I hearby withdraw my sympathy for Megyn Kelly when Trump, after she ambushed him in the first GOP candidates debate in 2015 by calling him a misogynist, implied that she was addled because she was having her period. That was vulgar and literally below the belt, but Megyn just burrowed under Trump by calling pundit Mark Levin, a smarter, more credentialed lawyer than Kelly, a “micropenis.”
Nice.
Kelly’s excuse was that Levin has savaged her for her obnoxious, ignorant, borderline anti-Semitic claim that the U.S. is fighting for Jews rather than Americans by attacking Iran. “He tweets about me obsessively in the crudest, nastiest terms possible,” Kelly tweeted. “Literally more than some stalkers I’ve had arrested. He doesn’t like it when women like me fight back. Bc of his micropenis.” Kelly went to law school and that is the best she can do in a policy debate? “Oh yeah? Well you have a little dick!”
To her probable horror, Megyn was quickly defended by certifiable Dunning-Krueger victim and vulgarian Margery Taylor Greene, who wrote, “I wholeheartedly support Megyn Kelly telling the world that Mark Levin has a micropenis. It’s the most deserved insult, and I don’t care if it’s vulgar,” Greene wrote in her own post on X. “And Trump’s gigantic defense of Levin only enraged the base more. People are DONE. MAGA destroyed by micropenis Mark Levin.”
I stopped listening to Levin because of his habit of using sophomoric insults and name-calling to appeal to his lower IQ listeners (How many times can anyone find “New York Slimes” funny?), but his expressed contempt for Greene has been, if anything, understated.
After getting support from the likes of Greene, Megyn must be looking back on her life to assess where she took the wrong turn that brought her to such a desperate state.
Ethics Alarms 
Greenwald makes many valid points.
https://youtu.be/d38Ba4Xioko?si=zcz7Y4L51U9Txoik
I’m having a hard time coming up with what the analogous observation would be if a guy wanted to insult a woman by addressing the magnitude or any other aspect of her, er, equipage. And aren’t enlightened women supposed to say, “size doesn’t matter”? Shouldn’t she be called out for being sexist and objectifying men? And of course, there’s always the old saw that, “There’s nothing sexier than a fat wallet.”
There is no shortage of dumb blonde insults. Women are also dismissed as frigid bitches, hormonal, hysterical, “on the rag,” etc.
But you’re correct that calling a woman fat/skinny or deriding the size of her breasts isn’t analogous to insulting a man’s height, hair loss, virility, or endowment.
Exactly! Thanks
(Nice use of “endowment.”)
Megyn Kelly has been destroying her brand quickly after Charlie Kirk’s assassination. She is listening to much to Tucker Carlson I am afraid.
Speaking of Tucker Carlson, what in the world is he up to:
The scuttlebutt is that in his last meetings with Carlson, Trump was intentionally feeding him false info to leak to Iran. Trump denies it, but it’s not the kind of thing you’d admit if it was true.
Megyn Kelly has been destroying her brand quickly after Charlie Kirk’s assassination. She is listening to much to Tucker Carlson I am afraid.
It has been gone over a thousand times by various analysts (many with military bona fides) that the “official story” explaining Charlie Kirk’s assassination does not hold together. I followed those presentations and their arguments are coherent. So, what occurs in the minds of people (when a “cover-up” is obvious) is to imagine a “targeted assassination”, and there the nation most adept at international assassination is Israel and Mossad agents.
It is likely that mist (all?) who participate on this blog are not aware and do not pay attention to the radical theories being developed by influential but still marginal “authorities” who devise theories based on non-conventional research and presuppositions that many cannot even consider because they just seem too outlandish. One large one is the insinuation that Israel had an interest in the assassination of Kennedy because he blocked Israel from getting the atomic bomb (and as a Catholic had a ‘natural’ disposition to oppose Jewish historical machinations). That argument was put forward and polished by Laurent Guyénot. See for example “Our God is your God too, but he has chosen us”: Essays on Jewish Power.
The core premise (which I accept) is that Israel’s “will to power” and survival-will is so intense and so dominating that (and here is the proposition which is “intuitive especulation”) Israel’s intelligence and paramilitaries will stop at nothing to secure the designs of that state. Since (in this view) the whole world sought to destroy Jewry, Jews are wise to believe that their enemy is everyone in the world. In this sense the whole world is their adversary. And the premise goes further. The biggest apparent “friend” of Israel is the US, but only insofar as the belief-system of Christian Zionism remains intact. But since that belief (what supports Christian Zionism) is based on erroneous theology, it is a fragile belief, and therefore Evangelicals are friends only up to a point. And for the Israeli state (Machiavelian and essentially atheistic) Evangelicals and Christian Zionists are merely “tools” for Israel to secure its state and historical objectives (Greater Israel and “security”).
“But since that belief (what supports Christian Zionism) is based on erroneous theology,”
How? Salvation is to the Jew first, then the Gentile.
We are grafted in, and though no less a member of the family of God, I find it impossible not to support God’s chosen people.
He will bless those who bless the Jews, and curse those who curse the Jews. And though you’ll say that’s Old Testament, Jesus said “you search the Scriptures, but these are they that testify of me.”
Perhaps someone here will argue otherwise, but I don’t know how you can worship the Messiah and not care about his chosen people.
Well written!!
I understand how that theological argument is constructed. So at the very least know that “I hear you”. What most I want to draw to your attention is that this theological assertion is debated by done, denied by others.
Sorry! i meant: debated by some, denied by others.
(My endeavor is (mostly) to understand how people support their affiliations and commitments in the present. The theological debate is beyond the scope of the blog. But it worthwhile to see how people justify their reasonings).
This touches an important theological debate in the Church about eschatology.
Mike Huckabee is a premillennial dispensationalist, which means that he believes that the Bible predicts a rapture, followed by a thousand year earthly reign of Jesus Christ involving a revived Israel; this is why the state of Israel is of major theological importance for many evangelicals. In this theology God has separate purposes for the Church and Israel.
The church that I am a member of is amillennial, and interprets the millennium as the time between Jesus’s days at earth as described in the Gospels, and the return of Jesus Christ followed by the Last Judgement and the new heaven and earth. In this theology the state of Israel is not of theological importance. The term Israel can be used to mean the Church including Jews and Gentiles. Support for the state of Israel by amillennial believers tend to be based non-religious grounds, e.g. political, cultural, and historical grounds; criticism of Israel is just as allowed as criticism of the policies of any other state including the USA. There is no room for antisemitism based on Galatians 3:28 and Romans 9-11.
Tucker Carlson does not visit a church, as he declared that he reads his Bible at home. His animus against Israel and Jews should make everybody uncomfortable, and his antisemitism mirrors old bigotries that were common in Europe up to World War II.
The church that I am a member of is amillennial, and interprets the millennium as the time between Jesus’s days at earth as described in the Gospels, and the return of Jesus Christ followed by the Last Judgement and the new heaven and earth. In this theology the state of Israel is not of theological importance.
I guess since we are revealing our “essential commitments” I must reveal (some angels are singing somewhere) that my views are post-Christian (in many senses) and pre-Christian in others.
My views are best described by a quasi-gnostic model. Not quite Gnostic and more than mere gnosis. Thus: the entire Biblical narrative is reduced to “narrative” or Story. (Demiurge or god-concept). The figure of Jesus, taken as absolute rejection of earthly hierarchy (and power), took an absolute stand against established terrestrial and metaphysical authority (the structure of the Jewish church and state apparatus). So certainly he had to go …
Jesus, as knowledge-bringer, proposes internal realization as the purpose of religious commitment. “The Kingdom is within”. This changes everything. (The exoteric aspect is still relevant however).
For this reasons my views of Jewish machinations (the striving to obtain a state through any means necessary, and the traditional view of Jewish will in history), and Christian subservience to it in our present, as well as American power and Israeli power (and military, state, corporate and dominion seeking by those powers) are simply put the objectives of striving man but illusions really, or self-deceptions. You do not need to”God’s” permission to conquer and obtain in this world. You need steel and gold to quote Steve of NJ.
God is in most senses absent from those machinations since, if one accept this view, God is only concerned with the state of man’s eternal soul.
All conquering peoples, all conquering peoples, conquer under the banner of their god-concept. It is true that there are better and worse god-concepts, so in this specific sense I do not subscribe to that of militant Islam. I would not describe either theological Americanism of Hebrew power-machination as “the lesser evil” (compared to militant Islam) but since I do like that my head remains attached to my body (!) I “cast my lot” (in sheer complicity) with this present unfolding of terrestrial power. But the two chiefs leading this present rehearsal are both narcissistic, power-driven nutcases.
The truth must always be stated.
How do you deal with Biblical prophecy, then?
And how do you square that the relationship with the individual as well as the nations are referenced throughout Scripture?
And you can’t day it’s all fantasy, because the archeology and even secular history backs up the text.
To paraphrase the old saying, you may not be interested in God, but he’s very interested in you. And that’s a really good thing.
That is a topic that needs much more explanation than a single post at Ethics Alarms. A good theology book to start with would be “The Bible And The Future” from Prof. Anthony Hoekema.
Take for instance the land promise for Israel. Psalm 37:11 states “But the meek shall possess the land”. In the Beatitudes (Matthew 5:5) that becomes “The meek shall inherit the world”. That too is a land promise, but much wider in scope than the promised land of Psalm 37:11. The promise of the new heaven and the new earth includes a land promise, as the new earth is for all those with God, both Jew and Gentiles, as an unperishable inheritance. So the promises in the OT will all be fulfilled at the consummation of history after Christ’s final return.
You are asking me (one who is inclined to research odd topics and to consider far-flung notions) a particularly knotty question.
What I do agree with is that people are deeply involved with all manner of speculation, fear, apprehension and also projection and fantasy about what the events in our present *mean*.
And naturally they will resort to Biblical prophecy because they seek clarity about events that are huge, scary, consequential and that have impact, and will have impact, on their lives.
I do recommend teo interesting assays by CG Jung. One called “Wotan” (pre-WWll) and the other “After the Catastrophe”.
The catastrophe that is developing for us now might be described as a “Yahweh” one. (But it is not one involving Jesus as god-concept).
You two are ignoring prophetic events that have occurred in times past, the most significant of which is Jesus appearance.
The most interesting of which, to me, is Psalm 22.
The books of the Bible were written across time, not just a novel written across a couple years.
Short story long, Christian Zionism is a strange term to me, but supporting God’s chosen people is not.
You can choose to believe they’re in the land again because God said it will happen after a 1000 plus years (He did) or because a space was made for them after the holocaust.
But they’re there now, and I support them there; and I support them here. God’s chosen people, without whom I would not experience the grace and love of God (and I still have my issues, thank God for forgiveness…).
And there’s a reason that Levin, Shapiro, et al. are all sounding the alarm when these crackpots post up things sympathetic to people who’ve wanted to kill the Jews since shortly after Islam began.
Levin could have phrased it better, but Kelly is out of control.
I have various ways of thinking about these questions, but at the end of it all I view “The Revelation of Christ” (and Second Coming) as interior events. I also acknowledge that at least half of Jack’s readership are either Protestants or Catholics. However, it does not seem the place to discuss elaborate and also controversial social-theological topics.
I do believe that the “god” presiding over the present geo-political machinations is a Yahweh-spirit. And though I may be wrong (and I hope so) I think these unfolding events will result in different levels of destruction (again I refer to CG Jung’s essay “Wotan”).
But I do acknowledge the deep, if murky and dangerous, currents of psychological projection that show up as people witness these dramatic unfolding events. It’s massively psychological.
There is no room for antisemitism based on Galatians 3:28 and Romans 9-11.
Well that’s no fun! I take it you don’t sing at your Church either?
I am joking of course. If I had to be absolutely honest I would say that my own Jewish genetic background (Jewishness is not a belief but is a birth-status and when examined is acutely racialist) has become irrelevant in my new dispensation of the mind. Try to have sone Jewish define “What is a Jew?” It is a mass of confused identifications. In this sense Christianity (specifically original Catholicism) is certainly a step up.
The most of experience that we have (in America, in Europe) are of cultural post-Jews if Judaism is defined by Orthodoxy (strict Rabbinical Judaism). Most Jews in this sense are apostate.
And when Judaism and Jewishness become Zionism — trust me! — you have a radical different animal.
(I am going to have to stop here. The sirens are gone off. Incoming missiles! Talk to you later!) 😉
See, I take the notion if Machiavellian power-seeking to its ultimate and logical point. I do not believe in the righteousness of a State, and when the issue really cones down to raw power, then and only then will we approach events in the world from a perspective of realism. All mystical dreams, all phantasies of goodness and exalted intentions must be seen as not only BS but as inhibitions that block power’s objectives. And there is no science that better explains what is going on in our world today but that of a strict Machiavellianism.
It does not matter one iota if either Israel, or the US, or Russia, or China, or anyone, is “right or wrong”, it only has to do with men who play the game of war and struggle to win, to dominate, to control. If you (if one) wants to play the moral mind game one can, but none of that will help to understand how power really operates. And just now, with the advent of the machinery of universal monitoring of idea and expression, the bext chase being the capability of states to intervene in thought and will, the power-game has now become absolutely raw, and absolutely visible.
My recommendation? Become aware of one’s own essential complicity. To be complicit is to be an accomplice. OTOH, one can detach oneself from complicity by foregoing benefits. That would be “renunciation”. And only the “renounced” have genuine moral authority. But they also become a) useless and b) obstacles if they insist on speaking the truth and being truthful.
Is there a truth”? Is there a “higher truth”? Certainly there is on a transcendent level. But you see we down here in the “here-below” we are all COMPLICIT in exactly those machinations that are symbolized by the idea of the Devil’s Kingdom. That is, by definition, the Machiavellian realm, is it not? That is the realm of Nietzschean, Bismarckian and Machiavellian power dynamic. You’ve said as much, Mr Barleyfield! 😉
In my view only a dreaming fool will believe in the terrestrial narratives of power acquisition. I admit I will go along with the unfolding dream of power machinations if I will receive benefits from its attainments. But here is an interesting aspect: there is a whole range of people who believe themselves to be outside of the receipt of benefits. That is, they see power working for power’s advantages, not their advantage. So they resist aligning their will with power’s machinations.
And just now, with the advent of the machinery of universal monitoring of idea and expression, the bext chase being the capability of states to intervene in thought and will, the power-game has now become absolutely raw, and absolutely visible.
Should read: next phase. That is to say: you and all of us, over the next 5-10 years, will observe first hand the curtailing and the limitation of free-thought that inhibits power’s objectives.
reminds me of when we were kids would tease each other with “you God damn mother fucking son of a bitch, you’ve got a little dicky that’s the size of a nip.”
“What do you mean “we” White Man?”
Haha, I mean “we” as in me and my friends, who were still a bit free-range in the early 80s.