If you haven’t swung by WOW Magazine lately, maybe today’s the day. Watcher’s Council members have turned a gimlet eye to today’s issues.
A former police officer’s tale about the 1979 White Night riots in San Francisco shows a disturbing pattern when you have a Leftist police chief or mayor.
I spoke yesterday with a friend, a former San Francisco police officer, who told me something very interesting about the White Night riots that devastated San Francisco in May 1979. I remember the riots well, as I lived in the City at the time, but the behind-the-scene details were fascinating and illuminating. Here’s what I learned:
George Moscone became the Mayor of San Francisco in 1976. Today, he would be called a Progressive. Back then, he was simply a Democrat who represented the electorate’s shift away from the old-fashioned, working- and middle-class Democrats who once had a say in San Francisco politics.
One of Moscone’s first tasks as mayor was to appoint a new Chief of Police. Traditionally, police chiefs came from within the ranks of the San Francisco Police Department, which was a solidly working- and middle-class organization with conservative social views, that was just branching out into having women and minorities serve.
Moscone, however, bypassed the SFPD when looking for a new chief and, instead, appointed Charles Gain, an African-American who had been serving as Chief of Police in Oakland. At the time, Gain was widely perceived as being extremely “liberal” — as the Left defines that word, rather than the classical definition.
When he became Chief, Gain decided that the SFPD needed an image overhaul. He therefore ordered that all police vehicles should be painted baby blue, so as to appear less threatening. The police officers, when driving around in their light blue paddy wagons likened themselves to a diaper delivery service. Gain was also extremely supportive of gays, something that didn’t sit well with traditional police officers.
Given Moscone’s and Gain’s Progressive politics, it’s scarcely surprising that Dan White, an elected supervisor who was an old-fashioned, working class San Francisco conservative, would clash with them. Eventually, White announced that he was retiring as Supervisor.
Conservative elements in the City, including police officers, begged White to reconsider, so he asked for his old job back. However, the Progressives on the Board of Supervisors, including Harvey Milk, the first openly gay politician in America, lobbied against his reinstatement, so that they could get a firm lock on Leftist politics in San Francisco. Moscone had no problem with this agenda and refused White’s request to be reinstated.
White was extremely distraught. Unfortunately, his wife, who might have provided emotional ballast for him at this time, was out of town. So it was that Dan White sneaked into City Hall on November 11, 1978 and assassinated both Moscone and Milk. Most San Franciscans were saddened but gay San Franciscans were completely devastated. An icon had died. [Read more…]
Yes, there are young conservatives, but they’re not at college or watching TV. Instead, they’re working hard and watching conservative YouTube videos.
There’s a young man I’ve known and admired for many years. I met him through one of my children’s activities and quickly sized him up as extremely bright and incredibly hardworking. He also has a brilliant sense of humor; one, moreover, that is perfectly attuned to children. When he left the job through which I met him to start his own business, I didn’t follow him, because doing so would have involved a lot more driving. That was a bad decision because my child’s interest in the activity vanished when the young man left.
It’s been many years since I last saw this man, but I keep up with him on Facebook. He doesn’t post often, but when he does, I’m always blown away. He may be a millennial, but he’s a rock solid libertarian-conservative-classic liberal and he’s not shy about defending his viewpoints. He has a mastery of the issues and will expand upon them if he feels it’s appropriate.
Because I find this young man interesting and his conservativism heartening, I reached out via Facebook to learn a little more about him. He gave me some fascinating information about young conservatives. Here’s what I learned:
My friend believes that young conservatives in his age cohort (people under 40) are much more common than anyone realizes, as evidenced by Trump’s huge victory across America. As far as he’s concerned, the perception that his generation automatically hews Left is a byproduct of the Left’s own self-referential world view in entertainment, media, and the universities, each of which relentlessly promotes and reinforces its own cultural dominance.
Because his job involves teaching skills to young people, my young friend has seen a lot of young people grow up over the years. He therefore sees a trajectory that has them sucked into Leftism through school, and then finding their way out of it again when they hit the real world. He breaks this arc down as follows:
From 15-18, young people are fairly centrist politically and rely on common sense.
From 19-22, young people go “off to indoctrination sleep away camp…. errrr…. I mean University.” There, peer pressure, combined with a system that punishes dissent, pushes them so far Left that they actually view Leftism as a centrist political position.
From 23-25, these kids hit the real world. There, they discover that the real world is unlike anything their education told them it would be. Nevertheless, they are slow to realize what’s going on.
Only after reaching the second half of their twenties do young people start figuring out that they really do live somewhere in the center, and that the whole “institutional racism” issue is not the problem. The problem, instead, is the people relentlessly complaining about “institutional racism.” At this point, it hits them that the far Left isn’t fighting “the man;” it is “the man.”
Fascinating take on things, right? Especially because it comes from someone who lives in the middle of the young demographic.
But here’s the most interesting thing the young man told me: We old people still look at television as a driving force, which is why we’re so exercised by the crap spewed on the major news networks. His generation, however, isn’t really a TV generation, especially for young conservatives, who feel locked out of television. For that reason, young conservatives go someplace entirely different: YouTube. According to my friend, “there is a huge grass roots Conservative-Libertarian-Classic Liberal movement going on now on YouTube and on podcasting formats.” [Read more…]
Those who are offended by brute force tactics in the battle against social justice warriors forget that we are in an ideological war with real enemies.
He’s been making popular, funny videos challenging social justice warriors for over a year now, but somehow I managed to miss entirely the Chris Ray Gun phenomenon. This video, which just popped up on my radar is great (and technically very well done) . . . and it’s not the only one of its kind. In fact, it’s part of a whole “Social Justice : The Musical” series Chris did. (Language warning.)
Here’s one more scene from his “musical”:
Now that you’ve watched and enjoyed those videos, I bet you’re going to do precisely what I did, which is to head over to his YouTube channel and watch his other stuff. You’ll see that, as is the case for so many of today’s noisy, clever, in-your-face young challengers to the stifling edicts of social justice warriors and Progressivism generally, he’s not a “pure” conservative. Instead, he’s a “sick of this Leftist” crap young man who’s willing to put himself out there in a big way to challenge to SJW paradigm that is dominant in education, entertainment, sports, and most of the other aspects of American culture that intersect with millennials.
Which brings me to another thought: When it comes to this “in your face” quality, Chris is right up there with others leading the fight against social justice warriors: Milo, Paul Joseph Watson, Ann Coulter, Steven Crowder, and our own President Donald Trump. None of them are much given to polite debate. They are willing to be vulgar, rude, insulting, belittling, and even obscene when they challenge the Left.
Indeed, these conservative firebrands often use the social justice warriors’ own tactics against them, even if that means digging into the Alinksy playbook. After all, the Alinsky playbook is not about core ideological issues. It’s a tactical, or procedural, manual, not a substantive one.
The firebrands are this way because they understand that this is not a college debating team. They have figured out that America is in a zero sum ideological war. Only one side is going to walk away the victor from this one. We not dealing with competitors; we are fighting dangerous enemies.
Can you smell something a bit Apocalyptic in the air? Things are getting fraught as the Left pushes the social and political system closer to the edge.
Victor Davis Hanson, who is no hysteric, looks at the concatenation of a deep state doing anything to preserve its power, an openly post-truth media (that my Progressive friends nevertheless believe absolutely no matter how often its proved wrong), and a Democrat party that’s determined to destroy the duly elected president of the United States . . . and he’s worried.
I was alive and sentient during the 1960s and 1970s, and yet, other than the whole Patty Hearst thing, I have no memory of the truly epic violence Leftists were visiting on America in those decades. My defense is that I was a child and a teen but, really, you’d think that, watching the news every night as I did with the family (always Walter Cronkite) I should have remembered something. Indeed, one of the police stations caught up in the violence was about a mile-and-a-half from my childhood home! And Angela Davis’s role in murdering a Marin County judge also played out very much in my neck of the woods. (You’ll read more about Angela Davis later in this post.)
Oh, wait! I bet you have no idea what I’m talking about when I say I ought to have remembered an extraordinary level of violence. My ignorance, and almost everyone else’s, is the whole point of davidzhines’ absolutely epic post summarizing the highlights of Bryan Burrough’s Days of Rage: America’s Radical Underground, the FBI, and the Forgotten Age of Revolutionary Violence, a book that’s definitely going on my reading list.
The post is unusually long, but so compelling that I hung on every word. davidzhines reminds us that the Left has had decades to put in place tight organizations that oversee people without conscience determined to use violence to achieve their “people’s paradise.” Conservatives who talk about taking out weenie pajama boys fail to understand the subterranean terrors at which the Left is so practiced — and davidzhines fears that those subterranean terrors are once again waiting to emerge, only this time they’ll include the jihadist obsession with high mortality figures for every terrorist act.
Meanwhile, in Sweden, which is what the American Left keeps hoping America will become, things are not pretty. It appears that part of Sweden’s rape problem might be that, rather like an American college campus, Sweden defines rape to include “he looked at me funny.” On the other hand, you can’t escape the fact that daily life in Sweden has not improved thanks to a Muslim influx.
Milo didn’t do what he’s accused of doing — but he’s being punished nevertheless. That’s just wrong . . . and so ickily Leftist.
Sometimes the Lefties in this country get lucky. They have a truly dangerous adversary like Milo Yiannopoulos, someone who bravely and wades into the fight, and does so in such a way that he exposes to the maximum number of people how monstrous the ideological enemy really is — and then self-righteous “conservatives” take him down without the Left having to lift a finger. This is just so wrong. You’d think that people, especially those on the Right, would have learned something from the Trump “grab them by their…” debacle but, nooooo, they just fall into the same traps over and over.
Ask yourself what it was that Milo did to earn his banishment from the same halls and institutions that once welcomed him with open arms. You may be surprised by the answers. (I should state here that I’ve read the entire transcript of Milo’s more controversial remarks. You can too. Here is his defense and clarification.)
Did Milo confess that he molested a child? No. He never said he did. He has asserted steadfastly and strongly that he never has. And no one has crawled out of the woodwork claiming that Milo molested him. Lena Dunham confessed in her autobiography that she molested her little sister . . . but no one cared.
Did Milo actually molest a child? See above. He has not said he did so; he has said he never would do so; and no one has contested anything he said.
Did Milo say that he wanted to molest a child? No. Ne never said he did. Indeed, he’s consistently asserted that he finds the very idea repugnant. And again, no one has crawled out of the woodwork claiming that he and Milo had a great conversation once upon a time about their desire to molest a child.
Has Milo insisted that pedophilia isn’t really that bad, which is what one of Slate’s now-erased writers did? No. He has never advocated pedophilia, although he’s made it clear that an older gay man introduced him to gay sex (whether before or after puberty is not clear). Where Milo differs from Lefties when it comes to his having been victimized is that he doesn’t define himself by what happens to him. What Milo has done, though, is to be one of the loudest voices arguing about protecting children from sexual predators, starting with allowing predatory pedophile males into little girls’ bathrooms, which is something the Obama administration insisted was a sexually confused man’s civil right.
Has Milo tried to foist a gay agenda, with all of its bizarre behaviors on America and America’s children? No. Certainly Milo’s persona is all about being gay. He’s not the one, though, who’s advocating that we start teaching small children about gay sex or that we put books touting explicit gay sex in the library’s at America’s public schools. If that’s what you want, you have to go to Kevin Jennings, whom Obama appointed as his “Safe School Czar.” Part of Milo’s shtick is to stop pretending that gays are saints.
Did Milo talk about pedophilia in a podcast? Yes. Yes, he did, although not in the way the self-righteous crowd claims.
[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:
With two days having elapsed since rioters disrupted Milo Yiannopoulos’s planned speech at UC Berkeley, using fire, pepper spray, sticks, fists, and feet in a successful effort to silence Milo, I’ve now got a bit of the distance I need to comment on the event. My conclusion is a simple and obvious one: While it was career agitators who committed the worst mayhem, there can be no doubt that Progressive ideology — which reached hysteric pitch when it became apparent that President Trump really would end 8 years of Obama’s hard Progressivism and the preceding 12 years of soft Progressivism — drove the entire disgraceful, tyrannical event.
To make this case about the inherent violence in today’s anti-Trump Progressive ideology, I’ll begin with Zombie’s photo and video record of the event. And while I’m sure you’ve seen other photos and videos, do check out Zombie’s page, as it contains unique images and footage that add to our understanding about what happened in Berkeley.
What’s clear from watching videos such as the following is that, while the professional anarchists in their black clothes and concealing face masks (they call themselves “Antifa,” ostensibly because they are anti-fascist) are the leading edge of the violence, the large assembled crowd is at all relevant times enthusiastically applauding and egging them on. The crowd is open in appreciating Antifa’s destructive, dangerous, and determined efforts to silence speech with which they disagree. That is, while some Berkeley students and citizens are now trying to distance themselves from Antifa, that was not the case when mob rule was on the streets and the Progressives hadn’t yet realized that the whole thing looked remarkably Kristallnacht-like in subsequent media reports:
WOW! Magazine, the newly designed collaborative magazine from the Watcher’s Council, continues to be an exciting and dynamic place to find articles, not just about politics, but about everything. Since I last wrote about what’s happening at WOW! Magazine, Council members have published many new articles that I know you’ll find interesting:
- Remembering Rick Rescorla, one of America’s warriors
- Remembering Brian Ahearn, a hero of 9/11
- Shameless Bigot smears millions of Americans
- 09-11-16: We’re Deplorable
- [VIDEO] Milo Yiannopoulos primer on Hillary’s new nemesis, the Alt-Right
- The two faces of Hillary Clinton
- Hillary Faces Backlash After Labeling Half of Trump Supporters “Basket of Deplorables”
- The Tesla Model S: Hunka Hunka Burnin’ EV!
- So, how much cash has Team Obama given to the Iranians anyway?
- And then they came for……
- Some People Just Prefer Tyranny
I like free speech. I like to use good ideas to challenge bad ideas. I think the whole point of political correctness is to erase our ability even to entertain thoughts about freedom, justice, and our inherent (not government-given, but inherent) rights as set forth in the Bill of Rights. I therefore have been untroubled by the Alt-Right movement, even though I know some nasty people have slipped in on the fringes.
I’m just grateful that, being a conservative, these racists and antisemites do live only on the fringes of a freedom-based political movement. If you’re on the Left, the racists and antisemites sit dead center.
From their perch at the top of the Democrat political heap, the Leftist racists demean blacks by saying that blacks are so stupid and helpless that they can function only with government support and guidance. From that same perch, they also offer unflinching support for genocidal Palestinians and for the BDS movement that aids the Palestinians in their genocidal goals. Indeed, this antisemitic rage has become a central pillar of the modern Democrat movement.
Meanwhile, even as Hillary was castigating a group that likes to tweak noses and yank chains, and most especially make a mockery of political correctness, she was receiving an endorsement from the Communist Party of the United States. A little historic reminder is useful here: The Communist Party of the United States actively seeks to bring about the same regimes that killed more than a 100 million people in the 20th century, and that are still going strong in various parts of the world.
It’s already old news that DePaul’s resident fascists (aka students and their adult trainers) shouted Milo Yiannopoulos off the stage. Campus security refused to step in to protect an invited speaker. Worse, when the story inevitably went public, the university’s insane faculty doubled down on the type of vicious fascist censorship that Hitler’s Brownshirts would readily have recognized.
But there is push back. Just check out DePaul’s review page on Facebook. For those who don’t want to bother, here’s the summary version as of May 29, 2016:
There are so many reviews that it would take me hours to find who wrote the following masterpiece on the Review page, which a friend sent me a couple of days ago. If you know who wrote it, please tell me so I can give proper attribution:
I was discussing with a friend two articles today, when I suddenly saw the future — and believe me, it’s not pretty, or at least not any prettier than Daniel Craig in a lush blonde wig as he carries out his secret agent duties. The first article involved the trauma Milo Yiannopoulos visited upon Rutgers’ students when he gave a campus speech challenging Social Justice Warriors. The second article was learning that the CIA is incorporating into its hiring policies the same activist mindset that SJWs have been demanding on American campuses. The resulting epiphany was how James Bond would play out in this Brave New World.
It all began when Wolf Howling and I speculated about the Bernie Sanders generation — who are they and how in the world did they get so stupid? After all, despite socialism’s manifest and brutal failures everywhere it’s been tried (most recently in a collapsing Venezuela), this generation actually thinks socialism is the answer. Wolf Howling said, accurately, that the poison begins on college campuses. When he said that, my mind immediately summon up what happened after Yiannopoulos breached academia’s sacred domain to carry on his battle against the Social Justice Warriors (warning — AutoPlay video at link):