The Normalization of Child Abuse

So, just how will Western Civilization commit suicide? With twerking pre-teen boys in high heels, of course.

“A pageant mum has defending the decision to let her 11-year-old son wear high heels and twerk on stage – claiming she’s not sexualising her children.

“Tiffany Coker, 28, of West Drayton, Middlesex, allows her daughter, Crystal, four, to wear make-up and skimpy outfits and son Harvey, 11, to dress as ‘Dave’, the twerking businessman in high heels and shorts, from the MoneySuperMarket advert.

“But she claims they are more at risk from paedophiles on the beach then anything at a pageant.”

 

Even if they avoid being molested at a pagent, teaching young kids to act like skanks is not a defensible thing. What type of mother would allow this?

“Full-time mum Tiffany, who plans to take a job when Crystal turns five in March, introduced her children to the competitions after watching ‘Blinging Up Baby,’ on Channel 5, which took viewers behind the scenes of children’s pageants.”

Ah, so no job then.

What type of father would allow this?

“Tiffany, who is no longer with either of her children’s dads, continued: ‘It was a proud moment for us all and really gave them the pageant bug. They’ve taken part in five now and plan to enter more.’”

How unsurprising that these kids don’t have a male role model in their life. And the mother isn’t exactly all about her kids:

“Being a pageant mum has also opened up a whole new social life for Tiffany.

“She said: ‘I’ve made friends with some of the other pageant mums and now we talk regularly. We discuss pageants but other things, too – just chatting about our day.’”

So you have a horrible mother enjoying doing this to her kids, who sadly don’t have a father in their life. And this is how Western Civilization dies, not with a bang, but a twerk.

 

The Normalization of Child Abuse

Churches Shocked to Find Graffiti That Says ‘Crucify’ Those Who Vote Against Gay Marriage

gay marriage was and is never about equality

 

At least two churches in Australia have been spray-painted over the weekend with graffiti that says “crucify No voters,” referring to those who vote against gay marriage in the country’s postal vote survey.

Drew Mellor, head pastor of Glen Waverley Anglican Church in Melbourne, revealed that even though he has not told his parishioners how to vote on the issue, his church has been vandalized with signs such as “Vote Yes, bash bigots,” according to Daily Mail Australia.

Nazi swastikas have also been sprayed with an equal sign next to a cross.

“That’s very unsettling for some of our older members of our church this morning,” Mellor said on Sunday.

“Some asked, ‘Does that mean we’re going to be bashed?'”

The pastor rejected the idea that Christians who don’t agree with society’s views on issues are hostile to people.

“It conveys a message that as a Christian church we are intolerant,” he noted.

Mellor added that while he opposes gay marriage, his parish welcomes gay members.

 

“We certainly have ministry with, long connections with people that would align themselves … personally with the gay community,” he explained.

“We wouldn’t conduct a marriage service for a gay couple … nor would we exclude anyone if they happen to be a gay couple in a marriage relationship.”

Mellor said in further comments to The Australian that he does not want to see the issue divide Australians.

“We have connections with people in communities, both as individuals and staff members with friends that align themselves as gay. We respectfully hold a view that the church leadership hopes to sit alongside people with different views. We never said we expected members to hold a particular view,” he explained.

Waverley Baptist Church, at nearby Wheelers Hill, was also reportedly tagged with signs reading “crucify No voters” over the weekend.

David O’Brien, the senior pastor, said that the graffiti was “disturbing and concerning.”

“It was a shock. I really couldn’t take it seriously,” O’Brien said.

“Some people blame religion and wish to have some measure of payback for what is perceived to have been slights in the past.

“It also shows we live in an era where tolerance is lessening, which is a sadness and a great tragedy of our age.”

In September, an evangelical church in Brisbane was even threatened with being set on fire for posting a billboard defending the definition of marriage as a union between one man and one woman.

Bellbowrie Community Church Senior Pastor John Gill said at the time that the church has received “physically threatening” and “scary” messages online.

“One of the comments, for example, was a suggestion that people bring petrol down and set the church on fire,” Gill revealed.

The Anglican Diocese of Sydney has donated $780,000 (A$1 million) to defend traditional marriage, warning of “irreparable consequences” should the country choose to legalize gay marriage.

Archbishop Glenn Davies said in his presidential address last week:

“I believe that a change in the definition of marriage is unwarranted, not just because it is in opposition to the teaching of Scripture and our Lord himself in Matthew 19, but because I believe marriage, traditionally understood as a union of one man and one woman, is a positive good for our society, where marriage and the procreation of children are bound together as the foundational fabric of our society, notwithstanding the sad reality that not all married couples are able to conceive.”

He also warned of “irreparable consequences for our society, for our freedom of speech, our freedom of conscience and freedom of religion” if the definition of marriage changes.

 

http://www.christianpost.com/news/churches-shocked-to-find-graffiti-that-says-crucify-those-who-vote-against-gay-marriage-203108/

 

Harvey Weinstein Is the ‘Patriarchy,’ and Other Feminist Non Sequiturs

Harvey Weinstein Is the ‘Patriarchy,’ and Other Feminist Non Sequiturs

 

“Patriarchy is a system of structures and institutions created by men in order to sustain and recreate male power and female subordination.”
— Sneja GunewFeminist Knowledge: Critique and Construct, 1990

Lauren Duca is not very good at logical inferences, and her belief that the exposure of Harvey Weinstein provides a road map to “take down the patriarchy” is delusional, primarily because “patriarchy” itself is a paranoid conspiracy theory, a persecution fantasy. What are the “structures and institutions” by which “male power and female subordination” are sustained and recreated, how does one “take down” that system by “storytelling” and, most importantly, what will be the result if feminism’s destructive agenda succeeds? What “structures” and “institutions” will replace those that feminists destroy?

Nearly half a century has passed since the radical Women’s Liberation Movement emerged in the late 1960s. Why is it that Harvey Weinstein — an avowed “progressive” and a major donor to Hillary Clinton and other Democrats — got away with preying on young women for decades?

“I would be happy to give [Bill Clinton] a blowjob just to thank him for keeping abortion legal. I think American women should be lining up with their Presidential kneepads on to show their gratitude for keeping the theocracy off our backs.”
— Nina Burleigh, 1998

Feminists are trapped in an abusive relationship with the Democrat Party, and the Hollywood establishment is part of the same political machine. So long as Harvey Weinstein was useful to Democrats, his predatory behavior was ignored by the “operatives with bylines” in the media. Da Tech Guy is almost certainly correct that if Hillary had won in 2016, Weinstein would not have been exposed in 2017.

Isn’t the Democrat Party a structure and an institution? Hasn’t male power in the Democrat Party been sustained by feminists’ voluntary subordination to the party’s agenda? If Hillary Clinton was willing to tolerate Harvey Weinstein’s behavior, in the same way she tolerated her own husband’s behavior, what does this tell us about the corrupt bargain between feminists and Democrats? Is it true — or was it true 20 years ago — that women owe a debt of gratitude to Democrats for “keeping abortion legal” and “keeping the theocracy off our backs”?

While we’re asking questions, how about this one: Why did Bill Clinton take 26 flights on a private plane dubbed “The Lolita Express,” which “was reportedly outfitted with a bed where passengers had group sex with young girls”? The owner of that plane, Jeffrey Epstein, was convicted and sent to prison “for solicitation and procurement of minors for prostitution. He allegedly had a team of traffickers who procured girls as young as 12 to service his friends on ‘Orgy Island,’ an estate on Epstein’s 72-acre island, called Little St. James, in the U.S. Virgin Islands.”

If Lauren Duca wants to engage in “storytelling,” why isn’t she telling any stories about Bill Clinton’s travels aboard “The Lolita Express”?

Feminists like Lauren Duca aren’t very good at logical inferences, however. Their partisan loyalty to Democrats leads them to conflate the “patriarchy” — their delusional idée fixe — with the Republican Party. Believing that legal abortion is the summum bonum of public policy, and that the GOP represents the forces of “theocracy” which would criminalize abortion, feminists believe that women’s “progress” is synonymous with the success of the Democrat Party.

Like an anti-Semite muttering about “Zionists,” the feminist who sees herself (and all women) oppressed by “patriarchy” has abandoned facts and logic for the sake of a simplistic theory that offers her a demonized scapegoat as an all-purpose explanation for her problems. The essential message of American feminism can be expressed as a syllogism:

  1. Men are evil;
  2. Abortion is good;
    and therefore
  3. Vote Democrat!

Am I the only one who understands why this is a formula for madness? If feminists believe that electing Democrats is the solution to their problems, perhaps they should ask the families of the 53 women shot to death in Chicago this year what electing Democrats has done for them. Hillary Clinton got 75% of the vote in the Democrat fiefdom of Cook County, Illinois, and former Clinton/Obama staffer Rahm Emanuel is mayor of Chicago, one of the most dangerous places in America.

Cynthia Trevillion, a 64-year-old math teacher, was murdered Friday night in Chicago, the victim of a drive-by shooting. Early this morning, Chicago police found a 26-year-old woman dead on her front porch, shot through the head. Of course, the vast majority (81%) of those shot to death in Chicago are males, including one recent case in which a man made the fatal mistake of bringing a knife to a gunfight:

 

Police say the fatal shooting of 25-year-old Pleasure Cardell Singleton Jr. was a case of self-defense, and the woman who shot him will not be charged.
The woman shot Singleton after he stabbed her multiple times . . . in a domestic fight in his West Side Lawndale neighborhood home, Chicago Police said.
About 4:05 p.m. Oct. 5, Singleton, a father of three, was shot in the chest after he stabbed the 25-year-old woman multiple times in the 4000 block of West 21st Street, police said.
The woman was taken in serious condition to Mount Sinai Hospital, and Singleton was pronounced dead at the scene at 4:48 p.m., authorities said.

Perhaps “storytelling” can “take down the patriarchy,” as Lauren Duca says, but a bullet through the chest is also quite effective. However, it seems that feminists are not interested in telling stories about the daily death toll in Chicago, just as they weren’t interested in telling stories about Harvey Weinstein’s predatory behavior until after Hillary — a beneficiary of Weinstein’s support — lost the presidential election.

 

Harvey Weinstein’s behavior was an “open secret” in Hollywood for decades. Where was Lauren Duca’s feminist “storytelling” all those years? Why wasn’t it necessary to “take down the patriarchy” when Bill Clinton was assaulting Paula JonesJuanita BroaddrickKathleen Willeyet al.?

“Rape culture is a complex set of beliefs that encourage male sexual aggression and supports violence against women. It is a society where violence is seen as sexy and sexuality as violent. In a rape culture, women perceive a continuum of threatened violence that ranges from sexual remarks to sexual touching to rape itself. A rape culture condones physical and emotional terrorism against women as the norm.”
— Emilie BuchwaldTransforming a Rape Culture, 1994

“We need to defend Planned Parenthood and women’s rights.”
— Harvey Weinstein, Feb. 26, 2017

Does Harvey Weinstein believe violence is sexy? Isn’t it true that Bill Clinton engaged in behavior within the “continuum” of sexual violence? Hasn’t the feminist strategy of “Vote Democrat” helped foster the climate of “physical and emotional terrorism against women”? And why have feminists like Lauren Duca been unwilling to engage in “storytelling” if it might undermine the political interests of the Democrat Party?

Mary Jo Kopechne could not be reached for comment.

D’Souza Accepts The Left’s Big Lie About America

Are Democrats the real Nazis?

According to conservative writer Dinesh D’Souza, the answer is a resounding yes, in spite of the absurdity of such a claim.

D’Souza’s latest bestseller “The Big Lie” aims to turn the tables on the frequent attacks that President Trump is a fascist by proving that his enemies are actually the real fascists.

There are two essential elements to D’Souza’s argument: fascism is a phenomenon of the Left, and the Democratic Party inspired the Nazis.

Recently, D’Souza has been at the forefront of promoting the idea that “Democrats are the real racists” and his last book/movie, “Hillary’s America,” was heavily dedicated to the subject.

Now he’s taking that talking point and adding a swastika to it.

“The signature concepts of Nazism–lebensraum, concentration camps, genocide–were all invented in this country by the Democrats,” reads one of D’Souza’s typical tweets promoting his book.

Even though this argument is advanced for the primary purpose of countering liberal framing of Republicans as fascists, it ends up with conservatives accepting left-wing history.

Leftists see American history as one of genocide, oppression and white supremacy. D’Souza agrees, but instead blames Democrats for all those terrible deeds instead of whites, southerners or just plain ole Americans.

He first starts off in the 19th century with Jacksonian Democrats. Ignoring how the Democrats stemmed from the party of Thomas Jefferson, the conservative author posits Andrew Jackson as the true founder of the evil political organization.

The main villainy of Jackson is his treatment of Indians, which D’Souza characterizes as a genocide. Considering Old Hickory’s policies were not that different from how Americans had previously interacted with the native tribesmen, that would mean America as a whole committed genocide.

Not so, according to D’Souza.

In a typical passage from the book, Dinesh rebuts a leftist historian for arguing there was a holocaust perpetuated against the Indians at the start of European colonization. The conservative author says the historian, David Stannard, “invents a fake genocide in order to avoid blaming Andrew Jackson and the Democratic Party.”

According to D’Souza, the Amerindians who died prior to Jackson were primarily victims of epidemic, while the seventh president had a direct plan of extermination. Thus, only Democrats are guilty of genocide.

That’s a creative interpretation, but incredibly conceited. The colonists were long locked in brutal warfare with Native Americans that resulted in numerous casualties and expulsion of the defeated tribes. The American government kept fighting Indian tribes and expelling them from their land from the Revolution on.

Democrats did not invent conflict with Amerindians, and certainly not conquering their land. D’Souza demonizes manifest destiny as proto-Nazi, but it remains unanswered how the California resident expects America would have acquired all this territory without conflict.

The next sin of Ameri… excuse me… Democrats is slavery. It is true that the Democratic Party was usually the biggest defender of slavery in antebellum days, but the racist views used to defend the institution were quite common in the day. Alexander Stephens, the man who delivered the infamous Cornerstone Speech that declared the Confederacy was based on the inequality of races, was actually a Whig, as were many members of the planter caste.

Abraham Lincoln, one of D’Souza’s heroes, also believed in the inequality of the races, as he expressed in the famous Lincoln-Douglass Debates. The great emancipator also supported colonization for pretty much of all his political career due to his belief that whites and blacks could not freely live together in the same republic.

Like Jackson, Honest Abe has also earned the smear of being a genocidal oppressor for his involvement in the execution of Dakota prisoners during the Civil War. (RELATED: UW Madison Dismisses Demands To Brand Abe Lincoln A Genocidal Oppressor)

When entering the 20th century, the term Democrats transforms into progressives when D’Souza begins addressing eugenics. That’s because most of the figures he criticizes were actually Republicans, a fact left out of The Big Lie. Margaret Sanger was a Republican. So were Lothrop Stoddard and many of the prominent eugenicists D’Souza names to attack the Left.

Left unmentioned in The Big Lie is that the landmark Supreme Court ruling in Buck v. Bell, which upheld the constitutionality of eugenic policies, was issued by a Republican, Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.

The only 20th century progressive supporter of eugenics he admits was a Republican is Theodore Roosevelt, whom D’Souza incredulously claims only became a progressive after he left the presidency. Even the Heritage Foundation acknowledges that his presidency upheld the progressive ideals of the early 20th century.

D’Souza’s claim that “Democrats are the real Nazis” is undermined by his inadvertent observation that Republicans are the real eugenicists.

Besides exposing Republic… I mean, progressive support for eugenics, D’Souza also shows how racist “Democrats” were busy promoting immigration restriction in the 20th century, which apparently is a bad thing for Dinesh.

This is once again a policy that was spearheaded by Republicans like Henry Cabot Lodge. The fruit of these efforts, the Immigration Act of 1924, was drafted by Republicans, earned wide-spread support from Republicans, and was signed into law by Republican President Calvin Coolidge — a man much-respected by modern conservatives and who was certainly no progressive.

Notwithstanding who supported immigration restriction, D’Souza seeing it as equivalent to National Socialism echoes the Left. These arguments were quite common from liberals when the Trump administration announced its support for the RAISE Act, which aims to reduce immigration to the U.S.

D’Souza is more than willing to deploy these arguments as well if it means it can help his poorly-thought out conspiracy theory of secret Democrat Nazis.

Another weak point of The Big Lie is how he defines the political Left and Right, and then applies it. According to D’Souza, the Left wants big government while the Right wants limited government. In the Age of Jackson, that would put the Democrats on the Right, while the Whigs on the Left. Jacksonian Democrats feared centralized government and worked to keep power at the state level. The Whigs, on the other hand, supported centralized, “big” government.

But somehow the Democrats of the 19th century are left-wing because the current party is led by Nancy Pelosi.

The worst part about the book is that it is convincing many well-meaning people to view American history with this distorted vision. Many Americans are tired of being called racists and fascists for voting for Trump or expressing certain views.

It’s tempting to throw back the charges at the accusers in an act of political judo. But it comes at the price of accepting the views of those very same leftists.

In D’Souza’s world, America is only good because of low taxes and unrestrained consumerism. The winning of the West and other daring exploits are foul deeds perpetrated by Democrats.

What an inspiring national identity for America to have.

In the book, D’Souza audaciously asserts that his previous arguments that Democrats are the real racists have shut down the Left’s talking points, and that his new line of attack will now take away all the cards of liberals.

Considering that Trump and his supporters are still called racists and that label still frightens Republicans, that claim seems dubious at best. No matter how much you call the Democrats the real racists, they will still use the race card against you.

Instead of operating in the framework set by liberal journalists and academics, rightists should adopt an unapologetic view of our nation’s history. We’re never going to win arguments with bombastic claims that Democrats are the real Nazis, especially when using left-wing works to buttress our arguments.

It’s only a short step from thinking Jacksonian Democrats are proto-Nazis to the Founding Fathers were Hitler’s predecessors. Conservatives should avoid that Big Lie entirely.

 

D’Souza Accepts The Left’s Big Lie About America