Don’t forget that the Watchers’ Council has transmuted into Wow! Magazine, an online magazine with articles you won’t want to miss. Here’s the latest.
Some faiths really are better — I accept those that uplift & improve (e.g., Christianity); I reject those that control & destroy (e.g., Climate Change).
On my recent trip, I ended up talking to a very bright man who believes unquestioningly that Big Foot (aka Sasquatch) exists — and he doesn’t stop with believing in just one Big Foot in the Pacific Northwest. He believes, instead, that there are vast colonies of these creatures spread throughout North America. According to this man, he personally saw Big Foot’s tracks in the snow once, gigantic deep imprints that were five feet apart and that proved that a giant hominid had headed up the mountainside at a run. He also cites to other people’s anecdotal evidence of run-ins with Big Foot.
When I asked how it is that no sightings have ever been corroborated and why nobody has been able to produce hard evidence of their existence, he had an answer: The United States government is hiding Big Foot colonies with help from the Air Force. If you’re wondering why the government is doing this, the man will tell you that the government is afraid that, because Big Foot colonies are the original indigenous hominids in America, if the government ceased hiding their existence, America would be obligated to return the entire United States to the Sasquatch people.
The fact that the U.S. government has successfully resisted returning America to the Native Americans who were here before Europeans came, did not impress him. When I offered that it was probable that the government would resist Big Foot’s demands for the return of its land, he told me that the risk of losing in a legal battle with Sasquatch was too great. The government had to keep its Big Foot secret.
In 1975’s Fawlty Towers, it was funny to say “don’t mention the war” to Germans. In England today, it’s no joke that you can’t pair Islam with violence.
After John Cleese left Monty Python, he and his then-wife, Connie Booth, went on to create and start in Fawlty Towers. In it, Cleese plays Basil Fawlty, the perpetually angry, extremely inept, always inappropriate and outspoken proprietor of a Cornish inn. The cast regulars surrounding him are his wife, Sybil, who rarely gets off the phone, stopping only to scold Fawlty for his stupidity; a Spanish waiter and all-around dogsbody who’s never mastered much English beyond “Que?”; a somewhat senile old major and a couple of wittering old ladies; and Polly (Connie Booth), the maid and waitress, who is the only decent, sane person in the establishment.
Fawlty Towers is not to everyone’s taste because it is anarchic, angry humor. However, for those who watched the show, one of the best episodes focuses on a group of Germans coming to stay at the inn. When this episode was made, in the mid-1970s, WWII had ended a mere 30 years before and lived on in all adult memories. Therefore, to ensure a pleasant stay for the German guests, the inn’s mantra was “Don’t mention the war.”
This mantra proved to be too much for Basil, especially after he sustained a blow to the head. I’ve included two links here. The first is to the entire brilliant episode. The second, for those who will never watch it or have already watched it, is to the key scene with the Germans. After you’ve watched the episode or refreshed your recollection, I’ll get to my point about modern England: [Read more…]
Jihad in America has a feminine face: Muslim women are telling us Islam isn’t violent and, if it is, that’s our fault — so suck it up.
Unlike Europeans, who have a consistent habit of responding both passively and apologetically to Muslim terrorist attacks, Americans don’t like being blown up, shot up, or beheaded. It tends to make them fractious and then they start demanding that their leaders bomb the bombers or keep them off American soil. In other words, direct jihad warfare against Americans is not an especially effective tactic and it can invite unpleasant reprisals.
So, what’s a jihadist to do? In America, I think, the answer is what I call a soft or feminized jihad. Feminized jihad consists of finding personable Muslim women who, under the guise of outreach and Leftist intersectionality, attack Americans and American policy, defend Islam, and slowly, stealthily, advance radical Islam’s cause in America.
This post has been germinating in my mind for some time, but the real impetus for my publishing today was the fact that a friend sent me an announcement about a minimum continuing legal education seminar that the Bar Association of San Francisco (“BASF”) was sponsoring. (You can see my thoughts about those despicable MCLE classes here.) Here’s the announcement for the seminar, which is taking place today:
The Litigation Section and In-House Subsection present
Challenging Presidential Executive Orders in the Courts
May 31, 2017: 12:00 pm – 1:15 pm
MCLE Credits – 1 H, This is a brown bag luncheon.
Challenging Presidential Executive Orders in the Courts
Professor Zachary Price
Mayer Brown LLP
Council on American-Islamic Relations
Asian Law Caucus
Mary Kelly Persyn
Persyn Law & Policy
• The history of court challenges to executive orders and presidential power
• Recent court challenges to President Trump’s travel ban
• The strengths and limits of court challenges to the power of the executive branch
• The next chapter-litigating future executive orders
Reading the announcement, the first thing that caught my eye was that one of the speakers at a seminar dedicated to hobbling President Trump’s constitutional right to issue executive orders is from CAIR, aka the Council on American-Islamic Relations. CAIR, of course, believes that, when it comes to American-Islamic relations, the American side, not the Islamic said, needs to change and accommodate.
The second thing I noticed was that the CAIR representative is a woman, Zahra Billoo. Her presence on the panel reinforced my sense that there are certainly a lot of women speaking up on behalf of the Muslim community in America.
In a way, the overt presence of Muslim women is a continuation of the amazing success the Palestinians had when they promoted Hanan Ashrawi to be their spokesman to the Western world. The West was utterly blind to the fact that Muslims, whose faith is predicated on subordinating women, waived before them an apparently emancipated woman. [Read more…]
Saudi Arabia respects Donald Trump because he promises to partner with it against Islamic extremism, without trying to change the Sunni Arab nations.
From the first moment Trump’s plane landed in Saudi Arabia, things were different:
Ignore those who try to say that, once off the tarmac, Trump finally did bow to the King of Saudi Arabia, just as Obama did. What the footage actually shows is that the tall Trump stooped to receive an honor from the shorter Saudi king (who was seated next to an unveiled Melania). Trump’s was no act of obeisance:
There was also the fact that King Salman, the aged ruler of Saudi Arabia, shook hands with Melania, an unveiled woman:
Perhaps even more amazing was that the leadership in Saudi Arabia sat with and spoke to an unveiled Jewish woman:
So what’s going on? It was Obama who had the love affair with Islam but in Saudi Arabia, it’s Trump and his family who are being feted with tremendous respect. Here’s what I think is happening: [Read more…]
Today, for the first time, I noticed striking differences between the Islamic and Judeo-Christian traditions involving both happiness and predestination.
Daniel Greenfield wrote about the interview Chelsea Handler did with Kumail Nanjiani, the Muslim star of HBO’s “Silicon Valley.” He complained that popular culture fails to focus on what fun Islam is and Muslims are. Handler, much struck by this observation, agreed.
The problem, Greenfield said, is that Islam is not about fun or even happiness. Nor are these missing attributes limited to the reverence associated with direct worship. For example, when we’re in a house of worship we don’t make fart jokes. Instead, the whole point of Islam, at least according to the Ayatollah Khomeni, is to vacuum any possibility of joy out of life:
Allah did not create man so that he could have fun. The aim of creation was for mankind to be put to the test through hardship and prayer. An Islamic regime must be serious in every field. There are no jokes in Islam. There is no humor in Islam. There is no fun in Islam. There can be no fun and joy in whatever is serious.
No wonder that the Islamic clerics and their mobs routinely deliver death to people who dare to dance or sing in a sharia-controlled world.
Contrast this Islamic world view with Dennis Prager’s take on happiness. When his radio show played in my area, I frequently heard him say that, because God gave us the capacity to be happy, we have a moral obligation to be so. He also wrote that true faith should in itself inspire happiness:
I once asked a deeply religious man if he considered himself a truly pious person. He responded that while he aspired to be one, he felt that he fell short in two areas. One of those areas, he said, was his not being a happy enough person to be considered truly pious.
His point was that unhappy religious people reflect poorly on their religion and on their Creator. He was right; in fact, unhappy religious people pose a real challenge to faith. If their faith is so impressive, why aren’t these devoted adherents happy? There are only two possible reasons: either they are not practicing their faith correctly, or they are practicing their faith correctly and the religion itself is not conducive to happiness. (Prager, Dennis, Happiness is a Serious Problem, paperback edition, p. 4.)
For me, Prager’s message has been eye-opening. I accept that he is correct that I have a moral obligation, both for myself and for those in my world, to be happy. To that end, I try to view things through a humor prism, I count my blessings daily (hourly, on a hard day), I’m open in expressing gratitude for all the good things in my life, and I look for true joy wherever I can. I can do this because I am human and, if I were religious, I would add because I am made in God’s image. [Read more…]
Modern feminists protest loudly and without risk about “rape culture” and abortion, while ignoring the horrors that Islamic countries inflict on women.
The suffragettes who literally risked life and limb to get women the right to vote were heroes who began the process of achieving equal rights for women at a time when many basic rights were denied. Women didn’t have the right to control their own money, they lost custody of their children in the event of a divorce, married women could not work, women could be legally battered by their husbands, and women were widely regarded as a mentally weak sex and inferior to men intellectually.
Authorities in both American and Britain severely persecuted the suffragettes. When suffragettes protested arrests that violated basic civil rights, the authorities responded by force feeding them with energetic brutality. Suffragettes from all walks of life knew that their family, friends, and community would stigmatize and abandon them for the stands they took. Yet their moral clarity and bravery prevailed in the end.
Modern feminists today should take note. The women protesting so vigorously a hundred and more years ago were heroes.
Today, it is easy to see that modern feminists have lost their way in every sense. They no longer fight to defend women in need, here or abroad. They fight fake fights against safe targets that will back them up (universities, university men), or safe targets that are too vulnerable to fight back (unborn babies or university men due to Title IX).
Feminist displays are certainly dramatic. Take for example the young woman at Columbia University who carried her mattress around as a school project for an entire academic year as a statement against a rape charge that was so unbelievable that even Columbia’s administration did not take it seriously. Nevertheless, was allowed to continue her protest at Columbia and received national acclamation from a fawning media.
Another example of modern feminists run amok is the Rolling Stone story alleging a vast culture of fraternity gang rapes at the University of Virginia. That the Rolling Stone reporter never bothered to verify the story highlights the fact that whether these incidents actually occurred was less important than the message that women should always be believed.
Finally, what could better symbolize how far modern feminists have fallen from the suffragettes than the thousands of women who marched in Washington DC, and around America, wearing pink pussy hats and vagina shaped headgear to speak symbolically on behalf of vagina power and, utterly without the saving grace of irony, to protest against their claim that America objectifies women All these events had either shock power or high emotionality. In the end, though, all stood for nothing — neither a particular pressing need for women, or the truth. The women who marched with vagina hats were not shackled suffragettes, they were fruits of the suffragettes labor. They were empowered, emboldened, lucky women who sadly were fighting for absolutely nothing.
Here’s a down-and-dirty Bookworm Beat that’s still replete with things to entertain and inform.
I’d meant to blog more today, as well as to clean my office, but I had a sick dog and that took both my time and my attention. All is well with the dog — it’s a long term problem and we’re doing maintenance care.
And now for some quick links:
Gadzooks! It’s Gorsuch: Last week, when Neil Gorsuch was confirmed, Myron Magnet wrote a much-read article about the revolution his ascension to the Supreme Court represents:
Suppose, now that Gorsuch has been confirmed and sworn in, it understood and intended to overturn the administrative state’s usurpation of the Constitution. Suppose, moreover, that it understood the promiscuous lawlessness with which the justices have been making laws out of thin air for half a century and more—claiming some vague basis in the Bill of Rights or the Fourteenth Amendment—and resolved to end that abuse, exercising only judgment, not will. Suppose President Trump got to appoint one more justice in the Gorsuch and Scalia mold, creating an irresistible majority that upheld Madison’s original Constitution instead of Wilson’s “living” one.
Magnet’s dream may well be in the process of being realized. How do I know? Because of the manic, fevered emanations from the Left after Gorsuch’s first official appearance on the bench, all stating that Gorsuch is a mentally-disabled moron wrongfully occupying Merrick Garland’s seat. They’re terrified:
After his startlingly humiliating performance during his first day on the bench yesterday, it’s possible his earlier reticence to answer the Senators’ questions was because he didn’t understand them. As it turns out, Gorsuch is a simpleton with almost childlike understanding of the law – and the existing Justices on both sides of the spectrum already seem to have concluded he’s an idiot.
In fact, Gorsuch was pointing out that the answer lies in actually reading the statutory language — and he was embarrassing those attorneys who were trying to make things complicated in hopes of getting a ruling that allows agencies to make their own laws. (I’ve lost my link for this, but I’ll fill it in as soon as I find it.)
If Dennis Prager is happy, I’m happy. Everything Dennis Prager says about the political and moral clarity of the last two weeks . . . I agree:
2. The terrible presidency of Barack Obama is beginning to be acknowledged.
Following President Trump’s order to attack Syria about 63 hours after the Syrian regime seemingly used chemical weapons, even many in the mainstream media couldn’t help but contrast his prompt response with Obama’s nonresponse to Assad’s use of chemical weapons in 2013. And almost every report further noted that Obama failed to do anything after having promised that he would regard the use of chemical weapons by Assad as crossing a “red line.”
Likewise, Obama’s do-nothing policies vis-a-vis North Korea are being contrasted with Trump’s warnings to leader Kim Jung Un about further testing of intercontinental ballistic missiles and pressure on China’s leaders to rein in the North Korean regime.
These contrasts are important for a number of reasons, not the least of which being there is now hope that Obama’s star will dim as time goes on.
This will come as somewhat of a surprise to those on the left, but many of us who are not on the left believe that Obama did more damage to America than any previous president — economically, militarily and socially.
In a world in which Leftism and Islam have joined in battle for ascendancy, lies are the coin of the realm and truth is a rare and precious commodity.
Law written in stone versus law written on sand. The Gorsuch nomination process revealed more clearly than usual how devoted the Left is to a “living” Constitution — that is, they dream of a Constitution the meaning of which is determined, not by its actual words and principles, but by whatever their current needs are. You can call it a Narcissists’ Constitution.
Jonah Goldberg has points out with exceptional clarity something point I should have seen a long time ago, which is that the Left does have its own immutable founding document. It’s just not the Constitution:
Consider Dianne Feinstein’s performance during the Gorsuch hearings in the Senate. “I firmly believe that our American Constitution is a living document, intended to evolve as our country evolves,” Feinstein said. “So, I am concerned when I hear that Judge Gorsuch is an ‘originalist’ and ‘strict constructionist.’”
Yeah, okay. But at the same time, Feinstein prattled on about how Roe v. Wade is a “super-precedent,” which I assume is a version of what Senator Arlen Specter (D., R. & I., Republic of Jackassistan) called a “super-duper precedent” — which actually sounds more intelligent when sung by Young Frankenstein.
After noting a bunch of court cases that reaffirmed Roe, Feinstein went on to make an additional point: “Importantly, the dozens of cases affirming Roe are not only about precedent, they are also about a woman’s fundamental and constitutional rights.”
I’m a bit fuzzy about what she sees as the distinction between fundamental and constitutional rights, but that doesn’t matter. Clearly her bedrock belief is that the process of constitutional evolution stopped with Roe v. Wade. One might say that instead of being a 1789 originalist, she’s an originalist of 1973.
Lies from the British police. The Metropolitan Police in London sent out this typically Leftist, entirely disingenuous tweet:
“We need to establish why Khalid Masood did these unspeakable acts to provide answers & closure for families affected” #WestminsterAttack
— Metropolitan Police (@metpoliceuk) March 26, 2017
Why? Really? Why?
The Left cannot acknowledge the straight-line connection between Islam and death. Bruce Bawer can and does:
To disguise that they’re opening our country to people who should not be here, Progressives conflate distinct doctrines and hide behind the confusion.
The problem with Progressives is that they tend to combine entirely different things in a single argument and then, having intentionally muddled distinct issues, thereby perverting the data, they reach an erroneous conclusion that has a logical gloss but is, in fact, quite wrong. The two big arguments as to which they use this deceitful practice are illegal border crossers from Latin America and Middle Eastern Muslim refugees.
With regard to the Southern border wall, they conflate a fence meant to keep people out with a fence meant to keep people in. The former is a legitimate way to protect people in their rightful place from dangers lurking outside.
Hollywood stars, former Progressive politicians, and Silicon Valley bazillionaires are all really big on using fences to keep “the wrong kind” of people away from them. It’s okay when they do it because they’re rich and famous. It’s not okay when you do it, because you’re a racist pig.
The other kind of fence, the fence that keeps people locked in, is the one we associate with toddlers (got to keep them safe); prisoners (got to keep us safe from them); and nations that are so horrible that, if people are not trapped within them, they will leave (e.g., the Berlin Wall and both the DMZ separating North Korea from South Korea and the border between North Korea and China). For the last mentioned reason, border fences can get a bad rap if someone is dumb enough or deceitful enough to claim that a fence manifestly meant to keep people out is, instead, a fence meant to trap people inside a bad place.
Progressives treat Trump’s proposed Southern border fence (the fence that a bipartisan vote in Congress already passed into law back in 2006) as if it’s the second type of fence, the evil prison fence, meant to imprison people, rather than protect them. If you ask a Progress which people are being imprisoned where, you will not get a straight answer. Instead, you will be told that you’re a racist.
Whenever a Leftist tells you that you’re a racist, you know you’ve won the argument. Of course, winning the argument is scant consolation if they keep winning the larger wars.
The really big conflation scam, though, is pretending that what’s happening in Syria is the same as what happened in Germany in the 1930s. That’s the argument used to try to shame conservatives and Trump supporters into opening America’s gates to Muslim “refugees.” I put the word “refugees” in quotations because another dishonest conflating thing the Progressives do is jumbling those who’ve left Syria, who have a legitimate claim to being war refugees, with those who are leaving the Middle East and North Africa because, thanks in large part to Islam, outside of Israel those are really sh*tty places in which to live.
Progressives essentially contend that every Syrian refugee is a Anne Frank. That’s false on so many levels.
Sherif Gaber, an Egyptian dissident in hiding, takes a look at Islam’s bloody history of conquest and concludes that ISIS is extremely Islamic.
If you haven’t heard the name Sherif Gaber, allow me to educate you about a brave man who, having had an epiphany about the Islamic world in which he was raised, tries his best, even while living in hiding, to educate the world about Islam’s true face. He does not indict all Muslims, but he understands the truth of the faith in which he was raised and will speak about it.
As best as I can tell, until early 2013, when he finally spoke up while a student at the Suez Canal University in Ismailia, Egypt, Gaber was not trying to change the Muslim world. He shared his ideas on social media, but otherwise did not advertise that he was skeptical about some Islamic doctrine. That changed when the professor in his “science” class announced this bit of “scientific” Islamic wisdom: “Homosexuality is a sin. Gays and lesbians shall be crucified in the middle of the streets, stoned, and burned to death!”
Rather than silently accepting this murderous religious indictment in the context of a science class, Gaber spoke up, suggesting that the science class actually look at homosexuality from a scientific, rather than moralistic, perspective. The professor turned on Gaber, harassing and threatening him for the remainder of the class.
Now that the professor knew that Gaber craved knowledge even if it ran counter to Islamic doctrine, the professor joined with other faculty members to scour Gaber’s social media pages for anything that could be deemed “un-Islamic.” The professor than gave to the public prosecutor the papers he had printed up from Gaber’s Facebook. To add insult to injury, he also gave Gaber an “F” in the class.
In October 2013, the state police raided Gaber’s home and arrested him. Eventually, Gaber was released from prison when he paid the government 7500 Egyptian pounds (about $420), 2500 of which was for the “Contempt of Religion” charge and 5000 was for “spreading immoral values and abnormal thoughts that provoke and disturb the public peace and the national security of Egypt.” This payment did not settle the matter. It was more akin to bail, and the government continued to prosecute its case against Gaber.
Eventually, in February 2015, the Egyptian government sentenced Gaber to a year in jail for his seditious un-Islamic activity. Rather than paying 1,000 Egyptian pounds for the right to an appeal, Gaber went into hiding. His whereabouts are currently unknown.
From his hiding place, the internet is giving Gaber a voice. He’s making videos in which he says all of the things that he could not freely say in Egypt. The ones that interest me most are those aimed directly at moderate Muslims and soft-minded Westerners.
The Left cuddles up to antisemitic Muslims like Linda Sarsour, but absolves itself of sin by accusing Republicans of practicing sharia law.
When you and I think of sharia law, we probably think of women lacking any legal rights, including the right to leave their homes without a male escort or the right to wear clothes that reveal more than their eyes. We might think of the fact that, if a woman is accused of adultery, she’ll be executed. Or perhaps we think of blood-thirsty, sharia-advocating Linda Sarsour, the new darling of the feminist anti-Trump movement, threatening women with whom she disagrees, with “a$$” whippings and having their vaginas removed.
Our thoughts might wander to men and boys being hanged from cranes or thrown off of buildings, only to be finished off with rocks thrown by a watching crowd, for the crime of being gay. Or we might think about people getting lashed and imprisoned for speaking freely. Perhaps we remember that the complete prohibition upon lending money for a reasonable profit means that Muslim economies, unless they’re powered by oil, cannot grow.
Some of us might have unpleasant mental images of thieves having their right hands cut off. This last is an even more heinous punishment than first appears because it means that these thieves must eat and wipe their butts with the same hand, making them social outcasts. In that regard, do keep in mind that, for the devout, sharia law mandates that the butt wiper use a hand unmediated by leaves, paper, or — Heaven forfend! — toilet paper.
We might also think of the mandates to kill Jews and enslave all non-Muslims — or, if they cannot be enslaved, to make them second class citizens subject to a high tax for the privilege of living amongst Muslims. We might think of genocidal attacks against Christians taking place all over the Muslim world today.
Regarding slaves, those same sharia mandates make it clear that female slaves are to be used for sex. Heck, any female who is not a devout Muslim (which, in the modern era, means one completely covered), can be used for sex against her will.
Other things we might think of are the mandate to expand Islam throughout the world, not through example and peaceful proselytizing, but through fire and sword. We’d certainly remember that forcibly converted people can’t back out. After all, sharia law mandates that anyone who leaves Islam has automatically subjected himself (or herself) to the death penalty. And of course, there’s the fact the government dictates every aspect of people’s lives and faith.
Well, those are some of the things I think of when I think of sharia law. This is what Progressives think of:
I’m having a little bit of fun here, but it’s really amazing how many similarities you can find between Donald Trump and Winston Churchill.
Before people start screaming in anguish at the possibility that Donald Trump might be America’s Winston Churchill, this post is meant to be somewhat tongue-in-cheek. Still, there are a few commonalities between the two, not the least of which is that both emerged when their countries were facing existential extinction, in both hot and cold wars. If you like, you can play along with me in the comments:
Parentage — not identical, but with a nice symmetry:
Winston Churchill was the British-born son of an American mother.
Donald Trump is the American-born son of a British mother.
Winston Churchill was born into a wealthy family.
Donald Trump was born into a wealthy family.
Winston Churchill went to boarding school.
Donald Trump went to boarding school.
Winston Churchill was a member of the Liberal Party before becoming a conservative.
Donald Trump was a member of the Democrat Party before becoming a conservative (or, at least, pretty darn conservative).
Hated by the elite liberal establishment:
When Winston Churchill left the Liberal party and started speaking out in favor of preparing for war, he became a pariah. He was therefore very low during the 1930s, so low that, at a dinner party, after staring moodily at his plate, he suddenly announced to his surprised dinner companion, “We are all worms. But I believe that I am a glow-worm.”
When Donald Trump was a Democrat, he was feted at the White House and by America’s black political elite. When he came out as a conservative, the entire Progressive establishment set out to (and is still trying to) destroy him.
Teen Vogue, a pernicious hard-Left magazine that enters homes uninvited, has created the ultimate gift guide: what to give your friend after her abortion.
I am not Teen Vogue’s target audience. Nevertheless, it ended up in my home because an online clothes site subscribed my daughter to the magazine. One glance told me that an ideological virus was invading my home, as you’ll see from the issue I reviewed here. Reading the magazine would infect the reader with the entire social justice agenda: a world in which gays, trans people, Muslims, women, minorities, and whatever other victim groups I’ve forgotten are perpetually on the receiving hand of harassment and disrespect from a privileged white male establishment. Thankfully, because I got to the mail first, my daughter never even knew Teen Vogue had come near our house.
Teen Vogue popped up on my screen again after the Super Bowl. It turns out I wasn’t the only one to realize that Lady Gaga, by immediately following a few lines of America, the Beautiful, with a stirring rendition of a few lines from Woody Guthrie’s This Land is Your Land was scoring heavy-handed hard-Left political points. Gutherie was a die-hard communist and he wrote This Land is Your Land as a protest about the evil capitalism blighting the American landscape (the lyrics in the verses nobody sings are the giveaway).
Teen Vogue’s online site figured it out too, thanks to its online editor, Phillip Picardi. Incidentally, if you check out his Twitter feed, you’ll get a very good insight into the mindset of the people behind a magazine that naive parents might think is related to the fashion magazine of old:
[And timing is everything. The day after I wrote an encomium to Milo, who speaks forcefully about (among other things) gender dysphoria and the danger to children in bathrooms, PJ Media claims he supports gay pedophilia — or, at least, being a provocateur, provocatively says things he implies he does. Milo is certainly firm in his outrage against the accusation. His defense makes sense to me, especially given how familiar I am with gay culture thanks to growing up and working in SF. This new data point doesn’t change the main points below. Here’s the deal: gay culture is different and one of Milo’s strengths is that he says America should not subordinate itself to gay culture.]
UPDATE: Milo seems to have been destroyed. Despite his books status as a best seller, Simon & Schuster has dumped it. Breitbart is silent about him.
As best as I can tell, thanks to Stephen Green’s research, these are the two worst things Milo said that would lead to an accusation that he’s a pedophile:
Milo’s money quote, which was edited out of the video, is this:
The law is probably about right, that’s probably roughly the right age. I think it’s probably about okay, but there are certainly people who are capable of giving consent at a younger age, I certainly consider myself to be one of them, people who are sexually active younger. I think it particularly happens in the gay world by the way. In many cases actually those relationships with older men…This is one reason I hate the left. This stupid one size fits all policing of culture. (People speak over each other). This sort of arbitrary and oppressive idea of consent, which totally destroys you know understanding that many of us have. The complexities and subtleties and complicated nature of many relationships. You know, people are messy and complex. In the homosexual world particularly. Some of those relationships between younger boys and older men, the sort of coming of age relationships, the relationships in which those older men help those young boys to discover who they are, and give them security and safety and provide them with love and a reliable and sort of a rock where they can’t speak to their parents. Some of those relationships are the most -”
And this was edited out as well:
“You’re misunderstanding what pedophilia means. Pedophilia is not a sexual attraction to somebody 13-years-old who is sexually mature. Pedophilia is attraction to children who have not reached puberty. Pedophilia is attraction to people who don’t have functioning sex organs yet. Who have not gone through puberty… That’s not what we are talking about. You don’t understand what pedophilia is if you are saying I’m defending it because I’m certainly not.”
In other words, Milo never said that he had sex with little boys or that he intended to do so. What he did say was that older gay men often introduce younger gay men into sex. I certainly saw that enough when I was living and working in San Francisco. It was too common practice for sexually confused 20 or 22 year olds to be taken under the wing of a 30 or 40 year old gay man. It was not pedophilia, it was gay mentoring and it’s obvious that Milo is referring to that practice.
As for Milo’s comment about pedophilia being a perverted passion for children who have not gone through adolescence, he’s correct. He’s also correct that children mature at different speeds. In my neighborhood, one kid at 12 had a nascent mustache and a voice deeper than my husband’s. Another finally got his growth spurt when he went off to college, although he’s still not shaving. Having said that, Milo made it clear that, given this variability, he has no problem with the current age of consent laws.
It’s very disturbing that this take-down of one of the most effective voices for conservativism came from the #NeverTrump crowd having a petty pique fit over Milo’s invitation to CPAC. Having said that, the information was out there, and if the renegade right hadn’t published it, the Lefties would have and in a way that was even worse.
I’ve heard from friends that Lefties are already piling on to this man who did nothing wrong other than making observations about the realities of the gay world and the physical maturation process. More than that, I find it incredibly ironic that this tut-tutting comes from the Left. These are the same people who demand that condoms, birth control advice, and abortion information should be given to kids as young as 11 in their schools, and who insist that a child can get an abortion with an adult okaying it something that is, of course, the best possible way for a true pedophile to destroy any genetic evidence of his crime.
And by the way, if this seems familiar, you’re seeing the same takedown that the Left and #NeverTrumpers did to Trump. He observed accurately enough that, if you’re rich and famous, women will indeed let you do anything to them. He did not say that he took advantage of this reality, yet he was instantly called a molester and subjected to the harshest castigation. And of course, most of the screaming came from the same side that was fine with Clinton raping women and using the pressure of his fame and power to coerce a women young enough to be his daughter to engage in a sordid workplace affair.
This whole thing sickens and disgusts me. We are in a political sewer in our country.
And now back to my original post.
Milo Yiannopoulos — rude and crude, but also smart, brave, funny, and bitchy. He’s a necessary counterweight to Progressives’ lethal Political Correctness.
With a swirling debate about whether Milo Yiannopoulos will be a keynote speaker at this year’s CPAC, I have a confession: I didn’t like Milo Yiannopoulos when he first popped up on my radar. At a first, superficial, glance, he was everything that rubs me the wrong way: His humor seemed to rely on crude insults and too often to trade in racial and religious stereotypes, he relentlessly leveraged those insults and stereotypes into media face time which seemed to drag conservativism down not build it up, and he had that whole drag queen vibe. I have issues, which I’ll explain in a few minutes, with the drag queen vibe. Having reached these conclusions, I dismissed Milo. There. Done.
The thing is, if you’re a conservative, Milo is not a person who can be — or should be — dismissed. I first got an inkling of this from my teenage son. Sick and tired of being on the receiving end of misanthropic third-wave feminist tirades at his school (which cannot be challenged because doing so is an unacceptable manifestation of cisgender male privilege and domination), he headed to the internet looking for rebuttals to these feminists. Even if the school’s uber-liberal environment bans voicing the rebuttals, at least he had the comfort of knowing they were there.
My son’s research led him directly to Steve Crowder and Milo. He appreciated Crowder’s unflinching, and almost invariably funny, take Islam’s issues with the West and he was completely awed at Milo’s ability to (in my son’s words) “destroy those feminazis.” My son therefore insisted I watch Milo’s epic feminazi destruction in action. I agreed, somewhat worried that I’d get one of Milo’s unpleasant, uber-queenie, racist, shock-value moments. Instead, I got this: