The Other McCain

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

Donald Trump Will Be Our President, Because @Madeleine_Rae Is Crazy

Posted on | December 31, 2016 | 3 Comments

“If you’re a woman in today’s job market, it can be hard to find work. That’s why I recommend you ‘lean in’ — to the arms of a dying rich man.”
— Madeleine Davies, March 19, 2015

Madeleine Davies (@Madeleine_Rae on Twitter) is insane and a feminist, but I repeat myself. She graduated from the University of Wisconsin in 2010 and went to work for Gawker Media in 2011 and is now a “senior writer” at Jezebel, the feminist site that stumbles onward like a zombie despite the fact that its parent company got bankrupted by a professional wrestler. In short, Madeleine Davies’ life has been a long series of the kind of bad decisions you expect from a mentally ill liberal arts major. One imagines a therapy group of ex-Gawker writers meeting somewhere in Brooklyn, each telling the story of their lives leading up to the disastrous turning-point: “And then I went to work for Nick Denton.”

Madeleine Davis now works for Gizmodo News Group, a subsidiary of Univision that includes Jezebel and other ex-Gawker properties. Last month, Univision laid off 200 employees, because “social justice”:

Between 200 and 250 people are facing layoffs at the Spanish language conglomerate Univision, the company announced Wednesday, yet another reminder of the grim economic realities weighing down many newsrooms.
The layoffs, which were first reported by the Washington Post, will hit nearly 6% of the company’s workforce, primarily affecting Fusion, Univision’s millennial-focused news website that has struggled to find an audience. . . .
In his memo, [Univision executive Isaac] Lee said that Fusion will continue to be “a hub for some of our investigative work,” and will “focus its efforts by doubling-down on its award-winning reporting on issues of social justice and diversity.”

Meanwhile, a certain nutjob “senior writer” at Jezebel is still getting paid. Ms. Davies’ natural métier is humor (e.g., “I’m Pretty Sure Most Straight Men Would Have Sex with The Rock”), so her mental illness isn’t necessarily a problem. If a joke-writer is a barely functional wacko swallowing Zoloft tablets in an effort to stave off a complete psychotic meltdown, well, that’s not a good thing, but she’s just writing jokes, OK? However, an editor might think twice about assigning an unhinged kook to write about something serious, like politics.

 

This is where feminism becomes a career strategy for the emotionally unstable liberal arts major. Her irrational rage and frequent outbursts of lunatic gibberish can be justified as a commentary on her condition as an oppressed victim of heteronormative patriarchy. And nobody in the offices of Gizmodo News Group would dare criticize Madeleine Davies, because she might erupt in a tantrum of shrieking fury and threaten you with a class-action lawsuit for harassment and discrimination. Feminism is always a lose-lose proposition for the employer. A company that doesn’t hire enough women (and “enough” is a quantity subject to constant revision according to whatever percentage feminists consider a satisfactory quota) can be sued for discrimination. However, if you ever make the mistake of hiring a crazy feminist, you can never fire her.

 

Madeleine Davies could organize Jezebel staffers into a coven performing Dianic Wicca rituals in the coffee-break room, and Gizmodo executives couldn’t say a word without risking a federal discrimination complaint.

In terms of employment policy, feminism is just legalized blackmail — a shakedown racket, extortion as “social justice” — and the strategy of executives at Univision is crudely cynical: Keep a certain number of feminist writers on the payroll, as a loss-leader and a “social justice” gesture and, if anyone ever notices that the executives collecting enormous salaries are mostly white guys, you point in the direction of Madeleine Davies: “But we’re paying her, OK? She’s a senior writer!”

Tokenism, quota hires, everybody tiptoeing around the office trying to avoid offending the Perpetually Indignant Office Bitch — yeah, it’s almost as if there’s a reason why 63 million people would vote for a guy who personifies America’s resentment of that “social justice” crap.

 

Shortly before 4 p.m. on Election Day, Madeleine Davies published her column in defense of voting for a woman because she’s a woman — “representation,” as the Tumblr feminists say, while bemoaning the death of a lesbian character on a CW network sci-fi show. Symbolism is deeply important for emotionally unstable liberal arts majors, and Madeleine Davies explained this appeal in her Election Day column:

Earlier today, I walked to my neighborhood polling place wearing the same Barack Obama t-shirt that I wore when I voted for the very first time in 2008. I thanked the lady who handed me my ballot for donating her time to the noble cause of voting. I walked into the booth where I then cast my vote for Hillary Clinton, getting a little weepy as I did so, because I feel so immensely fortunate to vote for the person whom I hope and believe will become the first woman president. It was symbolic and it was performative, but what an honor to wear this symbol, to perform this role.

Yeah, and #LexaDeservedBetter, maybe. Or on the other hand, perhaps the dead lesbian trope in popular culture really is symbolic,  in some kind of Joseph Campbell comparative mythology sense. (Warning to casual readers: This next digression might be a long one.) Feminists and other secular progressives, influenced by Marxist theories of “class struggle,” would suffer an existential crisis — the loss of their weltanschauung — if they ever seriously considered either of two hypotheses:

  1. There is a natural order of human life, where the strong survive and flourish, and the weak are trampled down into servitude;
    or
  2. The Bible is true, and there is a transcendent God whose will may be known, whose laws are just, and who is eternally sovereign.

Both of these hypotheses must be excluded from consideration, if we are to buy into the Heaven on Earth promises of progressive cult leaders who urge us forward down the road to Progress and Equality. No matter how often radical egalitarianism fails — and the catastrophe in Venezuela is the latest example — the True Believer can never let go of what Thomas Sowell called The Vision of the Anointed. Having ruled out the possibility that the Bible is true, our atheistic elite are now fanatical devotees of the Cult of Social Justice. They cling to their quasi-religious belief system with a grim certainty, like Mohamed Atta piloting that Boeing 767 into the North Tower. “Vote Democrat” is their “Allahu Akbar.”

No matter how often you explain to them what’s wrong with their ideology, they refuse to let go, holding onto their faith in Equality and Progress like a 4-year-old clinging to his security blanket. Nobel Prize-winning economist Friedrich Hayek once published a book called The Mirage of Social Justice, the title of which summarizes the basic problem — progressives are pursuing an illusion, an impossible utopian ideal.

Has Madeleine Davies ever read that book? Of course not. Has anyone employed at Jezebel or Gizmodo Media Group ever read anything by Hayek or Ludwig von Mises or Thomas Sowell? Liberals love to assert that everyone who opposes them is “ignorant,” and yet I’ve read more Marx (and Engels, and Lenin and Trotsky) than has the average Marxist, just like I’ve read more feminist theory than have most feminists. It’s not that conservatives are “ignorant” of the Left’s ideas, but rather that the Left’s ideas don’t work — and they stubbornly refuse to read any of the books that explain why their ideas don’t work. The Left prefers ignorance to knowledge, because the facts are not their friends.

“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)

Edmund Burke nailed it more than 200 years ago, but the Left refuses to accept reality. Their madcap dream of equality has been producing tyrannies since the Reign of Terror in France, and the 20th century saw Marxist-Leninist regimes murder some 100 million people. Yet these debacles have taught the Left nothing, nor have they learned anything from the increasing political, economic and demographic woes of European social democracies. Not only does the Left fail to understand history, they can’t even do simple arithmetic. During his 2015 State of the Union address, President Obama proposed two years of free community college tuition for everybody. Who’s going to pay for that $60 billion giveaway? The Democrat answer: Who cares? The national debt is now approaching $20 trillion— that’s trillion with a “T,” meaning $20,000,000,000,000 —  and interest payments on the national debt cost $223 billion, or 6 percent of the federal budget, in 2015. So for every dollar the IRS collects from taxpayers, only 94 cents is available for current needs, and the annual budget deficit in fiscal year 2015 was $439 billion out of $3.7 trillion. Yet there is no end to demands for even more deficit spending from the Moocher Caucus of Democrat voters who think the federal government exists to provide them with “free” stuff that the taxpayers can’t afford. In New Jersey, lesbians are suing for their “right” to free in-vitro fertilization treatment, and Democrats will denounce you as a homophobe if you don’t want to pay for it. The Democrats have ceased to be a political party and have become a psychiatric disease. Democrats no longer have policies, they have symptoms. But I digress . . .

Gripped by despair over the failure of Hillary Clinton to defeat the villainous Trump, feminists have become more irrational than ever. All their demented antics over the past two years — hysterical protests about “rape culture” on campus, etc. — were merely a prelude to the psychotic madness that has seized them in the wake of Trump’s election.

 

Thursday, Madeleine Davies published a column that began thus:

In 2001, when I was about 14 years old, my male friends invented a game that went like this: one of them — and it was always the same one — would sneak behind me, slap me — and it was always me — on the ass and run away as I sputtered, angry and humiliated.
It was a game that everyone but me seemed to love. I was a girl who mostly hung around boys because I hadn’t yet learned that female friendships, though infinitely more confusing, were also infinitely more rewarding. I was the self-professed type who loudly preferred spending time with men over spending time with women because they were less dramatic and complicated. And so I surrounded myself with boys who found it funny to grab my body when I least expected it, and were spurred by my discomfort to push me further and more painfully. . . .

Pause here, reader, and ask: Who were these boys? Where was this high school in which 14-year-old Madeleine Davies endured this treatment? Who were the parents of these boys? What, if anything, was the school administration doing to prevent such misbehavior? These questions are relevant because Madeleine Davies invokes her adolescent humiliation as an experiential justification for her anti-male political rage:

The truth . . . is that while it’s been ingrained in me to chase their acceptance and approval and be “in on the joke,” I was raised from birth to fear men, to never trust or expect them to protect me. Thirty years of being suffocated by their desires, whims, and power has only proven the fear as founded. In the years that followed . . . I would see good liberal boys, the ones who had feminist mothers and organized progressive political demonstrations, go completely silent when a high school acquaintance accused one of their own of rape. . . .

Do you see the irony here? Ms. Davies evidently grew up in a “progressive” community, and “good liberal boys . . . who had feminist mothers” were among the males she “was raised from birth to fear.” Nearly half a century after the Women’s Liberation movement emerged from the New Left of the 1960s, one might suggest that “liberation” has in many ways made life worse for young women. Such a suggestion would be denounced as “sexist,” however, so we are expected to bite our tongues, rather than to remark that American life was more civilized before all those hippie radicals began to “change and pervert the natural order of things.” As I say, progressives cling so ferociously to their weltanschauung that they wouldn’t even know how to begin considering the possibility that they are wrong. The Kool-Aid drinkers in the Cult of Social Justice are incapable of doubting their own moral superiority, their belief in Progress and Equality being the quasi-religious faith by which they will bring about Heaven on Earth.  And now, Madeleine Davies confronts the Beast of the Feminist Apocalypse:

Since the election of Donald Trump, I have felt like a clairvoyant who, instead of seeing ghosts, sees the specter of male destruction everywhere I look: in the money I spend, in the industry I work, even in the minds of other women — the ones too foolish to realize that men don’t protect them anymore or, somehow more offensive to me, the ones who’ve cynically embraced the concept of female empowerment as a brand or an excuse for selfishness, effectively wringing the term of its power and significance.
For the first time, I don’t know how to move past my boiling anger or laugh it away. Also for the first time, I have no desire to. Preferable, I now think, is to stop laughing, to become as repulsive as I can in an insult to these men — so many men — who hate women and the women who adulate them. . . . There are days when all I want is to become a human road sign, a blinking hazard to any man misfortunate enough to cross my path: “I WANT TO OFFEND YOUR SIGHT. I WANT TO OFFEND YOUR EVERYTHING.” . . .

Watch out, guys — she’s shifted into CAPS LOCK RAGE MODE.

Today, my 24-year-old paratrooper son came home from Fort Bragg, bringing with him his wife, an art student. His twin brother came over with his wife, a nursing student, and their two sons, ages 3 and 1. It was a happy holiday gathering, with five of our six children, two grandchildren, and my 18-year-old son’s girlfriend. My wife fixed a delicious meal, then my kids recruited me to participate in a Nerf-gun battle down in the family room, before we all sat down to watch the Peach Bowl, where Alabama defeated Washington to advance to the collegiate football national championship game. Life is good here, in our family’s modest Appalachian home, which makes it all the more amusing to sit here and see Madeleine Davies spew her “boiling anger” toward “these men . . . who hate women,” inspiring her “to become as repulsive as I can,” because “I WANT TO OFFEND YOUR EVERYTHING.” She continues:

But it’s the bad women who have always, however grotesquely, provided the limited examples of female resistance: Salome, demanding the head of John the Baptist; Medea punishing her husband’s betrayal with infanticide; Flannery O’Connor’s Hulga, who knew her birth name Joy was all wrong because it was light and airy and she wanted to be dense and ugly, like a swamp; Toni Morrison’s Sula, whose destructive joie de vivre led her to trample on the moral codes of others; the heroines of Ferrante, often cruel and spiteful because they’re too smart for the men who anchor them to the miserable world that they created. All of the women terrible in someway or another — but also strikingly bold in their effrontery.
Women, though not always “good,” have always been nice. And look where it’s gotten us. Stripped of our rights, degraded, and still under the thumb of men. . . .

What a strange choice of heroines she makes with Salome, daughter of Herodias, whose illegal marriage John the Baptist had criticized, leading to John’s imprisonment and his execution at Salome’s request (Matthew 14:3-11, Luke 3:19-20, 9:9, Mark 6:17-28). Is Salome an example of “female resistance” worthy of emulation? Wasn’t she rather an example of the decadence of the Judean aristocracy under Roman rule?

Ah, but this is the problem with our young progressives, isn’t it? They don’t know history, and therefore are unable to distinguish between progress and decadence, just as their lack of morality renders them incapable of distinguishing between good and evil. All they value is power, and to a feminist like Madeleine Davies, the example of Salome — who used her power, such as it was, to have a prophet beheaded — must be heroic. Yet the feminist pursuit of power had failed, and Ms. Davies sees Trump’s election as proof that women are “degraded . . . still under the thumb of men.” Her rage is as infinite as it is incoherent:

I am not yet disgusting to the right people — the ones with power are blind to me. Any optimism I’ve had in regards to changing the destructive course of history has faded, with most of my idealism, into the past. . . . Now, all I hope for is to cause my own sort of minor destruction to the men who would otherwise take things away from me. I can never hurt them as much as they’ve hurt us (nor do I have the heart to), but can I hurt them at all? . . .
I’m writing in a circle that keeps leading me back to the same questions: How do I become ugly to these people? How do I offend their sensibilities with my very existence?

Well, Ms. Davies, you’ve done enough already, haven’t you? I do not think Americans are as irrational as you are, and I think that you are the reason why Donald Trump will be our next president. Not just you, of course, but all your comrades in the feminist movement — Jessica Valenti, Amanda Marcotte, Anita Sarkeesian, Alexandra Brodsky, Jaclyn Friedman, et al. — have made yourselves quite the collective nuisance during the past few years, reminding a lot of people of exactly why they hate feminists.

 

 

 

Does that look like a mainstream political movement to you? Do these people look like they can be trusted with political power? Do Americans wish to be governed by CAP LOCKS FEMINIST RAGE?

Everybody’s got their own theory of why Trump won, but has it occurred to anyone that Hillary Clinton’s candidacy — and the outspoken feminist support for her campaign — caused the American people to take a closer look at what feminism really is? As I have been saying for months, Feminism Is a Totalitarian Movement to Destroy Civilization as We Know It, and maybe 63 million voters recognize this truth.

Thanks to you, Madeleine Davies, our next president will be your worst nightmare. Inspired by our new president’s policies, maybe the executives at Univision will take a long, hard look at the bottom-line value of Jezebel staffers (meeting weekly for Wicca rituals in the coffee-break room) and decide they don’t need so many “senior writers.”

My advice to you, Ms. Davies, is to update your resumé and get out while the getting’s good. You’ve got so many ideas about career strategies, and I’m sure many potential employers will be impressed by your qualifications as Perpetually Indignant Office Bitch. Good luck!



 

Category: Election, Sex Trouble

FMJRA 2.0: Grand Finale

Posted on | December 31, 2016 | 2 Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho

Happy New Year!

Rule 5 Monday: Boxing Day Edition
Animal Magnetism
Ninety Miles From Tyranny
A View From The Beach
Proof Positive
EBL

Having a Merry Trump Christmas, Because @Jillboard Hates Jesus
The Pirate’s Cove
EBL

FMJRA 2.0: Christmas Eve Edition
The Pirate’s Cove
A View From The Beach
EBL

Heed @KurtSchlichter–The Godless Commies Hate You
A View From The Beach
EBL

Compare and Contrast
EBL

In The Mailbox: 12.26.16
Proof Positive
EBL

Communist @DrexelUniv Professor Gets Paid to Teach Anti-White Hatred
EBL

2016: The Year in Dog Sex
EBL

CARRIE FISHER DIES AT AGE 60
EBL

In the Mailbox: 12.27.16
Proof Positive
EBL

Queer Feminism vs. ‘The Fragile Male Ego’
Male Defender
The Pirate’s Cove
EBL

Paranoid Democrat Cancels Annual Holiday Party, Blames Trump/Hitler
EBL

Unhinged by Hate: Georgetown Professor Harasses Trump Voter @AsraNomani
EBL

In The Mailbox: 12.28.16
Proof Positive
A View From The Beach

Bitches and Hoes and Feminism
A View From The Beach
EBL

Anti-Semitism Ruins Everything
Bert The Samoan Lawyer
Pushing Rubber Downhill
EBL

In The Mailbox: 12.29.16
Proof Positive

They Have a ‘Right’ to Your Money
EBL

In The Mailbox: 12.30.16
Proof Positive
EBL

Top linkers this week:

  1.  EBL (17)
  2.  Proof Positive (6)
  3.  A View From The Beach (5)

Thanks to everyone for their linkagery!

Digital Video Game Deals
Digital Music Deals

Category: FMJRA Award

In The Mailbox: 12.30.16

Posted on | December 30, 2016 | Comments Off on In The Mailbox: 12.30.16

— compiled by Wombat-socho


Just a reminder: deadline to submit links for the FMJRA is noon on Saturday, and the deadline for Rule 5 Sunday is midnight, ditto. Thanks in advance for your links and support!


OVER THE TRANSOM
Proof Positive: Proud Obama’s Legacy
EBL: Chick-Fil-A Peach Bowl – Can #4 Washington Beat #1 Alabama? (No. #rolltide)
Twitchy: Iowahawk Expertly Dismantles Media’s “Election Hacking” BS
Louder With Crowder: Hidden Cam – Hilarious “Transgender” Dog Prank


RIPPED FROM THE HEADLINES
Adam Piggott: Three Points On The Alt-Right And The Manosphere
American Power: Jew Hatred At The UN
American Thinker: What If Obama Dropped Hillary’s E-Mail Bombs?
Animal Magnetism: Rule Five Buhbye 2016 Friday
BLACKFIVE: Q&A With W.E.B. Griffin And William Butterworth IV
Da Tech Guy: The Unexpectedly Chronicles – The Chicago Review Of Books & Twitter Remind Me Of A Ty Cobb Story
Don Surber: After Eight Years Of War-Mongering, Democrats Claim To Be Pacifists
Dustbury: The Bigot Underneath
Joe For America: Ronda Rousey Is Finally Back
JustOneMinute: OK, We Are Overmatched
Power Line: Mounting Evidence Of Administration’s Dishonesty Over UN Resolution
Shark Tank: Florida Solar Amendment Takes Effect In 2017
Shot In The Dark: Am I The Only One…
STUMP: Goodbye 2016 – Busted Predictions, Never-To-Be-Fulfilled Promises, And Some Fundraisers
The Geller Report: Man Jailed For Leaving Bacon Sandwich Outside Mosque Found Dead Halfway Through 12-Month Sentence
The Jawa Report: Total 100% Proof ISIS Are Gay, also, Caption This! Dark Side Edition
The Political Hat: The Cultural Appropriation of Slavery
This Ain’t Hell: Britain Scolds Kerry
Weasel Zippers: California Issued Over 806K Driver’s Licenses To Illegals In Two Years, also, The Full FBI/Homeland Security Report On Russian Hacking
Megan McArdle: Can This Political Union Be Saved?
Mark Steyn: License To Dye


Today’s Digital Day!
Amazon Warehouse Deals

Category: Linkagery

They Have a ‘Right’ to Your Money

Posted on | December 30, 2016 | 1 Comment

Did you ever wonder why the “healthcare crisis” became such an issue? Why did Democrats ram ObamaCare through Congress with Nancy Pelosi claiming, “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it”? Most people already had health insurance, and Obama dishonestly promised, “If you like your plan, you can keep your plan.” Democrats also promised that ObamaCare would reduce the cost of healthcare when, as everybody now knows, health insurance premiums have skyrocketed since the passage of ObamaCare. Federal taxpayers will subsidize ObamaCare to the tune of more than $40 billion — that’s billion, with a “b” — next year, and there is no end in sight to the escalating costs.

The myth of a “crisis” that required this costly intervention was created to sell voters on the idea of mandates — government forcing insurance companies to provide certain types of coverage without regard to costs — so as to create a “right” to this coverage. This idea of health insurance as a “right” means that moochers are getting “free” health care that other people are being forced to subsidize. And there is no limit to what the moochers expect to get for “free”:

Three same-sex female couples are suing the US state of New Jersey for what they claim are discriminatory rules regarding the funding of fertility treatment.
The plaintiffs complain that a state insurance mandate from 2001 unfairly discriminates against non-heterosexual women. The mandate requires insurers to fund fertility treatments, but only for couples who can demonstrate infertility through ‘two years of unprotected sexual intercourse’.
Two of the plaintiffs, Erin and Marianna Krupa, have spent more than US$25,000 on failed treatments after their insurer, Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield, refused to pay. The plaintiffs argue that the insurance mandate is unconstitutional as it discriminates on the basis of sex and sexual orientation and, owing to the high costs of fertility treatments, they now have to choose between ‘starting a family and financial security’.
Grace Cretcher, lawyer for the plaintiffs, told the New York Times: ‘These women are already going through what can be a difficult experience, and they have the added stress of affording it financially and the added insult of being treated like a second-class citizen.’
New Jersey is one of fifteen US states that require insurers to fund treatment for infertility, defined as the inability to impregnate another person, to carry a pregnancy to live birth or to conceive after two years of unprotected sex. Even though one of the couples could demonstrate one year of unsuccessful home insemination, and the plaintiffs also presented medical evidence of their fertility status — including diagnoses of endometriosis and polycystic ovaries — their circumstances were said to fall outside the definition of infertility as having unprotected sexual intercourse with a man for two years.
Cretcher contends that this definition violates the rights of non-heterosexual women, adding: ‘The specific wording of the New Jersey mandate is particularly egregious and one of the most specific and exclusionary.’
The landmark case is thought to be the one of the first to challenge the legal definition of infertility, and the plaintiffs hope to make it easier for lesbian couples to access fertility treatment.

How did we reach this level of insanity? Where did people get the idea that they had a “right” to in-vitro fertilization and to have the cost of this expensive treatment covered by their health insurance, so that the state of New Jersey mandated such coverage, and now lesbians are claiming to be victims of discrimination because they can’t get it? We’re living in a dystopian novel — Atlas Shrugged meets Brave New World.

 

Category: Uncategorized

Did Queer Feminist @TheHeatherHogan Just Compare Lesbians to the ‘Alt-Right’?

Posted on | December 30, 2016 | Comments Off on Did Queer Feminist @TheHeatherHogan Just Compare Lesbians to the ‘Alt-Right’?

 

Heather Hogan is a senior editor at Autostraddle, a lesbian feminist blog that publishes anti-male/anti-heterosexual hate propaganda from such writers as Carmen Rios, while also offering helpful advice about dildos and celebrating “International Fisting Day.” Anyway . . .

For the past few years, there has been an ongoing battle within the online LGBT community between (a) so-called “queer feminists” who favor an “inclusive” approach toward sexual identity, and (b) actual lesbians, who are tired of being told by their alleged allies that it’s wrong for them to prefer the exclusive companionship of women. Much of the “queer feminist” pressure comes from transgender activists who label lesbians “TERFs” (trans-exclusive radical feminists) for wishing to avoid dangerous creepy dudes with lingerie fetishes. At the same time, lesbians also find themselves accused of “biphobia” or “bisexual erasure” if they ever call attention to the notorious fact that most so-called “bisexual” women are manipulative opportunists who exploit lesbians for fun and games, but usually end up married to a man. Anyway . . .

There have recently been management issues at the lesbian site AfterEllen (“AE”) which, obviously, is competing for the same readership niche as Autostraddle, and this rivaly may have been what inspired Heather Hogan to lash out at new AE editor Memoree Joelle:

 

You have to study these conflicts a while to understand what’s really happening. This is not just two lesbian bloggers fighting over commercial market share for their sites. What happened is that in October, Memoree Joelle signed a petition at Change.org arguing that some gay activists were hostile to the feminist concerns of lesbians:

This is a statement by Lesbians and our supporters that we are NOT part of the “LGBT” umbrella. Our interests both as lesbians in particular and women in general are not represented by any alphabet organization. We have had enough of our voices silenced and our protests ignored. The “LGBT community” is actively harming women with its insistence of focusing on transgender issues. We, the L, are going our own way to focus on our own community. . . . The L will speak for ourselves.

The background is that transactivists have demanded that what should be “women-only spaces” — public restrooms, gym locker rooms, etc. — must be open to “transwomen” with penises. Any woman who objects to this “inclusive” agenda is accused of “transphobia.” Many lesbian feminists have noticed that “transwomen” have secured leadership positions in major LGBT organizations, which are promoting transgender causes in ways that ignore legitimate concerns for women’s safety. Just ask any woman if she wants to share a public restroom with a 6-foot-tall 200-pound man in a dress and wig, or if she would want her daughter to be forced into such a situation, and the nature of this conflict becomes clear. There have been enough incidents involving transgender criminals — e.g., Albert “Aliea Rose” Brown, Dennis “Allison” Woolbert, Christopher “Jessica” Hambrook, Alberto “Ally” Robledo, Paul Ray “Paula” Witherspoon — to raise concerns about this kind of “inclusion.”

As tempting as it might be to look at this quarrel between Heather Hogan and Memoree Joelle as just a couple of kooks arguing, the fact is that there are legitimate policy issues involved, and Memoree Joelle is on the side of those who care about the safety of women and girls. What the “queer feminists” like Heather Hogan are doing is using “inclusion” as a  weapon against women, and they don’t like it when radical lesbians like Memoree Joelle call them out on it. There is a core principle of liberty at stake here — i.e., the right of voluntary association — and the “queer feminists” are against this freedom. As always, the friends of liberty find that their side of the argument gets them accused of “hate,” and I hope that Memoree Joelle now understands how conservatives feel when we are called racists, sexists and homophobes for opposing the totalitarian Cult of Social Justice. Remember what Vox Day says:

  1. SJWs always lie.
  2. SJWs always double down.
  3. SJWs always project.

You either believe in liberty or you don’t. “Social justice” is a cult, and “queer feminists” like Heather Hogan are enemies of liberty.

 

 

Hey, did I mention that Heather Hogan is a crazy cat lady? Nobody really enjoys hanging out with totalitarians, which is probably why Heather Hogan spends so much time alone in her apartment with her cats.

 

That’s Heather (left) and her girlfriend on Election Day, near their apartment full of cats, showing their support for Hillary Clinton, because she shares their hatred of men, capitalism, Jesus and America.

And they wonder why they lost the election . . .

 

Category: Gays, Sex Trouble

Agreeing With Noam Chomsky?

Posted on | December 30, 2016 | Comments Off on Agreeing With Noam Chomsky?

The Politically Incorrect Australian has this quote:

“Mass public education was introduced in the United States in the nineteenth century as a way of training the largely rural workforce here for industry — in fact, the general population in the United States largely was opposed to public education, because it meant taking kids off the farms where they belonged and where they worked with their families, and forcing them into this setting in which they were basically trained to become industrial workers.”

That’s from an interview with radical leftist ideologue Noam Chomsky. As an advocate of Christian homeschooling, and a libertarian enemy of the government educational bureaucracy, this is a quote that makes me nod in agreement, even while hastening to say, “But wait — there’s more!”

If you have actually studied the history of American education, you know that Horace Mann was the first secretary of the Massachusetts state board of education and, arguably, the father of the public school system. A critical study of Mann’s career, and of the development of public education in New England, will reveal that a major goal of Mann’s “reforms” was the consolidation of cultural authority by the 19th-century Whig elite. Whereas previously, American education had been an enterprise of families, churches, and local communities, Mann and his allies sought to create a taxpayer-supported, government-regulated one-size-fits-all system. This system was under the authority of a political establishment which in Massachusetts was (not coincidentally) a Protestant Whig elite concerned about challenges from Catholic immigrants, and from Jacksonian populists. As his model for “reform,” Mann chose the state school system of imperial Prussia, and the consequences of this importation of a foreign idea are the root cause of what’s wrong with American schools today, which is everything.

Advocates of Christian homeschooling can recite the Bible verses to show that parents are responsible for the education of their children, and efforts to evade this responsibility — to “outsource” education to government — are therefore an act of sinful disobedience to God.

In the 1960s, after the Supreme Court banned prayer and Bible reading in public schools, many Christian leaders began clamoring about the need to “take back our schools.” O, ye of little understanding! They’re not your schools, they are the government’s schools and, having abdicated your parental responsibility to government, you thereby also surrendered your own authority over your children. It was predictable from the beginning of modern public education that those who craved political power would seek control of the educational bureaucracy as a mechanism to propagate beliefs favorable to their own goals and purposes.

Because the Bible represented an obstacle to the agenda of this political/educational elite, they declared war on the Word of God. Yet they would never have had this kind of power, had it not been for parents eager to have government take over the job of educating children and — to make this a bit more specific — had it not been for Christians who were employed as teachers within the government education system. This has been the great hindrance to churches seeking to make Christian schools a viable alternative. The lucrative salaries provided by the taxpayer-funded public school system lead many Christians to take jobs teaching in those schools and, once on the payroll of these atheist government institutions, they become enemies of Christian education. Pastors who wish to start a church school, or who encourage parents to homeschool their children, can expect to face vehement opposition from any member of their congregation who works for the government schools.

What is now greatly to be feared is that, as the government education system’s moral and intellectual bankruptcy becomes more apparent, Christian schools eager to be perceived as inclusive (in order to attract more tuition-paying students) will gradually abandon their religious purpose, so that they will become “Christian” in name only.

Beyond my own Christian perspective on this, however, there is a basic principle of liberty involved. My children are my children. When parents bring children into this world, their offspring do not become government property. Citizens have a duty to uphold the law, but the government of a free state belongs to the citizens, and not the other way around. Any government which does not recognize the legitimacy of parental authority is an enemy of liberty. A free society cannot force Jewish parents to teach Christianity (or Islam or Hinduism) to their children, nor can a free society force the children of Catholics to attend “comprehensive” sex-education classes that promote contraception and abortion.

If you pay attention to what’s going on in public schools nowadays, however, you know that the government now claims a right to impose any number of controversial beliefs on your children in the guise of “education.” The government schools are controlled by the teachers unions, so that the system is staffed with Democrat Party loyalists, and faculty are prohibited from expressing support for Republicans. Under these conditions, what goes on in public school classrooms is a program of political indoctrination that teaches children to vote Democrat.

This is why university students now erupt in riotous protests whenever any identifiably conservative speaker appears on campus. These young people have been indoctrinated in Democrat-controlled schools where they were taught to consider “Republican” a synonym for evil.

Well, that’s nearly 900 words so far, and I could go on for hours about what’s wrong with public education, but there are other things going on in the world, so I’ll end it here. I’ve hated public school system ever since I was forced to attend public school as a child. Having studied the system so long, I can declare what’s wrong with it, and that’s everything.

 

Category: Education

In The Mailbox: 12.29.16

Posted on | December 29, 2016 | Comments Off on In The Mailbox: 12.29.16

— compiled by Wombat-socho


OVER THE TRANSOM
EBL: Man-Baby Obama Throws Another Fit Before Leaving Office
Twitchy: Shannon Watts Puts Bass Pro Shops In Her Crosshairs
Louder With Crowder: Boy Scouts Reject Transgender “Boy”, LGBT Activists Lose Their Minds


RIPPED FROM THE HEADLINES
Adam Piggott: Mike Cernovich Shows How Not To Handle A Disgruntled Employee
American Power: Leon Kass – The Beginning Of Wisdom
American Thinker: Leave The UN
Animal Magnetism: Animal’s Daily News
Da Tech Guy: Jews Discover The Ghastly Tom Hagen Judenrein Jerusalem Democrat Math
Don Surber: Dumbest Headline Of 2016
Dustbury: Which Explains The Ho, Ho, Ho
Joe For America: Obama Livid As 31 States Rise Up, Say No To Syrian Migrants
JustOneMinute: Let The Vigorous Debate Begin!
Power Line: Obama Orders Sanctions On Russia, But Why Now?
Shark Tank: Obama Administration Announces Controversial New National Monuments
Shot In The Dark: What Is Best In Life?
STUMP: The 80% Funding End Of Year Extravaganza!
The Geller Report: Thirteen Years A Slave
The Jawa Report: Debbie Reynolds Dies One Day After Carrie Fisher
This Ain’t Hell: Kerry Makes Us Glad He’s Gone
Weasel Zippers: Democrats Legalize Child Prostitution In California Effective January 1, also, Fake Black Man To Join Fake News Show On Fake News Channel
Megan McArdle: Why Predictions Matter (Even The Wrong Ones)
Mark Steyn: Speaking As A Man Of Views…


Today’s Digital Deals
Amazon Warehouse Deals

Category: Linkagery

Anti-Semitism Ruins Everything

Posted on | December 29, 2016 | 1 Comment

One of the weird effects of the recent election is how the Left has tried to taint Donald Trump’s supporters as anti-Semites when, during the presidency of George W. Bush, the Left deliberately exploited anti-Semitism by portraying Republicans as beholden to “neoconservatives” (nudge, nudge) and “international bankers” (wink, wink).

Because most accusations of “anti-Semitism” are made in the context of partisan politics and are therefore as bogus as most accusations of racism, sexism and homophobia in such a context, I have a high threshold for judging what is or is not worth condemning as anti-Semitic. It ill behooves conservatives to mimic the Left in hurling such accusations haphazardly, especially considering how many conservatives have been unfairly impugned on this basis. Also, I think it is important to distinguish between (a) what I call vulgar anti-Semitism and (b) conspiratorial anti-Semitism.

Vulgar anti-Semitism is simply a general dislike of Jews, a prejudice based upon certain stereotypical negative traits. America is a free country, and we cannot compel people to like other people. If you do not like rednecks or hillbillies, for example, I may object to your unfair prejudice against my own ethnic group, but that doesn’t mean you should be fired from your job or excluded from public life. There is no Appalachian-American Anti-Defamation League to keep track of anti-redneck prejudice in the media, nor is there any Hillbilly Student Alliance to protest against university faculty who express bias against NASCAR fans, bluegrass musicians or trailer-park residents. Because we cannot be forced to like any particular ethnic group, therefore, the accusation of “hate” ought not to be made except where the expression of prejudice can be shown to be dangerous and harmful. It is entirely fair to call “Black Lives Matter” an anti-white hate movement, because these protests so often erupt in violence and, by undermining public support for effective law enforcement, “Black Lives Matters” jeopardizes the lives of police officers and innocent civilians. (If you haven’t yet read Heather Mac Donald’s The War on Cops: How the New Attack on Law and Order Makes Everyone Less Safe, do so immediately.) Criticizing a genuinely dangerous racial hate movement, however, isn’t the same as saying that black people can’t express dislike for white people. Heck, there are lots of white people I don’t like and, as I said, America is a free country. You can like who you like and hate who you hate, and I will defend your right to your own opinion, even while I call you an idiot for disagreeing with me.

Just because you don’t like Jews doesn’t mean you should be on a list of dangerous extremists, but what I must warn against — and this is where the real danger exists — is conspiratorial anti-Semitism, i.e., the belief that Jews are engaged in nefarious subversive plot. At least since the infamous forgery “Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion” surfaced in czarist Russia, the idea that Jews are all part of an infernal conspiracy has incited violence against Jews. Like every other clever conspiracy theory, paranoid Jew-hating is a toxic mixture of facts, lies and invalid logic, yet people continue falling prey to it. Part of the problem, of course, is that some of what is involved in these conspiracy theories is actually true.

It is true, for example, that many left-wing intellectuals are secularized Jews, and that this has been true from Karl Marx to Leon Trotsky to Wilhelm Reich and so forth on down to the present day. In my own study of radical feminism, for example, I could rattle off many dozens of names — from Shulamith Firestone and Andrea Dworkin to Jaclyn Friedman and Judith “Jack” Halberstam — of influential Jewish feminists. Would it therefore be fair to say feminism is a Jewish plot? No, because there were and are plenty of Gentile feminists (including lapsed Catholics and renegade Protestants) and also because Jews have also been prominent among the critics and opponents of feminism. Jewish authors like Midge Decter (The New Chastity and Other Arguments Against Women’s Liberation) and Steven Goldberg (The Inevitability of Patriarchy) attacked feminism early and effectively, and to this day, some of the most outspoken critics of feminism are conservative Jews.

To say that Jews have been prominently associated with feminism is certainly true, and it is not anti-Semitic to say so. In this regard, I’m reminded of my late friend Andrew Breitbart who, when encountering the claim that Jews run Hollywood, answered, “Yeah. So what?” This is simply a fact, and therefore not controversial, but turning it into a paranoid conspiracy theory is where we encounter the real danger.

All of this is merely a preamble to discussing something I saw today at the so-called “manosphere” site, Return of Kings, “4 Ways National Geographic Is Furthering A Degenerate Leftist Narrative.” This article references the latest issue of National Geographic, which is devoted to promoting the transgender agenda, and I began reading it but came to a screeching halt when I reached the fourth paragraph:

With the nomination of Gary Knell (former CEO of Sesame Workshop) as the CEO of the National Geographic Society and of Susan Goldberg as editor in chief of National Geographic magazine, the now 100% Jewish-controlled National Geographic network is ready to promote usual globalist narratives, like in their recent edition entitled “the New Europeans,” openly defecating on millennia of European cultural heritage, in a giant “F–k you dad!” move, that would have made Angela Merkel proud.

WHISKEY TANGO FOXTROT?

Nice of you to drop by from Stormfront, buddy, but would you mind leaving your Völkischer Beobachter diatribes out of this? While I suppose one could theorize a connection between (a) National Geographic‘s advocacy of transgenderism, and (b) the Jewish ancestry of its executives, I’m pretty sure (c) this non sequitur is unnecessary to your argument, and (d) would tend to alienate many potential allies who share your opposition to radical postmodern Third Wave “queer feminism.”

More to the point, however, I’ve got a hunch you’re barking up the wrong tree. “The personal is political,” as feminists say, and so when you find people engaged in promoting sexual degeneracy — which is what National Geographic is doing — you have every reason to suspect that those involved in this effort are perverts of one sort or another.

Susan Goldberg (left) and Gary Knell (right).

This is not to suggest that Gary Knell or Susan Goldberg are into BDSM or peodphilia or bestiality, but rather to say that I don’t think the editorial staff of National Geographic would welcome investigative scrutiny of their private lives. Did I ever mention my work in exposing the pedophile activist Lawrence Stanley? Because I’ve got a pretty solid track record of smart hunches in this regard, I’m going ask readers to remember my suspicion about the problem at National Geographic. We’re talking about a huge iceberg. Sometimes it can take years to uncover the truth about these weirdos, but they usually slip up sooner or later.

Anyway, my point is that throwing in an anti-Semitic jab while making an argument about something like transgenderism is self-defeating, not only because it is needlessly offensive, but more importantly because it leads you into a cul-de-sac of failure and irrelevance. There’s a reason why people avoid Jew-haters, you know: Genesis 12:3. Selah.

This degenerate crap? It’s a shanda fur die goyim, and I expect that conservative Jews will help lead the fight against it.



 

 

RELATED:

 

Category: Sex Trouble
« go back — keep looking »