The curious case of third wave feminists | The Spectator

There’s one type of woman that feminists will not tolerate.

Source: The curious case of third wave feminists | The Spectator

It used to be, up until, oh, 20 or 30 years ago, that feminists could – and often did – make the argument that they don’t hate men, they’re just seeking equality. Fair enough! Although like many others on the left-hand side of the socio-political aisle, they have missed the point that equality need not, and often does not, mean identicality.

Be that as it may, the rise of third-wave feminism has made it difficult to near impossible to make that claim (no hate, just equality), with any kind of credibility. And, perhaps realizing this, many third-wave feminists have taken off the gloves, and are no longer even pretending they don’t hate men. As the author of this piece, self-described “woman on the right” Daisy Cousens, points out,

“The third-wave feminist is a curious creature. Her comrades are a strange sub-strata of Millennial and Generation X women with a peculiar inferiority complex. They’re obsessed with picking at the scab of women’s lib, trying to draw fresh blood, and are often seen prowling (or lumbering) around, attempting to sniff out sexism in every nook and cranny. Theirs is an ideology based not on equality, but misplaced victimhood.

“According to your standard third-waver, the most insidious issues facing women today are not genital mutilation, or underage marriages, or sexual slavery. They are ‘manspreading’, ‘mansplaining’, and ‘micro-aggressions’. Terms cooked up to keep feminists in business as they steadily ran out of things to complain about.”

But their hatred of women who don’t agree with them, who stray from politically-correct orthodoxy, may be even more intense. Commenting that “third-wavers are perpetually miserable, and seek to make other women as brutally unhappy as they are,” Cousens points out that third-wave feminists are prey to “a strange form of misogyny” which “is starkly revealed in their treatment of right-wing women.”

Read on for more…

Advertisements

Are We Erasing History?

Many have borrowed philosopher George Santayana’s famous phrase: “Those who do not remember history are doomed to repeat it,” but in our current political climate, some fear we are currently in the process of erasing history.

Source: Are We Erasing History? | War History Online

“Pulling down Confederate statues in the Southern United States, and ISIS members burning and destroying documents, monuments and artifacts that date back thousands of years–these are but two examples of people struggling to come to terms with not only the facts of history, but also its ever-present reminders…

“It may not be the popular stance today, but Parsons believes that if we censure objects and reminders, censuring memory could be the natural next step. He concludes: “You can tear down all the statues of Douglas Bader and his dog, but history will never be a safe space…historical correctness does not change the past, it does not improve the present. It offers no hope for the future.”

An excellent article. Read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest!

The Left Case against Open Borders – American Affairs Journal

The destruction and abandonment of labor politics means that, at present, immigration issues can only play out within the framework of a culture war, fought entirely on moral grounds.

Source: The Left Case against Open Borders – American Affairs Journal

To say that the Left has “painted itself into a corner” on the topic of open borders and mass migration is to say no more than the truth:

“The destruction and abandonment of labor politics means that, at present, immigration issues can only play out within the framework of a culture war, fought entirely on moral grounds. In the heightened emotions of America’s public debate on migration, a simple moral and political dichotomy prevails. It is ‘right-wing’ to be ‘against immigration’ and ‘left-wing’ to be ‘for immigration.’ But the economics of migration tell a different story…

“While no serious political party of the Left is offering concrete proposals for a truly borderless society, by embracing the moral arguments of the open-borders Left and the economic arguments of free market think tanks, the Left has painted itself into a corner. If ‘no human is illegal!,’ as the protest chant goes, the Left is implicitly accepting the moral case for no borders or sovereign nations at all. But what implications will unlimited migration have for projects like universal public health care and education, or a federal jobs guarantee? And how will progressives convincingly explain these goals to the public?”

As this article points out in stark terms, the American Left in general, and the Democratic Party in specific, is going to have to wrestle with the fundamental question that leftist and center-left parties in Europe are already grappling with, namely, what does it want to be when it grows up? What are the core values, and the core constituency, on which it wishes to focus?

Ultimately – and probably sooner rather than later – American Democrats are going to have to choose:

Do they want to be the party of mass migration and open borders, or do they want to be party of a social safety net that assists the disadvantaged (and really, anyone who is not part of the infamous “1%”) and those struggling here at home? They are going to have to choose one or the other, because there is not enough money, and there are not enough resources, to do both.

Lofty ideals and stirring rhetoric aside, we simply cannot “feed the world.” There is too much world out there. So are we going to do what we can to help, while focusing our finite energy, attention, and resources on the plight of our own people? Or are we going to tear down the borders, and lay prostrate at the feet of a wave of economic migration that will diminish if not destroy everything we have built here over the last several centuries, for little if any improvement in their own situation?

The time of choice is drawing near. Indeed, it is already upon us!


N.B.: I am looking at this from the perspective of my own country – the U.S. – and the West in general, but the article also makes the point that mass migration is actually harming rather than helping the migrants’ countries of origin:

“Despite the rhetoric about ‘shithole countries’ or nations ‘not sending their best,’ the toll of the migration brain drain on developing economies has been enormous… Developing countries are struggling to retain their skilled and professional citizens, often trained at great public cost, because the largest and wealthiest economies that dominate the global market have the wealth to snap them up… It is not difficult to see why the political and economic elites of the world’s richest countries would want the world to ‘send their best,’ regardless of the consequences for the rest of the world. But why is the moralizing, pro–open borders Left providing a humanitarian face for this naked self-interest?”

“According to the best analysis of capital flows and global wealth today, globalization is enriching the wealthiest people in the wealthiest countries at the expense of the poorest, not the other way around…. Global wealth inequality is the primary push factor driving mass migration, and the globalization of capital cannot be separated from this matter. There is also the pull factor of exploitative employers in the United States who seek to profit from non-unionized, low-wage workers in sectors like agriculture as well as through the importation of a large white-collar workforce already trained in other countries.”

But what do we hear about this from the Left, traditionally the defenders of workers and the poor, against rapacious capitalists? Nothing. Nada. Crickets.

I have often talked about the unholy alliance between Washington, DC, and Wall Street; an even more unholy and damaging one may be between the corporate capitalists, profiteers, and neo-robber barons, and the supposedly “moral” Left, with its apparent desire to welcome anyone who is not of Western (read: European) origin.

In their desire to pull down what they see as “oppressive” structures of Western civilization, the Left is willing to make common cause with their greatest historic enemy – capital – and sell out their own natural constituency, labor. Want to talk about “collusion”…? There’s your collusion!

In any case, read the article, all of it. Read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest! Much that’s worth thinking about in it, although it’s far from comforting.

QOTD: Globalism and insecurity

“Cornell sociologist Mabel Berezin has identified… three insecurities inherent in globalized dynamics. Berezin notes that the nation-state historically promised to provide secure borders, a stable economy, and the space for celebration and perpetuation of a population’s customs, traditions, and religion. But as Berezin observes, these three securities have eroded as the result of dynamics in globalization.”

Stephen R. Turley, PhD: The Triumph of Tradition: How the Resurgence of Religion is Reawakening A Conservative World

“Eroded” is perhaps a gentle word, under the circumstances! As Turley points out in this excellent little volume (available via the Amazon.com link above, or as an e-book download directly from his site – I get no kickbacks from either), all three of these securities – border (e.g., territorial integrity and national sovereignty), economic, and cultural – are under sustained and aggressive attack from the forces of globalism.

While no one really likes to think in these terms, we are in a cultural and civilizational conflict, a low-grade, “soft” war which will prove to be – as Turley comments in some of his videos – as significant and far-reaching in its implications as the Cold War… perhaps even more so, as it has the potential (already partly realized) to radically reshape not only the political and economic, but the cultural and demographic map of the globe.

The Leftist media, and its allied academics and politicians, like to characterize those of us who are not only skeptical of, but downright opposed to, this “brave new world” as racists, xenophobes, bigots who blindly cling to the past rather than embrace the (so they believe, inevitable) future. In truth, it is they who are blind.

Related image

The current situation in the West – including the United States – reminds me of nothing so much as an old Fur Trade-era freight canoe hurtling toward the precipice of Niagara Falls, with the steersman shouting “Keep paddling! What’s wrong? Don’t you want to embrace the future?” Those of us who would prefer survival are digging in our paddles, and striving to back and turn the canoe, before we reach the brink.

God grant us success!

Treaty of Versailles | The Holocaust Encyclopedia

Image result for versailles treaty germany punishment
https://www.slideserve.com/mikasi/woodrow-wilson-and-the-treaty-of-versailles

Source: Treaty of Versailles | The Holocaust Encyclopedia

Contrary to popular belief, Germany had entered World War One only reluctantly, and as a result of its mutual-assistance pact with Austria-Hungary. When it became obvious that the Kaiserreich could not defeat the Allies – especially after the entry of the United States, with over a million fresh troops, and in light of the “November Revolution” that resulted in Bolshevik (Marxist / Communist) takeovers of several major German cities – its representatives sought to negotiate, in good faith, a treaty to end the war.

Those negotiations were intended to be conducted on the basis of Woodrow Wilson’s “Fourteen Points,” which “called for the victorious Allies to set unselfish peace terms with the vanquished Central Powers of World War I, including freedom of the seas, the restoration of territories conquered during the war and the right to national self-determination in such contentious regions as the Balkans.”

Those reasonable hopes did not take long to be dashed: Continue reading “Treaty of Versailles | The Holocaust Encyclopedia”

Election Day 2018 (U.S.)

Image may contain: one or more people, people sitting, people standing and indoor

Today is the day of the midterm general elections, here in the United States. I took advantage of the “early voting” option to exercise my franchise last week, and as I commented at the time, I was very far from the only one!

But as I drove past Mechanicsville Elementary in Gamber, on the way home from work this evening at around 6:40, it was still busy, only a bit over an hour before the polls closed. And the same was true of every polling place I drove past, all day today, and I drove past quite a few of them.

Whatever else can be said about this election cycle, it’s got people stirred up! That’s more to the good than otherwise, I think, regardless of the outcome; in order for our representative, Constitutional Republic to operate effectively, it needs an informed, active electorate. Active they certainly seem to be, this time around – I just hope they’re also informed!

An Anglican clergyman friend of mine posted the following on Facebook today:

As I was driving away from the polling place today I was struck by the thought that I, a Christian monarchist, have resolved to be active in local republicanism. What can I say? There is no king, Christian or otherwise, running for office or who has a chance of being forcibly enthroned by holy reactionary forces. You gotta work with what you have in order to keep the modern Jacobins at bay, but it ain’t ideal.

I am an American Anglican. As an Anglican, monarchy is the natural polity, but as an American, I stand for the traditional rights of Englishmen that modern England and the rest of the UK and the Commonwealth have sold for a mess of collectivist, leftist and PC pottage.

King George III was right, I believe, about how the liberated colonies would come to suffer unduly for the lack of a monarchy, but England and the UK have given up the ghost. The House of Windsor is a vapid imitation of the Kings that went before it, and only in American republicanism is found the true tradition of the Anglo-Saxon kings of old, albeit in a diluted form.

I am an Anglican, and I therefore stand for the Monarch.

But I also stand for the Bill of Rights, which is an enumeration of the rights of Englishmen, and that’s why I will assist in leveraging the republican way here in Henderson County, North Carolina against the forces of American Jacobism and Bolshevism and the clueless “liberals” to their right.

He speaks, in large measure, for me as well. Until the King comes again, the form of government bequeathed to us by our Founders (“A Republic, Madam… if you can keep it!” as Franklin put it) – and to the greatest extent possible, as our Founders bequeathed it to us – is our best available shot at keeping the forces of darkness at bay.

But this election is a concerning one. Those forces of darkness are very strong, and although the mask is slipping, that also means they are relieved of the moderating effects of pretense and subterfuge. We live in trying times…

Trump will keep America safe by blocking migrant caravan at border | USA Today (op-ed)

Afp Afp 1ab52v A Pol Usa Az
Members of the Arizona National Guard in Phoenix, Arizona, on April 9, 2018 (Photo: Caitlin O’Hara/AFP/Getty Images).

Trump will stop the caravan, defend our border, keep out criminals, and protect America. Democrats want to abolish ICE and keep a weak asylum system.

Source: Trump will keep America safe by blocking migrant caravan at border

“Another ‘caravan’ of several thousand illegal aliens is marching towards our southern border, and the Democrats want to lay out the welcome mat…

“These Central American caravaners make it very clear that they want to enter the United States, and they don’t really care what the people of the United States have to say about it. Singing their national anthems and carrying their national flags, the would-be invaders scoff at the notion that immigration laws apply to them.”

Precisely so. I will be honest, here: I would be a lot more inclined to welcome these people if they were waving American flags and singing “God Bless America.” But they are not. This is a clear challenge to our borders, to our territorial integrity, and therefore, to our national sovereignty. They are, in fact, invaders. Continue reading “Trump will keep America safe by blocking migrant caravan at border | USA Today (op-ed)”