As feminists were busy peddling their “War on Women” narrative in the U.S., Yazidi sex slave survivor Nadia Murad was honored with the Nobel Peace Prize for fighting a real War on Women in the Middle East.
Nadia was honored for her efforts to end the use of sexual violence as a weapon of war, together with Dr. Denis Mukwege of the Democratic Republic of Congo, who has been a relentless healer and advocate for women.
Their stories serve as an important reminder that as American women debate what constitutes enough evidence to block a nominee from taking a seat on the Supreme Court, corroboration and evidence are abundant in places such as northern Iraq, where hundreds of women and girls are still enslaved and routinely subjected to rape.
The left doesn’t care about you at all unless your story can be used against first world white men.
Her article starts with a confession of spousal abuse:
I yelled at my husband last night. Not pick-up-your-socks yell. Not how-could-you-ignore-that-red-light yell. This was real yelling. This was 30 minutes of from-the-gut yelling. Triggered by a small, thoughtless, dismissive, annoyed, patronizing comment. Really small. A micro-wave that triggered a hurricane. I blew. Hard and fast.
The question I often ask myself is whether I could survive a marriage with a women on the left side of politics. Well, if that is what it would be like, the answer is an absolute no, not because I would leave, but because she would. I would not sit quietly and take it in as her husband did.
And here is the original article from the WP: Thanks for not raping us, all you ‘good men.’ But it’s not enough. The author is described as “a retired history professor at Grinnell College”. As noted by Ron Dreher, she is married to “Mr. Brown, America’s Most Miserable Man”.
One of the major major flaws on the right is the reluctance to the point of refusal to back its side in a fight. Donald Trump is almost unique in his willingness to contest on every patch of disputed territory. On the left, no position is ever abandoned. McCarthyism, an entirely leftist meme when it began, is now used by everyone as a synonym for smearing the blameless as part of a partisan attack more than seventy years since the left began the savaging of his character. The reality is that McCarthy was 100% right about the existence of communist agents in the State Department, and yet, even now, only a handful will say a good word about one of the bravest statesmen who has ever lived.
Jordan Peterson is on our side. He hates the left and he hates their dishonesty and the ruin their march through the institutions has brought. He understands that wherever the left are in control they cause massive harm and destruction. And till now he has not put a foot wrong in fighting our fights and defending, and even extending, our positions. And even before now I have listened to no end of people without one one-hundredth of the influence for good he has had look down on him and his efforts to preserve our Western way of life.
What has now made many dismiss Peterson was his off-the-top-of-his-head comment – now retracted – that perhaps Brett Kavanaugh should be confirmed but then resign and allow someone less divisive be appointed in his place. He didn’t come out in favour of the Democrat position. He didn’t argue that Christine Blasey Ford had made her case. He didn’t suggest that Trump should find some compromise candidate who would be more amenable to his enemies. He just thought that once the confirmation was completed, then perhaps Kavanaugh might resign as a means of bringing the two sides closer together.
When I heard he had said this, I did roll my eyes. But it reminded me, as if I needed to be reminded, how difficult it is to understand politics. I did notice that no one on the Democrat side picked up this suggestion since it really has no potential. There is no possibility for compromise. And it is an oddity that even after all he has been through, that Peterson still thinks there is an ounce of good will on the left side of politics, that there are people who would understand such a compromise and work with the Republicans to find a candidate that would satisfy the aims of both sides at one and the same time.
But you know what? I don’t look to Peterson for his political judgement. His is better than almost anyone I know, but it’s not perfect (and neither is mine nor yours). But what I do know is that ninety percent of everything he says and does is working to roll back the left, from our institutions and from the mind-set of the young. This is hard work which I not only admire him for, but wish that he may long continue his work in these fields.
But to his critics on “the right” I feel only an anger at their wanton stupidity in not backing him to the hilt, and for trying to pull him down and in this way helping to advance the agendas of the left. Look at this:
Typical on the right, and how does this help our side in anything? What a smug jerk this chap is! Infuriating and far far more politically ignorant than anything Jordan Peterson has ever said or done.
Something to read and ponder: Four Reasons “Gender Theory” Is Ridiculous. Actually it’s a test: can you believe six impossible things before breakfast. And on the left they all can. Just one bit, but as funny as it is, a very depressing article when you think about it.
Never mind that any culture we could visit on a class field trip at any time in history would only present to us the binary male/female system we have in our own communities. And we will not have any difficulty determining the males from the females as they both have an unmistakable essence, even apart from body parts. Few things in nature are so obvious. So, as serious students, we must raise our hand and ask how all the diverse cultures of the world have just happened to “construct” the same exact two sexes, in the generally same ways. While it’s a totally legitimate question, your professor is starting to see you as a trouble-maker.
This is a quite astonishing paper: Academic Activists Send a Published Paper Down the Memory Hole. Anyway, in regard to the paper in question, is what it argues true? If it is true, should it matter? And even if it isn’t true, can we not discuss it? Here’s the first para.
In the highly controversial area of human intelligence, the ‘Greater Male Variability Hypothesis’ (GMVH) asserts that there are more idiots and more geniuses among men than among women. Darwin’s research on evolution in the nineteenth century found that, although there are many exceptions for specific traits and species, there is generally more variability in males than in females of the same species throughout the animal kingdom.
Here then is the last para along with the closing quotation that comes at the very end:
Educators must practice what we preach and lead by example. In this way, we can help to foster intellectual curiosity and the discovery of fresh reasoning so compelling that it causes even the most sceptical to change their minds. But this necessarily requires us to reject censorship and open ourselves to the civil discussion of sensitive topics such as gender differences, and the variability hypothesis in particular. In 2015, the University of Chicago’s Committee on Freedom of Expression summarized the importance of this principle beautifully in a report commissioned by none other than Professor Robert Zimmer:
In a word, the University’s fundamental commitment is to the principle that debate or deliberation may not be suppressed because the ideas put forth are thought by some or even by most members of the University community to be offensive, unwise, immoral, or wrong-headed.
You can read for yourself what comes in between. And the fact is, there are some things that cannot be said, but these are entirely restricted to religious truths. When you read this, you will know more about the times in which you live and the kinds of beliefs you are absolutely forbidden either to have or discuss.
There was once a time we could agree on many things, but most importantly we could agree on the processes by which we sorted out our differences. But if even the process of working and living together are gone, what really is left?
In this exclusive, in-depth interview, author and clinical psychologist Dr. Jordan Peterson joins Dr. Oz to discuss how we can find meaning in our lives, challenge our thinking, and provide tactical ways we can reach our full potential.
And by this I mean any Senator who takes seriously these accusations against Brett Kavanaugh. Twilight Zone, Kavanaugh’s observation, is hardly getting there. This is closer.
But the vile hatred and willingness to entertain obvious lies that ultimately debase our political system of free debate and open inquiry is so morally repulsive that one can only hope the result is a Republican tidal wave at the elections in November. Nothing else will purge the American political system of such madness. You might as well treat alien visitation as a genuine threat to national security, and there is plenty of evidence for that. Try this: Reasons to Believe How seriously should you take those recent reports of UFOs? Ask the Pentagon. Or read this primer for the SETI-curious.
But when, in December, the New York Times published an undisputed account of what might once have sounded like crackpot conspiracy theory — that the Pentagon had spent five years investigating “unexplained aerial phenomena” — the response among the paper’s mostly liberal readers, exhausted and beaten down by “recent events,” was markedly different from the one in those movies. The news that aliens might actually be visiting us, regularly and recently, didn’t provoke terror about a coming space-opera conflict but something much more like the Evangelical dream of the Rapture the same liberals might have mocked as kooky right-wing escapism in the George W. Bush years. “The truth is out there,” former senator Harry Reid tweeted, with a link to the story. Thank God, came the response through the Twitter vent. “Could extraterrestrials help us save the Earth?” went one typical reaction.
Suddenly, aliens were an escapist fantasy — but also more credible (legitimized by the government!) than mere fantasy. That Pentagon report, which featured two gripping videos of aerial encounters, was just one beat in a recent search-for-extraterrestrial-intelligence (or SETI) drumroll: In October, an object passed through our solar system that looked an awful lot like a spaceship; astronomers spent much of 2016 arguing over whether the weird pulses of light coming from a distant star were actually evidence of an “alien megastructure.” An army of Silicon Valley billionaires are racing to make first contact, and our new superpowered telescopes are discovering more conceivably habitable planets every year.
President Trump just wrapped a rare news conference — the 4th of his presidency, by CNN’s count — where he touched on a variety of topics.
Many questions were centered on his Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, who is facing allegations of sexual assault, and Trump’s time at the UN. Here are the biggest lines:
On the allegations against Kavanaugh: “And these are all false, to me. These are false accusations in certain cases, and certain cases even the media agrees with that.”
On Democrats’ handling of the Kavanaugh conformation process: “They’re actually con artists, because they know how quality this man is, and they have destroyed a man’s reputation.”
On the possibility he could change his mind about Kavanaugh: “They’re giving the women a major chance to speak. Now it’s possible I’ll hear that and say hey I’m changing my mind. Hey, that’s possible.”
On assault allegations he has faced personally: “I was accused by, I believe it was four women… who got paid a lot of money to make up stories about me,” Trump said as he continued to blast the media for repeating the allegations.
Everyone else checks the latest polling before they say a word. PDT just says what he thinks, and what he thinks is almost always the right answer.
The sensibilities of the left are under constant recalibration depending on whatever might give them power at any particular moment. Situational ethics has nothing to do with it since there is nothing remotely ethical about how the left operates. The single most important American novel of the latter half of the twentieth century – based on how often it seems to have been assigned to high school students – was Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird. The story might have been a parable for our times up until the present, but that was then, this is now. All this is discussed here: Resisting a Lynch Mob. Let him explain:
The story is based on Lee’s childhood in rural Alabama during the 1930s. The narrator is six-year-old Jean Louise Finch. The protagonist is her father, Atticus, who is a small-town lawyer appointed by the court to represent Tom Robinson, a black man who has been charged with raping Mayella Ewell, a young white woman. Despite the community’s near universal condemnation, Atticus defends Tom in and out of court.
And, of course, the girl was lying about having been raped and the black man was falsely accused. So there was a time when one could have said in public that a woman might actually lie about rape. Not now, of course, but you could do it then. But there is an even older story that I grew up with, another famous story about a false rape accusation.
Once again, you cannot necessarily believe the woman. There might have been some reason to think CBF’s story is true, if it hadn’t happened 36 years ago; if the Democrats had no history of dredging up farfetched stories from the past to achieve an outcome that is plainly on the face of it unjust; if there were zero evidence that anything of the kind had ever happened; if none of the other people who were supposedly there at the time had any recollection of the moment; and if there is were any reason to have made a Federal case of it even if the events had actually happened.
Possibly worst of all, the incident, even if it had happened, trivialises the actual circumstances of rape. Trying to turn such an obvious untruth as the standard of he-said-she-said will make genuine cases more difficult to prosecute since the entire process becomes discredited. Beyond this, the use of a rape accusation that no one actually believes is true – and no one on either side does – degrades the political process into an anything-goes procedure in which politics is itself shown to be a conman’s game, rather than an institutional structure in which good governance through communal discussion is the process on which all sides can depend.
Do you really think you can discuss things with these people? Reason with them? They are ideologically blinded and filled with hate. We need to protect ourselves as best we can, like against a typhoon. But there is no point in argument with people who have nothing to contribute to any conversation other than accusations and uncontrolled fury.
Law of Markets 