Caped Crusader sent me this one in response to my post about ways to counter the HBO propaganda pumped into my daughter the other day:
Every day, we get more evidence that the ruling Democrat party in thrall to a malignant narcissism. Below, I list the 20 generally agreed upon symptoms of malignant narcissism, almost all of which can easily be aligned with conduct emanating from the Obama White House and the Democrat side of Congress. For brevity’s sake, I’ve included only one example of Obama’s/the Democrats’ pathological behavior, but one can easily come up with many more:
1. THE PATHOLOGICAL LIAR is skillfully deceptive and very convincing. Avoids accountability by diverting topics, dodging questions, and making up new lies, bluffs or threats when questioned. His memory is self serving as he denies past statements. Constant chaos and diverting from reality is their chosen environment.
Democrat Example: Obama’s claim that people would keep their insurance under Obamacare. Another example is Seth Mandel, who offers convincing evidence that the true Obama Doctrine is “selective memory,” as it rewrites or ignores history to suit the needs of the moment, which is simultaneously dishonesty and brainwashing. (Mandel’s, incidentally, was the article I read that sparked this whole malignant narcissism post.)
2. THE CONTRACT BREAKER agrees to anything then turns around and does the opposite. Marriage, Legal, Custody agreements, normal social/personal protocol are meaningless. This con artist will accuse you of being the contract breaker. Enjoys orchestrating legal action and playing the role of the ‘poor me’ victim.
Democrat Example: Getting Democrat Bart Stupak’s’s vote on Obamacare by promising that it would not cover abortion, and then immediately drafting rules so that Obamacare would cover abortion.
3. THE HIGH ROLLER Successfully plows and backstabs his way to the top. His family a disposable prop in his success facade. Is charismatic, eloquent and intelligent in his field, but often fakes abilities and credentials. Needs to have iron-fisted control, relying on his manipulation skills. Will ruthlessly support, exploit or target others in pursuit of his ever-changing agenda. Mercilessly abuses the power of his position. Uses treachery or terrorism to rule or govern. Potential problem or failure situations are delegated to others. A vindictive bully in the office with no social or personal conscience. Often suspicious and paranoid. Others may support him to further their own Mephistophelian objectives, but this wheeler-dealer leaves them holding the bag. Disappears quickly when consequences loom.
Democrat Example: Here’s a list of the many people Obama threw under the bus after they wore out their usefulness.
4. THE SEXUAL NARCISSIST is often hypersexual (male or female). Pornography, masturbation, incest are reported by his targets. Anything, anyone, young, old, male/female, are there for his gratification. This predator takes what is available. Can have a preference for ‘sado-maso’ sexuality. Often easily bored, he demands increasingly deviant stimulation. However, another behaviour exists, the one who withholds sex or emotional support.
Democrat Example: At the individual level, all I need to say is Bill Clinton. At a broader level, the entire Democrat party has become sexually fixated, placing more weight on gay rights than on problems in the Ukraine or Venezuela. For Democrats, the most pressing issue today isn’t the economy or national security, it’s gay rights.
5. THE BLAME-GAME NARCISSIST never accepts responsibility. Blames others for his failures and circumstances. A master at projection.
Democrat Examples: Harry Reid blames Republicans for the situation in Ukraine; and Obama blames Republicans for the problems with Obamacare. And before you say all politicians do that, try to think of a single instance in which George W. Bush blamed anyone for his travails. Heck, he could hardly bring himself to blame Islamists for 9/11, starting instead to chant that ridiculous “Islam is a religion of peace” slogan. It’s not, although there are millions, even billions, of peaceful Muslims.
6. THE VIOLENT NARCISSIST is a wife-Beater, Murderer, Serial Killer, Stalker, Terrorist. Has a ‘chip-on-his-shoulder’ attitude. He lashes out and destroys or uses others (particularly women and children) as scapegoats for his aggression or revenge. He has poor impulse control. Fearless and guiltless, he shows bad judgement. He anticipates betrayal, humiliation or punishment, imagines rejection and will reject first to ‘get it over with’. He will harass and push to make you pay attention to him and get a reaction. He will try to make you look out of control. Can become dangerous and unpredictable. Has no remorse or regard for the rights of others.
Democrat Examples: New York Times says that those who don’t believe in anthropogenic climate change should be stabbed through the heart, while Adam Weinstein and Lawrence Torcello suggest trial, followed by execution.
7. THE CONTROLLER/MANIPULATOR pits people against each other. Keeps his allies and targets separated. Is verbally skillful at twisting words and actions. Is charismatic and usually gets his way. Often undermines our support network and discourages us from seeing our family and friends. Money is often his objective. Other people’s money is even better. He is ruthless, demanding and cruel. This control-freak bully wants you pregnant, isolated and financially dependent on him. Appears pitiful, confused and in need of help. We rush in to help him with our finances, assets, and talents. We may be used as his proxy interacting with others on his behalf as he sets us up to take the fall or enjoys the performance he is directing.
Democrat Example: Using deceptive propaganda to control and manipulate people.
8. THE SUBSTANCE ABUSER Alcohol, drugs, you name it, this N[arcissist] does it. We see his over-indulgence in food, exercise or sex and his need for instant gratification. Will want you to do likewise.
Democrat Example: This one doesn’t yield easily to a specific example, because abuse is an individual problem. However, you could say Democrats are hooked on spending. Sadly, so are Republicans.
9. OUR “SOUL MATE” is cunning and knows who to select and who to avoid. He will come on strong, sweep us off our feet. He seems to have the same values, interests, goals, philosophies, tastes, habits. He admires our intellect, ambition, honesty and sincerity. He wants to marry us quickly. He fakes integrity, appears helpful, comforting, generous in his ‘idealization’ of us phase. It never lasts. Eventually Jekyll turns into Hyde. His discarded victims suffer emotional and financial devastation. He will very much enjoy the double-dipping attention he gets by cheating. We end the relationship and salvage what we can, or we are discarded quickly as he attaches to a “new perfect soul mate”. He is an opportunistic parasite. Our “Knight in Shining Armor” has become our nightmare. Our healing is lengthy.
Democrat Example: The entire Obama presidential campaign in 2008.
10. THE QUIET NARCISSIST is socially withdrawn, often dirty, unkempt. Odd thinking is observed. Used as a disguise to appear pitiful to obtain whatever he can.
Democrat Example: I’ve got nothing here.
11. THE SADIST is now the fully-unmasked malignant narcissist. His objective is watching us dangle as he inflicts emotional, financial, physical and verbal cruelty. His enjoyment is all too obvious. He’ll be back for more. His pleasure is in getting away with taking other people’s assets. His target: women, children, the elderly, anyone vulnerable.
Democrat Example: Obama seems remarkably unperturbed by the fact that everything he’s done has imploded. At home, the economy is in the longest recession since the Depression and more people are in poverty than in the past thirty and more years. Overseas, the world is exploding, with the Arab Spring having turned into a blood-soaked Arab winter, with Ukraine under attack, with North and South Korea actually firing at each other, etc. And Obama and the missus party, go on exotic trips, and generally stand on the battlements of their dark castle and gloat.
12. THE RAGER flies off the handle for little or no provocation. Has a severely disproportionate overreaction. Childish tantrums. His rage can be intimidating. He wants control, attention and compliance. In our hurt and confusion we struggle to make things right. Any reaction is his payoff. He seeks both good or bad attention. Even our fear, crying, yelling, screaming, name calling, hatred are his objectives. If he can get attention by cruelty he will do so.
Democrat Example: I can’t think of a specific high profile Democrat individual or Democrat party example of this. While there are wild cards in the party, on the whole, Obama and his cadre are very disciplined. To the extent they use rage, it’s like Khrushchev at the UN — calculated.
13. THE BRAINWASHER is very charismatic. He is able to manipulate others to obtain status, control, compliance, money, attention. Often found in religion and politics. He masterfully targets the naive, vulnerable, uneducated or mentally weak.
Democrat Example: Again, the entire Obama 2008 presidential campaign.
14. THE RISK-TAKING THRILL-SEEKER never learns from his past follies and bad judgment. Poor impulse control is a hallmark.
Democrat Example: Obama has superb impulse control. He’s a cold fish. Nevertheless, despite this frigid temperament, he’s so emotionally well-insulated, that he has never deviated from his chosen path, despite the fact that every single Obama initiative has failed.
15. THE PARANOID NARCISSIST is suspicious of everything usually for no reason. Terrified of exposure and may be dangerous if threatened. Suddenly ends relationships if he anticipates exposure or abandonment.
Democrat Example: Harry Reid’s increasingly unhinged attacks on the Koch Brothers.
16. THE IMAGE MAKER will flaunt his ‘toys’, his children, his wife, his credentials and accomplishments. Admiration, attention, even glances from others, our envy or our fear are his objective. He is never satisfied. We see his arrogance and haughty strut as he demands center stage. He will alter his mask at will to appear pitiful, inept, solicitous, concerned, or haughty and superior. Appears the the perfect father, husband, friend – to those outside his home.
Democrat Example: Obama pretty much embodies this, doesn’t he?
17. THE EMOTIONAL VACUUM is the cruellest blow of all. We learn his lack of empathy. He has deceived us by his cunning ability to mimic human emotions. We are left numbed by the realization. It is incomprehensible and painful. We now remember times we saw his cold vacant eyes and when he showed odd reactions. Those closest to him become objectified and expendable.
Democrat Example: Obama again, the cold fish.
18. THE SAINTLY NARCISSIST proclaims high moral standing. Accuses others of immorality. “Hang ‘em high” he says about the murderer on the 6:00 news. This hypocrite lies, cheats, schemes, corrupts, abuses, deceives, controls, manipulates and torments while portraying himself of high morals.
Democrat Example: Obama, the messiah who accuses others of dastardly deeds.
19. THE CALLING-CARD NARCISSIST forewarns his targets. Early in the relationship he may ‘slip up’ revealing his nature saying “You need to protect yourself around me” or “Watch out, you never know what I’m up to.” We laugh along with him and misinterpret his words. Years later, coping with the devastation left behind, his victims recall the chilling warning.
Democrat Example: In 2009, Obama joked about having the IRS audit his political enemies. In 2012, in the lead-up to his reelection, Obama’s IRS silenced his critics.
20. THE PENITENT NARCISSIST says “I’ve behaved horribly, I’ll change, I love you, I’ll go for therapy.” Appears to ‘come clean’ admitting past abuse and asking forgiveness. Claims we are at fault and need to change too. The sincerity of his words and actions appear convincing. We learn his words are verbal hooks. He knows our vulnerabilities and what buttons to push. We question our judgement about his disorder. We can disregard “Fool me once…” We hope for change and minimize past abuse. With a successful retargeting attempt, this N will enjoy his second reign of terror even more if we allow him back in our lives.
In the Democrat party, there are no penitents.
I’m someone who knows the Holocaust happened and who believes strongly that anthropogenic global warming (“AGW”) or “climate change” is a scam driven by greed, hostility to western accomplishments, and Gaia-worship run amok. I’ve therefore found deeply offensive the repeated charge over the past several years from the AGW crowd insisting that denying climate change is he same as Holocaust denial.
This is a charge with punch and one that is meant to shame and silence opposing views. The Los Angeles Times, for example, refuses to print anything that challenges the AGW doctrine. The scientific debate is over, says the LA Times, an unintentionally ironic statement that is the essence of anti-science. In true science, of course, the debate is never over.
It was the UK’s Guardian, however, that made the light bulb go off in my head, and that helped me hone in on the central fallacy underlying the “Holocaust denial = AGW denial” school of speech suppression. My epiphany arose when I read Nick Cohen’s recent article commenting on the fact that British politicians refuse to continue to fund “green” initiatives. His Kübler-Ross-ian anger and heartbreak are palpable. It was in this context that Cohen, using a punchy combination of ignorance and insult, said the following:
All of which is a long way of saying that the global warming deniers have won. And please, can I have no emails from bed-wetting kidults blubbing that you can’t call us “global warming deniers ” because “denier” makes us sound like “Holocaust deniers”, and that means you are comparing us to Nazis? The evidence for man-made global warming is as final as the evidence of Auschwitz. No other word will do.
Contrary to Cohen’s certainty that Holocaust denial is the same as AGW denial, there’s actually an easy way to see that the two are quite different, rather like comparing rotten apples to refreshingly stringent oranges. It’s the difference between past fact and future possibility. The one has happened, and to deny it is the work of a knave or a fool; the other might happen, but can be refuted by actual, not hypothetical, events as they unfold.
The Holocaust is a done deal. Between 1933 and 1945, 6 million Jews vanished from the face of the earth. The Germans who effectuated this vanishing act kept meticulous lists, wrote boastful letters, took gloating photographs, and built gigantic necropoleis, all testifying to the bullets, gas, starvation, slavery, torture, and flames they used to make their dream a reality.
Faced with this mountain of data, which is occasionally augmented by new discoveries but is never refuted, the only way to maintain denial is to deny the immutable effect of time past. As Shakespeare said, “What’s done cannot be undone.” The book of the Holocaust has been written, and only those who refuse to read its pages can deny its existence.
Unlike the Holocaust, AGW is a theoretical work in progress. It arose from predictive computer models that, so far, have been wrong in every prediction made. It’s buttressed by weather phenomena that, rather than being unique, have happened before in cyclical historic patterns.
Take for example, Greenland, an icy island that has, for centuries, been woefully misnamed. Now, though, Mother Nature is helping Greenland putting the truth back in its advertising, since it’s turning green. The horror! Or wait . . . . It’s only “the horror” if you ignore the fact that this isn’t Greenland’s first verdant period. It got its lush name during another global warming era, which was a time of great plenty around the world. In other words, Greenland’s re-greening is a “horror” only if you ignore the fact that a warmer earth supports more, not less, life as has been the case with Greenland over its known history.
Unlike the Holocaust, which happened in a specific place, during a specific window of time, AGW isn’t a fixed target backed by unassailable (at least, if you’re sane) facts. Instead, it’s a constantly moving future possibility. No matter what happens, it can never be denied, but can only be affirmed. In the faux-scientific AGW universe, all new data is subject to a single question: Can this data, either served straight up or molded, twisted, and obscured, be used to support AGW? If yes, AGW is undeniable. If no, the data doesn’t exist. That’s not science, that’s blind faith.
Holocaust denial is an evil act, by which one ignores the past in order to justify modern antisemitism and hostility to Israel. AGW denial is a logical response to past predictions about future possibilities that, when compared to unfolding facts in real-time, have consistently been proven wrong.
If you want more actual data, rather than faith-based nonsense, supporting the fact that AGW’s future possibilities are becoming increasingly unlikely, please read this article and this one, both from American Thinker.
HE: Don’t feed the dog table scraps. It gives her diarrhea.
SHE: No, it doesn’t.
HE: Every time you feed her table scraps, she gets diarrhea.
SHE: But I like feeding her.
HE: I can’t stop you but, if she gets diarrhea again, you’re cleaning it up.
SHE: I’m not going to clean it up.
HE: Why not? It’ll be your fault if she gets diarrhea, so you should clean it up.
SHE: No, it’s your fault. You were the one who wanted a dog in the first place.
SHE is the Left. SHE is why they never take responsibility for anything. SHE is why George Bush and the Kochs will forever be on the hook for anything that’s wrong in this country. SHE also explains why the Left never feels shamed. Being a narcissist means never having to say you’re sorry.
Every conservative online publication today is talking about the British hospital that used aborted and miscarried babies as part of the fuel for its heating system. I, and others, have commented that even the Nazis didn’t use their crematoria for heaters, although one cannot deny that the Nazis harvested everything they could from the bodies of those they murdered (gold teeth, hair, prosthetic limbs, etc.). Many people came up with the Soylent Green analogy, which is apt.
What happened in England is a grotesque, reprehensible thing. It’s also completely logical. The premise of abortion is that the fetus is just a jumble of tissue, no different from removing a tumor or cyst. Things removed from people’s bodies in a hospital have to go somewhere, and cremation is the cleanest way to dispose of human tissue and other potentially contaminated remains. And in a day and age of recycling and “green energy,” why not recycle that living matter into heat? It all just make sense.
My point is that, if you’re going to make abortion legal, you must inevitably contemplate some way of disposing of the results of that abortion. Being clean and energy-efficient is as good a way as any of ridding yourself of something you’ve already determined is valueless. As I said, the story is grotesque but logical (even predictable).
The news story that blew me away this morning, however, was the one reporting that the female head of the biggest abortion provider in England is entirely comfortable with sex-selective abortions (meaning abortions carried out solely because the fetus is female):
Ann Furedi, of BPAS, said the law does not prevent women from choosing a termination on the grounds of gender and she even compared it to abortion after rape.
However, Mrs Furedi – whose charity carries out more than a quarter of abortions in England and Wales, argued that if doctors believe going ahead with the pregnancy would damage the mental health of the mother, the abortion is within the law.
Writing for online magazine Spiked, she said: “A doctor agreeing to an abortion on grounds of rape would be breaking the law no more and no less than a doctor who agrees an abortion on grounds of sex selection,” she said.
“While it is true that the sex of the foetus is not a legal ground for abortion, nor is rape, or incest, or being 13 years old. Nor is being homeless, or abandoned, or just feeling there’s no way you can bring a child into the world… yet they are all reasons why a doctor may believe a women has met the legal grounds of abortion.”
She added: “The woman gives her reasons, the doctor decides on the grounds as set out in the law … there is no legal requirement to deny a woman an abortion if she has a sex preference, providing that the legal grounds are still met.
“The law is silent on the matter of gender selection, just as it is silent on rape.”
It’s probably worthwhile filling you in on a few facts about the killing of females both in and outside of the womb. In 2010, the Economist wrote about the toll gendercide was taking on the would-be women in the world:
In January 2010 the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS) showed what can happen to a country when girl babies don’t count. Within ten years, the academy said, one in five young men would be unable to find a bride because of the dearth of young women—a figure unprecedented in a country at peace.
The number is based on the sexual discrepancy among people aged 19 and below. According to CASS, China in 2020 will have 30m-40m more men of this age than young women. For comparison, there are 23m boys below the age of 20 in Germany, France and Britain combined and around 40m American boys and young men. So within ten years, China faces the prospect of having the equivalent of the whole young male population of America, or almost twice that of Europe’s three largest countries, with little prospect of marriage, untethered to a home of their own and without the stake in society that marriage and children provide.
Parts of India have sex ratios as skewed as anything in its northern neighbour. Other East Asian countries—South Korea, Singapore and Taiwan—have peculiarly high numbers of male births. So, since the collapse of the Soviet Union, have former communist countries in the Caucasus and the western Balkans. Even subsets of America’s population are following suit, though not the population as a whole.
In China the sex ratio for the generation born between 1985 and 1989 was 108, already just outside the natural range. For the generation born in 2000-04, it was 124 (ie, 124 boys were born in those years for every 100 girls). According to CASS the ratio today is 123 boys per 100 girls. These rates are biologically impossible without human intervention.
Other countries have wildly skewed sex ratios without China’s draconian population controls (see chart 1). Taiwan’s sex ratio also rose from just above normal in 1980 to 110 in the early 1990s; it remains just below that level today. During the same period, South Korea’s sex ratio rose from just above normal to 117 in 1990—then the highest in the world—before falling back to more natural levels.
The Economist article, which is excellent, goes on to describe the consequences of these increasing gender imbalances, one of the more frightening of which is an excess number of young men without the civilizing influence of women.
The numbers lost to sex-selective abortions are staggering. Back in 2011, Ross Douhat examined data suggesting that at least 160 million girls were killed in the womb for no other reason than that their culture preferred boy babies.
There is nothing in the world more hostile to women than sex-selective abortions. Absolutely nothing. Life for women is hard all over, but only sex-selective abortion has wiped out 160 million of them. Yet Ann Furedi who, as head of England’s single largest abortion provider must surely call herself a feminist, says that this gendercide is A-OK.
Perhaps I’m erring in calling Furedi a feminist. It’s certainly a reasonable assumption that she is, because in every Western nation, abortion is presented to us as a civilized necessity for saving, elevating, aiding, and supporting women. It’s the way, as Obama said, that we make sure women aren’t “punished with a baby.” Those who oppose abortion, say the Democrats, are engaged in a “War on Women.” The corollary, of course, is that those who support abortion must by extension support women.
Furedi, however, seems to have declared a war on babies and, more specifically on female babies. That doesn’t sound feminist. That sounds profoundly misogynistic. And perhaps, within that framework, there’s nothing random about the fact that the same woman who cheerfully condones mass murder of women is married to the leader of the British Revolutionary Communist Party.
I’ve often said that one of the things that drove me from being staunchly pro-abortion to being primarily pro-Life (although leaving a door open to abortion in certain cases) is the extremism we see in the abortion culture. No matter how much the abortion spokespeople and the Democrat party (but I repeat myself) wrap themselves in the mantle of women’s rights to justify abortion, their every pronouncement makes it plain that their focus isn’t on letting women live, it’s on letting babies die.
Furedi — who heads England’s biggest abortion “charity” — has just become the poster child for the Left’s Big Lie. By support gender-selective abortion she reveals that the “pro-abortion = pro-women” mantra is hollow. She doesn’t care about women. She cares about killing babies. Otherwise she could not condone the continuation of a practice that has already accounted for something far in excess of 160 million female lives.
The burned babies heating hospital buildings is disgusting, but it’s just the final manifestation of a cult that has nothing to do with women and everything to do with genocide and gendercide.
Was it only yesterday that I posted about the young woman who burned her Obama shirt in a frenzy of betrayal? She isn’t just done with Obama, she’s done with government. Her ideology, most of it foolishly Leftist, hasn’t altered one iota. What’s different is her belief that government is an engine of change.
But, but, but, I hear you asking, “How can you be a Leftist without believing in Big Government? Leftism is predicated on a Big Government doing the right things.”
You’re absolutely correct, of course. She’s suddenly a young woman with a heart full of anti-government animus, and no functioning ideology to go with it. My suspicion is that, if she ever votes again, she’ll pull the lever for a libertarian. Perhaps in 2016, she’ll be another Rand Paul voter.
That inflamed young lady isn’t the only one who’s shattered to discover that her idol had feet of clay, and bad clay at that. Will Pitt, notorious for years as one of the more rabid anti-Bush haters and one of the utterly fatuous, strung-out Obama worshipers, has also been slapped in the face by ugly Obamacare reality. At Newsbusters, P.J. Gladnick details Pitt’s disillusionment, which set in very quickly once Obamacare failed to work as promised.
Within months, Pitt went from saying that a few glitches with Obamacare were “No. Big. Deal.” to castigating Obama as a “piece of sh*t used-car salesman.” Needless to say, his friends in the Democratic Underground are not happy with him.
When it comes to these two people and all of the others like them, their sudden epiphanies about Obama, about Democrat policies, and about Big Government can easily be described as too little, too late. They’ve already visited upon us eight years of what will quite possibly be recorded in the books as the worst administration in American history, one that devastated not only America but the whole world.
But here’s the deal: It’s not too little, too late. There are local, state, and federal elections coming up this year and next year and the year after that. Although our ship of state has had eight years to sail this disastrous course, it is still afloat and can be turned around. The process will be laborious, it will go very slowly, and the damage will be significant, but as long as we’re above water it still matters that we get rid of as many loathsome barnacles as possible. These former Obama fanatics were barnacles. It remains to be seen whether, as I once did, they’ll turn around politically or whether they’ll just slink off and leave the body politic alone. No matter what, we’ll be better off without them.
My thanks again go to Caped Crusader for sending these wonderful pictures:
In America, it used to be that boys were boys and girls were girls, except for a handful of boys and girls who didn’t conform to the norm. Boys were at the top of the heap; girls had a carefully carved out, limited sphere of influence and opportunities; and sexually non-conforming people were ignored or abused, depending on both their ability to blend in and their community’s ability to cope with their differences. Both women and sexually non-conforming people were routinely denied equal treatment under the law.
The women’s lib and gay rights movements were originally sold as a way to ensure that women and gays (and, eventually, the whole LGBTQ spectrum) received equal treatment under the law. That was originally understood to mean equal access to education, employment opportunities, and house; equal pay for equal work; and freedom from overt, violent discriminatory practices — and that was it.
Since then, equal treatment under the law has become a picayune, limited goal. Instead, the Left is using gender and sexuality as a way to remake society entirely in opposition to heterosexual males, the ones who created Western society in the first place.
The latest push to remake society is the effort either to ban the word “bossy” or to turn it into an undiluted positive when the word is applied to girls. This, of course, ignores the reality of bossy little girls.
Girls are bossy, something that comes about because they model themselves on their mothers. Despite decades of Leftist marriage, gender, and sexuality rejiggering, for most children, Mom is the Big Boss in the house. (Indeed, considering the soaring number of single moms, she’s the only boss in the house.) The vast majority of little girls identify with mommy. That’s a fact that no gender theory will ever change. So if Mommy is bossy — as she has to be in order to run a household with children — then a little girl’s logical assumption is that, to be a grown woman in training, she too must be bossy.
And what about the claim that we’re all wrong to say it’s obnoxious when girls are bossy? I couldn’t disagree more. It’s incredibly obnoxious when girls are bossy. What’s appropriate coming from a grown woman with responsibilities is profoundly irritating whether a 4-year-old lisps orders to her friends, a 10-year-old hollers imprecations at her brother, her a 15-year-old, in a strident whine, tells her parents what she wants them to do. It’s obnoxious not because the 4, 10, and 15-year-old are female, but because they haven’t yet earned the right to boss anyone around. The issue is age, not sex.
Even as the Leftist/Progressive/Democrat establishment seeks to make it so that every girl’s fecal matter is perceived as perfumed, the relentless attacks on boys never end. Fortunately for me (’cause I’m lazy), I don’t have to go into detail on this topic because Matt Walsh has already done so, saying what I would say, only doing it better.
So let me just skip ahead to a discussion of the Left’s latest attack on America’s last bastion of masculinity: the military. The military used to be the place where you sent your boys to become men. Now? I don’t know. The military is still overwhelmingly male, but the Obama administration, even though it cannot change the numbers, is doing its best to change its manly ethos.
Gays can openly serve now, which puts a great deal of pressure on young men. While the Left will freely acknowledge that women shouldn’t have to shower with men who view them in a sexually predatory fashion, and that women in the military are at risk of becoming victims of violent sexual attacks from predatory men, the Left refuses to acknowledge that gay men can be equally predatory to other men. (And lesbian women are often predators to other women.) Under the new paradigm, shying away from showering with an aggressive gay man or lesbian woman isn’t logical self-preservation and respect for ones own sexual integrity; it is, instead, homophobic and the people holding such views must be re-educated and/or destroyed. It’s an interesting social experiment, but a disastrous burden to place on an institution that has as its primary task combat training and preparation to fight off enemies of unspeakable savagery.
Placing women in combat is also a de-masculinizing effort (yes, it’s a neologism) on the Obama administration’s part. Training standards will have to be lowered because it’s the extraordinarily rare woman who can compete head-on physically with men. Men are bigger and stronger. They have stronger bones and joints. Their skin is tougher and has fewer nerves, meaning it’s less sensitive to pain. They get less breathless. They can pee standing up or into old water bottles, and they don’t have periods or get pregnant. They are vulnerable to rape (see the above paragraph), but less vulnerable, especially because cultures other than America subscribe to the Red Army’s approach to despoiling conquered women.
The only way women can compete equally with men is to lower the standards for men. This means that young men will not be challenging themselves as much. To the extent many join the military because men need challenges, the military becomes less attractive. Additionally, young men aren’t fools. They know that women will create physical and emotional drags on a combat unit. Only in the Ivory Tower, surrounded by theory, would people think that women with their different biology are identical to men for all purposes, including combat.
Having turned the military into a Progressive experiment for gays and women, now what do we do? We bring transsexuals into the military. Although the number of transsexuals in the military will of necessity be small (there aren’t that many around), I suspect the transsexual-infused military will be a different animal from what it currently is. Libby, one of my wonderful commenters, found this interesting tidbit about transsexuals:
The American Foundation for Suicide Prevention report on suicide attempts among transgender and non-gender conforming adults (Jan.2014) found that the while rate for suicide attempts in the general US adult population is about 4.6%, in transgender people, the rate is 41% (46% for trans men).
transsexuals are deeply, deeply unhappy people, who wear their own bodies like a painfully ill-fitting outfit. I feel nothing but compassion for their anguish (an anguish that gender reassignment may do nothing to help). Having said that, I am appalled that our president somehow thinks that the military will be the group therapy environment these troubled souls need. He is using America’s front line defense against a dangerous world to normalize that which, statistically and biologically speaking, isn’t normal.*
There is nothing closer to who and what we are than are gender and sexual orientation. A wise friend of mine thinks that Islam’s entire beef with the Western world is the fact that, as Westernism creeps into Muslim communities, women fight to leave the harem, the burqa, and the hijab. All other insults to the religion are tolerable, except for the one that shakes up the relative values between men and women under Islam.
The Left understands this, but it heads in an opposite direction from Islam. Rather than attacking women and gays to gain control over culture, it attacks heterosexual males. This is why, beginning when they’re just little children, America’s males are systematically demeaned and insulted. They are also deprived of opportunities to express their masculinity in positive ways and, instead, are reduced to expressing it through computer games, random violence, and perpetual dorm-style sloth and slobbery. If you want to see the end of a sustained Leftist attack on men, you need only look to the American black community, where men have been rendered useless. The government fulfills all the functions women need (shelter, food, health care, and child care), leaving the men responsible only for spread sperm. No wonder, then, that black men have developed a culture focused on the size of their weapons (both of which, ironically, are tucked in the pants): guns and penises.
*No, I’m not saying people on the LGBTQ spectrum are “perverts” or “sickos,” or that they should be ridiculed, humiliated, discriminated against, hanged, beaten, imprisoned, or anything else. I don’t believe that.
What I do believe is that love and physical desire are a combination of mind, biology, and culture, and that, when it comes to consensual adult relationships, it’s my business to stay out of it. When I look at people, I judge them on values other than their sex partners, values such as individual freedom versus government control, stable relationships versus promiscuity, hard work versus parasitism, kindness versus cruelty, etc.. I do, however, reserve the right to look down upon people if their choice of sex partner is their only value.
So, rather than sit in judgment on LGBTQs, what I’m trying to say is that non-heterosexual orientations are statistical anomalies and that it is impossible to build a culture around a biological statistical anomaly. It won’t stick.
Paying it forward is a third-party beneficiary concept that involves doing something good for someone in response to a good deed done on your behalf or a gift you received. When you pay it forward, however, you don’t repay the person who did something nice for you. Instead, you do something nice for someone else. For example, if someone changes your tire while you are stranded on the highway, you might shovel your elderly neighbor’s walkway after snow has fallen.
So how’s that working out in the real world?
Ridiculously wealthy Atherton, the neighborhood for an Obama fundraiser last year, thinks that it helped create “shovel ready jobs.”
Last Sunday, multi-million dollar homes in Atherton had offensive graffiti sprayed on them. The graffiti was found on walls, fences and even a car.
Many of the messages said “F*** the 1%.”
Via the Washington Free Beacon:
A Florida restaurant is being forced to pass their healthcare expenses onto customers.
Sandra Clark, Director of Operations at Gator’s Dockside, told WRDQ that the restaurant is now adding a one percent surcharge to every customer’s bill to help pay for all 500 full time employees’ healthcare.
“Affordable healthcare is part of the cost of doing business. We’re definitely doing it [adding the surcharge] to stay afloat…,” she explained.
The restaurant group expects to pay up to $500,000 a year for its workers’ healthcare, but it does not expect to come close to recouping that recovering that.
Republique, a trendy, expensive restaurant in Los Angeles is now charging an extra 3% Obamacare surcharge on every bill. Bill Chait, one of the owners, is certain that his customers will be fine with the price increase.
I’ve written before about Mark Steyn’s epic battle and equally epic Answer and Counterclaim in the suit that discredited “Hockey Stick” artiste, Michael Mann filed against him and the National Review. What I forgot to tell you is that there is a way you can help Mark Steyn, who is not sharing his defense with National Review, pay the costs of this suit. (Steyn’s currently representing himself, although I do not know whether he parted ways with his lawyer because they had a substantive disagreement or because Steyn could no longer afford him/her.)
Click here to learn about buying a Mark Steyn gift certificate. You can choose not to redeem the gift certificate, leaving all the money in his hands, or you can redeem it for actual merchandise, which still leaves him with the profit margin. It’s a good deal all around.
Kevin Williamson has a brilliant article about modern feminism. I won’t summarize it. I’ll just urge you to read it.
I’ve called myself a small “l” libertarian, to distinguish myself from the Ron Paul crowd. Richard A. Epstein has given me an even better name for my political view, one that recognizes the need for government, but that always hews to individual and marketplace freedom: I’m a “classical liberal.”