Posts Tagged ‘feminism’

Why Liberals And Democrats And The USA They Infest Should Be Subjugated And Enslaved According To Their Own Worldview.

June 6, 2017

Chelsea Clinton is the Great White Hope of the Democratic Party.  You can see that the way the liberal establishment keeps giving her award after award for doing nothing, much the same way they kept promoting and elevating Hillary Clinton for being married to Bill.  Bill was elected Attorney General of Arkansas where he could molest women with the help of State troopers, and the Rose Law firm rather mysteriously first found it expedient to hire a woman who had flunked her first bar exam as their very first female associate and then to just as mysteriously decide to make a lawyer with virtually no legal experience a full partner after Bill got elected Governor.  It’s also just a coincidence that Bill was elected Attorney General in November of 1976 and Hillary was hired by the Rose Law Firm less than a month after Bill assumed office in February 1977.  Just as it was just a coincidence that Bill was elected Governor of Arkansas in 1979 and Hillary suddenly became a senior partner of the firm in 1979.  Yes, leftist boys and girls.  It’s true.  Your Uber Woman is not the ultimate example of wonderfulness you believe: she flunked her exam.  The whole legal system had to degrade for her to pass the dang test.  But somehow there wasn’t a woman on the planet more capable than Hillary.  Either that or it was naked political bribery as a firm hires a wife to curry favor with an attorney general husband.  One or the other, and I very much think it’s obvious it’s the other.  So okay, it WASN’T a coincidence: every damn thing she did was derivative from her husband’s success.  And this pattern has been true Hillary Clinton’s entire without-her-husband-to-hang-on-to-nothing-burger career.

But what a feminist heroine, this woman who stayed by her man no matter how much he humiliated her.  In 1992, she had her “You know, I’m not sitting here, some little woman standing by my man like Tammy Wynette” line.  Only oh-yes-she-WAS “standing by her man” because her man was her meal ticket.  Only Tammy Wynette NEVER would have stood by a pathological lump of crap husband the way Hillary did to suck like a parasitic leach off of his career.  Because liberal feminism stands for feces and not much else.   And that’s the same hypocrite rationalizing process that feminists today have toward the Islamism that seeks to enslave them like no other ideology on the face of the earth but they support it anyway.

But enough of that sick-of-all-the-damn-lies rant about how Trump is an idiot and Hillary is this accomplished genius.  I shall proceed to move on to another fact and rant about that.

Our mainstream media is dominated by “reporters” like the “objective journalist” who publicly offered to give Bill Clinton a blowjob for keeping abortion legal.  Again, this was and still is a “journalist.”  Nina Burleigh is still out there “reporting” the news, folks.  It’s her way of getting on her knees and performing her function for Bill and all the elite white men like Bill.  Because THAT’S the true spirit of “feminism.”  And feminists are only too willing to betray womanhood, motherhood and femininity just for the “right” to murder that baby who depends for survival on the basic humanity and decency that you don’t have any of.

Based on how the news media is “reporting the news” (I call it “perverting the news”), fully 89% of “journalists” would gladly get on their knees and hungrily give Bill Clinton that blowjob.  And Harvard says it’s actually over 90%.  Because these people are warped and biased and have utterly and completely betrayed any sense of objective journalism.  They are using their jobs the same way Joseph Goebbels used his job, as propagandists rather than reporters.

Because it is the nature of liberalism to stand for nothing transcendent or objectively true or good or valuable.  They stand for the pursuit of fascist power and the ability to dominate others by government fiat, and for nothing else.

And in a long pattern of abject liberal hypocrisy, the Clinton Foundation just shut off the lights on their “charity” that was NOTHING but a political favors-for-funds operation based on the political power and influence of the Clinton brand.  Conservatives were screaming it for YEARS and the mainstream media just yawned and yawned, but the moment Hillary got destroyed by Donald Trump, all of a sudden all the wealthy people and human-rights-abusing dictatorships that were giving the Clintons BILLIONS suddenly shut down the “charitable donations.”  Oh, I know what you’ll say, liberal: it was just a coincidence that the whole operation shut down after Hillary lost; no “pay-for-play” here.  I mean, the honest, objective mainstream media would have reported that story and screamed about it for five months the way they’ve gone after Trump, right???  Oh, wrong.

And so now Trump tries to form a coalition to deal with the evil of our time – and that evil is Islamic terrorism – and all of a sudden the same liberal media that couldn’t have given less of a damn when Obama gave BILLIONS to dictatorship Iran, with Hillary and Bill receiving $100 million from human-rights and women’s-rights oppressing regimes – are all of a sudden aghast and appalled that Donald Trump would go to Saudi Arabia and try to get fifty Islamic Sunni states to join him in the fight on terror.  And dang I remember how silent they all were when the Clintons were raking in giant loads of cash from the same and even WORSE regimes.  Oh, and they’re butthurt about Russia having conveniently forgotten about all those deals the Clintons made with Russia and various Russian power-players.  These “reporters” are so far beneath “despicable” it’s beyond unreal.

We got the Anderson Cooper eyeroll to the point where the man’s pupils disappeared into his empty skull.

Here’s another “journalist who would gladly give Bill Clinton a blowjob, fwiw.  And had a conservative-minded journalist done that to Valerie Jarret, it would have instantly been decried as “sexist.”

Is it any surprise whatsoever that such a turd would host a program with a vile terrorist shrew like Kathy Griffen???

And oh, we find that this is a common point of view for CNN hosts.  That and eating human brains.

Liberals are rattlesnakes.  They are utterly incapable of any “charitable” instinct whatsoever.  They gave the Clintons billions which the Clintons set up as a front and siphoned funds at will, and that well kept flowing until the Clintons suddenly had all of their political clout taken away.

Because ultimately liberalism stands for NOTHING but the pursuit of raw power and the ability to shape and control people in their image and for nothing else.

You hypocrites.

So we get to Chelsea.  You need to understand: if there exists in this world a poster child for generational white-power privilege, Chelsea is the “It girl.”

This “feminist” who never did one damned thing for herself once famously said in the quintessential morally-self-unaware self-congratulation, “I was curious if I could care about [money] on some fundamental level, and I couldn’t.”

I was curious if Chelsea would be able to pass up the six-hundred-thousand-dollar-a-year “media” job from leftist NBC where she didn’t even have to bother to show up to get paid.  But she couldn’t.

On the liberal diatribe, that $600,000 could have gone to feeding the poor!  But liberals have never given one flying damn about the poor.

So they’ve given this chick who has produced NOTHING in her life that wasn’t derivative from her daddy’s political clout.

Because that’s liberalism.  To put it in Shakespearean terms: much ado about nothing.

But that hasn’t stopped the liberal establishment – which speaks about the poor from the vantage point of looking down upon the poor like interesting insects with telescopes from high lofty towers in media, in Hollywood, in entertainment, in both Washington and Wall Street, in academia – from giving Chelsea award after award.  Because she is the Great White Hope.

So what does she say that is a simple demonstration that liberals deserve to be subjugated and dominated and destroyed by their very own standards applied against them???

This:

Chelsea Clinton hasn’t won a lifetime achievement award in several weeks, but that doesn’t mean she’s off the speaking circuit. The Presidential progeny has been out promoting her children’s book about her mother, She Persisted, and Monday appeared at the annual conference for Cooperative for Assistance and Relief Everywhere (CARE).

Needless to say, the “activist, thought leader and change agent” as she was described in the program’s agenda,  had a number of worthwhile contributions to the discussion, which centered around empowering the oppressed—something with which the heir to the Clinton legacy has little practical experience.

Her advice to the legions of underprivileged women looking to affect change on a community level wasn’t particularly scintillating—”we have to always start by listening and calling out and giving a platform, and encouraging, particularly, those who are and have been structurally dis-empowered”—but the disgruntled Chelsea had some harsh words for those who don’t share her progressive ideology.

They should be silenced if they don’t agree with Chelsea Clinton.

“I think though that we also have to recognize particularly at this moment that sexism is not an opinion, Islamophobia is not an opinion, racism is not an opinion, homophobia is not an opinion, jingoism is not an opinion,” she told the panel.  

This appears to mean Chelsea doesn’t believe people who she considers racist, sexist, homophobic or Islamophobic—which could be practically anyone moderate-to-right-of-center lacks the basic right to speak their minds.

That could, of course, include her own parents who, at one time, were virulently opposed to the practice of gay marriage, were instrumental in implementing the bizarre “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy that kept gays from open service in the military, who spoke strongly against Islamic fundamentalism, and who once labeled a class of criminal, “super-predators.”

Her thoughts didn’t end there. Asked to comment on “global poverty,” Clinton suggested that climate change and global warming were somehow “interconnected” with child marriage, a practice performed mostly in the Eastern world, and mostly the result of backwards cultural norms, not rising ocean tides and extreme temperature.

Fortunately for Chelsea, CARE is a decidedly progressive organization, that prides itself on encouraging foreign aid and wealth redistribution in the name of social justice, so they didn’t ask too many questions.

These words are amazing: “We also have to recognize particularly at this moment that sexism is not an opinion. Islamophobia is not an opinion. Racism is not an opinion.  Homophobia is not an opinion.  Jingoism is not an opinion.”

Because let me just slightly alter them and let’s see what we get:

“We also have to recognize particularly at this moment that anything that in any way, shape or form contradicts the message of Prophet – blessings be upon him! – is not an opinion.  Refusal to follow peace by submission to Allah is not an opinion.  Disobedience to the caliphate is not an opinion.  Anything that contradicts sharia is not an opinion.”

Islam has the right to attack us, to kill us, to dominate us, to subjugate us.  And the most powerful “opinion” for that innate right does not come from the Qur’an, or from the Ahaddith.  No, it comes from the worldview of liberalism as it is being expressed right now today by Democrats, by liberals in the media, in entertainment culture, in academia and even in the halls of science.

They have the same right to declare that everything America stands for is “not an opinion.”  Not to be listened to.  Not to be acknowledged.  Not to be refuted or even rebutted.

If liberalism and the secular humanism that liberalism is based upon is all we have, we should perish and we most assuredly WILL perish.

We are teaching our children not to tolerate anything they do not want to hear.  We are encouraging them to violently refuse to tolerate anything they do not want to hear.

And I know about a system that does an even better job with violence and intolerance.  It’s called “Islamic jihadism.”

And when they come and blow you up until they have enough power to stand over you bound-and-helpless and saw your heads off with a knife because what you stand for “is not an opinion,” well don’t come crying to me.  Because all that is is your own view coming right back to saw your damn stupid demon-possessed head off and it is nothing more.

Let me try to explain something: liberalism is a posture of standing upon nothing with feet firmly planted in midair.  It is the assertion that they alone possess objective truth when these very same people have spent DECADES undermining that anything called objective truth even exists.

“Foundationalism” is a theory of knowledge seeking the answer to the question, “Can human beings know that something, anything is really true?”  And there are all kinds of reductionism- and minimalism-based experiments that would disprove that we in fact can even theoretically know anything is “objectively true.”  Because according to their thinking, we are purely subjective beings to begin with.  We are mere evolutionary animals, and as such products of a completely random, purposeless, valueless descent from the moment the cold, unthinking, unfeeling universe spat our mindless ancestors into existence until the same cold, unthinking, unfeeling universe swallows us all back up again and there is nothing remaining of human civilization but cold, lifeless space.  There ARE no “foundations” for truth, these people have assured us for decades: only cultural determinism (which WE determine!); only the apotheosis of nature (ignoring the fact that “nature” understood this way ought to produce what is commonly called “social Darwinism” where we CRUSH the poor and the weak and the sick as unfit rather than give them welfare for life); only power reductionism where we consider ONLY the aspects of “power” that we want to see and ignore everything else; and above all the project to deny objective, transcendent meaning and value in ever more sophisticated ways.

Foundationalism ultimately rests upon one truth: human beings CAN know truth because a truth-knowing God created us in His image to be able to know the truth, and to be set free by it.

That USED to be what our society and our culture believed.  Which is why our Central Intelligence Agency actually inscribed in their main lobby a passage of Scripture from Jesus in John 8:32 that “characterizes the intelligence mission in a free society“: “And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”

From free at last to free no more.

Freedom “is not an opinion.”  So shut it down.  Scream it down.  Burn it down.  And Democrats have done precisely that well over a hundred times all across the country just in the last few months.

A foundationalist believes in the correspondence theory of truth, which is this: “the correspondence theory of truth says that a proposition is true just in case it corresponds to reality, when what it asserts to be the case is the case. More generally, truth obtains when a truth bearer stands in an appropriate correspondence relation to a truth maker.”

Democrats are postmodern and anti-foundationalist.  Which means the denial of the correspondence theory, “claiming that truth is simply a contingent creation of language which expresses customs, emotions, and values embedded in a community’s linguistic practices. For the postmodernist, if one claims to have the truth in the correspondence sense, this assertion is a power move that victimizes those judged not to have the truth.”

At least until, of course, THEY can be the ones in power victimizing everyone else as not being able to have the right to even have a damn OPINION.

Years back, as I saw the horror that would be the Obama presidency, as I saw that true intellectual and moral cancer that was enveloping the Democratic Party through his ascension, I wrote three articles:

How Postmodernism Leads To Fascism (part 1)

How Postmodernism Leads To Fascism (part 2)

How Postmodernism Leads To Fascism (part 3)

And no one who sees the Democratic Party and the mainstream media that serves as its propagandist arm, along with the entertainment industry, the academic industry, etc. etc., psychologically unravelling into unhinged lunatic hysteria over the Donald Trump presidency can deny that I did not spake as a prophet in those articles.  Because everything I said would happen is now happening times about a thousand.

And so the same people who would have been self-righteous in holy anger had George W. Bush gone to Europe to undermine President Barack Obama as he went on his first foreign trip of his presidency to visit NATO headquarters are hypocritically lavishing praise on Barack Obama for doing that very thing to Donald Trump.

So Obama – a man personally responsible for a one-thousand-nine-hundred percent increase in terrorist-caused deaths since he took over the presidency – is the living embodiment of saying, “Peace, peace, when there IS no peace.”

Obama’s worldview has bathed the world in blood.  And this coward now says that cowardice is “courage.”  When no, it was the weak, pompous dithering of a pathetically stupid man who lied to the American people and caused his intelligence system under his control to feed the media lies to hide his failures.

And so in the aftermath of the cosmic failure that was Obama, the Department of Homeland Security chief is saying, “If you knew what I know about terror, you’d never leave the house.”

The Europeans know terror full damn well, as a necessary result of their multi-culturalism was the commission of suicide by inviting in people who wanted to dance in their blood as they metastasized their caliphate over the bodies of a people and a culture too stupid and too pathetic and too cowardly and just too damn smug to comprehend what they were doing.

I cited an essay above by J.P. Moreland (a former professor of mine, fwiw) as an expert in the difference between foundationalism and postmodernism.  And I just finished pointing out the nihilist doom the politically correct Postmodern and anti-foundationalist mindset that has overtaken Europe.  So let me end as Moreland ends:

In her provocative book entitled Longing to Know, Ester Meek asserts that humans as knowers exercise a profound responsibility to submit to the authoritative dictates of reality. Thus, “It is not responsible to deny objective truth and reality in knowing; it is irresponsible. It is not responsible to make the human knower or community of knowers the arbiters of a private truth and reality; it is irresponsible.” Again, Meek claims that “Good, responsible knowing brings blessing, shalom; irresponsible knowing brings curse.” In another place Meek warns that “…the kind of freedom implied by the thought that we humans completely determine our reality leaves us with a gnawing sense of the relative insignificance of our choices. I think it leads not to total responsibility but to careless irresponsibility, both with regard to ourselves and with regard to other humans, not to mention to the world. And, paradoxically, it leads not to a deeper sense of [communal or individual] identity and dignity but to a disheartening lack of it.” […]
Meek goes on to point out that the achieving of knowledge and the teaching of it as knowledge “…calls for courageous resolve. And this courageous resolve, when proven true, merits the deep admiration of others.” The need for such courage is especially grave today as we labor in an intellectual milieu in which the worldviews of naturalism and postmodernism both entail that there is no non-empirical knowledge, especially no religious or ethical knowledge.
Faced with such opposition and the pressure it brings, postmodernism is a form of intellectual pacifism that, at the end of the day, recommends backgammon while the barbarians are at the gate. It is the easy, cowardly way out that removes the pressure to engage alternative conceptual schemes, to be different, to risk ridicule, to take a stand outside the gate. But it is precisely as disciples of Christ, even more, as officers in His army, that the pacifist way out is simply not an option. However comforting it may be, postmodernism is the cure that kills the patient, the military strategy that concedes defeat before the first shot is fired, the ideology that undermines its own claims to allegiance. And it is an immoral, coward’s way out that is not worthy of a movement born out of the martyrs’ blood.
And yes, that’s EXACTLY what the secular humanist, postmodernist left has done for decades.  They have attacked the sacred and left us with nothing but the profane.  They have undermined our culture with their pretensions of truth-denying postmodernism and value-and-meaning-denying existentialism.  We are left with our feet firmly planted in midair, with no foundation to provide us with any footing.  And that’s why terrorism skyrocketed by one-thousand, nine-hundred percent under Obama’s catastrophically failed presidency.  We WON the in Iraq and had Islamic terrorists on the run – al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula stated in transmissions “We are defeated.  Don’t send any more foreign fighters.”  And Obama managed to steal defeat from the jaws of victory.  We needed courageous moral leadership and Obama gave us red lines that he backed down from over and over again.  Even Obama’s own Secretary of State acknowledged that Obama’s display of weakness “cost us significantly” by leading other nations to see America as WEAK.  We needed a commander-in-chief and we got Obama instead, who issued incredibly restrictive rules of engagement that literally murdered our troops.  And made it impossible to even fight, let alone win.
Obama is a fool because he is a liberal, and liberals believe in foolishness.  Liberals declared war on God and therefore war on truth.  And now these very hypocrite fools who declared that there IS no “truth” are now purporting themselves to be the ONLY way, the ONLY truth and the ONLY life.  And so they have waged war on the followers of Christ.
I want you to understand so I keep repeating this point: if evolution is all there is there IS no good that we should aspire to.  Rather, we ought to be watching Nat Geo Wild and trying to outdo the lions and the hyenas in predation upon ANY organism including our next-door-neighbors who are in any way sick or weak or unfit.  Because that IS nature; that IS life “under the sun,” as the Book of Ecclesiastes puts it.  And ONLY when we realize – and realize as a matter of official government policy as our founding fathers did and oh-yes-they-DID recognize that we were created in God’s image and as a result and ONLY as a result endowed with inalienable rights by our Creator – that there IS a GOD who CREATED us in HIS image and ONLY as a result of that Imago Dei are we are all precious.  If not, kill the weak rather than giving them welfare and be done with it.  But otherwise, humanity needs an enema and it needs to begin by flushing all secular humanism out of our collective colon.  Because it is moral fecal matter that leads to intellectual fecal matter such that the more degrees someone has today, the stupider they have become.  See Colossians 2:8: “Don’t let anyone capture you with empty philosophies and high-sounding nonsense that come from human thinking and from the spiritual powers of this world, rather than from Christ.”
I continue to remain appalled that the liberal witches on the view actually claimed that Christians – the primary victims of Islamic State horror – are “no different from the Taliban” because we believe in a God who loves us and gave His very life for us so we could be with Him and live like Him when all they believe in is crocodiles and a savage nature that does nothing but hate and kill.
It is simply a genuine fact that while not every Muslim is a terrorist, virtually every terrorist attack today is committed by a MUSLIM.  But like the fact that the emperor happens to be completely naked believing he’s wearing beautiful fashion because he’s a fool, the left is pathologically hell-bent on being oblivious to reality.
In Europe, which the American left dreams we would become because they vastly prefer Hitler’s and Stalin’s to George Washington’s and our founding fathers’ values, political correctness which emerges from postmodernism has become a death pact.  With liberalism, we don’t have “lone wolves,” we have “KNOWN wolves.”  We know who these people are and we know what beliefs motivate them to not only homicide but the intent to commit genocide.  We know over and over again EXACTLY who these people are.  But we can’t do anything about it because the left won’t let us do anything about it.  They can even appear on our television programs and tell us they want to kill us.  And the left demands that we keep importing more and more of them into our countries, importing thousands of them, tens of thousands of them, hundreds of thousands of them.  And ANY attempt to staunch that flood is “racist” or “Islamophobic.”  It requires 20 highly-trained intelligence agents to monitor just ONE terror suspect and there are now TENS OF THOUSANDS of terror suspects.
Terrorists and liberals want the same basic thing: totalitarian control.  And frankly Kathy Griffin let the head out of the damn bag.  Because it is now an indisputable fact that liberals want the President of the United States’ bloody severed head as much as Islamic State want it.  They are the same people with a slightly different crazy religion.
And liberals are THE leading apologists for Islamic terrorists.  Why do I say that?  Obama has done it.  Hillary has done it.  John Kerry has done it.  They’ve ALL along with many other Democrats decried America and American values and Western values as inciting terrorism.  Why shouldn’t we a travel ban?  Because it would be used to recruit more terrorists, they assure us.  Which is what they said about Gitmo.  Or hell just doing anything to fight back.  And consider the constant rhetorical jihad that “climate change” is responsible for terrorism.  So who caused climate change?  Why the WEST of course.  Which means WE cause terrorism.  And terrorists OUGHT to kill us because we’re killing the planet!!!  It goes back to Hitler: the victim is a monster and thetefore the monster who murders the victim is actually a hero.
When President Trump pulled the USA out of the idiotic Paris Accord the mainstram media actually called him a “murderer.” Want to know who the REAL murderer is?  Try the previous president responsible for that one-thousand, nine-hundred percent increase in terrorist-massacre under his regime.
  1. Mind you, electing a woman president as leader of the world where Islam won’t even allow a woman outside by herself or drive a car or get an education wouldn’t do any such thing because NOBODY but NOBODY is more tolerant toward women than Muslims, right?  What’s that, you say?  99.3% of Egyptian women say that’s crazy?  The women of Sweden who have seen sexual assaults skyrocket 500% as Muslim refugees have flooded into their country say that’s crazy?  Well, liberals don’t care about stupid facts.  But anyway, back to the point: the left blames us for terrorism.  They blame global warming they say we cause, income inequality they say we cause, travel bans, intolerance, whatever.  And so they are in the bizarre and frankly evil position of siding with the vicious predatory monsters who are murdering us.  Because Muslim terrorists are the victims and Western Civilization is the one causing all the problems.  It’s so amazing it’s beyond unreal, but here we are.
We are being killed and we are being terrorized.  And response of the same left that gave us and defended pornography and let’s not forget “Piss Christ” as “art” are now giving us this:

Covered-Up Chic: Big Brands Are Waking Up to Modest Fashion
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESSMAY 31, 2017, 4:15 A.M. E.D.T.

LONDON — When Ruba Zai uploaded her first video online, the Netherlands-based Afghan student just wanted to share with other Muslim girls and women how she styled her headscarf. She had no idea that her “hijab tutorials” would be an internet hit, watched by hundreds of thousands worldwide.

The 23-year-old now blogs full time, sharing ideas for how to look trendy yet covered-up with a million Instagram followers. Zai had tapped into a fast-growing market for so-called “modest fashion,” fuelled by young, style-savvy Muslim women from London to Malaysia who have long felt their needs ignored by mainstream designers.

“I just couldn’t relate at all to the clothes you see in the mainstream brands,” she said from her home in Rotterdam. “When we first started talking about our style on social media, there was no interest in the fashion world in this group of people: ‘They’re just Muslims, why should we target them?'”

Big brands have been waking up to that call, and covered-up chic is a niche that’s slowly making its way into mainstream fashion. From exclusive designers to fast-fashion chains, retailers are trying to court millions of Muslim consumers — especially around the month of Ramadan, which started last week, when many Muslims buy new clothes and dress up. In 2014, U.S. fashion house DKNY was one of the first Western brands to launch a Ramadan collection aimed at wealthy Arab shoppers.

Let’s call it what it is, just as we call out every other attempt of liberals to refuse to allow us to fight the war on terror: SUBMISSION.

 

Advertisements

Liberals Are The Racists And Misogynists. They’re Also Hypocritical Demagogues Who Project Their Own ‘Values’ On Their Opponents.

November 6, 2014

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
Meghan Daum
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 wayIt’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.