Category Archives: Political Correctness

NEW COLUMN Updated (1/21): Dissident Deplorables Refuse To Be Dittoheads

Critique, Donald Trump, Elections, English, Family, Journalism, Media, Political Correctness

NEW COLUMN is “Dissident Deplorables Refuse To Be Dittoheads.”

In its attenuated form, the column appeared on Townhall.com. If you prefer lukewarm, milquetoast, bland fare (as much as this writer can do those), adapted for conservative tastes, then stick with this version: “Dissident Deplorables Deserve Decent Coverage.”

Otherwise, read the piece in full on The Unz Review.  Or, look-away, FAST (as did others. Yes, the piece was spiked elsewhere).  The more I read Mencken, the more I know this: If he were alive today, Unz Review woudl be the only place that would dare publish him.

Excerpt:

The happening featured beefcake Donald Trump Jr. and bimbo Kimberly Guilfoyle.

The couple was on stage at UCLA to promote the president’s son’s “book,” when they were jeered by dissident Deplorables for shutting down the Question-and-Answer segment.

“Book” here is in quotations to denote “so-called,” because the staple, ghost-written political pablum, penned by ambitious political flotsam, relates to literacy as H. L. Mencken relates to conformity—not at all.

Predictably, Guilfoyle opted out of the conversational give-and-take demanded by her man’s hecklers, and went straight for the groin:

“I bet you engage in online dating, because you’re impressing no one here to get a date in person.”

Why “predictably”? Well, a supple mind may not be one of Guilfoyle’s assets.

Kimberley’s cerebral alacrity was seldom showcased when seated in Fox News’ legs chair. During one of her last televised appearances on “The Five,” a Fox News daytime show, Guilfoyle protested that, “the U.S. has already reduced its [toxic] ‘admissions’ enough.”

I give you Guilfoyle, verbatim, in her own words: “So, we can keep doing what we’re doing. We can keep reducing our admissions. …”

To Make English Great Again, you reduce emissions, not “admissions.”

For a while, it even seemed that Trump, looking for curve appeal in a press secretary, was going for Guilfoyle. She certainly thought so and said as much, implying, at the time, that she herself is “a great communicator … with deep knowledge.”

And no; I do not digress. This all goes to the Guilfoyle’s knee-jerk, flirty, aim-for-the-groin reaction to her hombre’s hecklers.

Tellingly, the taunting of Donald Jr. by dissident Deplorables was covered very differently by the American Daily Beast and the British Guardian.

Descriptions of political positions and personalities were prefaced by the Daily Beast with “edifying” editorializing. The hecklers the Beast described as “fringe-right.” Their alleged instigator and inspiration was said to be “a white nationalist.” Perfectly legitimate demands from this disgruntled audience for a “Q&A” and for “America First,” the Daily Beast deemed tantamount to a right-wing insurrection or civil war.

Discrediting dissent is all in a day’s work for the American press.

What do you know? The hecklers at Trump Jr.’s book-flogging were also known, to the Daily Beast at least, as “Holocaust deniers.” As far as this reader can tell, the group taunting the empty suits on stage for refusing to answer questions had said not a word about the Holocaust. Nor had the disrupters been interviewed by the Daily Beast about their views on the Holocaust.

More to the point: Why is participation in our democracy predicated on one’s views on the Holocaust? What the hell does an individual’s opinion about that topic have to do with his right to solicit answers from members of Donald Trump’s politically active dynasty? I say this as a Jew whose family tree was truncated by the industrial-scale mass murder of millions of Jews that was the Holocaust. …

… READS THE REST.  NEW COLUMN is “Dissident Deplorables Refuse To Be Dittoheads.” Or, “Dissident Deplorables Deserve Decent Coverage,” if you can’t take the heat. 

UPDATE (11/21): 

On WND: “Is political participation predicated on views about the Holocaust?” “Discrediting dissent is all in a day’s work for the American press,” says this Jew, whose family tree was truncated by the industrial-scale mass murder that was the Holocaust. MORE …

Why Can’t You Say It, Tucker Carlson? Katie Hill Is A Slut

Conservatism, Feminism, Gender, Political Correctness, Political Philosophy, Sex

It’s always curious to see how conservatives will twist into pretzels in order to, well, eat their philosophical cake and have it, too.

A traditionalist (check) would come out and call Rep. Katie Hill a self-adoring slut.

Who else takes nude selfies of her three-way (“throuple”) indiscretions, flaunting the iron cross tattooed on her crotch, and then frames her slut-like sexual frolicking as sacred sexuality disrespected? Katie Hill did.

When a male does the same, he, too, should be dissed by conservatives as a priapic pig. And he has been over these pixelated pages. Anthony Weiner I called “an engorged organism indigenous to D.C., who was in the habit of exposing himself as often as the Kardashians do.”

But Tammy Bruce, on Tucker Carlson’s show, no less, takes the tack taken in the leftist Atlantic:

Hill engaged in a profound breach of responsibility by engaging in a sexual relationship with someone who was working for her—and by doing so while running for public office. “The mistakes I made that brought me to this moment will haunt me for the rest of my life,” she said this afternoon in her final speech on the House floor.

“Nobody is judging her personally,” reiterated Tucker Carlson.

But why not? Katie Hill is a repulsive slut.

Likewise, Bruce was careful to emphasize she was not being a prude. The Hill indiscretion Bruce was decrying was purely a violation of labor law, or something.

Both Bruce and Carlson refuse to be cast as “prudes” who reject public promiscuity. It’s Hill’s conduct in the “work place” that bothers both these Fox News hosts. Oh Buddha!

UPDATE (10/22/019): Has Tucker Gone Soft On Immigration, Which Is A True Existential Issue?

Conservatism, IMMIGRATION, Media, Nationhood, Political Correctness

Has Tucker Carlson gotten The Talk from the bosses at Fox News? By The Talk I mean the injunction against discussing the national question: mass immigration and the survival of the majority that dare not speak its name.

The show today, 6/11/019, was vanilla—Tucker’s correspondent decamped to the the Dominican Republic, to check out the safety of the minibars, instead of to the southwest to check out America’s wide-open border.

Tucker then interviewed a legal immigrant with permissible views on immigration—legal good; illegal bad.

Tucker oozed praise for said legal immigrant with permissible views. (Which were not exhaustive, because Harvard’s George Borjas showed that immigration in its totality has become an economic drain, not only illegal immigration.)

And, a short time back, on the day President Trump declared we hunger for many more “geniuses” in this country (ask the IEEE how many American engineers are unemployed)—the 2nd item on the Tucker Carlson Show was the latest SAT swindle, as if the affirmative-action swindle that is college admission is anything new.

Immigration experts in-the-know, like the Federation for American Immigration Reform, understand that unfettered legal immigration, even more so than the illegal torrents—is what has transformed the country beyond the tipping point. (Read “Understanding Chain Migration.”)

By the way, Tucker and Dana Perino smirked about the overuse of the existential adjective. (The word “narrative” is way worse.) Existential is a nice adjective when used sparingly and judicially.

If anything is an is an existential issue it’s immigration, both kinds, but especially the legal kind. It’s the defining issue of our time.  That’s why, once-upon-a-time, a president even ran on the immigration platform.

UPDATED (10/22/019):

Mayor Pete Buttigieg: The New Face Of The Military

Gender, Government, Left-Liberalism, Military, Political Correctness

Samuel P. Huntington offered “a now-classic description of the military mind — conservative, realistic, and pessimistic about human nature.” Elsewhere in one of his books, Huntington mentions that the military was once, almost to a man, Republican.

No longer. And Mayor Pete Buttigieg is hardly exhibit A as to the progressive nature of the military. But he is a damn good one, for the military is reliably liberal.

The military is government. The military works like government; is financed like government, and sports many of the same inherent malignancies of government. Like all government-run divisions and departments, the US military is manacled by multiculturalism, feminism and all manner of outré sexual politics, affirmative action, and political correctness that kills.”

In other words, the military’s impetus is liberal.

MORE: “Pete Buttigieg Slams Tucker Carlson, Laura Ingraham on Fox News, Gets Standing Ovation at End of Town Hall