The Other McCain

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

Pelosi Explained

Posted on | March 1, 2017 | Comments Off on Pelosi Explained

by Smitty

So, Trump’s speech was a blast. But has anybody figured out how we pay for being all things to all people?

Category: Uncategorized

Trump: ‘A New Chapter of American Greatness Is Now Beginning’

Posted on | March 1, 2017 | Comments Off on Trump: ‘A New Chapter of American Greatness Is Now Beginning’

 

In President Trump’s first address to Congress, he was full of optimism and confidence in America’s future:

Each American generation passes the torch of truth, liberty and justice –- in an unbroken chain all the way down to the present. That torch is now in our hands. And we will use it to light up the world. I am here tonight to deliver a message of unity and strength, and it is a message deeply delivered from my heart.
A new chapter of American greatness is now beginning. A new national pride is sweeping across our nation. And a new surge of optimism is placing impossible dreams firmly within our grasp. What we are witnessing today is the Renewal of the American spirit. Our allies will find that America is once again ready to lead.

Trump’s remarks on immigration drew sustained applause:

“By finally enforcing our immigration laws, we will raise wages, help the unemployed, save billions and billions of dollars, and make our communities safer for everyone,” he said.
Putting some policy meat on the bones, he proposed introducing an Australian-style merit-based system to reduce the flow of unskilled workers — and held out the prospect of a bipartisan compromise with Democrats on root-and-branch immigration reform.
But he also stood by his plan to subject travelers from certain countries to extreme vetting, insisting: “We cannot allow a beachhead of terrorism to form inside America.”

Trump’s speech was interrupted by applause more than 90 times, and there was an extended ovation for Carryn Owens, the widow of Ryan Owens, the Navy SEAL killed during a January raid in Yemen.

 

Category: Donald Trump

Thugs Kill Thug Pardoned by Obama

Posted on | February 28, 2017 | Comments Off on Thugs Kill Thug Pardoned by Obama

One of the “social justice” projects of the Democrat Party is to reduce federal sentences for dope dealers, and President Obama turned loose hundreds of them during his term in office, either through “reform” of sentencing guidelines or by executive orders. As anyone but a fool might have expected, this hasn’t worked out very well:

A man whose drug-related prison sentence was commuted in November by President Barack Obama has been fatally shot at a federal halfway house in Michigan after two men with assault-style rifles sought him out, police said.
Two men wearing masks went into Bannum Place in Saginaw [Jan. 23] with plans to kill 31-year-old Damarlon Thomas, a former Saginaw gang member. Lt. David Kaiser said Thomas was shot several times by one of the men as some of the roughly two dozen people at the home were held at gunpoint. . . .
“This was a very targeted individual, for whatever reason,” said Kaiser. “The people that shot this man knew who they were looking for and wanted him deceased.”
Thomas had been sentenced to 19 years in prison in 2008 on a cocaine charge, but with the commutation the sentence was to expire in March. He was arrested as part of “Operation Sunset,” a federal investigation that effectively dismantled the “Sunny Side Gang” in Saginaw.
Thomas’ commutation, which was among a group of 79 announced Nov. 22, was part of Obama’s second-term effort to try to remedy the consequences of decades of onerous sentencing requirements that Obama said had imprisoned thousands of drug offenders for too long.

How long is “too long” in prison for a cocaine dealer? And to whom were the sentencing requirements “onerous”? Do we want to put drug dealers out of business, or don’t we? If the feds are going to spend time and money on major investigations aimed at eradicating drug gangs, wouldn’t it make sense to keep the gangsters locked up a while after they’re convicted? These are common-sense questions, but common sense has nothing to do with the Democrat Party agenda, which is based on a combination of (a) radical ideology, (b) identity-politics groupthink, and (c) plain old stupidity. Speaking of stupidity:

The man charged with killing an ex-girlfriend and two of her children in a North Side stabbing rampage [in January 2016] likely would have been deep into a 12 1/2-year federal prison sentence if sentencing guidelines for convicted crack dealers had remained unchanged.
Wendell L. Callahan, 35, twice benefited from changes in federal sentencing guidelines, which reduced his sentence by a total of more than four years, from the 150 months he was first given in 2007, to 110 months in 2008 including time served, and 100 months in 2011.
Columbus police charged Callahan on Tuesday with three counts of murder in the deaths of ex-girlfriend Erveena Hammonds, 32, and her daughters, Breya Hammonds, 7, and Anaesia Green, 10.
Police said he went to Hammonds’ apartment in the 900 block of Atlantic Avenue and killed all three people with a knife. He was still in the apartment when Hammonds’ current boyfriend, Curtis C. Miller, arrived unexpectedly, police said.
Miller and Callahan fought, and both were stabbed in the ensuing struggle.
A wounded Callahan ran from the apartment building and was found in the Continent Village Apartments off Busch Boulevard by officers who responded to the 1:19 a.m. call about the stabbings, police said.
Miller, 38, was treated at a local hospital and released. Callahan remained hospitalized on Tuesday night.
His mother told The Dispatch that he was unconscious and hasn’t talked with anyone about what occurred.
“They haven’t heard his side of the story,” said Elaine Beard, 54.

See? This Obama policy, which trimmed five years off Callahan’s sentence, was based on the idea that drug dealers aren’t really bad people. According to Democrats, drug dealers are victims of poverty, racism and social injustice. We can just turn ’em loose on the streets because, hey, what could possibly go wrong? OK, the crack dealer stabs his ex-girlfriend and her two kids to death, but the real cause of their death was — wait for it — poverty, racism and social injustice. Or at least that’s what you’re expected to believe if you’re a Democrat. Crime is never the criminal’s fault, according to Democrats. There’s always some larger problem to blame, and therefore we must address the “root causes” of crime. Three people are dead because of social injustice and Wendell Callahan’s knife, but mainly I think it was the knife. Is it racist to say that?

 

Category: Crime

In The Mailbox: 02.28.17

Posted on | February 28, 2017 | Comments Off on In The Mailbox: 02.28.17

— compiled by Wombat-socho


I’m going to be in Massachusetts for the next few days on account of my godfather’s funeral.
Linkagery will resume Sunday.


OVER THE TRANSOM
EBL: KNEEGATE – Kellyanne Conway, How Could You!
Twitchy: Conservative Artist Matt Dawson Creates Hilarious Memes Of Kellyanne Conway “Sitting On The Couch”
Louder With Crowder: TX Governor Greg Abbott Puts “Sanctuary Cities” On Notice – Enforce The Law Or Get Out!


RIPPED FROM THE HEADLINES
Adam Piggott: Your Feelings Mean Nothing
American Power: Higher Education’s Prejudice Problem
American Thinker: The Day The New York Times Lost All Credibility
Animal Magnetism: Animal’s Daily Armed And Fabulous News
BLACKFIVE: Clare Mackintosh, I See You
Da Tech Guy: Christopher Harper – Corruption In Journalism
Don Surber: Trump, The Anti-Federalist
Dustbury: Missing In Action
The Geller Report: Army Names Muslim Chaplain Spiritual Leader Of 14,000 Christian Soldiers
Hogewash: Defending The Humanities, also, Yours Truly, Johnny Atsign
Jammie Wearing Fools: Dopey Dems Bringing Illegal Aliens To Joint Session of Congress; Trump Invites Families of Those Killed By Illegals
Joe For America: Farmer Sprays Poop On Trespassing Actress Emma Thompson And Greenpeace
JustOneMinute: Hostage Situation At The Times?
Power Line: Trump Unbound, At Dinner, also, Fake News – A Case Study
Shark Tank: Mnuchin Should Replace IRS Taxpayer Advocate Nina Olsen For Dereliction of Duty
Shot In The Dark: Tradition!
STUMP: Introducing This Week’s State Pension Example – Nevada
The Jawa Report: Hostage Jurgen Kantner Murdered By Abu Sayyaf
This Ain’t Hell: T/SGT Anthony Lizana Gets His Wrist Slapped, also, Leland Yee, Anti-Gun Gun Trafficker, Sentenced
War Is Boring: America Needs A U.S. Space Corps
Weasel Zippers: Trump To Propose Historic Defense Increases, Cut EPA, also, Trump Supporters Organize Own Rallies To Counter Astroturf Town Hall Protests
Mark Steyn: Ah, Sweet Mystery Of Steyn


Today’s Digital Deals

Category: Linkagery

Trigger Warning: @SkyJordan4 Says You Can’t Tell Her She Has ‘Daddy Issues’

Posted on | February 28, 2017 | 1 Comment

 

Sky Jordan is the “Sex and Relationships” columnist for the State Press, the student newspaper at Arizona State University, where she is a junior majoring in business communications. Like all aspiring journalists nowadays, Ms. Jordan is committed to eradicating First Amendment rights, by prohibiting people from saying things she doesn’t like:

There seems to be no end to the “daddy jokes” trend. These cringeworthy jokes appear on everything from Twitter to your favorite TV shows. While they might seem funny in the moment, there are real issues associated with the concept that need to be addressed.
This joke isn’t funny. It’s used as a means to mock and humiliate people. The idea of “daddy issues” is an abusive tactic used to manipulate and make light of a serious issue.
The concept of daddy issues originated from something called the Electra Complex, and later Penis Envy. It is basically the idea that women are jealous of men’s masculinity and therefore are unable to have healthy relationships with men.
Later, this morphed into daddy issues, which is the idea that if a person has a toxic relationship with their father, they will project all these issues onto their relationships, trying to find a substitute for a father figure.
Daddy issues jokes are generally used to demean someone’s relationship choices, and it is generally directed toward women, serving as a tool used to coerce and shame the target into doing what their partner wants them to do. . . .
Additionally, saying someone has daddy issues makes light of family abuse and it’s aftermath. Abuse isn’t funny, so we shouldn’t be joking about it.
By making daddy issues jokes, we effectively silence those who have dealt with abuse from their fathers. Joking about daddy issues makes victims of abuse even more reluctant to talk about their trauma stemming from an unhealthy relationship with their father.

So, now we must add the phrase “daddy issues” to the ever-lengthening SJW list of Things We Are Not Allowed to Say. Everything a feminist might possibly disagree with is “hate speech” now. Feminists disagree with basically whatever any male says, so they are in effect demanding total silence from males. Feminism is a synonym for “Shut up!”

As to the phrase “daddy issues,” I dislike it because it is used to describe so many different problems as to be almost meaningless. Its origins in Freudian psychology make it dubious as a diagnostic tool, and in popular usage, it just means “difficult” or “emotionally unstable.” However, if you spend enough time reading radical feminist literature, you find that crazy women are at least as likely to have “mommy issues.” We might cite, for example, Gloria Steinem, Andrea Dworkin and Karla Jay. In their autobiographical writings, they express admiration for their dutiful fathers, but disdain their mothers as flawed and unworthy of emulation.

The crude pop-psychology expressed by the phrase “daddy issues” is both an annoying cliche and in many cases inaccurate, yet these are not the arguments that Sky Jordan makes. Instead, she labels it an “abusive tactic” that victimizes survivors of “trauma.” Yet in its common usage, “daddy issues” has no such connotation. Typically, to describe a woman as having “daddy” issues is to say she’s acting like a spoiled brat, the Precious Princess who has been over-indulged or sheltered in an upper-middle-class background. Or it could refer to a woman whose parents divorced, so that she suffered from her father’s absence. And sometimes, you encounter a woman who has both aspects of “daddy issues” — the daughter of divorced, well-to-do parents who engaged in a contest for the affections of the Trophy Child. One weekend, she’s flying off to Florida with Dad and his new girlfriend, then she flies back home to Mom, who takes her on a shopping trip like they’re best friends. None of this is “trauma” or “abuse,” but it does tend to produce a bratty attitude, as such girls grow up to be women who expect Special Snowflake™ treatment.

That’s the kind of woman to whom the phrase “daddy issues” is most often applied and, insofar as it accurately describes a real phenomenon, there’s no reason its use should be prohibited. However, to repeat what I keep saying, Feminism Is a Totalitarian Movement to Destroy Civilization as We Know It, and the attempt to control language — to dictate what we can or cannot say, while creating a vocabulary of jargon phrases we are expected to use as substitutes for plain English — is a standard propaganda tactic of totalitarianism. Sky Jordan’s attempt to proscribe the phrase “daddy issues” illustrates how feminists use weaponized victimhood as a way to control language. We are required to believe that, because some women are survivors of parental abuse, it is necessary to banish “daddy issues” from our vocabulary.

“Abuse isn’t funny, so we shouldn’t be joking about it.” Right, and Hiroshima wasn’t funny, so we can’t make jokes about nuclear weapons.

 

Think of all the common slang phrases that might reference war, disease, murder or any other tragedy of human existence, and try to imagine removing all of these terms from your vocabulary. Think of all the subjects that would be off-limits to humor, if we were to allow these commissars of political correctness to make the rules. The only proper targets of any joke would be white male heterosexual Republicans.

What this campus “speech code” mentality does is to force everyone to mute themselves, tiptoeing around for fear of offending someone. In the process, our language becomes less vivid. Consider for example, something the Confederate Gen. James Longstreet wrote in describing commanding inexperienced troops at the Battle of Seven Pines, where the Union forces threatened the left of his line. The enemy’s fire, he said, “was exceedingly annoying, particularly with fresh troops, who were always as sensitive about the flanks as a virgin.”

You can’t say that! Why? Because (a) it’s probably “rape culture,” (b) virginity is a social construct of heteronormative patriarchy, and (c) how dare you quote a Confederate general, you racist!

Quite predictably, Sky Jordan’s columns include “It’s time to rethink the social construction of ‘virginity'” (Feb. 6) and “Rape culture is normalized across college campuses” (Feb. 27). We must understand this as a growing problem with contemporary higher education. Ideas that begin on the extreme fringe of radical feminism, discussed only in academic journals and Women’s Studies lectures, have a way of seeping out into the culture, like dangerous toxins oozing from a chemical waste dump. Here, let’s quote Ms. Jordan’s column about virginity:

While it is perfectly healthy to want to wait until you are in a committed relationship or married before you have sex, shaming others for not choosing the same path is hurtful.
This is exactly what our cultural view of virginity does. It praises those who remain “pure,” and shames those who choose to have sex before marriage.
“Just because something is a social construction doesn’t mean that is doesn’t carry a lot of emotional weight for people,” Dr. Breanne Fahs, Ph.D. in clinical psychology and women’s studies and associate professor at ASU, said. “However, purity is never a good thing. Whenever that word shows up we should get nervous.” . . .
“Who gets saddled with the discourse of purity? Women do,” Fahs said. “When women are trying to feel like they’re negotiating sexual purity, that is never good.”

Notice the source she quotes. Professor Breanne Fahs is author of a recent biography of Valerie Solanas, the original crazy man-hating feminist. Professor Fahs is also rather notorious for “offering bonus points to female students who grow their leg and armpit hair for 10 weeks during the semester. And male students . . . seeking extra credit are tasked with shaving every inch of body hair from the neck down.”

These are the kind of ideas propagated at taxpayer expense on university campuses now, and no one is allowed to disagree. Is there any professor at Arizona State who would dare voice any criticism of the feminist ideology promoted in the Women’s Studies program? Is there anyone on the faculty who speaks in defense of traditional morality? No, of course not. Our nation’s universities are now indoctrination centers where young people are forced to conform to the regnant dogmas of the radical Left. The faculty is to the 21st-century campus what the Central Committee was to the Soviet Union, and students are being trained to act as commissars scrutinizing everyone’s words and behavior for evidence of reactionary tendencies. Felix Dzerzhinsky could not have imagined a more efficient network of snoops and snitches than now exists on American campuses, ferreting out kulaks who dissent from the party line.

On the one hand, academia now resembles a Stalinist tyranny, while on the other hand, it’s like kindergarten where the students are treated as helpless children who need to be protected from Bad Thoughts lest they start crying because somebody says something mean to them. How does the regime of political correctness on campus prepare students to succeed in the cruelly competitive world of everyday life, where nobody gives a damn about your precious feelings? And speaking of “sex and relationships,” which are Sky Jordan’s alleged area of expertise, what are the chances that indoctrinating young people with radical feminism will prepare them to find happiness in normal relationships?

Oops! I just said something we’re not allowed to say anymore!

There’s no such thing
as a normal relationship
At ASU, we are constantly engaging with people who express captivating thoughts about innovative ideas. We are endlessly establishing relationships. These relationships are complex and difficult to define. In recognition, Facebook even has a relationship label “it’s complicated.”
Important relationships in our lives can be hard to describe to others because they may not fit into the narrow labels we feel obligated to put on them.
We understand “mother,” “father,” ”partner,” “best friend” and “acquaintance,” but often the relationships we have don’t fit into these boxes. It can be frustrating to try to express someone’s importance in our lives when the relationship isn’t recognized as valid.
We should stop sticking to strict labels and recognize the validity of relationships that are outside our established definitions and norms. By releasing our expectations of how relationships are supposed to look, we will be able to build a larger and more supportive community. . . .
Being defined as a “boyfriend” or “girlfriend” is an age-old norm. However, many times our romantic relationships don’t quite fit that category.
We may spend a significant amount of time with someone, have romantic feelings for them and may even sleep with them. Still, we may not necessarily want to define them as our partner. This isn’t bad or weird, it’s completely normal. . . .

Everything is now “normal” and therefore nothing is “normal” — or at least that’s what the sex and relationships columnist Sky Jordan believes, and nobody on the ASU campus would dare disagree. A student who tried to argue that heterosexual intercourse is normal, for example, would be accused of homophobia and probably “rape culture,” too. It is now almost impossible to say a word in favor of heterosexuality without some feminist shrieking about “rape culture,” while the LGBTQ crowd claims to suffer emotional trauma at the mere suggestion that anyone might actually enjoy what we are no longer allowed to call “normal” sex.

Your ideas of “normal” are not inclusive, you see. The words “mother” and “father,” for example, might be perceived as excluding those people who were conceived by lesbian couples through artificial insemination, or spawned via surrogacy and raised by two gay men. The words “boyfriend” and “girlfriend” assume that everyone is as either male or female, and you’re marginalizing those of “non-binary” gender identity. Also, all of these terms presume that people will pair off in monogamous couples, thus excluding polyamorous people. The approved terminology for describing human sexual behavior is subject to revision at any time.

“Queer” was once an insult, a forbidden slur, but now we have Queer Feminists teaching Queer Theory on university campuses, and no one is allowed to object to this. You must constantly update your vocabulary to maintain your status as politically correct. The smart thing to do is to say nothing. If you’re on a college campus and somebody asks you a question about sex, just invoke your Miranda warning rights. Lawyer up, and refuse to be questioned unless you have your attorney present, because anything you say can and will be used against you in the administrative disciplinary proceedings where sexual misconduct is adjudicated.

Nearly 30 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, an Iron Curtain has descended on our university campuses, which are now as hostile to free speech as Kim Jong Un’s regime in Pyongyang. The amazing thing is that parents pay money to send their kids to these academic gulags.



 

Category: Education, Sex Trouble

In The Mailbox: 02.27.17

Posted on | February 27, 2017 | 1 Comment

— compiled by Wombat-socho


OVER THE TRANSOM
EBL: Bill Paxton RIP
Twitchy: Screw “The Day Without Women”, Katie Pavlich Has A Better Idea
Louder With Crowder: The Organizer Of The Next Womens’ March Is A Convicted Terrorist


RIPPED FROM THE HEADLINES
Adam Piggott: Australian Leadership Challenge In The Wind?
American Power: Fergus Bordewich, Killing The White Man’s Indian
American Thinker: Vaccines And Terrorism
Animal Magnetism: Goodbye, Blue Monday
BLACKFIVE: Ripper – The Secret Life Of Walter Sickert
Bring The HEAT: 28th Infantry Division
Da Tech Guy: Voices Of CPAC 2017 and How Da Tech Guy’s Midnight Court Came About
Don Surber: Jump On Trump, Then Check Facts
Dustbury: Strange Search Engine Queries, also, Living On Texas Time
The Geller Report: Robert Spencer – The Roots Of Islamist Anti-Semitism
Hogewash: Team Kimberlin Post Of The Day
Jammie Wearing Fools: Oscar Ratings Continue Downtrend As Broadcast Pulls Lowest Audience Since 2008
Joe For America: Sean Spicer Trolls Fake News Reporter Glenn Thrush
JustOneMinute: JustOneMinute At The Oscars
Power Line: Trump’s Best Decision Yet, also, Green Weenie Update – Dakota Abscess Protest
Shark Tank: Rubio Dodges Town Hall Meetings, And Who Could Blame Him?
Shot In The Dark: Let’s Watch Betsy Demigogue
STUMP: Mortality Monday – Broken Heart Syndrome
The Jawa Report: Sandcrawler Test Pattern
The Political Hat: The Vanguard That Rocks The Cradle
This Ain’t Hell: The Real Message Of Democrats’ Anger & Protests
War Is Boring: South Korea’s “Low Rider” Tank Is The Ultimate Mountain Fighting Vehicle
Weasel Zippers: Trump Announces He’s Not Attending #Nerdprom, also, Chelsea Clinton’s Epic Fail Shot At Rex Tillerson
Mark Steyn: The Stories They Won’t Cover


Today’s Digital Deals

Category: Linkagery

‘Aggressive Heterosexuality’

Posted on | February 27, 2017 | Comments Off on ‘Aggressive Heterosexuality’

“A great part of the feminist agenda is protesting rape culture. . . . By raising awareness and educating people on the way rape culture manifests itself, feminists seek to eradicate the cultural bias so the legal path will be easier, and make the legal path easier so to eradicate cultural bias.”
— Ann Weisgerber, Feb. 12

 

 

Ann Weisgerber (@citruswaves on Twitter) is a freshman at New York University (annual tuition $49,062) and, of course, a feminist.

Dear Anti-Feminists — Feminism Helps Everyone

That’s the headline on Ms. Weisgerber’s Feb. 12 post at the blog of LAPP, a feminist fashion brand begun by British model Leomie Anderson. One of the ironic aspects of 21st-century feminism is the fact that, while the feminist movement is both anti-capitalism and anti-beauty, the fashion industry has figured out how to cash in on radical ideology by using “feminist” messages to brand its products as “progressive,” and thus appeal to dimwit upper-middle-class teenage girls with disposable income. It’s kind of like how Starbucks has positioned itself as a “progressive” coffee shop based on . . . Well, what exactly?

Anyway, “LAPP is all about empowering women and promoting confidence, positivity and unity through fashion and creating another platform to voice women’s issues,” but it’s also about making money for Leomie Anderson and her managers, and hey, capitalism is awesome! Cash in wherever you see an opportunity, pile up the profits and then try to keep the tax man from filling his greedy hands with your money. If college girls naïvely believe they are “empowering women” by spending $32 on an anti-Trump hoodie, it would be wrong not to take their money — “Never give a sucker an even break,” as W.C. Field said.

 

 

Hustling suckers by selling them the Feminist™ brand is not a new scam, and it was almost clever enough to elect Hillary Clinton president, but her near-miss at a return trip to the White House has left feminists trapped in a sort of bipolar madness. They seem to be oscillating between pessimistic depression and manic rage. Their political mood disorder involves occasional bouts of delusional ideation in which feminists imagine that all the arguments that failed in 2016 will somehow succeed in the future.

So now we return to Ms. Weisgerber’s argument:

Dear Anti-Feminists:
Excuse me. Yes, I am talking to you. The “meninists,” the “egalitarians,” the trolls on Facebook, the modern, educated women who don’t need some self-pitying, angry activists telling them what rights they do and don’t have: please listen up. Because this is important, and you’re standing on the wrong side of history. . . .

(Tell that to the President of the United States, ma’am.)

Many people frequently debate over the very word “feminism.” It’s a polarizing issue. Marginalized groups acquiring rights from the ruling class always has been. But now, feminism, to many who don’t understand the complexity and breadth of the issue, seems to be more about beating the dead horse. . . .

(See? If you disagree with Ms. Weisgerber, it’s because you “don’t understand the complexity and breadth of the issue,” whereas she, as a college freshman, understands everything.)

Surprisingly enough, men need feminism too — this movement champions equal rights in both directions. Yes, there are some privileges women have that men don’t; primarily, not being victims of toxic masculinity, which dictates that boys cannot show deep emotion, show an interest in “girly” things, or even be perceived as gay, for fear of being labeled weak. This is a feminist issue because it involves the assumption that “girly” traits are weak, and “manly” traits, such as strength, emotionlessness, and aggressive heterosexuality are strong. This perpetuates a culture in which women are seen as less capable, less strong, less valuable and less valid than their male counterparts, which harms both men and women in different ways. This manifests itself differently, from the wage gap (which, yes, still exists) to high rates of suicide in the LGBT community, to the perpetuation of rape culture, all of which are dangerous to boys and girls, men and women alike. . . .

You can read the rest of that, if you’re feel like you haven’t had enough lectures about “toxic masculinity” and “rape culture” from teenage girls attending elite universities. And if you are willing to risk getting banned from Twitter, you might try discussing this with Ms. Weisgerber, but I suspect you’ll be ignored and/or blocked by her, even if she doesn’t report you to the commissars of the Trust & Safety Council for “abuse.”

The insulting tone of her rhetoric — men “need” feminism because males are so hopelessly stupid they don’t know how to do anything without a teenage girl to give them instructions — is not something that Ms. Weisgerber (or any other feminist) ever stops to consider before launching into their anti-male screeds. Ms. Weisgerber begins by assuming that anyone who disagrees with her is her moral and intellectual inferior. Rendered as a syllogism, the basic argument is this:

Premise A: All smart people are feminists;
Premise B: You are not a feminist;

ergo,

Conclusion: You are not smart.

This functions as a sort of categorical exclusion of evidence, which serves to disqualify all opposing arguments. No fact to which an opponent might make reference can be admitted to the argument, because the feminist is so tautologically certain of her superiority that she must ignore or rationalize any contradictory evidence. Ms. Weisgerber does not even notice how her argument that men “need” feminism is built upon a pile of insulting accusations. She implies that without feminists to show him the way, the young man would be victimized by “toxic masculinity,” incapable of “deep emotion,” subscribing to stereotypical “assumptions” about male/female differences, etc. Her sole qualification to deliver this insulting lecture is that she is a feminist, which makes her superior to all males, who “need” her to tutor them in the manner of a kindergarten teacher scolding an unruly 5-year-old. However, if any man should object to being lectured by this impudent young know-it-all, Ms. Weisberger will instantly switch her role, from being the Omniscient Feminist Tutor to being the Martyred Victim of Misogyny. So on Feb. 12, she was eagerly insisting that feminism helps everyone, but a week later on Feb. 19, Ms. Weisgerber declaring how important it is to “kick a man in the balls.”

Exhibiting a trait typical of all feminists, Ms. Weisgerber takes sadistic pleasure in humiliating males by striking an ostentatious pose of moral authority — she’s “on the right side of history,” you see — and then making insulting accusations against men, who are inherently “toxic” as members of “the ruling class,” and who therefore suffer from a variety of faults, including “fear of being labeled weak.” Anyone who disagrees with or objects to Ms. Weisberger’s claims is pre-emptively dismissed as a Facebook troll or some other kind of ignorant sub-human.

 

 

 

We see how feminism operates in politics. Ms. Weisgerber hates America because Hillary lost the election, and condemns all 63 million people who voted Republican as guilty of a “hate crime.” Are we therefore to suppose that, despite being discredited by political failure, feminism is somehow a formula for personal success and happiness?

 

 

“The personal is political,” feminists have always insisted. Her fanatical commitment to feminism is unlikely to make Ms. Weisgerber popular with men and, even if she were able to arouse a heterosexual man’s interest, her anti-male ideology would sabotage any potential romantic relationship. However, because “SJWs Always Project,” as Vox Day says, the fact that men don’t like women who hate men gets turned around in the minds of man-haters like Ms. Weisgerber, cited as further proof of what’s wrong with men. Her paranoid hostility toward men cannot be the problem, in Ms. Weisgerber worldview. Instead the problem is that men won’t acknowledge that they deserve to be hated. Men who object to her insults are “trolls on Facebook” engaged in the “perpetuation of rape culture,” and it is difficult — if not impossible — to imagine why any man would be interested in a relationship with Ann Weisberger.

Never mind, take a look at her Jan. 24 Facebook lecture:

“At the end of the day, this is not about anyone’s opinion
of Trump, nor opinion of feminism, nor anything else. . . .
This march is a protest against those who try to oppress us,
our brothers and sisters, and others around the world,
and a sign of hope for what truly makes America great:
our freedom of speech, love and tolerance for others,
and our potential for true equality.”

She’s all about “freedom of speech, love and tolerance of others,” but she hates America and considers it a “hate crime” to vote Republican.

Ms. Weisgerber justifies this by her anti-male ideology, expressed in a rhetoric that demonizes all men as oppressors and rapists. Ms. Weisgerber believes all males to be inherently inferior. Males are “on the wrong side of history,” and men are so ignorant they cannot “understand the complexity and breadth of the issue,” whereas every college girl possesses the superior feminist wisdom necessary to explain to the male (a) why she hates him, and (b) why he deserves to be hated.

Well, it’s a free country, and she is at liberty to say whatever she wants, and 25 years from now, when she’s living alone in a tiny apartment with her cats, she can blame her loneliness on the patriarchy. Amazing what NYU teaches these young geniuses for $49,062 a year . . .




 

 

Category: Sex Trouble

She/‘He’ Wins State Wrestling Title

Posted on | February 27, 2017 | Comments Off on She/‘He’ Wins State Wrestling Title

Everybody is commenting on Mack Beggs, the 17-year-old female-to-male transsexual who won the Texas state girls’ wrestling championship. Beggs has been on testosterone for over a year, which would be illegal for any female wrestler under the normal rules, but the rules also forbade Beggs from competing as a boy. Beggs never lost a match this season competing against girls. Everyone agrees she/“he” has an unfair advantage:

After Euless Trinity transgender wrestler Mack Beggs defeated League City Clear Creek’s Taylor Latham in the first round of the UIL state meet Friday, Latham’s mother made it clear that she believes it was unfair that Beggs is allowed to take testosterone as he transitions from female to male.
But Lisa Latham also said it’s a no-win situation for Beggs, the 17-year-old junior competing in the 110-pound weight class.
“Mack wants to wrestle boys and he’ll never be recognized as a boy because of the birth certificate in the state of Texas,” Lisa Latham said after Beggs’ 18-7 victory. “And female wrestlers don’t have a chance.” . . .
Latham later emphasized again how she believes it’s unfair for Beggs to be competing against the girls. But she also said the birth-certificate rule needs to be changed.
“The UIL needs to get up with the times,” she said.

Yeah, “get up with the times.” We’ve gone through the looking glass and down the rabbit hole. Boys are girls and girls are boys and, let me just mention something that everybody else seems willing to overlook: Girls wrestling as a varsity sport? Are you kidding me?

Oh, “equality,” they’ll say. Title IX, they’ll say. Insanity, I say. What kind of parents would encourage their daughters to go out for wrestling? This all goes back to United States v. Virginia, when the Clinton administration sued to force Virginia Military Institute to admit women. You have to wonder, what kind of parent would want their daughter to attend a military academy? I’m very proud that one of my sons is in the Army, but I would not want any of my daughters to be in the military. It’s just like I’m proud that one of my sons is a home remodeling contractor, but I wouldn’t want my daughters to be roofing, flooring, painting, hanging sheetrock, etc. Call me a “sexist” all you want, but traditional divisions of  labor did not develop randomly, nor are “gender roles” imposed by patriarchal oppression. A fanatical obsession with “equality” tends to undermine the kind social efficiency that exists when people live in accordance with widely recognized common-sense rules and customs.

One of the most amazing things about human beings is our ability to adapt to our environment and survive adverse conditions. Humans can live in the tropics or the arctic, in the city or the wilderness. In the course of many thousands of years of human history, we have developed some knowledge of what works and what doesn’t work. We know what sort of behaviors and attitudes produce successful societies, and we also know what causes societies to fail. France was once among the world’s most powerful nations, rivaled only by England and Spain, but has suffered a string of disasters since the French Revolution, and is now decadent, with little influence beyond Europe. Why? We may summarize the source of France’s woes in a single word, equality.

“Believe me, sir, those who attempt to level never equalise. In all societies, consisting of various descriptions of citizens, some description must be uppermost. The levellers therefore only change and pervert the natural order of things; they load the edifice of society, by setting up in the air what the solidity of the structure requires to be on the ground.”
— Edmund Burke, Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790)

So now we have varsity wrestling for high school girls, and a champion girl who wants to be a boy, and somewhere there may be people who think this is “progress,” but those people are fools. What we are witnessing is a species of insanity, symptomatic of cultural decadence.

Human beings are adaptable, and successful people will find ways to succeed even amid the madness of America’s cultural decline, but we ought not pretend that our successful adaptation proves that the madcap reign of neo-Jacobin “equality” is harmless, much less beneficial.

 

Category: Culture, Sex Trouble, Sports
« go back — keep looking »