Quick Hits and Dangerous Reads: Shithole Countries Edition (12 Jan 2018)

Politics

President Trump’s alleged ‘shithole countries’ comment has caused quite the stir. The usual suspects in the mainstream media, and establishment political commentators are real mad about it. But are they mad because Trump said something offensive, or because he said something that exposes leftist views on immigration as logically inconsistent in a fundamental way?

After all, if some of these countries are not shitholes, then there is no problem sending illegal migrants back to those pristine lands. If they really are shitholes, then we should be pretty wary about bringing them in by the boatload. The funny thing is those from those ‘shithole countries’ will be the first to tell you that those countries are, in fact, shitholes. The outrage on their part would stem mostly from the fact that an outsider like Trump was saying it as well. This is a common thing among people. You can disparage your own, but he second an outsider does it all hell beaks loose.

On that score, our self-proclaimed betters on both the left and right love nothing more than to disparage huge swaths of America as shitholes, to the point where New York Times columnists cannot fathom any reason why small cities and towns are relevant to anything anymore. None of these people would lift a finger to defend, say rural West Virginia, from an attack by a smarmy foreigner, particularly now that it is Trump country. Yet they are vociferously standing up for ‘shitholes’ across the world.

Importantly, all of this exposes normies to the truth that our cultural betters deem it reasonable to import more and more of the entire world at random into the US on the basis of the lie that all cultures are equal. And despite the sanctimonious outrage, most will see through that lie, particularly when the likes of Rich Lowry are dispensing the rope with which the liars can hang themselves (money quote at 3:50).

**************************************************

In a similar vein, this clip of Stephen Pinker, speaking at a Harvard panel discussing political correctness and Trump’s victory, went viral over the last few days;

What was interesting was that while he admitted that there were certain truths that have become verboten in polite society (men and women are different, Marxist countries are terrible compared to more capitalists ones, etc), he saw their suppression as a problem more because it meant that leftist explanations for those hatefacts could not be drilled into the would-be discoverer of truth.

Culture

Project Veritas dumped an explosive video yesterday exposing the fact that Twitter actively censors, sometimes in secret, those who it deems to be bad people. That is to say, anyone with political views to the right of Mao

Now, we all knew that shadowbanning existed. But it is another thing when it is right there on camera in your face. A couple side notes: a few of these guys were clearly honeypotted, goaded by an attractive sounding female in a bar setting to divulge their deepest secrets. Fantastic setup work. Particularly of note is the one guy who tried to ‘game’ the PV journalist by acting as though her asking the most basic of basic questions revealed her to have the critical thinking skills necessary to be a programmer or engineer.

The other, more insidious note is that pretty much all  of the Twitter marks were non-white, and perhaps foreign born. These are your new overlords, talking about those who proclaim their Americanness must be silenced. It’s an affront to the idea that immigrants are all desperately seeking to assimilate, as well as the H1B visa question, with regard to the immigration problem as a whole.

Related to that, we’ve got this anecdote from a Heartiste about how the Trump effect might be improving IT.

**************************************************

In other Tech Giants Are Communist Dictatorships news, James Damore filed his suit against Goolag this week. The Federalist thinks that at worst, it will shine a very negative light on company practices.

During discovery, the plaintiffs will have the ability to request every document, email, and text concerning politics or political issues involving Google’s decision-makers. In a class-action lawsuit, the number of decision makers will be in the hundreds, if not thousands, including the high-level executives involved in Damore’s termination.

Further, evidence that the decision-makers held an anti-conservative bias, even if not tied to a specific employment decision, is typically admissible circumstantial evidence of discriminatory intent. What might that evidence be? Well, consider The Daily Caller’s article this week that exposed Google’s display of “fact checks for conservative publications in its results, [but] [n]o prominent liberal sites receive the same treatment.”

As Eric Liberman continued, “not only is Google’s fact-checking highly partisan — perhaps reflecting the sentiments of its leaders — it is also blatantly wrong, asserting sites made ‘claims’ they demonstrably never made.” That the world’s largest search engine targeted conservative sites such as The Federalist—and fraudulently so, as David Harsanyi established—and no liberal Web sites isn’t likely happenstance. Discovery will tell that and maybe much more—that is, if Damore’s lawyers succeeded in sidestepping the secrecy of arbitration.

By all accounts, the lawsuit is cleverly constructed to inflict max pain on Goolag. It’s development will be extremely interesting to keep an eye on.

**************************************************

A double blast from the Audacious Epigone. First, our cultural betters want us to elect nothing but women this fall, and especially Jewish women:

From the official, blue-checkmarked account of the Democrat party (red markings are my own):

Second, Audacious points out that just importing more white people from overseas will not solve any problems, but merely slow the tide. The bottom line is that our betters want to fundamentally change America and wont stop until it is distinguishable from the rest of the world.

 

Economy

Jeremy Grantham’s quarterly letter is a must read

As is Jeff Gundlach’s start of the year presentation

 

Fun & Games

I agree with Clay Travis that if you’re betting on the NFL games this weekend you  should take Pittsburgh, New Orleans, Tennessee and Atlanta against the point spreads they’re getting:

England was thoroughly beaten in The Ashes series down under. This article attempts to explain how England can improve

…And that’s your lot. Have a good weekend

 

It’s Not Yet Time To Blackpill over DACA

In the wake of President Trump’s televised Immigration meeting:

plenty of individuals on the right have fallen prey to suspect media reports and misleading headlines about what the President said or didn’t say, and what he was willing to do. MOTUS has it right:

it’s fairly easy to understand why the President decided to go live with his reality show.

Let’s have a little of that transparency that Obama spoke so highly of but never implemented. Let’s hear the Democrats defend their insistence that our borders remain open to all comers and chain migration continue in order to ensure generations of future Dem voters. Let’s hear them insist, again, that if you give them whatthey want now they’ll work with you later on what you want.

lucy-football1

Let’s hear the Democrats tell us they want a “clean DACA” bill – meaning amnesty for the Dreamers with no strings attached. Let’s hear Trump amiably agree that he too wants a clean DACA bill, by which he means funding of The Wall and an end to chain migration and the visa lottery. Note to Ann Coulter and Tucker Carlson: it’s too soon to talk about Trump being a traitor. Remember the President is fresh from a meeting with Republican leaders at Camp David last weekend. When he says “I’ll sign whatever you send me” I suspect he has an agreement with the House and Senate leaders regarding acceptable parameters. So why would they send him anything else? And I’m betting the bill includes wall funding and the end of chain migration and the visa lottery. Yes, I assume it will also include some type of legality – short of automatic citizenship – for any of the Dreamers who’ve managed to keep a clean rap sheet. But frankly I’ve always assumed that would be the case. It’s the art of the deal.

“You can’t con people, at least not for long. You can create excitement, you can do wonderful promotion and get all kinds of press, and you can throw in a little hyperbole. But if you don’t deliver the goods, people will eventually catch on.” Donald Trump, The Art of the Deal

As for Ann Coulter, bless her, but she’s overreacting:

Yes, Trump did say he wanted a “Clean DACA” bill, which he explicitly defined as including “border security” (the wall), and at another point he had added “and other things” (presumably ending chain migration and ending the diversity visa lottery) to his definition of a deal.

Yes, Trump did compromise on what the wall meant – by saying it wasn’t going to be a continuous 2000 mile structure because of mountains and rivers – something he’s always said.

Between Trump’s normal hyperbole and usual extemporaneous manner of speaking, the idea that he’s making concessions or caving in are a bit overblown. So he used Jeb-like language in talking about a “bill of love.” But he also used Trump-like language in reminding the audience that walls work – ask Israel, and repeatedly making a wall (and other goodies) a non-negotiable aspect of any deal.

And if you’re still not convinced, there was a moment during Trump’s ramblings in which he mentioned that Representative Bob Goodlatte from Virginia would get things going in the House with the introduction of a bill. Goodlatte co-wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal outlining it. Here are some of the highlights:

  • $30 billion wall funding
  • 5,000 Border Patrol agents and 5,000 Customs and Border Protection officers
  • Allows the DACA folks to remain with three-year renewable legal status – with no path to citizenship
  • Biometric entry-exit system
  • E-Verify
  • Ends chain migration and the diversity visa lottery
  • Gives the DOJ scope to keep money from sanctuary cities

That’s the deal. Which is why he kept saying things like ‘once we do DACA we’ll be most of the way to getting comprehensive done.’ His namedropping of Goodlatte (at 14:25 in the video) is pretty important.

Congress is the reason DACA has to be a part of the deal. That might be a bitter pill for some to swallow, but the fact of the matter is that congress, as it is currently constituted, wants DACA. As a result, our current options are as follows:

  1. Let DACA expire, let chain migration and diversity lottery live on, and hope midterms bring us enough Trump Republicans in both chambers to actually enact legislation without shenanigans and negotiatons
  2. Concede DACA legitimization (no citizenship), and get the wall, get no chain migration, get no more diversity lottery

#2 is far more likely and is imminent, thanks to the leverage Trump created back in September when he allowed DACA to expire, and thus Trump is going for that. It’s a simple calculation that an 80% chance of getting 70% of what you want is better than a 5% chance of getting 100% of what you want. Trump could have got rid of DACA on day one like he promised, but then he would have had no leverage to get all of the other goodies he’s after. Remember, congress doesn’t really want a wall or ending chain migration, or ending diversity visa lotteries. They are only getting on board because they have to to keep their precious DACA going.

And by doing it this way, Trump is creating a situation in which he can get things codified through legislation, as opposed to via Executive Order, which could just be undone by the next SJW president who takes over. Ironically, Obama’s desire to ride roughshod over the legislate process for the benefit for illegal immigrant will turn out to be the very thing that stems the tide in the other direction. None of this is 4D chess – just good politics. 

At the end of the day though, the meeting was probably done to highlight the fact that, no, the president is not a mentally unstable, semi-illiterate buffoon who watches 20 hours of cable news per day, as the media has been saying over the last week or so. In their clamor over the Wolff book, they set such a low bar for the President to hurdle that all he has to do is show the American public a rare glimpse of the sausage being made, with him confidently and assuredly leading the discussion. All while flanked by the very Democrats who are supposed to lead the charge of impeachment-by-mental instability; the imaging of them sat at Trump’s right and left engaging with him in serious discussion alone neuters the Wolff fan fiction to anyone with an inkling of common sense, making a mockery of said media hysteria to boot.

It was superb politics.

Is the Political Class Mentally Stable Enough to Provide Meaningful Political Analysis?

The short answer is: no. But I don’t do short answers, so here’s the long one.

In How Dare You, I described the fact that nearly a year into Trump’s presidency, his opposition has yet to come to terms with the fact that he did actually win the election:

The larger issue here is that those who would consider themselves our cultural betters have affixed to their beliefs the status of The Truth, by fiat. What is accomplished by this is the elevation of what really are mere opinions to base maxims of the sort that are the foundation of the country, thus in theory unassailable.

And so when Trump disagrees with this or that leftist talking point, and vehemently to boot, there is a collective shock that permeates the commentariat. How dare Trump express views which aren’t in agreement with the one Truth that is Leftism in all its forms? How dare Taylor Swift not instantly condemn Trump despite having no reason to voice an opinion, and furthermore how dare Taylor Swift disagree when she is declared to be a white supremacist? How dare Sidney Crosby, a white man, turn up to the White House to accept praise from Trump?

The fact that leftism has gone without a real challenge for multiple decades, and in particular through the Obama years, has rendered the nascent Trump era to be nothing short of a hammer blow through the sensibilities of most leftists. Many still haven’t come to terms with the fact that Trump really is the president, and more fundamentally that the Leftist Truth is not held as such by a YUGE swath of America.

The recent excitement over Michael Wolff’s new book, Fire and Fury, which bills itself as an exclusive inside look at the Trump White House, is further evidence that the failure to come to terms with Trump 45 is as prevalent as ever. Indeed, it seems that Trump Derangement Syndrome has reached levels that shouldn’t be possible. In the past week, this book has been endlessly covered in the mainstream media, with Wolff himself doing interviews with basically every network and media publication to drum up the hype, bolstered by stories of how the book has been flying off the shelves in record time.

President Trump has unsurprisingly said less than favorable things about the book, and in fairness it does require the reader to suspend logic at regular intervals. For a start, it tries to advance the popular meme that Trump really didn’t want to be president. Wolff’s ‘evidence’ for this is the fact that Trump actually ran the campaign of an authentic outsider.

The Trump campaign had, perhaps less than inadvertently, replicated the scheme from Mel Brooks’s The Producers. In that classic, Brooks’s larcenous and dopey heroes, Max Bialystock and Leo Bloom, set out to sell more than 100 percent of the ownership stakes in the Broadway show they are producing. Since they will be found out only if the show is a hit, everything about the show is premised on its being a flop. Accordingly, they create a show so outlandish that it actually succeeds, thus dooming our heroes.

[…]

The Trump calculation, quite a conscious one, was different. The candidate and his top lieutenants believed they could get all the benefits of almost becoming president without having to change their behavior or their fundamental worldview one whit: we don’t have to be anything but who and what we are, because of course we won’t win.

Many candidates for president have made a virtue of being Washington outsiders; in practice, this strategy merely favors governors over senators. Every serious candidate, no matter how much he or she disses Washington, relies on Beltway insiders for counsel and support. But with Trump, hardly a person in his innermost circle had ever worked in politics at the national level—his closest advisers had not worked in politics at all. Throughout his life, Trump had few close friends of any kind, but when he began his campaign for president he had almost no friends in politics. The only two actual politicians with whom Trump was close were Rudy Giuliani and Chris Christie, and both men were in their own way peculiar and isolated. And to say that he knew nothing—nothing at all—about the basic intellectual foundations of the job was a comic understatement. Early in the campaign, in a Producers-worthy scene, Sam Nunberg was sent to explain the Constitution to the candidate: “I got as far as the Fourth Amendment before his finger is pulling down on his lip and his eyes are rolling back in his head.”

Almost everybody on the Trump team came with the kind of messy conflicts bound to bite a president or his staff.

In short, Wolff is perplexed at the fact that Trump was genuine, a trait foreign to those who work in journalism and politics. According to Wolff’s logic, the measure of Trump as a ‘serious candidate’ would have been his reliance on hundreds of so-called experts, who would have run every word he was to utter in public through carefully curated focus groups so as to craft the message which had the highest possibility of winning according to BIGDATA analysis.

Read more

On the Unrest in Iran

Anglo interest in Iran has always centered around oil and gas, which is unsurprising. The British discovered oil early on in the 20th century and promptly set up shop. Fast forward to 1941, and in the midst of World War II, Iran was once again strategically important. Reza Shah Pahlavi, who had been in power since 1925 sought to modernize Iran, and in doing so had invited German assistance so as to reduce the British oil-centric influence.. This became a problem for the British from the onset of war, and after the Germans attacked the Soviets, Iran became vitally important to both countries as an conduit for arms supply between them.

The shah refused to cut ties with the Germans however, proclaiming that Iran was a neutral country. So the Soviets and British put the squeeze on him, invaded Iran and forced him to abdicate the throne so that his son, the more amenable Mohammed Reza Shah, could take over. After the war, both the British and the Soviets withdrew their troops (although the latter required some ‘coaxing’), and the arrangement went back to how it had been before. The British controlled the oil interests, and the Shah went about implementing modernizing reforms as his father did.

In doing so, he came into conflict with factions which wanted to nationalize the oil, and who were concerned with the Shah’s growing power accumulation versus a more equal relationship with Parliament. This came to a head in the early 1950s, when the Mohammad Mossadegh spearheaded the Parliamentary move to nationalized the oil, against the wishes of the Shah (and of course The West). On the back of this, Mossadegh became Prime Minister and sought to kick the British out, while attempting to consolidate power himself and thus weaken the monarch.

In the process, Mossadegh also came into conflict with the religious clerics (mullahs). Although they approved of the nationalization of the oil, and opposed the Western-influenced secularization and modernization efforts of the Shah, they were concerned that their role and influence would be even further diminished in a new Mossadegh-led order as opposed to the standard quo of the monarchy. So they joined the growing chorus concerned that Mossadegh was getting too big for his britches (as the shah himself was also accused of), and supported his ouster.

This came in 1953, and included help from the British and the CIA, who of course were interested in the oil above anything else. Much has been made of this 1953 ‘coup,’ but the reality was that even though there was CIA involvement, it wasn’t a clean operation. Furthermore, to the extent the CIA intervened, it was in line with the domestic trend of the day, which was to get rid of Mossadegh.

One aspect that caused a lot of consternation, and opened the door for a lot of historical revisionism was the fact that the shah was quite feckless and indecisive. He had every right under Iranian law to get rid of Mossadegh, and even though he wanted Mossadegh out, if it had come from his hand it would have reinforced the growing idea that he was an authoritarian riding roughshod over the rule of law. Thus, he sought support from the British and Americans in fomenting internal discord before doing what he had the right to do on his own.

This dynamic has been twisted a bit in contemporary accounts of 1953, which almost universally state that Mossadegh was a ‘democratically elected’ leader who was overthrown by the CIA. This is not accurate. Mossadegh was democratically elected to Parliament. From there, however, he was nominated by the Shah to become Prime Minister, and approved by the rest of Parliament in a vote. ‘The people’ had no say in Mossadegh ascending to the premiership, and it had always been the shah’s right to nominate and get rid of Prime Ministers at necessary.

Indeed, all it takes is a cursory glance at the list of Iran’s Prime Ministers to see that during Mohammed Reza Shah’s 36 year rule, there were 33 different terms. One was lucky to be in the job for more than a year. PM’s coming and going had always been the way of things, and Mossadegh’s order to leave was no different.

The fact that Mossadegh arrested the officials who informed him of the Shah’s decree, and the shah’s subsequent fleeing to Italy is suggestive of the fact that a coup was going on – but one led by Mossadegh, who at that point was illegally in the office. This was August 13th. By August 16th, Mossadegh had surrendered under the weight of pro-shah protests and the realization that many officials both in government and the military supported the shah. Recall that Mossadegh himself was viewed as becoming increasingly authoritarian, and his actions in 1953 were probalby seen as confirmation of that. CIA influence or not, the Iranians themselves ultimately preferred the Shah to Mossadegh.

Read more

CS Lewis On Christmas

On this Christmas day, I find myself agreeing with the words of Lewis in his essay “What Christmas Means to Me”

Three things go by the name of Christmas. One is a religious festival. This is important and obligatory for Christians; but as it can be of no interest to anyone else, I shall naturally say no more about it here. The second (it has complex historical connections with the first, but we needn’t go into them) is a popular holiday, an occasion for merry-making and hospitality. If it were my business too have a ‘view’ on this, I should say that I much approve of merry-making. But what I approve of much more is everybody minding his own business. I see no reason why I should volunteer views as to how other people should spend their own money in their own leisure among their own friends. It is highly probable that they want my advice on such matters as little as I want theirs. But the third thing called Christmas is unfortunately everyone’s business.

I mean of course the commercial racket. The interchange of presents was a very small ingredient in the older English festivity. Mr. Pickwick took a cod with him to Dingley Dell; the reformed Scrooge ordered a turkey for his clerk; lovers sent love gifts; toys and fruit were given to children. But the idea that not only all friends but even all acquaintances should give one another presents, or at least send one another cards, is quite modern and has been forced upon us by the shopkeepers. Neither of these circumstances is in itself a reason for condemning it. I condemn it on the following grounds.

1. It gives on the whole much more pain than pleasure. You have only to stay over Christmas with a family who seriously try to ‘keep’ it (in its third, or commercial, aspect) in order to see that the thing is a nightmare. Long before December 25th everyone is worn out — physically worn out by weeks of daily struggle in overcrowded shops, mentally worn out by the effort to remember all the right recipients and to think out suitable gifts for them. They are in no trim for merry-making; much less (if they should want to) to take part in a religious act. They look far more as if there had been a long illness in the house.

2. Most of it is involuntary. The modern rule is that anyone can force you to give him a present by sending you a quite unprovoked present of his own. It is almost a blackmail. Who has not heard the wail of despair, and indeed of resentment, when, at the last moment, just as everyone hoped that the nuisance was over for one more year, the unwanted gift from Mrs. Busy (whom we hardly remember) flops unwelcomed through the letter-box, and back to the dreadful shops one of us has to go?

3. Things are given as presents which no mortal every bought for himself — gaudy and useless gadgets, ‘novelties’ bbecause no one was ever fool enough to make their like before. Have we really no better use for materials and for human skill and time than to spend them on all this rubbish?

4. The nuisance. for after all, during the racket we still have all our ordinary and
necessary shopping to do, and the racket trebles the labour of it.

We are told that the whole dreary business must go on because it is good for trade. It is in fact merely one annual symptom of that lunatic condition of our country, and indeed of the world, in which everyone lives by persuading everyone else to buy things. I don’t know the way out. But can it really be my duty to buy and receive masses of junk every winter just to help the shopkeepers? If the worst comes to the worst I’d sooner give them money for nothing and write if off as a charity. For nothing? Why, better for nothing than for a nuisance.

When I was a kid, Christmas was always about the presents, with the anticipation of Christmas Eve night bleeding into the euphoria of sunrise on Christmas day. Christmas was effectively over by noon, once the presents had been opened and the new gadgets had been fiddled with for a few hours.

As I get older, Christmas is more and more about the religious festival, as it should be. It’s about the significance of the end of the year, the darkest days of the year illuminated by the lights, decoration and song, prompting solemn reflection and preparation for the year that is to come. It truly is a wonderful time, even if one isn’t religious, regardless of one’s personal life situation. A Merry Christmas to all indeed.

Quick Hits & Dangerous Reads (23 December 2017)

Welcome to the first installment of a weekly feature in which I will take a look at various news items, links and posts which came to my attention over the past week. They may be too small to be deserving of a full post so I’ll deal with them in a sort of rapid fire succession here. Without further ado, here are the topics covered this week:

  1. Republican Tax bill
  2. Is the GOPe getting in line?
  3. Stefan Molyneux 8 hours of Christmas
  4. Glenn Greenwald and Fake News
  5. Ann Coulter on Immigration
  6. Audacious Epigone on Girls and Gibs (with some ZMan sprinkled in)
  7. Arsenal Football Club are Frustrating
  8. Oceans 8 & Sicario 2
  9. A Homosexual Santa
  10. A win for Truth and Beauty: women like Tonic Masculinity

Let’s begin:

Read more

The Downsides of #MeToo

A comment on this Rational Male post does a pretty good job in outlining the changes to gender relations we’ve seen in just 3 years:

We went from No means No (which meant that if she doesn’t say no, it’s on … which pretty much is the basic human mating script) to “affirmative consent” (“may I kiss you now” … “may I lick your breast now?”, etc., per the “rules” required before any physical contact *and* at “each stage of escalation”). Very few people actually follow affirmative consent, as we know, but it’s the rule at most colleges and universities. It isn’t the legal rule for rape, in terms of determining what was “consensual”, currently, but the FI is working on that, believe me.

Now, we have the goalposts moving even further along, from “affirmative consent” to “enthusiastic consent” — which means that if her consent is even verbally expressed, but isn’t clearly enthusiastic, then it isn’t “reliable as consent” because it could be the result of “pressure”, and if the consent “was real, it would be expressed enthusiastically, because when people really are consenting to sex, they’re always enthusiastic about it”. So essentially the standard they are pushing now (and which is getting rolled out on campuses right now) is that if the girl isn’t jumping your bones and begging for your cock, it’s rape/assault. Of course, again, not the legal standard, but that doesn’t matter that much — as we can all see what is happening right now is that the legal standard is being marginalized, because people can be destroyed in our media saturated environment without any involvement of the legal system at all, and the standards that apply in that extra-legal environment are the ones that the FI wants to apply, whether the legal system applies them or not.

Recall that December 2017 is the three year anniversary of Sabrina Erderly’s Rolling Stone article about a completely non-existent rape at a University of Virginia fraternity house. Fast forward three years and female-driven allegations of sexual misconduct have ushered in fresh calls to Believe Women, and Fight Patriarchy.

The difference is that this time around, there are real lives, real careers and real reputations at stake among the accused. Haven Monahan wasn’t a real person. As such, the ramifications of men losing their livelihoods and reputations the second an allegation is levied, without due process, sets a dangerous precedent. It seems as though some are starting to understand this. Cue Mika Brzezinski, co-host of Morning Joe, who ruffled some feathers within the Feminist Thotocracy with the following comments the other day on her show:

It’s going to be complicated, but I think women feel that they are maligned and treated through the process and therefore they’re afraid to step forward, so we need to look at the process.

But right now any woman, can say anything, and a man’s career is ruined. Now, a lot of women can say things that are true, and careers should be ruined. But the problem is that any woman can say anything, and that’s it, it’s over. Is that how we’re running businesses now?

Read more

How Dare You

Taylor Swift has gotten herself into some trouble over the past year or so, not necessarily for anything she has said or done, but rather for what she hasn’t said or done. Specifically, she has not chosen to join the bevy of celebrities and social media superstars in declaring that every little thing President Trump does or says is going to result in the immediate extinction of mankind.

I was alerted to this over the last few days or so, when Swift expressed her gratitude for what was a personally fulfilling year. As you can see from that article, she was destroyed for this on Twitter, by leftists who deemed her callous for not seeing 2017 as anything but the worst year in human history, because of President Trump, and other developments which were distasteful to their leftist sensibilities.

This led me to finding out that quite a few people harbored disappointment in the pop superstar for her silence in these matters. Her recognition by Time magazine as a ’silence breaker’ in their year end review of 2017 was roasted by The Daily Beast. The same publication has put out at least three other articles (here, here and here) in the past 12 months blasting Swift for not going all in on the Social Justice Warrior warpath in the same manner as the likes of Lena Dunham, Katy Perry and Ashley Judd, who have denounced the President, and for that matter any political views to the right of Mao.

Read more

Quick Hit: No Moore

So Roy Moore has seemingly lost in Alabama. This is a huge deal. I mentioned in my last post that if Moore had win, it would have been monumental as it would be a display of the waning power of the media. Thus, Moore’s defeat is significant in that the establishment, and the media in particular still holds the power to bully anyone it doesn’t like, effectively waging snap recall elections against Bad Thinkers who hold office. Expect pressure to be heaped on Trump in this regard. Decide if that is the politics you want.

But for Moore specifically, a lot of what did him in was incongruity. He touted himself as a Man of God first, and this was susceptible to attacks on this level. In a way, Franken was done similalry, having touted himself as a Man of the Equalist Diversity Tolerance God, and was proven a hypocrite. American voters hate that. 

Not that we don’t need God back at the midst of American culture, but Roy Moore types are not the way to go. 

I’m in transit, so I must go, leaving you with some thoughts from Libertas from RVF.

Sadly, this was as expected. Roy Moore was never the guy. Mo Brooks was. The voters chose wrong to get Brooks out. It’s as simple as that. Moore was always scummy with or without these allegations. This whole fiasco goes to show just how big a problem these “Cuckianity” people can be, as some are fond of saying.

But no more fighting the last war. This one was lost.

The Republicans need to adapt and immediately deploy a counteroffensive. The left is going to go all in on this next year. Expect any mundane interaction to suddenly be dredged up as “sexual misconduct” (a meaningless phrase legally speaking but just sounds bad, same as “collusion”). If the Republicans try to fight that battle, whether by going harder on it, or pleading how they’re good people on it, they will lose.

The Republicans instead need to maneuver to fight in another theater, with a sword and shield strategy.

The shield: America’s instinctive revulsion to witch hunts and star chambers. They need to emphasize the importance of evidence, due process, and fact finding. Deny, deny, deny. Point out the hysteria and moral panic. You already see Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham deploying this.

The sword: While fighting on the defensive in that theater, they need to turn the offensive somewhere else, an issue that’s equally or even more greatly emotionally charged, and that issue is immigration. As we just saw in New York twice in two months, this is deeply related to terrorism and safety. The Repiblicans need to run hard on building the wall, ending chain migration, stopping the diversity lottery, passing the RAISE Act, and so on. That way the Democrats can shriek all they want about “sexual misconduct,” but the Republicans can basically say they’re the party that’s gonna fight for your economic prosperity and, more importantly, not let in people that want to addict you to drugs or kill you.

With tax reform likely to be passed, the economy should look good, so the defining, emotive, and signature issue next year needs to be immigration. If they run on it, they’ll win. If they try to fight the Democrats on their chosen battleground, they will lose.

The Democrats successfully tested a very potent strategy. The Republicans need to respond accordingly, and it needs to be by going on the defensive there while going on the offensive on immigration, and no other issue.

Will they? Sadly, I have my doubts. Expect tons and tons of vague, idiotic “misconduct” accusations to come up next year – and make sure you’re very careful in your own lives. I joke that if I could today never get away with some of the the stuff I did in my approaches in 2014-15, which wasn’t exactly free from feminist hysteria. It’s gonna get a lot worse for men of all stripes.

Allegation Nation

A week from now, Alabama voters are set to go to the polls to decide who should replace Jeff Sessions as one of their Senators. The likely winner, Roy Moore, was already a controversial candidate due to the fact he holds some less than savory views about gays, and once refused to move a Ten Commandments statue from an Alabama courtroom.

The mainstream press loudly broadcasted these ‘transgressions’ so as to paint Moore as an unfit candidate. When the public remained unmoved, the Washington Post dropped an article which made allegations that he had a sexual relationship with a 14 year old, along with other teenagers. These allegations have come amidst what has become a purge many a Communist dictator would be proud of. Many prominent men in various fields have been accused of sexual harassment and worse, with a mere allegation being enough for immediate termination and knee-jerk public ridicule. Initiated by the explosive Harvey Weinstein revelations, the likes of Kevin Spacey, Matt Lauer, Charlie Rose, John Conyers and Al Franken and more have been caught in the firestorm.

The incessant media coverage, the condemnations, the hashtags and the moralizing surrounding the spate of allegations have mostly been about one thing – power, and who wields it. At current, those flying the Social Justice Warrior flag (especially the Feminist Division), are feeling down and out. With the rise of President Trump over the last 2 years, many of the Pretty Lies they’ve espoused are now getting exposed for what they are. The cultural shift which feels afoot is troubling to them because it means the end of their cultural dominance, initiated by the Boomers decades ago. Thus, they must lash out in one desperate attempt to regain control back from the Ugly Truth Purveyors who would render their ideology obsolete for generations.

Hence the hysteria.

From a strictly legal point of view, the vast majority of the allegations we’ve witnessed are just that – allegations. They mean that an aggrieved party has come forth. Contrary to popular belief, we have a legal system in this country that declares the accused to be innocent until proven otherwise. The burden is on the accuser to provide compelling evidence in a court of law about the misdeeds in question.

It is only after such a dispute has been adjudicated in this manner that punishment can be meted out.  Many of these instances involve allegations which took place years and even decades ago. This brings statutes of limitations into play, as well as the utter lack of concrete evidence which invariably would have whittled away over the years. As a result, you have a classic ‘he said/she said’ situation which leaves us in limbo legally.

It is a different matter politically. Consider this tweet from Mitt Romney:

[TWEET: Innocent until proven guilty is for criminal convictions, not elections. I believe Leigh Corfman. Her account is too serious to ignore. Moore is unfit for office and should step aside]

And this lovely tweet from yesterday, after reports of President Trump lending his support for Moore surfaced.

[TWEET: Roy Moore in the US Senate would be a stain on the GOP and on the nation. Leigh Corfman and other victims are courageous heroes. No vote, no majority is worth losing our honor, our integrity.]

This excrement is indicative of a society which is more and more willing to be ruled by the court of public opinion, where feelings supersede facts and Ugly Truths take a backseat to Pretty Lies. Those Lies, namely that Equalism, Diversity and Tolerance together form the highest collective of human virtues has been at the foundation of the current political and social establishment.

It is an establishment which was formed during the political and social upheavals of the 1960s and whose excesses are now challenged by more and more people. In the face of such backlash, establishment acolytes such as Romney have one job: preserve the status quo.

President-Elect Trump, and Mitt Romney dine, representing a devious MAGA uprising ready to eat the lunch of the petrified establishment

Consider the cases of Roy Moore, Al Franken and John Conyers. When the Washington Post published its original story leveling the allegations, within an hour the press had prominent members of the Republican Party on camera ready to disavow Moore and call for his resignation from the race. In the subsequent weeks, the Republicans were reported to have weighed all sorts of alternatives from having the governor of Alabama postpone the special election, to mounting a charge for a write-in candidate, to outright refusing to go through with the procedural formalities of swearing a would-be Senator-Elect Moore into the Senate.

Senator Jeff Flake, like Romney, a Never Trump Republican lieutenant, explicitly stated that if the choice was between a Democrat and Roy Moore, the Democrat was preferable. All this, simply because Roy Moore represents, or at least is perceived to represent, real opposition to the status quo. A status quo which, for completeness, consists of your name brand congressional types at the head of the GOP and the Democrats, the moneyed interests which own them, the vast bureaucracy which implements their dictate on the public, as well as a mainstream media which is their mouthpiece.

Moore, by all accounts is a Trump Republican, backed by Steve Bannon, President Trump’s former strategist and campaign manager, and the man who sees as his mission transforming the Trump doctrine of social, cultural and economic populism into political power. For this Bannon has been made a pariah, a boogeyman, with everything he touches proclaimed as toxic by a status-quo seeking establishment.

It was with this backdrop that Moore went into the September Republican Primary against Luther Strange, an establishment man supported by GOP bigwigs such as Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell. The Turtle lent the weight of his office, $30 million from the GOP coffers and even coerced President Trump to engage in a halfhearted campaign appearance in Alabama on behalf of Strange. It wasn’t enough, and Strange’s defeat once again highlighted the disdain the public has for the GOP establishment and establishment politics in general.

Fast forward a few weeks, and the Washington Post drops an article alleging that Roy Moore allegedly pursued sexual relations with a 14 year old, alongside other allegations that he dated 16 and 17 year olds, all while he was in his early 30s.  The allegations are all roughly four decades old, corroborated only by the words of the accusers. As I mentioned before there is little in the way of legal recourse at this juncture because of how long ago this supposedly took place.

This leaves the only conceivable motive for such information to be released at that specific time, mere weeks before a pivotal election, to be political in nature. Indeed, the Washington Post article, perhaps cognizant of the fact the allegation about the 14 year old girl might be a bit weak on its own for the reasons I described above, included the other allegations about 16 and 17 year olds so as to buttress its position and paint a richer picture of Moore’s alleged creepiness. Those other allegations, while not necessarily illegal, are certainly indecent in the minds of most, allowing negative feelings about Moore to flow more naturally.

Then there is the fact that embedded in the Post article is the admission that the women in question did not seek out the Post to go public. Rather a WaPo employee, having heard rumors, went and found the women, and after multiple interviews (suggesting coercion), they gave their accounts of Moore. Mind, Roy Moore has been a public figure in Alabama politics for the better part of 40 years, prancing around the judiciary in various capacities. One wonders why these women felt no need to voice their alleged grievances for all of that time. That is until the Washington Post tracked them down, a few weeks before an election that same ‘objective’ paper is desperate for Moore to lose.

Then, we have is the aforementioned coordinated response from the Republican leadership in DC, egged on by a jubilant mainstream media which spent countless hours discussing it, and then having that jubilance morph into anger the more and more it looked that Moore wasn’t going to succumb to the pressure and drop out.

This is to say nothing of the absurd Gloria Allred yearbook stunt. The Moore episode is a textbook political hit job, similar to the one which was attempted on Moore’s apparent ideological brethren, President Trump, also conveniently a few weeks before an election. That too was replete with calls from senior Republicans for Trump to step down, salivating from the media, and even a Gloria Allred appearance.

It obviously didn’t work. And should Roy Moore win next week, it will be another watershed in the slow but certain death of the establishment. It will demonstrate once again what a waning power the media has become; no longer can it just conjure scandals targeting its political opponents, which leave those opponents sunk the instant it breaks. In today’s world, with alternative media rising on the internet, and a general distaste for the mainstream viewpoint owing to decades of deceit and partisanship, the press is having its bias and actions scrutinized like never before.

Yet in its hubris, it believes in its indomitable might just at the moment its influence is deteriorating the most. That is why we get articles like this one, also from the Washington Post, which goes to fantastic lengths to defend Senator Al Franken from allegations that he too is a serial sexual harasser. The rationale here is blatant partisanship – because Franken is a Democrat and yells loudly about feminism from time to time, his sins are of less of a problem than someone like Roy Moore (or Trump). That Franken apologized to his accuser (most likely because there was photographic evidence) also helped his cause.

The curious thing here is that unlike with Moore, the same Republicans who wanted Moore’s head on a spike a mere hour into his ordeal have not called for anything similar with Franken. At most, they have called for a Senate Ethics Committee investigation, which Franken himself enthusiastically suggested. Franken was so eager to face his ‘punishment’ because he knows it is no such thing. Within the last decade or so, the Committee has, as its most stern mode of reprimand, administered letters of harsh admonishment to offending lawmakers. Representative Conyers seems headed for similar ‘censure’ in a Congressional Committee. Like Franken, Conyers was vociferously defended by his the most powerful Democrat allies, with Nancy Pelosi declaring that Conyers was an ‘icon,’ playing down the need for his removal from office.

What we have here is the establishment protecting the status quo. It is most clearly seen in the differing reactions to Moore and Franken by GOP Senators. Using McConnell as a proxy, his initial reaction to Moore was that his expulsion from the race was mandatory. With Franken, McConnell took a more deliberative tack, claiming a thorough investigation had to take place in the ethics committee. Likewise, with respect to Franken, Democratic Senator Dick Durban was deliberative in his insistence that ‘due process’ be carried out. However, Moore is afforded no such basic consideration. The status quo is circling the wagons.

The problem for the likes of McConnell is that their duplicity is becoming more and more apparent. He was willing to throw a threat to the status quo under the bus on a mere allegation, all for a pat on the head from the Editorial Boards of the New York Times or Washington Post, which might put a favorable sentence or two about the Majority Leader in one of its columns, before resuming regular bashing service in the next one. Thanks to the aforementioned alternative media, and the President’s famous Twitter account, more and more people turning away from what the Establishment advocates, simply because it is they that are advocating it.

Then there is the cultural angle, which begins with a denial of biological and sexual realities and is now ironically ending with the professional destruction of many of those who most avidly promote those Pretty Lies.

It is a biological reality that sperm is plentiful while eggs are relatively scarce, which imposes upon women the task of quality control with respect to male suitors. Incidentally it is this fact which explains why the majority of men are incredibly nervous in the mere presence of a woman he finds attractive, let alone in the midst of a simple interaction with one, to say nothing still of an attempt at intimate relations with one.

This is because, on a deep level, each sexual advance is a referendum on the suitability of the male, with a rejection rendering a verdict, albeit a temporary one, that the DNA of the male in question is not fit to remain in the human gene pool. It is utterly devastating when you think about it.

Yet there is a certain hope in the fact that it is possible for a man to control his destiny in this realm, because the threshold of ‘quality man,’ above which access to women would be granted, has more or less always been a known quantity at any given time throughout history. The crux, as it pertains to civilizational advance or decline and culture, has always been about the changing meaning of ‘quality’ as time goes on.

In speaking of civilization, it is worth remarking that in a way it is a very unnatural phenomenon. Civilization is a profound exercise in man working against nature to maintain order. It requires sustained drudgery on a daily basis, but such is the price of maintaining that thin veneer separating most from the harsh realities of nature.

On a biological level, men and women both pay an individual price for civilizational advance, the blunting of their inherent sexuality. On the female side, the price paid is that the quest to find the best sperm for her eggs cannot go on in perpetuity. That is, at some point she’ll have to pick a guy and remain loyal to him in all aspects, even if a ‘better’ man comes along later. For the men, the price is that once a woman agrees to be loyal to him, all of his provisional abilities are to be employed in service of her and any children that result from the union. These provisional abilities are displayed through competence in works which are beneficial to society. This creates a paradigm which offers men sexual access in exchange for contributing to society.

Without this ‘agreement,’ women would more than likely restrict sexual access to only the very best, most attractive males in a primal sense, sometimes regardless of their ability to contribute to society. These males, having the pick of the lot, would enjoy multiple women but have their resources spread thinly across them, if at all. The vast majority of men that would go without female attention, having no incentive to produce and contribute to society, would either trend towards becoming disinterested loafers or extremely violent. Neither outcome is beneficial for society.

The above is the explanation for the observations made by English anthropologist J.D. Unwin, whose 1934 treatise Sex and Culture studied roughly 85 civilized and uncivilized situations across 5000 years of history. His findings were that ‘social energy,’ which is to say civilization-building and enriching prowess, was directly linked to sexual restraint. He writes:

…Such, in brief but sufficient outline, were the postnuptial regulations of these vigorous societies; such were their methods of regulating the relations between the sexes. In each case they reduced their sexual opportunity to a minimum by the adoption of absolute monogamy; in each case the ensuing compulsory continence produced great social energy. The group within the society which suffered the greatest continence displayed the greatest energy, and dominated the society.

When absolute monogamy was preserved only for a short time, the energy was only expansive, but when the rigorous tradition was inherited by a number of generations the energy became productive. As soon as the institution of modified monogamy, that is, marriage and divorce by mutual consent, became part of the inherited tradition of a complete new generation, the energy, either of the whole society or of a group within the society, decreased, and then disappeared.

It is in this manner that the behaviour of these societies was controlled by their methods of regulating the relation between the sexes. In no case was sexual opportunity reduced to a minimum unless married women, and usually unmarried women also, were compelled to suffer legal and social disadvantages. The manner in which the marital and parental authorities were modified was the same in each society. In every case the same situations arose; the same sentiments were expressed; the same changes were made; the same results ensued.

The history of these societies consists of a series of monotonous repetitions; and it is difficult to decide which aspect of the story is the more significant: the lamentable lack of original thought which in each case the reformers displayed, or the amazing alacrity with which, after a period of intense compulsory continence, the human organism seizes the earliest opportunity to satisfy its innate desires in a direct or perverted manner. Sometimes a man has been heard to declare that he wishes both to enjoy the advantages of high culture and to abolish compulsory continence.

The inherent nature of the human organism, however, seems to be such that these desires are incompatible, even contradictory. The reformer may be likened to the foolish boy who desires both to keep his cake and to consume it. Any human society is free to choose either to display great energy or to enjoy sexual freedom; the evidence is that it cannot do both for more than one generation.

Thus, our current disregard of sexual mores and biological realities seems to be the latest in the long list of such periods found throughout the human story, rather than being something new.

This current iteration, the Feminist Thotocracy, was ushered in by the likes of Gloria Stienem and Helen Gurley Brown, who pushed for female independence from men, particularly financial independence. In terms of timing, it is no accident that the feminist movement really got traction in the 1960s and 1970s; this was a civilizational high long removed from the nadir that was shaped by the Great Depression and World War II. The unprecedented comfort that came from a society which was packed to the gills with consumer goods overflowing from its factories slowly led to the idea that the restraints which characterized Depression era America were no longer necessary.

It was time to stop being so square.

Thus, The Pill, ubiquitous abortion, divorce-on-a-whim and the virtues of single motherhood and promiscuity became staples of the culture, warping gender relations. A great symbol of how cultural views have been turned on its head came last week, as Prince Harry announced his engagement to a 36 year old divorced American actress, to much glee and fanfare. Some 81 years earlier, his great-grandfather’s brother, Edward VIII also wanted to marry an American divorcee past her prime. Edward, who was King at the time, was met with a stern social, political and family backlash, such that he chose to abdicate the throne rather than find another woman.

For a more detailed glimpse at what this cultural shift has wrought in the new century, consider this Vanity Fair article from 2015 about the Tinderification of Millennial dating. The interesting thing about Tinder is that it is a distillation of the precise sexual landscape which our libertine sexual reformers would prefer – instant gratification, no strings attached, pleasure-above-all hedonistic delight. Yet under the surface, the realities of male and female sex differences assert themselves. In the article both men and women feel a tinge of disappointment with the modern dating game – the women feel used and the men unchallenged. It is exactly what one who has not drunk from the chalice of Pretty Lies would expect.

The article is a must read in its entirety, but this passage in particular is of some import with respect to the conflagration of allegations put forth in recent weeks. It reads:

Men in the age of dating apps can be very cavalier, women say. One would think that having access to these nifty machines (their phones) that can summon up an abundance of no-strings-attached sex would make them feel happy, even grateful, and so inspired to be polite. But, based on interviews with more than 50 young women in New York, Indiana, and Delaware, aged 19 to 29, the opposite seems to be the case. “ ‘He drove me home in the morning.’ That’s a big deal,” said Rebecca, 21, a senior at the University of Delaware. “ ‘He kissed me good-bye.’ That shouldn’t be a big deal, but boys pull back from that because—”

“They don’t wanna give you the wrong idea,” said her classmate Kayla, 20.

[…]

Hearing story after story about the ill-mannered behavior of young women’s sex partners (“I had sex with a guy and he ignored me as I got dressed and I saw he was back on Tinder”), I wondered if there could be a parallel to Naomi Wolf’s The Beauty Myth (1991). Wolf posited that, as women achieved more social and political power, there was more pressure on them to be “beautiful” as a means of undermining their empowerment. Is it possible that now the potentially de-stabilizing trend women are having to contend with is the lack of respect they encounter from the men with whom they have sex? Could the ready availability of sex provided by dating apps actually be making men respect women less? “Too easy,” “Too easy,” “Too easy,” I heard again and again from young men when asked if there was anything about dating apps they didn’t like.

[…]

Bring all of this up to young men, however, and they scoff. Women are just as responsible for “the shit show that dating has become,” according to one. “Romance is completely dead, and it’s the girls’ fault,” says Alex, 25, a New Yorker who works in the film industry. “They act like all they want is to have sex with you and then they yell at you for not wanting to have a relationship. How are you gonna feel romantic about a girl like that? Oh, and by the way? I met you on Tinder.”

“Women do exactly the same things guys do,” said Matt, 26, who works in a New York art gallery. “I’ve had girls sleep with me off OkCupid and then just ghost me”—that is, disappear, in a digital sense, not returning texts. “They play the game the exact same way. They have a bunch of people going at the same time—they’re fielding their options. They’re always looking for somebody better, who has a better job or more money.” A few young women admitted to me that they use dating apps as a way to get free meals. “I call it Tinder food stamps,” one said.

Even the emphasis on looks inherent in a dating game based on swiping on photos is something men complain women are just as guilty of buying into. “They say in their profiles, ‘No shirtless pictures,’ but that’s bullshit,” says Nick, the same as above. “The day I switched to a shirtless picture with my tattoos, immediately, within a few minutes, I had, like, 15 matches.”

And if women aren’t interested in being treated as sexual objects, why do they self-objectify in their profile pictures? some men ask. “There’s a lot of girls who are just like, Check me out, I’m hot, I’m wearing a bikini,” says Jason, the Brooklyn photographer, who on his OkCupid profile calls himself a “feminist.” “I don’t know if it’s my place to tell a girl she shouldn’t be flaunting her sexuality if that’s what she wants to do. But,” he adds, “some guys might take the wrong idea from it.”

Men talk about the nudes they receive from women. They show off the nudes. “Tit pics and booty pics,” said Austin, 22, a college student in Indiana. “My phone is full of ‘em.”

And what about unsolicited dick pics? “They want to see your dick,” insists Adam, 23, a male model in New York. “They get excited from it. They’re like, ‘Oh my God, you’re huge.’ ”

No woman I talked to said she had ever asked for one. And yet, “If you’re a girl who’s trying to date, it’s normal to get dick pics all the time,” said Olivia, 24, a Brandeis graduate. “It’s like we have dicks flying at us.”

There are striking parallels between the Tinderized dating market for Millennials and the world we’ve now become privy to as a result of the Weinsteins of the world, with the tales of indecent exposure and crude, explicit messaging within the halls of power rivaling that seen in the internet dating landscape. In both cases, a subset of men who found themselves possessing things women want in abundance (power, money, fame, access to those things, even just a nice physique), and used it to systematically, if crudely, extract sex from a multitude of women while investing little beyond that on any particular one of them.

These are features, not bugs of a licentious culture. More specifically, this workplace hanky panky which is now being reclassed as sexual assault was officially sanctioned by the Boomers during the President Clinton/Monica Lewinsky scandal. The cries of ‘it’s just sex’ codified a set of relations between the genders that encouraged what the Vanity Fair article calls a ‘psychosexual obesity’ in which unlimited sexual appetites are met. For some.

Women accepted the concomitant absence of intimacy because these relations could, in theory, accrue to them the access to the financial independence, wealth and possible fame their feminist foremothers told them would be oh so empowering.

However the morning after has brought with it regret, dissatisfaction, shame and diminished self-worth as opposed to the promised exhilaration of not-needing-no-man. Studies have been conducted which show that female happiness has declined over the last four decades, in a direct inverse relationship to the rise of the Feminist Thotocracy. For young Tinderellas, their disappointment is tempered by a delusion that they still have their best years ahead of them, in which things might get better. Their older sisters, who have already been through the ringer, have no such luxury.

In either case, the discrepancies between the feminist promise of unlimited bliss and the disappointing reality had to be rectified somehow and it was done through the increased use of prescription medication among women, and the propagation of the idea that the West is a ‘rape culture.’ Both of these coping mechanisms are really an attempt at an after the fact absolution from the consequences of one’s actions.

Either her brain chemicals ‘acted up’ which necessitates drugs, or society ‘acted up’ and left women vulnerable to predation, necessitating the demonization of male sexuality and the public humiliation and ruination of any and all offenders.

Another aspect of this which is of interest concerns the fact that the vast majority of the offenders are self-described ‘male feminists,’ which is really a way to describe a beta male who loudly ingratiates himself with girls catering to their every ideological whim with the express purpose of cashing in later by getting sex. To date, no bona fide ‘players’ such as Clint Eastwood, Warren Beatty, Jack Nicholson or Leonardo DiCaprio have been caught up in this, despite having bed a medium sized city worth of women between them.

This speaks to the reality of the much maligned, aforementioned Trump ‘Pussy Tape’ – in which Trump was merely outlining an Ugly Truth. There is a certain class of men who can ‘grab’em by the pussy.’ Those now infamous words merely constitute a figurative phrase describing the fact that a man of a certain ‘sexyness’ can do or say things to women that less attractive men would be crucified for, provided it is done or said at just the right moment. Indeed, it is this sense of timing and execution which in part marks a man as sexually superior and thus attractive to women. What is deliberately left from any mainstream discussion of that Access Hollywood tape is the fact that Trump prefaced the pussygrab comment with the reality that when you’re famous (read: charming and attractive), they LET you do it.

The real reason that tape caused so much outrage was that the Ugly Truth was thrust so bluntly in the face of the public, with no warning. The vast majority of women hated that an aspect of their nature they would rather keep hidden was put on blast, by a man no less. (In this regard, women have exposed these things themselves by making the 50 Shades of Grey books some of the most sold in human history, but it required one to look beneath the surface to realize the Ugly Truth). Men were outraged by the tape because it confirmed to them that they could move heaven and earth in pursuit of a woman, but would still likely lose out to a well-timed wink from a charming Cad.

Unfortunately for women, common sense dictates that the sexiest 20 or 30% of males are much less visible, let alone attainable. Yet, the prescribed life plan for girls as per Feminist Thotocracy practitioners is as follows: Participate in the 4 year party known as college, having sex with lots of boys. Then graduate, shack up with a few gal pals in some coffin apartment in a big city, before spending the next 10 years or so ‘finding yourself,’ focusing on your career, while sleeping with more boys. Then, at age 35, begin thinking about settling down with Prince Charming.

This license to embark on an infinite search for the right alpha male doesn’t magically command a greater number of them to appear from the ether. In fact, it is more likely that increased promiscuity will result in increased encounters with beta types who have, through their competence in the professional world, attain power and resources which lets them attempt to lord more easily over subjective realms such as love and sex. This is particularly true in the diverse, more global metropolises.

What this may lead to is an otherwise less appealing man attempting to replicate the silky smooth maneuver he saw Don Draper do successfully on TV once, thinking that his having a fat bank account, for instance, is a direct substitute for attraction. What wasn’t realized was that it was never about the objective execution of the ‘move,’ but who was doing it.

It’s sexy when he does it, not so much Matt Lauer (allegedly)

The aggregation of put-on horror expressed at the sexual advances revealed in these allegations, ranging from the oafish and awkward to the downright deviant, mirrors that from the ‘trapped’ housewives of yesteryear, in a way. To the extent that the #metoo campaign is right and this behavior is more widespread, it is really the endgame of the voluntary realignment of culture and society which was ushered in by the Cultural Marxists.

Women have ultimately eschewed stay at home ‘drudgery’ and boring sex with Tim the Accountant, and in its stead accepted professional drudgery while stuck in a remote-locking sex office with Matt Lauer, as Harvey Weinstein jerks off into the decorative potted plants in the corner, as their inbox overflows with Charlie Rose’s intimate fantasies. At least the former scenario granted women the warmth of a stable family life from the deal, as opposed to the ruthlessness of corporate servitude. The Don Drapers and Christian Greys are very few and very far in between. It is little wonder that female happiness has been on the decline.

One of the girls in the aforementioned Vanity Fair article laments the fact that it’s the girls who have lost control in the modern hypersexual world. It seems as though the allegation furor is an attempt to wrest control away from the re-emergence of the sexual realities which were meant to have been relegated to the dustbin of history. As I remarked earlier, the vast majority of the claims we have heard to date cannot be adjudicated through legal means, and those making the claims by and large know this. The true aim, then, is to attempt to rewrite the rules of sex so as to favor women to a degree we haven’t yet seen, while retroactively assigning punishment for past offenses based on those new rules.

The aim is to create a world in which the sexual rules are unknown; that is there are no society-wide codes of conduct regarding sex and gender. Simultaneously, catastrophic societal, professional and perhaps legal punishment is to be doled out for the mere allegation of impropriety, although there is no way to know when a rule is broken until after the fact, when an accuser declares she was wronged. And of course, to prevent perpetuating a Rape Culture of oppression, the accuser should always be believed.

This is communist tyranny in its most pure form, here tinged with a bit of pink. No surprise, given feminism is little more than Cultural Marxism applied to gender relations. The goal is control, and the Masculine seeks the opposite of that. So it must be infused with soy until a suitable level of compliance is attained. It is a New Puritanism, ironically ushered in by ‘sex positive’ leftists.

In the end, the attempt to establish a FemenReich will fall short. Men will respond by cordoning themselves off from any non-professional contact with women on the job, and perhaps resort to recording all professional contacts. The Mike Pence Rule will be in full effect.

Of course women will cry foul about this too, and in so doing push men into a corner from which they were certainly react, most likely with a collective pimp hand raised in righteous indignation.

Failing this reemergence of a collective testicular fortitude, the specter of societal collapse will do the trick. As per Unwin, as degeneracy continues to proliferate, society building and society enhancing behaviors will decline, leaving the West vulnerable. And in the midst of the next society-wide panic, there will be no time for pithy concerns about ‘rape culture.’ It will most likely be the Woke Millenials, alongside their younger Generation Zyklon understudies which will shepherd society through those turbulent times. Meanwhile, what is left of the Boomers and the older Gen Xers watch their libertine ideals swept aside, universally regarded as lunacy, ironically relegating them to the exact ‘wrong side of history’ their tall tales and Pretty Lies were meant to keep them from.