The Other McCain

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

The Maxine Waters Democrats: Texas Teen Attacked for Wearing ‘MAGA’ Hat

Posted on | July 6, 2018 | Comments Off on The Maxine Waters Democrats: Texas Teen Attacked for Wearing ‘MAGA’ Hat

 

Hunter Richard, 16, was wearing a pro-Trump “Make America Great Again” hat in a San Antonio hamburger restaurant Tuesday night when a man snatched the hat off his head and threw a drink in his face. Video of the incident went viral and the man, identified by police as Kino Jimenez, was arrested Thursday, Megan Fox at PJMedia reports:

In recent days open hostility, including violence and denial of service to Trump supporters, has put the country on edge. Congresswoman Maxine Waters made headlines by appearing to condone protesters assaulting Trump supporters wherever they may be.
Waters said to a crowd, “No peace no sleep! If you see anybody from [President Trump’s] cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them! And you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere!”
It didn’t take long for #Resistance supporters to apply those words to average Trump supporters, just as predicted. Not even minors are safe from the left’s unending rage. Unfortunately for the man who attacked a teen, he committed a crime and now he will have to face the consequences.

This is a public-relations disaster for Democrats. Incited by CNN’s 24/7 propaganda against Trump’s “zero tolerance” policy of strictly enforcing U.S. immigration laws, Democrats believed they had a winning issue, but polls indicate Trump’s policy is widely popular with voters:

The new survey is a Harvard-Harris Poll, by former Clinton pollster and strategist Mark Penn. It was conducted in late June with 1,448 registered voters.
On the issue of separations, Penn began with a threshold question: “Do you think that people who make it across our border illegally should be allowed to stay in the country or sent home? Sixty-four percent said they should be sent home. Thirty-six percent said they should be allowed to stay.
Then Penn asked: “Do you think that parents with children who make it across our border illegally should be allowed to stay in the country or sent home?” The presence of children made little difference in the result: 61 percent said they should be sent home, while 39 percent said they should be allowed to stay.

Even when poll respondents were prompted to consider the “family separation” issue, Trump’s zero-tolerance policy still won by a 22-point margin over the Democrats’ open-border position. Now factor in the dangerous behavior of hooligans like Kino Jimenez — attacking teenagers for supporting the President — and it seems unlikely Democrats will see a “blue wave” surge of support in the November midterms.



 

 

Category: Crime, Democrats, Donald Trump, Immigration, Texas

More From the Hollywood Rape Machine

Posted on | July 6, 2018 | 1 Comment

 

In December, I wrote about some of the revelations of Hollywood sex scandals from the blog “Crazy Days and Nights” (CDAN) which has an uncanny record of accuracy with its “blind items.” Thursday, the blog revealed the names on several of its earlier blind items from which we learn that, for example, oil tycoon J. Paul Getty was a pedophile who basically bought girls from the Philippines in exchange for propping up the Marcos regime. The comedian Charles Nelson Reilly was a gay pedophile, singer Katy Perry likes cocaine, somebody’s trying to sell Michael Jackson sex tapes, Bruce/”Caitlyn” Jenner can’t find work, and the director Stanley Kubrick raped little girls. Whether you believe all that is up to you, but as I say, CDAN’s got an uncanny record of accuracy.

The most intriguing item, however, is this one:

This mogul was an investor in a pedophile-front entertainment company back in the day.
A few years ago, he financed a film. The film has the sort of story you would expect. The film was written and directed by former lovers / current friends of that disgraced A-list director.

The disgraced director is Bryan Singer, a frequent CDAN target, whose alleged interest in teenage boys has made scandalous headlines. The film with “the sort of story you would expect” is Geography Club, about a bunch of gay teenagers. It was written by Edmund Entin and directed by Gary Entin who are indeed former protégés of Bryan Singer.

What makes this item so intriguing, however, is the identity of the “mogul” who financed Geography Club — Michael Huffington, the gay ex-husband of Arianna Huffington. Michael Huffington was an investor in the notorious Digital Entertainment Network (DEN), a failed video streaming service that was, in effect, a scheme by Marc Collins-Rector to lure young would-be actors to a gay party scene. Huffington has claimed he was the victim of a scam by the DEN gang, the investors in which also included Singer and entertainment mogul David Geffen.

OK, so if Huffington got burned by DEN’s shady operators, why was he investing in Geography Club, a film project by two of Singer’s protégés that had practically zero commercial value? Wouldn’t you suppose that, having once been scammed, Huffington would have avoided any future ventures of this sort? Is it possible that there was some non-commercial explanation for Huffington’s investment in this film? Certain possibilities spring to mind, e.g., “hush money.” It would be unpleasant for the multimillionaire heir to an oil fortune if he were implicated in any kind of Hollywood jailbait activities, so maybe help out a couple of Bryan Singer’s young buddies and everything stays quiet? Just a guess.

Hollywood’s Gay Mafia casts a long shadow, and the most powerful figure is allegedly untouchable. David Geffen’s got so much money he can hire armies of lawyers and detectives and, careful readers of CDAN have surmised, people who cause Geffen trouble might end up dead. CDAN reader @JohnDoe78359022 connected some of the dots in a Twitter thread that’s worth studying. After the Harvey Weinstein scandal broke in October 2017, for example, CDAN had a blind item about “minions” making death threats to prevent any bad publicity for a certain somebody. And a November blind included this:

There needs to be an independent investigation into the recent suicide of this actor. It was way too much of a coincidence that he was talking to reporters about the permanent A+ list producer/icon and the A list mostly movie director and ended up dead a few days later. He had been involved with them from an early age.

The actor was Brad Bufanda and @JohnDoe78359022 guesses the two men Bufanda was talking to reporters about were Geffen and Singer. This seems a bit far-fetched, and I can’t find corroboration of any “early age” involvement between Bufanda and Geffen or Singer, so I don’t want to convey the impression that I personally believe these dots connect in a sinister conspiracy. Stranger things have happened, though.

One thing’s for sure: Hollywood is a very wicked place.



 

 

Category: Gays, Hollywood

In The Mailbox: 07.05.18

Posted on | July 5, 2018 | 1 Comment

— compiled by Wombat-socho

OVER THE TRANSOM
EBL: Democrat Pundit Ed Schultz, RIP
Twitchy: Jon Lovitz Smacks Down Frothing SJW Horde Shaming Scarlett Johansson For Trans Role
Louder With Crowder: Liberals Protest ICE – While ICE Is Busting  Sex Trafficking Ring

RIPPED FROM THE HEADLINES
Adam Piggott: I’ll Have A VB, Thanks Mate, also, No Backup Plan
American Power: Facebook Flags, Removes Declaration of Independence As Hate Speech, also, The Democratic Party Is Killing Itself
American Thinker: Dems On SCOTUS – Catholics Need Not Apply
Animal Magnetism: Animal’s Daily Venezuelan Meltdown News
BattleSwarm: Democrats’ Hispanic Panic Fizzles
CDR Salamander: So, How Did We Find Ourselves In This Pickle?
Da Tech Guy: There Ain’t No Such Thing As A Free Lunch, also, Reality Check – Murkowski & Collins Have No Leverage
Don Surber: Kennedys Say Break Bread Not Familes – Including Sarah Sanders?
Dustbury: Desperately Seeking Assistance
First Street Journal: Don’t Tell Me How You’ve “Left The Right” When You Were Never A Conservative In The First Place
The Geller Report: France In Flames – Second Night Of Violence & Chaos, also, London’s Muslim Mayor Allows Protesters To Fly “Trump Baby” Blimp Over Parliament During President’s Visit
Hogewash: Don’t Know Much About History, also, Team Kimberlin Post of The Day
JustOneMinute: Meanwhile, Back In San Antonio
Legal Insurrection: EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt Has Resigned, also, Migrant Riots In France
The PanAm Post: Arrested In Cuba For Celebrating The Fourth Of July
Power Line: Voters Overwhelmingly Reject Socialism, also, Poll Says Americans Approve Of Trump’s Handling Most Key Domestic Issues
Shark Tank: Graham Bets It All On Abortion
Shot In The Dark: “Common Ground”
The Jawa Report: Iraqi Hanging Judge Is Hanging UK ISIS Losers, also, Good Gun Control – Right In The Cranium Edition
The Political Hat: Crazy – Coathangers, Mobs, And Decapitation
This Ain’t Hell: Thursday Morning Feelgood Stories, also, Thank You
Victory Girls: The Bullying Left Goes After A Teenager
Volokh Conspiracy: Federal Court Rules Against Administration On Most Issues In CA “Sanctuary State” Case
Weasel Zippers: Woman Who Scaled Statue Of Liberty Is Congolese Immigrant With Prior Arrests, also, Madeline Albright Says U.S. Needs Open Borders So It Can Demand Same From Europe
Mark Steyn: These Pretzels Are Making Me Frisky


Help Kirby McCain!
Featured Digital Deals
Amazon Warehouse Deals

Category: Linkagery

World’s Angriest White Man Dies

Posted on | July 5, 2018 | Comments Off on World’s Angriest White Man Dies

 

Ed Schultz was everything liberals typically claim Republicans are — a fat, angry, middle-aged white loudmouth seething with resentment. He was hired as an MSNBC host in 2009, but his show was never popular, because nobody liked Ed, the most obnoxious personality on cable news, a guy who made Bill O’Reilly seem charming and humble by comparison. How he remained on the air as long as he did is a mystery, as I commented in 2013:

He was a sportscaster until he was 38 and began his talk-radio career attempting to be a conservative Rush Limbaugh imitator, failed at that and then re-invented himself as a “progressive” host, which provided the platform by which Ed got an MSNBC show in 2009. . . .
Anyone who has ever watched or listened to Ed Schultz understands that he is a very angry man — he reminds you of every angry drunk you ever knew — and this is basically the selling point of the shtick. If you are the type of person who hates Republicans and rich people and “Corporate America,” then Ed Schultz will give voice to your anger.
Did I mention that Ed Schultz failed at MSNBC, too? Yeah, he started out in the 6 p.m. time slot, then moved to 10 p.m. after Keith Olberman quit in 2011, before moving to the 8 p.m. slot, where he accomplished the remarkable feat of actually placing fourth — behind Bill O’Reilly on Fox, behind Anderson Cooper CNN and even behind Nancy Grace on HLN — and was eventually bumped to the weekend shift.

 

Ed’s long list of resentments — it seemed he had some reason to hate everybody — included his bosses at MSNBC. After he finally got the ax from the network, he claimed they were biased:

Ex-MSNBC host Ed Schultz in [an April 2018] interview ripped his former network as “in the tank for Hillary Clinton” and suggested he was fired in 2015 because of his support for Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.).
Schultz, who now anchors a show on RT, told National Review‘s Jamie Weinstein . . . that MSNBC chief Phil Griffin was a “watchdog,” and he said he was often given direction on what stories to cover.
Sanders gave his official campaign launch speech in Burlington, Vermont on May 26, 2015, and Schultz said he was the only cable news host planning to air it live. He had also taped an interview with Sanders at the lawmaker’s home ahead of the speech.
However, he said Griffin called him five minutes before air time at 5 p.m. EST, and he said, “You’re not covering this.”
“It got rather contentious,” Schultz said. . . .
Schultz opined he was forced out at MSNBC because of his support for Sanders and MSNBC’s water-carrying for Clinton. His final day on the air was July 29, 2015. . . .
“I think the Clintons were connected to [NBC News chief] Andy Lack, connected at the hip,” Schultz said. “I think that they didn’t want anybody in their primetime or anywhere in their lineup supporting Bernie Sanders. I think that they were in the tank for Hillary Clinton, and I think that it was managed, and 45 days later I was out at MSNBC.”

The first rule of being in the tank for Hillary is, nobody talks about being in the tank for Hillary. If you sign up to work for a network that is basically 24/7 Democrat Party propaganda, you more or less forfeit any claim to journalistic integrity from the outset. After he got the boot from MSNBC, Ed signed up with a Russian propaganda outfit, which is deeply ironic, all things considered, but I don’t suppose a Kremlin-funded network is less trustworthy than MSNBC, really.

Anyway, Ed died today and his obituary is full of people saying what a wonderful sweetheart of a guy he was. That’s the thing about being a liberal — no matter how much of a selfish, obnoxious jerk you are, everybody’s required to pretend otherwise after you die. At least Ed never left a girl to die in the back of a submerged Oldsmobile.

 

Category: MSNBC

‘Her Body, Her Choice’?

Posted on | July 5, 2018 | Comments Off on ‘Her Body, Her Choice’?

 

If abortion isn’t wrong, nothing is wrong, and we cannot expect any feminist to criticize this woman’s exercise of her “rights”:

A Texas mother has been arrested for allegedly selling her young children.
Esmeralda Garza, 29, was arrested by Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) officials on Friday after she allegedly sold her 7-year-old boy to two men, KRIS-TV reported. Garza was also in the process of selling two other children — a 2-year-old girl and a 3-year-old girl — as well, officials said.
The arrest occurred after DPS officers executed a drug search warrant, according to KIII-TV.
Garza, of Corpus Christi, was charged with the sale or purchase of a child, which is a third-degree felony. She is being held on a $100,000 bond at the Nueces County Jail, KRIS reported.

Really, if it’s legal for a woman to kill her babies in the womb, why should it be illegal for her to sell her kids for meth money? That 2-year-old is just a an overgrown “clump of cells,” right? Didn’t Amanda Marcotte tell us babies are “time-sucking monsters with their constant neediness”?

(Hat-tip: Kirby McCain on Twitter.)




 

Category: Crime, Texas

The Canadian Menace: Facebook Censors Critics of CBC’s Homosexual Propaganda

Posted on | July 5, 2018 | Comments Off on The Canadian Menace: Facebook Censors Critics of CBC’s Homosexual Propaganda

 

Jessi Cruickshank is a personality on the Canadian government’s official propaganda channel, the CBC, which promotes homosexuality.

On June 1, Ms. Cruickshank hosted a number of young children on her CBC program, encouraging them to celebrate homosexuality. Robert Gagnon of the Federalist describes this bizarre Canadian propaganda:

Jessi Cruikshank sits at a table with a garland of rainbow balloons, providing lead-in questions to two girls and two boys, who seem to be ages five to eight. The purpose of the video is simple: to proselytize for support of “Gay Pride Month.”
Cruikshank started by proclaiming, “Happy pride, everybody!” and asked, “Who knows what ‘gay pride’ means?” After getting an answer she gushed with glee: “It’s a celebration of sexual diversity!” Then she enlisted them in the “LGBTQ” cause by telling them: “So I’m not gay, but I’m a gay ally.” As an authority figure, she coaxed them to join her, asking, “Are you gay allies?” Subtext: You better be, if you know what is good for you.
Not being entirely corrupted at such a tender age, one girl thought that Cruikshank was referring to the game of Hide and Go Seek (bless her innocent heart) when asked, “What does it mean to come out of the closet?” Cruikshank pressed on: “What do you think about gay marriage?” “Do you think it would be cool to have two moms?” “What would it be like to have two dads?” Cruikshank worked to foster a view of “advantages” to same-sex parents.
Cruikshank launched into a litany of “gay celebrities” or “gay icons,” most of whom the children did not know. When a girl asked who Jodie Foster is, Cruikshank outdid even herself: “Jody Foster is a woman and she made me question my sexuality when I was a child because I liked her so much. And she was nude in a film ‘Nell,’ not that I remember watching several times as a child.”
How creepy is that? One of the two little girls answered with an awkward “Wow,” accompanied by an eyeroll, as if to say, “I didn’t need to hear that.” She didn’t. Cruikshank then summed up for the children: “Remember: What are we to the gay community?” She was expecting to hear “gay allies,” but some in their confusion responded, “Gay icons.” To this Cruikshank added: “Everybody should grow up and aspire to be a gay icon.”
Throughout the presentation, Cruikshank fulfilled the Orwellian role of reinforcing “correct” responses with: “Great answer!” “Makes sense.” “Right!” There was one and only one right response to the presentation: Complete, unequivocal agreement with “LGBTQ” ideology.

 

This video of Ms. Cruickshank promoting homosexuality to children was posted to Facebook, and Facebook censored Gagnon’s criticism:

On June 14 at 1:09 PM I learned that Facebook blocked me for 24 hours because of my alleged “hate speech.” . . . I was directed to the “community standards” that prohibited “a direct attack on people based on what we call protected characteristics — . . . sexual orientation . . . gender identity.” . . .
My posting on this video was straightforward:

This clip is about celebrating sexual perversity, not ‘sexual diversity.’ Brought to you by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the Canadian equivalent to our PBS, paid for by tax dollars. No indoctrination or recruitment going on here (or on PBS), right? Any resemblance to Orwell’s Big Brother (or Kim Jong-un) is purely coincidental? It is a measure of how corrupt things have become that this woman is not vilified throughout Canada and legislators are not threatening to remove funding from the CBC. By the end the woman is talking to little children about Jody Foster helping her to question her own sexuality as a child and about Foster’s nudity in a film.

I consider my post a reasonable response to corrupt indoctrination of children. It is certainly a stance in line with my religious beliefs. Associating “sexual perversity” with “sexual diversity” is consistent with the Christian stance on homosexual practice as “abhorrent” and intrinsically self-“dishonoring” activity (Leviticus 18:22; 20:13; Romans 1:24-27). . . .
Facebook violated its own community standards by attacking my “protected characteristic” of “religious affiliation”: treating a central belief and practice of historic Christian faith as “hate speech.” Facebook members can say virtually anything about Christians who uphold a male-female foundation for sexual ethics, without fear of “Facebook jail.” But I can’t do the same thing from my own religious perspective.

(Hat-tip: Jeanette Runyon on Twitter.)

It should not be necessary to say — and I think every intelligent person can see — that there is a vast difference between (a) encouraging an attitude of tolerance, civility and kindness toward others, and (b) advocating sexually deviant behaviors to impressionable children.

 

Different people have different beliefs. Some of my friends are Catholic and, as a Protestant, I avoid discussions of theology with my Catholic friends as a matter of courtesy. What would happen, however, if our government were to promote Catholicism, and if criticism of Catholic theology were classified as “hate speech”? It is wrong to assert that I “hate” Catholics, or wish any harm to befall them, but by the same principle whereby Facebook censors criticism of the LGBT agenda as “hate speech,” they might also prohibit a Protestant from posting a Bible-based critique of the papacy. If Facebook can censor criticism of Ms. Cruickshank’s pro-gay propaganda as a “direct attack” on homosexuals, what other “direct attacks” will soon be forbidden?

This highlights the problem with making behavior a basis of identity (equivalent to race) for the purpose of “civil rights” legislation. Over the past two decades, we have witnessed the emergence of what I’ve called “The Compulsory Approval Doctrine,” whereby everyone is expected to engage in the enthusiastic celebration of homosexuality — imposing a mandatory conformity of opinion about sexual behavior.

It should be obvious why this attitude is dangerous, and I will not further belabor the point. Responsible adults do not need any lectures on the virtues of minding one’s own business, which I think is the most common attitude toward homosexuals. In our everyday lives, we do not meddle in the privacy of others and if, for example, you’ve got a BDSM dungeon in your basement, it only concerns us if someone gets tortured to death. However, it would be an infringement of free speech if, as a matter of policy, I were forbidden to say that I disapprove of BDSM, or prohibited from criticizing the sick freaks who advocate that kinky stuff.

Minding one’s own business, however, is not what Jessi Cruickshank and her Canadian propaganda were about. Canadians are anti-freedom — they have no First Amendment — and while my contempt for Canada is so complete that I do not care what happens to them one way or another, it is another thing when, in defense of Canadian pro-homosexual propaganda, Facebook silences the voices of patriotic Americans.

By the way, remember when Rosie O’Donnell promised to move to Canada if Donald Trump was elected? Has she left yet?



 

Category: Canada, Gays

In The Mailbox: 07.04.18

Posted on | July 4, 2018 | Comments Off on In The Mailbox: 07.04.18

— compiled by Wombat-socho

OVER THE TRANSOM
Ninety Miles From Tyranny: The 90 Miles Mystery Box Episode #306
EBL: Declaration Of Independence
Twitchy: Vox Explains Why The American Revolution Was A Mistake And July 4 Should Be A Day Of Mourning
Louder With Crowder: America Is Superior (To All Other Countries) – CHANGE MY MIND

RIPPED FROM THE HEADLINES
Adam Piggott: The Boys Are Back In Town
American Power: Kate Upton In Aruba
American Thinker: Hamilton v. Jefferson
Animal Magnetism: Animal’s Patriotic Hump Day News
BattleSwarm: Happy Independence Day!
CDR Salamander: …And A Good 4th To You
Da Tech Guy: Exhortation From John Adams, 1777
Don Surber: Media’s Self-Importance Never Dies
Dustbury: You Will Be Required To Care
The Geller Report: Polish Official – “If You Are Asking Me About Illegal Muslim Immigrants, None, Not Even One, Will Come To Poland.” also, Iranian General Accuses Israel Of Climate Change & Stealing Iran’s Clouds
Hogewash: North America, also, Team Kimberlin Post of The Day
JustOneMinute: Have A Happy Fourth
Legal Insurrection: San Francisco Is Becoming The Model Progressive City And It’s Sad, also, Vandals Smash Nebraska GOP Office Windows, Paint “Abolish ICE” On Sidewalk
Michelle Malkin: The Reason For The Season – Happy Independence Day!
The PanAm Post: Colombian Guerrilla Groups Recruit Desperate Venezuelans To Fill Their Ranks
Power Line: Why Do Democrats Hate America? also, The Eternal Meaning Of Independence Day (Lincoln) and (Coolidge)
Shark Tank: Donald Trump Jr. To Campaign For DeSantis, Goetz
Shot In The Dark: The Moral Arc
The Jawa Report: Where’s Dr. Rusty? Space Man Edition
The Political Hat: When In The Course Of Human Events…
This Ain’t Hell: NYT FOIA Lawsuit Rejected, also, A Brief Fourth Of July Message
Victory Girls:  Boycott The Fourth, But Don’t Crash My Cookout
Volokh Conspiracy: What The Declaration Of Independence Said And Meant
Weasel Zippers: Nationwide Manhunt For Three (Illegal Aliens?) Accused Of Raping Ohio Teens, also, FLOTUS Visits Injured Servicemen At Walter Reed
Megan McArdle: America Needs More Patriotism
Mark Steyn:


Help Kirby McCain!
Featured Digital Deals
Amazon Warehouse Deals

Category: Linkagery

Flashback: Feminists Hate ‘Nice Guys’

Posted on | July 4, 2018 | 1 Comment

 

Amanda Marcotte has been lately busy promoting her book Troll Nation: How The Right Became Trump-Worshipping Monsters Set on Rat-F*cking Liberals, America, and Truth Itself, which is perhaps the most unnecessarily far-fetched explanation of why Hillary Clinton lost in 2016. Even more weird than the “Russians hacked the election” conspiracy theory, Marcotte wants us to believe that #GamerGate (and the phenomenon of online “trolling” in general) explains what happened in 2016. Asking a feminist to familiarize herself with Occam’s Razor is probably sexist — “Logic is a tool of the oppressive heteropatriarchy!” — but why can’t Marcotte simply accept the ordinary nature of Hillary’s defeat? Isn’t it obvious that a substantial number of working-class white voters were simply tired of politics as usual? Prior to 2008, we’d had 20 years of Bushes and Clintons in the White House, and the idea of electing Hillary in 2016 seemed to strike many people as a step backwards.

Barack Obama had represented a departure from the past, and if many people who voted for “Hope and Change” were disappointed by the result — no one could claim the industrial heartland had experienced a miraculous economic revival during Obama’s presidency — why did so many pundits assume these voters would buy the argument that they could improve their lives by voting for Hillary? There is no doubt that Trump was sharply different, both in terms of policy and personality, than any nominee in the GOP’s history. Something about him appealed to voters in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin in a way that no Republican presidential candidate had been able to do in more than two decades, and this was sufficient to defeat Hillary Clinton. You don’t need any conspiracy theory to explain what happened in 2016, and so Marcotte’s argument about “Trump-Worshipping Monsters” is as superfluous as anything in the Steele dossier about Kremlin agents.

If someone asked me to write a book about what happened in 2016, I might call it Blame Yourself: How Lunatic Feminists and Other Crazy SJW Weirdos Cost Hillary Clinton the Election. My theory is that a lot of Americans got a close look at the kind of extremist wackjobs who were supporting Hillary and said to themselves, “No way I’m voting to put those people in charge of the federal government.” But I digress . . .

Amanda Marcotte came to my attention today while I was searching for something else and stumbled onto a column she wrote in 2012. A writer for Cracked, Jason Pargin (a/k/a “David Wong”), wrote an article with a pro-feminist theme, “5 Ways Modern Men Are Trained to Hate Women.” This article was widely popular, and many people emailed to Marcotte, who was so annoyed by it that she wrote an entire column denouncing it:

The [Cracked] piece starts off on a good foot, explaining that men are taught from the cradle that they’re entitled to women’s affection, and he even touches on how women who aren’t considered beautiful are often not considered at all. He’s 100% right on this. This is the underpinning of the Nice Guy® complaint. They say that “women” overlook the “nice” guys because they’re not as attractive or whatever, but if you scratch them, you’ll find that they exclude a huge percentage of women from the category “women” for not fitting their beauty standards. Thus, the whine only makes sense if you assume that men are entitled to beauty, but women should settle for “nice”, and give up on physical attraction.
The rest of the piece is based on the iffy theory that only men really know what it’s like to feel horny. This is why liberal dudes were licking it up, since it was a purportedly anti-sexist piece, but it still had a soothing message that men still somehow are more than women, because they are more alive, you know. They have more desire. They really like sex, in a way that you women can never understand. . . .
I think men become misogynists not because their intense horniness short circuits their brain. It’s because they feel entitled to have women in a submissive position to them. . . . They want to control women sexually, not because they’re more horny, but because sexual control is just one more form of control. . . .
More importantly, men get to feel hornier because they’re socially supported in this. The whole of society is geared toward titillating men and discouraging female sexual desire. It’s inherent to the Nice Guy® complaint, where men are entitled to feel physical attraction, but a woman who wants more than “nice” is shallow.. . . Men seem hornier in no small part because their sexuality is celebrated and codified. It’s easy for men to know right away how to be sexual, whereas women are still largely expected to figure it out for themselves — and even that’s a recent invention, because pre-feminism, women were mostly just expected to do what men wanted. . . .

You can read the rest of that dispatch from Planet Marcotte, which is rather like a science-fiction alternative universe.

 

As weird as her argument is, the more important point is that, like every other feminist, Amanda Marcotte cannot stand to let a man have the last word about anything, including his own sexual feelings.

No, only feminists possess the omniscient psychic power to discern men’s real motives, so that very simple things — e.g., guys wanting to have sex with good-looking women — get twisted into a complex argument about how our unjust society is built on “discouraging female sexual desire” because men crave “sexual control” over women.

Remember that Marcotte’s rant was inspired by an article written by a liberal guy who was trying to make a pro-feminist argument. Notice how she takes a sharp jab at “liberal dudes” who endorsed this “purportedly anti-sexist piece” which — using her feminist psychic powers — Marcotte perceives as actually expressing male-supremacist beliefs.

And what about her repeated shots at “nice guys”? Is Marcotte correct in saying that such men “exclude a huge percentage of women from the category ‘women’ for not fitting their beauty standards” because society makes these men feel “entitled” to beautiful women? Having spent some time pondering the “nice guy” phenomenon, my general belief is that such men are mostly clueless, incapable of accurately assessing their own attractiveness, and thus don’t understand why they keep striking out. Suppose that a guy rates a “6” on a 10-scale of overall attractiveness. It is unlikely that he will have any luck chasing women who rate “8” or higher. Why would a highly attractive woman date a mediocre scrub? The “nice guy” is too clueless to recognize his own mediocrity, however, and clueless guys are also prone to paying more attention to what women say than what women actually do. This is a key difference between losers and winners, and it’s what guys in “Red Pill” forums are at least trying to develop into a useful body of knowledge about female behavior.

While I’m always willing to listen to women talk about sex, only a fool would imagine that women are always honest in such discussions. It is a natural human tendency to justify our own selfish behaviors by rationalizations. Because feminist influence is so pervasive in our culture, many women believe that their own desires are inherently moral (whatever she wants is always good) whereas male sexuality is always viewed negatively, as being tainted by “sexism,” “privilege,” etc.

“SJWs Always Project,” as Vox Day says, and what should we therefore intuit about Amanda Marcotte’s accusation that men (all men, especially including “nice guys”) secretly crave “sexual control” over women? Shouldn’t we deduce that Marcotte desires to sexually control men?

Indeed, isn’t this the basic agenda of feminism? Isn’t it the case that what feminists hate most about men is their independence?

Feminism isn’t about equality, it’s about power — an authoritarian impulse on the part of emotionally warped women who crave the power to inflict sadistic punishment on men. This explains why feminists despise “nice guys” so much. The well-meaning man who hopes to ingratiate himself with the feminist only inspires her with contempt for his weakness. The feminist takes pleasure in humiliating the “nice guy,” because his niceness — as a strategy aimed at gaining sexual access — marks him as desperate and undesirable to other women: “If he could get laid by anyone else, he wouldn’t bother being nice to me.”

Feminists have zero pity for the luckless loser, and enjoy mocking male failure. Insofar as any feminist is heterosexual (which is seldom a safe assumption) she is only sexually attracted to men who are viewed as desirable by other women. In other words, she’s trophy-hunting, seeking the interest of a high-status male as validation of her own attractiveness.

Anyone who expects Amanda Marcotte to provide an honest explanation of her own motives is a fool. Even if she were cognizant of her underlying psychological motivations (which I doubt she is), she knows she would not enhance her reputation by telling the truth about herself. Nobody who actually knows Marcotte likes her, because she is not a likable person. She is a very bad person, even by liberal standards, and is only tolerated because she is somewhat useful as a Democrat propagandist.

If you want to understand people, watch what they actually do, and don’t let yourself be deceived by their self-justifying explanations.

Notice that when I write about feminists, I avoid making generalizations about women. Obviously, there are many different types of women, and certainly not all women are feminists. Many women are decent, honest and kind, whereas feminists . . . Well, finish that sentence yourself, you “Trump-Worshipping Monsters.”




 

Category: Sex Trouble
« go back — keep looking »