“Endless, Bitter Rancor Lies Ahead”

If you were to search this site for Camille Paglia, you would find eleven articles, most of them about something she has written. It is surprising how often I find myself agreeing with her, given how different in so many ways we are. Perhaps it has to do with that we actually think, and not just feel.

In any case, here is another article where I agree with much if not all. Via Joshuapundit at WatcherofWeasels.

It’s open sex war — a grisly death match that neither men nor women will win.

Ever since The New York Times opened the floodgates last October with its report about producer Harvey Weinstein’s atrocious history of sexual harassment, there has been a torrent of accusations, ranging from the trivial to the criminal, against powerful men in all walks of life.

But no profession has been more shockingly exposed and damaged than the entertainment industry, which has posed for so long as a bastion of enlightened liberalism. Despite years of pious lip service to feminism at award shows, the fabled “casting couch” of studio-era Hollywood clearly remains stubbornly in place.

The big question is whether the present wave of revelations, often consisting of unsubstantiated allegations from decades ago, will aid women’s ambitions in the long run or whether it is already creating further problems by reviving ancient stereotypes of women as hysterical, volatile and vindictive.

Complaints to the Human Resources department after the fact are no substitute for women themselves drawing the line against offensive behavior — on the spot and in the moment. Working-class women are often so dependent on their jobs that they cannot fight back, but there is no excuse for well-educated, middle-class women to elevate career advantage or fear of social embarrassment over their own dignity and self-respect as human beings. Speak up now, or shut up later! Modern democracy is predicated on principles of due process and the presumption of innocence. […]

It was overwhelmingly men who created the machines and ultra-efficient systems of the industrial revolution, which in turn emancipated women. For the first time in history, women have gained economic independence and no longer must depend on fathers or husbands for survival. But many women seem surprised and unnerved by the competitive, pitiless forces that drive the modern professions, which were shaped by entrepreneurial male bonding. It remains to be seen whether those deep patterns of mutually bruising male teamwork, which may date from the Stone Age, can be altered to accommodate female sensitivities without reducing productivity and progress.

Women’s discontent and confusion are being worsened by the postmodernist rhetoric of academe, which asserts that gender is a social construct and that biological sex differences don’t exist or don’t matter. Speaking from my lifelong transgender perspective, I find such claims absurd. That most men and women on the planet experience and process sexuality differently, in both mind and body, is blatantly obvious to any sensible person.

The modern sexual revolution began in the Jazz Age of the 1920s, when African-American dance liberated the body and when scandalous Hollywood movies glorified illicit romance. For all its idealistic good intentions, today’s #MeToo movement, with its indiscriminate catalog of victims, is taking us back to the Victorian archetypes of early silent film, where mustache-twirling villains tied damsels in distress to railroad tracks.

A Catholic backlash to Norma Shearer’s free love frolics and Mae West’s wicked double entendres finally forced strict compliance with the infamous studio production code in 1934. But ironically, those censorious rules launched Hollywood’s supreme era, when sex had to be conveyed by suggestion and innuendo, swept by thrilling surges of romantic music.

The witty, stylish, emancipated women of 1930s and ’40s movies liked and admired men and did not denigrate them. Carole Lombard, Myrna Loy, Lena Horne, Rosalind Russell and Ingrid Bergman had it all together onscreen in ways that make today’s sermonizing women stars seem taut and strident. In the 1950s and ’60s, austere European art films attained a stunning sexual sophistication via magnetic stars like Jeanne Moreau, Delphine Seyrig and Catherine Deneuve.

The movies have always shown how elemental passions boil beneath the thin veneer of civilization. By their power of intimate close-up, movies reveal the subtleties of facial expression and the ambiguities of mood and motivation that inform the alluring rituals of sexual attraction.

Read the rest here, do it now, I’ll wait for you.

There’s not a lot to add, she is simply correct, I think, and not just in the entertainment industry. The #MeToo hysteria has gone far enough that it will hurt women’s careers for years. Why exactly, would anybody with an ounce of sanity, hire somebody that experience indicates will involve your company (and likely you) in lawsuits and blatant blackmail. Just no sense in it.

The other thing she is right about is that movies, back in the day of the obscenity code, were a lot sexier, because it was something beyond lust, and if we are honest, nobody looks as good in reality as they do in our fantasies. So they broke the taboos, they made it realistic (this all goes for violence too, by the way) and they made it uninteresting, even boring. Because what we went to the movies for was a story. What we got was soft (mostly) porn.

Just the other night, I thought it might be fun to watch a movie, and I have thousands available, just as we all do online these days. I dug around here and there for about an hour and said the heck with it. The only ones that looked interesting, I’d seen many times, because they said something to me. Be nice if they’d make movies with a story again. Yes, Dunkirk was pretty good, as was Darkest Hour, but two movies out of the US/UK movie industries in a year, or is it a decade, what a waste.

 

Euphemisms and Losing

Bookworm has an article up at Watcher of Weasels, in it she makes a very important point. When we allow the left to use euphemisms, and to define terms as they wish, we allow them to control the debate. When they control the debate, they win the debate. Here’s some.

I especially dislike euphemisms when the Lefties put them out there. One of the most brilliant things Trump did in his State of the Union Speech was to deny the Left the word Dreamers, a euphemism they dreamed up for illegal aliens. Now Americans are the dreamers, which renders the world powerless as a form of Leftist thought control.

And you’ll notice I referred to illegal aliens. I drive my Progressive Facebook friends crazy when I correct their phrase “undocumented immigrants.” These are not people who have stood in line and filled out forms, only to forget some teeny bureaucratic detail. These are people who sneaked into America, knowing that doing so was against this countries laws. That they are not citizens means that they are “aliens,” and that they broke the law to get here means that the are “illegal aliens.” Pretty clear, right?

The same is true with the euphemistic phrase that “Islam is a Religion of Peace.” Yes, if you accept Tacitus’s way of defining Roman peace: “They make a desert and call it peace.” Or yes, if assume Leftists’ failed  spelling and actually meant “Islam is a Religion of Pieces — the tiny little pieces of blown-up, incinerated, mutilated, sliced human bodies. Those kind of pieces.”

Oh, and God do I hate the whole “trans” thing. I especially hate the fact that so many conservative outlets refer to “transgenders,” and “transgender woman” or a “transgender man.” Take for example the pathetic Rose McGowan’s outburst at a bookstore the other day, when she was shilling her new book about a life filled with abuse. (I do mean it when I say she’s pathetic. Her life started with her parents abusing her with bizarre sex cults and abandonment. No wonder that predators such as Weinstein saw her as an easy mark. Predators have a knack for finding people already made vulnerable by past life experiences.)

Yep, yep, and yep. She’s dead on point here. Cut it out, we can no longer afford (actually we never could) afford to allow them to define the terms of the debate. Will they call us names? Yeah, they’re disgusting like that, but you know what? We’re big boys and girls and we know that words only hurt us if we let them.

We, as Americans, must lead here. We have a defined right to offend. We can say things that would get a Brit prosecuted, and we must, not least because he can’t.

I appreciate that even conservative media outlets feel uncomfortable saying “fake man” or “fake woman” because . . . haters. The Federalist solved the problem rather gracefully when it came to McGowan’s kerfuffle by referring in the headline and lede to a “trans activist,” which is accurate. Unfortunately, the article itself refers to the heckler as “transgender.” Let’s be clear again: there is no such thing and when we use their euphemisms, we accept their ideas.

Nor is this an inconsequential quibble on my part. My antennae are up today because of this story out of England, a national that has gone even further down the magical “transgender” rabbit hole than we in America have:

A teacher has been suspended and could face the sack after he ‘accidentally’ called a transgender pupil a ‘girl’ in class when the student identifies as a boy.

Joshua Sutcliffe, 27, who teaches maths at a state secondary school in Oxfordshire, said ‘Well done girls’ to the teenager and a friend when he spotted them working hard.

He apologised when corrected by the pupil, but six weeks later he was suspended from teaching after the pupil’s mother lodged a complaint.

Following an investigation, he has been summoned to a formal disciplinary hearing this week to face misconduct charges for ‘misgendering’.

According to documents seen by The Mail on Sunday, he also faces claims that he is breaching equality policies by referring to the pupil by name rather than as ‘he’ or ‘him’.

The £30,000-a-year teacher said he was ‘distraught’ and had been reduced to tears as teaching was his life, and he branded the actions of the school as ‘political correctness gone mad’.

Mr Sutcliffe, a maths graduate who gained his teaching qualifications at Exeter University, said he had no official instructions about how to address the student, but along with other staff decided to use the pupil’s chosen first name.

However, he has admitted that, as a Christian, he avoided using male pronouns such as ‘he’ and ‘him’.

Read the rest here.

And that is pretty much where everyone in the world is. Except us, and they keep trying here. This is one of those key battles. If our opponents define the terms (and especially keep changing the definitions), we can not win, no matter if we have logic, science, and whatnot on our side. Lewis Carrol put it best in Humpty Dumpty.

‘And only one for birthday presents, you know. There’s glory for you!’
`I don’t know what you mean by “glory”,’ Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. `Of course you don’t — till I tell you. I meant “there’s a nice knock-down argument for you!”‘
`But “glory” doesn’t mean “a nice knock-down argument”,’ Alice objected.
`When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
`The question is,’ said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
`The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master — that’s all.’

Don’t let an egg define the terms of the debate.

The Left’s Last Spasm

Bring it on.

I think the author here, J.r. Dunn, may well be correct. I can think of no other reason, other than perhaps mass delusion, which isn’t all that different. And do read it all, I’ve just excerpted a few of my favorite parts.

As far as anybody knows, the November 4th revolution/tantrum/jamboree planned by Antifa and its associate organizations remains on schedule. The “Opposition” – Antifa, the John Brown Clubs, Refuse Fascism, and assorted other scraps have announced that on that date the revolution will begin with a mass nationwide uprising that will continue until the Trump/Pence regime is overcome. Dozens of hundreds of the people’s vanguard will hit the streets, squatting at intersections and holding their breaths until the fascists are exorcised and the new epoch of light is fully underway. (Further details can be found here.)

Conservatives, as is all too often the case, have overreacted.  Numerous sites, publications, and radio shows have featured rhetoric such as “Antifa Planning Communist Revolution for America on November 4,” “Patriots beware! ANTIFA plans armed uprising on November 4!,” and “The Leftist Chaos Will Be Coming On November 4th.” (Links withheld to protect the guilty.)

But the truth, if anything, is exactly the opposite. What we are experiencing, far from a deadly revolutionary upsurge threatening everything of value, is a historically unique situation where, for the first time on record, a leftist movement is in complete and accelerating collapse within a democratic polity. The upcoming people’s revolt is simply another symptom of this.

The Democrats, America’s de facto leftist party (note how a sworn socialist, Bernie Sanders, is effectively exercising leadership of the party without anyone so much as blinking) have lost over 1,000 offices nationwide in the past year. The GOP controls nearly two-thirds of all governorships and nearly half of state governments. The left’s political presence and influence is negligible across vast areas of the heartland. They have abandoned the working class, the bedrock of any leftist movement, in favor of representing transsexuals, ball club millionaires, and noncitizen criminals, not a strategy with much of a future, on the face of it.

The year since the 2016 electoral debacle has witnessed a number of off-elections to replace cabinet picks, each one hailed by the media as the turning of the progressive tide, each one won by the GOP.

Thus leading many of us to recall Trump’s prediction, “So much winning. You’re going to get tired of winning”. Well, I haven’t, yet. It feels real good.

[…]

Then we have the NFL. The national anthem uproar is the fruit of the latest attempt by the left to turn American workingmen’s institutions – sports and country music in particular – into left-wing systems to shunt the regular Joes into the arms of the commissars, where they belong. Its failure, at the hands of an irate public (not to forget Donald Trump, certainly, here as in many other instances the indispensable man), is one of the most encouraging developments in the wake of 2016. Colin Kaepernick, who attempted to revive a foundering career on the field though political posturing, can serve as an object lesson to all the others attempting to follow in his wake. The NFL, already on the skids, now faces an accelerating and well-deserved financial hemorrhage. (I say that even though my grandfather helped found the organization.)

Finally, we get to Harvey. Harvey Weinstein was a bicoastal combination of Graydon Carter and George Soros, acting as a facilitator between left-wing politics and popular culture while at the same time financing left-wing politicians – including the Clintons, the millennial Borgias – to the tune of millions. All this bought him immunity for decades of sex offenses. The fact that it came to an end in large part due to the efforts of Rose McGowan, onetime inamorata of Marilyn Manson and collaborator with Quentin Tarantino, and Ronan Farrow, a virtual stereotype of the Manhattan liberal, makes his fall even sweeter.

I like many of you, wasted many hours watching the NFL, and like others, I have noticed the quality of play decrease, and then this silliness during the Anthem. Well, I really can’t say I miss it much and see no reason to ever start watching again. Those hours are far better spent now. Buh-Bye NFL!

[…]

Yet all attention on the right seems to be focused on a gang of undergrads in black hoodies and Guy Fawkes masks. How can we correlate the two – black-clad militants brash enough to threaten the government itself while their entire political/social superstructure collapses in ruins around them? On the face of it, it seems paradoxical. But there’s actually no contradiction at all. The one follows the other as sure as Stalin followed Lenin. The left has turned violent because it’s falling apart. They don’t have anything else. No plans, no prospects, no leadership. The left has failed, and violence is all that remains.

Left-wing failure is not arguable. The international record stands for itself, having become a truism without ever quite attaining the status of a cliché. Though the academy and the media have tried their best to bury the record (while earnest and naïve types such as Anne Applebaum scratch their heads as to why it lacks the immediacy of the Nazi crimes), it’s impossible to hide failures so gargantuan as to have left mountainous piles of corpses across the entire landscape of Eurasia. (Every few years the spring thaw in Siberia and the Urals uncovers mass graves, the legacy of the Gulag, sending thousands of mummified, nearly intact corpses drifting down the rivers. This is what Weinstein, Antifa and the rest would wish on us.) The same pattern is occurring at this moment in Venezuela, a wealthy nation reduced first to pauperdom and soon to open massacre.

Something to interject here is that the reason that America leads the free world, is because we fought very hard to be free, and we all know hard lessons stick. And then our founder’s had the gumption and foresight to write it all down so that we could refer back to what they had said and done. And they even had the foresight to make their plan the supreme law of the land, subject to change only with great difficulty and with the consent of a supermajority of citizens, and legislators at all levels. It is something that even our near peers, like the UK lack. Their rule, that one Parliament may not bind another, means that it can all be lost in an instant. And finally, our leadership is based on our passionate defense of liberty which hasn’t waned since before 1776. We lead because we tend the flame of freedom, we were the first and if necessary we will be the last, but the flame shall not go out again.

I have Brits tell me every day that demographics will destroy us (and them). My standard answer is (although more politely) “Here, hold my beer”. We were the first, and we have kept the faith. It is nearly 120 years since the first Progressive Teddy Roosevelt, (who actually wasn’t all bad) was elected, and watch us, of all the people in the world, while we’ve been hurt, sometimes badly, by the disease, yet here we still stand, and get this: WE ARE WINNING! Mostly because we have the guts and the means to fight back. Something else the smarter ones tell me often is to never, ever let them take your guns. You’d be surprised how often I hear that from Brits I respect highly.

What I tell them is that it is a long process, and they went much further down the road than we did. They need to get control of the Conservative Party, even as we are starting to do the Republican Party, another place where Trump is proving indispensable. But Corbyn’s Labour party is showing the same signs as our left. They need to quit making excuses and just do it.

It’s best to ignore them, and let the law take its course. We hold all the cards. The thunderous, nationwide shout of “No!” that greeted the NFL “protests” clearly demonstrates that the United States remains solid. The greatest public humiliation endured by the American left in this century proved that the bedrock of this nation still exists, uneroded by ephemeral entities like Obama and the Clintons. The teenage ninjas think they can take that down with a few slingshots and Molotov cocktails. Let them try.

I think the best thing to do with the leftists is simply laugh at them, and then use their tears as a mixer in our whiskey. It also reminds me of a bit of graffiti from when I was in college back in the early seventies. Carved on the stall wall in the Union was this,
Workers of the World arise,
So that we may more easily gun you down.
Bring it on, I’m tired of this nonsense, even as my dad was in the sixties.

The Courage of Cowards

This whole Weinstein thing just grabs on and doesn’t let go, as far as I can see. There is no excuse for him, just as I never heard one for Bill Clinton, or Jimmy Savile, or for Ted Kennedy. I can understand how they got that way, to a point, but I can not excuse it. The mark of a man is how he treats those he has power over, and these four and many others fail abysmally. There will be more, and I suspect in other cities, particularly Washington, and likely London. I note there are quite brutal rape accusation against Weinstein in Britain.

But while the fault is theirs, and their’s alone, and one hopes the earthly penalty is sufficient, others bear some blame as well. As I said yesterday ‘casting couch’ has been a cliché for decades. Sure some part of it was normal guys wishing for an opportunity. But you, know, most of those ordinary guys would never have used sex to be paid to advance someone’s career. Lust is one thing, and essentially prostitution is another. But it happens, it always has, and if not watched, it always will. That’s why Mike Pence’s rule about drinking and dining with women, not his wife is so wise. It negates not just the temptation but the appearance of temptation.

But the victims do bear some blame here, as well. This behaviour has been covered up for decades. Why? Because none of them was willing to pay the price for doing the right thing. Sorry to put it so bluntly, but when you cover for a rapist, you sentence another woman to be raped as you were. I understand that you might have lost your career, and that’s a shame, but instead, you chose to lose your self-worth. Was it worthwhile? Dov Fischer has a superb article up at The American Spectator on this. It is most aptly title The Courage of Cowards. I strongly recommend that you read it. A few excerpts follow

Five years later, I found myself employed in a significant role within a very different kind of corporate structure where, it came to my attention, one of the Board members, a singularly powerful figure in the body, had been harassing women. Two separate women came to me privately, each separate from the other, each telling me her respective account — and their accounts were verifiable. I went home and said to my wife: “I think I am in another one of these spots. If I report to the rest of the Board what I now know, there is no doubt in my mind that they will have no choice but to demand the guy’s immediate removal from all Board influence, and they never will be able to let him on that Board again. But I also have no doubt that, once that dust settles, they will come after me for blowing the whistle. So I have to make a decision.”

My wonderful wife looked at me with eyes that essentially said: “So what’s the question? You know what you have to do.”

And she was right. There was no question. I am no feminist — au contraire — but this was not about the politics of vagina hats and burning bras. This was a matter of human decency and the spiritual holiness that exists in every person. I knew what I had to do.

I blew the whistle internally. The Board appointed an internal committee to investigate independently. The committee came back affirming my report. The harasser’s role as an influential Board powerhouse ended. He never returned to that Board, and he was demoted and sanctioned severely beyond that.

Soon after, predictably, his friends’ backlash against me hit hard from within. I ended up leaving that place of employment.

Best thing that ever happened to me.

That’s gut check time, isn’t it? Something evil going on that you can, perhaps stop, but there will be a price to pay, win or lose. Personally, I’ve been in variations of that spot, and like his wife indicated, it’s not much of a decision. But I’m a man, and I was trained not to run from trouble, but to take my best shot at fixing it. I said man there, but what I really mean is a responsible adult, we all know plenty of women who are the same way. I was raised according to the old Irish adage, The first duty of the strong is to protect the weak. All of these people, abusers and victims as well, fail the test. The abusers will hopefully face man’s justice, the others will be asked one fine day about it, I warrant, by a higher judger, and there are no appeals from that judgement.

There was Ashley Judd, less than a year ago, at a “Women’s March.” It was a “Women’s March” that barred and disenfranchised the whole huge swath of American women who do not share the radicals’ leftist agenda. Speaking to those attending, Ashley Judd ripped into President Donald Trump. She became profoundly obscene, reciting a “poem” that bore fantasized intimations of perversion and incest. Oh how brave she was — “speaking truth to power” — by regaling a leftist crowd, whining men and women and whatever pronouns now are persondated (not “mandated”) in California — with a hateful radicalized leftist attack on the Republican President.

That is not “courageous.” That is not “brave.” There is no downside for a Hollywood figure to attack conservatives, Republicans, Christians, the Catholic Church, or Orthodox Jews before one of their hooting echo audiences. Those audiences lap it up. They love it. They reward such attacks with adulation and iconization. It is the “courage” of late-night talk hosts lambasting the President or the Republicans to their self-selecting echo chambers of leftists, while knowing full well that the conservatives and the Republicans are not in the Stephen Colbert audience or viewing on television when they instead can be watching Fox News or reruns of Last Man Standing or Quick Pitch on MLB or the cooking or other food channel or a movie on Netflix or Amazon Prime or Hulu or reading a book or even going to sleep at 11:30 p.m. because, as many conservatives do, those people have to get up in the morning the next day to go to work for a living.

There is no courage in attacking the President or the conservative justices of the United States Supreme Court or Republicans in Congress at Academy Awards night or Emmy night or Tony Awards night or Grammy night. There is no courage in mocking the traditionalists on Saturday Night Live. When a person arises amid an echo chamber of same-minded Eloi in a time machine that is stuck in an Obama era that has passed, and sneeringly feeds the clods who get their news from Comedy Central their liberal mantras, he or she simply is feeding fish to clapping seals. That is not courage. That is pandering.

Instead, courage is when an Ashley Judd is pawed by a Harvey Weinstein who has power over her career — and she decides that, whatever may be the price to be paid, she will stop this pig here and now by blowing the whistle. And that is the kind of courage that a coward like Ashley Judd lacks. Courage is not when Meryl Streep at a Hollywood Awards ceremony mocks President Trump’s perceived approach to women, based on the brash person he was decades earlier, while she extols Roman Polanski as an artist who has suffered far too long, even as she calls Harvey Weinstein “God.” Rather, courage is when the same Meryl Streep wins the confidence of women in her field who can go to her, as women came to me in my less famous role, to tell their horrific reports of sexual assault and violation, knowing that she will leverage her voice in Hollywood to extirpate the pig from the public arena. And the coward Meryl Streep does not have that courage — not unless it is printed out for her in dummy cards for her to read emotively into a camera.

And that very thing is what empowers the Harvey Weinsteins, the Bill Clintons, the Teddy Kennedys, to use others, especially women without power, because women let him do it before, and so it becomes ‘just Harvey’ and it goes on until somebody dies, like Mary Jo Kopechne, and sometimes it still goes on. And you know, the only reason, for most of these women’s silence, that I can see, is a profound dislike for anybody but themselves. They’ve made little (very little indeed) tin gods of themselves, and there is no good in them or in those who enable them. G.K. Chesterton wrote

“When men choose not to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing, they then become capable of believing in anything.”

Even little tin Hollywood gods they made for themselves.

Harvey Weinstein and the Abuse of Power

Well, I’ve grown bored with all the noise about Harvey Weinstein. Mostly now it has become voyeuristic clickbait, as it was always going to simply because there are a (formerly) powerful man and many beautiful women involved, not to mention a few hangers-on. But maybe we can learn some lessons. I think so. And I think Melanie Phillips has taken a good shot at it.

Much has been written, and doubtless much more will be, about the grotesque sexual predations of the Hollywood movie titan Harvey Weinstein. As allegations now come tumbling out from women who say he raped, molested or otherwise sexually abused them, the question is obviously how this never previously came to light since everyone seemed to know about it.

In a particularly fine piece here, Lee Smith suggests that this has only come out now because the media power-structures which ensured silence in the past have collapsed.

The revelation of this past silence has given rise in turn to a debate about whether or not Weinstein’s women victims were complicit in their own abuse. Some did stand up against him; some refused to work for him again and tried to warn others. But many went along with it.

The point is being made that it takes a brave soul indeed to stand up against such a man whose position in the industry meant he could make or break careers. Very true. There are things, though, that surely no self-respecting person would do under any circumstances; presented with the monstrous demands Weinstein was making of them, however, too many women did. Nevertheless, the difficulty of resisting the pressure behind such sexual coercion is obvious.

I think it really takes a lot of guts to resist, remember most of these people were trying to live their dream of being a star. Well, sometimes living a dream has a price, sometimes a very high one. paid in self respect, and that makes you even less likely to tell anyone about it, I think. That Lee Smith article, that Melanie referenced, in the Weekly Standard is amazingly good, by the way, do read it. And there is this.

Such abuse of power is by no means confined to the socially or politically powerful. Rape or other sexual abuse occurs in every stratum of society. At the heart of every sexual attack lies the wish of the perpetrator to exercise power over his (or sometimes her) victim. There is no greater way to exercise that power than through a sexual attack which does not just inflict physical but psychological njury by stripping away the very core of a person’s sense of their own inviolable personhood and human dignity.

The question is whether these attacks are now more numerous than they ever were or whether they are just being noticed more often. Obviously, sexual attack is nothing new; and one can point to many instances where changing social mores mean we are now less tolerant of behaviour that for various reasons went unchallenged in the past –– just as we can also point to precisely the reverse trend.

Nevertheless, I suspect such sexual attacks are in general on the increase, not least because of the breakdown of the traditional family. Before the British government decided to censor the statistics showing the relative rate of abuse by biological and non-biological family members, it was clearly established that sexual and other abuse was committed vastly more frequently by people not biologically related to their victims. Since so many households now contain transient sexual partners, it stands to reason that the rate of abuse including sexual attacks has also exponentially increased.

And there I think Melanie hits right in the middle of the x ring. One of the main places where we learn self-respect is by showing respect to others. This is hard to phrase but easy to understand, if you don’t respect yourself, you are not going to respect anybody else either. St Matthew put it this way, “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” See my point here? If you do not love yourself, you cannot love another, It’s true, you know it and I know it. Find a guy or girl who hates themselves, you’ll find someone who loves (or usually even likes) nobody. Where did most of us learn to love? As children in our family. Melanie’s no doubt right, as broken homes and dependency on the cold charity of the state increase, instead of the more or less stable (if sometimes quite raucous) family, crime statistics climb alarmingly. One only has to look at the American black community in the 50s and compare it to today’s. A bit more Melanie.

If you look at tyrants throughout history, you often find that the person who has exercised untrammelled power and committed the most appalling crimes against other people was himself driven by intense feelings of inadequacy, self-disgust and powerlessness.

Is that sense of powerlessness increasing across the board? In an era of acute psychic loneliness, with disintegrating family and social structures and with people feeling they are nothing more than random bundles of atoms being blown hither and yon by an indifferent fate in a universe without meaning, I bet it is.

I think taking that bet would be for suckers, because she is correct.

Hither and Yon

Well, yesterday I forgot it was Columbus Day. That’s pretty easy to do with the American version of ‘Bank Holidays’. The Banks and Government are closed, the rest of us carry on. Oh well, sometimes its hard to tell with the government, anyway. Lots going on though for a weekend where the government got an extra day off.


Christopher Columbus sailed the ocean blue way back in 1492.

This delightful ditty firmly places the date of the discovery of the New World into the minds of saavy kids everywhere in Great Satan.

Later on, CC get’s dissed in crash courses for introducing alien concepts like slavery, STD’s, baby Jesus and advanced weaponry to hapless, childlike human sacrificing races in places from South America all the way to Alaska.

What ev.

What was the motivation for CC to split sail from Europa and head west?

Easy!

Find a short cut to India.

The real quiz is quite significant. Why?

After all, Europa was the centre of the world for the tech saavy Europeans – India’s locale was well known since Alexander the Great’s era and thanks to Prince Henry (the cat who put the ‘gator’ in navigator) sealanes and land routes could have sweetly hooked up to provide the fastest transport times circa 1500 anywhere on earth.

Check out a World map from 1500 AD and the answer is prett obvious.

From Great Satan’s Girlfriend, although I agree with Cowboylawyer. Our ancestor, Leif Ericcson, should get the parades, not that Italian jackanapes.


RS McCain wrote a superb article on Harvey Weinstein and why their pandering to such people may well kill the Democratic Party on their own altar of abortion.

Say what you will, it was obviously no accident that Democrat Anthony Weiner was married to Hillary Clinton’s assistant Huma Abedin. The Clintons have always surrounded themselves with corrupt and immoral people, because no honest or moral person would support them — at least, not once they realized who the Clintons really are. It is always better to be an enemy of such people than to be their allies. Christopher Hitchens famously chronicled Bill Clinton’s betrayals of his liberal supporters in a book aptly titled, No One Left to Lie To.

Does anyone really believe, as Harvey Weinstein said, that support for the abortion industry is synonymous with “women’s rights”?

Cui bono? Who actually benefits from the abortion industry’s grisly trade? Isn’t it true that the main effect of legalized abortion, and the Contraceptive Culture in general, is to enable irresponsible men to pursue hedonistic sexual activity without being bothered by the potential burden of caring for children? And how is it in the best interest of women to be treated as “pump-and-dump” sexual commodities?

Years ago, I remarked that many Democrats go into politics for the same reason teenage boys learn to play guitar. And in 2013, after Anthony Weiner was caught in his second “sexting” scandal, I described Democrats as “The Pervert Party”:

One of those stories (like so much of the Clinton Presidency) that you feel like you’ve been reading pornography.


From Lifehacker, every hot dog in baseball rated.

Yep, give me a Vienna Chicago Dog, and I’ll be happy!


And with it, a cup of coffee here’s a quite NSFW for language (but good) commercial from the guys that make mine. The coffee is even better! 🙂


Putting the kettle on department, London has figured out that it is closer to Pyongyang than Los Angeles is. They don’t sound overly amused, in fact, there is talk of commissioning the Queen Eleizabeth early, so it can get in on taking out the trash. From the Daily Mail.

The Armed Forces are preparing for a potential war with North Korea, sources have revealed.

Officials have been instructed to draw up plans for how Britain would respond if war broke out with Pyongyang amid heightening tensions between the West and dictator Kim Jong-Un.

One option involves deploying Britain’s new aircraft carrier – due to be handed over to the Navy later this year – to the region before she has undergone flight trials.

Details of the secret operation plan have emerged after Donald Trump warned that ‘only one thing will work’ when it comes to dealing with North Korea, which has continued nuclear and rocket tests despite widespread condemnation.

Good on the cousins. It’d be even better if they’d figure out that a free country doesn’t suppress the rights of its own citizens subjects. Well, Brits are a good bit like Americans, just a bit slower to anger, I suspect they’ll get Westminster back under control, for a thousand years they’ve managed to control it. One hopes, anyway.


This may be how the GOPe bites the dust, The League of Extraordinary Candidates: Economic Nationalist Leaders Plan for Anti-Establishment Midterm Tsunami to Force Change.

Conservatives and economic nationalist leaders are looking past the current dysfunction in Washington to a group of new and exciting young candidates throwing their hats in the ring nationwide to break the gridlock with midterm election victories.

This group of individuals, which some are calling “The League of Extraordinary Candidates,” is emerging nationally—a distinct slate of U.S. Senate and House candidates, as well as key gubernatorial contenders, all united in their focus on breaking the logjam in Congress. Movement leaders view establishment Republicans and Democrats alike as a force blocking, slow-walking, or stonewalling the agenda that President Donald J. Trump campaigned on, and aim to elect new voices by riding a new economic nationalist electoral wave in 2018 meant to mirror and surpass what happened in previous wave elections like 2010—which saw the rise of the Tea Party.

“We’re planning on building a broad anti-establishment coalition to replace the Republican Party of old with fresh new blood and fresh new ideas,” Andy Surabian, a senior adviser to the Great America Alliance and ex-White House aide, told Breitbart News.

Surabian worked alongside Stephen K. Bannon, the now former White House chief strategist, during their White House tenure and is now working with the Great America Alliance—a pro-Trump Super PAC run by ex-Ronald Reagan aide Ed Rollins that doubles as a fundraising powerhouse, having raised $30 million last year to help the president.

“The only thing the Republican establishment has succeeded in is clarifying to the American people that they don’t represent their interests,” Surabian added. “Their repeated failures to govern have only crystallized their lack of vision or backbone. The group of candidates we are looking to support in 2018 are all bound together in their agreement that the new Republican Party must be bold in their thinking and aggressive in their tactics.”

Works for me, so far, anyway, and if we get Senators Like Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee, I think it works for all of us, although not the so-called Uniparty and the press. That’s OK, I’m sick unto death of them anyway.

And bravo to Vice President Pence for walking out of the Colts game the other day after a bunch of 49ers players took the knee. Well done, sir. This crap has gone on long enough. Guess it doesn’t really matter though, the NFL seems intent on suicide by social justice. So be it.

%d bloggers like this: