It’s A Trap! Lil’ Duval vs. The Tranny Taqiyyah

It’s Monday in America, which means that the various forces of the Kulturkampf pick up their weapons and renew their battle for the eyeballs of the nation.

A black comedian named Lil’ Duval appeared on the stereotypically black radio show, The Breakfast Club (grown men laughing at shit that isn’t funny and playing the dozens for 2 or more hours). In the course of the show, this exchange took place:

The conversation started with Donald Trump and the transgender military issue. Lil’ Duval dodges the issue at first. Charlemagne asks what would he do if he banged a tranny.

I don’t care! She dyin’!

You take away a person’s power of choice by not telling them

I mess with girls with kids, just to be sure.

Why can’t Negroes tell the difference between a vagina and an anus? I understand that education in America is not very good, but girls have two holes on the bottom side (there’s also a urethra down there, but you can’t really do anything with it unless you’re into pee).

Predictably, the tranny Twitter screeching could be heard for miles.

Laverne Cox:

“Some folks think it’s ok to joke about wanting to kill us,” Cox wrote on Twitter. “We have free speech but that speech has consequences and trans folks are experiencing the negative consequences with our lives. It hurts my spirit cause this isn’t funny. Our lives matter. Trans murder isn’t a joke.”

Janet Mock:

“This was not the first time that I’ve been misgendered, dismissed, told that I am an abomination, that I need medical help and God, et cetera, et cetera,” Mock wrote. “Boo boo: You are not original. Everything you’ve spewed has been said to me and my sisters before — hundreds of times. But there are deeper consequences to this casual ignorance.”

“Until cis people — especially heteronormative men — are able to interrogate their own toxic masculinity and realize their own gender performance is literally killing trans women, cis men will continue to persecute trans women and blame them for their own deaths,” Mock continued. “If you think trans women should disclose and ‘be honest,’ then why don’t you work on making the damn world safe for us to exist in the first place? The ‘I’d kill a woman if I found out’ rhetoric is precisely why so many women hold themselves so tight — the stigma and shame attached to our desires need to be abolished.”

Long story short, it’s your fault that trannies lie by omission that they have, or once had, a penis, because they are afraid of what might happen if they tell the truth.

Essentially, Tranny Taqiyyah.

What is Taqiyyah, you ask? From Encylopedia Britannica:

Taqiyyah, in Islam, the practice of concealing one’s belief and foregoing ordinary religious duties when under threat of death or injury. Derived from the Arabic word waqa (“to shield oneself”), taqiyyah defies easy translation. English renderings such as “precautionary dissimulation” or “prudent fear” partly convey the term’s meaning of self-protection in the face of danger to oneself or, by extension and depending upon the circumstances, to one’s fellow Muslims. Thus, taqiyyah may be used for either the protection of an individual or the protection of a community. Moreover, it is not used or even interpreted in the same way by every sect of Islam. Taqiyyah has been employed by the Shīʿites, the largest minority sect of Islam, because of their historical persecution and political defeats not only by non-Muslims but also at the hands of the majority Sunni sect.

Unlike Christians, who must profess their faith, even in the face of persecution or death (because God is truth), Muslims are permitted to lie if they have “prudent fear” or are scared of stuff. That’s the same argument Janet Mock is presenting in defense of trannies tricking men into having sex with them (how you can be afraid of a man’s fist, but actively seek his dick remains a mystery).

Most troubling is the deprivation of agency that Cox, Mock and others seem to advance. These transgender activists scream about their own agency from the rooftops, how they should be able to do what they want, when they want, where they want, without ramifications or even disapproval. Yet men that they desire are not, in their minds, permitted to reject them on the basis that they have, or once had, a penis. How people can demand “respect” while actively denying that others have the right to their own personal and sexual preferences, is baffling.

Actually it isn’t. The wonderful thing about “Social Justice”: Other people don’t have the right to tell you no, as long as you have enough oppression points.

P.S.

As always, I have insert this disclaimer, because people are stupid: No, trannies should not be killed, or beaten, or otherwise harmed for obtaining sex by fraud. But it makes them pieces of shit for doing so.

Hoes Gon Be Hoes Featuring Rose Dommu

Ordinarily, I would be gleeful in watching various drones of the Social Justice hive tear each other to pieces for lack of moral purity. I read this Feminist Kulturkampf hit piece and it just reminded me that Feminism is inherently anti-male, regardless of the male in question’s sexual peccadilloes or ideology.

I see it on my Facebook feed every couple of months: a gay man complaining about women in gay bars. Sometimes it’s a complaint about annoying bachelorette parties who harass and tokenize men who are simply trying to dance and hook up. Sometimes it’s a guy saying he doesn’t feel comfortable having sex at a sex party if there are women around. Sometimes it’s some older gay man saying, “There should be no fish allowed.” That is seriously a comment on saw on a Facebook post this week.

Freedom of association also includes freedom to disassociate. Homosexual men, if they don’t want heterosexual women around, should be able to exclude them from their events and venues.

I will never be upset that I am excluded from the local Klan rally because I lack the requisite skin color or political positions, or that I am excluded from the Feminist covens for the crime of having a penis and adamantly refuse to accept guilt for the wrongdoings of men who are not me.

Dear gay men, stop telling women they can’t be in gay bars.

What if the homosexual who owns the bar says he doesn’t want women in his bar? Fuck property rights? Fuck freedom of association? If only Feminists would, or could, make an argument against rights that had any depth to it. No, women’s demand for admission to homosexual bars is purely one of convenience.

I know this might surprise you, but in 2017, women can go anywhere we want to! And furthermore, we don’t need your approval to do it! When I see these kinds of discussions on social media, there are usually a few men who comment something like, “I love bringing my girls to the club!” Well, that’s nice, but not only do women not need your approval to be somewhere, we also don’t need you to take us anywhere. We know how to drive, get on the subway, flag down a cab, or download Uber.

Women, especially Feminists, regard the gynaceum as sacred and the andron as common property. They defend “women-only spaces” as inviolate, bastions of estrogenized safety against the barbarism of rapine male hordes.

Read a few Feminist defenses of women-only spaces:

Hannah Nathanson:

Member Natalie Guevara, a 30-year-old PR manager, tells me she was nervous about whether she’d feel cool enough when she first joined, ‘but all those anxieties melted away. What I like about The Wing is that it takes the pressure off [being in a male-dominated space] and having to be “on” all the time. It’s also a place where you can be unabashed in your need and desire to connect with other women.’

Want or need to connect with other homosexual men? Nah, you can do that just fine with a gaggle of drunk hens watching you like she’s on safari in the Pilanesburg National Park.

Patricia McFadden:

Women must be able to formulate and express their own ideas as individual women and as a constituency that is affected by patriarchal laws and practices in uniquely gendered ways—an experience which no man is open to and cannot experience for as long as patriarchy defines gendered relationships to power and privilege in their present form. And when men are in women’s spaces, women tend to react to their presence in intellectual and sexual ways. Men tend to intimidate most women; even the wimpiest male has an impact on the confidence of some women, and that is a cost we should not have to incur in our own spaces.

Because “men intimidate women” women need their own spaces. And because women make homosexual men uncomfortable to flirt and fuck and dance to terrible music, they don’t need their own space because MISOGYNY!

Brandy Sudyk

The right for any group — particularly if vulnerable and marginalized — to have their own autonomous spaces is a basic principle of social justice and critical to their well-being. Women’s freedom to share their experiences and thoughts, and to organize without the presence or interference of men — their oppressors — is a fundamental tenet of feminism and has been essential to our progress. Similarly, women who have common needs as a result of discrimination in the form of ableism, racism, homophobia, biphobia, poverty, etc., have the right to exclude other women in order to promote their own interests, since only they can fully understand their particular challenges and advocate for them. There will always be opportunities for such groups to support each other in solidarity and join together where their interests intersect.

That’s right, exclusion, especially of men, since we are oppressors, is a fundamental tenet of Feminism. Because homosexual men, regardless of their preference for cock over cunt, still have a cock, they fall firmly into the “oppressor” category, and are not entitled to exclude others autonomous spaces. Only women may exclude other women (usually for being non-Feminist).
And of course, no discussion of hypocritical Feminist horseshit would be complete without Clementine Ford:

The only conclusion I’ve been able to draw from this is that women, despite being constantly told what we MUST do to avoid danger, are actually not allowed to be in control of what those preventative actions might look like. Establish women’s only spaces and you’re discriminating against men. Talk openly about the risks you face (risks that men feel completely entitled to opine on) and you’re inflicting a perverse and paranoid view of masculinity on the world that’s ‘unfair’.

Discriminating against women is terrible and awful and should never be done. Discriminating against men, well, they can all fuck right off, gay or straight.

I understand that bachelorette parties can be annoying, that they do harass and tokenize gay men, and I would have nothing wrong with someone saying, “I don’t think bachelorette parties should come into gay bars and harass and tokenize gay men,” but saying that no women should be in gay bars is a false equivalency because not all women in gay bars are there to drink through penis straws and request that the DJ play “The Thong Song,” even though the DJ totally should play “The Thong Song.” Women in gay bars are not limited to bachelorettes, did you forget that queer women exist? Trans women? Straight women with gay friends or straight women who just like gay bars or drag queens? Well, yeah, you probably did.

This is hilariously tone deaf. When Feminists screech at men about rape culture, and anyone is not anti-male to the point of insanity states some variation of “not all men” Feminists scoff and roll their eyes.

Let’s play a little game.

The FBI estimates that there were 124,000 rapes in the United States in 2015. The population in that same year was 321,000,000. Divide that in half to get the number of men (160,000,000). Assuming that each rape was committed by a different man, you are dealing with less than 1/10th of 1% of all men alive in the United States. “But what about 1 in 4 women?” Fine, multiply it by four and you’re still dealing with 1/3rd of 1%.

Why are Feminists allowed to argue that exception disproves the rule when it is convenient to them to get into homosexual bars and then allowed to argue that the exception proves the rule when it comes to rolling their eyes at #NotAllMen?

And even if you did, requiring some kind of reason for a woman to be in a gay bar, or an excuse or some gay to supervise her, is misogyny. Questioning a woman’s right to be anywhere or do anything is misogyny. It’s perfectly fine to ask cis-hetero women to be more respectful of our spaces instead of being misogynists.

Yep, you read it right. Questioning a woman’s presence = Misogyny. How long is it going to take before Feminists start arguing that making eye contact with a woman is misogyny. And no, you don’t have to “ask” a woman to be respectful your spaces; you may demand that she respect the rules of your beautiful and ancient buttfucking culture, otherwise she can skip her ass on out of there.

The real t is that misogyny is a huge issue in the gay community, and this is one of the ways it’s most frequently enacted. If you can’t dance to some shitty house song or go down on a stranger just because a woman is in the room, you need to examine what that says about you, not call for that woman’s removal.

Notice that the author has out-of-hand dismissed even the idea that homosexuals have an interest in, or a right to, exclude heterosexual women. Homosexual men have no right to their own spaces, opinions, or even comfort if, at any point, it inconveniences some woman in her personal journey of hedonism or sight-seeing the poofs in their natural habitat.

You are wrong, she is right, and if you don’t give her what she wants, she will call you names until you comply (MISOGYNIST!).

And seriously, DJs, I want to hear “The Thong Song” more, ok?

Stop appropriating Negro culture, you cultural imperialist.

On an unrelated note, Strings did a decent cover of the Thong Song:

Understand, homosexual men, you are not safe from Feminism. Oh, they will repeat the typical Marxist blather about “solidarity” and “homophobia” but when you piss them off, they will play the “male oppressor” and “misogyny” cards faster than a game of Yu-Gi-Oh! Once they are done colonizing and decimating the fraternities, Final Clubs, Rotary Clubs, Boy Scouts, and any other male-space comprised of heterosexual men, it will be your turn.

Divida et impera.

Source

Hoes Gon’ Be Hoes Featuring Mehera Bonner

Marie Claire is truly starved for content if it is paying feminists to gripe about World War 2 movies. With every iteration of “How to Get a Beach Body” (Hint: Less Twinkies, More Burpees) successfully stripped bare of anything new or valuable like the electronics department of a Wal-Mart on Black Friday, the editors have decided to assail the public consciousness with a review of Dunkirk. And not even a good review. Discussion of the cinematography?

Nope.

How about the sound?

Nah.

Lighting?

Don’t be silly.

Editing?

Big, fat no.

Instead, this review will cover Harry Styles (because One Direction makes the girls go SQUEE!) and why World War 2 needs more stories about the WIMMINZ.

That movie was fucking bomb.”

That was one reaction I overheard after watching Dunkirk, Christopher Nolan’s new directorial gift to men, who are currently spending their time fervently ranking his movies, arguing about said rankings, and—presumably—wearing fedoras completely un-ironically. Or even worse, ironically.

“Hurr-durr! Stupid boys! Fedoras!”

The opening paragraph, at first blush, is absolute throwaway bullshit. But, upon reading it again, it reveals the tone that the Mehera intends to take with the reader, especially the male reader: “I am your superior, and if I dislike it, you have no valid reasons for liking because it doesn’t align with my personal preferences.”

The thing is, I just don’t think Dunkirk is a very good movie—if your definition of the word movie is “moving images held together by a plot.” Like, yes: Dunkirk is very well-made. I felt like I was going to vomit during it, because that’s how intense it was. And if your interests include riding a visual roller coaster called war, you will love it. But if you’re a fan of films with plots, Dunkirk doesn’t play that game. It’s as if Christopher Nolan (sorry, “Nolan”) plucked out the war scene from a script, and was like “let’s just make this part extra long and call it a movie, lol.”

Then Christopher Nolan accomplished his stated goal as he said he was trying to capture the intensity, the fear, and the uncertainty of the actual rescue at Dunkirk. He actually explains this in several interviews, one of which is reproduced here.

But please, feel free to make up what you IMAGINE Chris Nolan thought, rather than take him at his word.

The film, in case you aren’t already aware due to the endless critical musings devoted to it, is about the real life battle of Dunkirk—where British and Allied troops were rescued by civilian boats and evacuated. It’s a story worthy of being told and re-told, and I really enjoy war movies in general, but still—actual stuff needs to happen. Stuff other than scenes of men burning in oil-covered water, ships sinking, and bodies drowning. If you want to argue that the non-stop violent intensity of the film was the point, and that we should feel fully immersed in the war like we’re living it ourselves—I present Harry Styles.

The One Direction band member did a surprisingly impressive job in what turned out to be a pretty major role, but I refuse to believe it’s possible for any viewer with even a semblance of pop-culture knowledge not see him and immediately go “OMG, it’s Harry Styles.” Much like Ed Sheeran’s cameo in Game of Thrones, having a pop star casually show up in a film will inevitably remove the audience from the narrative and ground them back in reality. Harry Styles is a constant reminder to the viewer that the movie isn’t real, while the entire excuse for the film’s intense and admittedly-impressive cinematography is to convince the viewer that they’re right there in it. You can’t have your Harry Styles cake and eat it too.

What exactly do you imagine was happening at Dunkirk? It was 338,000 British MEN who had been thoroughly demoralized by the German military, huddled on the beaches, waiting for the Luftwaffe to come and rain fiery death on their heads or for the Panzers to drive them into the English Channel.

It is telling that the author does not view men struggling against a superior foe, suffering, and dying, as “actual stuff”; the Battle of Dunkirk does not need a romantic subplot where Hollywood-homely girl swept off her by a young, male model soldier who she never sees again because he dies in war (Yay! Male disposability!). Dunkirk portrayed what the actual event was: a desperate and nearly hopeless battle for survival. For the men and boys on the beach, staring at the White Cliffs of Dover, it wasn’t about politics, or morals, or good, or evil; it was about getting back home in one piece.

Speaking of boys, who exactly do you think was fighting World War 2? The price of war is always paid with the wealth of men too old to fight and the blood of men too young to know better. Despite the author’s inability to contain her fangirl squealing at the sight of a skinny, beardless boy who can allegedly sing, Harry Styles is exactly the type who would have had a rifle put in his hands and told to go fight and die for Queen and Country.

 

But my main issue with Dunkirk is that it’s so clearly designed for men to man-out over. And look, it’s not like I need every movie to have “strong female leads.” Wonder Woman can probably tide me over for at least a year, and I understand that this war was dominated by brave male soldiers. I get that. But the packaging of the film, the general vibe, and the tenor of the people applauding it just screams “men-only”—and specifically seems to cater to a certain type of very pretentious man who would love nothing more than to explain to me why I’m wrong about not liking it. If this movie were a dating profile pic, it would be a swole guy at the gym who also goes to Harvard. If it was a drink it would be Stumptown coffee. If it was one of your friends, it would be the one who starts his sentences with “I get what you’re saying, but…”

Every war in human history has been dominated by male soldiers of varying degrees of bravery. A sliver of women have ever had the desire to fight in wars (loyalty is not in women’s evolutionary interests) and even fewer have any aptitude for combat in close quarters, which was the majority of wars until the last century. Yes, it is only in Wonder Woman and other similar works of fiction that you will see a model-thin female with flawless skin trapesing around a battle wearing a bustier with matching magical jewelry and imposing her will on men.

And the author doesn’t like because of “the packaging”, “the general vibe”, “the tenor” all of this being surplus verbiage that really means “MUH FEELZ!!” And any attempt to counter “THE FEELS” with reason or evidence makes you a poopy-head…I mean a “pretentious man.”

I guess congratulations are in order for Nolan managing to unite high-brow male critics and very annoying people on Twitter under a common bromance, but to me, Dunkirk felt like an excuse for men to celebrate maleness—which apparently they don’t get to do enough.

There’s never a bad time to celebrate maleness.

Fine, great, go forth, but if Nolan’s entire purpose is breaking the established war movie mold and doing something different—why not make a movie about women in World War II?

It’s already been made.

800px-Ilsa_she_wolf_of_ss_poster_02.jpg

And never was there a more accurate depiction of women in film.

I kid, I kid.

Here, you can have “Ladies Courageous” too.

Screen_shot_Ladies_Courageous.png

It’s up to giant powerhouse directors like Nolan to tell them, which is why Dunkirk feels so basic.

And at last we come to the demand. Mehera Bonner demands that Chris Nolan use his notoriety and power, the fruits of a 30 year career in the film industry, to do what she wants because…Feminism. And if he doesn’t do it, why, she will call him names and insult him and his work.

I hope Chris Nolan collapses in tears and has to console himself by drying his eyes with his pile of Batman money.

It’s a summer war movie. It’ll make you fear for the future and pray that we never fight again. You might get kind of sick. If you’re like me, a random man will come up to you after and explain why you’re wrong for disliking it. But this war movie isn’t special. At the end of the day, it’s like all the rest of them.

So long as there are governments, there will be wars. On rare occasion, wars are justifiable. The greatest lesson to learn is not that war is a terrible, calamitous proposition that profits a few at that expense of many, but that no man should waste his valuable time explaining things to women. When Mehera says “I don’t like things!” you smile, pat her on the head, and go on about your business.

Source

How to be a good Nazi in 8 easy steps

1. Make a Firm Commitment to Democracy…At First

After the Beer Hall Putsch, the NSDAP was in shambles and the subject of ridicule among the German people who were then drunk on cheap American loans. While Adolf Hitler was in prison in 1924, he explained to Nazi financier and fundraiser, Kurt Ludecke:

“When I resume active work it will be necessary to pursue a new policy. Instead of working to achieve power by armed coup, we shall have to hold our noses and enter the Reichstag against the Catholic and Marxist deputies. If outvoting them takes longer than outshooting them, at least the result will be guaranteed by their own constitution. Any lawful process is slow . . . Sooner or later we shall have a majority – and after that, Germany.”

1923 had taught the Nazis an important lesson: “Armed struggle” might be the masturbatory fantasy of Marxists everywhere, but the average person has little taste for perpetual, violent revolution. The Spartacist coup launched by the Communist Party of Germany was still fresh in the minds of the German people and they remained clamorous for peace and prosperity.

2. Be A Great Community Organizer With A Big Tent Philosophy

The first step was to secure the party’s finances. In 1925, the number of dues-paying members of the NSDAP was 27,000. By 1929, it was 178,000. Not bad in an era where it was impossible to spam the electorate with obnoxious fundraising emails.
In keeping with the new policy, Hitler restructured the NSDAP to mirror the political structure and social structure of Weimar Germany. Each of the Reichstag districts had an gauleiter personally appointed by Hitler. The districts were subdivided into Kreises, each led by a kreisleiter. The smallest subdivision was an Ortsgruppe.

As the famous Democrat Party leader, Tip O’Neill, once said, “all politics is local.”

Additionally, the NSDAP organized a state-within-state, appointing its own officials responsible for coordinating Nazi policy on law, agriculture, commerce, labor, transportation, culture, engineering, foreign affairs, etc. In 1936, after he was installed as Chancellor, Adolf Hitler revealed the purpose behind having such an intricate organization before policymaking power was ever acquired.

that it is not enough to overthrow the old State, but that the new State must previously have been built up and be practically ready to one’s hand. . . . In 1933 it was no longer a question of overthrowing a state by an act of violence; meanwhile the new State had been built up and all that there remained to do was to destroy the last remnants of the old State – and that took but a few hours.

This NSDAP innovation of a “Shadow Government”, ready to be deployed by the opposition, would be implemented in Britain after the war by Churchill opponent Hugh Gaitskell of the Labour Party in 1955.

And of course, the individual special interest groups could not be neglected. The NSDAP created organizations for adolescent men of 15 to 18, the Hitler Youth. For boys, there was the Deutsches Jungvolk. For the women, there was the N.S. Frauenschaften. For the girls, there was the Bund Deutscher Maedel. Other groups and occupations had separate organizations under the NSDAP umbrella, such as lawyers, doctors, teachers, bureaucrats, intellectuals, and artists.

3. Never Let A Crisis Go To Waste

All that serves to precipitate the catastrophe . . . is good, very good for us and our German revolution.”

– Gregor Strasser, NSDAP politician

Three weeks after the death of German financial wizard Gustav Stresemann who had moved heaven and earth to put the Weimar Republic on track to paying off its war reparations, the Great Crash of 1929 happened. Like a partygoer waking up after a night of binge drinking, the world had awoken up from a binge of cheap credit and the American lenders were demanding repayment of loans made to Germany. Millions of Germans were thrown out of work. Millions of unemployed, disaffected young men were looking for some hope of a stable future. (Sound familiar yet?)

The NSDAP had that ever-ready panacea of all political ills and misfortunes that result from the poor political choices of the electorate: Blame someone else and demand the keys to the state. The NSDAP propaganda helpfully pointed out these hidden enemies: The enemies who defeated and subjected Germany to the Treaty of Versailles, the Marxist rabble-rousers stirring up trouble in the streets and the unions, and the greedy bankers and industrialist who profited from the German people’s misery (especially the Jewish bankers and industrialists).

It seemed to have worked well. In 1928, the NSDAP received 810,000 votes and 12 seats. By 1930, it had6,409,600 votes and 107 seats. Practically overnight, the NSDAP went from the ninth-largest party in Germany, to the second. However, they were shut out of the ruling government by a coalition of the Social Democrats, As the Great Depression deepened and German unemployment grew from The next election in 1932 saw the NSDAP seize the Reichstag with over 13 million votes and 230 seats.

As the world would soon learn, elections, with over 80% voter turnout, have consequences.

4. Accept Tribute From Wealthy Industrialists While Smearing Them Publicly

The hallmark of powerful people is knowing how to stay close to, and in the good graces of, people of equal or greater power. In 1930, the NSDAP star was rising and the captains of industry were lining up to pay tribute to the new German Caesar named Adolf Hitler and his Nazi legionnaires. By this time, the S.A. and the S.S. were larger than the German army, so Hitler had a lot of mouths to feed. NSDAP propagandists Gregor Strasser, Joseph Goebbels, and Gottfried Feder publically denounced the moneyed industrialists whose greed had betrayed Germany. In private, Adolf Hitler allayed their fears and reassured them cooperation with the soon-to-be Nazi government meant the preservation of their power and wealth.

There are no exact figures as to how much the business interests paid to the NSDAP to keep their industrial fiefdoms, but whatever it was appeared to have worked in their favor for at least awhile.

5. Rock The Vote

Now it will be easy to carry on the fight, for we can call on all the resources of the State. Radio and press are at our disposal. We shall stage a masterpiece of propaganda. And this time, naturally, there is no lack of money.”
– Joseph Goebbels, February 3, 1933

There is a liberal principle of office-seeking: Let the office seek the man, and not the man seek the office. Men who are anxious to fill offices are not best-fitted to fill them.

A good Nazi has no time for that nonsense. Hitler, following a legal maneuver that allowed him to become a German citizen in time to run for President of Germany in 1932, campaigned like a madman. The Nazis hung millions of posters, distributed millions of pamphlets and newspapers, and held thousands of meetings throughout Germany. Hitler, thanks to the high-tech invention of the charter plane, held 3 to 4 rallies per day.

The office went to Hindenberg, with a clear majority, but only after a second election. However, the 85-year-old Hindenberg lacked the vitality to effectively govern and the newly minted Nazi Reichstag made clear that they intended to be “ungovernable” by anyone but Hitler. And they would get their wish when Adolf Hitler was sworn in as Chancellor of Germany at noon on January 30, 1933.

6. Use Government Power to Silence and Harass Your Enemies

Restrictions on personal liberty, on the right of free expression of opinion, including freedom of the press; on the rights of assembly and association; and violations of the privacy of postal, telegraphic and telephonic communications; and warrants for house searchers, orders for confiscations as well as restrictions on property, are also permissible beyond the legal limits otherwise prescribed.
– Decree for the Protection of the People and the State

The NSDAP wasted little time in securing its political power. The new Chancellor banned Communist meetings and newspapers. Social Democrat rallies were broken up and members publically beaten of the S.A . Hermann Goering, Reichsstatthalter of Prussia, ordered police to raid the Communist Party headquarters in Berlin (most of its members fled by this time).

Marinus van der Lubbe, a feeble-minded Dutch Communist and serial arsonist, started the Reichstag fire on February 27, 1933, for which the Nazis speedily tried and beheaded him. The fire was grounds for the Nazis to push for the signing of the Decree for the Protection of the People and the State on February 28, suspending civil liberties and permitting Nazi officials to impose death sentences for a variety of offenses.

7. Use Journalism Is A Public Service…to Protect the Political Narrative

In this matter the Eher Verlag, together with publishing concerns owned or controlled by it, expanded into a monopoly of the newspaper publishing business in Germany . . . The party investment in these publishing enterprises became financially very successful. It is a true statement to say that the basic purpose of the Nazi press program was to eliminate all the press which was in opposition to the party.
– Max Amann

Once the Communists and Socialists had been sufficiently chastised or exiled, the NSDAP turned its attentions on newspapers and radios. October 4, 1933, the government passed the Reich Press Law. The law declared that journalism was a “public vocation.” And as we know, those who accept the mantle of “public service” must submit to public control. And because the NSDAP represents the voice of the public…you get the idea. The law placed German citizenship requirements on employment, barred Jews from the industry, and placed subject-matter restrictions on content.

The Berliner Tageblatt, the Frankfurter Zeitung, and the Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung, were all allowed to survive after divesting themselves of any unfortunate Jewish ownership interests and staff. The surviving Berlin newspaper editors were required to personally attend Joseph Goebbels, now Minister of Propaganda, and receive instruction on what they would and would not print, how it would be written, and how it would be delivered. And the press eagerly prostituted themselves to Nazi truth in the name of their survival.

8. Seize Control of the Schools Through the Federal State

When an opponent declares, ”I will not come over to your side,’ I calmly say, ’Your child belongs to us already . . . What are you? You will pass on. Your descendants, however, now stand in the new camp. In a short tune they will know nothing else but this new community.’
– Adolf Hitler, November 6, 1933

The NSDAP quickly took control of the schools by two prongs of attack: seizing the teachers and seizing the youth. Teachers, from kindergarten to the university, were legally required to join the National Socialist Teachers’ League. The subsequent Civil Service Act of 1937 required teachers to be “the executors of the will of the party-supported State.” Male teachers were required to have been members of the S.A., the Labor Service, or the Hitler Youth. Additionally, all teachers were required to attend “observation camp” where Nazi psychologists assessed them for “political reliability” before they could receive a license to teach.

Schools and universities that had once been controlled by the states were brought under the purview of the Minister of Education, who had the power to appoint rectors, deans, student union leaders, and lecturers’ union leaders. The Nazis also introduced courses in Rassenkunde (racial science). The University of Berlin offered 25 courses in this “burgeoning” field. Going one step further, the Nazified academics of Germany perverted the natural sciences by prefixing them with German and teaching them as a sub-field of “racial science.”
Compare and contrast:

”German Physics? ’But,’ it will be replied, ’science is and remains international.’ It is false. In reality, science, like every other human product, is racial and conditioned by blood.”
– Professor Philipp Lenard of Heidelberg University

“Modern Physics is an instrument of [world] Jewry for the destruction of Nordic science . . . True physics is the creation of the German spirit . . . In fact, all European science
is the fruit of Aryan, or, better, German thought.”
Professor Rudolphe Tomaschek, director of the Institute of Physics at Dresden

On the youth side, the NSDAP seized control of the German Youth Association, performed a shotgun wedding between it and the Hitler Youth, and banned all non-Nazi youth organizations. Training followed a strict line for boys to be admitted into the Hitler Youth, and later, the Labor Service or Army. The girls followed a similar path, although they passed into the Bund Deutscher Maedel rather than the Hitler Youth. Parents who attempted to withhold their children from the Nazis’ compulsory educational program were subjected to imprisonment.

That’s the list. Hope you enjoyed it.

The Democrats Offer “A Better Deal” That’s Just More of the Same

Today, the shambling husk known as the Democrat Party has revealed that it has a plan to counter the Trumpocalypse, which dashed their hopes, dreams, and ambitions of stamping its collectivist boot on the face of the American people forever. They refer to it as “A Better Deal.” In reality, it is more of the same bureaucratic command economy that has been the signature of Democrat rule for nearly a century.

Democratic leaders believe they lost to President Donald Trump partly because voters don’t know what the party stands for. So they’re trying to rebrand themselves with a new slogan and a populist new agenda as they look ahead to the 2018 midterms.

The fatal conceit of Democrats is that there is never a problem with their policies, but their publicity. They conclude, wrongly, that if the public votes against them, it’s not because there is any defect in what they do, it’s just that the electorate was too stupid to understand their brilliance.

It’s called “A Better Deal” and House and Senate Democratic leaders are rolling it out Monday afternoon in Berryville, Virginia. They’re intentionally traveling outside the Beltway, and into the district of one of the GOP House members they hope to defeat next year, Barbara Comstock.

Have the Democrats learned their lesson after the Jon Ossoff debacle in Georgia? Oh, the Democrats tried to spin it as a “win” because they got within 6 percent of Karen Handel. The problem? Democrats had to spend $30 million to GET that 6 percent loss.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California, along with other top House and Senate Democrats, are making the presentation after months of internal debate and analysis of polling and focus groups.

God forbid that Schumer and Nancy Pelosi actually leave the Democrat cloister of wisdom and talk to some actual voters. But then, the voters would tell them the same thing they said via the 2016 election: We want jobs, we want prices to go down, we want immigration (legal and illegal) halted, we want the debt paid down, we want the foreign wars ceased.

Democrats think of themselves as the party of working people and were surprised when Trump was able to steal working-class voters from them. They subsequently figured out that voters don’t know what the party stands for, and the new effort is aimed at changing that.

If Democrats think of themselves as the party of working people, then they have bought their own hype because that’s all the “party of working people” ever was: HYPE. The Democrats are the party of unions who enrich themselves at working people’s expense. They are the party of academic sophists who enrich themselves at the public’s expense. They are the party of corporate financiers who enrich themselves at the nation’s expense. But the Democrats are not the party of “working people.”

Schumer acknowledged on Sunday that Democrats were partially to blame for the American people not knowing what the party stands for.
“When you lose an election with someone who has, say, 40 percent popularity, you look in the mirror and say what did we do wrong? And the number one thing that we did wrong is we didn’t have — we didn’t tell people what we stood for,” Schumer said on ABC’s “This Week.”

Oh, Chuck. The problem is, you told the people EXACTLY what you stood for: You are anti-Republican, pro-social justice, pro-feminist, pro-illegal immigrant, pro-war, pro-debt, and pro-union. And the people heard you loud and clear.

The full title of the agenda is “A Better Deal: Better Jobs, Better Wages, Better Future.” (After an earlier and incomplete version leaked on Thursday, Twitter users mocked the similarity to the slogan for Papa John’s pizza, “Better Ingredients, Better Pizza.”)

And just think: Some overpaid PR hack probably made over $100,000 to come up with that slogan for the Democrats.

“The Democratic Party’s mission is to help build an America in which working people know that somebody has their back,” say documents accompanying the roll-out.
There are three overarching goals: raising wages, lowering costs for families, and giving working Americans better skills for the 21st century economy.
Detailed planks will be rolled out over time. On Monday, three are being unveiled:
—Lowering prescription drug prices. Suggestions include a new agency that could investigate drug manufacturer price hikes, and they would allow Medicare to negotiate directly for the best drug prices.

Another federal bureaucracy? To be funded out of public debt? And staffed with well-connected Ivy League boys and girls whose mommies and daddies are Democrat donors? I can’t wait to see how that turns out.

—Cracking down on corporate monopolies. Democrats would enact new standards to limit large mergers, and create a new consumer competition advocate.

I’m glad to see that the Democrats have finally repudiated the mantra of “too big to fail.” I might be wrong, but aren’t there already a dearth of anti-trust laws that could be applied to corporations RIGHT NOW. But then, they would probably stop donating to the Democrats if Democrats actively pushed to enforce the existing anti-trust laws.

—Creating millions more jobs. The agenda includes proposals for expanding apprenticeships and providing a tax credit to employers to train and hire new workers.

And this is why the tax code is over 60,000 pages. The U.S. tax code is not about collecting revenue. If it was, it would be, at most, 20 pages. The U.S. tax code is a handbook of social engineering, to try and control the economy by controlling the actions of the people who make up the economy.

Democrats hope to make gains in next year’s midterm elections, and perhaps even flip the 24 GOP-held seats necessary to regain the majority in the House.
Yet they are mostly playing defense in the Senate where 10 Democrats are trying to retain seats in states won by Trump, including Republican strongholds like West Virginia, Missouri and North Dakota. Party strategists say that for most Senate candidates, in particular, a national party message has little value and instead each candidate must fight on their own terms and issues.

Democrats who are not privy to the inner sanctum of the national party realize that Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi are secure in their coastal political fortresses of New York and California respectively. Democrats in the flyover states understand that the ground has shifted underneath their feet and that if they want to keep their cushy political sinecures, they have to separate themselves from the DNC and the DCCC.
Source

The Delusion of Male Privilege and The Eternal IOU

A nearly 30-year-old term is slowly slithering its way out of Feminist academia into the vulgar argot: male privilege. Fortunately, it has hit some snags along the way, as its use as caused a fierce battle between the various participants of the Oppression Olympics in that eternal game of “who has the heterosexual white male oppressed the most?”

“Male privilege” is just another weapon in the Feminist sophistry arsenal. It’s purpose is to create a sense of guilt in the target and desire to comply with the Feminist so that the negative emotional state may be removed.

Definition of Male Privilege

The origin of the idea of male privilege may be a relatively new term, but it is an idea that originates in first wave feminism. In 1869, Elizabeth Cady Stanton dropped a turd in the Suffragist punch bowl when she allied with famous entrepreneur and racist George Francis Train (no, he was not a “suspected white supremacist”; Train openly argued that white women should vote and black people should not) to finance her newspaper and a series of speeches on behalf of (White) women’s suffrage.
Suffragists (of which Frederick Douglass was one) held a meeting to discuss this problem and what should be done about it. Douglass argued that the abolitionist-suffragist alliance should focus its efforts in Negro suffrage to protect their interests against the defeated, but unbroken, power of the former slaveowners. Susan B. Anthony, a friend and mentee of Stanton, said the following against Douglass in defense of Stanton:

Mr. Douglass talks about the wrongs of the negro; but with all the outrages that he to-day suffers, he would not exchange his sex and take the place of Elizabeth Cady Stanton.
– Susan Brownell Anthony, May 12, 1869

Stanton was the daughter of Daniel Cady, a Congressman and New York Supreme Court justice. She was indulged beyond the standard of women of her own time, as her father paid for her to be educated in classical literature, foreign languages, mathematics, and sciences. She married Henry Stanton, New York State Senator, attorney, and journalist. Meanwhile, Frederick Douglass had to teach himself how to read in secret. He escaped to freedom then fled the United States for Ireland to avoid being returned to slavery. Hardly seems like a contest.

Anthony’s statement is absurd on its face. But it is such an idea that gives life to the game of “more oppressed than thou” that Feminists have played for the past half-century. “We are the most oppressed people in the room, and if you are a ‘good’ person, you’ll do what we want.” This plays very well in nations with Christian traditions that wrongly link suffering with sanctity and that self-destructive altruism is virtuous.

In 1988, a Feminist “scholar” by the name of Peggy McIntosh took the next leap in the thinking Susan B. Anthony and unveiled the concept of “male privilege” and its partner “white privilege.”

Through work to bring materials from women’s studies into the rest of the curriculum, I have often noticed men’s unwillingness to grant that they are overprivileged, even though they may grant that women are disadvantaged.

Maybe because men are not willing to engage in false generalizations about the lives of men they are not aware of.

My schooling gave me no training in seeing myself as an oppressor, as an unfairly advantaged person, or as a participant in a damaged culture.

This is the shift in tactics between the “Civil Rights Movement” and “Social Justice.” The Civil Rights activists appealed to the “goodness” of citizens to live up to their own professed social morals of liberty and equality before the law. In Social Justice, there is no appeal to goodness but a demand that people (especially males and whites) accept and publically confess their guilt as oppressors and sinners against “Intersectionality”, regardless of what they have done or not done personally.

I have met very few men who truly distressed about systemic, unearned male advantage and conferred dominance.

Few men are distressed about “systemic, unearned male advantage” because most men live in a world in which they possess no advantage and are conferred no dominion. The majority of men are held to the standard of “he who does not work, neither shall he eat.”

The problem with “male privilege” is that formed out of imagination and conjecture. It is sin without absolution and guilt without correction. But just like original sin and damnation are useful tools to extract tithes from gullible parishoners, male privilege is a useful tool for Feminists to extract time and resources from gullible men.

Application of Male Privilege

The typical application of “male privilege” follows a predictable pattern in any opinion piece or dialogue concerning the topic: A Feminist complains about something, then loudly proclaims your guilt and moral inferiority as a beneficiary of “male privilege”, and finally demands concessions and services in order to temporarily remove the psychological pressure she has applied in the form of guilt.

Rinse and repeat as is needed.

Complaint-Pressure/Guilt-Demand. Three steps.

Let’s apply to model to some examples:
Nian Hu, a Senior at Harvard and “government concentrator” (may God have mercy on us all), wrote this for the Harvard Crimson:

Recently, Saturday Night Live produced a skit called “Girl at a Bar” where a woman sitting alone at a bar is repeatedly approached by self-proclaimed feminist men—“not gross guys trying to hit on you or anything”—who make it clear, through their pussyhats and their feminist T-shirts, that they are not one of those “skeazy guys” at a bar. However, after successfully convincing the woman of their feminist credentials, these men use the opportunity make a sexual advance. And when she gently rebuffs their advances, these men become angry, calling her a “bitch” and complaining that “it’s not fair.”
This is the “woke misogynist” that Nona Willis Aronowitz wrote about. This is the self-proclaimed feminist man who proudly attends the Women’s March and reads Judith Butler and casually throws around terms like “gender performativity,” but who also harasses, talks over, belittles, and sexually assaults women.

The Complaint. A fake man on a fake TV show did a fake thing that hurt her feelings. Wah, wah, wah.

What these male feminists fail to realize is that, as men, they will always be oppressors. No matter how many feminist marches they attend or how much feminist literature they read, they are not exempt from perpetuating the subordination of women. Their support of the women’s movement does not erase the fact that they, on an individual level, are capable of harassing, assaulting, or silencing women—nor that, on a structural level, they continue to benefit from a system that establishes male dominance at the expense of women. And even though male allies may genuinely feel guilty, they will continue to benefit from male privilege. The patriarchy does not offer special exceptions for men with good intentions. Men, as a class, are culpable for misogyny, and male allies are no different and no less capable of demeaning women through their words, actions, and complicit silence.

The Application of Psychological Pressure via Guilt. You are evil and bad and wrong. Sure you’ve never called a woman a bitch to her face (you don’t know what you’re missing out on if you haven’t). But it doesn’t matter because you have penis, and that means that you could, at any time, jump up and harass and assault and silence women.

It’s sort of like the scene in the Matrix when Morpheus is explaining the Matrix. Anyone can transform into an Agent and “harass, assault, or silence women” at any time.

We are all the Woman in the Red Dress, according to Feminists.

As for those men who are not threatened by the idea of losing power, who are genuinely committed to social justice—they understand that allyship is not a badge they can proudly wear and hide behind, but rather a difficult task they must undertake everyday. They understand that allyship entails consciously ceding space to marginalized communities, listening to women’s voices, and willingly giving up the power that they and their ancestors have enjoyed for centuries.

I have faith that some men can, in time, become helpful—never integral—allies to women in their fight for liberation. But until then, beware the male feminist.

The Demand. Swear allegiance to Feminism and Social Justice, accept “ally” status (useful idiot status is more appropriate) and perhaps, one day, Feminists MIGHT absolve you of your ancestral guilt.

But probably not.

Let’s try another one.

Jessica Samakow writes for the Huffington Post:

It wasn’t yet 10 a.m. on Sunday when a man sitting behind me on a Giants Stadium-bound bus cracked open two Bud Lights and handed one to his friend. “To Trump!” he said, raising his morning beer. They “cheersed,” and I leaned in, curious to hear where this toast was going.

I almost choked on my bagel. My boyfriend squeezed my hand to express his horror (or to stop me from lunging at Trumpboi behind me, I can’t be sure). We exchanged knowing glances, but we didn’t have to have a conversation about what we’d just heard. We had already spent weeks in October talking about how pervasive yet unremarkable sexual harassment is in almost every woman’s life. We’d already counted the reasons women don’t report minor (or even major) instances of assault. He’d already heard me scream at the TV during the debates about how I’m about 1 billion times more likely to be harassed than to be a victim of a terror attack, a so-called “real issue.” We talked more about rape culture in three weeks than we had in three years.

The Complaint: Trump. Rape culture! (another Feminist hobgoblin for another time). Wah, wah, wah.

Those conversations followed a year of discussions we’d had about gender-based attacks on Hillary Clinton, about the cruel way society treats ambitious women who seek positions of power, and the way some men are truly terrified of losing power in the face of evolving gender roles.

I’m not the first to point out that the Trump campaign did us a favor by exposing the deeply rooted misogyny that still runs rampant in our country. Suddenly, during a presidential election, conversations that were once relegated to feminist corners of the internet became the conversations dominating mainstream media headlines. On Tuesday November 8, the country proved its misogyny runs deeper than most of us could have ever imagined. We chose to elect a man who has admitted to sexual assault over the most qualified candidate in history, who happens to be a woman. And to be a woman who has to come to terms with that fact is deeply, deeply painful.

The Application of Psychological Pressure via Guilt. Hillary Clinton, an active participant in dirty, hardball politics, was attacked! And YOU should feel guilty about that! America is full of “deep rooted misogyny”! And YOU should feel guilty about that!
God-dammit! Why won’t you just feel guilty about it?!

So, to the men who had any sort of eye-opening moment about the realities of sexism over the last year… Here’s what American women need from you now:
Remember 2016 when you’re voting in local elections. We can’t forget how the Republican party laid the foundation for Trump’s misogyny to thrive.
Remember 2016 when you witness (or perpetuate) rape culture. Call out men who catcall. Stop asking why women don’t report assault. Stop sending vulgar Tinder messages. Question your male friends when they make a comment that demeans a woman. It isn’t enough not to be a Donald Trump; don’t be a Billy Bush either.
Remember 2016 when raising your sons. This year we learned that using the “boys will be boys” excuse to give kids a pass for bad behavior is unacceptable. Teach your sons to respect women ― not only because they have moms and sisters. Teach your sons that women are their equals, because they are equally human.
Remember 2016 when you’re benefiting from male privilege. Could you imagine if Donald Trump ― crude, slimy, disheveled Donald Trump ― were a woman? Danielle Trump would never have gotten to the White House. Recognize that the gendered double standards Clinton faced mirror the gender dynamics most women are familiar with.
Remember 2016 when conducting yourself at work. Stop talking over women in meetings. Don’t assume other men are more qualified for jobs just because they’ve been conditioned to act like they are.
Remember 2016 when you think sexism is over because we almost elected a woman president. Women have spent the last year cataloguing our own experiences with misogyny and sexism as we watched Clinton face them on a national stage.

The Demand. Kowtow to Feminism, proselytize to your friends, coworkers, and kids, and always vote Democrat.

Last one, which I had to save up like a Level 3 Super attack: Gay White Male Privilege.

On July 9th, Sierra Mannie’s article “Dear White Gays: Stop Stealing Black Culture” was published on Time Magazine’s website stating that white gay men appropriate black womanhood, and emphatically asking them to stop. This imitation of black womanhood is seen in gay slang, in who gay men pick as their icons and even in the personas featured on RuPaul’s “Drag Race” (I’m looking at you LaGanja “YAAAS MAMA” Estranja).

The response came in from a sector of white gay men who saw Mannie’s article as wrong and offensive — their cultural appropriation is really appreciation, they said. Also, criticizing white gay men for their actions is homophobic, and because white gay men have no privilege in society, we’re all in this together, sistahs! These white gay men do not get the hurt and sadness behind Sierra Mannie’s words because they do not understand the harmful impact of cultural appropriation because of their status as White Men.

The Compliant. Have we really come to this? Have black women just become this pathetic? I understand that they lust after the penises of white men so they can have a baby with light skin and gray eyes and straight hair, but fighting gay white men for it?

Shame, shame, shame.

But seriously, the complaint here is that gay, white men are “emulating” black women. Wah, wah, wah. But it’s easy for gay men to caricature black womanhood because black womanhood is a caricature of actual womanhood.

It’s getting so bad that black men are throwing on wigs and look damn near indistinguishable from the average black woman.

Being white men, they benefit not only from white supremacy but also male privilege. Yes, gay people are oppressed because of their sexuality, but it’s possible to benefit from male privilege and white privilege even as a gay person because some gay people aren’t white and aren’t men. Your sexuality doesn’t negate your gender or your race. You can be two or three things at once and two of those things grant you powerful and unstoppable privilege.
Saying you don’t have privilege when you do have privilege and insulting those who say you do is an act of privilege. Denying that cultural appropriation is a problem is an act of privilege. Denying a black woman her hurt and anger in the face of racial oppression is an act of privilege. Changing the conversation about the racial transgressions of a certain group of white men to a conversation to shame and belittle a black woman affected by those very racial transgressions is an act of privilege.

The Application of Psychological Pressure via Guilt. Yes gay men, you might be oppressed because you love the cock, but you are not SUPER-oppressed because you lack a vagina, which means you are still an oppressor, and should feel guilty about that. Disagreeing with black women is proof of your “gay male privilege.”

I wish I could make up things this goofy.

You can align yourself with black women only if you are our friends and allies but yes, you should stop talking, pretending, and acting like black women.
Why do white gay men want to spend so much time telling a black woman that her hurt, anger and disappointment is false, hate mongering, and offensive?
Is it too much to ask of white gay men that they treat Black Women as people worthy of their respect? Does it ruin your night out if you can’t “[claim] our identity for what’s sweet without ever having to taste its sour” or if you can’t “[breathe] fire behind ugly stereotypes that reduce black females to loud caricatures”? Is a black woman asking to be treated as a person so worthy of scorn? The act of cultural appropriation treats people as stereotypes and jokes so why is cultural appropriation of black women so vital to white gay male culture? And why can’t it be dismantled when it is shown to be hurtful?

The Demand. Stop emulating black women (in an absurd and hilarious way). Kiss black women’s asses. Stop using Social Justice guilt-tripping and shaming tactics against black women who complain about what you do.

As much as it pleases me to see the contestants in the Oppression Olympics kick each others’ teeth in, this is illustrative of Feminist and Social Justice discourse: They must frame all discourse between individuals and groups as oppressor vs. oppressed, so they can apply this method of Complaint-Pressure/Guilt-Demand.

What’s Wrong With It

There is nothing wrong with guilt. Guilt as a corrective trait is what makes us social creatures. A guiltless person would be an unabashed narcissist.
The idea of being a beneficiary of wrongdoing is not beyond the pale either (see the concept of the “relief defendant” in Federal civil law, who committed no wrongful act, but benefited from the other defendant’s and can be held liable for restitution).

The problem arises when Feminists take these concepts and twist them into something malicious and detrimental to the person they target with them. Guilt for the purpose of correction is as old as the world. Jesus told the woman accused of adultery to “go forth and sin no more”, in other words, correct your actions and live on. For Feminists, male privilege, and the guilt they seek to engender by using it, is not for correction, but coercion. To give an example, say a husband forgets his wife’s birthday. He apologizes, makes amends and never forgets another birthday. But every time she wants something that he doesn’t, she says some variation of “if you don’t do this, it will hurt my feelings, just like when you forgot my birthday.”

It is a cheap, dishonest trick that plays on an emotional vulnerability that the manipulator knows the target has. It is a psychological pain-compliance hold that will only be released when the target agrees to the manipulator’s demand. And it is always available to be used again.

Feminist use of “male privilege” is just emotional manipulation, played out on a social level. When any individual man protests his innocence in the face of an accusation of guilt by male privilege, the Feminists counter that he is essentially a “relief defendant”, liable for the bad acts of some man who is not him, except that, unlike in Federal court, Feminists demand endless restitution. No amount of time or resources can EVER make up for the sin of “male privilege.” It is an eternal IOU.

The Solution

There are couple of ways to deal with these tactics. The first is to figure out what the manipulator wants from you. In the case of Feminists, it will always be some form of compliance, a demand to confess your allegiance to Feminism. Occasionally it will be a demand on your time and resources. Once you recognize the demand, you can articulate that you will, under no circumstances, accede to the demand.

The second is recognize the difference between justifiable guilt and unjustifiable guilt. As stated above, there is nothing wrong with feeling guilty when it is justified, as when you, in your own person, have done something wrong, and the guilt leads to correcting your actions so that you don’t do it again. Unjustifiable guilt is guilt imposed for deeds that you have not done yourself, or deeds that you have made amends for, or behaviors that you have corrected. When you recognize the difference between the two types of guilt, you can recognize that someone is trying to manipulate you and that you should not give them what they want.

The third, and the best way is the way advised by the classic movie War Games. In any psychological battle, it takes two to play. Therefore, the only winning move is to not play at all.