I’m watching a Democrat strategist give his post-mortem on the November 4 elections in which Democrats got their heads handed to them (not that Obama has a clue as he plans his next fascist executive order power-grab between golf rounds. All we know is that Obama doesn’t feel “repudiated” no matter how much of a toxic pariah he’s become even to his own party). Why do Democrats tend to fare so badly in midterms, the strategist is asked. And he says, “We’ve got to do a better job reaching out to white voters.”
This is PRECISELY what Democrat strategists are saying.
You are not a human being to Democrats. Human beings are created in the image of God and Democrats piss on both God and His image. No, you are a black voter, or a Hispanic voter, or an Asian voter. Or you are an enemy who has to be tricked into voting for the party that wants to give the good races all the stuff your family worked so hard to earn because you belong to the wrong race.
Of course, that is racial politics from the PARTY of race politics. If you want to divide people up by race and play the game of divide and conquer – and to hell with the increasingly incredibly polarizing results you are guaranteed to get as a result – you are a Democrat, pure and simple.
All you have to do is blame your racism and the climate of anger and polarization your racist engineering engenders on the other side. And your media propaganda will duly report that “fact.”
Republicans are the party of ideas and the party of Americans. Democrats are the party of racism and the party of bitterness against America.
It’s just the way it is. And it’s just the way it has been since Democrats realized that if you can’t beat them, join them and then subvert them to the same plantation agenda they’ve always had. Before you were useful as slave labor; now you’re useful as slave voters. To wit: if you want your welfare check, you vote for the master party.
All the other party will offer you is the opportunity to get a job because they’re trying to make it easier for employers to build businesses and to learn because they’re trying to provide poor children of ALL races with vouchers for private schools to end the blue line union monopoly over “edyookashun.”
But of course it’s easier to sit at home and blame whitey – or blame whoever the convenient target to be blamed is – than it is to work. And that’s just human nature.
Which party is the party of racism? The party that hates Clarence Thomas, the party that hates Allen West, the party that hates Condoleezza Rice, the party that hates Dr. Benjamin Carson, that’s who.
I still remember the racist hate that Clarence Thomas received from the party that presents itself as oh-so-uber-un-racist.
In this election cycle, racist politicking was out full force as Democrats pulled out every trick to fearmonger the black community into getting out and voting against Republicans. And no lie was too outrageous.
And of course there was the War on Women that Democrats just never got tired of playing.
Misogynists are Republican and Republicans are misogynists. That’s what we’ve been told for the last how many years now from Democrats?
So I run across this story in the Los Angeles Times. And it’s written by an uber-liberal named Meghan Daum:
The other thing the catcalling video shows: Our detachment issues
Los Angeles Times
November 5, 2014, 5:23 PM
If for some unfathomable reason you’re not among the more than 30 million people who’ve already seen the “catcalling video” that started ricocheting through the zeitgeist last week, I’ll give you a brief rundown.
An actress named Shoshana Roberts, unremarkably dressed, is videotaped with a hidden camera as she walks around a variety of New York City neighborhoods. Over 10 hours, men vied for her attention, asking, “What’s up, beautiful?” and demanding to know why she won’t talk to them. Some seem pretty innocuous. Others, like the one who walks next to Roberts silently for five minutes straight, are downright creepy.
What began as feminist activism from an anti-street harassment organization called Hollaback expanded into a referendum on race, because Roberts is white and the vast majority of the men on the video are black or Latino. For all the video tells us about race, men and the discomfort women can experience on the street, it also tells us something about a different — and relatively new — kind of cultural discomfort: our awkwardness in negotiating public spaces.
When I watch the video, I see not just a woman being objectified by men but also a woman who, presumably at the behest of her director, is totally unwilling to engage in the world around her. She makes no eye contact, responds to no greeting, registers no interest in the people in her midst. I also see in it a filmmaker who hasn’t bothered to parse the difference between a “good morning” and a “hey, baby.” And in reading women’s reactions, I sense a perception that any of these guys could have pulled Roberts into an alley and assaulted her at any time.
Hollaback, which is committed to the message that a “hello” can easily and quickly escalate into violence, certainly seems to share that perception. But in the context of this video at least, it’s a little tone deaf. As she walked, Roberts was surrounded by hundreds of people, many of whom would surely have intervened if she’d needed help. As odd as the creepy companion walker was, does it fit Hollaback founder Emily May’s description of “a terrifying, terrifying experience”?
Obviously only Roberts can say how she felt about any given interaction. Nonetheless, here’s the thing about life in the big city, especially cities whose identities are rooted in the energy of the street: You can’t live in a vacuum. In fact, most residents don’t want to live in a vacuum. They have boundaries, but they still want to share a nod or knowing glance with a stranger on the bus or subway. They want to weave their individual, day-to-day experiences into the larger tapestry. And nothing about Robert’s disconnected, almost zombie-like comportment in the video reflects that spirit.
We all have our zombie-like days, of course. But I suspect that in real life Roberts handles men who talk to her on the street the same way most women eventually learn to: by saying “thank you” or saying something The Times won’t print, or waving a hand in a way that could be taken as either friendly or dismissive. Hollaback might consider these concessions are themselves symptoms of patriarchal oppression — and that is a fair, if not exactly new, point. I would say what’s missing from the video is that making concessions to strangers, sometimes acknowledging their existence, is part of what it means to share the world with other people — at least the real-life, three-dimensional world.
Of course, that world increasingly takes a back seat to the digital sphere, where ignoring unwanted communications is standard protocol, where many, if not most, conversations take place via text or email. Dating and sexual conquest belong largely to the realm of online dating sites and Tinder feeds. Moreover, most people when they do find themselves in public spaces, spend more time looking at their phones than looking at what’s around them. Little by little, we’re losing our instinct for joining the larger tapestry.
And maybe that’s the ultimate lesson of the catcalling video. It’s not just that men can be boorish or that race and class issues can be thorny but that walking down the street can be more complicated than hanging out online. Not to mention a lot more interesting.
And I couldn’t help but wonder: is this the tone this leftie would have decided to take if the woman victim had been a racial minority and the creepy catcallers had been white men???
Daum makes this point early on:
What began as feminist activism from an anti-street harassment organization called Hollaback expanded into a referendum on race, because Roberts is white and the vast majority of the men on the video are black or Latino.
And then proceeds to drop that point entirely as if it were a radioactively hot potato. You never see the racial angle mentioned again. It’s almost like she waved her hand at it, and that’s more than enough. From that moment on, her article actually became a DEFENSE of the black and Latino men – i.e. the core members of the Democrat Party racial constituency – who sexually harassed the white woman for ten hours.
Now, I must confess that there have been a couple of times that Meghan Daum – who in the past was just so over-the-top lefty-moonbeam that she maxed out the measurement apparatus – has surprised me of late. It’s possible that she actually is able to realize that the identity politics game the left keeps playing is as dangerous as it is toxic.
You know, the way Bill Clinton just did:
“I believe that in ways large and small, peaceful and sometimes violent, that the biggest threat to the future of our children and grandchildren is the poison of identity politics that preaches that our differences are far more important than our common humanity,” he told the crowd of activists, celebrities, and lawmakers.
But no matter: the REST of the Democrat universe plays it as their first card, their second card, their third card, their fourth card and their fifth card in every political game of five-card poker.
And it was, as usual, the central card played in this election.
We had the FIRST female elected to the United States Senate from blue state Iowa in American history. And not only did this Republican woman have to suffer getting sexually trivialized over how attractive she was (you know, for a bimbo) by a career sexist Democrat male senator, but she had to suffer the booooooring whine of three-term Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieu as she complained that she won’t get re-elected to a fourth term because she’s a woman and Louisianans are conservatives who hate women and hate blacks:
“And number two: I’ll be very, very honest with you. The south has not always been the friendliest place for African-Americans. It’s been a difficult time for the president to present himself in a very positive light as a leader,” she said.
“It’s not always been a good place for women to present ourselves,” Ms. Landrieu continued. “It’s more of a conservative place. So we’ve had to work a little harder on that. But the people trust me, I believe — really they do … trust me to do the right thing for the state.”
Ms. Landrieu’s comments come as some Democrats are making direct, often visceral appeals to black voters, notably in southern states like Georgia, in hopes of energizing the party base ahead of Tuesday’s election.
A woman who has been elected to the Senate by her state three times blames her state’s hostility to her on her gender and on racism.
You see, there’s one way to play this game: the Democrat way. If you try to play it in a way that doesn’t politically help the political exigencies of the Democrat Party, it’s because you’re a racist, or you’re a misogynist, or you’re a racist misogynist.
It’s NEVER fascists when Democrats do it. It’s ALWAYS fascist when Republicans do it. Every time. No matter how much of a pretzel you’ve got to twist your brain into to believe the liberal line.
War veteran Joni Ernst is tired of the “war on women” meme the Democrats constantly play (her male Democrat challenger actually had the complete lack of balls to play it on her):
She didn’t want to hear opponent Bruce Braley’s campaign claims anymore that she wages war on women with her positions because, the war veteran said, “I’ve been to war; this is not a war.”
Of course, it IS a war, because it is a vicious attack strategy from the party of hate and division, from the party that pits race against race, income-level against income level, gender against gender, etc.
It’s a war for the soul of America. And even Bill Clinton admits that the Democrat Party machine is on the side of Satan in the war.
Abortion isn’t a “woman’s issue.” It’s a CHILDREN’S issue. If abortion is only a woman’s issue, then men are to be excluded from having anything to do with children and whether they should live or die. If abortion is a “woman’s issue” as Democrats believe, and if a man and a woman don’t produce a child at the moment of conception, as Democrats believe, then ANY responsibility men have ought to end the nanosecond they roll off of that woman and go to sleep. Because he DID NOT FATHER A CHILD according to the left and according to the left he has nothing whatsoever to do with the most critical choice involving the “woman’s choice” involving this non-child.
What Democrats want and what they have largely already achieved is the end of fatherhood. Fathers are not “fathers” any more; they do NOT procreate a child and they are therefore not to be allowed ANY choice or ANY responsibility whatsoever in the MOST important decision involving a child that somehow mysteriously develops at some later time.
And of course homosexual sodomy marriage is nothing more than an extension of liberal thought: marriage is an institution for families; but the party of militant hatred for fatherhood necessarily becomes the party of militant hatred for the family of which fathers are a necessary component.
So Democrats have this twisted, perverted, hateful view toward any woman who loves her family and loves her children and values families and children.
And so your Sarah Palins and any woman who is pro-marriage and pro-family have to be rabidly attacked in the most hateful way. It’s FINE for Democrats to call Republican women “whores.” Just try being a Republican white male who calls a minority female governor a whore and see what happens to your career as the media feeding frenzy goes into beyond-rabid mode.
But like what we see somehow happen in Meghan Daum’s piece with black men and Latino men – in other words with Democrats – the left just strips the narrative of the elements they don’t like and then retells the story according to their ideology. Just as in Daum’s piece what could have – and WOULD have had the sleazeballs been white men howling over a minority woman – been a piece about the racist and misogynistic attitudes about minorities toward women becomes a piece about the snooty way a woman carries herself which of course apparently invites abuse with aforementioned abuse being no big deal. In any and every story involving the nastiest and most despicable racist and misogynistic behavior of liberals gets explained away by some “narrative” had the political party or the race or the gender of the person or people engaging in the despicable conduct been the politically incorrect sort (i.e. white men).
I’ll grant Meghan Daum credit for taking on the perennially offended feminist left over what they perceive as such a hostile climate that a man who says “good morning!” is tantamount to a rapist. Believe it or not, she has courage to take on that group of rabid harpies given the instant media access that band of vermin has. But we’ll know Meghan is truly courageous when it is WHITE REPUBLICAN MEN who act the way these black and Hispanic men acted that she defends.
Doubt very much that it will ever happen.