Courage, Rebel, Counterculture, Non-Conformist

Are words that came to my mind as I note the growing whirlwind of rage from the always tolerant and open minded progressive wing of American society.  That whirlwind involves Harrison Butker, a kicker for the Kansas City Swifts.  Apparently a more traditional leaning Catholic, he gave a commencement speech at Benedictine College.  This might be because he now holds the record for the longest kick in a Super Bowl game ever.  One that figured prominently in the team's victory I'm told.  I don't know.  

Anyhoo, from the clips the news showed this morning, he must have questioned abortion rights.  He spoke of pride in light of God, rather than the pride we see demonstrated in June. Which was reported as an attack on the LGBTQ community (note: does this mean they're saying the type of pride he condemns is, in fact, what is celebrated in June?).  And he said no matter what women in the audience want to accomplish in Corporate America, the real excitement they're waiting for is the beauty of childbirth and family.  

That last part seems to be what really got people.  In a nation that celebrates that most wonderful accomplishment of aborting 60 million pregnancies in barely three generations, you can see why.  I mean, the central message of modern progressivism is that the only reason God decided to exist was to create a vast universe spinning around me.  So suggesting anything close to giving oneself up for others is anathema.  

I've seen some pointing out that the NFL not immediately throwing him out, as compared to Colin Kaepernick who wasn't immediately thrown out, just shows racism and all.  Others - and I saw plenty of examples, since the news broadcasts only showed the critics - attacked him for...thinking women should be excited by childbirth?  Pride isn't good?  I don't know.  A whole lot of people were interviewed and quoted, outrage and more self-righteous outrage and indignation, and yet nobody said exactly what was wrong with the substance of what he said.  As usual, it was just assumed that, having not conformed to leftwing same think, it had to be stupid, wrong, hateful and evil.  At least from what I've seen so far.  I'm sure editorials explaining just what was wrong will be forthcoming.  

For instance, on Good Morning America, Robin Roberts said the problem was that a graduation speech should be about the grads, not about the speaker's opinions.  I'll have to find other examples of leftwing speakers vomiting leftwing ideological and political opinions and see if she reacted that way as well. 

On the whole, this is what being a counterculture rebel, a non-conformist, and demonstrating a certain level of courage is all about.  Conforming to post-Christian secular leftwing ideology today is about as courageous as wearing scarlet and gray to an Ohio State football game in Columbus.  But challenging leftwing dogma and activism?  When running afoul of progressive tolerance and inclusion and diversity, you're probably being as courageous as you can be outside of a real totalitarian state. 

Added Note:  I should mention that, as I prepared to publish this, I was informed by one of my sons  that there is pushback against the MSM witch hunt.  And not just conservatives.  Apparently some on the liberal side are saying hey, the guy is a Catholic speaking at a private Catholic university.  It's his beliefs.  Take a chill pill people.   Let liberal Catholics freak out and go Fred Phelps on the guy.  So not all on the Left are into this, just most in the media from what I can tell.  

More leftwing tolerance.  Now about that guy paid millions to throw a football calling cops racist

UPDATE:  That didn't take long:

From an order that appears proud to have kicked the habit, as they say.  

You only thought rape was a non-negotiable

What would Gloria say?

So Law & Order.  I saw this mentioned on a few sites and more or less ignored it.  It's Law & Order after all.  One of those 'issue dramas' that have all the objectivity of a Branch Davidian Bible study. 

But I kept seeing people jump on this, even in a national press outlet or two (like Newsweek), so I thought I would look into it.  Yes, the initial 'hysteria' was correct.  The gist of the episode is that a white woman is raped by a black teen, but is praised for realizing she still has the privilege and the black man, a victim in his own right, will pay for life while she'll be free with her privilege.  

Eventually, the woman's lesbian lover explains she's inconsolable over the racism of our criminal justice system, knowing  that the black man will never get a fair trial.  Because she is white, she realizes that a little therapy on her part - therapy for the whole violently raped thing - will be all she needs. Then back to being okay with her white privilege.  But the victimized black man will forever be a victim of our racist system of racist justice in our racist country. In the end, she does identify the man, but a plea deal is reached and the DA commends the man for taking responsibility for his actions after he apologizes for the little rape thing.   

FWIW, it's the  'she'll more or less get over it with some therapy' that appears to be the source of the outrage.  We have, after all, accepted that all such 'sexual crimes' are unforgivable on this side of heaven.  That to be raped or sexually abused is a life changing, permanent wound that will never truly heal.  Oh, with therapy and counseling you can manage the trauma, but you will carry the scars for life.  But now?  Eh.  Apparently it depends on your skin color. 

The Leftist dichotomy of oppressed versus oppressor is almost the civil religion of 21st Century America.  In the 1970s, there were no real criminals, only victims of our oppressive and unjust society.  Then feminists  said no way. Maybe muggers and mass murderers are victims, but show me a rapist and I'll show you someone who should be branded for life as a sex pervert.  Eventually, any sex crimes were added to the list, and we accepted that there could be a never ending list of sex based crimes that are worthy of a lifetime of being branded human scum.

But since the Obama years, the Left did a hard turn and tweaked that little standard and has now, effectively, made unforgivable sins only apply based on group identity (see the leftwing reaction to the October 7 massacre of Israeli Jews for a non-sex based example).  With almost no pushback, a not insignificant part of our nation - Christian leaders included - have accepted that the importance of all culpability and absolution, and apparently even suffering, derives from one's group identity.    

The Left isn't giving up, as this episode makes clear.  The message is as obvious as you can get it - if you're a white woman raped by a black man, then lying there on your back being raped, you still have the privilege.  Go get some therapy and fuhgeddaboudit.

In 2020, during the BLM protests, my sons were in college.  In one of the college forums, apparently some professor somewhere in Ohio stepped in it.  At the time, the case of Reagan Tokes came up.  She was a beautiful young college girl who was kidnapped and brutally raped and murdered.  The man who allegedly killed her was a convict who should have been behind bars, but owing to the injustices of our system, was put on a dumbed down house arrest style setup shoddily enforced.    

For some reason, that case came up during the peaceful protests of 2020. And the professor - who I cannot remember - said that the word 'rape' should not be used when describing such an action by a black man against a white woman.  Not that it was good what he did to Miss Tokes.  It was horrible.  It was tragic.  But the fact is, she still had the privilege owing to her skin color, even as her last breaths were being choked out of her. 

Let's just say the forum conversations were pretty intense, with almost all expressing outrage at such a notion.  I don't know if the professor ever apologized or not.  There were many things to think of back then.  So universal was the outrage, however, that I didn't really bother with it.  Just some wacked out professor being a modern professor on the internet, and everyone was rightly upset.  All was right with the world. 

But that was so 2020.  Now, we have a major Hollywood production saying basically the same thing.  White women gotta take it because privilege and systemic racist injustice and all.  Group A - you get what you have coming.  Group B?  Anything you do is excusable because of oppression or freedom fighting.  And note, the actress is quite white.   Remember that every totalitarian revolution has to have its fair share of Boxers willing to head off to the glue factory for the cause. 

If you think it won't get worse, consider the LGBTQ community and Chik fil A.  Over a decade ago, some local politicians in Boston and Chicago floated banning the restaurant from their jurisdictions because of the owner's views on homosexuality.  Yet LGBTQ activists roared in protest.  No way.  That's not what they are about!   I remember even the Huffpost jumped up and down and threw a yellow flag on the idea of government actors punishing a business because of religious beliefs.  

A decade later, however, and it was LGBTQ protesters calling for various agencies, government or otherwise, to ban. punish, censor or in any way ruin  Chik fil A over its previous owner's beliefs (and with plenty of the national press's help by way of being free advertisers for Popeye's Chicken, CfA's chief competitor).  And what of those lofty principles of religious freedom only a few years earlier?  The joy of progress.  That was so yesterday's principles.   

Things progress and devolve in history.  If you think this development regarding white women and rape will be confined to a TV show, think again.  Four years ago the overwhelming response to a professor's notion that white women can't be "raped" by black men, because the white woman still has the power, was overwhelming outrage from all sides that I saw.  Now it's Hollywood getting in on the act and saying 'not so fast'. In another dozen years, white women being told to deal with it if they're raped by a black man might just be the nicest thing that will apply to the situation.

The legacy of Feminism

Is best summed up here.  Some woman I've never heard of receives praise and adoration from her fellow sisters and an enthralled audience.  Why?  Because she boldly announced she is leaving her husband of fourteen years.  Why?  Because she wanted a life more focused on herself, that's why.  And being a woman, she can proclaim such a reason as 'self-love' to an adoring world and receive endless accolades and high-fives. 

Yep.  I've said before that I haven't been able to find an earlier example of a group of people able to declare themselves the only thing that matters and being socially applauded for the trouble.  Not that men haven't been self-absorbed, self-focused rascals over the ages.  But they had to wrap it up in something pretty: God, king, country, providing for the family, helping the village - something. 

But with feminism, at some point it stopped being about the right to vote and became 'women should focus on themselves - because, that's why.'  Certain things, like sexual liberation, were eagerly welcomed by men who apparently thought this would solidify women as one dimensional sex objects for men's sole consumption.  Women played along. 

Now, of course, men have been all but emasculated by feminism and what women want.  Think on abortion.  The current dogma says a birthing person woman gets pregnant and can decide if it's a precious life or a worthless bunch of sludge to be eliminated.  Men?  What can they do?  Not a damn thing, that's what.  They stand in the corner wearing a 'castrated dunce' cap and wait for the woman to decide - keep the baby, at which point the man had better fork out the bucks to pay for it, or terminate the baby, sorry about your luck guy.  

I've often said it's likely that men of this age will not be the men future generations of men look back to as anything other than a cautionary tale.  So beholden to women did men become as sex became the only thing that mattered, they would happily sell their sons down the river in order to get some, no matter what women do, say, or grab for. 

Naturally women aren't the only benefactors of this idea.  The whole 'it's about me' has poured over into almost everything.  So that most young radicals and activists are proud to say it's their world to save and inherit or drop dead.  After all, why should women have all the fun?

By the by, if I could add one more thing.  The power of this feminist narrative is such that when I bring things like this up, I can almost bet 50% of conservative men and 2/3 of pro-life, traditional Christian women will pounce on me with some version of 'Hey!  Women should have rights!'  As if raising a question or challenging the narrative in any way is the same as saying women should have no rights.

I know this for a fact.  I can't count the times in conversations I've mused on the impact that this approach to feminism has had, and even some of the most down home, stay at home, Ephesians 5 women will fire back that I'm some how suggesting women should be what feminists say men have always wanted them to be. 

That's power for a narrative.  Beyond proving my axiom that no matter what liberalism hoists on the world, at least 1/3 of conservatives will jump on the bandwagon, it shows just how engrained the world's approach to feminism has become.  That' s why most men, no matter how much they lament the state of things, stay quiet, at least in terms of looking deeply into the modern state of women's issues.  Sort of like white people questioning not just BLM, but the whole modern culture of modern black Americans.  You don't dare.  And you can bet if you do, half of everyone who normally agrees with you will turn on you and fire. 

Today's Target: Word on Fire

The liberal Catholic publication National Catholic Reporter joins the hunt.  

Bishop Barron.  Poor fellow.  For more traditional Catholics, Bishop Barron is too wishy-washy.  He plays with universalism and tends to have a 'let's just get along' approach to enemies of God and man.  

That's why he was beloved of many moderate and even liberal Catholics.  It was through them I was introduced to the works of then Fr. Barron.  Especially enjoyable was his video series on Catholicism.  And critics of Fr. Barron from back then?  Just a bunch of right wingers, so forget about it. 

Now, however, it's those same Catholic liberals and former moderates leading the charge.  The accusation is the unforgivable sin of sexual misconduct.  Far removed from the dreamy, hazy days of rehabilitate and reform, sexual misconduct is one of a growing list of unforgivable sins that should be branded on your forehead for life. Until Jesus forgives you and lets you into heaven that is.  Otherwise, your criminal arse belongs to us - so said Beth Moore in a conference a couple years or so ago. 

As with all such things, it's not the sins or failings of a single person, but guilt of one taints all. Thus it becomes a 'workplace' issue.  You know the terms: hostile workplace environment, toxic workplace environment or, my favorite, hypermasculine boy's club environment.  Heh.  That's because we're setting BLM and Trans athletes aside for the moment and bringing back the old #MeToo narrative of 'the always honest woman against the always sexist man' template.  Oh, and genders are binary in this case.

Why the sudden move to destroy Word on Fire (for that's what this is about), and wreck the reputation of Bishop Barron?  I dunno.  But I've seen posts, articles and Twitter for months now going after him.  A man who was once a darling of moderate Catholics everywhere.  Again, I don't know why.  I can guess, but there's really no telling since people usually don't admit to ulterior motives.

Or at least usually don't.  I'm thinking of the Bill Cosby Pound Cake speech.  I mentioned that some time ago and one of my readers sent me to a link to The Atlantic.  In that piece, the journalist appeared quite honest about the connection between his speech and the subsequent accusations made against him.  That's because Cosby didst blaspheme the liberal gospel.  In that infamous speech that outraged the Left, Cosby said he'd give you racism and American white supremacy, but it's time for black Americans to stop whining about the past and take responsibility for their own actions.  Within months there were accusations of sexual assault and the beginning of the end.  

This has that vibe to be sure.  I know Bishop Barron has outraged Pope Francis fans by agreeing with Pope Francis, but not heaping scorn and loathing on the critics of Pope Francis.  I also know shockwaves went through the Catholic Left when Bishop Barron condemned leftwing intolerance and censorship (euphemistically known as Woke or Cancel Culture).  More to the point, he doesn't filter Catholic moral teaching through leftwing political narratives.  For many today, there appears to be politics to the right that are intruding upon the purity of our faith, and then to the left is Jesus.  Such a view doesn't allow for non-liberal hermeneutical options. 

I'm not saying if there was wrongdoing it shouldn't be addressed.  From what it looks like it was in the fellow's personal life - which is soon to be nonexistence if the Left has its way.  I'm simply noting that this does not appear to be about righting a wrong, but the Left's old favorite of Destruction by Association.  That is, a guy does something wrong, and suddenly all men are misogynists in a sexist environment terrorizing women.  There is a big difference between those two.  

Enemies of God and Man

 If you are aligned with this:

You are an enemy of both God and Man.  And by the word Man, I mean its classical use referring to humanity, because I'm tired of pandering to the same feminist bilge that gave us the above mentality in the first place.  It's time to stop losing if we don't wish to be remembered as losers. And first things first. 

BTW, kudos to our parish priest.  On Sunday he called out the lies of the abortion movement, including lies spread by Catholic abortion supporters.  Then he did something strange, weird, amazing, great, wonderful, terrifying and everything all rolled into one:  He acknowledged that the abortion issue is about the mothers, the babies and - get this! - the fathers.  He actually pointed out that care for the father is important.  Imagine that.  Of course care for the mother and baby is crucial, but let's not forget the often forgotten father!

Can you believe it?  I've seen men try to say this only to be smacked down by pro-life conservatives, much less pro-abortion liberals. I've actually seen people on the pro-life side insist men should accept the subordinate position and shut up.  Men should stand in the corner, wallet ready if, and only if, the mother decides not to abort the pregnancy.  The castration of men is something purely at the feet of feminism, and one of the capstones of the whole modern paganism we're seeing.  That men accepted being told they have no say in a child's life unless the woman chooses was a major defeat for the dignity and gift of manhood.  

So good signs I'm seeing.  Could the proverbial giant be waking?  I dunno.  I think we've lost much and lost them in key areas.  The Gospel will live, even if the civilization it helped forge dies.  And abortion is one of the key killers the new paganism is fighting hard to maintain.  Nonetheless, prayers are effective, and when the prayers involve saving the life of the most innocent of these, we can be assured that they are heard. 

As a bonus point, I should add that our priest also echoed what I've seen several mention in recent days.  There is no guarantee the repeal of Roe will happen. Nonetheless, if it does happen, then there will be new pressures on the moms (and yes, the dads!) and that's where we must build upon our good works already out there.  I loved that, too.  For he went on to name different ways that the Church and individuals already help young mothers and babies, countering the lies of abortion rights allies like Mark Shea.   

But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.  Matthew 19.14

From that thing once known as the Episcopal Church

You can read the whole thing here. Here are a couple parts that jumped out at me:

The cause for alarm goes far beyond abortion. The draft opinion argues that rights not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution are protected only if they are “deeply rooted” in American history. This history, as we know, was significantly shaped by all-white, all-male electorates that chose all-white, all-male executives, legislatures and judges. (emphasis mine)

And this:

As Episcopalians, we have a particular obligation to stand against Christians who seek to destroy our multicultural democracy and recast the United States as an idol to the cruel and distorted Christianity they advocate.  (emphasis mine)

Wow.  Not sure what religion her church is part of, but it ain't mine.  I mean, talk about seething hatred, contempt, bigotry, and arrogance. Not to mention the lies. All in service of the right to abort pregnancies by the millions in order to sustain our AIDS era sex culture.

Oh, and when we're faced with the equivalent of Nazi-hate, it's OK to call them out on it.  I see little difference in her attitude toward whites and men and the attitude of Goebbels toward Jews. 

Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a woman soweth, that shall she also reap.  

                                                                                                                                            Galatians 6.7

I don't think The Babylon Bee is funny

I just don't.  Not because of lack of talent.  But because it's chosen to mock and lampoon the Left, and that's a tall order.  I don't think the best comedic writers could make much out of the Left that the Left doesn't do on its own.  That's my problem with the BB.

Take for instance, this:

It comes from this piece.  Now, I admit that should be worth a chuckle in sane circumstances.  But how is it funny in a world where parents can say their child is multiple different identities and refer to her in the third person plural?  Or a world where some would have you be fired if you suggest men can't have babies?  Where SCOTUS nominees swear they have no clue how to define what a woman is? 

BB isn't alone in this quandary.  Here's a meme that was put up for the same reason:

Again, the absurdity of the humor is lost on the fact that Judge Jackson said she doesn't know how to define a woman.  How do you mock her when what she did was mockery enough? 

Of course we know she knows exactly what a woman is.  This is not about transgender anything or rights or whatever. It's about power and control.  It's O'Brien and his four fingers.  It's knowing Judge Jackson knows full well what a woman is, but also knows full well she doesn't dare say so.  That's when you know you're in a post-free society.

That's what this is all about.  That's why parody or satire fall flat.  Imagine humorous memes showing Winston's answers or O'Brien's demands.  Because absurdity is the gateway drug to tyranny.  Trying to outdo the absurdity through humor is a hopeless endeavor. 

A note about the comment in the second meme.  That has been a feminist standard since whenever.  The more I kick things around, the more I begin to think it was feminism all along that sowed the first seeds of the West's demise.  For feminism all but perfected the right to demand absolute equality for women whenever convenient for women.  

For example, women want equality between the sexes sans differences until differences benefit women.  Then, and only then, are you allowed to act as if there are differences (though note, almost never are you able to say so).  That sort of ham-fisted sleight of hand came to dominate feminist activism, and has since spilled over into most movements today.  Until the essence of our modern age is that there is no Truth, there's only what gets me what I want at the moment.  In five minutes, my truth now is false, because of course it is. 

On the other hand

As a woman, if most of your jokes or taste in humor is rooted in bashing or making fun of men, then you need to look within.  lol  

Just saying, since there's a strange idea out there that, like the modern enslavement of African Americans in our current slave state, ours is a country on par with The Handmaid's Tale where women are concerned. 

Someday men might stand up to this, but I'm not holding my breath. As I've said before, for men in the centuries to come, men today will not be held up as the ideal model. 

Robin Hood and William Tell and Ivanhoe and Lancelot
They don't envy me, (Electric Light Orchestra)

Don't worry.  I doubt they envy most men of the late 20th, early 21ast Century.  

Answering the great lie of pro-abortion actvists

Quick answer: Yes.  Not all of course. Bad apples and all.  But on the whole, we have and, in all likelihood, most have over the years when the opportunity presents itself. See Laura Klassen, who is all about helping expectant and new mothers, for just one example among many.  

That's not to say they don't argue about not doing things that encourage out of wedlock childbirth.  But most I know will have personally, or through various means, supported mothers, the poor, what have you.

One of the great lies of the pro-abortion movement is that men are only against abortion because they want to control women, and care neither for the mothers or the babies once they are born.  It's such a demonstrably false lie that I don't know where to begin.  Women who oppose abortion, like all unpeople who slip out of easy leftwing templates, don't exist for the purposes of this lie. 

Granted, some of this no doubt stems from the Left's insistence that even God can't solve a problem better than liberal political policies, so to oppose those policies is to hate black babies.  With that sort of piercing logic, one can assume any deviation from a select political agenda must equal letting babies starve.

But even stepping aside from that level of 'Jesus cares not for feeding the hungry, he cares about which policies of the Roman Empire you support', it's simply a lie meant to derail the bigger objections to the great age of gratuitous slaughter for debauchery in which we live. After all, we know full well why we have unrestricted abortions: so women can have anything they want, and jump on any Tom or Harry's you know what, and not be accountable for their choices.  After all, promising a consequence-free world has been an unwritten platform for secular liberalism for generations.  Sexed up men and women both approve this message. 

But try to point this out, and you're informed that it's only by embracing a leftwing political economy that will give women more money that we can stop abortions since abortions are only about lack of money.  Any attempt to say otherwise must mean you don't care about moms, or their babies, so we'll just say you don't matter in the debate.  If you give money or charity or help it doesn't count.  It only counts to embrace a socialist economy and allow women the choice to define human life as they see fit, or you obviously want them to starve. 

Thus are the arguments of pro-abortion activists, and New Prolife Catholics who are among their staunchest allies. To me, that alone speaks volumes. 

The problem with feminism today

Is that I don't think there is any egregious evil feminists could advocate that the Left and its supporters would ever call out. 

So a firebrand feminist journalist is upset that authorities are looking for a mother who allegedly ditched her newborn in a shallow grave.  Ms. Grimes' reaction:

You can almost hear the addendum that if women aren't allowed to do with their children as they please, then you men ain't gettin' any.  A threat which has done wonders for men who long ago turned the reins of running the local church over to women so men could golf and watch the game on Sundays. 

But just consider what she's saying.  How dare cops look for a mother who might have killed her kid.  This is women stuff.  Women rule.  Women can damn well do what they please with kids and shut up. 

I swear if feminists said they wanted to start gassing Jews in gas chambers, the Left would remain silent.  This is what happens, and it's yet one more blotch on the deplorable track record of the brainless, ball-less, gutless, spineless 20th Century male that this has been allowed. Now you have good New Prolife Catholics fighting to destroy anyone who would try to curtail this most sacred right of women in the modern era.

I fear we passed that point of no return when men allowed women to say that whether a baby is a miracle or a bunch of sludge to be eradicated is up to the woman.  The only role for the man, after the "obvious", is to stand in the corner, shut up, and find out if there is something for him to be financially responsible for or not.  When men allowed that, it was all over.  

With each passing day, I become more and more convinced that feminism was the most effective weapon of Satan fired at the floundering Christian West.  It was when we officially sanctioned the right of women to put themselves first to the exclusion of all other considerations, including the wellbeing of children, and were happy to allow kids to be sacrificed on the altars of the male libido. 

Exactly why so many celibate priests have fallen for this is open to speculation.  But the problem, and the likely causes, remain shameful and one more mark against this era in the opened books.  

A fine critique of the #MeToo movement

By yours truly.  For someone who says I don't like tooting my own horn, I certainly link to my own
posts now and then.  That's because sometimes an old post will suddenly get hit by a slew of visits, and on rare occasion, I must admit I'm not as embarrassed by my writing as I usually am.

Anyway, as we watch the sacred cow of #MeToo radicalism be redefined and reworked in light of it's failure to be convenient to the political Left, it was worth reading my old post again.

The context of the post was Evangelical Bible study guru Beth Moore coming out and joining the racialism of #MeToo feminism, c. 2018, whereby we learned history is pretty much mysoginists on one side, and women are assumed to be victims on the other.  #Believesurvivors and all that.  She even couched it in the more extreme version that any sex at all, no matter how consensual, can be a form of assault. No matter if the woman yelled *yes* more than Meg Ryan in a diner, it might still be assault if years later the woman looks back and regrets the encounter.

Well, thank goodness we're past that!  Tara Reade has exposed the obvious that sane people who live today can easily see: the #MeToo movement could have addressed one of many glaring problems with our Sexual Revolution era.  But it didn't.  Instead it was used and exploited purely for political gain.  What Ms. Moore's motives were for jumping on this rather Godless spin on the movement were, I can't say.  But she, like many Christian leaders, embraced it back in the day when a woman's word was gospel, and men must cower and hope the storm passes soon.

Until we find out if Ms. Reade is telling the truth or not, we'll suddenly learn about all the rights and perspectives of men that must be considered, due process and presumption of innocence to the fore, and the clear and obvious limits that come with just believing a woman's point of view because she says so.  The Beth Moore approved #MeToo will be put in the cupboard, to be brought out again when such a radical feminist spin on reality once again becomes convenient.  Convenient, that is, for the political Left.

DISCLAIMER: I did search to see if Ms. Moore has come out to defend Ms. Reade or advocate for her.  At this time, I've been unable to find any articles or posts from Beth Moore about the issue one way or another.  That doesn't mean anything.  It merely means I did look to see if she has said anything, and if so, I would gladly adjust my observations to include her perspective.

Dear Alyssa Milano

If women did something close to this for more noble reasons, we wouldn't need the abortion culture in the first place, would we? 

Abortion is the canvas upon which modern feminism is painted: a feminism that tells women they come first to the exclusion of any other priority, and should have everything they want without impediment.  That includes, but is not limited to, sex.  Men were more than happy to latch onto such a feminist mantra as long as that last part was zealously adhered to.  That required, of course, abortion, which has subsequently undone 2000 years of Christianity's insistence that, no matter how badly we fail, the gold standard is the sanctity of human life.  Instead, the gold standard now is the value of human life only when convenient to me.  It's just a question of who the 'me' will be when the inevitable smoke finally settles.

You see Ms. Milano?  If women could exercise the same restraint for reasons other than their libidos, I wouldn't be able to write that paragraph.  As it is, that little paragraph falls far short of accounting for the carnage, suffering and  destruction that has otherwise been wrought upon mankind by that very brand of feminism you're trying so desperately to preserve. 

Joe Biden as the latest Robespierre in the Left's reign of terror

This is how the Left keeps its thralls on the plantation.  It threatens immediate retribution against anyone who is not 100% obedient to the Left's latest dogmas 100% of the time.  Given that the Left has openly declared its willingness to retroactively punish those who listened to the Left said was good and true in the past, and given that it can now go through our records, writings, speeches, yearbooks, school papers, home movies and anything from any part of our lives to retroactively punish us, it's not hard to see why anyone with half a brain would be nervous. Biden is the latest to learn this all too well.

This is not a joke.  This is not The Onion.  This is actually ABC running a story about Joe Biden (and Lady Gaga?) doing a PSA about sexual assault.  This is Nancy Pelosi's America, where we treat all humans as if they have infectious diseases.  This is the country they want.

Of course much of this is political.  Biden seemed to be the Left's only hope against Trump, whose polling is nowhere near as bad as the almost completely negative coverage of his presidency would suggest.  But Biden slipped when he said Mike Pence is a 'decent' fellow.  That was enough.  Using Trump to declare its true intentions the way NASA uses the Earth's orbit to propel a spacecraft, the Left has convinced enough people that the current presidency warrants full scale war, and no amount of lies, immorality, debauchery, infanticide, tyranny, or even the overthrow of our nation's very foundation is off limits due to Trump's unprecedented stupidity and evil.  It is Trump that propels the Left's unfortunate, but necessary, seizure of power in our nation. 

With that, the Left wants blood, and it wants to put non-conformers in their place. It wants those who don't get on board to sit in the back of the bus, to be marginalized, cut off from society or sent to the reeducation camps.  It doesn't want some old codger playing nice.

Therefore when Biden called Pence a decent guy - that's Pence, who the Left truly hates, despises and fears - that was it.  Almost overnight, we began hearing the accusations that could have been made against Biden at any time in the last two years of #MeToo insanity.  But we're hearing it now because, unless Biden figures a way to debase himself and assure them he is 100# devoted to the cause, he's out of here. 

A wonderful rebuke to Gillette's anti-Male advertisement

Here:

Yep.  That men don't dare say Boo to women, while we can accept that men are neanderthal rapist deplorables by virtue of being male, shows the power of feminism and how low men will grovel in mud to get some.  What was once an unfairly false stereotype of radical feminism has now become mainstream American thought.

Let's face it, when was the last time you saw anyone say anything negate about 'women' in general and live?  We're going to owe an apology to those previous generations we love to trash who wouldn't have been this stupid in their worst of days.  Meanwhile, let's see if the market does it's work on Gillette. 

Bonus for recognizing that the anti-Male #MeToo movement is speaking about black men the way black men were always spoken about.  It's just that it's due to them being men, rather than black.  Wonder how that will go when black men realize that little fact.

In another post, John C. Wright eviscerates not only Gillette's sexist display of arse kissing, but also dares to point out the obvious about why we're in the mess we're in in the first place.

You keep thinking people are going to stand up and say Enough!. And yet it continues to decline into more madness on a daily basis. 

Feminists against democracy

Read it here.  Like most branches of the Left, they are for a police state that resurrects old sexism and racism with new skin colors and genders.  They want justice wrenched from the courts and taken to the streets.  They are tired of due process, presumption of innocence and burden of proof.   In short, they want just the kind of world that the American Experiment was supposed to fix.  Consider that this November. 

The Handmaid's Revenge does Evangelicalism

So Beth Moore chimed in - in support of the victims in this rather vague development in the already vague #MeToo movement.  She insists she's not siding against Kavanaugh.  Yet her endorsement of the victims sounds more and more like the radical feminism of old that equated all sex with rape.  The same radical feminism that is able to declare Kavanaugh guilty as pointed at, his life to be ruined presently.

Of course being a good old Bible believing Christian, she can't go so far as saying all sex is rape.  But she can insist that all of her sexual experiences that she regrets, consensual though they were, could have been the result of sexual assault, bullying, or sexist men:

Countless women and girls (and boys) consent to sexual advances they do not welcome or want and that scar them for a lifetime. Or sometimes they consent to one thing and get something completely and disturbingly different(*). They do so for the same reason I did. They feel enormously pressured, extremely unprotected, overpowered and, at times, utterly powerless. I well remember feeling something akin to paralysis. The word “no” was not even in my vocabulary. The boundaries around my life were bulldozed early and by a bully, I might add, because, while not all bullies are sexual predators, all sexual predators are, in one way or another, bullies. There was no manual within my reach about how to rebuild those crumbled boundaries. (emphasis mine)

(*) Explanation needed. 

In other words, it wasn't her fault if she said yes. Even though she said yes to the boys (and we'll, for the moment, assume any sexual experience was always and in every way initiated by the boys), it was still sexual assault.  And she was the victim.

Again, this was the wild dream of radical feminism back in the day.  All sex was rape they were reported to have said.  Moore might not be saying that.  She does at least include boys as victims in theory.  But she and a growing number of women - including Christians - are saying any sex they regret is nothing other than sexual assault by the always vile and bullying attacker, and therefore not their fault.

It's also worth noting that when Ms. Moore was called out for appearing to support execution by accusation, she fired back.  She insisted she has no desire to see anyone innocent falsely accused:

"Let me assure you, sir, I have not one whit of desire for anyone to be falsely accused. That is highly counterproductive and would only end up making it harder for victims. I'm advocating for women to be heard, taken seriously and not placed in harm's way for coming forward."

Personally, I would think the reason she doesn't want someone to be falsely accused is that she doesn't want to see an innocent person falsely accused.  Instead, she says she wouldn't want that because it would be highly counterproductive and would only end up making it harder for victims.  Again, call me an old codger, but I think false accusations are bad because they destroy the reputation of an innocent person.  But thus is the #MeToo era, even within Christianity.

BTW, some might say I'm being harsh with this.  That I don't know the details.  No, I don't.  Because women can accuse men in general based on no details or facts.  Moore doesn't name names, or give facts or details.  She isn't giving me the down and dirty about what happened.  All she is saying is that she did things she regretted, until she realized it wasn't her fault; that she was the victim.

If these boys threw her down and assaulted her, or raped her, or in some way physically attacked her against her wishes, then I'm all behind her.  She is certainly a victim of sexual assault.  But she uses words like consent, and agree, and that isn't rape.  That's not sexual assault. Again, even assuming it was only and always the boys initiating the encounter (not always my experiences), she still said yes.

And this idea born of radical feminism that all reality, including consensual sex, is the result of sexist, rapist men is antithetical to not only the Gospel, but also common sense.  Heck, back in the day, mainstream feminists tried to distance themselves from such bilge.  If Christians are now embracing it, we can understand why Christians throughout the ages embraced the things they did.

This also counts, I should add, if she was somehow assaulted when young.  Even if she was a victim when she was young, it does not stand to reason that any further sexual relationships she had were the result of male sexual predators.  That if she said yes, it was only because of her past trauma, and therefore the boys she said 'yes' to should be considered to have sexually intimidated her, and therefore she was devoid of all responsibility for her actions.  Time doesn't permit for how such an approach is antithetical to Christian and common sense thinking.

If anything is to roll back the decades of debauchery and decadence of the sex and drugs generation, it won't be going radical feminist.   I have no doubt that the trail of abuse and assault runs large in the wake of the sexual revolution, as does so many trails of human suffering, death and loss.  I also have no doubt that both men and women have played their own parts in exploiting what they could get out of it.  The fact that some men committed horrid crimes against women does not present a Get Out of Jail Card for personal responsibility for women.  Nor does it wipe away the notion that women are capable of sin.  All this will do is open up new problems without ultimately solving the old ones.

Brett Kavanaugh, the Handmaid's Revenge, and the death of Western Civilization

Is all here in this ABC piece, where a classmate of Dr. Ford - Kavanaugh's accuser - steps forward with 900 former classmate signatures, saying it's impossible for Dr. Ford to ever be wrong.  Since all men are rapist scum, it's enough to know we don't need burden of proof, evidence, or even details where an accused man is concerned.  It's enough that Dr. Ford lacks the organ Kavanaugh possesses.  She is therefore infallible, her accusation true, and sentencing must begin immediately.

Thus is the world we are leaving our children.  A weary reflection of the tyrannies of the 20th century, gift wrapped by Americans tired of living with the burdens of freedom and democracy.  There is likely no hope in curbing this, as the one guard against tyranny - a free press - is one of the most important instruments the Left now possesses in stripping all liberty away from us.

BTW, it doesn't matter if Kavanaugh is confirmed of found guilty at this point.  We've already laid the groundwork for the eradication of due process and presumption of innocence based on how you were born and what you look like.

And I'll say that given what men stand to lose by standing up to this radical anti-male feminism, I'm not holding my breath that they will do so.  After all, the libido is mightier than the liberty.

If you defend racism against whites today

Or insist you can be racists against white today because they deserve it, then there's a good chance you would have said the same against blacks a hundred years ago.  Same with Jews in Germany in the 1930s.  There's no reason to believe you would have stood against it.  After all, just like much of the justification for stereotyping all white Americans today, much of it was from on high back in the day.  Whether the news media, theater and film, government, business - all were party to advocating racist attitudes and stereotypes.  If you are embracing racism against white Americans just because those same institutions are doing so today, there's no reason to think you wouldn't have done the same back then.

The problem with history is that we have to wait for it to happen in order to study it.  Likewise, it's easy to sit around and condemn the sins of the past and the people who committed them.  I think that's why we spend so much time doing so nowadays.  Plus it keeps our eyes off the current sins we're seeing grow around us. Sins that are merely taking seed, but haven't grown to full fruition yet.

The solution to the racism of the past is not to replace it with a new racism for the future.  The same with sexism.  If we feel women were treated poorly just because they were women, the solution isn't to turn and treat men the same way.  All that says is that we adore sexism and racism,  we just want to make sure we get the right demographics this time.  That, of course, makes you no different than the sexists and racists of old, who thought the same thing.

Robespierre is walked to the guillotine

So Asia Argento, one of the most vocal and visible women in the always vague #MeToo movement, is being accused of sexual assault and cover up.  Oops.   In her case, this could amount to actual criminal charges due to the age of the victim in question.

Now, it's important to remember that she is innocent until proven guilty.  We need evidence that she actually committed a crime or did anything wrong.  She has a right to be heard, and we should withhold judgement until due process has taken place.  You know, all of the things that the #MeToo movement has helped throw under the bus.

The #MeToo movement could have been many good things, but increasingly became none of them.  It became a tool for feminists to browbeat men, for Leftists to throw out a thousand years of English and American legal principles, and for those who would topple the country, a chance to set up a society where more and more Americans are scared to burp in public lest someone dig it up twenty years from now and use it against them.

Rather than jump forward and attempt to get a pound of flesh out of this, I propose taking the high road.  Allow Ms. Argento the same courtesy that the #MeToo movement so deftly discarded.  Allow her to be heard, to be assumed innocent, and wait for actual evidence before making any judgement calls.

Who knows, perhaps this will help get the #MeToo movement back on a track that can do some good, rather than be a chance for ramrodding agendas and advancing vendettas.

Catholic feminism in all its glory

Is here. I won't really comment on the article.  It's typical progressive 'after 2000 years our generation will get it right', with a feminist spin.   But read the comments.  From 'give us your sperm then shut the hell up until we say so' to the groveling man singing of the superiority of the feminine, to the clear and obvious fact that even Salafi Muslims are more enlightened about gender equality than those wretched Catholic misogynists, it's all there for your reading pleasure. 

A movement based on 'however many demographics hate each other is irrelevant, as long as the last vestiges of the Christian West are swept away' won't last long.   My boys were debating Trump and his SCOTUS picks and what it might mean for the long term.  Their primary hope?  The Supreme Court can't change everything, but maybe having the right judges on the court will keep things in order until a generation arises that realizes we can't keep on like this.

If the comments in that comments section are any indicator, that's a long shot hope. But hope is always a precious commodity, so let's not minimize it.