Political Correctness is the arch-enemy of truth, justice, and rationality.

Congratulations! You’ve found the Third Rail blog.

Censorship is alive and well. The vast majority of it comes from the left, from so-called “progressives.” An unexpected legacy of my generation’s ‘Free Speech’ movement, perhaps? As they say, “the road to hell is paved with good intentions.”

Support this blog site, stand up for real free speech, not just politically correct free speech. Become a follower and contribute to the discussions. Thank you.

Saturday, October 6, 2018

A Cuck Wakes Up


by Marcus Clintonius
Prior to the eleventh hour attempt by feminists to derail Kavanaugh’s confirmation, they were looking at a judge who paid more than lip service to women’s concerns. Yes, he is unquestionably conservative, but he gave feminists good reason for optimism that he would be solicitous to their concerns.
During his initial hearing he spent an inordinate amount of time pandering to women, waxing effusively about how many female clerks he has appointed, his engagement with his daughters and how much pleasure he gets out of coaching their basketball team. Plus, ignoring his father, he praised his mom to high heaven, counting her as his life’s greatest inspiration.
The man clearly wanted it known that he is a friend to women and by extension, to women’s issues.
Then came the allegations of sexual assault, designed to stall the nomination (or kill it) until after the mid-term elections.

Once Christine Blasey Ford’s nebulous allegations surfaced, it took scant hours before other “victims” came forward with their own tales of Kavanaugh devilish sexual behavior.
Well, it didn’t work. And after trashing the man’s reputation, potentially destroying his career if the confirmation failed (Harvard had already notified him that he couldn’t teach his scheduled spring class), not to mention the harm to his family – what have they achieved?
Unless the laws of cause and effect have been repealed, we now have a transformed Judge Kanavaugh. We now have a man who has seen the face of feminism up close and personal. He has now felt the sting of what countless other men have endured: the enormous destructive power of allegations of sexual assault. Not much different than what men going through a contentious divorce have been screaming about for decades—but nobody pays attention to divorced dads. A judicial system that treats men accused of “domestic abuse” in child custody and divorce cases as guilty based solely on her allegations and claims of “fear.” Nor do cases of falsely accused college men register any hue and cry from the ever-vigilant news media. A student found guilty of sexual assault by a Title IX kangaroo court hearing counts himself lucky if he escapes merely with expulsion and a college tuition-sized legal bill.
Now this plague has migrated all the way down to K-12. Not even primary and middle-school boys are safe from malicious accusations by schoolgirls—because “girls don’t make things up, so he must be doing something.”
And now this club of maliciously persecuted males has a new member: one Judge Brett Kanavaugh.
Congratulations, feminists. You now have a truly “woke” conservative man on the Supreme Court. Any hope of a pro-feminist “cuckservative” to possibly lean in your direction on your critical issues has been pissed away. Good work! I eagerly anticipate a constitutional challenge to Title IX or VAWA, or the next victim of a “mattress girl” who chooses not to settle and makes it all the way to “Kavanaugh's Kourt.”
# # #

Friday, September 28, 2018

Victim-Feminism on Trial at Kavanaugh Hearing

by Marcus Clintonius

This is written in response to U.S. Senator Maizie Hironi (HI), who told me that, as a man, I should "Just shut up."




Mao Zedong said that power comes out of the barrel of a gun. Today, power comes from one’s membership in a victim group.
The attempt to derail Brett Kavanaugh’s appointment to the Supreme Court is being attributed, correctly, to Democrats’ mortal fear that he will tip the balance of power in the court to the right and realize the sum of all their fears. To wit, the overturning of the radical social agenda they have enacted over the last sixty years through judicial fiat—landmark decisions from “their” courts—not from the will of the people through their elected representatives. And ultimately, reversing their sacred talisman: Roe v. Wade.
I feel their pain. And I sympathize with their decision to cast caution and decency to the wind in a last ditch attempt to prevent Kavanaugh’s confirmation. It’s worth a shot. There’s a slim hope that the complexion of Congress will change in their favor after the mid-terms. If they take the Senate they can effectively veto any further SCOTUS nominations. If they take the House, which is more likely, they get a shot at the brass ring ... impeaching Trump.
I get it. It’s war. I felt the same way about Mitch McConnell’s blocking of Merrick Garland. Wholly unjustifiable from any rational measuring stick—but by God I’m glad he did it!
It’s war. From my perspective, without a conservative majority on the Supreme Court to right the ship-of-state, we’re doomed. I hate to admit—but it’s a case of the ends justifying the means.
It’s war. Survival is what’s at stake.
* * *
After Thursday’s (9/27) Judiciary Committee hearing the matter has devolved to pure he said / she said. Both Kavanaugh and his accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, claimed to be “100 percent certain” in their respective claims. He, that the event did not happen; she, that it did. One is lying—and as has been pointed out, since they were testifying under oath, guilty of a felony. A criminal prosecution could be pursued, in either direction.
If the event did happen more or less as described by Ms. Ford, it should not disqualify Kavanaugh. I submit that there a very few men who don’t have a single episode in their past that today would be construed as “sexual misconduct.” Seventeen-year-old boys and 15-year-old girls are at that crazy period of life where they grapple with often contradictory perceived notions of appropriate sexual behavior. “Appropriate” not in terms of adult society’s norms as encoded in law and public policy—but in the sense of peer pressure and expectations.
Feminists have been successfully rewriting the rules of engagement for decades. The MeToo movement is just the latest skirmish in the war of the sexes. It hasn’t been “weaponized,” as some pundits are now arguing—MeToo is a weapon, and was always intended as one! The ultimate goal is to grant to women the sole power to decide when sex happens. This would be a strange world—one that I don’t think would be biologically feasible for very long. What would happen to the alpha males? Presumably, they would all be incarcerated...
Did someone say “sexual politics? Of course it’s about power. Sixty-plus years ago one of a young woman’s objectives in going to college was to meet a husband. Ten years later it might’ve been to lose her virginity. But now thanks to the relentless pursuit of “sexual agency,” as you read this, somewhere a 17-year-old girl is counting down the days to her 18th birthday so she can make a porno video. 
Both men and women imbibe alcohol and take drugs at parties and “gatherings” specifically to diminish their inhibitions with the goal of hooking up: getting sex. I know this may come as a shock, but girls also go to parties and bars to get laid.
Kavanaugh’s third accuser claims that he attended parties where they spiked the punch to make unsuspecting girls pliant for gang raping in a separate room. What a ridiculous characterization of drinking parties! The notion of girls going to parties and being duped into drinking spiked punch—apparently not realizing that it contains alcohol and yet continuing to drink it—and then because of their “diminished capacity” succumbing to a sex “train” with boys lined up outside the room—hence, becoming rape victims—is absurd. And how credible is this woman’s testimony? The supposed gang rape activity was not an isolated event, she says, but routine at these parties. Yet she continued to go to them. Isn’t that odd?
* * *
As I watched Ms. Ford—er, I mean, Dr. Ford—I have to confess, she seemed believable. But I’m a man, and I’m hard-wired to react to a woman’s tears. I cannot trust my judgment. Women have a much better radar to see through feminine guile. Her meek and shy demeanor didn’t match what I’d expect from a college professor. Speaking of ... her field is clinical psychology... you know, those arbiters of normalcy that gave us "recovered memories" and exposed the satanic ritual child abusers lurking in day care centers... and gifted us with the “self-esteem movement” that is damaging our children to this very day. They also happen to be the segment of the population that is most likely to be in therapy themselves. Frankly, Dr. Ford... I’ll reserve judgment.
But what really aggravates me is the right-wing political class refusing to call out what is at work in this latest Culture War skirmish. The Republicans are pretending that the use of phony allegations of sexual misconduct is just one of many tactics employed by Democrats to bring down a politician or sabotage a political initiative. One of many arrows in their quiver; one that just happens to be the most effective one against Kavanaugh.
It isn’t. It’s a deadly contagion that destroys reputations, careers, and even the lives—of men and boys.
Par for the course, so far it is only female conservative pundits that have the cojones to call out the victim-feminist plague of sexual harassment, sexual assault, and rape lies. Count among them Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, and Michele Malkin, heroines all.
§  The phony “2% rate of false rape allegations” statistic that doesn’t even exist.
§  The “rape culture” canard.
§  The pathetic “mattress girl” from Columbia U.
§  The disgraceful criminalizing and slandering of the Duke Lacrosse team.
Even solid criminologist researcher Heather Mac Donald avers. She claims it is the PC identity-politics lunacy afflicting college campuses writ large on society and the body politic that’s to blame. Which of course is true, but it still avoids condemning the specific root disease at work: victim-feminism, which is neither confined to PC University nor originated in it.
False allegations of sexual misconduct don’t have their origin in our fully-feminized college campuses. It’s been going on since the dawn of time. Prostitution may be the world’s oldest profession—but a scorned woman bearing false witness to destroy a man is primordial. Remember Jezebel?  Granted, it probably ran at a more-or-less constant pace throughout history, but since the emergence of feminism in the waning decades of the 20th century it has metastasized to reach into every domain of interaction between the sexes.
* * *
For decades, untold numbers of innocent men have seen their lives turned upside-down and their children stolen from them due to the depredations of domestic violence regimes that reign in our divorce courts. Subject to the lowest evidentiary standard—preponderance of the evidence—judges always rule in favor of female plaintiffs seeking protection from their “abuser” husband or boyfriend. This “protection” extends, naturally, to what now become “her” children. This is all achieved by a hearsay allegation, in which the man is presumed guilty and has to prove his innocence. In Massachusetts, every court has a designated “Victim Witness Advocate” whose job it is to coach women seeking “abuse protection” orders on exactly what to say to the judge.
Debra Katz, Ms. Ford’s attorney, first insisted that her client give her testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee only after Kavanaugh gave his. Clearly, this attorney has experience representing victims of domestic violence and sexual assault. This is right out of the victim-feminist playbook. Don’t let the accused know what he is charged with until he is called to defend himself. Stalin would feel right at home.
The very foundation of criminal law—the presumption of innocence—is discarded with nary a second glance. This new, enlightened and improved brand of justice is referred to as “feminist jurisprudence.” It’s a morally superior form of justice which recognizes that women must be shown deference if they are “victims” of male sexual misconduct, above and beyond any outdated, clichéd notions of due process. It trumps the narrow, patriarchal, vertical-thinking of dead white-male legal philosophers and scholars.
Thousands of men find themselves on the business end of this “gender justice” every day in courts across the country. Yet this ongoing travesty of justice never makes it to the marketplace of public opinion. Squelched by the news media, denied by the legals in the profession, and buried in academe—it doesn’t exist.
This war on fatherhood, that separates men from their children, is the primary cause of most if not all of our social pathologies—certainly in the African-American community where over 60 percent of children are raised without their father in the home.
It was in divorce courts that women first realized that to accuse a man of violence, sexual or otherwise, bestows an immediate aura of sainthood, where anything she claims will be believed because she is a “survivor.”
* * *
The power of female victimhood has migrated all the way down to grade schools. An article about a middle-school boy who was suspended and arrested for sexual harassment, “with allegations about as credible as the ones brought against Kavanaugh,” motivated a fed-up mom to write a scathing essay detailing her own family’s experiences. She also lived in Colorado Springs, the locale of the news story, and her sons also experienced horrific bullying from a gang of girls who also made up ridiculous lies about her sons. The charges were greeted as gospel by the school administrators because, as she was told, “girls don’t make things up, so he must be doing something.”
Her revulsion is best summed up in these words: “I can’t begin to express my horror and disgust at this. I have no words, just a profound depression. This is not just wrong. This is evil. Straight up evil.”
Every parent of young children should read Sarah Hoyt’s essay, which can be found on pjmedia.com: “When Every Boy is Guilty, Every Girl Becomes a Monster.” (https://pjmedia.com/trending/when-every-boy-is-guilty-every-girl-becomes-a-monster/)
It’s terrifying, and should serve as a warning to every parent with boys.
The news article that inspired her, “Boy, 13, arrested, cuffed and dragged from school over #MeToo allegations” can be found at dangerous.com.
(https://www.dangerous.com/49605/boy-13-arrested-cuffed-and-dragged-from-school-over-metoo-allegations/)
* * *
The unwillingness of conservatives—and particularly male conservatives—to call bullshit on victim-feminism and its garbage social “science,” has now confronted them front-and-center. Brett Kavanaugh, their hopeful to finally tip the balance of power in the highest court in the land and set the nation back on a path to normalcy—just doesn’t get it.
From the start, in a pathetic attempt to pull an end-run around the certain opposition from the feminist quarter fearing a reversal of Roe v. Wade, he front-loaded his charm offensive by proclaiming his reverence to all things female. Incessantly boasting of the many female clerks he hired, and gushing over the joys of raising daughters and coaching girls on their basketball team—and oh by the way did I tell you about how my mother’s professional achievements as a judge served as my inspiration to also enter law?—his obeisance was all for naught.

And still, as his list of victims and sex crimes grows daily, he doubled-down on his fealty to feminism in a tightly-scripted interview with Martha McCullum on FoxNews (Mon. 9/24). With no hint of shame, he boasted of keeping his virginity till “many years” after entering college. What a Boy Scout! Surely, no one could believe that such a 17-year-old beta male would grope a 15-year-old girl at a party where alcohol was flowing?
Part of me feels like he’s getting what he deserves. He’s proved himself to be a true “cuck,” in Red Pill parlance. Maybe if he makes it through and this whole tawdry affair turns him into an angry white male, he’ll actually grow a pair and rule accordingly when feminist issues come before the court. One can only hope.

* * *

Thursday, August 23, 2018

Mollie Tibbetts' Tweet


Apologies up front for this post which will appear insensitive to Mollie Tibbetts’ family and friends coming so soon after the tragedy, but it isn’t intentional.

This tragedy is now fodder for political posturing from all sides—which is inevitable. And now a tweet from Mollie from December last year, “I hate white people,” has come to light.

I write what follows to add the proper background, not Fakenews, so that anyone who decides to contribute to the politicizing will be armed with this information. Images of the tweet are provided to show the complete Dec 12, 2017 twitter feed up to August 21 when her killer was found, when the feed becomes filled with troll tweets (not shown; but link included). Also included is the image of the tweet from Simran Jeet Singh (handle: “@SikhProf”) that Mollie is commenting on.






Background:

In November last year Democrat Doug Jones narrowly defeated Republican Roy Moore in the Alabama U.S. Senate special election.

Roy Moore was vilified by the Left, media and Democrats in general, because of his highly publicized legal tangles with federal courts in defense of anti-Christian, anti-South initiatives, first as a judge and then as a contender for the Senate seat. He soundly defeated his Republican opponent Luther Strange in the primary, though he was supported by Trump. Strange was the incumbent, appointed upon Jeff Sessions vacating the seat to join the Trump administration as Attorney General.

During the run-up to the election accusations emerged from a woman who claimed that Moore approached her in a courthouse in 1979 when she was 14. At the time Moore was 32 and a district attorney. He got her phone number and a week later had a sexual encounter with her. Three other women came forward with similar claims when they were aged between 16 and 18 during the same time. The left-wing MSM was 100 percent against him, as were many Republicans. Roy Moore became the Left’s poster boy for virtually all of their identity politics-based crusades. He stood for everything they hate. He was an unapologetic champion for Christianity, opposed to gay marriage, and vilified as racist, “homophobic,” “Islamophobic,” etc,

On the day of the election, Mollie posted a tweet that included a re-tweet from Simran Jeet Singh showing a bar graph of the breakdown of the vote by race and sex. It showed that 72% of white men and 63% of white women voted for Moore, while 93% of black men and 98% of black women voted against him, for Doug Jones.

Mollie’s four-word comment was “I hate white people”.

It is doubtful than anyone in her college supported Moore, and the special election probably provided the rallying cry du jour on campus... students led by faculty, presumably.

“I hate white people” is now a meme. It wasn’t started by Mollie Tibbetts. Her tweet only reached one friend who responded twice. Total of four comments, two from her friend, two replies from Mollie to her.

Proclaiming hatred of whites is indeed a meme. Most recently it became newsworthy when it was revealed that the New York Times hired a woman (Sarah Jeong) to their editorial board who had a history of tweets proclaiming her hatred of whites, especially white men.

When the New York Times decided to stand by their new hire, it became clear that it is now socially and politically acceptable to express hatred for whites. Where we go from here is anybody’s guess.

Mollie’s tweet could’ve been made by any of thousands of white college students—that’s called self-othering, btw. Demonizing whites is now an ingredient in our enculturation—not just in the academy but also the popular culture. That’s the reality.  

# # #

— Marcus Clintonius

Friday, August 10, 2018

Sarah Jeong and Why The Civil War Has Already Begun



Marcus Clintonius
August 10, 2018

We’re fond of saying, “If the Left didn’t have double standards, they wouldn’t have any standards at all.” ... and they never fail to give us fresh opportunities to do so.
The most recent example is the social media tweets of Sarah Jeong, recently hired to the editorial board at The New York Times.
It would be remiss to not include some of the tweets before the commentary ... most are already familiar with them but just in case ... here are a few of her greatest hits:
·         Dumbass fucking white people marking up the internet with their opinions like dogs pissing on fire hydrants
·         Are white people genetically predisposed to burn faster in the sun, thus logically being only fit to live underground like groveling goblins
·         oh man it’s kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men
·         #CancelWhitePeople
·         (Replying to “@anildash”)
anyways my point is that we should kill all men *prior* to removing the state from marriage as an institution
·         (Replying to “@UUJames”)
mostly it’s been very very very funny. my fave part was when someone pointed out “kill all bad men” still kills all instances of men
·         (Replying to “@jilliancyork”)
kill more men
There’s more, some attacking white women and cops, but the above show the gist of it. Jeong hates white men and doesn’t feel there’s any need to hide it despite her climbing public profile. When backed into a corner for an apology she claimed that (repeat after me) the tweets were taken out of context, and, they were instances of her “counter-trolling” vicious tweets from the other side that she was responding to (an outright lie).
By the way, the bolding in the tweets is original, not added by me for emphasis.
The most straightforward approach to showing why this is unacceptable is to simply replace the identity being disparaged with any one of the “protected” classes: women, blacks, homosexuals, Muslims, transgenders, the all-purpose “People of Color,” etc.
But there is a problem with this. Candace Owens actually tried it substituting “blacks” and “Jews.” The tweets were promptly censored.
I, for instance, cannot play the game here and replace “white” with “black” or “men” with “fags.” Much as I would like to, there would be serious consequences for me. Nothing would hit home more than seeing these vile messages repeated word-for-word but directed at any of the established “victim” groups. The toxic hatred would be inescapable, and presumably, inexcusable. So, please use your imagination and read them to yourself silently, choosing whichever protected class label you like.
* * *
Most would expect that with such clear evidence of racial and gender animus any business, public or private, would recognize the liability on their hands and let the employee go.
But no.
Defense for Jeong came not just from throughout the left-wing blogosphere and social media, but also from her new employer: the Old Gray Lady herself, the New York Times.
How can these tweets and attitudes possibly be defended, you might ask? Here’s the Left’s reasons why Sarah Jeong’s tweets should not be cause for her to be labeled a “racist,” “bigot,” etc., and let go from her NYT gig.
The standard riff goes like this: Racism isn’t racism unless it’s practiced by a group that wields power. It is the combination of hatred plus power that makes racism. By definition, only whites can be guilty of racism—likewise only heterosexual men can be sexists.
Here’s how CNN commentator Symone Sanders put it on CNN Tonight with Don Lemon:
" ... being racist is not just prejudice, it's prejudice plus power. So one could argue that some of her tweets, even without context, note that she has a prejudice, perhaps, against white men. But that, in fact, does not make her racist. I don't think she's a racist."

This was after she first tried justifying it by attacking those that exposed the tweets, and then by employing the standard “context” excuse:
“No, I don’t think Sarah’s tweets are racist. Look, first of all, I think it’s important to note that these tweets were dug up by a right-wing — it’s not even conservative. It was a right-wingers [sic], people that identify with the white supremacist ideology and they were taken out of context,”  
You can google all day long on “Sarah Jeong tweets” and find an unlimited number of liberal progressives defending Jeong in a similar manner, often with confident erudition and “in-depth analysis.”
If racism can be excused by adding a condition of power, specifically, “white privilege,” why can’t it be qualified by other conditions?
Actual historical racism hasn’t been justified simply on the basis of “I hate {fill in the group of choice}.” It’s been justified based on some specific undesirable feature of the group:
They follow a false god.  They have cultural practices which clearly mark them as less developed than us. They are mentally inferior, and so on. And to be sure, also: their skin is darker than ours.
Other than the last example, in what way is, “They have power,” different than the other “justifications”?
What other qualifiers can we conjure to justify racism? With our advances in biology and the understanding of the human genome, shouldn’t we be concerned about “special-casing” racism?

Why is it okay to demonize a group because you claim they hold special political and cultural advantages, but not because they don’t believe in your god? Or because ironclad statistical evidence shows that they are more prone to violence? Why shouldn’t we re-institute racial profiling in policing because blacks commit murder at 4 to 5 times the rate of whites? Or, for the same reason, impose race-dependent restrictions on gun ownership? How about advocating for a higher income tax rate for women because they account for the lion’s share of government handouts? I’m sure any of these would go over well. 
* * *
This de-facto double standard is a problem. This is a big problem. If a line isn’t drawn here and now on Sarah Jeong, we may pass the point of no return.
The Left is on the verge of establishing that hatred toward whites, and white men in particular, is excusable—despite violating any rules or laws that should apply on paper. Going from excusable to acceptable is a hand-wave away.
Your local college/university has a strict set of regulations governing proscribed speech and behavior that may be considered offensive to any of an ever-growing list of “protected classes.”  This list includes race, naturally. Yet every college includes curricula and hold seminars on “white privilege”—which is an explicit violation of their own codes. Yet no one sees fit to challenge them—or if they do, they are ‘shushed.’ The white self-flagellation show must go on. On the college campus it is invariably led by white professors—women and men.

These self-same, self-othering idiots have also managed to marry "toxic" with "masculinity" in the public consciousness.
The next logical step in the program, after establishing that it is okay to demonize whites—even suggesting that they should all be killed—is actual random violence specifically directed at whites because they are white.
But we are already there. In fact we’ve been there for several years already. Not too long ago the internet was flooded with cellphone videos capturing the knockout game.” Young black thugs competed for internet fame by filming themselves randomly slugging a white person passing them on the street. Men. Women. Old men—Sarah Jeong probably enjoyed those. It didn’t matter. The goal was to knock a white unconscious with one blow.
The mainstream media completely ignored this, naturally.
More: The Trump presidential campaign was portrayed as a “dumbass white people’s” movement of “deplorables.”  A loosely formed group of radical leftists joined together under the banner “Antifa” to disrupt and harass Trump’s campaign rallies. They made no secret of their intent to use violence, and Trump rallies were often the scene of riotous assaults on Trump supporters.
These violent protests soon expanded to any event given by any conservative speaker. Antifa trashed and burned their way through Sproul Plaza at the UCLA campus before a scheduled talk by conservative Breitbart writer/editor Milo Yiannopoulos. They and Black Lives Matter later disrupted a talk there by conservative Ben Shapiro. Conservatives have been effectively proscribed from our schools and universities just as they are shadowbanned by the social media giants Google, Facebook, Youtube and Twitter.
Meanwhile, a campaign to portray “racist policing” as the cause of the extraordinary level of violence in African-American communities led to more violent riots. Black Lives Matter marches, where slogans such as “Pigs in a blanket, fry ‘em like bacon!” soon led to assassinations of police officers across the nation. Now in Massachusetts, Senator Elizabeth Warren proclaims that the criminal justice system is racist “front to back.”
The harsh reality is that the Left has now fully embraced fascism as it is now defined: the use of intimidation, violence and threats of violence to silence political opposition.
The shooting has only just begun.
Besides embracing fascism, the Left has also embraced a cultural nihilism that defies rationality. More proof that they simply cannot be reasoned with.
* * *
Many years ago I wrote a piece that included a sarcastic reference to lesbians offering sexual counseling to married couples. Now drag queens are brought into public libraries and kindergartens to teach pre-school children about “gender fluidity.” Pre-school children. And they are brought, voluntarily, by their parents!
At latest count there are now 73 “genders.” Feminists hold “slut walks” to proclaim their freedom to dress like cheap hookers while simultaneously condemning “slut shaming.” Or something.
I could go on... and on ...
Half-a-century of the Left’s domination in virtually every sphere of the culture has succeeded in imposing a totally alien set of “moral” values on our nation. The resulting social chaos that has ensued is unsustainable. The nation cannot survive it. They want “open borders,” which in effect means we are no longer a sovereign nation. They want all foreign-born people to be fully accommodated in their own language, and reject the English standard.
The Left cannot be reasoned with and are willing to go to any violent extremes to achieve their goal, which is ... who knows?
Yes, we are already in a Civil War. It’s still a Cold War with sparks here and there, but sooner or later it’s going to go hot.
I think of it more as a counter-revolution of normal Americans trying to dismantle the Left’s Cultural Revolution that began in the sixties. Sarah Jeong may be the inflection point. If she is slapped down now as she should be, disaster may be averted. But if she is given a pass, the curve towards chaos and civil war will continue uninhibited.
Let’s do the right thing, and establish now that racism and hatred toward whites and men is not to be tolerated. The genocide against white farmers has begun in South Africa. This must not stand here.
# # #

Thursday, August 2, 2018

Intersectionality Defined


in·ter·sec·tion·al·i·ty

noun
1.    (Google) the interconnected nature of social categorizations such as race, class, and gender as they apply to a given individual or group, regarded as creating overlapping and interdependent systems of discrimination or disadvantage.
"through an awareness of intersectionality, we can better acknowledge and ground the differences among us"

2.    (The 3rd Rail) a strategy to forestall the inevitable result of identity politics: where the various groups bestowed with victim status (i.e., all except heterosexual white males) eventually devour one another in a vicious circle of victimization one-upmanship.


“Intersectionality” is the most recent of the linguistic constructions employed by the Left to advance their political agenda. It comes from a virulent pedigree, with “diversity,” “multiculturalism,” and “inclusion” among the most notable of its ancestry. The first two achieved “holy word” stature sometime during the last decades of the twentieth century; “inclusion” more recently.
They all serve the same purpose: to diminish and denigrate the predominance of Western European culture and history in the Brave New World of “progressivism,” and to demonize heterosexual white men.
World history is deconstructed to reveal that the influence of Western European civilization on the world’s other peoples has been one of exploitation and subjugation. Furthermore, its cultural values, evolved from the Greco-Roman world through the Renaissance to the Age of Enlightenment and beyond to the present, are all poisoned by their original sin, and must be rejected.
This is why to earn a bachelor’s degree in English Literature at UCLA you must takes courses in Gender, Race, Ethnicity, Disability or Sexuality Studies, Imperial Transnational or Post-Colonial Studies, and Critical Theory—and are not required to take a single course in Shakespeare. The goal of the program is to expose students, according to the course catalog, to “alternative rubrics of gender, sexuality, race, and class.”*
It shouldn’t need to be stated that UCLA is hardly an outlier, or an insignificant college. Such academic “rubrics” are now the new norm throughout the academy.
* * *
Identity politics requires people to classify themselves first as a member of a victim group, and as an individual second. From their membership in their particular victim group (or groups), they are programmed to see political and social issues all through the lens of the group. It is ironic that this new paradigm is the reversal of the ideation from the Civil Rights movement championed by MLK. His plea was that he would see a future when people were judged by the content of their character, not the color of their skin. This is the antithesis of the identity politics.
Intersectionality encourages its stakeholders to set aside any internecine conflicts that may arise around a particular issue, for example the outrage from some quarters of feminism wishing to exclude transgender women (that is men who have been surgically altered to mimic a female) from their latest protest. It must be quite a conundrum for them.
In the absence of the overarching unifying principle of intersectionality, these two victim groups would be at each other’s throats (and actually, they are). But intersectionality reminds them that they share a common bond: the identity of their oppressors. Feminists are oppressed by men, and transgenders are oppressed by “heteronormism.” The intersection of which is ... wait for it ... straight men.
Recognizing their shared victimhood, victim groups should table their differences on whatever current matter is in contention, in service of the higher truth. Never forget who the ultimate enemy is: the straight white male.
* * *
As the 3rd Rail’s definition states, “... a strategy to forestall the inevitable result ...” 
The balkanization of the Left into its ever-growing number of victim classes and their petty rivalries must inevitably devour itself. Even with shrewd strategies like “intersectionality,” the inherent nihilism, toxicity and hatred of the Left will consume it.   As sixties’ radical Abbie Hoffman once intoned about a different “enemy”:
“The system will collapse under its own weight. Our job is to give it a few kicks and stay high.”
I don’t recommend the drugs inference, but I love the sentiment!


*Who Killed the Liberal Arts?” Heather Macdonald, Prager University video lecture


Copyright  ©   2018 Marcus Clintonius





Thursday, July 26, 2018

The Values Gap


The outcry over President Trump’s comments after the Putin summit July 16 began at a fever pitch and promptly turned up to eleven.
Within hours of Democrats champing at the bit to bury Trump with what they perceived to be the silver bullet: “evidence” of treason, the Republicans joined suit. In a press conference the following day, House Speaker Paul Ryan took pains to emphasize how Putin and Russia are bad actors with whom we share nothing in common:
“Vladimir Putin does not share our interests. Vladimir Putin does not share our values.” And furthermore, “... Russia is a menacing government that does not share our interests, and it does not share our values.”
Directly “correcting” Trump, he added, "The President must appreciate that Russia is not our ally. There is no moral equivalence between the United States and Russia, which remains hostile to our most basic values and ideals,"
Setting aside the obvious for a moment—that claims of Russians buying Facebook ads, hacking emails, possibly agitating at rallies of both Trump and Clinton, and other such various and sundry “meddling” in our election—had zero impact on the election and don’t constitute any real threat to our democracy ... isn’t this a little like the pot calling the kettle black?
One report claims that we have interfered in democratic elections in foreign nations 81 times between 1946 and 2000. More recently we shamelessly “weighed in” on the presidential elections in Ukraine, which borders Russia. We also gave a backdoor bribe via an IMF loan to “our” candidate, Boris Yeltsin, in their 1996 presidential elections.
We have also repeatedly meddled in Israel’s parliamentary elections to affect the election of the nation’s leadership, most recently during the Obama presidency.
Heck, in 2015 we even got caught bugging Angela Merkel’s phone while she was here on a state visit! Turns out we’d been doing it ... forever. After all, we’re the only country I’m aware of that employs the phrase “regime change” without sarcasm or shame—in fact, with candor.
In short, these “meddling” activities in foreign affairs constitute the underbelly of statecraft, practiced by all and admitted by none. Of which we, perhaps, are the world’s most prolific practitioners.
* * *
But this is not my point. I was struck by Paul Ryan’s remarks, that Putin—and by extension, Russia—don’t share our ideals and values.
It got me thinking: What are our ideals and values? Specifically, the ones that Russians apparently no longer, or never, shared?
When I was growing up, the word “communist” was often prefaced with “Godless.”  The Russians were our enemies not just because they didn’t believe in private property—oh, and they hated freedom—but because they didn’t believe in God. Atheism was actively encouraged by the Soviet state. Religion was considered backward and superstitious. Christians were oppressed and persecuted, along with members of the world's other faiths. Heck, the “commies” weren’t just evil—they were damned!
So what were our values and ideals back then, and how have they changed?
Morals generally stem from religion. We were a religious nation, though the Founding Fathers were wise enough to draw a strict line between Church and State. The majority of Americans either expressed a belief in some form of Christianity (or Judaism), and a significant fraction attended Church on Sundays, or at the very least on Easter and Christmas.
“Freedom” certainly comes to mind as a professed value, perhaps the most exalted of them all. Of course, freedom is a vague term, and its functional meaning and limits when in contention with other rights is constantly being tested. Free speech is certainly a component. How often would we hear a patriotic American intone those clichéd words: “I disagree with what you’re saying but I’m willing to fight to the death to defend your right to say it.”
Then there’s the civic virtues we prized. Personal responsibility. The notion that a person’s success in life should only be limited by his or her own work and ambition. This dovetails with our belief in fairness as an innate American value. Fairness, especially in the Civil Rights era ... the recognition that it is wrong to deny someone an equal opportunity because of the accident of their birth, specifically: their race, ethnicity, or—to the extent that doesn’t contradict common sense—their sex. An individual should be judged by his abilities and the content of his character, not the color of his skin—to paraphrase the famous statement of a certain leading light of the era.
Hand-in-hand with the moral virtues we extolled (even if individually we weren’t always able to live up to them we at least agreed in principal on their merit) were the bad behaviors we collectively condemned, and when appropriate, punished. Morality cannot be legislated, we’re told. Our Founding Fathers clearly recognized this, asserting that our rights are God-given, not granted by any government. The civilized way to discourage destructive social behavior is through society’s own built-in mechanisms for self-correction: shame and stigma. In the absence of which the only alternative is the iron fist of the law, which is directly harmful to our highest value: freedom.
And so we stigmatized undesirable social behaviors: out-of-wedlock births, abortion, divorce, homosexuality. A man would be shamed for abandoning his family. A family for going on welfare. The message was clear: not just the best—but the only appropriate healthy environment for raising children was within the nuclear family: a husband and wife. Homosexuality, considered a behavioral and/or psychological disorder at the time, was heavily stigmatized. In many localities society had taken the draconian, and foolish, path of criminalizing it, though this was rarely enforced. Shaming was sufficient to discourage it and preserve the collective rational understanding that it took a man and a woman to create a baby, and a healthy family was the ideal building block for a sound economic atomic unit from which to build and maintain a healthy community.
Most Americans were sympathetic to those neighbors who for one reason or another were unable or unwilling to conform to the ideal family model, and recognized that the freedom of such people to pursue their lives, liberty and happiness in the manner they chose must be respected. Homosexuality was considered bad, counterproductive to the social necessity of producing the next generation, but it was tolerated. The notion of marriage being modified to include same-sex couples was ludicrous. The notion of rewarding homosexual couples with adoptive children would’ve been worse—perhaps an abomination, to give it the flavor of the religious sentiments still present at the time.
* * *
Are those the values and ideals Paul Ryan was thinking of when he denounced Putin and Russia for “not sharing our values;” when he angrily implied that President Trump believed in a moral equivalence between our two nations?
Well, hardly.
What exactly are our values ... today?
Some are relatively unchanged. Others are 180 degrees out of phase. We still value freedom of the press, but freedom of speech is on life support. Unless you’ve been living in a cave for the past decade or so, free speech is largely a thing of the past in the academy. Thoughts or speech that violate the ever changing canons of political correctness is considered “hate speech.” And hate speech is considered “violence.” It is not much of an exaggeration to say that our colleges and universities have been taken over by a dogmatic, vulgar, violent, left-wing fascist political faction that has succeeded in silencing any contrary thought or speech. The word “fascist” is used here with prejudice. Words evolve, and this one has lost its prior connections with economics and is now used to mean any authoritarian movement that stifles opposition by force, including violence and threats of violence, as well as political intimidation. Antifa, campus “progressives," Black Lives Matter, feminists and their LGBTQ “intersectionalists,” are all fascist by definition.

What about the notion of a person being judged by the content of his character and not the color of his skin? Gone. Into the Orwellian dustbin of history. So-called affirmative action had transmogrified into virulent identity politics, which has now reached such levels of bullshit that on some college campuses students “of color” are demanding they be segregated from whites in student housing and even at graduation ceremonies. Identity politics demands that people be judged not by their abilities or their character, i.e., not as individuals, but by their group identity. We’ve come full circle, but now it is whites that are discriminated against in hiring and admissions policies ... and worse is coming for them.
With respect to civic virtues, half of this country doesn’t even believe in the concept of a national identity with borders and a universal language. At immigration-related rallies held by Hispanics, Mexican flags are waved. When Maxine Walters held a rally, her followers actually burned an American flag.
What about personal responsibility, and the work ethic? Largely gone. It’s been replaced by the entitlement culture. As the state continually finds new roadblocks to hamper small business creation through ever-growing licensing requirements and ridiculous regulations ...  and of course taxes ... it extends more and more free services to those that choose not to pull their own weight. Forty-four million Americans receive food stamps. Ten million Americans receive disability insurance. Over four million Americans under 65 receive SSI (mentally unable to work) benefits.
When considering our moral values, we’re forced to conclude that they have not just been softened—they’ve been completely corrupted and turned upside down. Vice is now virtue. Single motherhood is lionized. It’s the new norm. It’s even led to the creation of a new phrase replacing “husband”: the “baby daddy.” There is nothing more obvious than the direct correlation between our descent into social chaos and the absence of fathers in the home. On the basis of overwhelming circumstantial evidence it is not a stretch to say that our culture has been waging a war on fatherhood since the emergence of feminism.
Speaking of ... the decline in religious observance can at least partially be attributed to scientific advancement and the unavoidable conflicts with religious cosmological canon. But if religion is something that humans do ... something that humans need ... we now have alternatives that satisfy those existential needs. Feminism may not be a religion per se, but it bears too many of the trappings to liken it to anything else.
Fremen: Celebrated in the West; jailed by Putin






Feminism is a doctrine of hate. Like Christianity, it gives its adherents an explanation for all the misfortunes in their lives ... in fact for all the evil in the world. Its devil is man ... the patriarchy. The male sex is defined outside of the new moral universe. Like all religions, unbelievers are infidels. Attempts to counter any of its catechisms are met with virulent denunciation and violent fury. Offending individuals are immediately targeted for personal and professional destruction. The feminazi takes no prisoners.
With regards to sexuality, clearly we are in free-fall. We have passed the black hole’s event horizon and at this point no semblance of normalcy is safe. We have drag queens dressed in nightmarish costume, devil horns and all, brought into public libraries to read to pre-school children. We have gay teachers dressed in tutus prancing on stage at public school assemblies. We have LGBTQ representatives handing out information about anal fisting ... again, to school children. The list goes on, but I would be remiss if I didn’t mention the depraved movement to encourage children to undergo surgical mutilation to change their “gender.”


Drag Queen Story Hour at (L) Michelle Obama Long Beach Public Library, 10/14/17
and (R) Olean, NY Public Library 6/20/18


The next wheel to fall off is the normalization of pedophilia. The efforts are already afoot, and have been ongoing behind the scenes in the psychobabble communities (the APA, etc.) for at least two decades. We are just now beginning to see this disgraceful and depraved “lifestyle” jockeying for position as the next “cause” in the popular culture.
Shame and stigma, meanwhile, have become fighting words in the filth and depravity contingent and Gender Studies departments ... but I repeat myself.
Difficult as it is to accept, these are now our values, according to the arbiters of behavior, the professional experts who inform our educational and cultural enterprises.
So, if Putin and Russia don’t share our values—perhaps it is worthwhile looking into exactly what their values are now...?
* * *
One of the incidents under investigation by those trying desperately to undoTrump’s presidency is the meeting Donald Jr had with a Russian attorney. The ostensible issue prompting the meeting, adoption, is rarely mentioned—or when it is, never in specific detail. Since states removed the prohibitions on homosexual adoption it shouldn’t come as a surprise that a huge number of adoptions are now granted to homosexual couples, overwhelmingly lesbians. In Massachusetts, where it is actively promoted by the government agencies, it’s around half.
In 2014 Russia implemented a law banning adoption of Russian children by same-sex couples internationally. They went further, banning adoptions by single people who lived in nations that allowed same-sex marriage.
Since overthrowing Marxist-Leninism, the Russian Orthodox Church is thriving. Vladimir Putin has often decried what is now commonly referred to as “Europe’s suicide.” This is from a Christmas message Vladimir Putin delivered in 2016:
We see that many Euro-Atlantic states have taken the way where they deny or reject their own roots, including their Christian roots which form the basis of western civilization.
In these countries the moral basis and any traditional identity are being denied—national religious, cultural, and even gender identities are being denied or relativized.
There, politics treats a family with many children as equal to a homosexual partnership (juridically); faith in God is equal to faith in Satan.
The excess and exaggeration of Political Correctness in these countries indeed leads to serious consideration for the legitimization of parties that promote the propaganda of pedophilia.
The people in many European states are actually ashamed of their religious affiliations and are indeed frightened to speak about them. Christian holidays and celebrations are abolished or “neutrally” renamed, as if one were ashamed of those Christian holidays. With these methods one hides away the deeper moral value of these celebrations.
And these countries try to force this model onto other countries, globally. I am deeply convinced that this is a direct way to degradation and primitivization of culture. This leads to deeper demographic and moral crisis in the West.
What can be better evidence of the moral crisis of a human society (in the West) than the loss of its reproductive function? And today nearly all “developed” Western countries cannot survive reproductively, not even with the help of migrants. 
Without the moral values that are rooted in Christianity and other world religions, without rules and moral values which have formed and been developed over millennia, people will inevitably lose their human dignity (become brutes).
This from the previously “Godless communists.”
Who could’ve imagined fifty years ago that the remaining sane people of the western democracies would turn to an ex-KGB thug for moral guidance?
In Western Europe, the cradle of our civilization, the cultural and moral values are under attack at both ends of the spectrum. At the opposite end of the West’s own self-mutilation of morality is its embracing of a culture whose values and ideals are the very antithesis of our own—past and present. The social fabric of nations such as France, Sweden and Germany is being torn apart at the seams by the tidal wave of terrorism, murder, rioting, beheadings, acid attacks, rape, white slavery and the “grooming” of girls as young as eleven—all due to the massive influx of African, Middle Eastern and Asian Muslim immigrants.
But these are the values that are waiting to step in once the West’s Cultural Revolution has run its course, reaching the inevitable end that results from embracing moral anarchy.
No, Mr. Ryan, I don’t hold to our new values. They are not my values. They are a corruption of the very meaning of the word “value.” They need to be expunged. Where did they come from? Did I miss the invasion from Planet X? I want our old values and ideals back. And if Russia still holds them, I want the U.S. to gravitate toward Russia and away from Western Europe. They are even further down this spiraling path into the black hole’s singularity of cultural suicide, perhaps just one generation away from submitting to the rigid, 7th century patriarchal morality of Islamic law. 
Age is supposed to give wisdom. I’ve been alive long enough to know when my country is trying to manipulate me into joining a pig-pile. I read 1984, and I grokked its message. It’s clear that certain factions are scared shitless at the thought of a President Trump allied with a revanchist Russia against the West’s “Cultural Revolution.” We need to look deeper for their motivations, past the usual suspects, the industrial war machine. 
# # #
Copyright 2018  © Marcus Clintonius