The Other McCain

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

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

Rule 5 Sunday: In Like A Lioness

Posted on | February 26, 2017 | 3 Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho

Well, unfortunately, all the visual search results for “hot lion babes” were more than a little pornographic, so this week we’ll go in a slightly different direction and serve up Atsuko Natsume, the heroine of the anime All Purpose Cultural Cat Girl Nuku Nuku (trailer here for your edification*), which was my first introduction to catgirls in anime. Atsuko, unlike most other catgirls, is actually a cyborg with a cat’s brain in a humanoid robotic body, which leads to occasional moments of distraction when she sees mice. Anyway, here we see our heroine in the obligatory beach episode of the original series.
As usual, many of the following links are to pics generally considered NSFW. The management is not responsible for any negative outcomes (including, but not limited to: hairballs, spraying, shedding, destruction of property, ill-timed naps, attacks by giant mecha or demented robots, or persecution by heavily armed Office Ladies) resulting from your failure to exercise discretion in your clicking.

Despite having the (literal) brain of a cat, Nuku Nuku seems to be enjoying the beach.

We kick off this week with Ninety Miles From Tyranny, who brings us Hot Pick of the Late Night, Morning Mistress, and Girls With Guns. Goodstuff chips in with the original First Lady of Rock n’ Roll, Priscilla Presley, and Animal Magnetism contributes Rule Five Balkanization Friday as well as the Saturday Gingermageddon.

EBL’s herd this week includes Leslie Mann, Women Eating Cannoli, Women of CPAC, Heather Thomas, Heather Locklear, and Heather Graham, as well as Deborah Kerr.

A View From The Beach presents A Hunger for a Hungarian – Barbara Palvin, Maryland DNR Planning for Rays, Mean Dykes Drive Out Lady Netter, Retailer Predicts Good Year for Bay Crabs, “Old Love”, Do the Jellyfish!, Heads Explode as Senate Confirms Pruit to Head EPA, Chilly in Chile, and “Lost Me”

Proof Positive’s Friday Night Babe is Florence Faivre, his Vintage Babe is Jinx Falkenburg, and Sex in Advertising is covered by Calvin Klein. At Dustbury, it’s FKA twigs and Joan Blondell.

Thanks to everyone for their linkagery!

*Featuring the opening song, sung by the incomparable Megumi Hayashibara.

Visit Amazon’s Intimate Apparel Shop
Amazon Fashion – Jewelry For Women

Category: Rule 5

FMJRA 2.0: And Now A Word From The Evolution Control Committee

Posted on | February 26, 2017 | 1 Comment

— compiled by Wombat-socho

The NERV Evening News (featuring Dan Rather and Neon Genesis Evangelion)

Rule 5 Sunday: Valentine’s Day Pinup Edition
Animal Magnetism
EBL
Proof Positive
A View From The Beach
Ninety Miles From Tyranny

A Modern Love Story
EBL

Social Justice vs. Heterosexuality (and the Problem With ‘Male Feminists’)
The Pirate’s Cove
Living In Anglo-America

@DavidAFrench: Up Your Game
EBL

FMJRA 2.0: A Day Late And A Dollar Short
EBL
A View From The Beach

‘Anti-Feminists … Are F–king Evil. They’re Such Disgusting Human Beings’
EBL

In The Mailbox: 02.20.17
EBL
Proof Positive

@DavidBenkof: Disagreement != *Phobia
EBL

Acts of Trump 4:7-12
EBL

In The Mailbox: 02.21.17
EBL
Proof Positive

‘Feminist Witchcraft,’ Mental Illness and the Demonic Dangers of the Occult
EBL

To Milo or Not to Milo?
EBL

In The Mailbox: 02.22.17
EBL
Proof Positive
A View From The Beach

#CPAC2017: Kellyanne Conway, Ted Cruz, Mark Levin, Dana Loesch, Steve Bannon
EBL

#CPAC2017: Joe the Plumber (@RealJTP) Talks Breitbart, Bannon, Trump
EBL

In The Mailbox: 02.23.17
EBL
Proof Positive

#CPAC 2017: ‘The Deconstruction of the Administrative State’ — Steve Bannon
EBL
A View From The Beach

#CPAC2017: Seen on the Scene
EBL

#CPAC: The Trump-Haters Arrive
EBL

#CPAC2017 Donald Trump Redefines Rhetoric; George Will Hardest Hit
EBL

In The Mailbox: 02.24.17
EBL
Proof Positive

Top linkers this week:

  1.  EBL (19)
  2.  Proof Positive (6)

Thanks to everyone for their linkagery!

Instant Gratification – Today’s Digital Deals
Save Up To 20% On CLIF Bars!
Save Up To 20% On KIND Bars!

Category: FMJRA Award

#CPAC2017: Draft Sheriff Clarke

Posted on | February 26, 2017 | Comments Off on #CPAC2017: Draft Sheriff Clarke

 

NATIONAL HARBOR, Maryland
Saturday night, I spent about 15 minutes talking to Jack Daly, a longtime conservative activist who is a leader of the Draft Sheriff David Clarke for U.S. Senate committee. They want the Milwaukee County sheriff, who has attracted a nationwide following from his appearances on Fox News, to challenge Wisconsin Sen. Tammy Baldwin in 2018. It didn’t take Daly five minutes to make me see what a brilliant idea this is, and the last 10 minutes of our conversation was mainly me raving about how the Clarke for Senate campaign would immediately become a national focus to energize conservatives in the 2018 midterm elections.

This isn’t rocket science. You don’t have to be a political genius to see how vulnerable Baldwin is. In 2012, she only got 51% of the vote against Republican Ron Johnson in a presidential election year with Obama at the top of the ticket to drive turnout among Democrat voters. Looking at the exit polls, Johnson actually got a greater share of the white vote (50%-47%), but Baldwin got 91% of the black vote. What do you think the numbers would look like in a Baldwin-Clarke matchup in a midterm year?

Sen. Tammy Baldwin (left), Sheriff David Clarke (right).

The dividends of such a matchup won’t be limited to Wisconsin. Baldwin is not only a woman, she is a lesbian, so that in the attempt to defend her seat, her re-election campaign will attract millions of dollars in contributions from feminist, abortion and LGBT groups and activists — money and effort they can’t spend elsewhere. And if Clarke runs, he’ll attract many millions of dollars from a nationwide army of conservative small donors — many giving $50 or less — so that his campaign will be driven by the kind of grassroots energy that elected Trump.

If Clarke runs, he wins — I have no doubt about that — which means all the NARAL and Planned Parenthood money spent in the attempt to defend Baldwin’s seat would be a complete waste on a doomed Democrat.

If one of the most high-profile Senate races in the country in 2018 features a black conservative as the Republican candidate, what does that do to the liberal media narrative of the GOP and President Trump as racists? It destroys it, completely, like the A-bomb wiped out Hiroshima. And, yes, Sheriff Clarke is deeply conservative — he can quote Antonin Scalia by memory — and yes, Donald Trump loves the guy:

“David, we are very proud of you. What you’ve done is incredible. . . .
The first time I saw you on television a couple of years ago
I said: ‘There’s a man who is absolutely terrific! He gets it.'”

That’s one of the many endorsements for Sheriff Clark from the draft committee’s website, which also includes quotes from Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh, Ginni Thomas and others. This campaign could be a real  game-changer in terms of shifting the national balance of power by consolidating the populist/conservative majority in Midwestern states like Wisconsin which Trump won in 2016. If the GOP can build reliable electoral majorities in states like Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania — in 2018, 2020 and beyond — the possibility of Democrats recapturing either the Senate or the White House would become a faint and distant hope for liberals. And if Republicans can elect black conservatives like Sheriff Clarke, they take away from liberals one of their most cherished toys, the identity-politics hustle of race-baiting. Let’s do this thing.

SHERIFF CLARKE FOR SENATE

 

 

 

Category: Fear and Loathing at CPAC 2017, Senate, Wisconsin

#CPAC2017: Witches vs. Trump

Posted on | February 25, 2017 | 1 Comment

“[Feminism is] a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians.”
— Pat Robertson, 1992

NATIONAL HARBOR, Maryland
While thousands of Conservative Political Action Conference attendees were celebrating their movement’s success here — the Breitbart luau was among the many parties Saturday night — witches gathered at midnight at Trump Tower in New York to cast a “binding spell” against our president.

Liberals are convinced the powers of darkness are their friends:

The mass ritual will allegedly be repeated again March 26, April 24, May 23, June 21 (the summer solstice), July 21, and August 19.
The spell also invokes evil on “those who abet” Trump, which would seem to appear to cover his staff and political nominees, and perhaps the millions who voted for him as well. . . .
In reaction, a number of Christian groups and individuals have promised to pray for Mr. Trump, asking God’s blessings on his work and on the nation. . . .
The witches’ spell involves a lengthy incantation, calling on spirits and “demons of the infernal realms” to bind Donald J. Trump so that “he may fail utterly, that he may do no harm.”

The Political Hat has pointed out that using witchcraft against Trump was very popular among feminist witches with Tumblr blogs.

https://rabbit-witch.tumblr.com/post/157620782257/saw-this-on-facebook-tomorrow-is-the-day-all

https://teacupsandcauldrons.tumblr.com/post/157679730332

http://thegreenthingslivebeforetheydie.tumblr.com/post/157680042475/tonights-mass-binding-spell-against-trump

http://stynalane.tumblr.com/post/153102894935

The famous 1992 quote by Pat Robertson was absolutely true, as I have documented the reality of feminist involvement in witchcraft:

Since the 1970s, feminists have celebrated witches as an “archetype” of empowered women, and have cited the witch hunts as part of a narrative of oppression, grossly exaggerating the numbers of victims and distorting the history to create a mythology of martyred victims. This is actually taught as fact in Women’s Studies classes. The influential textbook Women’s Voices, Feminist Visions by Oregon State University professors Susan M. Shaw and Janet Lee includes this:

In the “burning times” (between the 11th and 14th centuries), millions of women in Europe were murdered as witches. for many of these women, “witchcraft” was simply the practice of traditional healing and spirtuality and the refusal to profess Christianity. For other women, the charge of witchcraft had nothing to do with religious practices and everything to do with accusations rooted in jealousy, greed, and fear of female sexuality. But in the frenzy of the times, defending oneself against an accusation of witchcraft was practically impossible, and an accusation alone generally meant death. (p. 598)

In the early twenty-first century, many women participate in revivals of ancient women-centered religions and have become empowered through the revaluing of the feminine implicit in this spirituality. Wicca, or witchcraft (although not the witches we popularly think of at Halloween), is a Goddess- and nature-oriented religion whose origins predate both Judaism and Christianity. Current Wiccan practice involves the celebration of the feminine, connection with nature, and the practice of healing. As Wiccan practitioner Starhawk suggests, witchcraft encourages women to be strong, confident, and independent and to love the Goddess, the earth, and other human beings. This notion of witchcraft is very different from the cultural norms associated with witches that are propagated in society. (p. 602)

High priestesses of feminist witchcraft Starhawk (left) and Z Budapest (right).

Starhawk (neé Miriam Simos) is high priestess of a neo-pagan feminist witchcraft cult known as the “Reclaiming” tradition. Starhawk was one of the earliest disciples of Z. Budapest (neé Zsuzsanna Emese Mokcsa), high priestess of the Dianic Wicca cult of feminist witchcraft. Feminists actually believe in this stuff, which is promoted in university Women’s Studies programs. At the University of Pennsylvania, for example, the department of Gender, Sexuality and Women’s Studies offers a class in “Witchcraft and Possession” (GSWS 119), Academic feminists produce articles like “Witchcraft and Gender in Early Modern Europe,” “Witchcraft Studies from the Perspective of Women’s and Gender History,” and “Witchcraft and Women: A Historiography of Witchcraft as Gender History.” Parents can now send their daughters to a state university to study witchcraft at taxpayer expense.

This is what feminists call “progress,” you see.

Christians need to pray for the President’s protection:

Pray therefore the God of Peace to crush Satan beneath our feet, that he may no longer retain men captive and do injury to the Church.

There’s no point praying for Democrats, of course. They’ve sold their souls to the Devil and are helpless slaves serving their satanic master.



 

PREVIOUSLY:

 

Category: Fear and Loathing at CPAC 2017, Sex Trouble
« go back — keep looking »

    About

    This is an area on your website where you can add text. This will serve as an informative location on your website, where you can talk about your site.

    Subscribe to our feed

    Search

    Admin