Further Doom

This is why America is doomed -- men don't have the balls to say "No" to the lies, intellectual dishonesty, and ever-escalating demands for special treatment -- disguised as "equality" -- of women.

This isn't about "rights for parents in Congress" -- whatever the Hell that is supposed to mean. These bitches and bastards were not elected to Congress to "be parents", they were elected to SHOW UP TO WORK, to represent the people of their district in Congress. And they don't want to do that; rather, they want to *expand* Nancy Pelosi's corrupt "proxy voting" scheme.

As one person said -- "$150,000 a year and you can't afford a babysitter? Figure it out or resign."

Speaker Johnson suffers defeat in his push to block new parents in U.S. House from proxy voting

Here is a Democratic Party congresscritter @16:00 mark whinging about her desire to subvert-and-evade her duties as a US Representative, but still get paid --

Serious people -- adults -- don't even *use* the words 'mom' and 'dad' in a serious public setting, much less apply those words to themselves. Those words are for the familial setting, and especially when speaking to children.

GOP Reps DEFECT, Joins Democrats To BLOCK TRUMP, Want SPECIAL Rules For Women, GO FULL WOKE

Why America Is Doomed

These sorts of abominations (as see the linked 'X' post) sprout from the anti-Constitutional Civil Rights Act of 1964, and they are rooted in the 17th (Popular Election of Senators) and 19th (Female Suffrage) Amendments. That the federal government is killing the nation via taxation and reckless deficit spending is rooted in the 16th (Income Tax / Direct Taxation of the People) Amendment.

And this is why America is doomed:

1) Almost no American man is willing to acknowledge that Female Suffrage was a civilization-ending mistake, lest women whine at him;

2) Almost no "conservatives" are willing to acknowledge that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is fatally flawed, and that it is the basis by which the commies are undermining our liberties (and very much including the liberties of black Americans), lest the communists call them racist.

=====

LAWFARE: An Obama-appointed judge has blocked Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's mandate, which required all U.S. soldiers to meet uniform physical fitness standards, ruling that it discriminates against those who are not physically fit.

=====

Post on 'X'

Why Is America Doomed?

 This image, or rather the mindset that prompts people to post and re-post it, illustrates *why* America is doomed -- 

In case the image isn't enough to get my point across, I shall spell it out -- "America is doomed because even the 'conservatives' are fools."

Recently, on GAB, someone posted that image.  I replied with: "The alleged soon-coming "military tribunals" would be unConstitutional."

Within minutes, a couple of people with whom I'd never had the least interaction "informed" me of my "ignorance", gloated that I'd soon find out (apparently, to my woe) how wrong I am (*), appealed to Lindsay Graham as "proof" that "military tribunals" are coming, called me a "troll" ... and blocked me.

Read again the simple sentence (and fact) I'd written in response to that image.  Is not the reaction I have described *exactly* how the "woke" mob reacts when they encounter a statement they don't like?

Here are some things to keep in mind about these long-promised "military tribunals":

1) The idea is 'copium' -- 

1a) People have been banging on this silly drum for the past four years: "Military Tribunals are just around the corner!"

1b) The top brass of the US military has *always* been mostly time-servers, and since the illegitimate Obama administration, the leftists have been purging the brass (and most recently, the troops themselves) of anyone who is not on-board with the leftist "woke" agenda;

1c) No one is coming to save us.  If we are to be saved politically, we must do it ourselves ... starting with submitting to Christ; BUT, submitting to Christ is the one thing that most people in the world, including most Americans, will continue to refuse to do;

1b) Any "military tribunals" that may ever happen will be initiated and conducted by leftists. So, they won't be targeting pedophiles as per the promise of the tweet captured in the image;

2) In the American system, the military is subordinate to the civilian authority, and so if the "military tribunals" these fools keep going on about ever were to happen, that would prove that America no longer exists.

(*) And ending that with "Maranatha!!!" of all things!

The Race of Fishmongers

 There are two pious myths about 'race' which I detest for their falseness:

1) "One's race is the most important fact about one's self".
2) "There are no such things as races";

Leftists promulgate both myths, sometimes even simultaneously, depending on what seems advantageous at the moment.  Rightists, and especially Christian rightists, tend toward promulgating the second myth.

There two myths are pernicious not because they are mutually exclusive (for, after all, one might be correct), and only not because both are false, but also because both may have terrible real-world consequences:

1) IF it is true that "One's race is the most important fact about one's self", THEN racism is not only morally justified, but inevitable and inescapable; and perhaps not merely morally justified, but morally requisite.  This is where the leftists, in general, and the Democratic Party, in particular, have settled.  Though, in their defense, the Democrats have *always* been racists.

2) IF it is true that "There are no such things as races", THEN one is compelled to ignore what one's own lying eyes clearly see.  For instance, in medical care it is not infrequently the case that persons of some races are more susceptible to some specific diseases than to others. And thus, when one pretends that the patient's race does not exist, one may well waste time and effort -- and the patient's health, or even life -- by studiously overlooking conditions known to be more prevalent to persons of the patient's particular race. 

======= 

To quote myself from a recent post --

Firstly, the English word 'race' isn't *about* skin-color or ancestry or even about biology; it is about different ways of categorizing things or animals or people. That for about the past 150 years (i.e. since Darwinism took over the minds of the "progressives") we most commonly use the word to denote the broad continental origins of various ethnic groups doesn't change the fact that the word is not so narrow in its designations. [See below for an historical example of 'race' used in this broader, "non-racist", meaning]

Secondly, if you're distinguishing an Englishman from a Welshman, or an Igbo (called 'Ibo' in my youth) man from a Yoruba man, you are distinguishing these men based on their ethnicities -- for which distinctions the word 'race' has historically been used [despite that in presently common usage, an Englishman and a Welshman are of a common 'race', while an Igbo man and a Yoruba man are of a common 'race' different to the former].

But, what does ethnicity mean in a country like America? In the South Bend Indiana of my mother's youth (i.e. nearly a century ago), it mattered immensely whether one was "Polish" or "Hungarian". Or, it mattered not at all, if like her people, one was simply what is now disdained as "WASP". In my own youth in South Bend Indiana, some people just had difficult-to-pronounce family names.

The ethnicity of a black American and the ethnicity of a white America are singularly 'American'. Yet, sometimes, we do need to recognize the broadly continental origins of a person's ancestry.

While 'English' or 'Yoruba' are ethnicities, 'white' is not an ethnicity and 'black' is not an ethnicity. 'European' is not an ethnicity; 'African' is not an ethnicity; 'East Asian' is not an ethnicity; 'American Indian' is not an ethnicity. And so on [Nonetheless, the 'white/European' race is a real thing; and the 'black/(Sub-Saharan) African' race is a real thing; and the 'yellow/East Asian' race is a real thing; and the 'red/American Indian' race is a real thing; and the 'Australian Aborigine' race is a real thing. And so on.].

And yet, there are recognizable differences -- generally unimportant, but sometimes critical -- between a person of primarily European ancestry and a person of primarily (sub-Saharan) African ancestry. To blind ourselves with the one leftist lie that "There is no such thing as race" is as foolish and potentially harmful as to blind ourselves with the other leftist lie that "All there is is race".

=======

At the following link are English translations -- made in the 19th Century, when English-speakers more generally were not so simple-minded as in the present day -- of two ancient Greek references to "the race of fishmongers" --

"I used to think the race of fishmongers Was only insolent in Attica; But now I see that like wild beasts they are Savage by nature, everywhere the same. ..."

"But as to fishmongers, They're an inventive race, and yield to none In shameless conduct. ..."

https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2013.01.0003%3Abook%3D6%3Achapter%3D6

The supreme (*) Court and the US Constitution

(*) capitalizaton as per the US Constitution

Consider merely the Abstract of the below linked 2010 article from the Boston College Law Review ---

=="This Article challenges the prevailing doctrinal, political, and academic view that the Exceptions Clause—which provides that “the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make”—gives Congress a license to strip the Supreme [sic] Court of jurisdiction. ..."==

That is, what I have repeatedly said concerning what the US Constitution *actually* says about the true authority of the federal courts system is *already* "the prevailing doctrinal, political, and academic view [regarding] the Exceptions Clause"; to wit: "that the Exceptions Clause ... gives Congress a license to strip the Supreme [sic] Court of jurisdiction."

That the article argues *against* this "prevailing doctrinal, political, and academic view [regarding] the Exceptions Clause" does not mean that the article's position is correct or incorrect -- but it does establish that what I have long said, based on nothing more than *reading* the US Constitution, is not just me saying it. What I have said is this: that *all* federal courts, including that of the superior court of the federal courts system, are creatures of the Congress; that except for specifically enumerated cases, the jurisdiction of the federal courts extends only so far as the Congress says it extends.

What you and I were taught in high school civics class about the Constitution establishing "three co-equal branches of government" is false. It is, in fact, a lie promulgated by the "progressives" and judicial supremacists (i.e. lawyers who bend The Law to serve the interests of lawyers).

https://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/bclr/vol51/iss5/2/

Unratified or Not

Those citizens who have been around for a while may recall that back in the day, conservatives and Christians warned that the ultimate purpose of the proposed (and amusingly named) Equal Rights Amendment was to erase all distinctions between men and women. Some examples of the outrages we warned would inevitably follow from it were: lowering of standards in the police and firefighting forces and military; men "competing" in women's sports; men freely entering women's restrooms and dressing rooms.

The pervertitarians and their feminist stooges poo-pooed us. Still, enough Americans were still *citizens* (rather than subjects) that the ERA was not ratified, despite all the rule-bending efforts of Our Moral And Intellectual Superiors.

Nevertheless, in recent years, and even without the ERA, the pervertitarians and their feminist stooges have managed to brow-beat a seeming majority of Americans into accepting as somehow just "facts of nature" the outrages and more of which conservatives and Christians warned.

And feminists, with their Great Concern for the Interests and Wellbeing of Women? Well, since feminism was *always* a vehicle to advance the interests of certain powerful (and generally sexually perverted) men, today's feminists are either applauding the outrages against the interests of women, or are silent in the face of them, or are silenced if they are among the few who do venture a mild objection. But, hey! At least the "right" to murder babies is still sacrosanct!

The "alt-right" is "alternative" to conservatism because it's just more leftism

K T Cat: Ta-Nehisi's Inverse -- "In a substantive way, the Left screaming about racism is just the Left screaming at itself."

K T Cat links to a tweet by one Sissy Willis, saying --

"Vox Day says the alt-right is conservative. It’s actually an identity movement on par with Black Lives Matter, La Raza, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, & other products of @CulturalMarxism." … "

My comment -

Actually, VD emphatically denies that "alt-right" is conservative -- he *despises* conservatism [and conservatives] -- so, that's one of the few times he's honest.

And, yes indeed, "alt-right" *is* "actually an identity movement on par with Black Lives Matter, La Raza, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, & other products of @CulturalMarxism." Or, to put it another way, it's just another variant of collectivism ... which is left, not right.

The "alt-right" is just as inimical to individual liberty as any other variant of leftism is.


K T Cat: Jordan Peterson Destroys The Myth Of The Alt-Right

To paraphrase Kathy Shaidle, "It you see "alt-right" and "antifa" battling in the street, the correct response is not to pick sides, but to pray for a meteor strike."

ps: Peterson is also not a conservative, much less a Christian.

============
Donald Sensing: Mass shootings - a few relevant links

The Senate ... and The Constitution!

O.M.G. ... the US Constitution *forbids* an Amendment to create "proportional representation" in the Senate.

One may recall that the one of the drums the leftists are pounding is about how "unfair" and "undemocratic" it is that North Dakota has equal weight in the Senate with California and New York; and that they seem to imagine that they can "fix" this "problem" by decree. To which many on the right have responded to the effect that, "No, you can't do it by decree ... but you're welcome to try to amend the Constitution to get the result you desire."

Well, it turns out that the US Constitution forbids such an amendment --

ARTICLE V: The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Again: "The Congress ... [may] propose Amendments to this Constitution, ... Provided ...that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate"

So, it wouldn't be enough that California and New York might agree to deprive North Dakota of its equal vote in the Senate; North Dakota would have to explicitly agree to deprive itself of this fundamental equality as a Sovereign State of the Union.

h/t Francis W. Porretto at Liberty's Torch

The presence of that clause in Article V, the Amendment Article, excludes the equal representation of the [S]tates in the Senate from the possibility of amendment. This is beyond dispute. The Senate, in other words, was created to guarantee that each [S]tate would have a voice in the Senate equal to any other [S]tate. The electoral system for choosing a president reinforces this oft-neglected aspect of the Constitution: it was intended to protect the small [S]tates from abuses perpetrated by the large ones.

The phrase “checks and balances” should come to mind at this point. My Gentle Readers have no doubt been muttering that phrase for some time already. Lesser intellects might consider suing their civics teachers.

The Framers knew full well what they were doing. The very last passage of the Constitution emphasizes the importance of the [S]tates as elements in the Constitutional design:

ARTICLE VII: The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.

The Constitution was conceived and ratified as a compact among the [S]tates. The [S]tates retained nearly complete internal sovereignty. Their equal representation in the Senate was intended, in part, to preserve that sovereignty, the exclusions in Article I, Section 10 being the sole exceptions. This aspect of the Constitution’s design is sometimes cited as an argument for a [S]tate’s power to nullify federal laws on the grounds of federal overreach.

The federal government has done many unConstitutional and extra-Constitutional things since the Wilson Administration. Some of them have been undeniable encroachments on [S]tate sovereignty. (Where, for example, is Congress given the power to legislate a federal penal code? But that’s a subject for another day.) This latest talk - of amending a part of the Constitution explicitly protected against amendment! - merely indicates how far Americans’ knowledge of the deliberately designed-in features of our Union has slipped.

ps: Repeal the 17th Amendment!

Feser on Radical Skepticism

... and as relates to same-sex mirage --

Edward Feser (2015): Marriage and The Matrix

What it's about

Americans of Southern extraction are the single-most patriotic group in America. This is true whether their ancestors were Confederates, or, like mine, Unionists.

The leftist push to obliterate the Confederate past -- the American past -- is not about "fighting" slavery or "racism" or any of the other things the leftists claim; it is about asserting the leftist conquest of America. It is about marking America as conquered territory. It is about forcing the American people to acknowledge that they are a conquered people.

So far, our leaders and the public faces of conservatism have been quite OK with this, which rather calls into question whether they are *our* leaders and just how "conservative" they really are.

Ultimately, it will come down to this question: Do the American People agree that we are a conquered people?

=========
The target of these leftists is not the Confederacy, it is the USA.

'House of Dumb'

Periodically, I like to see where the people (or browsers) who happen to arrive at my blog came from. I just noticed a reference to a "House of Dumb" blog (the content indicates Britain, the URL indicates France). I gamely popped over (just to see what it is). I said "gamely" because I expected it to be one of the trolls, with whom I am all too familiar, who like to misrepresent, that is, lie about, the arguments I make. But, it wasn't, and I have added it to my blog-roll.

Make America Slightly Better For At Least A Little While

Criticus Ferox at Rightly Considered: Attack Until We Crack

I hope everyone has been enjoying themselves. But let’s get real now. While Trump’s victory was a tremendous achievement, the situation remains extremely grim. The election results demonstrate that basically half of the current population of America is in the grips of the left, either as zealots or complacent followers. This is the product of years of indoctrination through every major sector of American culture – the institutions of education, the arts and entertainment sectors, and the news media – which are all firmly under the control of the left. This election doesn’t change that one iota. Unless the right figures out a way to take over those institutions – something they have never done and that no one is even seriously talking about – the historic American nation is doomed. Without accomplishing that as well as dealing with the demographic issues that will tip the electorate permanently to the left, it’s far from clear that Trump will even be able to win re-election in four years, let alone put America on some kind of path to greatness. We are not even close to making America great again. The accurate campaign slogan would have instead been: Make America Slightly Better For At Least A Little While. Doesn’t have quite the same ring to it, does it? ...

Attack until we crack? No! until they do. And then attack some more.

As for separation, Hell no! This is *our* country; let's not surrender *any* of it to the leftists. They are insane, let them die in the outer darkness of their insanity.

The *reason* that for over the past century the left have been wining their culture war and destroying the historic American Nation is because the right have not been fighting back, but rather constantly retreating. Look: we rightists have been lying to ourselves, albeit with a different lie, just as much as the leftists have been lying to themselves. Their lie is: If we force everyone (except The Leaders, of course) to be slaves of The State (which is to say, The Leaders), then Utopia will arrive and everyone will be free. Our lie is: If we surrender just this one more time, then they will finally leave us alone and free to live as we see fit.

The Utopia the left's useful idiots think they want can never arrive until Christ rules directly. The peace of being left alone by leftist busybodies that we rightists want can never arrive so long as there is even one leftist in a position to impose his vision of himself as The Anointed upon anyone else.

The Republican Party

The Stupid Party Republican Party Platform (PDF format)

I'm not going to duplicate their preamble. It does start out good ... and turns into a SOTU speech. I don't mean that the statements are false, just that they become clutter.

From the platform itself:

Protecting Human Life

The Constitution’s guarantee that no one can “be deprived of life, liberty or property” deliberately echoes the Declaration of Independence’s proclamation that “all” are “endowed by their Creator” with the inalienable right to life. Accordingly, we assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to children before birth.

We oppose the use of public funds to perform or promote abortion or to fund organizations, like Planned Parenthood, so long as they provide or refer for elective abortions or sell fetal body parts rather than provide healthcare. We urge all states and Congress to make it a crime to acquire, transfer, or sell fetal tissues from elective abortions for research, and we call on Congress to enact a ban on any sale of fetal body parts. In the meantime, we call on Congress to ban the practice of misleading women on so-called fetal harvesting consent forms, a fact revealed by a 2015 investigation. We will not fund or subsidize healthcare that includes abortion coverage.

We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life. We oppose the non-consensual withholding or withdrawal of care or treatment, including food and water, from individuals with disabilities, newborns, the elderly, or the infirm, just as we oppose euthanasia and assisted suicide. [and on and on]

And it does go on and on and on.

So, bad as the Republicans have become in recent years, they are still officially opposed to the Abortion Regime. BUT -- and the reason for my "[and on and on]" summation -- the Republicans are not really conservative, and they are not really for a return to the Rule of Law of the US Constitution. Look at what I have quoted above: "We will not fund or subsidize healthcare that includes abortion coverage" Under the US Constitution, it assuredly is not the place of the Federal government to "fund or subsidize healthcare" period, irrespective of the false inclusion of abortion as "healthcare".

As you can see for yourself by reading on from what I have quoted, the Republican Party isn't really opposed to feminism, and thus is not really opposed to leftism; for feminism *is* leftism. The Republicans, like "conservatives" in general, express their surrender to feminism by their abject refusal to hold any women accountable for anything she has chosen to do ... and by their vicious attacking of any man who dares even to suggest that women are moral agents equally with men. No matter what, no matter how many lives are destroyed, women must always be the "victims" (of men) in need of rescue. All this does is guarantee that huge numbers of women continue to make destructive choices.

The Conservative Party

Platform

PREAMBLE
The Conservative Party firmly embraces in the concept of American Exceptionalism. America is a country of a distinguished founding, unique historical experience and has a grand path to the future. We also believe the United States has contributed more to the political, economic and financial betterment of the human condition than any previous collection of nations. The Conservative Party’s Platform affirms this belief.

OFFICIAL PLATFORM ...

A concise preamble; there is something to be said for that.

Also, the specific bullet-point items of their platform are good.

The Constitution Party

Platform and Resolutions

We declare the platform of the Constitution Party to be predicated on the principles of

THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE,
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES,
AND THE BILL OF RIGHTS,

according to the original intent of the Founding Fathers. These founding documents are the foundation of our Liberty and the Supreme Law of the Land.

The sole purpose of government, as stated in the Declaration of Independence, is to secure our unalienable rights given us by our Creator. When Government grows beyond this scope, it is usurpation, and liberty is compromised.

We believe the major issues we face today are best solved by a renewed allegiance to the original intent of these founding documents.

Amen.

Platform, Preamble

The Constitution Party gratefully acknowledges the blessing of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as Creator, Preserver and Ruler of the Universe and of these United States. We hereby appeal to Him for mercy, aid, comfort, guidance and the protection of His Providence as we work to restore and preserve these United States.

This great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions but on a foundation of Christian principles and values. For this very reason peoples of all faiths have been and are afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.

The goal of the Constitution Party is to restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations and to limit the federal government to its Constitutional boundaries.

The Constitution of the United States provides that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” The Constitution Party supports the original intent of this language. Therefore, the Constitution Party calls on all those who love liberty and value their inherent rights to join with us in the pursuit of these goals and in the restoration of these founding principles.

The U.S. Constitution established a Republic rooted in Biblical law, administered by representatives who are constitutionally elected by the citizens. In such a Republic all Life, Liberty and Property are protected because law rules.

We affirm the principles of inherent individual rights upon which these United States of America were founded:

* That each individual is endowed by his Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are the rights to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness;
* That the freedom to own, use, exchange, control, protect, and freely dispose of property is a natural, necessary and inseparable extension of the individual’s unalienable rights;
* That the legitimate function of government is to secure these rights through the preservation of domestic tranquility, the maintenance of a strong national defense, and the promotion of equal justice for all;
* That history makes clear that left unchecked, it is the nature of government to usurp the liberty of its citizens and eventually become a major violator of the people’s rights; and
* That, therefore, it is essential to bind government with the chains of the Constitution and carefully divide and jealously limit government powers to those assigned by the consent of the governed.

Like the frogs of Egypt

Another good one from Douglas Wilson: The Ponies Are Free

No Truce With the Left

Daniel Greenfield: No Truce With the Left

There comes a time when every conservative thinker tries to find some common ground with the left in some area. Today it's criminal rights and the headlines have Rand Paul denouncing the racist justice system while Grover Norquist and the Koch Brothers join with the left to back their reforms. As usually happens, the conservatives or libertarians turn out to be the useful idiots of the left.

Liberals have a long history of being the left's useful idiots. It's only fair that libertarians get a turn.

...

To understand the left, you need to remember that it does not care about 99 percent of the things it claims to care about. Name a leftist cause and then find a Communist country that actually practiced it. Labor unions? Outlawed. Environmentalism? Chernobyl. The left fights all sorts of social and political battles not because it believes in them, but to radicalize, disrupt and take power.

The left does not care about social justice. It cares about power.

That is why no truce is possible with the left. Not on social issues. Not on any issues.

The left is a drunk in a bar trying to pick a fight with you. Trying to convince him that you didn't disrespect him, put something in his beer to make him dizzy or make his feet so heavy won't work. There's no 'agree to disagree' possible here. He's picking a fight with you because he wants a fight.

The left does not care about Bruce Jenner. It does not care about gay rights, equal pay, police brutality or even slavery. Its activists 'care' about those things a great deal right now, but they could easily be persuaded tomorrow to be outraged by telephone poles, shredded wheat or people in green sweaters.

They care mainly about emotional venting and exercising power over others. It's the same phenomenon witnessed during the Salem Witch Trials, the French Revolution or any other mob scene. Except the individual elements of the mob are on social media and have a hashtag.

The outraged social justice warrior was laughing at tranny jokes a few years ago. Now he's ready to kill over minor verbal missteps. A few years from now he'll be laughing at them again.

She's 'hot'

*Warning, there is a crude word employed in this post; it's the one that women really, really hate*

So entrenched in our culture is the leftist anti-ethos of the so-called Sexual Revolution that even people who like to think themselves opposed to it (and to leftism in general) generally will not see its vile effects, even when directly brought to their attention ... and will, in fact, defend those vile effects (because you can't have the promised sexual "freedom" without the vile effects).

The Other McCain has a recent post called Men Cannot Be Feminists. And while his post is worth reading, what I wish to bring to Gentle Reader's attention is in the comments -- Quoting RSM, I observed:

McCain: "[By the dogmas of femiinism] ... Under no condition should “female sexuality”ever make men happy."

Ilíon: "Unfortunately, relatively normal women *also* think like this. Why do you think they chop off their hair?"

Now, as sure as the sun will rise in the morning, *any* comment by a mere man that can be taken as lacking in full-throated praise for *any* decision that *any* woman makes is going to ruffle the feathers of two groups of people: 1) women who will not abide the implication that women are sinners, just like men; and, 2) men who will not abide the implication that women are sinners, just like men.

On the particular topic of women's hair, or, to be more precise, men's preferences about women's hair, Gentle Reader may recall the reaction to Drew's post, Women's hair. So, if you've been around the block, you just know something similar is going to happen.

And, sure enough: DeadMessenger: "Hmph. Because that crap is hot all summer when it's hanging in your face and on your neck. And also sometimes you have to cut it off when it gets damaged because of chemical processing or sun.

But of course, I myself look frisky and pixie-ish when my hair is short, and exotic and mysterious when it's long, but either way, I'm smokin' hot, buddy."

First, notice that -- just as with Drew -- I didn't say that women can't have their hair short. As Drew explicitly did, I implicitly said that we men enjoy women's hair long. And I expressed the conviction that (one of the main reasons) they chop it off is to deprive us of that pleasure.

Now, isn't it odd that "that crap is hot all summer when it's hanging in your face and on your neck" doesn't seem to bother the average woman until *after* a man has committed his life to her maintenance? Apparently, when a woman is trying the *get* the attention (and commitment, let us not forget) of some poor sap of a man, the horrible discomfort seems to be a minor thing, becoming unbearable only at some ill-defined time after the nuptials.

How, oh how, did our great-grandmothers ever survive -- before air-conditioning -- when even long-married women kept their hair long?

It's almost as though someone had dis-invented putting your hair *up* -- which, incidentally, *also* gives pleasure to men, because then we can see your necks.

As for the other proffered excuse for chopping off their hair, "also sometimes you have to cut it off when it gets damaged because of chemical processing or sun" -- did *we* ask women to destroy their hair with chemicals, or to fry it in the sun (where the intense light reacts with the chemicals they've put on it?) Of course not? So, why do they do it? Because they are competing with one another in a game of their own devising to "prove" who has more "sex appeal" -- with, of course, no input allowed from the ostensible targets of the cut-throat competition. Really, it's the same Queen Bee competition they were having in junior high school.

A guy replied to 'DeadMessenger': Steve Skubinna: "Well, yeah, but he wasn't talking about you.

It's those other women. And uh, by "other women" I am not implying, er...

Okay, this is me, shutting up now." I *think* this guy is craftily pointing out the near-universal antipathy women have for any man expressing a manly opinion about the sexes.

Concerning hair, I replied to 'DeadMessenger': "A woman's long hair shouts *WOMAN* to us men. And, on some level, women do understand something of the effect their long hair has on us, how much we enjoy it. This is why when a relatively normal woman decides to start pushing her man away, one of the first things she'll do is chop off her hair."

I witnessed this with one of my nieces. She had a good (albeit not perfect) man, who had committed his life to supporting not only her and their child, but also her two older children by other men (*). But, then she got bored with domesticity and decided to destroy her marriage. I realized where she was headed when she chopped off her hair (which wasn't all that long, in any event), ostensibly to donate it to be made into wigs for children experiencing the effects of chemo-therapy.


There was a second sub-topic that arose from my initial comment, and this is really the main topic of this post. Recall, at the start of this post, I said

So entrenched in our culture is the leftist anti-ethos of the so-called Sexual Revolution that even people who like to think themselves opposed to it (and to leftism in general) generally will not see its vile effects, even when directly brought to their attention ... and will, in fact, defend those vile effects (because you can't have the promised sexual "freedom" without the vile effects).

Recall the comment from DeadMessenger: "But of course, I myself look frisky and pixie-ish when my hair is short, and exotic and mysterious when it's long, but either way, I'm smokin' hot, buddy."

I replied: "No man *ever* describes any woman he loves or respects as "hot", much less "smokin' hot"."

For witness, I call Gentle Reader's attention to this (vile) commercial for 'Hot Pockets' -- the reaction of the brother of "Hot Sister Lisa" is intelligible *only* because what I said is true: "No man *ever* describes any woman he loves or respects as "hot", much less "smokin' hot"" -- to call a woman "hot" is to say, "consider this woman as though she were merely a cunt-on-legs"

QuarterMaster replied: "The hottest woman in the world is the one who accepts your love and returns it with the same intensity."

I replied: "Sure. And the "hotter" that love, the less a man will use "hot" to describe it."

QuarterMaster replied: "Perhaps you will. Others have a different opinion."

I replied: "Do you really go around telling other men that your S.O. is "smokin' hot"? Assuming you have any, do you describe daughter or sister that way? If some guy were to say to you, concerning your daughter or sister (whom he did not know is your daughter or sister), "Man! Will you look at that "smokin' hot" babe!", are you *really* going to react as though he had not expressed great disrespect toward her?"

QuarterMaster replied: "I would then tell him "that's my wife.""

I replied: "I expect you would, as most people would, for that is the culturally accepted/expected rebuke when someone refers to a woman one loves-and-respects as "smokin' hot"."

QuarterMaster replied: "It wouldn't be a rebuke, however."

I replied: "Nowww I get it: you *will not* admit the truth on this."

And then I decided to share all this with my Reader, because I think the whole exchange is a good illustration of something I am always harping on -- conservatives will never be able to effectively oppose leftism until they free their minds of the leftist assumptions in which we are all marinated almost from birth.

QuarterMaster's hypothetical response to someone hypothetically calling his wife "hot" makes no sense except:
1) as a rebuke;
2) as a trophy-boast;
3) as a combination of both.

I turned on the TV in my hotel room the other day and briefly landed on Cedric The Entertainer's show (I think it's called 'Soul Man'). An older man (Cedric's character's father, I think) had gone to his daughter-in-law's (Cedric's character's wife, I think) beauty shop to get a hair cut (singular, that being part of the humor) because "the barber shop" had closed down. Then, a couple of his buddies from "the barber shop" came in and started chatting-up Cedric's character's wife before her father-in-law had completely introduced her. That is, he had told them her name and that she owned the shop, but he hadn't yet said, "she's my son's wife". And when he *did* say, "she's my son's wife", the meaning of it is clear to all of us: "don't talk to her, or about her, in that manner"


Edit 2015/05/18:
Consider, again, 'QuarterMaster's' claim that if some guy were to say of his wife, "Man! Will you look at that "smokin' hot" babe!", he'd reply to the guy, "That's my wife" and that it wouldn't be meant as a rebuke to the guy for talking about his wife in that manner.

Why is 'QuarterMaster' able to pretend that? He's able to pretend it for precisely the reason I gave and that 'QuarterMaster' is disputing: "... for that is the culturally accepted/expected rebuke when someone refers to a woman one loves-and-respects as "smokin' hot"."

Now, for whatever his need to dispute what I'd said and to pretend that his hypothetical response to the hypothetical comment about his wife would not be meant as a rebuke, the fact remains that the guy is going to understand the response as a rebuke. And he's going to stop talking like that about the woman (whom another man has implicitly asserted is deserving of respectful treatment), and will probably try to apologize profusely.

But, what if he doesn't? What if, like 'QuarterMaster', the guy also pretends that that response to that comment is not a rebuke? What if he keeps talking about 'QuarterMaster's' wife in that manner? Does anyone *really* think 'QuarterMaster' is going continue to pretend that that manner of talking about a woman he cares about is just harmless banter, rather than extreme disrespect?


===================
(*) By the way, loving other men's children comes easier to men than loving other women's children comes to women. Why do you think that the folk-lore "wicked step-mother" was invented (by women, let it be noted), but not the "wicked step-father"?

Why it it so difficult to comprehend?

Here is an email I have tried to send to an on-line magazine which is part of Conservatism, Inc. I don't expect this to be seen by an actual human being, or if it is, to be given any consideration.

When I click on the links to the excellent articles and analysis that [entity] provides, advertisements are thrown at me -- degrading my bandwidth and taking over my sound system -- and so I close the window ... having not read the excellent article and analysis.

In the near future, I expect that I will instruct my email to automatically send all emailings from [entity] into the "junk mail" folder.

My question this: why it it so difficult to comprehend that trying to take over your potential readers' browers is the best way to turn potential readers into non-readers?

I long ago stopped bothering with the Conservatism, Inc entity called National Review Online precisely for this reason, even before their editors made it so publicly clear that they were more concerned with "respectability", as defined by leftists, than with opposing and turning back leftism.

Why is it so difficult to comprehend that if the advertising at a website – or on a television network – drives away the eyeballs and eardrums, then the website (or network) merely ends up cutting its own throat?

For example, the *reason* that broadcast television is floundering isn't due to cable television, it's because 20 or more minutes of every hour is commercials (and the same damned ones, over and over and over).

For example, the *reason* that cable television is floundering isn't due to "alternate choices", it's because 20 or more minutes of every hour is commercials (and the same damned ones, over and over and over).


For example, the *reason* that Hulu is going to be floundering in the not too distant future isn't due to "X, Y and Z", it's because there are too many commercials (and the same damned ones, over and over and over ... including even after you have indicated that you don't want to see a specific one again).

Reclaming the future

... or, Reclaiming your people and your future from the Culture of Death --

Alan Roebuck (at The Orthosphere): Advice to the Single Young Man (in spite of his reference to "game" and the "manosphere", it's a good read)