrodden and disenfranchised and it’s history as often the only weapon, the only means of exacting justice available to those of us who have been wronged by men just like him,” reads the description.
“He will be the focal point, but by no means the only target, so bring your rage and all of the axes you’ve got to grind,” states Catland. . . .
“There will also be a second ritual afterward — “The Rites of the Scorned One” — which seeks to validate, affirm, uphold and support those of us who have been wronged and who refuse to be silent any longer,” reads the description.
It further states that 50% of the event proceeds will go to charity: 25% to the Ali Forney Center and 25% to Planned Parenthood.
The Ali Forney Center is a homeless shelter and help center for LGBTQ youth. Planned Parenthood is America’s largest abortion provider. It received $543.7 million in taxpayer funding for the year ending June 30, 2017, reads its latest annual report.
Tickets cost $10.00. . . .
Some of the other events occuring at Catland Books this month include “Demonology,” “Magic Spells with the Tarot,” “Witchcraft 101,” and an “All Hallows Seance.”

Did you know that involvement in the occult is highly associated with sexual perversion and mental illness? Even a minor bit of dabbling in astrology or tarot has evil tendencies. Whether or not you believe that Satan is real, the existence of supernatural evil is no more dependent on your belief than is the force of gravity. As someone who has witnessed the manifestations of evil with my own eyes, I am grateful for the intercessory prayer of those devout Christians who I know ask God to send His angels to watch over me. And like I said, you may not believe that there is anything in the world beyond random interactions of matter and energy, perfectly explicable by science, but I know what I have seen, and I’m telling you that those who willingly involve themselves in the occult, in however trivial manner, are traveling in dangerous realms.

Does anyone remember The Exorcist? The book was much better than the movie, but in both versions, the girl’s demonic possession occurs after she plays with a Ouija board. And as silly as this may seem, many people who are extensively familiar with the neo-pagan occult movement will tell you that you should never, ever play with a Ouija board. Just sayin’ . . .

People who don’t believe in Satan’s existence are the most vulnerable to satanic influence, but the Bible is very clear about avoiding witchcraft: “There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch. Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer” (Deuteronomy 18:10-11); “Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies . . . they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God” (Galatians 5:20-21); and “Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live” (Exodus 22:18). These activities are cursed, and wise people keep far, far away from anything that seems even slightly “witchy.”

Don’t vote Democrat, or the curse will be upon you.



 

RELATED:

 

Category: Democrats, Sex Trouble

Late Night With In The Mailbox: 10.11.18

Posted on | October 12, 2018 | 1 Comment

— compiled by Wombat-socho

OVER THE TRANSOM
EBL: Hey, Arizona – Krysten Sinema Thinks You’re All Crazy
Twitchy: Facebook Just Shut Down The “Right Wing News” Page; Its 3.1 Million Followers Hardest Hit
Louder With Crowder: Video Montage Exposes Leftist Mobs & Media Too Afraid To Call Them Mobs

RIPPED FROM THE HEADLINES
American Power: Could Election Day Disaster Strike The Democrats Again? also, There’s No Such Thing As A Moderate Democrat In 2018
American Thinker: The Left’s Next Big Thing
Animal Magnetism: Animal’s Daily Imperial Civility News
BattleSwarm: Beto Boomlet Busts
CDR Salamander: So, You Want To Fight A Peer Over There & Not Here?
Da Tech Guy: If We Still Followed The Constitution, Nobody Would Care Who Was On SCOTUS, also, The Left Has Paid The InsaneGeld, Now We’ll Never Get Rid Of The Insane
Don Surber: Trump Is The Best President For The Press
Dustbury: This Is Not Even Slightly Civil
First Street Journal: The “Bitter Clinger”
The Geller Report: Rosenstein Refuses To Turn Over Subpoenaed Memos, No-Show At Today’s Hearing, also, London – 423 Mosques, 100 Sharia Courts, More Than Many Muslim Countries
Hogewash: Kavanaugh Casualties, also, Team Kimberlin Post of The Day
JustOneMinute: Kick ‘Em When They’re Up, Kick ‘Em When They’re Down
Legal Insurrection: Mitch McConnell Rams Through 15 More Federal Judges, also, Liberal Media – Our Mobs Aren’t Mobs So Don’t Call Them Mobs
The PanAm Post: Evidence Suggests Maduro’s Regime Murdered Councilman
Power Line: Democrats – The Constitution Is Unconstitutional! also, Should The California GOP Vote Socialist?
Shark Tank: Former Rep David Jolly Breaks With GOP
Shot In The Dark: On Latte Support?
The Political Hat: Icky In Academia – Shameful White Males, Unwanted Asians, & Colorblind Racism
This Ain’t Hell: Thursday Morning Feelgood Stories, also, Space Crew Survives Fall To Earth After Russian Rocket Fails
Victory Girls: CNN Calls Kanye West Trump’s “Token Negro”
Volokh Conspiracy: UK Supreme Court Rules Baker Doesn’t Have To Put Pro-Gay Marriage Message On Cake
Weasel Zippers: Rep. Scalise – When Dems Like Holder Call For Violence, That’s A Threat To Democracy, also, Toledo City Councilwoman Defends Post Calling Red States “Dumfuckistan”
Mark Steyn: Man, I Feel Like A Womxn, also, Reverse-Engineering The Banana Republic Stuff


Featured Digital Deals
Amazon Warehouse Deals

Category: Linkagery

Coming Out as … MOGAI? The Weird and Dangerous World of Queer Feminism

Posted on | October 11, 2018 | 2 Comments

 

Today was National Coming Out Day, which I celebrated by reading feminist Tumblr blogs and a recent memoir by lesbian blogger Katie Heaney that I’ll be writing about at length later. Heaney’s story is interesting enough (if you consider “interesting” a synonym for pathetic or ludicrous) to deserve the 3,000-word treatment, and I don’t want to spoil it for you, so instead let’s talk about MOGAI and Queer Feminism.

The University of Western Washington in Bellingham offers a minor in Queer Studies, and one of the core classes in that program is Queer Literature (ENG227), taught by “Queer intersectional feminist” Professor Kelly Magee. In 2014, Professor Magee had her students post their class assignments to a blog, and one of the students contributed this:

LGBT+, Queer, and MOGAI — Why Does It Matter?
Throughout the course, many people have brought up the fact that LGBT is typically seen as an outdated term. For individuals of a marginalized sexual orientation, the trend has typically been towards calling our community “queer”. I think it’s interesting to note why these terms shift, and what is considered correct.
The term “queer” initially began as a slur or epithet. This was a word specifically designed to hurt people and put them down for experiencing different sexual and romantic attractions. Many people have reclaimed this term for plenty of different reasons — for political reasons, to give a unified umbrella term for marginalized orientations, or to avoid the messy “alphabet soup” of LGBTQIAPDG+. The LGBT term typically fetishizes the L, focuses on the G, and ignores the B and T entirely. Not to mention the fact that it fails to include pansexual, asexual, genderqueer/fluid, demisexual, and intersex people, as well as a multitude of other sexual orientations and gender identities. Additionally, people tend to think that A stands for ally, instead of asexual, which tends to give straight people access to queer communities.
Many people have elected to use the term MOGAI instead. This stands for Marginalized Orientation, Gender And Intersex. This allows everyone who identifies as queer to be united under a single term, without this term being a slur or focusing on one identity. This also includes intersex individuals, a group that receives a large amount of discrimination and a very small amount of public awareness.
I would like to see this class as a whole move towards discussions based not specifically on gay issues, but the issues of many sexual orientations and gender identities. It is important to note that queer readings of literature can include gender identity and expression as well, not simply a homosexual vs. heterosexual or male vs. female dichotomy.

“MOGAI” opens Pandora’s Box, because what does it mean to say that someone’s sexuality or gender identity is “marginalized”? There are all kinds of kinky freaks out there among the millions and millions of men who are not homosexual. It was the interests (not to mention the money) of homosexual men that originally brought “gay liberation” into existence circa 1969, and it was the AIDS crisis of the 1980s that made this movement an important constituency within the Democrat Party. Say what you want about lesbians or transgender people’s role in the gay-rights movement, but it was wealthy male homosexuals who had the political influence that guaranteed the movement’s success. Much of the energy of lesbian activism, meanwhile, was channeled into the feminist movement and university Women’s Studies programs

What has happened in recent years, because of the success of gay rights and feminism — especially in academia — is that a lot of weirdos and perverts who aren’t homosexual have decided that they, too, are “marginalized” in some way, and therefore deserving of inclusion in the rainbow-flag-waving coalition of people who have sexual “rights.”

See, if you’re a woman, you’ve got sexual “rights.” If you’re gay, you’ve got sexual “rights.” If you’re a heterosexual male? The only rights you’ve got are summarized by the Miranda warning: “You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you . . .”

This is where “MOGAI” comes in, by telling perverts — transvestites, BDSM weirdos, “furries,” whatever — they’re “part of the queer community” which, according to the trendy rhetoric of inclusion, has no argument for refusing admission to these freaks. MOGAI is a magnet for creeps, and “Queer Feminism” is a magnet for emotionally disturbed women, so when you put the two together, you’ve basically formed a Wolves and Sheep Alliance. Anyone familiar with human nature can predict how this will turn out. All a creepy dude has to do is get a weird haircut and some facial piercings, call himself MOGAI, and he has to be welcomed into the “movement,” because diversity!

My advice to any young person, especially on a university campus, is to avoid that whole freak show — Gender Studies, Queer Studies, LGBT activism — and instead hang out with sane, normal people. Even on the 21st-century university campus, there are still sane, normal people and, no matter what your preference or orientation, you’re going to be happier and safer hanging out with them than with those MOGAI weirdos.



 

Category: Education, Gays, Sex Trouble

Darwinian Terrorist: Feds Arrest N.Y. Man in Election Day Suicide Bomb Plot

Posted on | October 11, 2018 | 1 Comment

 

Paul Rosenfeld of Tappan, N.Y., worked as a house painter and was a sort of amateur political philosopher and, also, a would-be bomber:

Police and FBI agents searched a Hudson Valley, New York, home Wednesday and arrested the 56-year-old man living there after learning about his alleged plan to build a bomb and blow himself up in Washington, D.C., on Election Day, two law enforcement officials told News 4 New York.
Court documents say Paul Rosenfeld wanted to draw attention to his belief in an ancient election system called “sortition,” a method of choosing political officials at random.
Officials tell News 4 Rosenfeld had no criminal history but had told a reporter in Pennsylvania he planned to blow himself up on the National Mall around Election Day because he was angry about the country’s direction.

More from the U.S. attorney’s office:

U.S. Attorney Geoffrey S. Berman said: “As alleged, Paul M. Rosenfeld concocted a twisted plan to draw attention to his political ideology by killing himself on the National Mall in Washington, D.C. — risking harm to many others in the process. Rosenfeld’s alleged plan for an Election Day detonation cut against our democratic principles. Thanks to outstanding coordination between local and federal law enforcement, Rosenfeld’s alleged plot was thwarted and he is now in federal custody.”
Assistant Director-in-Charge William F. Sweeney Jr. said: “As alleged in the complaint, Paul M. Rosenfeld planned to detonate a large explosive to kill himself and draw attention to his radical political beliefs. Had he been successful, Rosenfeld’s alleged plot could have claimed the lives of innocent bystanders and caused untold destruction. Fortunately, his plans were thwarted by the quick action of a concerned citizen and the diligent work of a host of our law enforcement partners and the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force. I’d like to extend particular thanks to our partners with the Orangetown Police Department, the Rockland County Sheriff’s Office, the Rockland County District Attorney, the New York State Police, the New York City Police Department, and the Stony Point Police Department for their respective roles in bring this investigation to a safe conclusion.” . . .
In August and September 2018, ROSENFELD sent letters and text messages to an individual in Pennsylvania (“Individual-1”). These letters and text messages stated that ROSENFELD planned to build an explosive device and detonate it on November 6, 2018, on the National Mall in Washington, D.C. ROSENFELD’s stated reason for these acts was to draw attention to his political belief in “sortition,” a political theory that advocates the random selection of government officials.

In March 2015, Rosenfeld outlined his views in a 1,600-word blog post that included this paranoid hypothetical scenario:

The logical end of majority rule is monarchy. The constant political maneuvering of individuals and factions must inevitably trend towards a winner takes all conclusion. Even today, despite all our “democratic” pretensions in the U.S., one might easily imagine a scenario in which President Jeb Bush (following an act of nuclear terrorism) suspends the electoral process, under the pretext that “terrorists” have infiltrated the Democratic party. A perpetual dynasty of Bush leaders would be a plausible outcome.

At the end of that blog post, Rosenfeld said it was “was condensed from a much longer essay” which he linked. I’ve uploaded a copy of that 9,000-word essay, “The Extinction of Politics: A speculation on the relationship between Ecology, Politics and Government,” to Scribd:

Paul Rosenfeld: The Extinct… by on Scribd

 

You can skim through that quickly and see that Rosenfeld uses pseudo-intellectual rhetoric in an effort to conceal his very limited knowledge of history, politics, economics and philosophy. There is, for example, the simplistic opposition of Adam Smith (capitalism) and Karl Marx (communism) as the only two economic theorists worth mentioning, typical of the sort of amateur who has never actually studied economics and, in all likelihood, has never read either Smith or Marx.

This crude conception of economics is common, and reflects the failure of our public education system. Rosenfeld is intelligent and reasonably articulate, but like most products of the American school system, was not properly taught the why of economics (or anything else). Why did Adam Smith write The Wealth of Nations? He was arguing against the theory of mercantilism, trying to explain to Englishmen that their true best interest was in the general expansion of commerce, which was best encouraged by a policy of liberty, rather than by imposing limitations on trade with such rival powers as Spain and France. To do this, Smith spent many thousands of words explaining how economic activity happens, how wealth is created from three basic sources, the wages of labor, the rent of land, and the profit of capital. The important point is this: Smith was not arguing against socialism or communism, ideas that had not at that time ever been seriously proposed. His explanation of economic activity was not intended as a defense of a political system called “capitalism” (a word he did not use), but rather an effort to show the rational basis of opposition to policies of tariffs and embargoes urged by others.

For the purpose he intended, Smith’s work was masterful, and the thoroughness of his treatment made The Wealth of Nations a founding text of modern economics. Unfortunately, it is the habit of small minds to yoke Smith and Marx together as an either/or binary choice, as if no one else in human history beside these two men had ever said anything important about economics, and despite the dissimilarity of authorial purpose between Smith and Marx. But I digress . . .

Just as Paul Rosenfeld’s conception of economics is crude, so also is his understanding of science. He begins his essay thus:

When The Origin of the Species appeared in 1859 the first people to appropriate Darwin’s ideas were the wealthy, who quickly promoted pseudo-scientific arguments using “natural selection” to rationalize their domination of society. At the time, anarchism, communism and socialism were all perceived as serious threats to the existing social order. Evolution seemed to offer a solid scientific rebuttal.

This is your sophomore Political Science 101 student’s simplistic summary of Darwin’s influence on politics, reflecting the prevalent sort of dumbed-down leftism that prevails in most classrooms. “Social Darwinism,” a set of ideas generally associated with Herbert Spencer (who coined the phrase “survival of the fittest” in his 1864 book Principles of Biology) is quite commonly depicted the way Rosenfeld does, as a “rebuttal” of radicalism, which is in its own way as absurd as claiming that Adam Smith was arguing against socialism. Spencer was himself a radical by the standards of 19th-century England, an acquaintance of John Stuart Mill and other radical thinkers, at a time when what we nowadays call libertarianism was considered as radical as socialism. Most importantly, Spencer was committed to a strictly secular (or “scientific”) philosophy, quite similar to the way that Marx and Friedrich Engels insisted that their own theory of dialectical materialism was the only possible basis of “scientific” socialism.

Well, damn your “science,” sir. Excuse me for clinging bitterly to my guns and my Bible, as Obama said, but it’s easy to see how subtracting religion from consideration — in politics, economics, philosophy and education — has unleashed dangerous forces in the world. The “scientific” belief in a godless universe is folly (“The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God,” Psalm 14:1), an invitation to perversion and insanity (“Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools . . . God gave them over to a reprobate mind,” Romans 1:22, 28). But again I digress . . .

In his essay, Paul Rosefeld attacks the Constitution as unscientific:

Grand Ayatollahs and Supreme Court Justices both wear black robes while enforcing conformity in the name of an ancient document, but there is a critical difference. The will of Allah is inscrutable whereas the earthly intentions of the framers were clearly stated in plain English at the beginning of their document. Secular ends demand secular means. When government becomes destructive of those ends it is the right of the people to change their means. This is the province of science, not religion. But the theological interpretation of the Constitution has become so ingrained we are blinded by it. . . .
The framers lived before Darwin. Were the implications of his work not profound with respect to human government? Surely they were no less radical than the revelations of Copernicus for astronomy. Where is the long overdue re-examination of “political science” that was so clearly indicated by Darwin’s theory? . . .
In the pre-scientific era Politics was arguably the only way of maintaining the class system which was central to the preservation of the human ecological dynamic. With myriad populations all competing for the same resources only the strongest and cleverest could prevail. Politics is a form of natural selection by which the strongest and cleverest homo sapiens lead their respective populations in the larger global competition. But, to the extent that this competition has (in recent millennia) been tempered by an impulse towards stability and justice (rather than expansion and subjection) politics has been supplemented by these other mechanisms (merit and chance). Now (under the influence of science) Homo sapiens have arrived at a point where stability is essential, and further competition borders on suicide.

To quote John Adams: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

Rosenfeld obviously views himself as a profound thinker, and regards his fellow citizens as intellectually inferior — quite like the Unabomber, the Harvard-educated hermit Ted Kaczynski, also a terrorist.

If you ever get an urge to write a “manifesto,” prior to committing an act of terroristic violence, ask yourself: “Has this ever worked before?” Because to my knowledge, none of these manifesto-writing lone-wolf lunatics have ever succeeded, unless you consider Valerie Solanas the founder of modern feminism — which might be valid, but Feminism Is a Totalitarian Movement to Destroy Civilization as We Know It.



 

Category: Crime, Terrorism
« go back — keep looking »