Category Archives: Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim

Refugees & The Hysterical, Horny Swedes Who Love Them

Feminism, Gender, IMMIGRATION, Islam, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, Pop-Culture, Sex

The erotica fueling the fascination with the tall, dark, Middle-Eastern young men smuggled into Europe is something I covered in “Left-Liberalism’s Homo-Eroticism” (3/14/2016) and again in “Are Liberals Turned-On By Turning The Other (Gluteus Maximus) Cheek?” (2/6/2017). In blog posts, too, going back to 2012.

The “Angry Foreigner” (very clever and terribly crude) exposes the horny, menopausal Social Justice Warriors (SJW) behind the fetish, calling this archetype a “Bohemian witch, tie-dye hag,” and worse. It is this horny SJW who’s lusting after young men.

I’ve made the point that it is the feel-goodism of do-goodsim itself that gives these idiots a sexual rush.

In any event, the horny SJW is in a position of power to (inadvertently, in my opinion) fuel the immigration, as she generally works for The State or for some related interest group that influences policy. She is particularly prone to hysteria.

At about 15:35 into the broadcast. European commenters are much wittier and daring than ours. Brighter. But this is definitely too risqué.

UPDATED (7/25): Republicans Or Democrats: Who’s More Tiresomely PC?

Conservatism, Democrats, Free Speech, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, libertarianism, Logic, Political Correctness, Reason, Republicans

Conservatives habitually engage in this asinine, “No, Democrats are the sexist and racist party blah, blah; we’re the good party, party of Lincoln.” “No, liberals project onto us vices they’re guilty of and we’re free of; they do what they say we do.”

Such group thinkers all.

Any libertarian worth his salt hates this thought-crime policing on both sides. Who cares who’s sexist? Who cares if you have impolitic and impolite thoughts? The more improper thinking is expressed out loud; the more we break down barriers to politically risque thinking erected by both parties. (For instance, what I said in “THE WAR ON TRUMP: The Big Picture for Conservatives, Libertarians & Liberals” was verboten in conservative circles.)

Here Mike Cernovich rejoices, via a retweet, in the GOP nominating members of so-called marginalized identity groups. If you’re all about merit and individualism, not identity, why the hell do you care? Why partake in this idiotic, Democratic dance?

There’s no difference in modus operandi between the parties. Both window dress and virtue signal and accuse each other of not doing these enough.

Another incident sees Cernovich scold the awful Ana Navarro (we have a dossier on her: http://barelyablog.com/?s=Ana+Navarro) for being nasty about Jared Kushner. Why? Navarro is right. Why is Cernovich loving on Kushner?

Kushner looks and sound like a boy in transition.

From my, “What Ivanka Wants, Ivanka Gets”:

The man’s a mouse. … The poor man looks low T—like he might one day go the way of Bruce Jenner, now Caitlyn Jenner. (I love LGBTQ, so long as they come in peace.)

Not Jared’s fault. However, Jared’s bloody bad for the country, as well. But conservatives, being part of one tribe, must defend this nincompoop, rather than rejoice that the boring Ana Navarro is being bad, breaking with political propriety. Next, cons will force Navarro to apologize to the transgender Jared.

UPDATE (7/25): THREAD ON FACEBOOK.

Both these good people (Democrats like Gabbard and Webb) are in my book as must cabinet picks for Trump. The days that I imagined prez had the good sense to follow his promise and ignore the Manhattan La Familia are GONE.

Does Liberal Political Masochism Have A Sexual Component?

Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, Pop-Culture, Race, Religion, Sex

“On my knees for refugees” is a sign sported by the two insipid people in the tweet shared below.

Does this liberal political masochism have a sexual component? Look at these two liberal dolts. Their faces are lit up in kind of delirium. Sexual, maybe?

Prostrating themselves to The Other is almost a sexual experience for liberals; it appears to give them—and not to be indelicate—a kind of a rush.

An idea I expressed in “Are Liberals Turned-On By Turning The Other (Gluteus Maximus) Cheek?”

UPDATED (7/10): Solzhenitsyn On The West’s ‘Persisting Blindness Of Superiority’ (American Exceptionalism)

Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, Literature, Neoconservatism, Political Philosophy, Russia, The West

“But the persisting blindness of superiority continues to hold the belief that all the vast regions of our planet should develop and mature to the level of contemporary Western systems, the best in theory and the most attractive in practice; that all those other worlds are but temporarily prevented (by wicked leaders or by severe crises or by their own barbarity and incomprehension) from pursuing Western pluralistic democracy and adopting the Western way of life. Countries are judged on the merit of their progress in that direction. But in fact such a conception is a fruit of Western incomprehension of the essence of other worlds, a result of mistakenly measuring them all with a Western yardstick. The real picture of our planet’s development bears little resemblance to all this.”

In other words, American Exceptionalism. The West Doesn’t understand ‘other worlds.’

“A World Split Apart — Commencement Address Delivered At Harvard University, June 8, 1978.”

Disillusioned with the West, Solzhenitsyn returned to Russia, “leaving behind [what he perceived as a] dying civilization fatefully wedded to a democratic ideology.” In time, neocons and liberals rejected the great man, going on to adopt, instead, regime-changing, neocon, Russian dissidents.

… The West’s freedom, Solzhenitsyn declared … had degenerated into license, its media filled minds and souls with gossip and nonsense, its popular culture served only to coarsen and degrade, its people exhibited an unthinking sympathy for socialism and an inability to recognize evil.
… Overnight, those who had lionized Solzhenitsyn cast him into the outer darkness and adopted in his place the nuclear physicist and Western-oriented dissident Andrei Sakharov. A good and courageous man, Sakharov was a secularist and self-proclaimed socialist who had mastered the language—“democracy” and “human rights”—of Western liberalism. …
…Solzhenitsyn was [accused of being] a Russian nationalist and imperialist. In fact the great writer was a patriot who loved his country and expected others to love theirs; he explicitly repudiated nationalism and imperialism. More important, Mahoney recognizes that ‘a burning love for one’s motherland [is] compatible with humility before God and deference to a universal moral order.’

MORE. “Solzhenitsyn Wasn’t Western.”

UPDATE (7/10): FACEBOOK DEBATE IS HERE.

Comments Off on UPDATED (7/10): Solzhenitsyn On The West’s ‘Persisting Blindness Of Superiority’ (American Exceptionalism)

Written by on