RUTHFULLY YOURS

The anonymous attack on comedian Aziz Ansari, essentially for being a lousy date and inconsiderate sex partner, has led some to think that the spate of attacks on men for sexual harassment and assault might be slowing down. Although the account by “Grace,” the pseudonymous accuser, has been defended by many, others who have supported the outing of sexual assaulters have drawn the line at lumping bad dates in with more serious sexual malfeasance. Still others hope that the absurdity of Grace’s charges will force a rollback of the ever-escalating demonization of men guilty of nothing more than failing to fulfill a woman’s subjective expectations even when not made explicit.

Don’t count on it. Modern feminism for years has institutionalized a fundamental incoherence. Women are the equals of men and should have the same autonomy and agency, particularly over their sexual choices. At the same time, they need protection from men, who are empowered by a persistent “patriarchy” that encodes in women’s psyches a deference to that power. This internal contradiction has given us the snowflake feminists.

Feminist Contradictions
This incoherence, moreover, is nothing new. It has been obvious since the mid-1990s, when Rene Denfeld inThe New Victorians and Camille Paglia in “No Law in the Arena” analyzed how feminist ideology infantilizes women, making them out to be the helpless victims of “patriarchy.” Yet those exposés of feminist contradictions did not slow down, in subsequent decades, the diminishment of women’s sexual agency. In fact, the development on university campuses of restrictive policies regarding student social life and classroom behavior, and the unconstitutional campus investigations and punishments of men accused of sexual harassment and assault has spilled over into the larger culture. The #MeToo movement, which confuses prosecutable sexual assault with unsubstantiated accusations of boorish behavior, is the culmination of this decades-old process.

The contradictions of feminism, however, reflect a much larger problem, one endemic to any identity politics predicated on grievance and victimhood. Equity feminism, the demand for equal legal status, was a movement to sweep away the unjust laws and social mores that limited women’s lives. It assumed not that women were the same as men, but that they were capable of running their lives beyond the home, and did not need the tutelage of males. Voting, attending university, joining the workforce were all expressions of the personal autonomy that underlay their innate right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

“Don’t tell your mother.” Parents teach their children to recognize these words to warn them of stranger danger. Exposure is the predator’s enemy. “Don’t tell your mother” is the victimizer’s watchword used to silence his/her victims. So it is in politics.

The leftist Democrat party has weaponized secrecy for political purposes. Exposure is their enemy. The Mueller “Russian collusion” probe, launched by a falsified dossier financed by the Hillary Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee to destroy candidate Trump, handed to the FBI by Republican political adversary John McCain, was deceitfully used by the Obama team to secure FISA warrants to spy on the Trump team.

The Mueller investigation designed to destroy President Trump has boomeranged on Obama by exposing the serious criminal actions taken by his administration to destroy candidate Trump and elect Obama’s legacy candidate Hillary Clinton. Mueller’s probe found no evidence of wrongdoing by President Trump and the only Russian collusion exposed by the investigation belongs to Hillary/Obama who sold Russia 20% of our uranium. Yet the probe continues.

Mueller’s campaign to destroy President Trump has exposed the staggering abuse of power by Obama’s administration in deliberately using the salacious dossier to secure FISA warrants to spy on Trump. Watergate was five bungling burglars – Obamagate involves his FBI, CIA, DOJ and the colluding mainstream media for censoring and manipulating factual coverage of this massive abuse of power. Yet the probe continues.

On 1.18.18 members of the House said they viewed a “shocking” classified memo allegedly detailing abuse of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) by senior Justice Department and Federal Bureau of Investigations officials in relation to the investigation of the Trump campaign and called for it to be declassified and available to the public immediately.

The Democrats responded with “Don’t tell your mother.”

Much has been said and written over the years about the blessings conferred by multiculturalism on the countries that have opened their doors to large numbers of immigrants and refugees. Multiculturalism has, apparently, fostered the (unexplained) virtues of “diversity,” repaid a debt incurred by the colonial West to those it has exploited, led to economic productivity, and contributed to the putative boon of an anti-border globalist world in which national animosities and military strife will become a thing of the past.

This was the idea behind the Schengen policy adopted by the European Union, the Diversity Visa Lottery or “chain migration” program in the U.S., and the hospitality to primarily Muslim immigration in my own country of Canada. Every one of these measures has, by any honest report, proven a failure.

The argument made by immigration and refugee enthusiasts, namely that the Western democracies were founded and settled by immigrants and therefore should continue to welcome newcomers, is valid only to a point. In the course of time the original settlers created a national identity, a sense of communal membership in a common world unified by custom and law. It is that identity that should be preserved. But owing to many factors, including a loss of confidence in the rectitude and worthiness of what came to be regarded as a racist and imperialist civilization, reasonably coherent societies have been gradually transformed into a mosaic of ethnicities.

To my dismay, Canada is no exception. Canadian immigration presumably operates on a merit system, but there is little evidence of it in practice. True to Liberalist form, our feckless Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is on record as affirming that Canada has no identity. “There is no core identity, no mainstream in Canada,” Trudeau told The New York Times, proclaiming Canada as “the first post-national state” held together not by a hard-earned tradition but by a shopping list of abstract values — compassion, respect, openness and the like. Trudeau continued: ‘‘Countries with a strong national identity — linguistic, religious or cultural — are finding it a challenge to effectively integrate people from different backgrounds.” This is true if one sees one’s country as a permanent airport terminal or a teeming bazaar, as Trudeau apparently does, viewing Canada as a country defined not by our history or proto-European origins, but by a “pan-cultural heritage.”

As Candice Malcolm, author of Losing True North: Justin Trudeau’s Assault on Canadian Citizenship, writes: “He doesn’t think there is anything special about Canadian history or traditions. Instead, he suggests Canada is nothing but an intellectual construct and a hodgepodge of various people, from various backgrounds, who just happen to live side by side in the territory known as Canada. Trudeau seems embarrassed, even ashamed of, our Western culture and values.”

It is no breaking news that Mahmoud Abbas, also known by his war name Abu Mazen is simply Arafat in a suit. Abbas was hailed as a “moderate” and “peace maker.” Weak kneed semi-supporters of Israel breathed a sigh of relief….they would not have to waste their time defending Israel and having those uncomfortable moments at dinner parties.

Why even Netanyahu accepted him as a “negotiator for peace.”He was described by fawning media as “a politician” and a “realist.”

They ignored his role in barbaric acts against Israeli civilians; his rewards to the families of terrorists; his praise of them in “the struggle”; his routine and diurnal fulminations against Israel-all in Arabic, of course.

In his own words celebrating terrorist killers: ““On the anniversary of the [Fatah] Launch, we renew the promise to our blessed Martyrs, that we will follow the path of the Martyr Brother Yasser Arafat and his comrades among the leaders of all the fighting forces, all the Martyrs.”

Now the mask is slipping and he is not what he seemed to the willfully stupid. Of course many are blaming President Trump for Abbas’ tantrum over recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’ capital.

You see, in the lexicon about the Arab war against Israel, “moderate” is defined as someone who would destroy Israel”peace-meal.” rsk

This weekend women across the country are dusting off their pussyhats for another march for women. Rallies are scheduled for January 20 and 21 on the anniversary of the Women’s March on Washington. It was the largest single day protest in American history and everyone is still trying to figure out what their actual grievances were. It was in fact an Anti-Trump protest in pink clothing. It has been a year since grown women dressed like giant vaginas and carried illustrated signs that read: ‘Get Your Politics Out of my Pussy’; ‘The Pussy is watching’; ‘My Pussy My Choice’; ‘Stay Cunty’; ‘Pussy Trumps Tyranny’; ‘Not My Pussydent’; ‘Fear The Pussy’; ‘Viva la Vulva’ and other signs with the words; cunt, twat, and fuck. Celebrities ranted about menstrual blood, blowing up the White House and gave speeches praising traitors, terrorists, and cop killers.

These self-proclaimed defenders of women’s rights hold on to their bottomless pit of hatred against the president despite their own leaders being exposed as exploiters of other women. These empty headed mean girls of every age bully conservative women and emasculate all the men in their lives then march to whine about their oppression. All the while ignoring honor violence, sexual slavery, female genital mutilation, human trafficking and real oppression of women. These spoiled angry, unhappy and uninformed ladies of luxury, who wear pink hats and invisible blinders, epitomize the failure of the feminist movement.

They are an insult to every real feminist from suffragettes to those on the front lines risking their lives fighting for their sisters in Africa, Asia and the Middle East. Many of whom are denied the most basic of human rights and self-determination. They are an insult to women in America fighting against real sexual discrimination, domestic violence, exploitation and the ignorance of liberal women. These so-called freedom fighters regularly get manicures and pedicures from women who are forced to work in nail salons 12 hours a day without pay. Their fight for immigration stems solely on their heartfelt fear of losing their hard to find housekeepers and nannies.

They are anti-Trump protesters in pussy clothing. For most of these women the protests are just another version of a mean girls party. By marginalizing and bullying conservative women they get to be a part of the popular clique for the first time in their lives. Pussy hats are the quintessential symbol of the failure of feminism. Grown women wearing bright pink children’s hats with pussycat ears epitomizes their arrested development. It is not a symbol of empowerment it is a symbol of collective dependence. Pussyhats signify childishness not maturity, conformity not resistance, divisiveness not solidarity, spectacle not protest. They are political Barbie dolls in pink hats trying to give meaning to their empty plastic boring lives by bashing President Trump. In-crowd membership requires spewing anti-Trump talking points, pledging to always vote democrat and emasculating their husbands. The women who choose to dress as giant vaginas at the marches simply have more issues than there is room to describe in this article.

Surrendering it to the likes of Black Lives Matter and the Donna Rileys of the world would mean the end of the United States as a country of individual liberty and its economic counterpart, capitalism.

“Rigor [in engineering education] accomplishes dirty deeds… disciplining, demarcating boundaries, and demonstrating white male heterosexual privilege,” says Donna Riley, head of engineering education at Purdue University. “Scientific knowledge itself is gendered, raced, and colonizing.” (Engineering Studies, Dec, 2017)

To make any sense of this, one must visit the fever swamps of “white supremacy” scholarship. In the good old days, “white supremacy” referred to the ideology of groups like the Aryan Nation and the Ku Klux Klan. No more.

“White supremacy… is the presumed superiority of white racial identities… in support of the cultural, political, and economic domination of non-white groups.” (Progress in Human Geography, Nov, 2015) In other words, “white supremacy” refers nowadays to the imposing of “white” culture on non-whites by America’s white majority.

According to this view, the injustice of the Indian wars, of slavery, and of the Jim Crow era continues unabated today in the form of forced white cultural supremacy—forced, for example, by demanding rigor in engineering education. So, it appears, the whole edifice of American culture, and, by implication, of Western civilization, is a conspiracy by whites to keep non-whites (and women, homosexuals, etc.) oppressed.

The first casualty of such a view is the idea of objective truth. Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and private property, for example, are no longer universally valid ethico-political principles grounded in human nature. (“We hold these truths to be self-evident.”) They are, rather, white constructs designed exclusively to serve white ends, at the expense of non-whites.

In Eastern European folklore, “the city of Chelm functions as an imaginary city of fools, similar to that of the Greek Abdera, the English Gotham, and the German Schilda.” In fact, the “Chelm tales describe outlandish naiveté and futility.” Ruth von Bermuth argues that “Chelm … functioned for more than three centuries as an ironic model of Jewish society, both utopia and dystopia, an imaginary place onto which changing questions about Jewish identity, community, and history repeatedly have been projected.”

When reading these stories, one is amazed at the characters who seem so unaware of their folly. The tales showcase how common sense is often absent as so-called wise men cite unusual solutions that never work. They are stubbornly foolish and show contempt for logical problem-solving.

It is important to note that these stories reveal a backdrop of the centuries-old pariah status of Jews in a majority of countries. They could not endure if they lacked two essential survival mechanisms. The first is the necessity of always looking over one’s shoulder anticipating the Cossack, the inquisitor, the Nazi, or any of the diabolical characters whose aim was to demean or destroy the Jews. The second factor was black humor, which sustained Jews through the pogroms, the concentration camps, and the Gulag. These were necessary because one of the “[d]efining characteristics of Jewish culture and identity is the awareness of historical and modern anti-Semitism.” Jews could never become too comfortable.

Despite the fact that safety is a Jewish religious concern, there are currently far too many liberal rabbis in America who seem content to ignore the avowed enemies of the Jewish people. Consequently, “on July 25, 2017, in what appeared to be an unprecedented event in American Jewish history, a group that came into existence as a front for a terrorist organization that murders Jews was invited to solicit donations at a synagogue.”

“Rabbi Howard Jaffe of Temple Isaiah in Lexington, Mass., hosted three Muslim leaders, whom he presented to his congregation as friends of the Jewish community. It was billed as an interfaith bridge-building affair.” In actuality, it was “a political rally where Islamist extremists pretending to be moderates sought to enlist Jews in their campaign to undermine U.S. government counter-terrorism efforts, while raising funds for a Hamas-connected group – all in the name of ‘social justice’ and interfaith harmony.”

When Time picks an abstract concept as its ‘Thing of the Year’, it’s the kiss of death.

The magazine’s 2011 edition celebrated the Arab Spring’s ‘Protester’ just as the worst of the civil wars were getting started. In 2006, it picked ‘You’ just as the big web companies began crushing individuality on the internet. In 2002, it cheered the ‘Whistleblowers’ you haven’t heard from since. And in 1993, it put Arafat and Mandela on the cover as the ‘Peacemakers’. Good luck finding that peace.

So #MeToo was headed for trouble as soon as it became Time’s ‘Thing of the Year’. The cover, with the accusers dressed in somber black, foreshadowed the black dress code at the Golden Globes.

The cover wasn’t a win. It was a sigh of relief. Hollywood, the media and other cultural industries had been running scared of the scandal for months. Now they were finally getting a handle on it. In public relations, you get ahead of the scandal. You understand what makes it tick and take it apart.

Awards season was looming. And the culture industries were figuring out how to take #MeToo apart.

Harvey Weinstein had tried to shift the conversation from the women he was accused of raping to the NRA. Hollywood followed the same basic strategy without being quite as tacky as Harvey. It moved the conversation from #MeToo’s rape accusations to virtue signaling about diversity in the industry.

The best way to fight one hashtag was with another hashtag. #TimesUp replaced #MeToo. But where #MeToo was a raw personal accusation, #TimesUp was an impersonal leftist slogan of political urgency. #TimesUp for all the bad things we don’t like. Especially #MeToo. #TimesUp was safe where #MeToo was risky. US Weekly could advertise 9 #TimesUp products that showed you were down with the cause.

They included a $380 sweater.

#TimesUp had plenty of female stars out front. But they didn’t claim to be victims. Instead they were taking the safe Hollywood position of supporting victims. Victims as far from Hollywood as possible. #TimesUp’s official site features a huge letter from the “sisters” of Hollywood vowing to stand with female farm workers, janitors, health aides and illegal aliens suffering from sexual harassment.

You can’t redirect the problem any further away than farm country.

His prophesy: ‘We shall have regimentation and conformity, without respect for the needs of the individual soul; the puritanism of a hygienic morality in the interests of efficiency; uniformity of opinion through propaganda, and art only encouraged when it flatters the official doctrines of the time.’

In 1938, T.S. Eliot wrote The Idea of a Christian Society. Eliot’s major theme—a sketched outline of what a Christian society might entail—is stimulating despite the limitations of its context: it deals with England’s situation with the prospect of war casting its grim shadow. But his minor theme—the slide of a liberal society into a type of totalitarian democracy—has a broader, provocative relevance. The degeneration of Italy and Germany into dictatorships and the malignancy of the Soviet Union provided Eliot with examples of nations whose governments made much use of the words freedom and democracy, but twisted them to fit their preferred meaning. Eliot saw this lamentable pattern developing in liberal countries. His nuanced vision is worth revisiting, nearly eighty years later.

Eliot thought that liberalism would do most to prepare the way for a type of totalitarian democracy. (Eliot capitalised Liberalism, but I won’t so that the political project isn’t confused with the Australian political party.) This “totalitarian democracy”—seemingly an oxymoron—would be:

a state of affairs in which we shall have regimentation and conformity, without respect for the needs of the individual soul; the puritanism of a hygienic morality in the interests of efficiency; uniformity of opinion through propaganda, and art only encouraged when it flatters the official doctrines of the time.