The sexual terror is a massive change of subject

As you are all aware, a frenzy of revisionism and sexual hysteria is sweeping the United States. Crude behaviour of twenty and thirty years ago is now cause for firing. Garrison Keillor was fired for placing a hand on the middle of a woman’s back, the place on the body with the fewest nerves. Canned on a single complaint. The Democrats are eating their own. What gives? Here are several observations and conjectures.

  • This movement has been planned for at least a year, and it is a directed event. I got wind of this a year ago at least, when our Democratic inside the Beltway lawyer told us that the standards  were being reset; sexual harassment, he warned us, was going to become anything and everything. This guy is a deep insider, and he was speaking with a certainty that comes from knowledge, not just conjecture or bar talk.
  • It is not principally directed at Republicans or Trump. It may serve the interests of Democrats to further blacken Trump, but that, I believe, is not their goal. Republicans are not buying into the smear campaigns. Witness Roy Moore. So the Democrats are shooting their wounded, such as Al Franken, who is a capable representative of their positions. Why?

Why are the Democrats willing to accept own-goals, sacrifices of their talented? What are they gaining?

I would like to postulate what I think is a reasonable, though far-fetched, explanation.

Let us suppose that there are such people as sane Democrats. [Bear with me conservatives]. They are like most reasonable people. They are concerned for the working classes, for America’s position in the world, for moderate and sensible behaviour. They are not concerned with transgender bathrooms, identity politics, or Trayvon Martin, though they may be appalled at the rate at which blacks are killing each other in Chicago and Baltimore. They foresee a Democratic Party doomed to perpetual electoral losses unless they get the Party back on track. It is possible they fear that the Democratic Party might even win future elections in its current state. This may scare them even more.

How is the Democratic Party to be rescued from the irrelevance of identity politics? Just put yourself inside the shoes of business Democrats. They see Trump reshaping the world the way Bismarck reshaped Germany and Europe in the 19th century. They see prosperity returning to the United States. They see their country dominating the world from a position of energy independence, courtesy of shale oil. They see Trump reforming the middle east, laying the groundwork for dealing with the Islamic threat, facing down North Korea and Iran. Above all, they do not share a smug conviction that Trump will be out in 3 more years.

They turn to their own party and what do they see? A corrupt Hillary Clinton taking money for the Clinton foundation in exchange for shifts in US foreign policy. They see Bill Clinton hovering in the background, the albatross hanging about the neck of the Democratic Party. They see a progressive disengagement between the party activists and the core of the American people, who want jobs, not transgendered bathrooms. They see their allies in Hollywood are the problem, not the solution.

Accordingly, it is time for a purge. But it is also a time for a change of subject. It is time for a cultural reaction, for diminishing the power of women, for reversing the sexual freedom of the 1960s, for putting people back into their closets.

Could this be true? Yes, I believe it could be.

I think the people who started this sexual panic want to swing the Democrats around the rear of the Republicans. (The metaphor is military, not sexual, but please yourself). I think that what they want is a return to sexual certainties, to men and women, not 26 genders. I think they have launched a general assault on the culture, and the way to get this done is to make everyone unsure of how to behave with the opposite sex. I am not sure they have thought everything before hand; and some may be content with further demonizing Trump. But I do not think this would be thinking large enough. What is intended, I suspect, is a massive change of the subject. The immediate targets may be men, but the inevitable result will be an insistence by men that there need to be rules of engagement. This may mean that men do not meet with women alone, as VP Pence has done for years. Another important Senator, John Thune, will not meet a woman alone after 8pm. It may go as far as restrictions on women in the workforce, which could take many forms, including a disinclination to hire them, but more likely codes of conduct that amount to chaperoning.

I realize that these speculations are far fetched, but they seem to be exactly where we are going. The subject is being changed. This refashioning of the culture is more than a moral panic, it is being directed at refashioning what politics should be doing. Is it reactionary? Yes. And the reaction is not coming from the political right. Allow yourself to think about that for a moment.

__________________________

On the difficulty of Democrats trying to be the party that protects women, by Maureen Dowd.

If you think there are such people as centrist Democrats, then the idea that the future of the Party lies with an unreformed Marxist like Sanders would appall you.

Cleaning up the Democratic National Committee, where they see Bernie Sanders as the future of the party

Bernie Sanders robbed of the Democratic nomination by Hillary Clinton

________________________________________________

Jen Gerson expresses parallel ideas in the National Post about the implications of this scare.

Hypocrisy in the name of partisanship will no longer do. The culture is beginning to shift in ways that social conservatives should embrace.

There should be no expectation that everyone will be held to the new sexual standard that emerges from this mire; but with the current round of public prosecutions, there is, once more, a sexual standard to be held to.

Detroit

You can blame its decline on the decline of the automobile industry: once the fifth largest city in America, now the 11th largest, $18 billion in debt, or you can blame it on the Big Three automakers, Democratic government, buying off the UAW, black misrule and white flight, all or any of them. Here are three dots which I invite you to connect.

https://fredoneverything.org/absolute-obvious-unacknowledged-disaster-a-racial-snapshot-of-america/

Cronyism and corruption? Or the third world status of the people who still inhabit it and who voted in the governments that pillaged the cities and the taxpayers? All of the above? Who voted the crooks in? Who were the crooks? The UAW? the black city government?

I invite you watch The Wire. It is an artistic masterpiece, and it details what happens when a city – Baltimore in this case – becomes 64% black. The bodies of black male drug dealers pile up, and no one cares except a few cops, many of them black, some of them white.

The Wire shows that not one city institution: city hall, the cops, or the school system is working effectively. Without saying a word, the Wire addresses what decadence and decline look like. The irony lies  in watching all the Baltimore politicians and cops in magnificent government buildings, belle époque  creations of the 19th century, when whites dominated, and now their successors wander through halls like barbarians of 400 AD wandering through the Roman forum. There will never be enough wealth in Baltimore to rebuild them.

 

 

 

 

Jonathan Haidt on the problems on campus

Haidt  speaks of “intersectionality” and our tribal nature. “Intersectionality is like NATO for social justice activists”.

You cannot get to a trans-tribal political construct – that is, liberal democratic society – by stirring up tribal feeling in youth.

He says that when he was given an education in the 1980s, he was given many lenses by which to analyze society. Now he says, the kids are given only one lens: power.

Could you invent a morality more at variance with the purposes of a university?

 

 

 

Why now?

 

This frenzy of denunciation is no accident. The current stream of denunciations of males for actions they have committed towards women, some of them thirty years or more ago, is not a sudden explosion of moral rectitude. It is a deliberate campaign, and has been in the works for some time, possibly predating the Trump election. Later in this article I will expose the flimsy evidence for why I think the purge has been planned for some time.

It needs to be clear that the likes of Harvey Weinstein are odious. But people have observed that Weinstein got away with bad behaviour for decades. Why now? Some have speculated that, with the failure of the Clinton campaign, the cover of the Clintons has been withdrawn. The Enabler in Chief and her oversexed husband are no longer able to help Weinstein or anyone else. Their pay-for-play foreign policy gig is now over. The details are coming out, and will not stop, about how US foreign policy was simply bought by donations to the Clinton Foundation. 90% of the $2 billion raised by the Foundation has not been spent on charitable objects.

Even so, despite the rich targets the Clintons present, I do not see this sudden sexual Inquisition, this wave of denunciations of nearly every male celebrity, as being part of a Deep State plot or something concocted by Trump to get even with the Clintons. I have no doubt that the Clintons’ collective record present any journalist with a target-rich environment.
As always, the material has been evident to any reasonably diligent investigator. But it is my contention that though the Clintons may at last be caught in public odium, this frenzy of exposure of male misbehaviour has other motives.

Is this a sudden moral awakening? Is this like Harriet Beecher Stowe and her anti-slavery Uncle Tom’s Cabin? Abraham Lincoln, when introduced to Stowe, said to her: “So here’s the little lady who started the civil war”. Maybe. Moral awakenings cannot ever be ruled out.

I am suspicious of this explanation, and not for the usual cynicism of age and experience. A couple of years ago, a Washington insider lawyer was advising a board of directors I used to sit on that there would soon be a stepping up of vigilance in relation to male-female behaviour. He said, in effect, that touching of any kind, fraternization, compliments, even gentlemanly behaviour as it has been understood, would come under suspicion. At the time I wondered where he was getting this message, because he was talking as if he knew something that we did not. It turns out that he did.

At the risk of adding two and two and getting five, I have had enough experience with this particular lawyer and with life in general to trust my inference that this purge was premeditated. If it was aimed at Trump, it is clearly failing. If it was aimed at the Clintons, possibly by dissident Democrats who feel that they must be removed from influence, it will probably result in their disgrace. (About time!)

If occult powers were aiming to put men even more on their guard than they have been, this campaign will succeed for a while. I do not doubt that proper behaviour between men and women is desirable, and that sex should be consensual. All well and true, but we seem to have abandoned the social arrangements that were used to constrain sex to marriage and courtship. The social arrangements that prevailed before the Pill are not coming back without conversions to illiberal patriarchal religions, or changes of that magnitude. Male relatives will have to be recognized as having an interest in the reproductive activities of their daughters and sisters for this to come about. The feminists and most women would oppose this reversion.

Here is another truth we do not tell the kids: the inescapable fact is that sexual activity, by nature and definition, is improper, messy, biological, and lust-driven, and that consent is nuanced and situational. Men get stiff and women get wet; women desire sex in the right circumstances, and men try to persuade women that the circumstances are right.

I feel that some forces in society seem to think sex itself is a problem that can be solved with more militant social policing and shaming. I will be accused of an obtuse misunderstanding of the issue, of conflating sexual harassment with normal courtship and wooing. Yet, given the current propensity to carry everything to extremes (ref. the campaign against Jordan Peterson) this is the direction we will go in.

Who stands to gain from making sexual relations between people even more fraught and neurotic than they are?

 

Saul Alinsky: Rule for Radicals #4 – “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules”

If you haven’t followed Star Trek actor George Takei on Twitter, then you are to be congratulated because you haven’t wasted time following his idiotic fulminations. If one is a “celebrity” and “gay”, like Takei, it seems one can say anything with impunity. Now it seems the centre-right has learned the lesson as well, as this latest news shows.

A former model and actor is accusing Star Trek icon George Takei of sexual assault in 1981. The accuser, Scott R. Brunton, who was 23 at the time of the alleged incident, claims that Takei took advantage of him when he was most vulnerable.

“This happened a long time ago, but I have never forgotten it,” Brunton tells The Hollywood Reporter in an interview. “It is one of those stories you tell with a group of people when people are recounting bizarre instances in their lives, this always comes up. I have been telling it for years, but I am suddenly very nervous telling it.”

Isn’t 1981 before the Statute of Limitations of some kind? Who cares about “due process“?!

This past Wednesday, college presidents and Title IX coordinators met on Capitol Hill to discuss the issue of campus sexual assault and what to do under the new Trump administration.

Under the Obama administration, colleges were required to adjudicate accusations of sexual assault in a way that denied due process and the presumption of innocence. While President Donald Trump hasn’t spoken on the issue, the media has stoked fears that his administration will roll back protections for accusers, who are always labeled as “victims.”

2016 US election and polls

One thing that went totally awry in the 2016 US election was the polling. For a campaign like Clinton’,s which was entirely data oriented, this was a death knell. In this campaign it wasn’t just the earlier polls that were wrong, but exit polls as well. Was it media malpractice or something else?

An article in Esquire shares some untold behind-the-scenes stories from the campaign including these about the exit polls.

Bret Baier, Fox News chief political anchor: We got the exit polls at 5 p.m. in a big office on the executive floor. Rupert Murdoch and all the staff were there. It looked like we were going to call the race for Hillary Clinton at 10:30 or 11 p.m.

Steve Bannon: The exit polls were horrific. It was brutal. I think we were close in Iowa and Ohio and everything else was just brutal. Losing everywhere. Florida, Pennsylvania. I mean, it looked like a landslide.

Jerry Falwell Jr., president of Liberty University, Trump’s religious adviser: I called Sean Hannity and said, “I really think he’s going to win tonight.” Sean said, “Well, I’m glad you do, because the exit polls don’t look good.” I found out later that Trump was very pessimistic, too.

Steve Bannon: Jared [Kushner] and I were out on this balcony in Trump Tower. We looked at it on Jared’s iPhone. And the numbers were so bad that we regrouped inside. We look at each other and we go, “This can’t be right. It just can’t.” And Jared goes, “I got an idea, let’s call Drudge.” And Drudge says, “The corporate media—they’ve always been wrong the entire time—these numbers are wrong.” Drudge snapped us out of it, saying, “You guys are a couple of jamokes. Wait until the second exit polls come out, or later.” We called the candidate and told him what the numbers were and what Drudge had said. And then we said, “Hey, ya know, we left it all on the field. Did everything we can do. Let’s just see how it turns out.”

Media malpractice might account for some of the problems, but this survey by CATO Institute highlights how people with center-right political orientation are less willing to share their political opinion and more likely to self-censor. It probably explains why Brexit polling was also wrong.

 

The Confessions of Richard Warnica

Richard Warnica published a confession in the Post this morning, subtitled “We’re still trying to figure out how Donald Trump won.”

These are the confessions of an honest man. I could have published the same about my reaction to Obama beating Romney; I was stupefied that the US public fell for that communoid flake, that sly, anti-white, feckless pseud.  Consequently, I make no claims of moral superiority or political perspicacity. But I do claim that I got Trump right, and bet $100 on Trump winning in December 2015.

On the basis of that slight authority, I analyzed Warnica’s article. It is broken into fivethematic sections:

  1. I was ideologically blind/I missed the importance of Steven Bannon
  2. Facebook allowed the fringe to become the mainstsream
  3. Trump reaped the “unfettered cash” released by the Citizen’s United decision of the Supreme Court.
  4. The timely intervention of James Comey into Hillary Clinton’s emails
  5. I was ideologically blind/ I dismissed the enthusiasm of the enormous crowds

Judging by what Mr. Warnica writes, he is till ideologically blind. He is not alone. So are most of the people I hear on the subject of Trump.

  1. Let us start with his description of Steve Bannon.

“He trafficked, and still does traffic, in views about Islam and race and other issues that would have been disqualifying for a major political figure in an earlier era. His political ideas were drawn from such oddball sources as online gaming and apocalyptic clash-of-civilizations philosophy.”

The primary political division in western civilization at the moment is whether people are aware that Islam is not the friend of liberal civilization. I find that secular humanists (atheists) are particularly blind on this subject. Seeing that all metaphysical beliefs are ipso facto  in error, indeed delusional, apparently it makes no difference to them that some religions are conducive to rational inquiry and others not, that some favour the equality of the sexes, and others do not, and that some believe that all questions have been answered in one exclusive truth and others think the paths to redemption are many.

Ordinary people are crying out for a major politician to link Islamic jihad with Islam. Please could someone make a connection between Karl Marx and Lenin? Between what the Koran says and what believers int he Koran feel justified to do? Thus, if Richard Warnica still thinks that the impeccably liberal Samuel Huntingdon’s “Clash of Civilizations” is beyond the pale, he remains stuck in ignorance and denial. The borders of Islam in every direction are bloody. It is a world conquering faith of enforced submission and slavery. Whether it might be different in six centuries is a problem for the future. At the moment it is the principal enemy of liberal civilization. People want to hear someone in power who is at least cognizant of the problem.

2. “Facebook allowed the fringe to become mainstream”.

This assumes what needs to be demonstrated. Who is the fringe, and who the mainstream? In short, who is defining reality here anyway? The Internet has allowed people to gather, disseminate, and read information outside of the filters of the MSM.

3. Trump reaped the “unfettered cash” released by the Citizen’s United decision of the Supreme Court.

Any mention of  Trump raising unlimited cash relative to the Clinton money machine is ludicrous. We need not discuss this further.

4. The timely intervention of James Comey into Hillary Clinton’s emails

I have not been running US foreign policy out of my home computer either, but it is likely that many people had their views of Hillary solidified by this event.

5. I was ideologically blind/ I dismissed the enthusiasm of the enormous crowds

I am reminded by George Orwell’s comment that it is difficult but necessary to see what is in front of one’s nose.

“To see what is in front of one’s nose needs a constant struggle. One thing that helps toward it is to keep a diary, or, at any rate, to keep some kind of record of one’s opinions about important events. Otherwise, when some particularly absurd belief is exploded by events, one may simply forget that one ever held it. Political predictions are usually wrong. But even when one makes a correct one, to discover why one was right can be very illuminating. In general, one is only right when either wish or fear coincides with reality. If one recognizes this, one cannot, of course, get rid of one’s subjective feelings, but one can to some extent insulate them from one’s thinking and make predictions cold-bloodedly, by the book of arithmetic. In private life most people are fairly realistic. When one is making out one’s weekly budget, two and two invariably make four. Politics, on the other hand, is a sort of sub-atomic or non-Euclidean word where it is quite easy for the part to be greater than the whole or for two objects to be in the same place simultaneously. Hence the contradictions and absurdities I have chronicled above, all finally traceable to a secret belief that one’s political opinions, unlike the weekly budget, will not have to be tested against solid reality.”

I suggest a course in humility for Richard Warnica of the kind George Orwell proposed. I have had to take it a few times myself.

 

 

 

Three important facts about DNC funding of the Russian Dossier

From Washington Examiner

….Rep. Devin Nunes, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. The California Republican has been pursuing the dossier more aggressively than anyone else, and it was his Oct. 4 subpoena for the bank records of Fusion GPS, the opposition research firm that handled the dossier, that finally shook loose the information….

Sometime in October 2016 — that is, at the height of the presidential campaign — Christopher Steele, the foreign agent hired by Fusion GPS to compile the Trump dossier, approached the FBI with information he had gleaned during the project. According to a February report in the Washington Post, Steele “reached an agreement with the FBI a few weeks before the election for the bureau to pay him to continue his work.”

It was an astonishing turn: the nation’s top federal law enforcement agency agreeing to fund an ongoing opposition research project being conducted by one of the candidates in the midst of a presidential election….

When the Post story broke Tuesday night, some journalists noted that Democrats involved in the story had been lying about their role. “When I tried to report this story, Clinton campaign lawyer Marc Elias pushed back vigorously, saying ‘You (or your sources) are wrong,'” tweeted the New York Times’ Ken Vogel. “Folks involved in funding this lied about it, and with sanctimony, for a year,” added the Times’ Maggie Haberman.