I have seen and heard "journalists" whinge over the past few weeks about the "civil war within the Republican Party"...as if this was something new that only came up after Donald Trump did so well in polls. "Journalists" these days, especially the types you see at CNN, Canadian state television (CBC) and Fox are not very intelligent. As well, they are either, extremely young or have forgotten a lot of things that happened within living memory. Oooookaaaay! So, the short version.
-Republicans/conservatives in America have been at war with each other since the end of the cold war. Long story short, there was, on the one side, Charles Krauthammer, Paul Wolfowitz, (who forced the Iraq War on President Bush, a fact independently corroborated by Anti-Partisan Warfare Specialist Larry Clarke and Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Henry Hugh Shelton--both Clinton-era holdovers still in situ after 9/11--i.e. both people who have absolutely no reason to say anything positive about W., and who have every political motivation to say anything negative about him) Douglas Feith, Michael Ledeen, Richard Perle, Norman Podhoretz, Midge Dector, Irving Kristol, Willian Kristol and their Project For the New American Century, all of which wanted to engage the US military in hobbyist wars to forcibly democratise the rest of the world, a mission they shared with one time Canadian Liberal Party Leader Michael Ignatieff (which raises the question of "How 'conservative' could they really be?" a question recently re-raised by the fact that this lot are now backing Hillary.) Then, there was the loyal part of the Republican Party who held that America, at the end of the Cold War, was a complete nation that, in the words of then-Secretary of State John Quincy Adams' 1821 Fourth of July Address, did not need "to go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher of the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own." This loyal Right centred around Pat Buchanan--who, before 9/11, set out the loyal Right's principles and showed how they were consistent with those of General Washington and Alexander Hamilton while Krauthammer and Wolfowitz were vile aberrations from and betrayers of General Washington and Alexander Hamilton, in A Republic, Not An Empire--and around the folks over at The National Interest, before Pat Buchanan specifically set up The American Conservative as a loyal Right voice against the Wolfowitz wars of the last decade.
-There have ALWAYS been tensions within the Republican Party, dating back to the First World War when Bill McKinley protégé Republican Senator Robert La Follette and Congressman Charles August Lindbergh (father of aviation pioneer and Medal of Honour Charles Augustus Lindbergh) opposed former Republican President Theodore Roosevelt's collaboration with then-President Woodrow Wilson in entangling America in European affairs. (A brief aside, the sins of the father do not pass onto the children. President Theodore Roosevelt, like John C. Calhoun before him and Paul Wolfowitz after him, was rabily pro-war. His children Alice Roosevelt Longworth--who became a Republican kingmaker without the help of feminism--, General Theodore Roosevelt Junior and Colonel Archibald Roosevelt all opposed war as members of the America First Committee, alongside Charles Augustus Lindbergh.)
-In addition to the First World War-era schism within the Republican Party, there was an open revolt by Robert A. Taft and Barry Goldwater against the Eastern Establishment's capo de tutti capos Nelson Rockefeller during the 1950's and 1960's, something even extreme left, dumbed-down websites like Rational Wiki and Wikipedia acknowledge. So, when the boyosphere say "cuck" and think they have invented the hottest thing since sliced ka-ka, they, in reality, just ripped off the term "Rockefeller Republican" from Taft and Goldwater, the difference being that, unlike the boyosphere, neither Taft nor Goldwater ever advocated the legalisation of rape and would have been thoroughly repulsed by anyone who did.
Long story short, the only thing you are seeing in what "journalists" call "this sudden civil war within the Republican Party" is the fact that more and more individual Republicans and conservatives are now standing up to Rockefeller clone and Sheldon Adelson/National Endowment For Democracy puppet Marco Rubio by supporting either Donald Trump or Ted Cruz.
That being settled, let me turn to my main topic for today, the many forms of Resistance to social justice jihadism. I recently saw in the following ,between 28.00 and 1.10.00, a concise but superb recapitulation of the history of the German Resistance to Hitler given by Professor Peter Hoffmann, author of the biography of Oberst Claus Schenk Graf von Stauffenberg (played by Tom Cruise in Valkyrie) and of this comprehensive study of the German Resistance.
In the above brief overview, Professor Hoffmann talks, at points, about the little ways in which some (but, by no means, all) Germans chose to resist the National-Socialist regime, something he discusses in more detail from 3.20 to 4.00 in the following video.
I see some parallels between the third wave social justice jihadists and the National-Socialists and I see some parallels between the various resisters who opposed the National-Socialists and their counterparts who today oppose the third wave social justice jihadists. Before I go into that, some distinctions are in order to prevent Internet Page Three types from frothingly blurting out "Godwinismus!"
The third wave social justice jihadists are similar to the National-Socialists in that they seek to stamp out freedom of speech and replace it with their own dogma by seizing control of social media. They differ from the National-Socialists in that they do not seek to seize control of the government directly (they must have seen Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Charles Krauthammer and Sheldon Adelson rule by puppets and liked that model of doing things.) They also differ from the National-Socialists in that they do not seek to physically exterminate anyone as such. Instead, their end-goal in to bring to the entirety of the West German and Canadian laws dictating that admission to the boards of publicly-held/traded companies--from whose dividends many pension funds draw money to pay out checks to the retired--be based on genitalia instead of merit and experience alone.
It is entirely possible, as Sargon says in the video below, that Sarkeesian/Full McIntosh and Zoe Quinn do not exercise direct day-to-day operations in censoring social media and that they, instead, rely on sympathetic willing executioners to execute their Erdogan vision for social media.
So, then, how do we go about resisting Sarkeesian/Full McIntosh, Quinn, Leigh Alexander and the rest of the third wave social justice jihadists? The first step is recognising the limits of their power. In the first video above of Professor Hoffmann illustrating how individual Germans resisted the National-Socialists, he talks about the 1943 Rosenstraße incident wherein German women successfully engaged in a public demonstration, facing down Ordnungspolizei machine gunners, in order to protest the deportations of their Jewish husbands. The mere fact of the demonstration itself terrified Propaganda Minister and Berlin Gauleiter Joseph Goebbels into releasing the Jewish husbands of these German women. Parallel examples within the resistance to Sarkeesian et al abound. #GamerGate is one example, the widespread protest against the Melissa McCarthy Ghostbusters is another example, the creation and rise of FreezePeach as an alternative to Sarkeesian/Full McIntosh's Erdoganised Twitter is yet another example of open defiance of Sarkeesian/Full McIntosh and Quinn.
There are also more subtle forms of resistance that nevertheless show that, although Sarkeesian/Full McIntosh and Quinn control Twitter by proxy, they, much like Goebbels in 1943, have not succeeded in controlling the minds of everybody, including everybody on campus. For example, the people the violent, and now criminally charged, thug Melissa Click attacked as shown in the following video of Thunderf00t's
are actually student journalists who stood their ground against the SJW stormtrooper Click. These student journalists were not actively opposing Click in the way Sophie Scholl and the rest of the White Rose actively resisted the National-Socialists. However, the mere fact that they did not run away from the screeching Click, that they did stand their ground at first like the 1/24th, 2/24th and other elements of the British Army at Isandlwana is, in itself, an act of resistance since it shows that, although eventually forced out physically, they remained uncowed to the third wave social justice jihadists. It shows that, despite their massive inroads, the third wave social justice jihadists have not completely conquered the academy. This is not a surprise. Third wave social justice jihadism has been around a lot longer than people think.
A permutation of third wave social justice jihadism was present when I was first at university. To explain to you younglings how long ago that was, I was first at university when "dialing" a number on the telephone meant the actual act of working a dial (and involved parting ways with a hard-earned dime if you were in a public place) instead of just pressing buttons/a touchscreen, just like lowering car windows required effort from your arm, forearm and hand instead of just from a finger. This was in an epoch when "power steering" was overwhelmingly the domain of those who could successfully audition of the roles of "Hercules" and "Samson" instead of something that involved fluid dynamics which is now as standard as cup holders. The third wave social justice jihadists of that epoch did whinge on and on about oppression in universally required courses like anthropology and sociology (This was when the events of Ladies and Gentlemen, The Bronx Is Burning and Mad As Hell were recent memories, instead of being merely within lived memory.) Many of us were there because we had to be there, not because we chose to be there. So, we listened to what they said, gave them a "SIR, YES SIR!" in essay form, passed the class and then binned all the nonsense we heard, some going to parties, me going to my actual course of study, to which these third wave social justice jihadists propaganda re-education sessions masquerading as "university-level courses" were an ancillary impediment, like the pain of an injection of penicillin at the free clinic after a fun weekend.
To be clear on a personal note, I have been through university/college a couple of times in my life, the first time before the accident, the subsequent times after the accident as I was trying to rebuild something resembling a life. I picked up a lot of things about science (although of a distinctly sub-Calculus and Analytic Geometry, sub-Differential Equations level of understanding), management (which is how I know that foisting management on the military, policing, education and the health services makes as much sense as entering a Formula One Grand Prix in a front end loader and expecting a podium finish next to Lewis Hamilton and Jenson Button) and history, elements of all of which helped me in my active professional life. In other words, my post-secondary education experience spans roughly over a decade, with various interruptions.
In that roughly a decade worth of years in post-secondary education, I have consistently seen some variant of third wave social justice jihadism being prosyletised under the beard of "required courses." I am well aware that what I am about to say is anecdotal, and I am not going to generalise my observation to all campuses of the epoch or of today. However, in the roughly a decade worth of years of seeing various permutations of third wave social justice jihadism being preached on campuses, I have noticed that its gospels take root in only a handful of students in the class, and that most students do like I did and give an essay form of "SIR, YES SIR!" and then proceed to forget all about it once the grades/marks are posted and we do not have to touch that particular nonsense again. This anecdote of mine is consistent with the two student journalists in Thunderf00t's video mounting an Isandlwana against Click and her BlackLivesMatter/EmotionallyDisturbedStudents1950 mafia.
It is also consistent with another anecdote from my, to ape a third wave social justice jihadist phrase, "lived experience." Where I live, the local permutation of university third wave social justice jihadists recently did the following.
A year or two after the above depredations--in fact, during the time when #GamerGate was in full swing--I attended an evening guest lecture at a local university. It was late when the event ended. It was also winter, which meant it was dark and icy. I was unsure of my footing and walking very slowly. All of a sudden, a young woman, a university student by her looks and behaviour, saw me--and offered me her arm to help me get on solid footing. She saw that I was a male. She also saw that I was frail, stooped and slow. She did not laugh at my "male tears." Instead, she offered to help me who, according to Sarkeesian/Full McIntosh, Zoe Quinn and Leigh Alexander, is the Shia to her Sunni, the Serb to her Croat, the Szekler/Magyar/Hungarian to her Vlach/Romanian, the McCoy to her Hatfield. Yes, this was just one young female university woman. But, in that very real, very human instant, she did not react as Sarkeesian/Steph Guthrie dictated. She acted like a human being, which indicates that Sarkeesian and Steph Guthrie have not succeeded in turning every university student into a Cyberwoman or Cyberman. There are limits to the power of the third wave social justice jihadists.
Then, there is, as I noted in my previous entry, but which I shall reproduce here because good news is always worth repeating, Québec Minister for the Status of Women Lise Thériault's nuanced, yet clear, denunciation of third wave social justice jihadism: (her article ,my translation in brackets immediately after):
"Malheureusement, le féminisme est parfois présenté comme un combat mené par les femmes contre les hommes.
En ma qualité de vice-première ministre et de ministre responsable de la Condition féminine, je n’adhère pas à cette façon de voir les choses. C’est en référence à cette conception polarisante du féminisme que j’ai répondu à la question qui m’a été posée. "
[Unfortunately, feminism is sometimes presented as a combat led by women against men.
In my capacity as vice-premier and as Minister Responsible for the Condition of Women, I do not adhere to this way of seeing things. It is in reference to this polarising conception of feminism that I responded to the question that was asked of me.]
"Je crois qu’il importe de rappeler que dans une société libre et démocratique comme la nôtre, toutes et tous sont libres de penser et de concevoir la cause de l’égalité des sexes comme ils l’entendent.
Pour ma part, je le réaffirme, mon féminisme est égalitaire et rassembleur, il ne mise pas sur la confrontation, mais plutôt sur l’inclusion. Mon objectif est de rallier les hommes, car c’est ensemble que nous parviendrons à passer de l’égalité de droit à l’égalité de fait."
[I believe that it is important to remember that in a free and democratic society like ours, all are free to conceive of the cause of the equality of the sexes as they understand it.
For my part, I reaffirm, my feminism is egalitarian and uniting, it does not emphasise confrontation, but rather inclusion. My objective is to rally men, since it is together that we will reach to pass from equality in law to equality in fact.]
"Je réitère donc que je ne partage pas la vision de celles qui font du féminisme un combat contre les hommes. La division et la confrontation entre les femmes et les hommes ne servent les intérêts de personne.
À mon sens, au-delà de la rectitude politique et des étiquettes, ce qui compte d’abord et avant tout, c’est l’égalité entre les femmes et les hommes."
[I reiterate thus that I do not share the vision of these females who make of feminism a combat against men. The division and the confrontation between women and men will not serve the interests of anyone.
As far as I am concerned, political correctness and labels aside, what counts above all and before all, is equality between women and men.]
Mr. Owen recently declared that he said all he has to say about Sarkeesian/Full McIntosh in The Sarkeesian Effect. In fact, his recent videos include his music (like Tarja Turunen, he effortlessly switches from metal to 19th century orchestra music) and reviews of video games and movies. These videos themselves are acts of resistance as, despite the fact that he is no longer actively deconstructing Sarkeesian/Full McIntosh, Mr. Owen's tastes run counter to the formulaic propaganda they wish to foist on the entirety of humanity as the sole available means of entertainment. Consider the two recent videos of his below.
There is joy in Mr. Owen's voice, and that is a beautiful thing to hear. It is not something we saw much of in many of his previous videos deconstructing the boyosphere, the third wave social jihadists, the latter group including the external--and, of late, some of the internal--enemies of the adult industry. As well, Mr. Owen highlights the beauty of the rich texture of the pieces of art described in the above two videos, rich texture absent from third wave social jihadist pablum such as Gone Home and Depression Quest.
To be perfectly honest, Mr. Owen's review of Deadpool is superior to mine. He goes into depth on the filim's plot and character development, things that it never occurred to me to explore. Mr. Owen is deep like that. He always reminded me of Graf von Stauffenberg in his precise penetrating analyses and his moral clarity, so it is not a surprise that his profoundness carries over to his reviews of art forms. I, on the other hand, like Invasion of the Bee Girls and The Great Texas Dynamite Chase, which means that I do not have a problem with films wherein plot and character development are not the primary focus. I have no problem with films that do have substantial character development (such as Eli Cross' Corruption) or plot development (Eli Cross' Upload and Ren Savant's The 8th Day) or both (Morocco, Destry Rides Again, Broken Arrow, Notorious, Mirage, Dutch, Legends of The Fall, The Martian, The Big Short, Margin Call.) However, elegant character and plot developments are not prerequisites for me enjoying a film. I am satisfied with something along the lines of Ace Drummond. Perhaps this explains why I liked Deadpool in a way that I did not like the Hugh Jackman X-Men and Christopher Reeve Superman franchises. The latter two franchises were made years after the original comic books came out and starred new jacks who, to put it politely, were no Ace Drummond, and who went through the filims as if their rear posterior exit ports were in what Torq would call "materials condition Zulu," a problem the protagonist of Deadpool did not have--either figuratively or literally.
Long story short, a Jordan Owen video offers a depth and an insight far beyond what Sarkeesian/Full McIntosh, Zoe Quinn and Leigh Alexander want you to be allowed to experience, which makes supporting Mr. Owen an act of resistance.
Wooly and Mr. Bumblebee both still actively deconstruct both third wave social justice jihadists and the boyosphere in their videos, on top of being hilarious in their streams, particularly their SSTs. This, however, is an under-representation of their activity in resisting the third wave social justice jihadists. They have directed people towards the pro-Free Speech FreezePeach after Sarkeesian/FullMcIntosh went Full Erdogan on Twitter. Furthermore, much in the same way German resister Hans von Dohnányi helped several Jews flee to Switzerland in "Operation Seven," Wooly and Mr. Bumblebee help preserve the content of pro-Free Speech creators silenced by Sarkeesian/Full McIntosh's willing executioners on collaborationist social media platforms.
Babbling Brooke, like Wooly, is a mother of young children who makes time to resist the third wave social justice jihadists, just as Freya von Motlke was a mother who made time to resist the National-Socialists. In a manner akin to that of Sophie Scholl and the White Rose, she makes signs and jewelry opposing the third wave social justice jihadists.
Spinosaurus Kin is one of the new generation of Mens' Rights Activists who does not take his orders from Paul Elam and Dean Ismay. Unlike the Honeybadgers, he condemns the maximum leader of the boyosphere as evinced in the following video.
These are all people worth supporting. Giving them each a/some dollar(s) is an act of resistance against the third wave social justice jihadists.
Now, let me show, as I did in my review of The Sarkeesian Effect, that I am not an uncritical supporter of these folks. For one thing, many of them are atheists. I am not. Mr. Owen is a libertarian of the Ayn Rand school, and my views on economics and interests have far more in common with Alexander Hamilton and Otto Graf von Bismarck than they do with Ayn Rand. Wooly and Brooke are of Catholic origin, so I imagine that they do not share my views on the Vatican/the Scottish National Party (only they are far too polite to say so.)
Wooly and Mr. Bumblebee and I all agree that that policing as it is currently practiced in North America is grossly inept. From that point we part ways. Although I advocate Sir Frank Kitson and the late Colonel Ron Reid-Daly's technique of working with turned terrs, I, simultaneously do not have a problem with General Paul Aussaresses' methods of maintaining internal order--which tend to go even further than Loughgall and Gibraltar--should the "turned terr" carrot prove insufficiently effective. There is a precedent for such methods in North America as illustrated in Jean-Claude Bernheim's vaingloriously titled A Québec Death Squad. Although I reject Bernheim's arguments that such a squad actually existed (he takes multiple actions by multiple police forces, lumps them together, and from this alone proclaims the existence of a death sqaud) and that capitalism is the root of all evil (the recipients of Bernheim's alleged "death squad"'s lead were all violent robbers, not minorities with priors for mere possession or traffic warrants), I see the actions of certain Québec police forces of the epoch as simplifying things. Québec provincial police neutralising Richard "Le Chat" Blass--a violent robber who butchered thirteen innocent people by locking them in the Gargantua Bar and then setting it on fire--on the spot instead of Mirandising him was not a bad thing. As for Spinosaur Skin, I like what he says but I am not a Men's Rights Advocate, for reasons enunciated here.
As for Brooke, I see the building of a wall across the Rio Grande to be a passive and futile action. Walls can be scaled. A more useful action would be an Operation Dingo-type direct action (using technology unavailable to the Rhodesians in 1977) into Mexico to settle their affairs if they are unwilling to do so
That being said, extrapolating from what Professor Hoffmann said near the end of the first video above, even if you are uncertain that doing so will stop the third wave social justice jihadist onslaught, donating to Jordan Owen, Wooly and Mr. Bumblebee, Babbling Brooke and Spinosaur Skin constitutes an act of resistance, a chance for you to materially add your participation in the effort to show the world that we who live in 2016 are not all like the third wave social justice jihadists.