Charlottesville: Nazis, Violence and Media Hysteria

After the tragedy in Charlottesville, the only person who came out of it looking good was President Donald Trump. He was the only one who had the guts to stand up and speak the plain, unvarnished truth. There really are two sides, there really is blame on both sides, and the behavior of the “counter-protesters” (to use the Record’s euphemism) really was every bit as despicable as the Nazis in attendance, if not more so. Whatever else you might think about Nazis, they have the right to believe what they want, and say what they want. But the “counter-protesters” seem to believe they have the right to assault people they disagree with, and silence speech they don’t like. Imagine if everyone behaved like that.

For the last two years, we’ve seen a steady stream of violence from the left, and the media has largely turned a blind eye. Charlottesville is not the first example of a right-wing protest or rally being attacked by the left, but it’s the first one that seems to have seared itself into the national consciousness. Do you know why? Because for the first time, the media got the villain they wanted. Without the man who drove his car into the crowd, it’s just another story of leftist violence for reporters to uncomfortably mumble about. With him, they get to write the stories they want to write: domestic terrorism, Nazis, rising hatred, brave resisters, and of course…”it’s all Trump’s fault!”

It is not my purpose to defend Nazis. But what we should be most worried about is not Nazis, but how common it is to label someone a Nazi. Have you ever noticed that the media never refers to anyone as being right-wing anymore? It’s always ‘far right’ or ‘alt-right’ or ‘right-wing extremist’. And that’s when they’re not just being straight-out called white supremacists or Nazis. These have become mere labels designed to dehumanize people so they can be conveniently slotted into a ‘villain’ column, comfortably hated, and their points of view ignored. It’s a full-blown moral panic over a mostly irrelevant enemy. Ever read The Crucible? We’ve seen this before.

The media won’t even pay lip service to the idea that people on the right might have legitimate concerns. Remember what the Charlottesville protest was originally about? They were protesting the removal of a Civil War monument.

Well guess what? I’m with the Nazis on that one. I think Civil War monuments should stay. I don’t think you have to be a Nazi to be against the effacing of history. I was against it when the Taliban did it in Afghanistan, and I still am. And the fact is, the protest was peaceful until thugs in masks carrying bats came in to shut it down. It was morally indefensible, yet somehow defended by almost everybody. And it was followed by a wave of vandalism against Civil War monuments across the U.S., including the Lincoln Memorial. Yes, THE Lincoln Memorial.

There is a genuine totalitarianism growing on the left; one that rejects ideals of free speech, tolerance and the rule of law, embraces the violent suppression of dissent, has no respect for civility or tradition, and it seems to have enormous sympathy from the media, the universities, and Hollywood. That should terrify all of us more than Nazis do.

 

In Defense Of Porn

You should know that I’m only writing this because having read an article over at Feminist Current, I tried to post a comment…and it wasn’t allowed. Apparently nobody’s ever told the author Meghan Murphy that nothing makes your ideas seem more pathetic than refusing to allow anyone to respond to them.  Go ahead and read it now…I’ll wait.

Melbourne’s Ormond College takes bold position against porn, students turn to liberal feminism in protest

Well, I happen to enjoy some nice, happy porn, and as usual the focus seems to be on feminists who don’t like something trying to ruin the fun of those who do. And it’s clear that pornography isn’t even the real problem — sex is. The anti-sex subtext in this story is so blatant, it’s practically ‘text’. I mean, where to start?

“Pornography is exploitative.”

Well, maybe, but so is any business offering a product or service for cash. Porn exploits mens’ desire to watch sex acts, in order to separate us from our money. It certainly can’t be said to be exploiting women, who are being paid and paid well.

“Presents women primarily as sex objects.”

What does that even mean? It shows men and women having sex, which is apparently a bad thing to some people. Any time you hear someone using the phrase ‘sex object’ you know you’re listening to someone with negative attitudes towards sex.

“A means to the end of male pleasure.”

Have you ever actually seen any porn? Most of it goes out of its way to depict women as having as much pleasure as the man. She is almost always depicted as having an orgasm, which puts porn a step above a lot of real-world sex. And the reason is obvious: men actually do enjoy a woman’s pleasure almost as much as we do our own. We’re nice that way.

“Objectification of women.”

Another code-word for sex negativity. It doesn’t really mean anything, it’s just something women say when they resent the idea of a man being sexually attracted to women.

“Female degradation.”

More sex-negativity. Again, watch porn sometime. The man is usually just as naked as the woman is, and spends just as much time sucking on her privates as she does on his. Normal people with normal sexual attitudes actually enjoy this sort of thing. Only damaged people consider sex with men to be ‘degrading’.

“Media we consume impacts our worldview.”

Um yeah, but how is that a gender issue? And what’s wrong with the worldview being depicted in porn?

“Anita Sarkeesian’s recent video addresses the way in which gamers learn, quite literally, that female bodies, affection, and sexualities are things that are owed to them and that they will be rewarded with if they push the right buttons.”

You might want to look up the definition of ‘owed’ or the definition of ‘reward’ because at least one of those words doesn’t mean what you think it does. The fact that the author doesn’t even notice that this is a contradictory statement just shows how vacuous feminist ‘thinkers’ like Sarkeesian really are. In reality of course, hardly any man alive has even the slightest sense that sex is something he’s owed, which is why we are so insanely willing to jump through hoops to get it. Entitlement is mostly a female phenomenon, and feminism seems driven by the aggrievement of women who find themselves in the position of having to earn the things they want, just like men do. Damn, the waters of equality are chilly!

I could write more, but feminists already won’t bother reading this far. Stop trying to pass off your own sexual hang-ups as some kind of political statement. You’re the one with the problem; men don’t deserve to be punished because you’re broken.