Murder City, U.S.A.

Posted on | November 1, 2016 | 1 Comment

Democrat-controlled Chicago is as dangerous as a war zone:

A bloody year for Chicago hit a new low this past weekend as 17 people were fatally shot, marking the deadliest weekend so far this year and pushing homicides past the 600 mark for the first time since 2003.
Beginning with 50 killings in January, violence has erupted in 2016 at levels unseen since the 1990s. Even with the end of summer, typically the year’s most violent stretch, no letup has occurred. Not counting Halloween, October saw 76 homicides, 2 1/2 times the 30 killings a year earlier. . . .
The violent final weekend of October pushed homicides to 614 as of midnight Sunday, in excess of 200 more than the same year-earlier period and the most at the 10-month mark since 1997, official Police Department records show.
In addition, shooting incidents for the year are closing in on 3,000, a 46 percent jump from 2,044 a year earlier, according to the department statistics. At least 3,662 people have been shot, 1,106 more than a year earlier, according to a Tribune analysis.
In addition to the 17 fatally shot between Friday afternoon and early Monday, another 42 were wounded. It was the deadliest weekend since 13 were slain and 46 were wounded over Father’s Day. The last weekend in August saw 11 killed and 56 others wounded.

Chicago is home to lots of criminals and Democrat voters.

But I repeat myself . . .

Category: Chicago, Crime

In The Mailbox: All Saints’ Eve

Posted on | October 31, 2016 | Comments Off on In The Mailbox: All Saints’ Eve

— compiled by Wombat-socho

OVER THE TRANSOM
Proof Positive: In Fact, It Was Her Idea!
EBL: CNN Fires Donna Brazile For Leaking To Crooked Hillary
Twitchy: Moment Of Truth – Hillary Tweets That She’s One Of The Most Corrupt Candidates Of All Time
Louder With Crowder: IT BEGINS – Chicago Tribune Calls On Hillary To Drop Out

RIPPED FROM THE HEADLINES
Adam Piggott: The Aching Blue Balls Of MGTOW
American Power: Democrats Erupt With Fury At Anthony Weiner’s Return
American Thinker: Lack Of #NeverHillary Movement Shows No Principle On The Left
Animal Magnetism: Goodbye, Blue Monday
BLACKFIVE: Book Review – Without Mercy By Jefferson Bass
Da Tech Guy: Baldilocks – Dust Loves Dust
Don Surber: The Media’s War On Trump Backfires
Dustbury: Strange Search Engine Queries, also, Macro Version Of Micropayments
Jammie Wearing Fools: “The President Thinks Very Highly Of Director Comey”
Joe For America: FBI Never Destroyed Clinton Aides’ Laptops – Agents Refused!
JustOneMinute: Huma’s The One!
Pamela Geller: German Streets Descend Into Lawlessness
Power Line: Did DOJ And FBI Blow Off Democratic Senators?
Shark Tank: Hillary Campaign Lacks Support, Enthusiasm
Shot In The Dark: Every St. Paul Republican’s Fantasy
STUMP: Bloggy Things – RIP Steven Den Beste, Errors, And SEEEEEEXXX!
The Jawa Report: Weiner’s Wanker Haunts Hillary’s Halloween
The Lonely Conservative: (Guest Post) Well-To-Do Thuggery
The Political Hat: Ben & Jerry’s Fights For Social Justice By Allying With A Stasi Agent
The Quinton Report: IGT And More Lottery Intimidation
This Ain’t Hell: Major John Rossi’s Suicide, also, NYU Prof Falls Victim To PC Gestapo
Weasel Zippers: White House Calls DNC Head Donna Brazile A “Person Of Integrity”, also, Retired CIA Officer Explains Why Hillary’s E-Mails Matter
Megan McArdle: A “Tweak” To Fix Obamacare? That’s A Red Flag
Mark Steyn: The Questions That Were Never Put (In Public), also, Occam’s Weiner

Today’s Digital Deals

Category: Linkagery

Liberals and Their Nightmare Fantasies

Posted on | October 31, 2016 | Comments Off on Liberals and Their Nightmare Fantasies

Every four years, the Republican Party choose a man to be labeled the next Hitler by liberals. Having been born during the presidency of Eisenhower (who opposed Communism and was therefore Hitler, in the liberal imagination) and having lived through the presidencies of five other Republican presidents, I can tell you that at least four of those were demonized as latter-day Hitlers by liberals. The sole exception was Gerald Ford, whom liberals considered too stupid and incompetent to be Hitler.

The Republicans are Nazis, every liberal believes. Certainly, we all remember how in the late 1980s, roaming gangs of GOP brownshirts rounded up Jews, labor-union leaders and subversives (e.g., people driving Volvos with Dukakis-Bentsen bumper stickers) who were loaded onto railroad cattle-cars and shipped off to the death camps in Idaho.

What? That never happened, you say? Well, better not tell that to Jonathan Chait, who’s resurrecting the old liberal fear campaign:

Right-wing populism has had the same character for decades — in 1950, Theodor Adorno described the fear of outsiders, and the veneration of law and order, as “the authoritarian personality”; in 1964, Richard Hofstadter described a similar tendency as “the paranoid style” — but until recently, those movements lived outside both political parties. The political scientists Jonathan Weiler and Marc Hetherington found that, as recently as 1992, the Republican and Democratic parties had an equal proportion of voters with an authoritarian personality. By Obama’s first term, authoritarian personalities identified overwhelmingly with the GOP. In its preference for simplicity over complexity, and its disdain for experts and facts, the party has steadily ratcheted down its standard of intellectually acceptable discourse: from a doddering Ronald Reagan to Dan Quayle to George W. Bush to Sarah Palin. From this standpoint, Trump is less a freakish occurrence than something close to an inevitability.

You can read the rest of that, but Chait’s invocation of Adorno (a member of the Frankfurt School which brought Cultural Marxism to America) shows how nothing is ever really new in politics. If you spend a few decades watching this game closely — and I have clear memories of presidential campaigns going back as far as 1968 — the liberal playbook becomes as predictably familiar as the Ohio State Buckeyes’ offense during the Woody Hayes “three-yards-and-a-cloud-of-dust” era.

Decades ago, when Franklin Delano Roosevelt declared, “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself,” some liberals seemed to assume that FDR intended “fear itself” as a synonym for the Republican Party. For more than 80 years, Democrats and their liberal journalist friends have striven to convince Americans that catastrophe will befall us if the GOP wins the next election. The names of the candidates change, and the specific “issues” vary a bit from one campaign cycle to the next, but always the Democrat message must tap into that sense of primordial fear that haunts the liberal imagination. The ghost of Calvin Coolidge and the spooky specter of Ronald Reagan — these spirits of long-dead Republican presidents swirl around in the disordered minds of young liberals. College kids who were not yet born when Reagan was president have been taught that the 1980s were the Dark Ages of American history, an era even worse than the unspeakable nightmare of the Eisenhower presidency.

Somehow, the liberal believes, the American epoch that produced Elvis Presley and the 1957 Chevrolet Bel Air was the worst thing that ever happened in all human history, and why? Because there was a Republican in the White House. The myth of the 1950s as an era of “repression” has a specific origin, having been invented by Communist Party sympathizers who seemed mystified as to why Americans didn’t want to employ admirers of Josef Stalin as defense-plant workers or public school teachers. No, the liberals insisted, there was no reason to take precautions against Soviet subversion. Just because such Roosevelt administration personnel as Alger Hiss, Harry Dexter White and Lauchlin Currie were Soviet agents, it was unfair to suspect Democrats of disloyalty, the liberals said, and it was paranoia — “McCarthyism”! — to vote Republican and hate Communists.

From such a warped perspective, an almost total inversion of reality, liberals fabricated the myth of Republicans as crypto-fascists, and invented an image of the 1950s as a nightmare of “repression.” Three decades later, during the Reagan-Bush era, these liberal delusions of persecution returned, and many Americans under 30 have been persuaded that the 1980s were a sort of neo-Nazi revival. It’s no use trying to discuss facts with young “progressive” fanatics, the ones who are “triggered” whenever someone like Christina Hoff Sommers shows up on a college campus. You simply cannot get these True Believers to understand that they are victims of a partisan propaganda campaign. They will not listen when you explain that their irrational fears originate in myths created by liberal intellectuals like Jonathan Chait for the simple purpose of helping Democrats win elections. So the Trump-is-Hitler card is on the table, and Chait is dusting off his old copy of Adorno’s The Authoritarian Personality, and probably a lot of otherwise well-educated young people are persuaded by this, simply because they haven’t been watching this political version of the old Woody Hayes playbook long enough to recognize the pattern. And it doesn’t matter, really, who the Republicans nominate, or whether the nominee wins or loses. The GOP candidate is always the next Hitler.

If he wins, liberals will spend four years decrying his every policy initiative as a human-rights violation akin to the Holocaust, but if he loses, liberal journalists will turn their attention to demonizing Republicans in Congress as so many mini-Hitlers. Also, if a Democrat wins the White House, liberal reporters will write long “investigative” articles about popular Republican governors, showing how Hitler-like their administrations are. And so in the next campaign cycle, when various GOP senators and governors are competing in the primaries for the opportunity to challenge the Democrat incumbent, every liberal journalist will have a thick dossier on each of the candidates. These dossiers will be full of “news” stories written by other liberal journalists who have toiled many hours to prove the Nazi tendencies of each Republican candidate. Therefore, every televised debate between the GOP candidates will be perceived by liberals as a contest between would-be Hitlers, each seeking to become officially the next Hitler. If you don’t believe these liberal persecution fantasies — if you think it’s OK to vote Republican — then obviously you are secretly a Nazi, and you will be blamed for the Holocaust that ensues if the Republican wins.

Donald Trump is an authoritarian — the next Hitler — according to liberals like Jonathan Chait. Therefore, if Trump is inaugurated as president next January, it will be only a matter of time because liberal journalists are rounded up, loaded onto railroad cattle-cars, and shipped to death camps in Idaho. Jonathan Chait considers this an argument for voting against Donald Trump. But some might see it the other way.

Former writers for Gawker, every on-air personality at MSNBC and CNN, feminist bloggers, Yale professors — all of them crammed into the cattle cars, weeping and shouting “we told you so” as those long trains roll westward — and what will Trump voters be doing then? I’m not sure about you, but I’ve got my eye on a ’57 Chevy Bel Air . . .

Boys with crew cuts! Girls in poodle skirts! Jukeboxes full of vinyl 45s by Buddy Holly and Chuck Berry! We’re gonna have Happy Days, and all we have to do to get there is elect the next Hitler! Jonathan Chait is a visionary genius, really. Just not in the way he’d hoped.

Category: Democrats, Election, Intellectuals

‘Heteropatriarchy’ as a Dye Marker: Feminism as Lesbian Supremacy

Posted on | October 30, 2016 | 3 Comments

If you are in a hurry, and don’t have time to read what I’m about to explain, do yourself a favor: Go to Twitter and search for the word “heteropatriarchy.” This word did not exist 30 years ago, and I will explain its origins and significance, but just scroll down through those Twitter search results. Even ignoring all the ironic joking hipster uses, as well as any anti-feminists invoking the word to mock Third-Wave nonsense, you will still find many people using this term with as much sincerity as Julius Streicher denouncing Jews in 1923.

What is the significance of the word “heteropatriarchy”? Where and how did it originate? To answer this, I will cite as authority Professor Claudia Card’s 1989 essay “Pluralist Lesbian Separatism” (in Lesbian Philosophies and Cultures, edited by Jeffner Allen, 1990, p. 133):

If openness in practice to any woman willing to identify herself as lesbian is not simply an expedient for finding women with certain loyalties, which is fundamental may be not having certain beliefs but, more promisingly, certain potentialities and relationships to histories of oppression. So understood, lesbian separatism would have as a purpose nurturing and supporting the lesbian(s) — the women-lovers — in all women. . . “Lesbian” derives from Sappho of Lesbos (ca 600 B.C.E.), an influential paradigm of woman-loving in European cultures. There are no doubt equally valuable paradigms yet to be discovered by many of us. A lesbian separatism with such flexibility would not be based on dissent, although it would dissent from what Jan Raymond has recently called “heteropatriarchy.” Such lesbian separatism would interpret feminist separatism by finding the devaluing of women’s woman-loving a key factor in women’s oppression.

Now, even the most well-informed student of feminist theory as it has developed since the late 1960s would probably have to read that passage quite carefully to grasp what Professor Card is implying here. The author she cites as having coined the term “heteropatriarchy” is Janice G. Raymond, a retired professor of Women’s Studies at the University of Massachusetts in Amherst. The 1986 book cited by Professor Card is Professor Raymond’s A Passion for Friends: Toward a Philosophy of Female Affection, which deals with subjects along the same lines as Professor Lillian Faderman’s 1981 book Surpassing the Love of Men: Romantic Friendship and Love between Women from the Renaissance to the Present and Professor Sheila Jeffreys’ 1997 book The Spinster and Her Enemies: Feminism and Sexuality, 1880-1930. The reader must perceive, from the sample of references I’ve listed here, how many feminist professors spent years busy working on the same general idea: The fight against patriarchy (a synonym of “male supremacy,” as early Second Wave feminists called it) was also a fight against heterosexuality. The term “heteropatriarchy” represented this idea, and was coined by Professor Raymond who, not coincidentally, was a protege of Professor Mary Daly, arguably the most extreme pioneer of man-hating lesbian feminism. Read more

Category: Sex Trouble

Rule 5 Sunday: Wonder Girls And Indians

Posted on | October 30, 2016 | 4 Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho

This weekend, the World Series has two teams that haven’t won it all for a total of 156 years: the Cubs since 1908, and the Indians since 1948, when the team was owned by legendary baseball promoter Bill Veeck, whose autobiography Veeck As In Wreck ought to be required reading for anyone serious about the history of baseball. So it seems natural for me to pick this week’s appetizer from the visit of girl group Wonder Girls to their best-known fan, outfielder Shin-Soo Choo of the Indians. I would have preferred this picture, but Blogspot pics and WordPress don’t play well together.
As always, many of the following links are to pics generally considered NSFW, and the management is not responsible for any clanks, muffs, errors, runs (earned or unearned), wild pitches, passed balls, hit batters, or other misfortunes caused by your failure to exercise discretion in the clicking.

The Wonder Girls pose with Miss Onion of the Cleveland Indians hot dog racers.

Ninety Miles from Tyranny leads off with Morning Mistress, Hot Pick of the Late Night, and Girls With Guns, followed by Goodstuff with Loretta Swit, a/k/a Hot Lips Houlihan. Animal Magnetism checks in with Rule 5 Traveling Life Friday and the Saturday Gingermageddon, while The Last Tradition adds Laeann Amos and Lena Chase.

EBL’s heifers this week include Maria Bello, Susan Sarandon, Megyn Kelly, Nina Arianda, Mia Sara, Hillary as Fredo Corleone, and Raquel Welch.

A View from the Beach brings us The Other Raquel – Raquel Zimmerman, Friday Morning Wake Up, Don’t Bring the Garbage to the New Home, I Suppose a Fat Flannel Clad Dyke Would be More to Their Liking, I, For One, Welcome Our New Chinese Robot Goddess, Whew! That’s a Relief!, The Great Rhode Island Yoga Pants Protest, Clinton.com Incites Violence, Twins Come Out for Trump over Tramps, Redskins Attempt to Skin Lions, Some Rule 5 News for Sunday, IG Says EPA Late to Flint Rescue, and Floron du Jour: “Wait Just a Minute, While I Interview for a Job, Dad”.

Soylent Siberia returns with your morning coffee creamer, Tuesday Titillation Exhalation, Humpday Harvest, Falconsword Fursday, Latent Lingerie, and Weekender.

Proof Positive’s Friday Night Babe is Laura San Giacomo, his vintage babe is Ann Southern, and Sex in Advertising is covered by Marilyn Monroe. At Dustbury, it’s Bat for Lashes and Sitashma Chand. (Not available at AutoZone.)

Thanks to everyone for their linkagery, especially the FMJRA linkagery that made last week’s Rule 5 Tuesday #1 in the list of most-linked posts here at The Other McCain!

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

Save

Category: Rule 5

SHOCKING: TRUMP SURGES IN POLL; HILLARY DOOMED BY F.B.I. PROBE?

Posted on | October 30, 2016 | 3 Comments

Bad news today for “Crooked Hillary”:

Donald Trump has surged to within 1 point of Hillary Clinton in a national poll released Sunday morning.
Clinton leads Trump, 46 to 45 percent, in a four-way race including Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson and the Green Party’s Jill Stein in the latest ABC News/Washington Post tracking poll. Johnson has 4 percent support while Stein has 2 percent.
Clinton led Trump by 12 points in that poll, 50 to 38 percent, early last week.

(Hat-tip: Steve Bartin at News Alert.) The headline stack this morning at the Drudge Report looks very bad for the Democrat:

HILLARY AT WAR WITH FBI…
Attack Strategy Has Risks…
PAPER: Dems should ask her to step aside…
LYNCH MOVED TO SPIKE COMEY…
HUMALIATED: Clinton aide doesn’t know how emails ended up on computer…
WEINER’S TALE OF SELF-DESTRUCTION…
GOODWIN: HILLARY ONLY HAS HERSELF TO BLAME…
Huma Swore Under Oath She Gave Up ‘All Devices’…
Vowed she was not retaining copies of emails…

Ex-FBI official: Clintons are a 'crime family' https://t.co/sUyBCPxCdd pic.twitter.com/7pNf8oXlWp

— The Hill (@thehill) October 30, 2016

Readers will recall — and perhaps never forgive — that I pronounced the election over three weeks ago. There was no way, I concluded, that Donald Trump could win after the sudden torrent of revelations about his past sexual misbehavior. What I did not consider, however, was that no matter how much damage Trump suffered, Hillary might still lose, simply because of the sordid doings (and sordid people) of Team Clinton:

In the summer of 2013, Hillary Clinton had just left the State Department and returned to New York. She planned a quiet year, basking in sky-high approval ratings and enjoying a respite from the media spotlight as she laid the groundwork for a second presidential run.
Then Carlos Danger happened.
Anthony D. Weiner, the husband of Mrs. Clinton’s closest aide, Huma Abedin, was running for mayor of New York when news broke that he had continued to exchange lewd messages with women online after the practice cost him his congressional seat. This time, he used the embarrassing Spanish-inspired moniker.
The tawdry story line and Ms. Abedin’s closeness to Mrs. Clinton made the events explode far beyond New York, dragging Mrs. Clinton’s name into messy headlines about penis pictures, Mr. Weiner’s descriptions of his sexual appetites and his online paramour named Sydney Leathers.
Now, with Mrs. Clinton seemingly on the cusp of winning the White House, Mr. Weiner, who once described himself as “a perpetually horny middle-aged man,” has pulled her into another drama. Federal investigators looking into his sexual messaging with an underage girl stumbled upon thousands of emails potentially pertinent to the F.B.I. inquiry into Mrs. Clinton’s private email server.

Her husband is an accused rapist who lost his law license for perjury. She's being investigated by the FBI. Hillary IS the Democrat Party.

— The Patriarch Tree (@PatriarchTree) October 30, 2016

Yeah, creepy sex and lying under oath — this is the Democrat Party that everyone over 30 remembers so well from the 1990s, when Hillary’s husband was the Perpetrator-in-Chief. Millennials who did not live through that era, or who were mere toddlers when Bill Clinton wagged his finger in America’s face and said he did not have sex with “that woman, Ms. Lewinsky,” might want to catch up on the history of deceit and corruption that is likely to repeat itself if Hillary is elected.

Category: Corruption, Crime, Election, Hillary Clinton, Media Bias, Polls

Feminism and the Cult of the True Self

Posted on | October 30, 2016 | Comments Off on Feminism and the Cult of the True Self

“The stigma around STDs normally makes people think of cheaters, liars, teenagers who don’t know any better, and other various ‘dirty’ things when they think of sexually transmitted diseases. But there’s a new name circulating in the news lately who’s trying to battle this stigma: Ella Dawson.”
— Torii Johnson, April 30, 2015

Once upon a time, psychology was about helping people cope with the difficulties of life, to become “well-adjusted” to adulthood. Within my own lifetime — and I could cite my personal experience — practitioners of psychology sought to locate the “root cause” of behavioral problems in order to help people understand why they had the problems they had. This was the justification for what used to be called the “couch trip” of mid-20th century psychoanalysis. In his memoir New York in the Fifties, Dan Wakefield recounts how it seemed that everyone in his circle of young intellectuals was being treated by an analyst:

“Finding yourself” was the overall hope, the grand purpose of Freud’s method of treatment for the human condition, and those of us who entered it thought of the process as noble and ennobling, a search for the truth through painful dark passages of the past, a delving into the heart of the matter, whatever the psychic pain. The idea that the truth was buried, that the nub of our angst and disorientation was hidden like some precious stone in the tar pits of our earliest childhood memories, spoke to us in literature and art.

The Gospel of Sigmund, as we might call this attitude of reverence toward Freudian concepts (as popularly understood) gained a cult-like grip on the minds of bright young liberals like Wakefield. If you want to find the origins of the wild tumult that burst forth in the 1960s, a careful reading of Wakefield’s account of New York in the Fifties might help you understand this. The popularity of Freudianism among intellectuals in the 1950s could be seen as symptomatic of an existential crisis among secular liberals who, having abandoned Judeo-Christian belief as the roadmap by which to guide their lives, found themselves in need of a substitute religion. In a godless universe, people needed some sense of purpose in life, and “finding yourself” was it for the devotees of this Cult of the True Self.

This was really a celebration of narcissism. Ace of Spades summarized a typical latter-day result: “I gotta be me, as the douchebag credo goes.”

Few people understood the danger of this in the 1950s, when America had just won the Second World War and was coping with the major geopolitical and military problems of the Cold War. It was not until the next decade — when a generation of youth went off to college with this goal of “finding yourself” planted firmly in their minds — that suddenly everything seemed to go haywire. “Finding yourself” for many of these people turned out to require disrespect for authority, a rebellion against law and morality, an attitude that in the 1950s had been foreshadowed by the bohemian decadence of the so-called “Beat” writers like Allen Ginsberg, William S. Burrows and Jack Kerouac. Somehow this hedonistic nihilism — the “if it feels good, do it” mentality — got mixed up in radical politics, so that New Left leaders of the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) coined the motto, “Smash Monogamy,” engaging in orgies as a supposed means to revolutionary “liberation.”

All of this, as I say, originated with the psychoanalytic obsession, that “search for the truth through painful dark passages of the past” as Wakefield described it, which was how Freudianism was understood by the secular intellectuals who popularized the Cult of the True Self.

Because I was always skeptical toward Freud — all that “Oedipus complex” nonsense and so forth — I’ve sometimes found myself arguing with people who will assert that it was not Freud himself who was so wrong, but rather that his theories were misunderstood and that what flourished after his death was a corrupt forgery of actual Freudianism. This is partly true, and partly false. On the one hand, it is true the silly quest for “finding yourself” described by Wakefield was not what Freud himself sought to foist upon the world. On the other hand, you cannot deny that Freud planted the seed from which the massive tangled weed of “pop psychology” sprang up in 20th-century America. Attempting to exculpate Freud for the real-life consequences of his ideas is like claiming that Marx was not to blame for the evil deeds of Stalin and Mao.

During the Cold War, there were always socialists who, when confronted with the reality of totalitarian Communist regimes — in Russia, China, Cuba, North Korea, etc. — would insist that this was not really Marxism, that somehow there could be “true socialism” without a repressive police state to enforce it. Likewise, the defenders of “true Freudianism” insist that the Viennese quack’s misguided ideas can never be blamed for what has observably gone wrong in the field of psychiatric therapy in the past century. Oh, if only people were so lenient in judging Christianity! Yet every time some televangelist gets caught fooling around, the god-haters exult that the scandal proves how wrong Christianity is, and how everyone who believes in the Bible is a fool or a hypocrite. But I digress . . .

When we strip away the mysticism of “theory” from Freud’s work, we realize that the business of rummaging around in the patient’s childhood (“painful dark passages of the past,” as Wakefield says) was intended not to discover the “true self,” but instead was meant to discover why the patient was so unhappy. What was the origin of the neurosis or whatever it was that had brought the patient to the doctor? The attempt to understand this, from a developmental perspective, was seen as the necessary precursor to helping the patient successfully adjust to his situation in life. And this focus on adjustment — that is to say, learning to “play well with others,” to find a useful place in society and be happy with one’s place — was what psychotherapy was really supposed to accomplish. There are always angry misfits and helpless bumblers in the world, and whatever diagnostic label you apply to people who can’t cope, they can learn to cope better if you can get them to consider why they’re such a messed-up bundle of craziness, and also get them to see the importance of getting their act together so that they stop ruining other people’s lives.

Prior to the 1970s, one commonly heard the term “maladjusted” used to describe the basic problem of people who couldn’t get along with others, or couldn’t successfully manage their own lives. The maladjusted person often has some unrealistic idea of how life should be — e.g., a childish fantasy of “fairness” — and this makes them unable to deal with how life really is. You can read Eric Hoffer’s classic The True Believer to see how these misfits are often drawn to political movements as a means of trying to close the gap of cognitive dissonance between reality and their own mistaken ideals. We have seen this in recent times, with the “Occupy Wall Street” movement,, “Black Lives Matter” and the “campus rape epidemic” hysteria serving as vehicles for the emotional tantrums of maladjusted misfits. People whose lives are a carnival of folly love nothing better than to assemble in mobs with other kooks and weirdos, spewing deranged rhetoric of “social justice,” seeking political power on the basis of their imaginary victimhood.

“The fact is the ‘respectable girl from a nice family in Connecticut’ ship has already sailed.”
— Ella Dawson, July 2014

“Finding yourself” — the narcissistic mission of the Cult of the True Self — requires you to believe that the person you actually are is not authentic. If you’re a 24-year-old Gender Studies major with a bad attitude and a herpes infection, working in the non-profit sector, you do not want to believe that this is your True Self because, frankly, you’re a pathetic joke. It seems your destiny is to be lonely and unloved, binge-watching Netflix in a Brooklyn apartment with your cats and your Valtrex prescription. Once upon a time, you were so hopeful and full of potential, a popular student in high school, and when you look back to the once-promising person you were, it’s difficult to understand how far you’ve fallen in a few short years. Oh, but your True Self is innately wonderful, and so you must build mental barricades of rationalization around this concept, to cling to the belief that you are worthy of admiration, and that your own bad decisions were not actually wrong:

I’m bisexual, and everyone knows bisexual women are total sluts. We’re attracted to both genders: we are greedy and slutty. . . .
I am currently non-monogamous, because being able to date any gender is not enough for me. I also need to date everyone. One of these relationships is primarily sexual — we do weird s–t to each other and I call him “daddy” because in addition to being a slut, I am also a bad feminist. I often give my phone number to cute bartenders and flirt with YouTube celebrities on Twitter because not all of my needs can be met by one person, or even two people. I have a lot of needs as a twenty-first century career woman and slut. Everyone knows non-monogamous people are wild as f–k. Sexual exclusivity is so 2013. . . .
During college, I was the editor-in-chief of Wesleyan’s “art and sexuality magazine,” better known as Unlocked Mag. During my tenure, I did two semi-nude photo shoots and was Miss May in our 2014 calendar. I used the line “So how does it feel to f–k the editor of the sex magazine?” at least four times.
I wrote my senior thesis about the activist potential of feminist erotica, and I made a ton of jokes about what kind of research my thesis would require. I f–ked my college boyfriend in my thesis carrel at least once. . . .
I have herpes and thus I am a degenerate slut.

If you’re going to be a degenerate slut, I suppose, you might as well be as flagrant about it as possible, but one cannot build a society on the basis of such behavior. No responsible mother or father would ever want their daughter to become someone like Ella Dawson, nor would any mother or father want their son to date someone like Ella Dawson. She is utterly reprehensible, a toxic stain on humanity, her “feminism” more dangerous to society than her virus-infected genitalia. Read more