If Sarah Palin said “Okey-doke,”, would liberal journalists view it as a sign of her exceptional brilliance?
When radical left-wing protesters, whether at a Trump rally, an "occupy” riot or anti-police protest are confronted by reporters as to why, exactly, they are protesting, they usually all provide the same response - nothing. Or, at least nothing of any discernible substance. While it may appear that this is the case - because they actually have no idea what they are talking about - the truth may be the complete opposite, according to some. Their inability to provide a coherent answer may actually be because they are so intelligent that their mouth cannot keep pace with their superior brainpower.LINK
Meet the Vagina Voters
Have you ever read a more squirm-inducing sentence than that? It appeared in a pro-Hillary piece in Dame magazine, written by a person with a vagina who intends to vote for Clinton because she also has a vagina.
Let's leave aside the unfortunate image conjured up by that sentence ("You can hold a pencil with that thing?!") The bigger problem with such unabashed declarations of "vagina voting" is that they confirm the descent of feminism into the cesspool of identity politics, even biologism, and its abandonment of the idea that women should be valued more for their minds than their anatomy.
Kate Harding, the vagina voter in question, isn't only going to vote with her vag—she's also going to tell everyone about it. "I intend to vote with my vagina. Unapologetically. Enthusiastically... And I intend to talk about it," she wrote in Dame.
She thinks Hillary would be a great president because she "knows what it's like to menstruate, be pregnant, [and] give birth."
So you're going to pick your leader on the basis of her biological functions, the fact she's experienced the same bodily stuff as you? Imagine if a man did that. "I'm voting for Ted Cruz because he knows what it's like to spunk off. And he knows the pain of being kicked in the balls." We'd think that was a very sad dude indeed. Why is it any better for a female commentator to wax lyrical about voting on the basis of her biological similarity to a candidate rather than any shared political outlook?
The point of Harding's pussy politics, as I think we should call this biologism among some in the Hillary camp, is to say that it would be a brilliant, symbolic breakthrough if the U.S. were to have its first-ever female president.
It would be "enormously important," she says. "American women have been bleeding for over 200 years"—again with the blood!—"and a lot of us have arrived at the point where we just want someone with a visceral, not abstract, concept of what that means."
There's something profoundly sexist in this. Hillary is valued, not for her ability to think abstractly, which is the very essence of politics, but for what she represents viscerally—the visceral being, in the words of the Oxford English Dictionary, the bowels, "the seat of emotion."
Let me read that again because that's a good example of how this gets into the weeds. Why has Trump survived what would disqualify others? It's because he corrects massive ideological failures by the right. He corrects massive failures of conservatism which have enabled the left to overreach and totally obliterate the social and cultural basis that defined Western civilization. That's his premise. Conservatism has failed to stop the left. There's nobody alive as a conservative that could do it; they've tried.
Trump comes along as a nonideological blunt to the left and their cultural war advance. "For decades, the institutional right --" i.e., conservatism as you and I know it "-- has ceded American culture to the left, in spite of many voices who pointed out ample areas where the right could carve out a countercultural movement against leftist domination. ... The cause of this is partially a denial of how swiftly the culture has moved left, leaving the institutional right under the false impression it is still fighting the culture war of the 90’s and early 2000s.
"The right’s obsession with 90’s-era battles over sex, drugs, and rock and roll is more than just an anachronism: it represents a self-inflicted wound that ignored how the left used the culture to repeatedly make the case for their vision of an ideal society. We now know the left won that war, and in this context, Trump represents the first candidate for whom success could only come after a culture war apocalypse."
Meaning we've lost the culture war. The right doesn't know it and continues to fight it on outdated, old-fashioned terms and turf. Trump, whether he knows it or not, comes along and is able to fight back against whatever this destructive nature of the left is by stopping it and thwarting it with all kinds of politically incorrect statements and gets away with it. Whether Trump knows he's doing it or not, that's this guy's theory. If you continue to read this, it gets more and more esoteric and I'm not gonna burden you with this. It's a good place.
I'm gonna summarize it for you instead. I read this because it was sent to me by somebody who thought that it was interesting. And what this piece further delves into is the premise that the left has actually won the culture war by turning the free market against the right. Now, how does that manifest itself, free market, how does the left turn free market against the right? Well, that could be summed up by reminding you of what happens when a pizzeria says they wouldn't serve a gay wedding reception. Or what happens when a little bakery, a mom-and-pop bakery says they wouldn't bake a cake for a gay wedding because of religious principles.
The left comes in, co-ops the free market from the right and turns it back against them, is what this guy means. In other words, the left used what the right thinks is its primary defense: free market, freedom, Constitution, religious freedom, First Amendment, and turned it right back on everybody, and nobody knew how to react to it. People were bullied. People were cowed into silence by virtue of fear. And corporations, long thought to be definitions of the free market, joined the left, rather than defend concept of freedom.
So the concept of freedom fades away, becomes meaningless, replaced by grievance industries demanding tolerance as the new freedom. Now, I have tried to make the point over the course of many years here that these battles that we face -- culture, political -- that they're no longer rational. None of this LGBT stuff is rational. Not a single thing happening is rational. It's all irrational. None of it makes any sense. It's got everybody scratching their heads, but they don't know how to stop it. They don't know how to oppose it. Anybody who tries is shouted down, targeted for destruction or what have you, on Twitter.
BASED ON:The Intellectual Case For Trump II: Trump Is The Culture Warrior We Need http://thefederalist.com/2016/04/20/the-intellectual-case-for-trump-ii-trump-is-the-culture-warrior-we-need/
S.F. Chronicle Columnist Hopes for Rush Limbaugh’s Death!!!
Mark Morford, a liberal columnist for the San Francisco Chronicle, published a tirade Monday in which he wished for Rush Limbaugh’s death — both commercially and literally.LINK