Moo-oo! Don't you LOVE the sound of skewered feminist-sacred-cows in the morning!

As one of many supporters of "The Red Pill" (including the humble founder of Liberty’s Torch, whose name I spotted in the credits, but not mine, because I guess I was too much of a cheapskate to qualify for that perk), and now a recent pre-release viewer, I presumed (like I imagine director Cassie Jaye did) going on this documentary-adventure would hold no big surprises for me.

LOL

My arrogance came, I suppose, because I was "Red-Pilled" a while back. I thought I knew enough not to be surprised - or impressed. But turns out her film did both! I became aware of the Men’s Rights Movement (via avoiceformen.com) in late 2011 - participating actively there for several years: commenting often and writing a few pieces that Paul Elam published on the site. (The photo-collage within the collage, above, is of me with just a few of the amazing people I met at AVfM's 1st International Conference on Men's Issues, held outside Detroit, in 2014.)

A most remarkable thing about documentary creator, Cassie Jaye, is that she is a young woman who boldly went where most of her Feminist sisters will never go...to their ideological opposition. Even more radical, was HOW she went: NOT screaming, NOT blockading, and NOT making threats of violence, but rather, with a willingness to listen. To learn. And to reconsider, even jettison, intellectual inconsistencies, without regard for the personal paradigm-shifts such honesty can bring...

Based upon my experience, both in the world of the Men's Rights' Movement and in watching this film about it, I can guarantee 100% that you will learn something unique and valuable. And because I believe this so strongly, I’m very confident that if you watch it with an open mind (and heart) - intuitively grasping the significance - you will become a better person for having done so. I hope you will take the transformative Red-Pill journey made possible by this amazing young filmmaker, and then pass it on to others.

If you can bear the entirety of my 1900-word review/analysis, please visit my blog: housewife3-0.com.

Life, Humanity, Freedom Of Speech, And Other Matters Of Little Or No Importance

Yes, there are still a few differences between the Democrat and the Republican Parties. To the Democrats, abortion is "health care:"

Thousands of pro-life activists donned scarves, gloves and knit hats Wednesday to brave the blowing snow and arctic temperatures on the Mall as the 41st March for Life was punctuated by an unusually blunt exchange between the Republican and Democratic Party leaders that signaled a shifting fight for female voters.

Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz opened the barrage, accusing her GOP counterpart, Reince Priebus, of rallying “against women’s rights” and assailing Republicans for spending “more time fighting to restrict the rights of women to make their own health care choices.”

Moreover, they don't want to hear any backtalk:

The Republican Party candidates are running against the SAFE Act — it was voted for by moderate Republicans who run the Senate! Their problem is not me and the Democrats; their problem is themselves. Who are they? Are they these extreme conservatives who are right-to-life, pro-assault-weapon, anti-gay? Is that who they are? Because if that’s who they are and they’re the extreme conservatives, they have no place in the state of New York, because that’s not who New Yorkers are.

And:

Today, as we reflect on the 41st anniversary of the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade, we recommit ourselves to the decision’s guiding principle: that every woman should be able to make her own choices about her body and her health. We reaffirm our steadfast commitment to protecting a woman’s access to safe, affordable health care and her constitutional right to privacy, including the right to reproductive freedom. And we resolve to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies, support maternal and child health, and continue to build safe and healthy communities for all our children. Because this is a country where everyone deserves the same freedom and opportunities to fulfill their dreams. [ Barack Hussein Obama ]

Abortion is "health care?" Really? "For whom?" I hear you ask. Certainly not for the baby whose life is about to be snuffed out. It's pretty dubious for the unwilling mother-to-be, too; a great many such live with negative consequences, physical, emotional, or both, for the rest of their lives. To a non-Democrat, the matter admits of deeper, more compassionate consideration:

With a message coordinated with the march, Mr. Priebus and his Republican charges shot back at the Democratic efforts to paint the GOP as extreme and unfriendly to women.

“I attended the March for Life to show both my personal and the Republican Party’s respect for life and to celebrate adoption,” Mr. Priebus told The Washington Times. “As a party, we believe life is a gift worth protecting, and the march is an important cause.”

As it happens, the March was well attended despite the snow, the bitter cold, and the disapproval of the Left:

Last year's March was estimated at 500,000 attendees. I haven't yet located an estimate of yesterday's attendance, but it seems certain to have reached six figures, at least.

Did tens of thousands of Americans, many of them young women, brave extreme weather to demonstrate "against women's rights?" Are they really opposed to "health care?" Or is something else in progress that the Democrats and their handmaidens in the Main Stream Media would prefer not to discuss?

A good question.

---

T. L. Davis has been knocking them out of the park lately. Yesterday's emission was no exception:

The Marxist obsession with death is striking. There is a blood lust to it. When they describe it, it is always as some form of ultimate good. Whether in the form of euthanasia, or abortion, or Obamacare death panels, they are always getting rid of those that don't fit into their humanistic, Godless society.

It is social planning that ultimately puts the figurative gun to the head of millions of citizens. We have all seen the pictures of the holocaust. The Jews were "wrecking" the ability of Germany to economically recover from World War I. The political opponents of Stalin were "wrecking" the benefits of communism by failing to produce enough for the people. Obamacare will eventually find that old people "selfishly" requiring too many services and not contributing to the treasury will be "wrecking" the health care system. Marxism always comes with an enemy, even when those enemies are as inoffensive as unborn children, the mentally handicapped or the elderly.

The underlying sense of it all is that being human is subjective with bureaucrats making the distinction. The most important aspect of Marxism is the bureaucracy for this very reason. There are accounts of the average Russian believing that if "Stalin knew what was going on, he would be furious and put a stop to it." Stalin depended on the bureaucracy to protect his narcissistic image. Sound familiar?

There is no conceptual or ethical space between what Davis refers to as "Marxists" and those aligned with the American Left. To a leftist, all subjects, including the most private and intimate, are political: "The personal is political" is their slogan, after all. That includes mammalian taxonomy: a human life is what they say it is.

It has to be that way for them to carry out their program:

Bone marrow stem cell transplants save the lives of thousands each year and have been performed for more than four decades. The medical therapies developed from stem cell research (SCR) have produced successful results far beyond our expectations.

With all this scientific success and with more than 15,000 patients benefiting from SCR each year, why are some people apoplectic? The answer is both simple and perplexing. The scientific breakthroughs and the medical therapies have all come from adult stem cells and none as yet have come from embryonic stem cells. Rather than welcoming the results and pursuing support for what works, there are paradoxically increasing demands for the recognition and funding of embryonic SCR.

A dangerous combination of political and social ideology is determined to make embryonic SCR succeed. The problem is an apparent obsession with destroying human life to provide medical therapies. Looking from the outside, one might imagine that embryonic SCR supporters are advocating a pagan ritual of human sacrifice to treat disease?

[...snip...]

As Lynde Langdon reported in "Miracle cells" (World, February 5, 2005):

The National Institutes of Health has shunned her grant applications three times. In one grant review, a fellow scientist commented that her stem cells come from tissue inside umbilical cords, not days-old embryos. ‘We already have a good source of stem cells,’ the grant reviewer wrote, ‘Why do we need another?'

Ms. Langdon further writes:

The NIH . . . has funded only 30 projects involving stem cells from umbilical cords. In contrast, it has funded 634 projects involving embryonic stem cells.

As I wrote at Eternity Road nine years ago:

The "why" of it is simple enough. It's an item on a checklist:

• Abortion without restrictions.
• Assisted suicide.
• Involuntary euthanasia of those deemed untreatable or having "no quality of life."
• Compulsory surrender of the organs of the deceased for transplantation.
• Creation of embryos for research and therapeutic purposes.
• Government-enforced "triage" to conserve medical and financial resources.
• Compulsory acceptance of specified therapies.
• Procreation licenses.
• Government eugenics programs:
  • At first, as subsidies to couples with favored genetic characteristics;
  • Later, as compulsory donations of gametes for use in government-supervised breeding programs.
• Conscription for military purposes.
• Conscription for non-military purposes.

The overarching theme of all these measures, about half of which are already in place in various Western countries, is that human life has no intrinsic value and bears no intrinsic rights. By corollary, the individual's life does not belong to him, but to the State. The deliberate creation of human embryos in government-funded research centers, despite the revulsion it evokes from more than half the population of this country, is directly in line with this campaign. It's apparently the number-one goal of the pro-death forces at this time, despite lack of any indication of scientific or medical utility.

If we are the property of the State, then we have no rights of any kind. Property cannot have rights, for the quintessential characteristic of an item of property is its owner's right to dispose of it however he pleases. That includes the right to destroy it.

Think about it.

---

Despite the Main Stream Media's determination to suppress the trend, the American people are steadily trending toward the legal restriction of abortion. It would appear that the Left's attempt to conflate abortion with "health care" has run out of gas. Demographic factors might play a significant role: pro-life women out-reproduce pro-choice women by a considerable margin. Also, the country is aging, and people do become more conservative as they age. But there's also a moral awakening in progress: a slow but steady return to what the Left would call "reactionary values," including the valuation of human life as a sacred gift.

There's only one way the Left can counter such trends: they must be shouted down, vilified, and made to seem the attitudes of monsters. Indeed, they must be denied the right to speak at all. Here's the Left's gospel on the subject, from Herbert Marcuse himself:

Liberating tolerance, then, would mean intolerance against movements from the Right and toleration of movements from the Left. As to the scope of this tolerance and intolerance: ... it would extend to the stage of action as well as of discussion and propaganda, of deed as well as of word....

Such extreme suspension of the right of free speech and free assembly is indeed justified only if the whole of society is in extreme danger. I maintain that our society is in such an emergency situation, and that it has become the normal state of affairs. Different opinions and 'philosophies' can no longer compete peacefully for adherence and persuasion on rational grounds: the 'marketplace of ideas' is organized and delimited by those who determine the national and the individual interest. In this society, for which the ideologists have proclaimed the 'end of ideology', the false consciousness has become the general consciousness--from the government down to its last objects. The small and powerless minorities which struggle against the false consciousness and its beneficiaries must be helped: their continued existence is more important than the preservation of abused rights and liberties which grant constitutional powers to those who oppress these minorities....

[1968 Postscript:] As against the virulent denunciations that such a policy would do away with the sacred liberalistic principle of equality for 'the other side', I maintain that there are issues where either there is no 'other side' in any more than a formalistic sense, or where 'the other side' is demonstrably 'regressive' and impedes possible improvement of the human condition.

The above was written in 1965 and 1968. Dismiss it if you please. I cannot.

No soup OR semi-autos for you!

A few days ago at Esquire.com, a tyrant made his pitch. He wants to re-educate Americans on the real meaning of Christmas, I mean the 2nd Amendment, and convince us to see that the e-e-e-vilest things in the world aren’t sparkly-uniformed & jackbooted killers like him, but guns…in the hands of civilians like me.

The lieutenant colonel who lectures us at Esquire doesn’t ring the death knell on the U.S. Liberty Bell for the actual Pol Pot, or Idi Amin, or Uncle-Joe Stalin, or even the leftist’s favorite “rightwing nutjob”-slash-tyrant, Adolph Hitler.

Nope. This mighty-military man answers to the leftist’s very own 21st century destroyer, President Barry Sotero. I mean Barrack Obama.

Sure the Esquire article is pure double-timing agitprop: meant to raise the spirits of the faithful gun-fearful, the hoplophobes, you know, the cheerleaders-for-confiscation. But it’s also meant to bring out the cries, shouts, and threats of the opposition, like me. See how well it’s working? And sure, if the pushback by pro-self-defense types is addressed at all they’ll be called “knee jerk” by the big-league media which is nearly all anti self-defense.

But in all this, what’s most important is the need to listen to and actually believe writers like Esquire’s guest, Lt. Colonel Robert Bateman. Particularly when they admit “at the end of the day his job is about killing.” When those wielding the Weapons-of-State, like this military man, freely call themselves killers and then go on to talk Gun Confiscation, damn straight, “I’m listening Seattle.”

And since it’s doubtful this uniformed career “killer” would go out on such an extreme anti-gun limb by himself, it’s safe to conjecture plenty of his fellow officers feel precisely the same.

So…there’s bad bad-news and good bad-news Liberty- and Security- lovers. The bad is that I guess they really are out to get you - and your guns. The good-slash-bad news is you really aren’t paranoid.

Generational Gun-confiscation. I began responding to this Esquire piece for one reason: for the last ten or eleven months (following the anti-gun tsunami that swept the nation one year ago, a.k.a. Sandy Hook) I’ve been thinking a lot about “generational gun confiscation.” I witnessed the instantaneous and monster-machinelike power of the popular media back then. It molded the narratives as dictated from the White House and pumped them over and over, ad infinitum, into the childlike sponge-minds of their consumers.

And it went something like this:

“Guns-are-bad-and-unnecessary; scary gun-nuts are worse than guns; what would best would be to get rid of them all.” Rinse; repeat.

So, grasshopper, you want to get rid of guns without another quote-unquote civil war? Simple. Patience, grasshopper.

Not quite like the patience of Job, in that while Obama & his friends in high places wait they’ll still have fine salaries, armed bodyguards, beautiful safe places to live, and terrific salve prescribing health-care plans. Because they’re special and the rulers and, well, you aren’t.

Not even like the patience of the Mohammedans, who’ve been peacefully chopping heads off and lovingly blowing up infidels who refuse to “submit” to their special book, non-stop, Oh…since the 7th century.

Nope, the patience to Get-the-Guns from pesky Americans need not reach the level of those two religious examples at all. Just the kind Lt. Col. Robert Bateman methodically explains for us in Esquire.

Bateman is right in this one point: it will only take one more generation. Though overall, his faux outrage at guns in America is wrong in so many ways, beginning with the so-called inciting incident of a Black-on-Black, likely alcohol-fueled, argument turned deadly-shooting,

By, say 2030, so few will have been taught, for example, how America had to supply its British allies in WWII with e-e-evil guns; so few will understand how Bateman butchers the 2nd Amendment in Esquire by turning it inot a purely State concept, never mentioning the original intent of the Founders which was based on real-world individuals providing their own singular and group-defense.

Bateman and Esquire both preach basically to the same crowd: urban, well-educated, guilty-white liberal Americans. This congregation of folks can’t imagine owning a gun because that fact alone would be an implied deadly-threat, just as they’d likely have a hard time raising a hand in their own defense - for fear of harming the would be criminal.

By the time the last quote-unquote illegal guns are grabbed, so few civilians will see the irony when the American jackbooted pawns of the State arrive. Will those disarmed, defanged, pacified onlookers deem American Enforcers’ armaments evil? Won’t they be intimidated or scared of what’s strapped on “the good guys’” hips and/or slung across their black-uniformed, anonymous helmeted bodies? No? Why not? Will they cheer as they did the similar show of State Force in Boston after the recent bombing, when these future storm troopers pry those quote-unquote-illegal personal weapons from the cold dead hands of those onlookers’ e-e-evil gun-nut neighbors and forefathers?

In the end the last old Grandpa Charlton Heston type won’t go out in a blaze of glory after all. He’ll simply have been waiting months or years for a heart bypass or some other old-age treatment; be passing some time peacefully cleaning the last old shotgun or rifle or handgun he gone years unable to find ammo for, when…Boom! Heart attack. Or some other old-age thing, and he’ll keel over, dead.

And finally old, grey, feeble, retired how-many-ever-starred General Bateman will be wheeled out for Obama’s Special Press Conference. And peace will reign in the gun-free U.S.A.. Oh, except for those owned and carried and used against defenseless civilians by the professional Federal and State killers. And except for those stashed away for a rainy day by the street criminals most of whom, even back in 2013, were/are Black or Hispanics (yet never got vilified like the NRA and generic white gun “nuts,” 99.9% of whom never shot a soul).

So check out the article at Esquire.com, and some of the comments as well; until next time, Keep Rebelling.

  This essay first appeared on the author’s YouTube-channel.