A New ‘New Deal’

Donald Trump says ‘African-Americans’ deserve a ‘New Deal.‘ Not the old ‘New Deal’ which FDR offered to all Americans, but their own ‘New Deal.’ Apparently they haven’t gotten a fair shake.

The United States must set up a new commission involving the African American community to end the pattern of young people going from failed schools into lives of crime and imprisonment, Donald Trump told a campaign rally.

[…]I will… establish a new commission to tackle the school to prison pipeline and to shut that pathway down and to create instead a new pathway that leads from great education to a great job.” Trump described school choice as the great civil rights issue of current times and promised to champion it in all 50 US states if he is elected president on November 8.”

Isn’t this all awfully familiar, a variation on the various taxpayer-funded programs of the last, oh, 50 or 60 years? And how much good have they done, except to foster a sense of entitlement and a demand that ‘more’ must always be done?

I won’t belabor this because I think most people on the right are gritting their teeth when they hear these kinds of things,  or reassuring themselves that ”he just has to say these things, and besides we need the votes; winning is crucial…”

“It’s time for a 21st century Glass Steagall and… a priority on helping African-American businesses get the credit they need.”

Trump criticized the policies of two-term President Bill Clinton and his wife Hillary, the current Democratic nominee for president, as playing a major role in impoverishing the African American community. “The policies of the Clintons brought us the financial recession — through lifting Glass-Steagall, pushing subprime lending, and blocking reforms to Fannie [Mae] and Freddie [Mac]” – the two giant federally supported mortgage-supporting corporations, he stated. Trump also said he would encourage small-business creation by allowing social welfare workers to convert poverty assistance into repayable but forgive-able micro-loans. “I will also propose tax holidays for inner city neighborhoods… [and] financial reforms to help young African Americans to get tax credits to pursue their dreams in their communities.”

This is just all too redolent of the ‘Democrats are the real racists‘ line; it seems that blacks are forever to be a catered-to and coddled segment of the population, regardless of who is in office. That’s what depresses me.

All right; I’ve gotten it off my chest for now, though I know it’s hopeless to talk about it. I hope we don’t all have ‘buyer’s remorse’ after the election, if Trump is elected. Yes, I know, the alternative is far worse, and yes, the Overton Window and all that, but still…

I wish I could be wholehearted about my vote. These kinds of things make me doubt.

Categorize this under ‘more White paternalism.’


Relabeling the South

There’s a blog piece here on the idea of relabeling the people of the Southern States, or at least those of the old Confederacy as ‘Dixians.’ I believe in holding to the old ways, as those who read here know. And the idea of the new flag of the South (the black ‘X’ on a white field) is not one I can be enthusiastic about. I’ve written about this before, and I know that amongst the younger generation, the idea is popular, but that still doesn’t sell it to me.

I do know that the ‘x’ on the flag is not the letter ‘x’ but represents St. Andrew’s Cross, as it appears on both the Scottish flag and the Union Jack, where it is layered with the St. George’s Cross of the English.

Traditionally — and I suspect the younger, secular folk don’t know this, the St. Andrew’s Cross symbolized the Biblical patriarch Jacob, with his crossed-arms blessing on his two grandsons, Ephraim and Manasseh. As many of the young are agnostic/atheist/pagan or just a-religious people from once-Christian families it’s likely this symbolism is unknown to them and that it lacks meaning for them even when explained. Likewise, their black X on a white field is devoid of meaning for me — and I suspect it would have no real resonance for most Southrons. I agree with the following comment from the blog, regarding both new names and new flags:


Yes, definitely — something like a flag, or a name, can’t be just coined out of thin air and imposed on people. It has to come from the folk, and from the heart more than the head.

And the idea of changing the name of the people of the South is very reminiscent of how blacks re-label themselves every so often (or are re-named by the PC commissars who decreed that ‘colored’ had to be replaced by ‘negro’ which had to be changed tgo ‘black’ which gave way to ‘African-American.’ Obviously it was thought that the negative image was associated with the name, and changing the name would eliminate the “stigma”. Admittedly those who invented the new flag thought that a new name would remove the stigma attached to the South and its symbols. But will it? Are the left that easily fooled? If the new flag catches on, will that prevent the $PLC from denouncing it as a ‘symbol of hate’? Really? Likewise, with a name change for the people of the South. The people  of the South, however educated, polite, urbane, and ‘respectable’ will forever be depicted as rednecks, bigots, hillbillies, and the rest of the insults. I (and my then-readers) had those slurs hurled at us on the old blog. Nobody is exempt, if they support the South and its history and heritage.

And then there’s the fact that to renounce the old flag, the flag under which our ancestors fought, is essentially conceding defeat to the Left and the anti-Whites. I hope to meet my ancestors in eternity one day, (not just yet, though) and I want to meet them knowing that I kept faith with them, and did not disgrace them in renouncing them and the cause they fought for — the Southern land and people and Christian heritage.

‘Touch not the ancient landmark’. That flag and the statues, they fall under that category, as I understand it.

Look, I know it’s hip and cool to follow after European ‘isms’ like ‘Identitarianism’ but we do not need to look to European intellectuals to interpret the world for us; we are not second-rate European descendants who have to rely on them to impart the truth. Good luck to them; I wish our European cousins well. But their ways of thinking are not those of this country and its heritage. Truth never becomes passe; fashion and popular opinion are passing, trifling things.

Ethnonationalism or ethnopatriotism are things of the heart, not the intellect, when it comes down to it. When we swell with pride hearing a national anthem or see our flag raised in battle — these things have inspired many songs, poems, and stories — that comes from within the heart, and cannot be artificially created.

A generation’s passing

Tom Hayden, one of the founders of the Students for a Democratic Society in the 1960s, is dead. Some will be familar with the SDS in connection with Bill Ayers.

Hayden may also be known to some people as the ex-husband of Jane Fonda.

Now, just for those who keep track of these things (namely the ‘boomer-haters, who are cheering on the deaths of their favorite villains) Hayden was born in 1939. Do the math. Or to make it easy, he was a member of the ‘Silent Generation‘, the one before the hated baby-boomers, who were born beginning a year after WWII ended. From what I remember reading, that generation was the ‘don’t rock the boat’ generation, a sort of go-along-to-get-along group of people. This source credits that generation with giving America ‘Civil Rights’, and it is a fact that the Civil Rights coup took place well before the boomers were out of grade school.

And speaking of the Sixties and the influential figures of that era, many of them were not political activists as such. For instance Bob Dylan, born Bob Zimmerman, or (((Bob Zimmerman))), as if anyone does not know, just won a Nobel Prize in literature of all things. Whatever. I confess I listened to Dylan when I was young, although from the first his song lyrics seemed opaque and excessively arty, but then in the Sixties ‘folk’ music was all about messages and social causes and protest; it was not meant to be just music to dance to or to express teen-age angst, like rock ‘n roll.

Dylan was for obvious reasons a hero to the left in the 60s and on into the 70s and even the 80s. Somewhere along the line he professed to be a born-again Christian, but in time that passed and he was reported to be involved in the Lubavitch sect of orthodox Judaism. Who knows what his beliefs are; he seems truly to have no fixed beliefs. It is odd that among many ‘traditionalist’ conservatives he is revered; why, I don’t get. Tastes vary.

Whatever he is or was, Christian, Jewish, ‘progressive’, conservative, he was not a baby-boomer, though to many people he will likely always be a symbol of that generation, rightly or wrongly.He was also a ‘Silent Generation’ member like Hayden. His politically-tinged songs, often with themes of the downtrodden, minorities, social justice, etc., did more to advance those causes, in my opinion, than did the work of the political activists like Hayden and the SDS, who were on the fringe.

It is odd that many figures on the left, or who spearheaded the social upheavals that gave birth to the counterculture, were members of older generations. An example: Timothy Leary, the LSD guru and pioneer, the ‘turn on, tune in, drop out’ guy, was born in 1920.  1920! He was a ‘Greatest Generation’ member — and possible government agent, according to the link just above.

Does it matter, this categorizing of people by their year of birth, or by an arbitrary generational label? It certainly matters to a lot of younger people, who are eager to apportion blame for all that is wrong in today’s world.

We live in a world which forbids us to notice obvious patterns, or to make sweeping generalizations. That’s bad, for reasons which are self-evident. We are not to notice race or ethnicity or color, and now we are told that our sex, determined at conception, is not to be defined; we are to pretend there are no patterns. But there is such a thing as making overly sweeping judgements based on something as vague as generational categories, which are, after all, arbitrarily defined

But whoever is responsible for what (going back to Adam and Eve, if you want to be thorough about this blame-fixing), what’s done is done. And as I’ve repeatedly pointed out, during this election season, the older generations are less likely to vote Democrat and liberal in general than are each of the successive generations. Those facts need to be noticed and taken to heart, rather than be ignored as lefties are wont to do.

‘Germany is going down’

From a German citizen, (via Irish Savant and commenter Flanders) read how the ‘refugee’ situation is worse than many people realize. Most of us know of the dire situation in Europe, especially Germany, but I believe many may still be unaware of the seriousness of the situation. And while this blog is obscure and the piece won’t likely get many views from this posting, someone just may re-post where it will garner more attention.

Please read it and re-post where possible.

The thought that came to my mind is that in a sense we are in greater danger of ignoring the problem, which is also present here: the influx of ‘refugees’ and others, about which we are given no say whatsoever, and the attempts to stifle and silence all dissent or criticism. How far are we from that scenario here? Europe is being subjected to a sudden shock with a great influx, in a smaller geographical area. That tends to get people’s attention. We, however, have been lulled into a sense of complacency; our country is so large, and we have become inured through long experience with immigration to having aliens introduced into our midst. Many Americans have been inoculated, you might say, against any sense of apprehension about it: after all, this was always a nation of immigrants, and we’ve always assimilated the newcomers. Give them time, and they’ll fit right in, and be as American as apple pie. We’ve heard others say that ‘oh, I have Moslem co-workers and they’re nice people’ or ‘My new Hindu neighbors are friendly’ or ‘Mexicans have lived here for centuries; they’re not as bad as people say’. We’re entirely too smug or too resigned, in some cases.

Maybe the sudden shock to Europe may produce a quicker reaction, as we here lull ourselves and each other to sleep. But let’s hope we also wake up.

The ultimate in xenophilia

Some of us have used the term ‘xenophilia’ to describe the attitudes and behaviors of the multicultists, the diversity maniacs, those who value every race and people except their own. But it is not by any means limited to those people, as it is common across the political spectrum, as witness the tendency for men in different parts of the world to seek wives/brood mares from outside their ethny or race. The article tells of Chinese men, facing a shortage of potential mates in their own vast country seeking out Russian women in particular.

‘All the girls who we invited are under 35 years old. Initially men want to see brides with white skin and blue eyes – funnily enough, though, last year the girls who got into a relationship were brunettes with brown eyes.’

It’s odd that we often read how Asian people are ethnocentric and prefer their own kind, but this seems to belie that idea.

Meanwhile, back in Russia, the men seem to passively accept that their women are being spirited off to marry men in far-off countries — including the United States, Australia, and Europe, as well as China. Why this is, I haven’t got a clue; is it because Russian men have learned to devalue their women?

Speaking of devaluing one’s own females, read the first comment below the linked Siberian Times article. A young man from Louisiana states his intention to find a Chinese bride because he is “done with white women.” Does the whole situation not strike anyone as crazy? American men increasingly dislike American women (“fat, ugly, shrewish, masculinized”) while they seek Asian wives while Asian men seek Russian wives, while Russian men — seek what? Talk about games of musical chairs.

I am sure Count Coudenhouve-Kalergi is rejoicing wherever he is. His ‘dream’ for the future of Europeans is now being played out in bizarre ways.

On another blog, Morgoth’s Review I believe, someone expressed the idea that the antagonism and outright antipathy between the sexes seems like part of the cultural Marxist agenda, to drive a wedge between the sexes and thus to decrease intraracial marriages within White countries. Even having European-descended peoples marry outside their ethny (but still vaguely within their race) serves the agenda of mixing people up, breaking bonds of kinship and culture, decreasing the rootedness and stability within nations and ethnic groups. Whether we get the slow treatment of gradually ‘diversifying’ nations by inter-ethnic marriages first, leading to acceptance of further outmarrying, outside racial boundaries, or jump straight to miscegeny, the destination is the same, ultimately. I do believe that the gradual breakdown of boundaries in this country, first, by inter-European marriages and the trend toward people with mixed European heritage over time led to the gradual weakening of kinship loyalties and bonds. The melting pot idea and the idea that ”we’re all Americans, that’s all that matters” led inexorably to the present levels of interracial mating.

On the Al Fin, Next Level blog where I found the link to the Siberian Times story, he discusses the reasons why so many Russian women are being exported (or exporting themselves) to various places around the world,  for the purpose of either sexual exploitation or relatively benign ‘marriage bureaus.’ Why aren’t their men — fathers, brothers, boyfriends, or simply Russian men wanting good wives — making more of a fuss about their women being commodities sought out by foreign men? It sounds as though, from the information presented, the men are demoralized and suffering from what social scientists call ‘anomie’, often alcoholics or using drugs. They seem to be less physically healthy than their women, having a considerably shorter life expectancy. I’ve observed in some Russian immigrants living in our country that they tend to be heavy smokers and drinkers. (Notice I didn’t say ‘most’ or ‘all’, but it’s a noticeable tendency).

It may be that the same propaganda forces are at work there; I do believe that there truly is an effort on the part of the powers-that-be to divide every group in society, and the antagonism between the sexes in our country — even more so than in Europe, as I see it — is being egged on and manipulated. Men blame women; some women blame men. Why can’t we split the difference and say both sides bear their share of blame? Each side, or at least the extremists on both sides of the sexual divide, want to put 110 percent of the blame on the opposite sex. That’s not realistic.

Feminists are wrong, but to some degree so are their male counterparts.

But back to the Russians: Al Fin often describes the demographic decline in Russia. If we, that is we ethnonationalists, want all the various European peoples to survive and flourish, we should care about Russia’s future, and we should hope that their women would be able to stay at home (Russia is their rightful home) and not have to be basically sold off to men on the other side of the planet. We should hope that all Russian men who want to marry Russian women (the optimum choice), then this game of shuffling women around the planet should ideally be stopped.

Or do some of us believe that the Russian men shouldn’t mind their women being poached, as long as the poachers are ‘White’? That seems to be the strange rationalization on the part of many WNs.

As much as I take a contrarian, somewhat skeptical view of Russia, I truly do wish the Russian people well, and hope that they will not have their distinctive heritage, their DNA, and their particular talents and gifts, diluted by being mixed in with many nations. I wish that for all of our European peoples. Ethnicity does matter. Ethnicity is also not a social construct.

Evangelicals prefer Trump

According to one poll, 69 per cent of Evangelicals prefer Trump.

This contradicts what many of the news media have been saying, and it’s also the opposite of the popular opinion on many Alt-Right/dissident right blogs, where people say that Christians will not vote for Trump.

Personally I think that the seculars out there who are Trump supporters simply have a low opinion of Christians (or Evangelicals specifically), as the public at large has been conditioned to have negative images of Christians. So many on the secular right are lumping Christians together with the ‘Churchians.’ Not all Christians are Churchians, or ‘cucked’.

I live in a town where the majority of people are Christian, I mean, actively Christian, who belong to churches and attend every Sunday. They even read (and believe) their Bibles. They aren’t just casual Christians; they’re not just Christians by default because they haven’t yet become Moslems or Hindus or Mormons or atheists. But in my town, the vast majority of yard signs, bumper stickers or other such displays are for Trump. I have seen one sign for Hillary, though there may be a handful here and there.

Even in the University town which is about 20 minutes away, I have seen a total of two yard signs for Hillary. It’s hard to believe because that town, population about 80,000, is an ultra-liberal town, populated by many academics and young naive college kids. There are still some ‘Bernie’ signs there that were never taken down; Bernie was the choice for most of the lefties there. But I’ve seen two Hillary signs in my recent visits.

Anecdotes aren’t data, I know. But if there is a lot of support for Hillary, people must be too embarrassed to show their support. I can only hope they will be too embarrassed to go to the polls to vote for Hillary.

The media, I think, are trying to demoralize potential Trump voters by their barrage of false data and skewed ‘news.’

Stop the ‘gaslighting’?

Some of the commenters at Steve Sailer’s blog are upset by the use of the term ‘gaslighting’. Somehow they seem to find it especially annoying and tiresome, so much so that comments like the following have appeared:

Whenever people become newly acquainted with a thinky new concept, the use of which they believe will show off their intellectual chops, they tend to over-apply it prodigiously. It’s been an unhappily acquired hobby of mine to track these ripples in thought-space, as a once obscure term starts showing up in one columnist’s repertoire after another with increasing frequency before fading off again

Well, I guess two, or any number, can play at this game. An example, in the paragraph above: the word ‘thinky‘. Is that even a word?  I had to turn to that great fount of erudition, The Urban Dictionary, to learn how it is used.  So  a word like ‘thinky’ is good, but ‘gaslighting’, which is a term that has been in use for some years, is not?

I confess I am one of those offenders who has used (recently, in fact) the term gaslighting. So that makes me one of the ‘intellectually vain‘? This man says so, so it  must be:

“Gaslighting” is a very useful concept to have once you get your head around it, but because of its inherently sophisticated subject, it is prone to being either misunderstood by the general population or overused by the intellectually vain. In this respect, I believe, it is similar to the hackneyed cliche or quotation.”

I probably will be tempted to use the term again, making me a repeat offender. I use it because it has a precise meaning, one that is not hard to understand, and it therefore serves a purpose — one for which I will probably employ it as I see fit.

Someone else on that thread said that the verb ‘to trick’ is a simpler and better way of expressing the idea behind gaslighting. Not so. ‘Trick’ is a much less precise term. Unfortunately the term ‘gaslighting’ was adopted some years ago by people in the psychology trade and they do often use it in the sense of ‘psychological abuse’ of women by men. I can’t help that they’ve taken the meaning of the term in another direction.

In the movie versions of ‘Gaslight’, the villain had a specific strategy of making his target think she was going insane, as he manipulated reality to produce false perceptions. As I recall, he also made others doubt the woman’s sanity as she was made to appear delusional, and as a result she began to lose her mental stability.

No need to make this a feminist issue: we, the normal members of the public, are manipulated by a devious and cunning system to doubt our own perceptions. We are being made to feel as though the problem is with us: we are paranoid. We are ‘conspiracy-mongers’, extremists, unhinged. We are ‘phobic’ in some way or another.  Even worse, our collective history is being manipulated and altered by the rewriting of history in which we are made out to be the cause of all evils and all problems. News stories disappear, like the stories of the post-Katrina Superdome events, or the 2000 ‘Election that wouldn’t die’, as the Democrats concocted tales of flawed ballots, leading up to months of drama over vote recounts, ‘hanging chads’, culminating in the Supreme Court decision that ended months of such insanity. And now the national media and the Left feign horror at the idea that Trump might ‘not accept the results of the election.” As if such a thing had never ever happened before — when they themselves refused to accept the 2000 election results. Or maybe we just imagined that happened. Yes, that must be it.

Of course the young millennials never heard of those events, and even if they were told of it they would likely scoff — because if it had really happened, why had they not been taught about it?

That’s gaslighting. One day those of us, as the survivors of that era who still remember those days, will be told outright that we imagined it; it’s all a senile delusion.

So can we sum up all those processes by using the word ‘trick’?  It’s just not an adequate word to the task. If people don’t understand the nuances of the term ‘gaslight’, perhaps because they never saw the movie which gave rise to the term, well, that’s no one’s fault but theirs.  Perhaps they don’t like old movies or ‘passé’ popular culture.

From my point of view, I often don’t get the meaning of various current pop culture references, which are used everywhere on the Internet. I expect the people who use pop culture references would dismiss me as out of touch for failing to grasp their allusions to Harry Potter or The Matrix or whatever the current pop culture fads are. But if I am, it’s by design. I don’t find much of any value to me in such trends du jour. Does that make me a ‘snob’? Everybody looks down on certain aspects of pop culture; to some, everything that’s recent has more cachet than old movies, so it is not surprising that an old movie reference is viewed as hackeneyed and cliched by most people. The thing is, every cliche and every so-called ‘hackneyed’ phrase was once new and fresh. Cliches are popularized because they seemed apt — and fresh, once.

If I could vote down certain terms I would say I am sick of the overuse of the verb ‘to pivot‘ — I’ve never seen it used so much in my life as in this current election season. Who knows why it has become so overused? People are copycats, for the most part, herd thinkers.



Trusted media sources?

The UK Daily Mail reports on the “first” refugee children arriving from Calais, into the UK. Are they really the first, as in the only ones to have arrived via Calais? How does the Daily Mail writer know this? Surely with all the immigrants sneaking in via the Calais route over the years, no one knows how many under-age young people have slipped into the UK with family members or on their own. We have a similar situation here, with many Latino children (at least, the media assures us they are children) coming across the border without parents or other older relatives.

But as in our country, questions are being raised by skeptics about whether some of these ‘child migrants’ are in fact adults lying about their ages. And as the authorities wish to have as many of these people entering our country as possible, they are determined to accept the word of the alleged children as to their actual age. There have been cases where the supposed child proved to be a mature man. This has happened in the UK also. The fact that the supposed children are often laughably obvious as adults shows how gullible or dishonest the authorities are. But the whole thing is far from laughable; serious consequences have resulted from this transparent deception.

The Daily Mail article contains the usual pro-immigrant sympathy, but the commenters, in many cases, are having none of it. At least some people are finally rejecting the media lies.

But earlier today, when checking in on the Russia Today channel, which we get via a streaming device, the ticker reported this story with something about ‘Child migrants being greeted with skepticism’ as they arrived in the UK. And this, with a tone of disapproval.

The RT news channel is so often recommended by people on the right as a source of real news, as opposed to our lying media. I’ve given RT a second chance because the American media is so obviously lacking credibility that I sometimes think any source is better, but what other sources, at least on streaming media, have any credibility at all? So I have given RT a second chance. Unfortunately my impression is as it was at first: RT does give a pro-Russian viewpoint, which is what it should be for, but it also presents an anti-Western, anti-American point of view, which it should not necessarily do. Yes, I realize ‘our’ government has been on an anti-Russian tear, baiting Putin and Russia shamefully. But is Russia necessarily on ‘our’ side, meaning pro-White? From viewing RT, you would not get that impression, if you view it with open eyes. I am probably considered, by my readers at least, to be anti-Russian, though I’m not. In my youth I was fascinated with Russia (the USSR generally), including the language, culture, films, and the people. I still have an affinity for the culture and I’ve known many Russians I liked or was fond of, though they still seem enigmatic to me. I simply warn people that we must not make Russia a Rohrschach inkblot in which we show what is in our own minds, rather than what is really there. We see in Putin or Russia that which we sorely need here: strong confidence and leadership; toughness in the form of ethnopatriotism.

All that aside, Russia Today seems most of all like a Russian version of Fox News. Many of the personalities (and I use that term purposely rather than journalists) on the English version of RT are native English-speakers, either British or American; some of them bear Jewish surnames and other intimations of their ancestry. Why this does not evoke skepticism from the Alt-Right  viewers who are very awake to the Jewish presence in our own media baffles me.

RT has its ‘news babes’, much as Fox News does, and RT is very much of the mindset that makes ‘diversity’ a mandatory feature.

But I do notice that a couple of Irish Savant’s commenters have noticed these things, and these responses followed after someone recommended RT as a reliable media source:

Yeah I have no sympathy for RT. They are playing both sides of the field and yes they do show another perspective but they are a propaganda entity or at least a counter-propaganda element and only show that other side to gain an effect.

I don’t blame the Russians for setting it up like that, but they will expand on the Leftist PC bullshit not because they believe in it but because it destabilises the West who of course has dug their own grave and asked for it by trying to destabilise Russia and her neighbours and allies.

Therefore I don’t care much for RT just as I feel fuck-all for the Western NWO controlled media houses. There are no completely “good guys” in this.”


Anonymous eleos said…

Jay, RT does indeed provide an alternative to the usual anti-Russian Ziocon media. However it otherwise adheres totally to the PC multicultural, blacks-are-victims, mass immigration good agenda.”

The verdict, for my part, is that there is no broadcast or streaming news source that I know of that is on our side, and that is trustworthy.  If anyone out there knows of such a source, I’m open to hearing it.

And I’m glad to see that others are not taken in, in their desperation for some source they can trust.

Big revelations no surprise

The Drudge headline about the Enquirer’s ‘stunning revelations’ about Hillary gives the impression that these stories are something new. In fact, as most people are aware the rumors and allegations have been circulating for decades. So the ‘revelations’ are about as surprising as Shep Smith’s admission that he is gay. It’s old news.

Will it have any effect on voters? I can’t imagine those who are supporting Hillary turning against her, as that demographic is already fully programmed with the pro-homosexual belief system; they can only see it as a plus that Hillary may be ‘gay.’ Being ‘gay’ is now hailed as an act of ‘bravery and courage’, though how it is ”courageous” to be what one is supposedly born to be is unclear to me. According to the ‘gay gene’ believers, homosexuals have no choice in the matter; they are simply genetically gay. No matter; things don’t have to make sense to the PC crowd; their brains are full of all kinds of conflicting beliefs and contradictions. They don’t even see that, so lost are they.

So Hillary’s core supporters will not turn against her, but will likely hail her for these ‘revelations’, and/or accuse those who are reporting the story of being ‘homophobic bigots.’ She will be twice as heroic because she might become more of a victim, and all the world loves a victim today.

Will some of the liberal ‘evangelicals’ who are horrified by voting for Trump be shocked by these stories, and change their vote from Hillary to Trump? No, those people are usually pro-”tolerance” already. Many of the churches, even some of the more conservative, historically Calvinistic churches, are adopting gay-friendly policies; “love the sinner, hate only the sin”, as their spiritual exemplar Gandhi said.

I’ve said before that there are no social conservatives left anymore; that may be a slight exaggeration. There are, however, vanishingly few Christians, let alone non-Christians, who object to homosexuality or any kind of sexual misbehavior anymore. The GOP, which was for a while the home of something called the Christian Right, is for the most part willing to welcome homosexuals. What kind of resistance did the political right put up against same-sex ‘marriage’?

As the GOP tolerates the presence of people like Lindsey Graham, obviously they are not going to suddenly go all moralistic about a story like this one about Hillary. No doubt there are quite a few closeted homosexuals in the Republican Party; remember Larry Craig? Then there was Denny Hastert, whose history was more reprehensible because it involved minors. So no, the Republicans don’t have room to throw stones here. They too have become corrupt and compromised.

One charge that could be made here with the Hillary allegations is hypocrisy; why has she not openly announced her sexual preferences, if true? It can’t be because of “homophobia” or fear of an intolerant public, because society has become almost infatuated with gays, thanks to concerted efforts by homosexual ”activists” and a complicit media. So why would anyone not want to capitalize on their ”special” sexuality, in a perverse age that hails such things as ‘heroic’? Why not cash in on that capital and make use of it? There’s no reason to fear coming out these days, while remaining closeted could be seen as not just hypocritical, but cowardly.

But not to worry; I don’t think this will change things one way or the other.

Women in science: science is ‘sexist’

At The Federalist, Joy Pullmann quotes from a female PhD candidate who pronounces science to be ‘sexist’ — because it’s not subjective. Apparently women and minorities can’t ‘do’ objectivity and logic.

(An aside: why are ‘women and minorities‘ always lumped together, as over against White males, as if they have some kind of implicit bond, or commonality — other than, say, not being able to handle objectivity, logic and reason, maybe?)

Well, I’ll buy that; many if not most women (and certain minorities) cannot seem to handle logic or objectivity. The thing is, the old feminists, before feminism went completely off the rails, did not admit that women were incapable of being logical or objective. To admit such a thing would be to concede the assertions made by those bad old “male chauvinists”. Incidentally, that term ‘male chauvinist’ was before the term ‘sexist’ was invented. But in any case, feminists wouldn’t admit that women are prone to being subjective, primarily emotion-driven, and prone to illogic.

And I say this as a woman.

Sure, there are exceptions to every rule, though they are sometimes very thin on the ground, and the feminists relied heavily on pointing to some rare exception, a female with a very high IQ, or a woman who accomplished something in a scientific field. Marie Curie comes immediately to mind; she served as an example that was supposed to prove that women could be just as good at science as men. As if an exception ever disproves a rule, though people still resort to that kind of argument more than ever, especially with regard to minorities. Example: George Washington Carver, the black male equivalent of Marie Curie, or is it the other way around.

Recently I was reading a piece about 1940s actress, Hedy Lamarr, in which it was said that she invented something called Spread Spectrum Technology. I admit, that means nothing to me; I was not a science major though I was very interested in science. Now, Miss Lamarr admittedly had a co-inventor there, a George Anthiel. Oddly, he was not a scientist either, but a composer of avant-garde music. So the story is rather strange. In any case it appears she did not produce any other ‘inventions’.

Speaking of Hollywood actresses, there was another actress, Jill St. John, who allegedly had a genius-level IQ, reported to be 170 or so, though some sources said slightly less. However even though later it was reported that the whole ‘genius’ story was cooked up by her publicity agent to set her apart from that year’s current starlets, the story is still repeated as here on the Wikipedia page.  Once lies have been told, they are hard to refute; nobody ever reads the refutations. So I can’t help wondering if Hedy Lamarr’s ‘invention’ was another publicity story.

Maybe I am too suspicious. In Hedy Lamarr’s day, there was not the social pressure to ‘shatter the stereotypes’ about women and minorities, but in today’s climate there is increasing social pressure to exaggerate or hype any accomplishment by a woman or a nonwhite minority in order to “prove” that stereotypes have no basis.

But then feminists like this Laura Parson are perpetuating what they call ”stereotypes” in admitting that women do not have logical or objective minds, as a rule. But instead of saying the obvious, that maybe women (or womenandminorities) are just not made for science careers generally, they recommend that science change to suit womenandminorities.

The writer of the Federalist piece, unfortunately, resorts to egalitarian/liberal arguments, ultimately, but in any event, the point is made that feminists and all egalitarians have to resort to all kinds of convoluted and bizarre flights of rhetoric because the facts are not on their side.