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.

Tuesday, July 23, 2019

Trump is the Batman Gotham Deserves

Julian Edgans
July 22, 2019

I've long struggled over the difference between "the hero we deserve" and "the hero we need." What do the two phrases mean, exactly? If Batman is "the hero we deserve," and Harvey Dent is "the hero we need," what does that mean?
“Because he's the hero Gotham deserves, but not the one it needs right now. So we'll hunt him. Because he can take it. Because he's not our hero. He's a silent guardian, a watchful protector. A dark knight.”  – Lt. Gordon
Batman did what was necessary to overcome the rampant corruption in Gotham. He acted outside the law and beat up criminals with his fists, saving the innocent and stopping criminals because those charged with acting inside the law were powerless— they were constrained by the law, while criminals were not afraid to act outside it with impunity. There were few clean cops politicians and bureaucrats, and most of those were intimidated, blackmailed, or killed when they became inconvenient. Batman recognized that the system was damaged beyond repair, that the overwhelming influence of criminals on Gotham's institutions could not be overcome because the people of Gotham were too demoralized for it to recover. Without a popular movement, there was no will or support for a cleansing of the city government and police force, and then of the city. But Batman's "reforms" could never ultimately win by themselves, because they were desperate, brutal, and illegal—but it was the only way to pave the way for "the hero we need."
Harvey Dent acted from inside the system. First, as Internal Affairs, he exposed corruption in the police force, and later as District Attorney, his reforms were only possible because of the hope Batman gave to the people of Gotham. If the Joker hadn't managed to defeat him, Harvey would likely have proceeded to clean up the city, and goodness and niceness would have largely prevailed. Only because the enemy was brilliant and insane did he manage to twist and turn Harvey Dent against Batman, and force him to continue his vigilantism a little longer (for one more movie, to be precise).
Harvey Dent and Batman were both "the hero we need," just at different stages. Gotham needed Batman first, and Harvey Dent second, but that was too much nuance to turn into an inspired soundbite at the end of the movie.
And here's the real point, if you're still with me. Donald Trump is Batman—the parallels are uncanny.
The loony left has had a stranglehold on our institutions. Much like the mob in Batman Begins, they ran everything with coldblooded criminal efficiency for years, with only the occasional costumed villain showing his powdered or masked face. I'm not talking about normal, run-of-the-mill corruption here (though of course that is a factor); I'm talking about the rampant politically correct, reality defying, collectivist, intersectional politics nonsense that has controlled the country for the past decade or two, and had been growing silently since long before. The left is the mob, and everything that came from that.
The forces of order—Republicans and the ever dwindling sane Democrats—were unable to cope, because they themselves were corrupted and overrun, and they failed to recognize the threat. The traditional media, almost completely compromised by these lunatics, worked tirelessly to churn out propaganda, which too many "centrists" bought like the chumps they are. Political normals thought that these gangsters on the left could be reasoned with, that there could be compromise. They thought that "surely they love America just as much as we do—they just have a different way of achieving freedom and prosperity."
But too many years of one-sided "compromise" saw normal Americans demoralized and dejected much like the people of Gotham, as it became obvious that compromise with totalitarians would only mean the encroachment of insanity from the left could only be slowed, never stopped. Eventually, enough normals said "enough, and to hell with the status quo—you people on the left are dangerous and insane." They had a Tea Party, but they had no champion. They were ready for their Batman to act outside the law—i.e., outside the social norms and status quo of political decorum.
Then Donald Trump defied the odds and was elected president. The left thought his nomination would be a landslide for Hillary, but they underestimated that normal Americans saw great value in Trump, someone who wasn't afraid to act outside the social norms. Just like Batman dresses up and flits around the city at night, punching people who deserve to be punched, protecting normals from being preyed upon, so does Trump ignore the decorum that the media has traditionally used to shield their favorites even as they viciously slander their enemies.
Their strategy worked so well for so long that now that it is no longer working, they have been driven careening off the ledge of sanity, mouths frothing and tears of rage streaming behind them as they try to continually turn it up to 11, not realizing normals have put on their ear plugs and aren't interested in listening anymore. They scream "racist" and "Nazi" even louder and more frequently, but normals are no longer fazed, and neither is Trump.
Gotham PD tried to hunt Batman, blaming him for the fall and murder of Harvey Dent, blaming him for the crimes he did not commit along with those he did. In a similar manner, those who some thought to be allies like Max Boot, Anna Navarro, and Jennifer Rubin, the professional "conservatives," now hunt Trump and blame him for anything and everything, because he is a threat to the normal order, and thus a threat to their comfortable position as loyal opposition.
Just as Batman defeated the garden-variety criminals only to be faced with a new breed of super criminals, wearing costumes and hatching devious, hare-brained plans to variously control and destroy the city, we are seeing that super villains are emerging on the left. No longer are they interested in pretending they are for freedom, or tolerance, or any of the other American concepts Democrats once gave lip-service to. No, they are full-throated communists who are interested in literally beating you up in the streets if you dare to disagree with them, or fail to shout your agreement with them loudly or enthusiastically enough. They are looking for reasons to harm you across the spectrum—financially, emotionally, physically, however they can. They are arrogantly calling literally every normal American a white supremacist, regardless of ethnicity, because they hate you; and they are calling you the worst names they can think of, and don't give a damn about being logically or factually consistent. They are demanding the destruction of the economy for what even disinterested parties agree is little or no gain, because they want to punish you for defying them.
Are we are approaching the zenith of unrest? Will it continue to grow even as Trump is undoubtedly elected again? What will happen after Batman's second term ends? We can only pray that there is a Harvey Dent ready to pick up the pieces.
But there may not be. This isn't a comic book, where the good guys are destined to win. In world history, the good guys usually lose, and the price is often the death and enslavement of millions. What happens if the left manages to pull out a political victory? If they gain political power, I believe they will pull out all the stops to make sure there is never another free election in the United States again. If that happens, there can only be war.
I was skeptical of Trump, and I will still criticize him when he deserves it, but my criticism is muted by the fact that, like it or not, he is what stands between us and the demonic left.
The left must never be allowed to wield power. The collectivist left must be destroyed utterly. The gloves have to come off on the right; they've been off on the left for a long time.

* * *

Wednesday, February 27, 2019

Jussie Smollett and the Thought Police


Marcus Clintonius

The MSM is attributing actor Jussie Smollett’s hate crime hoax to dissatisfaction with his TV series salary and a desire to raise his profile in the entertainment industry. That’s only part of the story... in fact a small part of the story.

The bigger issue is not Smollett’s clumsy staging of an assault, but the political climate in the country that invites, no—actually demands—hate crime hoaxes. A meme mocking Smollett making the rounds on social media declares that the proliferation of hoaxes is due to the “supply of racism not meeting the demand.”'

This hits the nail on the head. In evidence is the response by media talking heads expressing their outrage at the alleged attack before the hoax was uncovered.

“This is America... in 2019,” CNN’s Brooke Baldwin somberly intoned.

A View harpy sneered, “I’m disgusted by people who wear hats that say MAGA.”

Lesbian actress Ellen Page was almost moved to tears as she lectured Stephen Colbert’s Late Show audience that the attack was caused by Trump and the Vice President:

“... Mike Pence... who like wishes I couldn’t be married. Let’s be clear. Connect the dots. This is what happens if you are in a position of power and you hate people, and you want to cause suffering to them. … you spend your career trying to cause suffering. What do you think is going to happen?”

A vast swath of America wants to believe that Trump’s election spurred a spike in “hate crimes” across the nation perpetrated by MAGA hat-wearing white supremacist Trump supporters. This narrative is pushed by the MSM, social media, Hollywood and the entertainment industry, and fertilized on virtually every college campus by the diversity droids who now call the shots in the Academy.

Why would anyone believe that a video showing a young man in a MAGA hat smiling at a Native American man banging a drum... was really mocking him? Even when the rest of the video surfaced, revealing that the boys had been verbally accosted with racial and sexual epithets by a group of black thugs, and that Nathan Phillips, the Native American, joined the attack... why would reporters and pundits still insist that the boy’s awkward smile was a smirk, an expression of his “white privilege”?

Because Brooke Baldwin got it almost right. This was what they want America to be... in 2019. Demonizing whiteness, and particularly, white masculinity, has become part of the national zeitgeist.

Contrary to the MSM’s slanderous narrative, the behavior of Nicholas Sandmann and the boys from Covington Catholic High School at the pro-life rally in Washington was beyond reproach.

They called us ‘racists,’ ‘bigots,’ ‘white crackers,’ ‘faggots,’ and ‘incest kids’’” Sandmann says in his statement, describing the taunts hurled at them by the self-styled Black Israelites.

The provocations of the Native American group followed:

“You stole our land,” and “Go back to Europe,” were some of their insults. And eventually, Phillips approached Sandmann to get right in his face, banging his drum and chanting.


Here’s how Sandmann describes what it was like and how he responded:

“I never understood why either of the two groups of protesters were engaging with us, or exactly what they were protesting at the Lincoln Memorial. We were simply there to meet a bus, not become central players in a media spectacle. This is the first time in my life I've ever encountered any sort of public protest, let alone this kind of confrontation or demonstration.

“I was not intentionally making faces at the protester. I did smile at one point because I wanted him to know that I was not going to become angry, intimidated or be provoked into a larger confrontation. I am a faithful Christian and practicing Catholic, and I always try to live up to the ideals my faith teaches me -- to remain respectful of others, and to take no action that would lead to conflict or violence.”

Sandmann and the rest of the high schoolers acted with remarkable restraint. It is gratifying that they are now suing several media outlets and personalities for the outrageous libeling of their actions.

* * *

Hate crime hoaxes are legion. The majority of such “hate” incidents are faked by the supposed victims. On the college campus, I’m aware of none that weren’t faked.

The Daily Caller recently published a list of 21 hate crime hoaxes in the “Trump era,”[i] including:

·       the Louisiana Muslim woman who claimed two MAGA-hat wearing white men grabbed her wallet and hijab while yelling racial slurs;

·       the Church organist who spray-painted a swastika and “Heil Trump” on his own church;

·       the Texas man who set fire to his car and spray-painted “n----- lovers” on his garage;

·       the black student who spread racist notes around the campus of St. Olaf College in Minnesota to “draw attention to concerns” about the racist climate on campus;

·       ditto the Kansas State U. black student who placed racist notes on his own car, reading “Go home n----- boy,” and “Whites only”;  

·       the hate crime hoax of Khalil Cavil, a waiter in a Texas restaurant, who posted a picture on Facebook of a racist note calling him a “terrorist” on a bill in lieu of a tip.

* * *

On the heels of the revelations of the Smollett hate crime hoax there’s a rash of calls from conservative pundits to set the penalties for hoaxes equal to those for real hate crimes. This misses the point.

Certainly, bearing false witness to a hate crime should be treated at least as severely as the law prescribes for the actual thing, but there is a larger issue… a greater transgression of our sense of the morality that underlies the laws and customs we in the West have chosen to employ in our self-governance.

The original sin lies in the conception of “hate crimes” in the first place. Anyone with a lick of sense could see where this was going when it first reared its ugly head in the California state legislature (where else?). Most, if not all, violent crimes contain at least the seed of hatred. Adding an extra degree of “hate” to the motivation for the crime has now proven to be a recipe for legal mischief. (Just ask Chicago Police Chief Eddie Johnson.) Who decides the who-what-where-and-how much of this extra hate?

Hate crime mania is a child of identity politics—that branch of political correctness that establishes a hierarchy of groups categorized by oppressors at the bottom and a competing victimhood scale for all the other “oppressed,” “marginalized” and/or “minority” groups. Whites and males are implicitly exempt from the oppression sweepstakes.

On your typical college campus, the adjective most frequently associated with the word “masculinity” is “toxic.”  “White privilege” is now a standard fixture in curricula, and special forums on it are regularly held to reach those students that manage to avoid it in the classroom.

The identity politics commissars aren’t bashful about the double standard. Members of the oppressor groups cannot be victims of discrimination. Case closed.

* * *

Implicit in the prosecution of a “hate crime” is the notion of the aggressor’s state-of-mind. Hatred is an emotion. It requires a thought process. The thinking of the “hater” must be divined, and proven to a jury.

You can see where this is going: George Orwell’s dystopian future, where Thought Police round up citizens guilty of “wrong” thinking. It is not hyperbole to suggest that this is now the reality on the college campus. When a professor runs afoul of the canons of political correctness, it’s not because they have a policy of treating students differently according to their identity. No professor has a policy of grading blacks lower than whites. The notion is absurd. When someone on campus is painted with the Scarlet Letter “R,”  “S,” or “H,” and now “T” (the most common identity politics transgressions) it’s because they are believed to harbor racist, sexist, “homophobic” or ”transphobic” ideas. The Thought Police have arrived. They’ve been patrolling our campuses for years now.

Hate crime hoaxers serve a higher calling. The ends justify the means. It harkens back to Marxists who justify the slaughter of thousands to bring about the perfect proletarian state. It’s the same mind-set as that of radical feminists who pick male student’s names at random and put them on posters declaring them rapists—because all men are potential rapists.

Meanwhile, the true believers dismayed by the revelations of Smollett’s faked hate crime seek plausible deniability in explanations that avoid the larger truth. If Smollett’s hoax can be attributed to greed or “aberrant behavior,” then the “woke” social justice warrior can avoid the unpleasant task of questioning one of their core beliefs: the inherent racism and sexism of America.

# # #




[i] https://dailycaller.com/2019/02/18/hoax-hate-crimes-list/






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, clich├ęd 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 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