…unless they want to allow women to make them second-class citizens as pay-back for all those years of male domination.
Just as anti-white racism is considered justifiable and benign by a large lump of progressives, misandry and flagrant anti-male rhetoric has been similarly given a stamp of approval by much of the Left and the mainstream news media. I’ve been pointing out this unethical double standard and hypocrisy for a long time, notably in 2011, when ABC News hosted an all-female roundtable to discuss how inferior men were as managers and leaders, and how much better women are.*
It has only become worse and more blatant since then. The Washington Post published this op-ed by Suzanna Danuta Walters, Professor of Sociology and director of the Women’s, Gender, and Sexuality Studies Program at Northeastern University.. A sample:
So men, if you really are #WithUs and would like us to not hate you for all the millennia of woe you have produced and benefited from, start with this: Lean out so we can actually just stand up without being beaten down. Pledge to vote for feminist women only. Don’t run for office. Don’t be in charge of anything. Step away from the power. We got this. And please know that your crocodile tears won’t be wiped away by us anymore. We have every right to hate you. You have done us wrong. #BecausePatriarchy. It is long past time to play hard for Team Feminism. And win.
Meanwhile, the New York Times didn’t feel that misandry AND racism should disqualify their choice for a place among their editors, Sarah, from whom a typical tweet is “white men are bullshit.” Now one of the three, generally awful in various ways, women who are certain to be the Democratic Presidential nominee in 2020, Kristin Gillibrand, tweeted out last year, “Our future is: Female. Intersectional. Powered by our belief in one another. And we’re just getting started.”
Imagine any other group in place of “Female,” and what would be the fate of the author. Yet it is just a few ticks from the primary message of the last women to run for President, who repeatedly argued that her gender alone should be enough to make voting for her the right thing to do.
The latest installment of the increasingly open anti-male bigotry from progressives, Democrats and the news media arrived last week in a jaw-dropping piece of misandry from Tina Brown, the British tabloid mistress who is only regarded as less odious than Rupert Murdock because of her lack of male genitalia, and the fact that she’s a feminist, of course. I know I do a lot of fisking on Ethics Alarms, but sometimes, as with Brown’s steaming plop of rhetorical offal, merely pointing out is general that it stinks lets the sample off too easy. This thing, called “What Happens When Women Stop Leading Like Men,” demands vivisection. Read the whole ridiculous, insulting thing if you must, but here is what you are in for.
It begins with sufficient signature significance to make anyone expecting a fair or rational essay to give up on the spot:
“It has been another bad inning for male leadership. Besides the hourly flatulence of Trumpian twitterings and the addition of Brazil’s Bolsonaro to the confederacy of bullyboy power, we have been treated to a second wave of masculine mayhem. The reputations of the Patriots owner Robert Kraft, R. Kelly, the philanthropist Michael Steinhardt and even the sainted co-founder of the Southern Poverty Law Center, Morris Dees, are the latest to circle the drain.”
This kind of dishonest cherry-picking is res ipsa loquitur for a bigot. Imagine listing recent black miscreants in the news and writing, “It has been another bad inning for American blacks.” In fact, this same “inning” hasn’t been so great for women, either.
Theresa May is flopping left and right as she tries to manage Brexit. Jacinda Ardern, New Zealand’s prime minister, responded to a single terrorist attack by constraining the rights of law-abiding New Zealanders and censoring information. The biggest corporate scam artist in the U.S. is a woman, Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes, as a brand new HBO documentary reveals. The most infamous athletic coach of the moment is also a woman, Sylvia Hatchell, the University of North Carolina’s Hall of Fame women’s basketball coach. One of most revered figures in the sport, Haskell is under investigation after suggesting that her mostly black players would get “hanged from trees with nooses” at an upcoming game if their performance didn’t improve, and forcing players to play despite serious injuries. Another female basketball coach, Muffet McGraw of Notre Dame—coaches are leaders, right?—has announced that she refuses to hire men for her staff. That’s still gender discrimination, at least unti the Clinton-Brown Gillibrand law gets an OK from an all-female Supreme Court.
Just this week a female social justice warrior, doubtlessly inspired by female House member Maxine Waters’ exhortation that Trump supporters should be accosted and harassed in public, abused a Starbuck’s customer—male, of course—for wearing a red hat with a patriotic message. Meanwhile, two of the young, exciting women elected to the House are working hard to Make Anti-Semitism Great Again, while the old, annoying female House Speaker lets them get away with it.
And then there was that famed female editor who wrote an op-ed extolling anti-male bigotry while throwing ad hominem insults at the President. No, it has been a rough “inning” for women too.
But Tina is too busy obfuscating and spinning to mention that. In her next paragraph she extols Ardern for taking action that would be unconstitutional here. Would I be sexist if I explained Brown’s affection for gun-grabbing as the widespread female malady of finding guns “icky”? Probably.
Then we get the recitation of cases where women being put into leadership positions is automatically a wonderful thing. No, Tina, it’s a wonderful thing if they are any good at it. To Tina, though, HIllary’s Delusion rules. The fact that a woman is a women is not only sufficient for her to be believed when she accuses a man of anything, it is enough to make her trustworthy:
“Countries from Georgia to Ethiopia have recently elected their first female presidents. Women now lead industries where once the thin air was inhaled only by men. For the first time, women have the top jobs at the New York Stock Exchange and at Nasdaq. With the ascension of Kathy Warden to C.E.O. of Northrop Grumman in January, four out of five of America’s biggest defense companies are run by women. Chicago is about to get its first black female mayor…”
Yes, about those female mayors, Tina. It was just a year ago that Female So She Must Be Good Nashville mayor Megan Barry resigned in the throes of a sex scandal that she never honestly acknowledged. Or was that a different “inning”? Then…
Democratic leading light Stacey Abrams just drew a line in the sand when she squelched the idea of running for vice president with the crisp rejoinder, “You don’t run for second place.”
You mean the same Stacy Abrams who has emulated Hillary Clinton by refusing to acknowledge her defeat in an election, and who is trying to exacerbate racial division and public distrust of our institutions by claiming, without evidence, that the Georgia gubernatorial election was rigged? You know, when I was a kid, guys claimed that women shouldn’t play sports because the girls were poor sports and cried when they lost. My personal experience taught me that the stereotype was baloney, but now Tina tells me that women who exemplify and reinforce that stereotype are good leaders.
Well, I’m just a stupid man; I can’t be expected to understand.
Among the 42 new women sworn into Congress, young rock stars like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez electrify all of us with their passion and verve…
Passion, verve, ignorance, arrogance, incompetence…
I guess if the idea is to call all female leaders excellent regardless of what they say and do, then Brown is right, all female leaders are excellent!
“I don’t contend that women are naturally and invariably better at running governments than men.”
This is exactly what this essay does, and she does it just a couple of sentences later with this howler:
“[W]e can at least argue that women are afflicted by what Hillary Clinton, who has spent a lifetime with someone who lacks it, once called “the responsibility gene.” I can bet a bucket of Bitcoins that we’ll never learn that any of the four married women plausibly seeking the Democratic presidential nomination are secretly sexting pictures of parts of their anatomy to a boyfriend.
Has your head exploded yet? Hillary Clinton has “the responsibility” gene? Funny, she refused to take responsibility for illegally using a home-server to send and receive classified e-mails. She refuses to take responsibility for losing the 2016 election, as if there was some other inept, distant, coughing, lying, spinning hypocrite running wearing a Hillary mask, and making embarrassing ads asking plaintively, “Why aren’t I 50 points ahead?” When she was being questioned about the slaughter at the Libyan outpost, she simultaneously said that she accepted responsibility and blamed the fiasco on her staff.
That’s some gene.
“But there is a deep lesson here. During thousands of years of civilization, women have evolved to deal with the intractable perplexities of life and find means of peaceful coexistence where men have traditionally found roads to conflict. Women have accumulated rich ways of knowing that until recently were dismissed in male circles of power. The alchemy of what has made women the way they are is mysterious: Is it a result of centuries spent trying to survive and prosper in societies where they’ve been viewed as lesser? Or, until recently, of always being appointed the family caregiver, bearing and raising children, tending to elderly parents and disabled siblings, so often left to shoulder the unpaid burdens of real life? Women have learned and taught lessons about how to cope with seeming impossibilities in ways that men traditionally — and to this day — have not. Coaching a slow learner on homework after a day of hassles at the office provides a deep experience of delayed gratification. A woman’s wisdom comes, in part, from the great juggle of her life.”
In other words, Brown is arguing that women ARE superior, and using junk science and generalities to do it.
“Who will forget the image of the stoically seated CBS anchor Gayle King intoning in a soothing tone “Robert, Robert” to a flailing, weeping, lying R. Kelly?”
I won’t. I will remember it as an example of a confrontation-averse woman who was too intimidated to do her job, which involved telling an out-of-control guest to sit down, calm down, or leave.
Tina concludes,
Salvation doesn’t lie in pursuing traditional male paths of ejaculatory self-elevation. In drawing on women’s wisdom without apology and pushing that wisdom forward into positions of power, we can soothe our world and, maybe, even save it.
Nice bigoted rhetoric there, Tina: “ejaculatory self-elevation.” Your essay rebuts your point: successful women abuse power pretty much the same way men do, and have. There’s no evidence that they are any better at leadership and management than men, just evidence, like this Times piece, that they have convinced themselves that the remedy for past discrimination is for women to be bigots themselves.
If men let them get a way with it, they really are inferior.
__________
*”The sweeping generalities, stereotyping, and flat pronouncements of male inferiority were unrestrained. “Women run for office to do something and men run for office to be somebody,” said Amanpour at one point, summarizing an exchange. “There’s something about a group of men and testosterone, you know, making risky decisions ,” said Claire Shipman, an ABC correspondent kindly given the chance to peddle her nauseatingly-titled new book, “Womenomics.” Shipman spouted various unidentified studies purportedly showing that women in power achieved uniformly better results than those bumbling male counterparts: better hedge fund profits, better corporate performance, pretty much better everything. “Very often, men will compete for the sake of competition. It almost doesn’t even matter what happens,” Clarke declared, to no objections or qualifications from the assembled experts of the Superior Sex. “Men aren’t attracted to powerful women,” added Amanpour.
“The male-bashing and female-worship went on for fifteen minutes, with no hint of restraint or irony. The political right’s favorite tactic to show news media bias is to rhetorically ask how differently the media would handle a scandal or other news story if the political affiliations of the parties were reversed. That tactic is often abused; frequently the answer is, “they would report it exactly the same way.” Not here. An all-male panel smugly talking about how “Estrogen really is a problem” and how decisions made in the throes of PMS are inherently untrustworthy would guarantee a feminist march on ABC headquarters, blogger and op-ed fury, NOW declarations of war and the rolling of network heads.”
Ethics Alarms 
I was watching a psychologist muse about what a truly ‘female’ style of governing would be. As he explained, although there have been many women in power throughout the years, they have never been the dominant political force and they have just taken part in the existing governing infrastructure. Now, there is a critical mass of women in leadership positions, so will there be a new form of governing? He then had the horrifying thought that the SJW movement, dominated by women, may be that governing style. The Women’s March, antifa, the unconditional demands, shouting down of opponents, policies based no feelings and not facts, may be the female governing style the feminists have been clamoring for.
Do these people not know, that in condoning or justifying anti-male bigotry, that they effectively do the same for anti-female bigotry.
No, they don’t know that, but you’re right.
I believe I’ve said it before, but one does not demand surrender and tribute from an ally.
Days were when allies meant like-minded folks on the same side or in the same cause. The Allies won WW2. The NATO Allies kept Communism out of Western Europe and ultimately rolled it back
These days the word has come to mean “self-hating member of the majority who serves as punching bag, enabler, and cheerleader for the minority, no matter what the minority says.” I think it started with “straight allies,” mostly family members or friends of gay people who put their friends or family members above all, but then spread to those who wanted to look woke. There was something to be said for not wanting gay people to be abused and discriminated against, but it quickly became about giving the gay people whatever they wanted and tagging anyone who was not allied as a bigot.
So since then we have seen the development of white allies, male allies, and Christian allies. I don’t think we have yet seen citizen allies to those here illegally but I’m sure there are a few people who use that expression, it just hasn’t caught on yet in the mainstream press.
It all boils down to the same thing. these various allies tout themselves as helpful to those they see as being in need of their help, but they are just as often sycophants and self haters, who duly speak up for those they claim to be allied with to be given whatever they want, whatever it is, and no matter the effect it will have on anyone else. They also duly fall silent when those they are allied with take the stage, and duly fade into the background when those they are supposedly allied to tell them they have this and no help is needed or wanted.
The stereotype of the henpecked or whipped husband or partner who would do anything and everything his wife said and never consider asserting himself even a little bit used to be a negative stereotype. These days, it’s almost assumed to be the way it should be. The guy needs to trade in the pickup truck or muscle car for a minivan, move out to the suburbs, sell the fishing pole and the gun, resign from whatever social groups he belongs to, tell his friends he’ll see them again after they’re married too and not before, and make certain that he is always home to help with the children, the laundry, and anything and everything else this woman who is supposed to be the center of his life tells him to help her with. Now it’s also expected that he don the pink pussy hat, march silently at his partner’s side, and campaign for Hillary, Kirsten, Kamala, or whatever female candidate his partner tells him to campaign for.
The stereotype of the black servant who was not too smart or easily frightened was considered offensive, and rightly so. Jack Benny and Charlie Chan both had one, and that’s exiled a lot of their material to the do not play vault. However, it is more than perfectly all right for the hip, cool black dude to now have the clueless white friend who follows his lead, does as he says because it’s the right thing, and steps back when told this is a black thing, you wouldn’t get it. And of course, any white Ally has to cast his vote for Barack Obama, or whatever other hip, cool black politician is on the ballot. If he cast his vote otherwise, he is a bigot.
Heaven forbid that we pull out the old fashioned stories where the noble crusader battles the villainous Saracen, or the clean cut, pith-helmeted or white-kepi-wearing Europeans battle the savages in the desert. However, now it’s fully expected that woke or socially conscious Christian “allies” be happy to take off their shoes and sit in the back of the mosque while their allies bow and scrape to Allah, remark on what great truths are found in the Quran and how beautiful the call to prayer sounds, and spread the idea that true Muslims are never involved in terrorism, only those who abuse lthe religion, while receiving no such courtesies back.
I am frankly deeply suspicious of any straight white man who classes himself as any kind of ally. It is one thing to coexist with those different from you. It is one thing to stand for the idea that those different should not be harassed. It’s a very different thing to hold those different than you above you, and consider yourself inferior to the point where you must self conquer to be on their level.
Brilliant, if not brutal.
jvb
The biggest lie that Feminism told the world, was that it was about ‘equality’.
It was in the era when my mother was told to be a secretary instead of college like her younger brothers. It was when she had to train a new-hire man and she did payroll. It was when my prof in the 80s said a STEM degree wasn’t for women… (told him off and he became a reference later) Just saying that it wasn’t equal in living memory, and pockets like the religious Amish remain.
However, the misandry I find even more disgusting. A lot of misogyny was simply not knowing any better, both men and women were programmed for millennia that this was the way things were supposed to be. I think a lifetime would be a reasonable time to consolidate major gender or racial changes. I
do not understand how you can claim any kind of moral superiority if you want nasty payback for hundreds of years, payback on people who did little to none of the abuse. Feminists know these acts were horrible when done to them, those acts don’t stop being horrible if done as revenge. I would call acts of knowing and angry feminists on men, even needlessly feeling guilty
men, is just plain evil. Victorian men didn’t know any better and punishing any man or BOY today is worse than arrogant ignorance in the 1800s. Misandry knows these acts are bad but does them anyway.
I am concerned that those objecting to the misandry will pick the wrong hill to die on and are getting virulently hateful about the old chainmail bikini. (Chainmail bikinis like Red Sonja are as dumb as a Green beret going into combat nude. Wanting protective armor is not misandry) But the hatred displayed for a protective armor-skin option is kind of alarming. Chainmail bikinis being saved does not do anything to address the many arenas where misandry is becoming abusive. Picking that hill also validates people like Larson’s view that nothing is as important to men as the objectified bikini. It becomes the shallow hill the anti-feminists will die on.
Back when I was a 12 year old girl, I went through my extreme feminist phase, thanks to a friend’s mom’s indoctrination. I went home, and proudly informed my dad that anything he could do, I could do better. My dad, being a decent human, who wanted to raise decent humans, told me to try to pee standing up. I realized of course that I couldn’t without making a mess.
He told me that he believed in me, that with hard work I could do any job I liked and achieve goals. But, if I spent my life feeling superior to men instead of equal, I would end up with a lifetime of messes. He also taught me that people who have to put others down to feel better about themselves are bullies at heart. I’m thankful every day for that lesson from him.
”try to pee standing up.”
Though it does take some practice, I can confirm that X-Chromosomal Units can, in fact, pee standing up.
On numerous of occasions my gal pal at the time, a marathoner, pulled over while we were running and…um…voided.
Technology to the rescue! The ‘Go Girl’ allows the use of a urinal by those without, er, and ‘urinary outie.’
https://www.amazon.com/Go-Girl-Female-Urination-Device/dp/B00GW52N4I/ref=asc_df_B00GW52N4I/?tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=167126940649&hvpos=1o1&hvnetw=g&hvrand=5464065072799881722&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9027998&hvtargid=pla-309402245218&th=1
I’m fighting mightily the urge to click on that link, slick!
Google ‘go girl’
Real product (I own one for our bug out bag)
Despite what the soft and biased Sociology studies say diversity doesn’t make most organizations better. In nearly any manual labor or physically demanding profession women are never top performers. All of us bigoted men will tell you stories, of course they are all just anecdotal, the telling of which are proof we are bigots.
The reason these leftist will fail and damage feminism for a long time is because most of the country knows that women are not as physically strong as men, not even close, so when the leftist tell you they are and all the other reasons women are great they have a credibility gap that most of the country won’t ignore.
In a industry that physical strength and skill are primary requirements it it those who are the strongest that generally emerge as the leaders within that organization. The vast majority of the country knows this, lives this reality, so progressives can cite all the urban companies that women thrive at and tell us how wrong we are because not all industries have women succeeding.
I am dealing with my own feminist hell right now, my kids go to private school because I want better for them than I had. My boy is failing, teacher has no idea how to teach boys. All the boys in her class have to go see tutors to help them keep up, this is school wide for almost all the women teachers. The Male teachers don’t have all the female or Male students going having to get additional tutoring. These teachers have been taught in a way that biased them against the boys.
There will be a big shift coming, the left has created too many big lies and the institutions they are building on them will collapse.
My son had exactly that experience in private school. He was literally abused, and the experience permanently soured him on formal education. We eventually home schooled him. It turned out OK, but he missed a lot, and I second guess myself every day.
People who have no need for the companionship or affection of members of the opposite sex can afford to indulge in the luxury of unequivocally despising the opposite sex. The paraphrase Barbara Streisand, in an obverse sort of way, “People, People who DON’T need certain people, are the luckiest people in the world.”
Doesn’t all this ‘girl power’ get messy when the girls were (and still are) biologically male? It seems like these same feminists have little to say when folks like Martin(e) Rothblatt & others born male are put on “most successful women” lists. Maybe the only way men can be in power properly now is to approximate the look of women. We’ve come a long way baby.
I love it when you quote cigarette ads!!!
Ouch.
jvb
Chivalry should die. This antiquated notion that men are protectors of the fairer sex has created this problem. Chivalry in a modern world creates the very double standard we object to. I am not talking about holding a door for someone but rather the archaeic ideas that women are delicate flowers of pure ideals.
Lets evaluate some ideas that are codified in law. If we take the Violence Against Women Act the underpinnings are that males are inherently aggressive and women need protection.
Who pushed this idea and why? Why should assault or battery against a female be any different then the equivalent harm done to a male. Gender has no bearing on the physical harm caused. If a 160 lb female MMA fighter assaulted me, even though I may outweigh her, she could put a far more serious hurt on me than I on her. Size is of little consequence when a practiced fighter is hell bent on hurting you.
In civil law fathers are treated as second class citizens in custody battles because we maintain the idea that only women are quality care givers. Given the rise in single mother homes are we seeing improvements in academics, social development or citizenship among the young of those households? I doubt it and I would bet the rise in incarceration rates among some can be directly tied the lack of a positive male role model.
And what of these children born to women with multiple baby daddies, what do the little boys learn about adult male female relationships? Does Jamal or Jimmy learn that it is normal for women to have multiple partners at the same time? Why can’t mom settle for one guy? Is it because having 3 men can deliver more resources than one alone? Or, is it that she cannot have a live in male or she risks losing the ultimate baby daddy – Mr. Social Services. Why is it if daddy fails to pay for his offspring he can be jailed but if mom cannot pay ensure she has plenty of options.
To be truly equal one must face the same life risks without the benefit of a safety net and must be required to perform the same social obligations as could be called on by another citizen of a different demographic.
I expect however men will perpetuate the belief that women are better. Many will continue to elevate women in their lives over themselves because it makes them feel like they are empowerers of women, protectors of their capacities, and to keep the peace. No one wants their sister, mother, or girlfriend pissed off at them if the fail to give them the requisite reinforcements. Because they know how viscious women can be.
As someone that has actually faced down an entire building of misandry directly focused at me it’s my experienced opinion that Suzanna Danuta Walters needs some prolonged psychological help and anyone that agrees with her is a damn fool.
My answer to the question posed, “Are Men Really Supposed To Accept Misandry And Anti-Male Bigotry?”, is not just a simple no, but a resounding HELL NO!
Men should NOT accept misandry and anti-male bigotry any more than women should accept misogyny and anti-woman bigotry.
All this ignorant tribal divisioin has got to stop, it will destroy us.
Z
EXACTLY and to the point. Could not agree more.
CM
Where is Aliza. I believe there are parallels here to the growth of white nationalists.
If I understand her recurring thesis that unless a sector of society realizes that it is being transformed out of existence, through the creation of alliances among groups with a proverbial ax to grind with that group, the sector will at some point be unable to defend its right to exist and will become a slave to the new majority. Further, if I understand her, our inability to see what is happening is rooted in our unwillingness to see the light. ( read fear of alt right messengers, that if whose ideas are incorporated into one’s own opinions would mark them as a white supramacist.
Aliza if I misrepresented you I apologize and please feel free to correct me.
C’mon Chris, admit it. You’re just saying that because she’s a woman!
Actually Penn , this is my understanding of her writings.. I am not sure if I agree with her perspectives on cultural purity but every time I read her posts I get the impression that she is telling me I cannot see the problem because I am unwilling to accept the messengers because that would equate us with the philosophies of said messengers.
Sorry, Chris. I was being facetious. I apologize.
I admire your ability to squeeze sense out of Alizia’s verbiage and, more, to paraphrase her 1,000+ words in about 100.
No need to,apologize. I actually thought your comment funny.
This seemed to me to be a good opportunity to seek clarity of her ideas by using a non racial situational comparison.
That is succinctly summarized, nice.
I wrote on this after reading a previous post. Why is anti-men different from anti-black, anti-gay, anti-blue collar, anti-Asian (for which Harvard stands to lose billions, and rightfully so.) All these women are saying is SOME BIAS IS OKAY, SOME IS NOT. No cognitive dissonance here? Or maybe, put simply, no cognition at all. (And I am a woman…)
Actually, that’s working out pretty well for Jacinda Ardern, at least so far, and no doubt for that editor too. That criticism is like criticising Stalin for the Ukrainian Famine of the 1930s, something that only moves those with other perspectives.
Yes, because that’s a bandwagon that male politicians jump on, too (I know you have noticed the Australian case history). “Icky” doesn’t enter into it, an eye for the main chance does.
Digressing only slightly, I did once hear of a little Norwegian girl who asked her mother if men could be politicians, so far had things gone in Norway.
Tina Brown writes,
“Then came the slaughter in the Christchurch mosques and overnight the gravitas in her angular face beneath a hijab became an iconic image of global humanity. As women across New Zealand emulated her gesture of solidarity by donning head scarves, the Arab world took note. A portrait of Ms. Ardern was projected across the world’s tallest building, Dubai’s Burj Khalifa, with the word “Peace” emblazoned above it in English and Arabic.”
Oh. So, the New Zealand Prime Minister dons a headscarf and peace broke out all over the world? Huh. . . Who knew it would be so easy? I guess we should ask how things are going for women in Saudi Arabia – they can get driver’s licenses now but still need a male co-pilot. And, what about the role of women in Iran?
As an aside, how is it that donning a headscarf, a symbol of male subjugation, is an act of empowerment? Why is it that the Left has a love affair with Islam? That is an atomic skullcrusher for me.
jvb
johnburger2013 asked, “Why is it that the Left has a love affair with Islam?”
Interesting question, here’s the answer.
These are my opinions based on my observations over the last nearly 20 years…
1. The modern political left in the USA is rapidly becoming totalitarian minded, Islam has been and will always be totalitarian minded.
2. The modern political left is rapidly becoming anti-freedom, Islam has been and will always be anti-freedom.
3. The modern political left is hates anything that opposes their ideological viewpoint, Islam will always hate anything that opposes their ideological viewpoint.
4. The modern political left refuses to listen to and tries to silence anything that opposes their ideological viewpoint, Islam has always refused to listen to and tried to silence anything that opposes their ideological viewpoint.
5. The modern political left in the USA is rapidly becoming anti-Jew, Islam has been and will always be anti-Jew.
6. The modern political left in the USA is rapidly becoming anti-Christianity primarily because the political right is predominately pro-Christianity, Islam has been and will always be anti-Christianity.
7. The modern political left in the USA is rapidly becoming consumed by totalitarian extremism, Islam has been and will always be consumed by totalitarian extremists.
8. The modern political left in the USA are open bigots, Islam has been and will always be bigots.
9. The modern political left in the USA deems any opinion that differs from its own ideology as evil and would like it eradicated, Islam has always wanted to eradicate any evil ideology that differs from its own.
10. The modern political left in the USA is completely consumed by antiism, Islam has been and will always be consumed by antiism.
(I’m absolutely positive there are LOTS more examples)
How does all this answer the question “why is it that the Left has a love affair with Islam”? The answer is simple; it’s because when the modern political left in the USA can’t find any common ground with the political right for reasons like I pointed out above then Islam will be used as a means to an end and the enemy of my enemy is my friend. I think it’s inevitable that Islamic totalitarianism will absorb a huge swath of the totalitarian minded political left, and since the political left refuses to learn from history and has absolutely no foresight the political left won’t know what hit them until it’s too late. It doesn’t matter if it’s Islamic rule or total totalitarian rule, once the political left gets their way and all the freedoms the political left has been abusing to destroy the freedom of others are gone, it’ll hit them like a hammer and they’ll whine like little children that “this isn’t what we fought for”.
Okay, discuss.
11. The modern political left in the USA is increasingly accepting of the use of physical force to silence opponents, Islam has been and will always use physical force to silence opponents.
Antifa, anyone?
An interesting comment.
http://incels.co/threads/you-arent-entitled-to-anything-stop-complaining-teehee.103315/
Why are “progressives” so deterministic when it comes to poverty, , yet for incels they suddenly have a “pull up your bootstraps and stop making excuses” mentality? Is it because we are ugly? or is it just because they dont want any sort of ugly to average male being successful in life?
It just blows my mind. They understand that for poverty, simply being born poor is a strict disadvantage. They understand it’s not always a clear cut discrimination, but a long series of subtle things that happen all throughout life.
They understand that some poor people making it out does not negate the experiences of the others, and does not mean we should expect all poor to make it out.
They understand that a person born rich can essentially make constant terrible life decisions and still come out ok, whereas a poor person has to play the game perfectly just to fare moderately well.
Yet suddenly, when it comes to looks, despite lookism being well documented and observed, their so called progressivism goes flying out the window and they become Ben Shapiro.
Can you IMAGINE if the shit they said about looks was transferred over to wealth?
“Poor people need to stop making excuses and realise the problem is their fault”
“Being born poor isn’t even that big a deal. My friend was born poor and now he’s rich”
“Employers can sense your negative attitude, that’s why they won’t hire you”
“You aren’t entitled to money. Companies are not objects where you put job applications in and money falls out”
“I’m a 36 and I’ve been homeless all my life, but I don’t let it get me down :).”
“Poor people are a danger to society. How much crime is commited by poor people? They need to be put on a government watch list”
“If they hate capitalism so much why do they even want a job?”
“Having money won’t make you happy. If you think being trapped in poverty is the cause of your problems then you’re wrong”
It’s simply astounding the hypocrisy.
Yeah, incels and man-babies is their rebuttal to anyone criticizing progressive media. Current Lucasfilm, along with Disney/MCEU have been especially virulent using that as a slam at critics- especially Youtubers in the last year. And while a majority who care enough to speak up are white males, there are women, blacks, immigrants, and plenty with wives and children of their own. Only a portion are even conservative, and these crowd leaders have a wide variety of background and primary reasons for criticism. It’s not gender or race that drives their passion when they are so verbal about media that makes an effort to avoid PC. The NPCs are doing a good job of pushing moderates toward Trump.