The Other McCain

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

History and the High Price of Forgetting

Posted on | May 27, 2019 | 2 Comments

 

Have you ever read Thucydides’ History of the Peloponnesian War? Probably no one should ever hold any important office, or even dare to comment on public affairs, who has not studied that great lesson. What Thucydides records is nothing less than the ruin of ancient Greece, the civilization which first developed democracy as a political system. Thucydides shows how Athens and her allies were led to destruction in a long civil war against Sparta and her allies because of the foolish counsels of ambitious demagogues, culminating in the disastrous expedition to Sicily. Because Thucydides presents the arguments made both for and against the decisions that led Athens to destruction, the reader learns how often it is that, when policy is being debated, what might seem to be the “smart” decision turns out to be a catastrophic mistake. The enterprising character of the Athenians, which had led Greece to victory over Persia and enabled Athens to establish colonies throughout Asia Minor, ultimately proved their downfall, as they overestimated their ability to defeat the more stolid and conservative Spartans.

 

On this date in 1940, the British were in the second day of “Operation Dynamo,” the heroic effort that rescued the forces trapped at Dunkirk. The success in evacuating more than 300,000 troops was a tremendous achievement, but as Churchill said at time, “We must be very careful not to assign to this deliverance the attributes of a victory. Wars are not won by evacuations.” What had brought the mighty British Empire to this low point in its history was a policy of appeasement, especially under Neville Chamberlain, that had enabled Germany to rebuild its military power while failing to defend against the threat of war. And it is seldom now appreciated how appeasement was supported by all the “smart” people in England (and also in France), who had decided that war was unthinkable, and had therefore underestimated Hitler’s intentions.

It was not that Chamberlain and other proponents of appeasement were entirely pacifist in their policy. Rather, after the bloody nightmare of the First World War, which had ended in ignominious defeat for Germany, the appeasers simply could not imagine that Germany would risk its existence in a second World War. A crucial difference between Chamberlain and Churchill (if you haven’t read A.L. Rowse’s monograph Appeasement: A Study in Political Decline, you should) was that Chamberlain never read Mein Kampf and didn’t know the German language, whereas Churchill did. So while the appeasers were deceived by the messages about “peace” that the Nazi propaganda machine was publishing in English, Churchill was listening to what Hitler was saying in German, and realized that der Führer was planning for war.

The reason we study history is because certain patterns repeat themselves. And this is where our education system has been failing us so terribly for decades, in part because of “multiculturalism.” Circa 1990, it became fashionable to condemn the teaching of history in our society as too “Eurocentric” and this academic trend, along with a general contempt for “dead white males,” had the effect of demoting the study of the history of our own culture in favor of “inclusive” history about African, Asian and Latin American societies. But this involves a misunderstanding of why we study history at all. The peasant living under a hereditary monarchy, or a goat-herder in a nomadic tribal society, would have no use for the study of history. In a non-democratic polity, it is only the leadership caste which has need to study history, as a guide to statecraft. However, in a republic, where every citizen is eligible to participate in the decision-making process — at the very least, as a voter — the study of history as part of a general education becomes much more important. How are we to participate intelligently in politics if we don’t know history? And the reason we study ancient Greece and Rome, rather than the Mayans or the Chinese or some other culture, isn’t because of racism or “Eurocentrism.” It’s because Greco-Roman civilization produced the earliest models for representative government, and because these civilizations left behind a written record, including such valuable resources as Thucydides.

For the sake of “inclusion,” however, our schools have forsaken the teaching of history in the old-fashioned way, so that instead of learning the valuable lessons of political, diplomatic and military history — the kind of stuff that is useful to being an intelligent citizen — children are wasting time on progressive “social history” intended to inculcate a sense of identity-politics victimhood and other biases (e.g., against capitalism) useful to the political Left. You can see the fruit of this agenda-driven curriculum in, for example, the current mania among liberals to abolish the Electoral College. Anyone who has properly studied American history appreciates what genius went into the compromise that divided the legislative power between the Senate and House, with the lower chamber apportioned by population and the states equally represented in the upper house, and then combined these two systems of apportionment to elect the president. Our Constitution established the government of a federal republic, not a national democracy, and this system would be destroyed by the abolition of the Electoral College.

Yet it seems that scarcely any American under 30 has been taught anything useful about our own country’s history, much less anything about the origins of our political system in English history or its earlier development in Greco-Roman civilization. And even more recent history is taught poorly (if it is taught at all) in our schools and universities. One sees a lot of young people running around calling other people “Nazi” or “fascist” without apparently knowing much about the 20th-century history of fascism and Nazism. What kind of answers do you think you might get from the ignorant youth in an “Antifa” mob, if you asked them specific questions about European history 1918-45? They probably know little more about that period than they know about ancient Greece and Rome, which is to say, they know almost nothing at all.

It is Memorial Day, and there are very few Americans alive who are old enough to actually remember World War II. Most young Americans couldn’t tell you much about that war. They don’t know about Dunkirk, and they don’t remember the stirring conclusion of the speech in which Churchill announced the success of Operation Dynamo:

Even though large tracts of Europe and many old and famous States have fallen or may fall into the grip of the Gestapo and all the odious apparatus of Nazi rule, we shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God’s good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.

We must study history, or we shall pay a dreadful price for forgetting.



 

Category: Education, History

Bart Starr, R.I.P.

Posted on | May 27, 2019 | Comments Off on Bart Starr, R.I.P.

 

My first clear memory of football was my Dad pointing at the television screen and saying, “That’s Bart Starr — he played for ’Bama.” The quarterback of the Green Bay Packers was a three-time MVP and is now in the Hall of Fame, but Dad was Class of 1950 at Tuscaloosa, so what mattered in my family was that Starr had played for the Crimson Tide.

Starr played a crucial role in the first football game I actually remember watching on TV, the infamous “Ice Bowl” championship between the Packers and Dallas played in -15° weather at Green Bay in December 1967. The Cowboys took a 17-14 lead in the fourth quarter and, with time running out, Starr led the Packers downfield on a 70-yard drive, but the Dallas defense twice stopped them on a goal-line stand. With 16 seconds left to play, Starr scored the winning touchdown on a quarterback sneak, the climax of what many consider the greatest game in NFL history.

Bart Starr had what used to be called “character.” He wasn’t a flashy player and, unlike his Packer teammate Paul Hornung, he wasn’t a womanizer. He was a leader on the field and off the field. He married his high-school sweetheart in 1954, eloping after his sophomore year at Tuscaloosa, and they remained married more than 60 years. Although he was only chosen in the 17th round of the NFL draft, Starr had what Vince Lombardi was looking for when Lombardi took over as coach of the Packers in 1960. During his NFL career, Starr set what were then league records for career completion percentage, 57.4, and consecutive passes without an interception, 294. He died Sunday at age 85.

R.I.P., Bart Starr. Roll Tide.

 

Category: Football

The MuellerGate Cover-Up Is Unraveling

Posted on | May 25, 2019 | Comments Off on The MuellerGate Cover-Up Is Unraveling

There was never any “Russian collusion” by the Trump campaign, and so why was there a need for a nearly two-year-long special counsel investigation? Because when President Trump fired FBI Director James Comey in May 2017, this caused a panic among “Deep State” operatives who feared the truth about the Obama administration’s surveillance of the Trump campaign would be exposed. Therefore, to conceal this scandal — to protect the people at the Department of Justice and other agencies who had been involved in approving this political surveillance — Robert Mueller was appointed as special counsel, to manufacture a narrative of Trump wrongdoing that would distract from what really happened. That’s what it looks like to me, anyway. The Mueller investigation was actually a cover-up, and now that Attorney General William Barr has ordered an investigation of the origins of the “Russian collusion” story, Democrats and their media allies are beginning to panic:

California Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff called Attorney General William Barr’s investigation into the origins of the Russia probe “un-American” in a Thursday night tweet.
“While Trump stonewalls the public from learning the truth about his obstruction of justice, Trump and Barr conspire to weaponize law enforcement and classified information against their political enemies,” Schiff wrote. “The coverup has entered a new and dangerous phase. This is un-American.”
President Donald Trump on Thursday directed the heads of the CIA, FBI, State Department and other agencies to cooperate with Barr as he investigates the origins of former special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation.
The president also released a memo authorizing the attorney general to “declassify, downgrade, or direct the declassification or downgrading of information or intelligence” regarding the investigation into whether or not the Trump campaign was surveilled unlawfully.

Schiff’s claims are a bizarre inversion of reality. How is it a “coverup” to declassify documents? Wouldn’t a “coverup” seek to conceal secrets, rather than to disclose them? And who was it that “weaponize[d] law enforcement . . . against their political enemies”? Isn’t that exactly what the Obama administration did to the Trump campaign?

Meanwhile, Ace of Spades calls attention to the case of Svetlana Lokhova, a Russian academic who is suing FBI intelligence asset Stefan Halper and several media organizations who published stories based on Halper’s claim that Lokhova was a spy. She says Halper deliberately arranged to have Lokhova seated next to Gen. Michael Flynn (at the time, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency) during dinners at England’s Cambridge University. Halper then allegedly reported the Lokhova-Flynn meetings as evidence that Flynn was “compromised.”

This manufactured evidence subsequently became part of the “Russian collusion” narrative, and was reported by the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and NBC — all of whom are named as defendants in Lokhova’s lawsuit. So you see that there was a circularity of influence (between the intelligence community, Democrat politicians and the news media) involved in creating this narrative and selling it to the public, in order to sustain political support for the Mueller probe which, as I say, was intended to conceal the truth about all this.

Over the course of the next few weeks, Americans are going to learn how they have been deceived. Even Democrat voters who despise Trump will no longer be able to ignore how the Obama administration misused U.S. intelligence as part of an effort to help elect Hillary Clinton. CNN’s ratings are already in the toilet. How many people will still be watching CNN after it becomes evident — as it soon will — that the network was complicit in this dishonest propaganda operation?



 

Category: MuellerGate

Friday Fiction: 100 Word Challenge

Posted on | May 25, 2019 | 1 Comment

by Smitty

“What?”
“I’ll have another Shirley Temple.”
“OK.”
“You the new hire? You’re not laughing at me for skipping alcohol?”
“No. You’re the customer. I don’t drink, either.”
“Then what are you doing here?”
“Pay’s good, until I get signed. Here’s your drink.”
“What do you play? Here.” Handed him a ten.
“Guitar. Blues. Here’s change.”
“I want to hear you.”
“Park. Tomorrow. Noon. Busking like usual.”
He was. His blues were serviceable.
He was stunned when the bar owner offered him play the evenings gig.
Until she was in the front row and the family resemblance was obvious.
No pressure.

—
via Darleen

Category: Friday Fiction

Condé Nast Is Decadent and Depraved

Posted on | May 24, 2019 | Comments Off on Condé Nast Is Decadent and Depraved

 

Remember the Teen Vogue anal sex issue? The presentation of this material in a beauty-and-fashion publication aimed at minors (many of them too young to legally consent to any sexual activity) alarmed and enraged parents who wondered what the hell was going on at the offices of the publishing giant Condé Nast. It turned out that this magazine, aimed at a readership of middle-school and high-school girls, had hired a gay man, Phillip Picardi, as their digital editorial director in April 2015, therefore of course, anal sex. While the parents of teenage girls were shocked, many feminists were also angry about the situation at Teen Vogue, because there is research indicating that many girls and young women are being forced into anal sex by porn-addicted boyfriends. Meghan Murphy was particularly enraged by this issue, offering an anatomy lesson on why homosexual men enjoy anal sex in a way that women don’t. Why is this deviant, painful and unsanitary practice being promoted as “mainstream”? Well, in part, it reflects the hegemonic influence of LGBTQ activism in liberal culture, but also because of the influence of 1990s-era porn producer John “Buttman” Stagliano.

A few months after this anal sex controversy, Condé Nast announced that Teen Vogue would cease print publication, although continuing online as a sort of digital zombie site. “Get woke, go broke.”

Meanwhile, at another Condé Nast publication, Allure magazine, Rosemary Donahue is “Digital Wellness Editor,” writing articles with headlines like “These Are My Fave Sex Toys, Lube, and More to Use For Masturbating” (May 17) and “When Men Like Joe Biden Conflate Connection With Consent” (April 4). What does Joe Biden have to do with “wellness,” you may ask? I dunno, either, but it’s 2019. Politics is everything and everything is politics, and if feminists have a problem with Biden, there simply must be an article on Allure‘s website.

 

When she isn’t busy soliciting “weird, creative, queer” content about “mental health,” etc., for Allure, Ms. Donahue is busy dealing with her own mental health problems and queerness. You see, after she graduated from Cal State-San Bernardino in 2015, Ms. Donahue moved to New York with her boyfriend, Dane Cardiel, who was working at Condé Nast at the time. In March 2017, the couple were married.

 

Their wedding was attended by a lot of blue-check media types, but their marriage lasted barely two years — 26 months, to be precise, including several months for the legal paperwork to finalize their divorce. The problem, it seems, is that Ms. Donahue had incorrectly believed she was heterosexual, because she’s crazy. She recently published an article at the Condé Nast site Them with the headline, “Why I Needed to See a Queer Therapist (And How You Can Find One, Too).”

In this article, Ms. Donahue reveals that she “first started going to therapy around 13 years old,” at the behest of her parents, who “were concerned about my behavior” because she was “acting out as a result” of “suffering from severe trauma and PTSD from being sexually abused” (an experience of which she claims to have “recovered memories,” but let’s not go there). She refused to cooperate with the therapist, and continued acting out, with some “particularly shocking incidents — including one where I threatened to take my own life, was placed in an involuntary psychiatric hold, and misdiagnosed with bipolar disorder.” She was subsequently “sent away to a residential behavioral program for ‘troubled teens’ at 17.” She has continued to suffer depression and anxiety, and it was not until after her wedding to Dane Cardiel that Ms. Donahue “was able to find an affirming therapist, who told me that my identity was valid and . . . I was able to come out of the closet and get a divorce.”

We are thus asked to believe — Ms. Donahue has elaborated on this in her Twitter feed — that she was never sexually attracted to her husband, nor to any other man. Her heterosexuality was a mirage, an illusion, and Ms. Donahue has actually been a lesbian her entire life.

 

Perhaps the reader can imagine the skeptical expression on my face, but we are not permitted to question these narratives. If Bruce Jenner could marry three women, sire six children and be a 64-year-old grandfather before “discovering” that he was actually a woman named Caitlyn, then why can’t Rosemary Donahue declare, at age 28, that despite her previous marriage to a man she has always been homosexual?

 

Her ex-husband apparently accepted this explanation without a quarrel, as might be expected of a Democratic Socialist. Marriage is a bourgeois institution, as any student of Marx and Engels must understand, and certainly Dane Cardiel wouldn’t want to be a bourgeois oppressor.

So now Allure‘s digital wellness editor, having divorced her husband and abandoned her pretense of heterosexuality, is happily queer, and never mind that she sometimes breaks down crying for no reason. Oh, and she also seems to be a frequent companion of the recently hired politics editor of Teen Vogue, a transgender person known as “Lucy Diavolo.”

 

Are there any normal people working at Condé Nast? Or has this prestigious publishing company been completely taken over by the road-show cast of The Rocky Horror Picture Show?



 

Category: Culture, Gays, Media Bias, Sex Trouble

‘Strong Delusion’

Posted on | May 24, 2019 | Comments Off on ‘Strong Delusion’

 

Richard Cooper called attention to this woman’s online dating profile: A 22-year-old unmarried mother who demands that any guy who contacts her must be 6-foot-3 with “stable housing and income … open to the idea of marriage … intelligent,” etc. Beggars can’t be choosers, ma’am.

The average height of U.S. males is 5-foot-9. At 5-foot-11, a man is in the top 25%, at 6 feet, he’s in the top 10%. The man who is 6-foot-3 is taller than 99% of men in the United States.

Thus, the woman begins by eliminating 99% of all males from her search, and then adds numerous other qualifiers, as if such men are so numerous that they’ll be lining up for the opportunity to date this not-very-attractive woman who, by the way, has another man’s child in tow.

What is this woman thinking? Her unrealistic expectations remind me of the Apostle Paul’s warning about “strong delusion” that will seize the minds of those who “had pleasure in unrighteousness.” I’m also reminded of Elliot Rodger, the murderous dweeb who grandiosely declared himself the “Supreme Gentleman” before his murder-suicide spree.

 

Recall that the “incel” killer, who had no close friends and was such an introvert he couldn’t summon the courage to talk to girls, was convinced that he was entitled to the companionship of blonde beauties. This kind of grandiose delusion is symptomatic of a damaged ego engaged in a defense mechanism, overcompensating for negative feedback. There’s a sort of sour-grapes rationalization involved: “These ordinary people who reject me are inferior, unworthy of my attention.” The reason he can’t get laid, the loser tells himself, is that women are too shallow and stupid to appreciate his superior qualities. And this is relevant to the single mother who evidently expects a 6-foot-3 knight in shining armor to rescue her by swiping right on her dating-app profile.

We might guess that this woman’s “strong delusion” — her irrational overestimation of her chances in the mating market — is just additional evidence of the poor judgment that resulted in her being a 22-year-old unmarried mother. She is too stupid to realize how stupid she is. Such people will stumble from one easily avoided disaster to the next, ignoring the wise advice of those around them. They are “trouble magnets,” attracting to themselves bad influences, and are easily deceived.

As easy as it is to laugh such idiots, many women with elite education are prone to similar folly. We call these women “feminists.”

 

Remember Ella Dawson, the graduate of elite Wesleyan University who made her name a synonym for herpes? Well, she recently unleashed a Twitter thread that included some interesting remarks:

 

She concludes: “I was petrified of being dismissed as desperate, when what I actually was… was demanding. I was demanding what I deserved.”

Let’s scrutinize the word “deserved” here. How does one deserve respect? What did Ms. Dawson do that would inspire others to respect her? Has she comported herself in a respectable manner? And if respect is something deserved, is it Ms. Dawson’s habit to treat others with respect? Or is she generally disrespectful to others?

 

If you do not behave respectably, you should not be surprised when people do not treat you with respect. Given that Ms. Dawson has not only boasted about her irresponsible sexual behavior, but has encouraged others to emulate her behavior, while hurling abusive language at anyone she disagrees with, it is difficult to say how or why she believes she has deserved respect. Ms. Dawson just turned 27, which means she can no longer use her just-out-of-college naïveté as an excuse.

Furthermore, as anyone who has read The Rational Male must realize, Ms. Dawson has entered her Epiphany Phase, in which a woman who has ridden the carousel realizes her SMV is not a durable commodity, and that she is at risk of becoming surplus goods in the mating market.

What is her solution? How can a woman who made her name synonymous with an incurable sexual virus convince a Beta provider that she is the kind of Quality Woman he should marry? Her Twitter lecture about being “desperate” seems to be an attempt to sell herself as having gained wisdom from her past experience — she now knows what she was looking for when she began screwing around so recklessly as a teenager.

Will she be able to sell that rationalization? Depends on who’s buying. There are plenty of Blue-Pill Beta males out there, and Ms. Dawson lives in New York City, where Hillary Clinton got nearly 90% of the vote in 2016, so most of the men she encounters are unlikely to question whatever rationalization she offers. On the other hand, what man wants a wife with such a notorious reputation? Well, sure, there’s Andrew Golis, but such Harvard-educated fools are rare. And thank God for that.



 

Category: Sex Trouble, The Red Pill

In The Mailbox: 05.23.19 (Evening Edition)

Posted on | May 24, 2019 | 2 Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho

I’m going to be attending Balticon with friends I haven’t seen in a couple of years this weekend, so the linkagery may be sparse, delayed, or possibly even nonexistent, but we’ll see how my work ethic holds up.

OVER THE TRANSOM
357 Magnum: Cyber Attacks Against Infrastructure – The New Battlefield
EBL: The End Of May?
Twitchy: Twitter Permanently Bans Krassenstein Brothers For Operating Fake Accounts, Purchasing Fake Interactions
Louder With Crowder: You Cannot Be Pro-Science And Pro-Abortion

RIPPED FROM THE HEADLINES
Adam Piggott: The Supply & Demand Of Wage Growth
American Greatness: Federal Rats Are Fleeing The Sinking Collusion Ship
American Power: Theresa May Faces Pressure To Resign After Push For Second Brexit Referendum
American Thinker: The Democrats’ Alien Voting Strategy
Animal Magnetism: Animal’s Daily Stupid Idea News
Babalu Blog: The Cubanization Of Venezuela, also, Neglected School Building Collapses In Cuba, Five Kids Injured
BattleSwarm: Creepy Porn Lawyer Even Creepier
CDR Salamander: China Shows A Little Leg, also, Diversity Thursday
Da Tech Guy: Corporatism, Capitalism, & The Constitution, also, Mercy Lives Here
Don Surber: Americans Want The FBI Investigated
Dustbury: Remember Shopping?
The Geller Report: Watch Ilhan Omar Attack Conservative Christians On The House Floor, also, UK Muslim Parents Pelt LGBT Activists With Eggs
Hogewash: Team Kimberlin Post Of The Day, also, First Amendment News
Hollywood In Toto: Indy’s Last Crusade And The Search For A Higher Power
Joe For America: Top Democrat Elijah Cummings & Wife Involved In Pay-For-Play Scandal
JustOneMinute: They Did NOT Dazzle Us With Science!
Legal Insurrection: LA Wasting Money On Homeless Camp Cleanups, also, India’s Modi Headed For Landslide Victory
The PanAm Post: Key Chavista Reveals Electoral Fraud That Kept Maduro In Power, also, The Game Of Thrones Utopia
Power Line: Global Warming – It Can Do Anything! also, Will The Media Ever Pay A Price For Its Irresponsibility?
Shot In The Dark: Why Trump Will Win In 2020, Exhibit AOC-449
This Ain’t Hell: If Wishes Were Horses, Beggars Could Ride, also, So The Cold War Isn’t Really Over Yet?
Victory Girls: Typhus, Sky-High Trash Plague Los Angeles
Volokh Conspiracy: Washington Supremes Rule States May Punish “Faithless Electors”
Weasel Zippers: Flashback – Media Drooling Over Michael Avenatti As “Savior Of The Republic”, also, Judge Rules To Unseal Records In Smollett Case
Mark Steyn: Talibanny Ribbon Round The Old Oak Tree, also, Declassify Everything, Mr. President!


Amazon Warehouse Deals

Category: Linkagery

Conflicting Signals

Posted on | May 23, 2019 | 1 Comment

David Solway on the feminist education agenda for boys:

Recently, my wife Janice posted a video in her Fiamengo File series about an Ottawa school, Brookfield High, that had launched a ManUp campaign, complete with posters targeting males as prone to evil and females as innocent victims. “Judging from the displays,” she states, “Brookfield High goes out of its way to make girls feel welcome through positive messaging; boys, in contrast, are set apart to be lectured and shamed about male evil.”

This demonization of masculinity conflicts with the reality that any boy can see with his own two eyes: The cutest girls in school are attracted to the most masculine boys, and masculine not just in terms of physical traits, but also in terms of personality traits — confidence, assertiveness, “swagger.” Here we see a problem with what Rational Male author Rollo Tomassi calls the feminine-primary social order. Every observant man knows that there is a yawning chasm between (a) what women say they value most in a man and (b) the kind of man women actually go for. Listen to what women say, and you’d think they are magnetically attracted to “sensitive” guys. Watch what women actually do, and you can see that women obviously don’t actually care about “sensitivity.” Women want men who are tall and muscular and, ceteris parabus, rich, although no amount of money is going to make a short chubby guy sexy. As for the claim that women go for “sensitive” guys, anyone with two eyes and a brain knows this is nonsense. You don’t see throngs of lovestruck college girls chasing after guys who major in sociology or English literature (unless, of course, these guys are also tall, muscular and rich). No, it’s the jocks and frat boys who get the best action on campus, and if you pay attention to the choices women make, you’ll begin to suspect that their professed preference for “sensitive” men is the exact opposite of truth. That girl who was lecturing you about your need to be more “sensitive” will, with surprising regularity, end up falling head-over-heels for some selfish creep or dimwit brute who can’t even spell the word “sensitivity.”

In the same way that individual women often say one thing and do the opposite, so also will the educational system in a feminine-primary social order give confusing and misleading messages to boys and young men about how they should behave. Boys are bombarded with anti-male messages that label masculine behavior “toxic,” but they can see with their own eyes that women prefer masculine men, even the “toxic” ones! The gangster hoodlum is seldom without female companionship and, if he’s not killed by his gang’s rivals, the 25-year-old hoodlum will probably have sired three or four offspring with various girlfriends during the intervals between his jail sentences. This is relevant to the situation at Brookfield High School that caught Janice Fiamengo’s attention because, as her husband points out, there were comments on her video from students and former students at the school: “Brookfield was a horrible school . . . The school was filled with gang members.” In other words, the boys who caused trouble at Brookfield were not the kind of boys who were likely to be reformed by posters in the hallways.

You know what a useful masculine trait is? Stoicism, particularly as manifested in the ability to maintain a tactful silence. The wise young man, when confronted by obviously false messages from school administrators, will say nothing. He will follow the rules, and avoid drawing attention to himself by openly mocking the school’s official propaganda, but he will resist the pressure to parrot these false messages. He will not become one of the castrato choirboys singing this feminist tune, but instead will silently carry on about his business, as if he doesn’t even notice the tune they’re singing.

“What’s up with Josh?” his friends may ask when they notice him sitting quietly, reading a book by Sun Tzu or Machiavelli. He is intelligent and observant, and not generally shy about expressing himself, but he knows when to keep his mouth shut, and he also knows this: When your enemy seeks to provoke you, you should refuse to be provoked. Never permit the enemy to draw you into battle on a field of his own choosing, at the time that best suits him. Your enemy would not seek to provoke you into an attack here and now, if he did not think conditions were favorable to him.

Applying the maxims of military strategy to a situation like this anti-male propaganda campaign at Brookfield High, let’s make one thing clear: Feminists knew that boys would feel insulted by these hallway posters — that was the intended purpose, to insult boys. If you study feminist rhetoric, as I have, you realize that whenever you see a woman publicly declaiming against misogyny, toxic masculinity, rape culture, etc., she knows full well that men find this rhetoric insulting. Her anti-male rant on social media is intended to provoke hostile reactions from men, to make them lash out and say stupid things she can then screen-cap and show her feminist colleagues as evidence of male inferiority.

Don’t be that guy. Never argue with a feminist. Never let yourself be provoked into a hasty reaction that will discredit you (and do nothing to persuade her she’s wrong). Learn to remain silent in the face of such deliberate provocations, especially in any situation where your response could be used as a weapon against you. Because feminists now exercise hegemonic authority in our educational institutions, you can never hope to “win” an argument with a feminist on campus. Therefore, you should instead strive to avoid feminists on campus and, if you cannot completely ignore them, practice silent observation. If you’re in class and the discussion turns to some topic (e.g., abortion) where feminists feel obliged to comment, do not participate in the discussion, but watch and listen, making a mental checklist of your female classmates who are most vocal in expressing feminist ideology. These are women to be avoided. Never speak to feminists. Never associate with them. Ostracize them and advise your trusted friends to avoid them as well.

Feminism is a sort of incurable mental virus, causing women to develop a destructive rage toward males. Any woman exhibiting symptoms of this disorder should be socially quarantined. The young man who thinks it safe to interact with feminists, who believes they can be persuaded by rational argument, will become a target of destruction.



 

Category: The Red Pill
« go back — keep looking »