Connect with us

Red Pill

News

Identity Politics

Angry Feminist made worse by politically correct sympathy

Published

on

14 Views

In a New York Times piece dated 13 March 2018, a clearly distraught woman wrote this letter to a page called “The Sweet Spot”:

Dear Sugars,

How do I deal with my anger toward men? I go to therapy, I’m on anti-depressants and I’m trying to practice self-care. But I’m still angry. I don’t think it’s unwarranted. I’ve been sexually assaulted at least twice. We live in a time where women have more rights than ever, but our president is an alleged sexual predator. Men are socialized to be condescending toward women, and even the few who check themselves often fail.

The only way to tell if a man is a sexual assaulter is to say no, and once you’re in that position, it’s too late. I have male friends who care about me — some who’ve even been sexually assaulted themselves — but they still don’t understand my pain. In my observation, there are elements of sexism in even the healthiest relationships, and that makes me angry.

I don’t want to be emotionally unavailable to the entire sex that I am attracted to. How am I supposed to find a life partner if I can’t even find many men who treat women like equals?

Justifiably Angry Feminist

What follows are excerpts from the responses the lady got. See if you can catch the trap. I will help by bolding a few of the problem phrases.

Steve Almond: Your letter made me think of James Baldwin’s famous formulation that to be African-American in this country “and to be relatively conscious, is to be in a rage almost all the time.” You have every right to be angry with men who have harmed you, in word or deed. No man can understand how it feels to grow up female in this culture, especially not an affluent white man like myself. We are largely ignorant of what it’s like to be economically, socially, professionally and sexually bullied. Having said that, your essential beef here really isn’t with men, individually or as a population. It’s with patriarchal thought and behavior, those monstrous forms of privilege by which men control women. The deeper question we need to reckon with is why boys and men are socialized to derive their self-worth from the denigration and domination of women. The symptoms of this mindset — discrimination, abusive behavior, rape — are infuriating. But beneath this rage lurks a deep sorrow that belongs to all of us…

… Abusive men are beginning to be held to account, which is to say: Women are being believed. But there’s still a vast segment of our population that refuses to confront the prevalence of sexual harassment and assault. They’ve chosen, instead, to normalize and even lionize cruel and predatory behavior. In my view, this moral regression — like the resurgence of overt bigotry in our political discourse — marks the panicky response of a dominant culture feeling the tremors Cheryl alludes to… But this style of thought is also nourished by a consumer culture that profits from sowing doubt. Men are indoctrinated to associate power with predation, and women with seduction and submission. This paradigm, epitomized in the simulated pleasure of hetero-normative pornography, will only begin to diminish in force as we reject the dishonesty of a sexual discourse founded on misogynistic myths.

… Anger is a proper response to injustice. But so is empowerment, as Cheryl suggests. Place your faith in the feminist philosopher ‘bell hooks’ (pseudonym for Gloria Jean Watkins). “Love cannot exist in any relationship that is based on domination and coercion,” she observes. “A genuine feminist politics always brings us from bondage to freedom, from lovelessness to loving.” Any man worth your time will recognize this, and will come to see that the forces seeking to control women seek to control him, too. This does not mean that men will cease to disappoint you. The patriarchy wasn’t built in a day; it won’t be dismantled in a day either. Nor do any of us move through life free of our darker impulses. They invariably emerge in our most intimate relationships. But there are men in this world capable of owning their self-doubt rather than turning it against women. You deserve such a man. We all do.

And from the other respondent:

Cheryl Strayed: Your rage is justified, Angry Feminist. I won’t list all the reasons why because you already did that quite well. We both know the list of injustices goes on. It stretches around the globe and dates back through all time. Strangely, it helps me to remember that. Perhaps remembering that will be solace for you too. Here’s why: there’s no way to make an accounting of that infuriating list without seeing also that progress has been made. I know your most immediate fury is rooted in the specific problem you have in your own life — the question of how you can love (or even find) a man when so many have wronged or disappointed you. But sometimes our most particular sorrows are eased ever so slightly when we take a broader view. The fact that your anger can even be expressed in the terms that you’ve expressed it is evidence, to me, that change is afoot. The reasons you cite for your anger — the high incidence of sexual assault, the misogyny of our president and the nation that elected him, the sexism that even enlightened men (and women) enact — aren’t topics being discussed on the margins anymore. They’re being addressed far and wide, loud and clear. And many of our most powerful institutions and assumptions about men and woman are being rocked, if not yet toppled, by that discussion. Take heart in that.

… I can’t predict if you’ll ever find a man who treats you like an equal, but I can say you’re more likely to find one if you seek love from a place of personal power rather than desolation. We change our lives (and sometimes the world) by deciding to do things differently than we’ve done them before. Perhaps for you, Angry Feminist, that means reframing your justified anger. Right now, your rage is a simmering pot of despair that can do nothing but sink you. If instead you can direct it down channels that empower you, it will serve a powerfully important purpose in your life. This could be as small as speaking up rather than remaining silent when you observe sexism or as big as getting involved with an organization or cause whose mission is gender equity (and you might even meet some good guys there). It’s incredibly difficult not to feel burned by the patriarchy. We have indeed been burned. But, as we know — around the globe and through all time — the best things rise from the ashes.

[Emphases mine]

So, what is wrong here?

The main thing is the mindset of the “Angry Feminist.” I did not highlight anything in her letter because I wanted to come back to this directly. But let’s make a list of problems, restating her sentiments in her letter:

First, she says only how she thinks she is right:

How do I deal with my anger toward men?

  • I go to therapy
  • I’m on anti-depressants 
  • I’m trying to practice self-care 

But I’m still angry.

  • I don’t think it’s unwarranted.

Then, she talks about how everyone else and everything else around her is wrong:

  • I’ve been sexually assaulted at least twice.
  • We live in a time where women have more rights than ever, but…
  • our president is an alleged sexual predator.
  • Men are socialized to be condescending toward women
  • even the few who check themselves often fail.

The third aspect is how “no one understands” her pain.

  • The only way to tell if a man is a sexual assaulter is to say no, and once you’re in that position, it’s too late.
  • I have male friends who care about me — some who’ve even been sexually assaulted themselves — but they still don’t understand my pain.
  • In my observation, there are elements of sexism in even the healthiest relationships, and that makes me angry.

And then, we have the dilemma:

I don’t want to be emotionally unavailable to the entire sex that I am attracted to. How am I supposed to find a life partner if I can’t even find many men who treat women like equals?

Angry Feminist has boxed herself in, and the man and woman, though well-meaning in their response, will not help her at all. At best, they will only help her deny her rage and hide it a little, all the while never truly changing.

Why is this so?

Feminism as we see in Angry’s example is a psychological problem of self-victimization that is extremely attractive and very difficult to undo except with direct confrontation. And because of the usual American social construct we have, we are simultaneously taught to be polite, to regard women as the (physically) weaker sex and therefore in need of protection. This is a traditional view and it still persists among men. We derive a large part of our sense of nobility from it.

But feminism takes this nobility and turns it against us, because the feminist is angry at men simply because they exist, and the men want to try to help the feminist stop being angry. We may try to do so by being more noble, and more kind, but this almost never works with a feminist woman. The feminist alternately loves the kindness of the man and despises it, and this is an unstable emotional framework, and it can induce fear in men.  That fear in men to aggravate the feminist is such that he will not confront her for being completely bonkers, to directly confront such a deranged person, any real direct message usually doesn’t happen. The usual result is that the man flees in some way, and the woman feels once again justified in her anger because “the man let her down” in her view.

The truth is she drove him away because he had to either flee her wrath or die from it, or go crazy and do something horrible. And the real tragedy of feminism is that getting the woman to recognize her own part in causing this is next to impossible.

Our intrepid New York Times people both gave into this pressure, and started giving Angry useless and emotionally placating statements, none of which have the power to heal the woman from her condition.

St Paul, from the New Testament, had a terrific understanding of the human condition. Many feminists are quick to arouse their anger because one set of instructions he gave regarding marriage said this:

Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything. (Ephesians 5:22-24, NIV translation offered)

As one reads this, even non-feminists could easily imagine feminist heads exploding everywhere. What is even more significant is that we probably expect most American women’s heads to explode. This is because this sort of feminism has become quite strongly entrenched in society, so much so that we don’t easily see it.

But St Paul did not stop here. So the feminists ought to read a little farther to find out what the men have to do. And, admittedly, men also need to read this:

Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her,  that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish.

So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the church. (Ephesians 5:25-29, NIV)

So, what does this mean, “Love your wives as Christ loved the Church and gave Himself for her…”

Well, Christian believers know that Christ died for his people. His giving himself was to give himself all the way to death. So, the image St Paul paints is, “Husbands, be prepared to die for your wives, in the image of Christ dying for his Church…”

But it is easy for men influenced by feminism to misunderstand this as a call to a type of servility to the will of women. This is wrong. Christ did not do whatever the Church wanted. He founded it and formed it in leadership, and died as its leader. It is a bit more like being a general in battle than a slave to a master.  St Paul continues:

For we are members of His body, of His flesh and of His bones. “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church.  Nevertheless let each one of you in particular so love his own wife as himself, and let the wife seethat she respects her husband.

We emphasized this last sentence because it is the summary. The command is for the ultimate in respect, each for the other.

Angry Feminist never got this instruction. Both her respondents cowtowed to her rage and didn’t bring it to this teaching. And that is pretty common, as even many Christian believers in our day have no idea what this section really means.

But now that you have read it, you may begin to develop the idea. This leads to the revelation of the great lie at the end of the lady’s letter. Her signature:

Justifiably Angry Feminist

She is not justified at all. In fact, she is completely in the wrong.

So, what might we say to Angry Feminist?

One thing must be understood. The first time she reads or hears this, she will explode with anger and refuse to read the rest. So, it would take everyone around her being on the same page until her ego cracks enough for her to begin to be teachable. Here is our attempt:

Dear Angry Feminist,

You may completely disagree with what you are about to read. But we have seen your problem, and we have seen its solution, and it works. So, we suggest you read and re-read our response over and over until something opens in you.

Your anger is because you have locked yourself in hell. However the key to get out is firmly in your own hands, and to change the hell, you will have to walk out. The locks are your resentments towards the men who tried to take advantage of you. Forgive them. Everyone on earth has the right to be wrong, and we unfortunately are. Forgive them because you do things wrong and expect to be forgiven as well, don’t you? Then you open the doors and simply walk out of hell.

Therapy is not therapy if the therapist merely affirms your anger. Your anger is the problem far more than the people around you are. Change your anger and the people around you will amazingly become better. Anti-depressants? These don’t help at all. They just aid and abet you in your sickness, and they give you the excuse to blame the world, which you cannot change, instead of looking at yourself and what you can change.

Some women think that they have the right to display their bodies any way they wish. We don’t know what your attitude is about this, but we can say that you probably would be highly disturbed if men went walking around virtually naked, wouldn’t you? They would be disrespectful to themselves and invite attention from depraved people who want only one thing. So, if you think you have the right to show your body as you wish, you are wrong. We all affect one another. And we attract people that are like how we act. Act respectful of yourself, and men who respond to you will be more likely to be respectful of you.

That being said, men are hard-wired to pursue women. So if a respectful man gives you flowers or holds the door open for you, or walks on the street-side of the sidewalk to protect you, that is his expression of dignity as a man who respects and values you as a woman. Feminism doesn’t allow for such actions, but that is the lie of feminism.

Finally, you are lying to yourself and those around you when you say that you want men to treat you as an equal. What you really want is for the men to somehow make restitution for the harms you have either really received or have perceived. They will never be able to make up for these offenses, because most of them are magnified in your own mind and heart to the point where you cannot even see men correctly.

The world is full of good God-fearing men. In the United States, they abound. But if you look at the world through feminist glasses, you will never see them. They also see you and your anger that you beat the world around you with, and they probably feel sad because they cannot make an approach to you.

Forgive others, and change yourself, and the world will become different. Continue to blame others and exalt yourself, and things will only get worse. 

This is the truth we have found. It is difficult, it is unpleasant at first, and it is no doubt a shock to you. But if you have actually succeeded in reading this response this far, it says you are capable of change. We wish you every blessing God can give as you work on yourself.

With love,

Red Pill Times

 

Advertisement
Comments

Latest

Liberal Hollywood caught in sexual feeding frenzy

Asia Argento called out by a man SHE sexually abused, revealing the true nature of Hollywood’s “moral cause”.

Seraphim Hanisch

Published

on

The #MeToo phenomenon looked to the first glance a bit like a “moral snapback” in Hollywood, as it appeared that the years of hidden sexual perversity and predatory behavior was being revealed so that it might be stopped.

Support The Duran – Browse our Shop >>

However, a slightly more serious look at this began to reveal that it was far less upstanding than Hollywood’s elite wanted the adoring public to believe. Swiftly, the movement became the feminist movement’s latest salvo against men, because it provided women accusers with virtually unlimited power to defame any man – all that was needed was for her to say that man X made an unwanted advance and that man’s life would be mired in the mud of slander.

In some cases, of course the presence of sexual abuse was real, and tragic. However, as with many attacks from the dark side, a little truth mixed with the lie makes the lie much stronger, and this recipe proved a huge success for the #MeToo movement. The viral spread of this hashtag and the social “outrage” associated with it turned the lives of many people completely upside down.

However, now the truth begins to show. And what’s more, it begins to show how utterly rotten and, honestly, evil this group of people can be.

Asia Argento is an actress who was one of the early accusers of the producing mogul Harvey Weinstein, arguably the “Wanted” poster child of #MeToo. This woman is physically very beautiful, which makes her someone easy to believe by the elite and by the foolish who take her appearance as somehow proof that she is good. So, her accusations against Mr. Weinstein held, despite the fact that she continued having sexual relations with him for years afterward. She blamed Weinstein for this situation saying about this, “after the rape, he won.”

But late Sunday night on August 19th, news began to surface that Argento had herself seduced and forcibly had sexual relations with a 17 year old actor, Jimmy Bennett, when she was 37 herself. After Argento had gone public with her accusation against Weinstein, Mr. Bennett’s lawyer notified Argento of his intention to sue her for US $3.5 million for emotional distress, lost wages and assault and battery.

Asia Argento agreed to pay him off to the tune of $380,000. This was reported by The New York Times.

This is not the only damaged person in contact with Ms. Argento. Just two months ago on 7 June, her lover Anthony Bourdain was found dead in his hotel room at only 61. Mr. Bourdain reportedly suffered from severe alcoholism and its accompanying depression and suicidal tendencies.

The #MeToo movement went extremely viral in its early months, and commentator Rush Limbaugh characterized it as the latest onslaught against men by feminists:

I’m going to tell you, if you’re in politics and you’ve ever looked at a woman the wrong way, you can expect a woman at some point to go public and say so. In fact, because of the success they had with this, it’s entirely possible that men who haven’t done a single thing in terms of mistreating a woman, abusing her, or harassing her, are still, nevertheless, going to be accused of it. It has become a political tactic. We have now had — this is a point that I made yesterday — we have now had something that is a genuinely serious thing in its own right and its own contained universe. Sexual harassment, the use of sexual harassment, the treatment of women, or others, in the workplace, that’s a legitimate thing. But it’s now just been corrupted and weaponized and made to look like a political opposition research weapon, and that’s exactly what’s happened. 

And so, anybody can see, and you can see that when one of these allegations is made, the women are believed, and the men who are accused are not. Which means the men have to prove a negative and the accusers don’t have to prove anything. That is a powerful weapon the Democrats have decided to use. And believe me, as we speak, they are behind closed doors creating further strategems using this, and they are picking their targets. And you’re going to see more of it, I predict.

This present issue though with Mr. Bennett’s situation shows that this is actually much worse than just the latest outbreak of feminism.

The elite in the United States comprises the actors and musicians that have made their names everyday references in popular culture for almost the entire country. These “beautiful people” are tracked by paparazzi and now, apparently, newspapers of national and international significance. Further, the revelation of impropriety among Hollywood elite was mistakenly presented (perhaps deliberately so) as an attempt to make Hollywood look as though it were beyond reproach. The reasons for this are not clear, but speculation exists that it was a setup for an ego te absolvo moment for the Left so they could attack Trump from a “moral high ground.”

But the very prominent expression of “moral outrage” among such “leaders” in this group falls apart when one sees that this group is not at all guided by anything that is truly good. Jimmy Bennett’s case speaks most powerfully about this, because he was raped, essentially, by a woman who he had come to associate in his mind as a “mother figure.” He got a payout, but there is no outrage to speak of against Asia Argento. She made the news because of this revelation but all it appears to show is that the Hollywood elite are eating each other. This woman has some very dark liaisons, too, and the aura of death and decay surrounds her. Yet, she is still a “star.”

Perhaps a good aspect of this report is that we see it a bit more clearly for what it is.

But, that is what many of us said when Harvey Weinstein’s escapades were revealed.

Continue Reading

Latest

Doug Casey on Social Media: “Facebook enshrines stupidity”

“Just as Myspace was displaced by Facebook, I predict Facebook 2.0 will come along and replace Facebook.”

The Duran

Published

on

Authored by Joel Bowman via InternationalMan.com:


Joel Bowman: G’day, Doug. Thanks for speaking with us today.

Doug Casey: No problem, Joel. It’s a pleasure to hear your Australian accent come across the ether from Mexico.

Joel: Let’s dive right in. A week or two ago, Facebook registered the largest single day loss for any one company in stock market history – roughly $122 billion. CEO Mark Zuckerberg lost around $15 billion himself, as much as the annual GDP of several resource-rich, West African nations.

Looking back to 2000, during the go-go days of the dot.com boom, Intel and Microsoft both registered staggering single-day losses, too… $90 billion and $80 billion, respectively. And we know what happened next in that case…

So, investors want to know… is past prologue? What’s next for Silicon Valley’s tech darlings?

Doug: Talking about losing multiple billions in a single day, it’s really a sign of the times. I remember when the only billionaires in the world were Howard Hughes, John Paul Getty and John Beresford Tipton– the mythical billionaire on a 1950’s-era show called “The Millionaire.”

These days, however, it seems everyone’s a billionaire. In fact, there are several thousand billionaires roaming the planet today, with new ones being minted almost every day.

Of course, much of this so-called wealth is just paper. It’s not real. In fact, it’s pretty clear to me that we’re in a stock market bubble. Which is being driven by the bond market hyper-bubble. And that, in turn, is fueling a real estate bubble, which I believe is just now beginning to deflate in major cities around the world.

None of this augurs well for the stock market. You’ve got bubbles all over the place. Except in the resource market. That’s the one place that hasn’t inflated. In fact, it’s been going down since it’s last peak in 2011.

Getting back to Facebook, I hope it goes bankrupt. I hate it as an institution. I hate what it does. I don’t like its policies. I don’t like its management. I don’t like the fact that it’s causing people to destroy whatever privacy they have left. While turning their brains to mush sending out selfies all day.

Joel: You’ve put a lot on the table there, Doug. Let’s unpack a bit of that, starting with the general tendency toward cerebral rot…

Many younger readers may not remember this, but there actually existed a time before everybody knew everything, when people had to read books and discuss them, engage in healthy debate and rigorous dialectic in order to learn and develop intellectually.

Now that everyone apparently has plenty of time to Instagram their kale salads and “like” one and other’s cat pictures, are we to assume mankind has finally reached the End of Learning…some new Age of Enlightenment?

Or might Facebook and its (anti)social media cousins represent – in addition to the potential fallout for investors – another, hidden cost to society?

Doug: Perhaps humanity is bifurcating into the Morlocks and the Eloi at this point. It’s true that people used to go to libraries. But even the Library of Congress has only a tiny fraction the world’s data available; libraries are quaint and delightful, but they’re dinosaurs.

All the knowledge in the world is now at our fingertips on the Internet. The Internet is one of the greatest inventions in history, on a par with moveable type and the Gutenburg printing press. A few people are using it to educate and better themselves—but relatively few.

Most people just use it for trivial amusement, as you mentioned. Facebook adds very little value to the equation. In fact, I can’t see that it does much that’s productive. It’s basically a vehicle for gossip and watching cat videos.

Joel: And it’s less than that. Aside from the general degradation of public discourse, social media also represents a kind of unalterable historical record of bad jokes and regrettable moments, accessible to anyone who may wish to besmirch one’s character or skittle one’s reputation.

We’ve all said things we wish we hadn’t. To err is to be human, after all. What do you make of a world in which everyone’s worst moments are readily available to everyone else – including potential enemies – at the click of a mouse?

Doug: Facebook enshrines stupidity. A heavy Facebook user is, in effect, saying: “Look at me! I’m a thoughtless person who doesn’t have anything better to do with his time”. That’s on top of the fact that users are exposing their thoughts, actions, and whereabouts to the NSA, the FBI, the CIA and any of a hundred other nefarious agencies. In fact, there are credible allegations that Facebook, along with Google and Amazon, are willing tools of these intelligence agencies. No good can come of being a Facebookista.

But that’s about whether you should use Facebook. Whether you should own Facebook stock is a different question. Even after the recent selloff, Facebook still has a market cap of about $500 billion, which impresses me as a lot for a chat site cum advertising vehicle. Especially one where most of its growth is behind it. A lot of users are getting hip to the fact they’re not customers, they’re the product.

Facebook was a clever innovation ten years ago. But you know, there’s an old saying in the stock market: High Tech, Big Wreck!

Just as Myspace was displaced by Facebook, I predict Facebook 2.0 will come along and replace Facebook. My understanding is that kids now see Facebook as something used by old people– people over 21 years of age. So if it’s going nowhere with the younger generation, where’s it’s future? Maybe it picks up a billion new users in the Third World. Ultimately, what’s that worth?

Facebook may not be a terminal short sale, but I certainly won’t be putting any of my own money into the stock.

Joel: Assuming you’re correct and Facebook 2.0 does displace the current market leader, are you hopeful that such a platform may serve to promote a heightened level of discourse? Perhaps people might find their way into “phyles,” that is, subgroups based on commonly shared values that actually have real world meaning?

Doug: I hope that, in a year or two, International Man itself grows into a community of likeminded people with above average I.Q.s, libertarian values, and real world experience. IM might, itself, even branch off to become its own kind of Facebook. A private version.

I know there’s a lot of talk about regulating FB, or breaking it up. That’s a bad idea; the government should have zero to do with business in general—and areas related to free speech in particular. I’m disgusted by the fact FB has kicked Alex Jones and others off their platform. But they have a right to do so, as a private company. Although, on the other hand, they’re almost a creature of the State.

But that’s not an excuse for the government to “step in”. What will happen is that a newer, better Facebook lookalike—or a dozen of them—will replace them. FB will self-destruct. It’s a non-problem.

To be frank, you and I don’t really have that much in common with most of the 7.3 billion people on this planet. In fact, while I like many individual humans, I despise humanity in general. The more people you put together in a group, the more they act like chimpanzees. Big groups force down the lowest common denominator.

There’s some cause for optimism, but only on a person-to-person basis. I prefer the company of people who value free minds and free markets—and I suspect most people who are reading this now feel the same way.

Joel: That’s probably a very good note to end this conversation on, Doug. Thanks, as always, for taking the time.

Doug: Meanwhile, we’ll look for something with the potential of Facebook in 2008… and stay away from Facebook today.

Continue Reading

Latest

Can America Ever Come Together Again?

The people who cheer Trump believe the country they inherited from their fathers was a great, good and glorious country, and that the media who detest Trump also despise them.

Patrick J. Buchanan

Published

on

Authored by Patrick Buchanan via Buchanan.org:


If ex-CIA Director John Brennan did to Andrew Jackson what he did to Donald Trump, he would have lost a lot more than his security clearance.

He would have been challenged to a duel and shot.

“Trump’s … performance in Helsinki,” Brennan had said, “exceeds the threshold of ‘high crimes & misdemeanors.’ It was … treasonous.”

Why should the president not strip from a CIA director who calls him a traitor the honor and privilege of a security clearance? Or is a top-secret clearance an entitlement like Social Security?

CIA directors retain clearances because they are seen as national assets, individuals whose unique experience, knowledge and judgment may be called upon to assist a president in a national crisis.

Not so long ago, this was a bipartisan tradition.

Who trashed this tradition?

Was it not the former heads of the security agencies — CIA, FBI, director of national intelligence — who have been leveling the kind of savage attacks on the chief of state one might expect from antifa?

Are ex-security officials entitled to retain the high privileges of the offices they held, if they descend into cable-TV hatred and hostility?

Former CIA chief Mike Hayden, in attacking Trump for separating families of detained illegal immigrants at the border, tweeted a photo of the train tracks leading into Auschwitz.

“Other governments have separated mothers and children” was Hayden’s caption.

Is that fair criticism from an ex-CIA director?

Thursday, The New York Times decried Trump’s accusation that the media are “the enemy of the people.”

“Insisting that truths you don’t like are ‘fake news’ is dangerous to the lifeblood of democracy. And calling journalists ‘the enemy of the people’ is dangerous, period,” said the Times.

Fair enough, but is it not dangerous for a free press to be using First Amendment rights to endlessly bash a president as a racist, fascist, sexist, neo-Nazi, liar, tyrant and traitor?

The message of journalists who use such terms may be to convey their detestation of Trump. But what is the message received in the sick minds of people like that leftist who tried to massacre Republican congressmen practicing for their annual softball game with Democrats?

And does Trump not have a point when he says the Boston Globe-organized national attack on him, joined in by the Times and 300 other newspapers, was journalistic “collusion” against him?

If Trump believes that CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times and The Washington Post are mortal enemies who want to see him ousted or impeached, is he wrong?

We are an irreconcilable us-against-them nation today, and given the rancor across the ideological, social and cultural chasm that divides us, it is hard to see how, even post-Trump, we can ever come together again.

Speaking at a New York LGBT gala in 2016, Hillary Clinton said: “You could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables … racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic … Some of those folks … are irredeemable, but … they are not America.”

When Clinton’s reflections on Middle America made it into print, she amended her remarks. Just as Gov. Andrew Cuomo rushed to amend his comments yesterday when he blurted at a bill-signing ceremony:

“We’re not going to make America great again. It was never that great.” America was “never that great”?

Cuomo’s press secretary hastened to explain, “When the president speaks about making America great again … he ignores the pain so many endured and that we suffered from slavery, discrimination, segregation, sexism and marginalized women’s contributions.”

Clinton and Cuomo committed gaffes of the kind Michael Kinsley described as the blurting out of truths the speaker believes but desperately does not want a wider audience to know.

In San Francisco in 2008, Barack Obama committed such a gaffe.

Asked why blue-collar workers in industrial towns decimated by job losses were not responding to his message, Obama trashed these folks as the unhappy losers of our emerging brave new world:

“They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

These clingers to their Bibles, bigotries and guns are the people the mainstream media, 10 years later, deride and dismiss as “Trump’s base.”

What Clinton, Cuomo and Obama spilled out reveals what is really behind the cultural and ideological wars of America today.

Most media elites accept the historic indictment — that before the Progressives came, this country was mired in racism, sexism, homophobia and xenophobia, and that its history had been a long catalog of crimes against indigenous peoples, Africans brought here in bondage, Mexicans whose lands we stole, migrants, and women and gays who were denied equality.

The people who cheer Trump believe the country they inherited from their fathers was a great, good and glorious country, and that the media who detest Trump also despise them.

For such as these, Trump cannot scourge the media often enough.

Continue Reading

JOIN OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Advertisement

Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...

Advertisement
Advertisements

Quick Donate

The Duran
EURO
DONATE
Donate a quick 10 spot!
Advertisement

Advertisements

The Duran Newsletter

Advertisement
Advertisement

Trending