Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Culture’ Category

European natives are grappling with the issue of free speech. Reader Cortesar writes,

“European Framework National Statute for the Promotion of Tolerance” [is] a model law which defines the limits of tolerance”

It is safe to say that Orwell is turning in [his] grave overwhelmed by jealousy. How in the hell he could not come up with such a brilliant concept as “a framework for promotion of tolerance which defines the limit of tolerance

——————————————————————————————————
“We need practical solutions and so we have prioritised the adoption of the European Framework National Statute for the Promotion of Tolerance.”

This Model Law, drafted by leading European experts and legislators, and supported by the EJC, defines the limits of tolerance, which is the demand for security. This is intended to be a pan-European law that for the first time deals with not only the general commitment to tolerance, but defines the values that needs preserving and the limitation of tolerance towards
minority groups who risk the security of other minorities and of their host countries.
——————————————————————————————————-

Behold the universally beneficial uses of high IQ.

It comes down to this: Free speech, small government, community trust, and, among other virtues, a public sphere blessedly unpolluted by leftoid newspeak, are incompatible with a massive, multiracial, legalistic conglomerate of spineless cowards, pacified matrix pods, and malicious parasites. America and the EU will have to break apart if they are to survive united.

UPDATE

Related: Commenter Flip notices the belching of the Hivemind Hatemachine:

I went to one of the Ivy League colleges and flip through the alumni magazine, and every page is dripping with hostility to straight, white, Gentile males.

That’s the alpha and omega of 21st century America right there. Underneath all the stürm und drang it’s just white hot hatred for flyover straight white gentile men. Time to throw a wrench in the machine.

Read Full Post »

False Rape Accusations made by women are a systemic problem, and deserve scrutiny in the interest of justice. False Domestic Abuse Accusations are a slightly less malign version of FRAs, and for this reason perhaps occur more frequently. This video and story are an interesting insider look at the mechanics of an FDAA, how it unfolds, and how it speaks to a particularly vile part of female nature few people are willing to confront: The part that trips into action when a woman wants to hurt a man and chooses the expedient of enlisting white knights to serve as her violence and punishment proxies.

It’s time to fight the false rape accusation and false domestic abuse accusation cultures. Empowered women and dopey, gullible white knights conspire to put innocent men in jail. Active and persistent shaming of the women who lie about being victimized by rape and domestic abuse (and lie about both being a bigger problem than they are), and active and persistent shaming of the white knights who mindlessly rush to the defense of these wicked women, will help put an end to the twisted judicial and corrupt family court systems that have slowly and inexorably morphed over decades into an anonymous, gluttonous, anti-male woodchipper.

It’s time to have a national dialogue about FRAs and FDAAs.

Do women really want men to secretly videotape every moment of every day spent together as a means of self-preservation in the event of an emotional female outburst? Because that’s the world women and their feminist leaders are creating, whether they know it or not.

Read Full Post »

Back in October, CH wrote, based on social circle confessionals, that gay marriage is a farce.

I’ll let you in on a leetle secret…

Every gay marriage that was talked about was an open relationship.

Not a one of these gays who were married, or planned to get married, held any pretense of practicing monogamy. When the topic of promiscuous married gays came up, the only surprise was the blasé avowal of the fact. The gay men announced their intention to defile the tacit monogamous stricture of marriage with such nonchalance that it would astound them to learn anyone thought they might behave otherwise.

CH didn’t know at the time that the New York Beta Times had already implicitly agreed with the Heartistian premise that gay marriage is a farce.

Many successful gay marriages share an open secret.

A study to be released next month is offering a rare glimpse inside gay relationships and reveals that monogamy is not a central feature for many. Some gay men and lesbians argue that, as a result, they have stronger, longer-lasting and more honest relationships. And while that may sound counterintuitive, some experts say boundary-challenging gay relationships represent an evolution in marriage — one that might point the way for the survival of the institution.

New research at San Francisco State University reveals just how common open relationships are among gay men and lesbians in the Bay Area. The Gay Couples Study has followed 556 male couples for three years — about 50 percent of those surveyed have sex outside their relationships, with the knowledge and approval of their partners.

Gay marriage was never primarily about expanding the marital franchise to “historically oppressed groups” in the interest of faaiiiiiirness or haaaaaaaarm reduction, as RAWMUSCLGLUTES Andrew Sullivan perpetually insisted through his fog of roidpouting. Gay marriage is a leftoid equalist project to undermine and eventually to destroy the traditional and biologically heterocentric configuration of marriage. Gay marriage is nothing less than a front in the everlasting equalist war against white male European culture.

Gay marriage is one cultural schism put to use by the Lords of Lies toward the redefinition and de-stigmatization of marriage from an organic mate pair system which safeguards the primacy of paternity assurance to a free-for-all “liberation” that corrodes trust between heterosexual couples and renders hetero beta males wholly prostrate to an antagonistic marriage market stripped of any protections for their particular interests.

Mark my words, a massive elite push to legitimize and maybe even codify polyamory is next on the agenda.

That consent is key. “With straight people, it’s called affairs or cheating,” said Colleen Hoff, the study’s principal investigator, “but with gay people it does not have such negative connotations.”

The study also found open gay couples just as happy in their relationships as pairs in sexually exclusive unions, Dr. Hoff said. A different study, published in 1985, concluded that open gay relationships actually lasted longer.

Gays and lesbians… just like you and me. Except not at all like you and me. And that’s a truth the equalists dearly want to hide from view.

Read Full Post »

Five-star commenter chris marshals ¡SCIENCE! to support the theory that feminists are masculine women who use the ideology of feminism to rearrange normal society into a twisted slutscape that serves the interests of less attractive women who fail at extracting commitment from high value men. Quoting him in full:

******

Here’s a theory for you:

Feminists are a phenotypic morph.
Feminism is political-ideological weaponization by that phenotypic morph.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polymorphism_(biology)

Polymorphism in biology occurs when two or more clearly different phenotypes exist in the same population of a species—in other words, the occurrence of more than one form or morph. In order to be classified as such, morphs must occupy the same habitat at the same time and belong to a panmictic population (one with random mating).

http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/11/2/20140977

“Stay or stray? Evidence for alternative mating strategy phenotypes in both men and women”

This study shows there are two distinct phenotypes within human populations. Promiscuous people and non-promiscuous people. Promiscuous = low digit ratio=higher testosterone=short-term mating strategy.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25250010

“Feminist activist women are masculinized in terms of digit-ratio and social dominance: a possible explanation for the feminist paradox.”

This study shows that feminists are masculinised in terms of digit ratios=low digit ratios=higher testosterone.

This explains why feminism is about changing society from long-term to short term mating. It explains why they defend women being sluts. It explains why they defend women cuckolding. It explains why they defend and agitate for women to pursue careers and achieve self-provisioning sufficiency. And it explains why they try to change the culture to support these values and necessarily oppose their anti/inverse values.

Thus, there is no right-wing war on women. There is a right wing war on the short-term mating or feminist or matriarchal morph.

Likewise there is a left-wing war on the long-term mating or anti-feminist or patriarchal morph.

And here’s the catch: most women are in the long-term mating / anti-feminist / patriarchal morph.

In other words. feminism is anti-(the majority of)-women.

******

A powerful shiv to the bloated gut of feminism is to remind normal, attractive women of the gross, ugly, and deranged feminist women (and their effete male lackeys) who purport to speak for all women. Women are nothing if not herd followers, and if it’s made clear to the Normal Majority of women that feminists are unbangable fugs no worthwhile man would touch with a manlet’s micropeen, then the herd will change course and leave the losers in its dust.

CH is doing its sadistically fun part of getting that message out to the masses.

Chris’s theory jibes closely with CH’s theory of feminism:

The goal of feminism is to remove all constraints on female sexuality while maximally restricting male sexuality.

Masculinized feminism-congenial women want an unnatural order instituted that grants them the shame-free sexual freedom inherent to men while simultaneously restricting any expression of the natural sexual impulses of men themselves. Feminists want to be able to call all the sexual market shots, take no heat for misfires, and publicly excoriate anyone who fires back. This is the dictionary definition of insanity.

National Review, in a rare moment of ballsiness, also corroborates the chris/CH theory of feminism:

Feminism has become something very different from what it understands itself to be, and indeed from what its adversaries understand it to be. It is not a juggernaut of defiant liberationists successfully playing offense. It is instead a terribly deformed but profoundly felt protective reaction to the sexual revolution itself. In a world where fewer women can rely on men, some will themselves take on the protective coloration of exaggerated male characteristics — blustering, cursing, belligerence, defiance, and also, as needed, promiscuity.

Allow me to reword the conclusion of this NR statement for endarkening clarification:

“In a world where fewer ugly, unfeminine, financially self-sufficient women can or need to rely on provider beta males, some will themselves take on the protective coloration of exaggerated male characteristics — blustering, cursing, belligerence, defiance, and also, as needed, promiscuity that leaves them feeling gross and unloved the next morning after Jack has slipped out the back.”

The view is coming into focus now.

Loudmouthed feminists are more often than not:

ugly,
out of shape chunksters,
unfeminine androgynes,
older, Wall-victim spinsters,
spiteful, LSMV misfits…

who simultaneously loathe and envy the natural freedom and energy of male sexual desire. Because feminists are losers in the sexual marketplace, (and because they know it), they seek to tear down the organic, biomechanically-grounded social and sexual orders and replace them with bizarre androgynous dystopias that help them feel better about themselves. Their justified feelings of low self-worth cause them to lash out at men in the aggregate, (and particularly at lower value beta males), and at prettier, feminine women who by their mere existence daily remind feminists of their pitiful ranking in the hierarchy of female romantic worth.

When losers stop knowing their place, and begin insisting their betters are no such thing, and worse when the losers have acquired the power and means to punish their betters, you get what we have today: A failure to propagate; to propagate as a race and to propagate as a successful civilization.

Read Full Post »

A European man living in the US has a few thoughts to share about American women. He’s quoted in full.

******

So these are my thoughts from a West European man living in the US who had had multiple of women from all continents (my accent and looks cause a storm in the US)

I have read this quite excellent blog and it actually saddens me but does not disappoint me what is written here based on my own experiences.
Of course I speak in general terms, one of the stories above is about a German woman so exception do of course happen. Hence no comments about ‘ but I met a French lady and she blah blah blah’

Basically in short and across the board – American women are not worth shit. They are trash pure and simple and it’s only getting worse. I have had lots of success with them and the more I seduce, the more disappointed I am with them.
Hardly any white American women in their 20s know how to cook, very very few know how to flirt seductively, most of them are defensive tired manginas.
It is quite frightening how competitive white schoolgirls in the US are taught to be particularly in sports and they take this competitive nastiness into the workplace.
In short they are very undesirable and then we have the games. Oh the games – how any man can build a communication of basic trust with an American woman is beyond me.
From the very off if you interact with an American woman (even if you have zero interest) she will think – that you think she is amazing (they always pedestalize themselves) and automatically go on the defensive.
Then if she does like you – it’s play the games of not replying to your text, ignoring your text then replying. Hot/cold – again is she worth all this? Nope.
Certainly not future mother material if she cannot be trusted or show respect to respond to a text.

Also I find them very boring. One example only last week – in a bar met a very attractive Boston girl ( I find blondes from the East coast largely very boring) and she bored me for two hours.
The following night I met an attractive Latina and it was flirtatious, fun, lots of body contact and then dancing. A very enjoyable night.

Based on my experiences if you date girls from the Catholic countries in Europe – it is fun and an adventurous.
The girls are out to meet a future husband eventually for sure – but right now they want great, fun experiences – good food, travel, dancing, laughing.
I have met so many warm blooded amazing women who are fun, laid back, love children, fantastic cooks, great sensual lovers and definitely future mother material.

Similar enjoyment with Asians (not American born) – Vietnamese particularly pleasurable, Africans and Indians.

American girls leave university and it’s – find great job (check), find man (check) and the sterile life of consumerism and acquiring wealth and stuff begins. It’s tedious.

One of the problems is you American dudes in that you out up with this shit. The cheerleading thing still amazes me how this happens.
Kids start trying out to be a cheerleader as soon as they reach puberty and are out on a pedestal form that early age. Cheerleading (or slut training) needs to be stopped.
That will end the self -entitled narcissism of American females.

In short American females like to be treated rough as it taps into their puritanical guilt (spanking) feeling associated with sex but mainly because they like being treated like trash because they are trash.

******

This concept of female self-pedestalization needs more air time. It’s funny when an average-looking woman assumes a man who’s asking for her insurance info after she rams his car is hitting on her. That wee womanly hamster requires constant tending.

Look, American women aren’t as bad as this reader insists, but they are getting worse. I’ve heard similar surprised laments from European men mired in the American dating scene. Are all these guys irrationally spiteful? Presumably they have experience with European women, so they’re in a good position to compare and draw conclusions.

I’ve dated my share of European girls. Maybe my selection filter is sterling, but none of them were a horrible experience. I haven’t had that many bad experiences with American women, either, but then my threshold for what constitutes an irritatingly bad romantic experience is probably higher than what most men could tolerate or even enjoy. If you know women well, what makes them tick, you’re better prepared to brush off or redirect the eccentricities of their sex toward something mutually fulfilling. In fact, you come to enjoy their little games, because you deal with them as a mindfucker equal. As a man confident in his ability to swat away the natural female compulsions that so infuriate romantically naive men with less experience in the pooning fields.

Female courtship games are like “getting hotter/colder” signposts pointing you in the direction of pleasure, or away from it.

On the whole, I’d say the European women I loved were more feminine than their American counterparts, but I’d bet this reader is Spanish or Provencal French and has a distinct preference for the sunnier girls of South Europe, biasing him against white American women who are, mostly, Anglo-Germanic and thus by disposition colder and more careerist than the Southern Euro female norm.

That’s my hunch. I could be wrong. Certainly, there are Northern European men, especially the ones willing to live overseas, who like the exotic and are easily captivated by the raw, seductive vibe of women from milder, less crisply K, regions of the world. If this reader is one of them, then it’s not surprising he would be put off by American women who aren’t, underneath the hood, all that different than his native Northern Euro dating prospects.

In news that will prove to be relevant to this post once you think about it for a second, another American female teacher is accused of banging her high school students — six of them in total (she’s a busy gal). Female teacher pedofucking has got to be on the rise; there have been too many stories in the past few years like this one to count. Is it something in the water? Nah. I think what we are seeing is the leading edge of a culture speeding into full scale disintegration. As American men become more beta and androgynous, American women feel more intense cravings for psychologically dimorphic badboys. This slutty teacher phenomenon is an extreme manifestation of a general American woman romantic ennui caused by an enfeebling of the (adult, white) men available to them. Part of this male enfeeblement is itself caused by a legal and extralegal punitive bias against traditionally European expressions of masculinity.

American men are hamstrung, in other words. And it’s the result of a deliberate progressivist project as well as a self-imposed generational gelding.

Maybe the amplifying lust for jerks and the growing disgust for betas are hardening American women. Instead of coaxing women’s femininity to come out and shine, the badboys are having a grand noncommittal time exploiting a sexual market starved for their special brand of lovingkindness, and dispirited women are flailing to gain leverage against their own darkest, desirous urges. The Pillsbury Betaboys meanwhile are trying harder than ever, supplicating and prostrating themselves until all life is drained out of vaginas subject to their anhedonic pleadings.

The naive man dips his toe in the American dating scene and discovers the women are mannish, narcissistic killjoys, having surrendered their femininity on the altars of social media attention whoring, obesity, and careerism. The question hangs: Is it too late to fix American women? Or is the fate of the West shackled to the dead weight of all these androgynes?

Read Full Post »

Have you noticed the dearth of original ideas coming out of Hollywood? The problem is that a good idea needs a companion in the truth. And our culture has turned violently away from the truth. Consequently, novel ideas in all art forms are getting rarer.

Reader PA suggests a Crimson Pill movie idea that’s both fresh and honest.

I wonder if rape victims who experienced orgasms mid rape were capable of having vaginal orgasms in their normal lives.

You’re writing a screenplay for a drama/thriller involving a normal, happily married woman who was just brutally raped and came hard in the throes of the assault. Her husband is a normal blue-pill greater beta who suddenly finds her unable to have vaginal sex. The husband goes through tears and frustration, and self-defeating attempts at being “supportive” and then finds a crimson arts blog and makes a plan to transform himself into a Love-Heisenberg, to save the marriage.

Do you simply graft the script of “9 and 1/2 Weeks” from here on, or is there another approach?

Throw in a paint-by-numbers overcredentialed marriage counselor, a spiteful feminist BFF, and an undersexed white knight friend of the husband who secretly desires his wife, and you’ve got yourself boffo box office!

By the way, Fifty Shades of Grey, if you don’t already know, is a complete rip-off of the vastly superior Mickey Rourke-Kim Bassinger erotic movie Nine 1/2 Weeks. Ferkrissake, the male lead’s character name in Nine 1/2 is “John Gray”. I’m surprised critics have failed to note the similarities. It’s canny enough that the producers of Nine 1/2 (and the writer of the book on which the movie is based) have grounds to sue the fat pig who wrote Fifty Shades.

Bassinger’s character, Elizabeth, in Nine 1/2 also falls for a badboy with a sadistic streak. (Girls can’t help themselves.) There is a rape scene in which Elizabeth has a powerful orgasm. She is both bewildered and entranced by her body’s betrayal of her good sense. The movie has a sort of audience-stroking happy ending, when Elizabeth, deeply in love with John but emotionally broken by his intensifying manipulations (he has her watch a prostitute service him in a hotel room), leaves him, but in so doing turns her back on a piece of her womanhood. There’s a subtext that she will never joyously submit to that kind of fiery passion again.

(John should’ve balanced all that anxiety-inducement with some comfort. Game 101, man!)

Personally, I would take PA’s idea and make a feint toward a Nine 1/2 Weeks conclusion, except with a Walter White Breaking Badboy twist: The greater beta husband, upon elevating himself as the dominant force in his wife’s life and finally in a position to save their marriage (ironically via a route that mirrors his wife’s confusing rape experience), opts instead to succumb to the temptations of his reinvention. I’d also change the deus ex machina from a blog to a player buddy, or perhaps to a death row inmate with a pile of marriage proposals from adoring female fans. Internet-hemmed epiphanies don’t play well on screen.

Submission to a man worthy of it is engraved in a woman’s soul. She will deny it, the Hivemind will deny it, the pedestal-polishing plushboys will deny it as they politely discuss financial outlooks over the din of insistent pleat-imprisoned chubbies in sterile offices with gogrrl droids in pencil skirts, but when the blinds are closed and the darkness descends, every woman will arch her back to meet the lovely, exquisite pain of an icy caress.

Read Full Post »

An Atlantic leftoid* wrote a smug, insular column, “Waiting for the Conservative Jon Leibowitz”, rhetorically asking why there’s no conservative equivalent to The Daily Show or Colbert. The article reads like a gloat about how liberals “get it” and conservatives don’t get it, “it” being the nuanced (read: intellectual) forms of humor.

Over the years, Stewart and his cohort mastered the very difficult task of sorting through all the news quickly and turning it around into biting, relevant satire that worked both for television and the Internet.

Now, as Stewart prepares to leave the show, the brand of comedy he helped invent is stronger than ever. Stephen Colbert is getting ready to bring his deadpan smirk to The Late Show. Bill Maher is continuing to provoke pundits and politicians with his blunt punch lines. John Oliver’s Last Week Tonight is about to celebrate the end of a wildly popular first year. Stewart has yet to announce his post-Daily Show plans, but even if he retires, the genre seems more than capable of carrying on without him.

The insularity of the article is betrayed by the author’s assumption that liberal-dominated fake news shows represent the pinnacle of achievement in humor. The implicit belief is that conservative “failure” in this domain is indicative of an inherent conservative inability to appreciate or master the finer arts of funny, such as irony and satire.

Whenever I read masturbatory liberal articles like this one, I cross-check the article’s biases with my personal experience to see if there’s a match; if there is, I give the liberal the benefit of the doubt that it’s onto something. (It rarely is.) If not, I don’t immediately write off the liberal conclusion, but I don’t give it much merit either. In the real world, where all that matters is how much I laugh, I’ve been friends with quite a few liberal and conservative funnymen (and a smattering of funnywomen). But the funniest guys I’ve known were all far right of center rascally SOBs. Online, the situation is similar. I think the Christian sadists at MPC are funny as hell, and no one can accuse them of being Leibowitz lackeys.

Could it be that American political satire is biased toward liberals in the same way that American political talk radio is biased toward conservatives? Dannagal Young, an assistant professor of communications at the University of Delaware, was looking into the lack of conservative comedians when she noticed studies that found liberals and conservatives seemed to have different aesthetic tastes. Conservatives seemed to prefer stories with clear-cut endings. Liberals, on the other hand, had more tolerance for a story like public radio’s Serial, which ends with some uncertainty and ambiguity.

Yes, how those leftoids love ambiguity and nuance. You can see it in how they assiduously avoid unambiguously pigeonholing, for instance, rednecks.

Framing is one of the most interesting game concepts, and it’s because it has applicability well beyond the context of picking up girls. The supposed leftoid love for uncertainty and ambiguity is just as accurately expressed as a leftoid fear of judgment. Which, when you think about it, makes survival sense. An effete liberal manlet benefits from a society that refuses to judge it unworthy of inclusion.

Young began to wonder whether this might explain why liberals were attracted in greater numbers to TV shows that employ irony. Stephen Colbert, for example, may say that he’s looking forward to the sunny weather that global warming will bring, and the audience members know this isn’t what he really means. But they have to wonder: Is he making fun of the kind of conservative who would say something so egregious? Or is he making fun of arrogant liberals who think that conservatives hold such extreme views?

Liberal audiences love liberal showmen who vigorously pump their priors. I doubt there’s a single SWPL viewer who doesn’t know that Colbert is on its side.

As Young noticed, this is a kind of ambiguity that liberals tend to find more satisfying and culturally familiar than conservatives do. In fact, a study out of Ohio State University found that a surprising number of conservatives who were shown Colbert clips were oblivious to the fact that he was joking.

Good lord. How often are liberal SJWs oblivious to the humor in racially-tinted jokes? Maybe people just don’t find jokes funny when they’re targeted at firmly held beliefs.

In contrast, conservative talk radio humor tends to rely less on irony than straightforward indignation and hyperbole.

I haven’t heard a shortage of liberals engaging in indignation and hyperbole.

When Rush Limbaugh took down Georgetown student and birth-control activist Sandra Fluke in 2012, he called her a “slut” in order to drive home his point about state-mandated birth control. After the liberal blogosphere erupted with derision, Limbaugh responded with more jokes, asking that Fluke post videos of her sex online so taxpayers could see what they were paying for. (After a few days, he offered a public apology, insisting that he “did not mean a personal attack” on Fluke.)

Here we detect the primary driver of conservative retreat, if it exists, from political satire: Conservatives are constrained by the reigning leftoid Hivemind orthodoxies. Conservatives with audiences larger than three people have a limited ability to skewer liberal shibboleths without getting into serious career-ending trouble. Limbaugh’s backpedaling slut smear apology is Exhibit S. Has a leftoid on any of these fake news shows ever had to grovel before the inquisition for maliciously slandering a right-wing representative? No. They have license to smear their right-wing targets, something that non-leftoids cannot do to with the same gusto to sanctified liberal targets like Sandra Fluke.

Conservatives will never win at this game until they begin the process of chipping away at the bedrock of the Narrative. This means AGREEING & AMPLIFYING when the usual liberal accusations are cavalierly leveled. For example, once accused of slut shaming, Limbaugh should’ve had whole skit about Fluke mentally calculating the number of cocks she could raw dog on a $10 supply of pills. (zank you, i’ll be in all zee veek.)

If non-leftoids had the same freedom to parody cherished liberal icons — race, sex, eskimos, SWPLs, new atheists — with the same venom, I bet you’d see plenty of right-wing Daily Shows pop up. Right now, that freedom isn’t there, so mainstream righties have to stick with the liberal script, which in practice means essentially agreeing with the fundamentals of liberal progressivism while making feeble feints against the rapidity of that progress to which they have already tacitly acceded as inevitable.

Despite these societal biases against a conservative satirical uprising, I still think there could be an innate disposition in liberals that favors ambiguity and uncertainty. I think this because women also love ambiguity and uncertainty, particularly in the realm of romance, and we know women are more liberal than men. We also know liberal men are more womanly than conservative men (and this jibes with personal observation), so it’s not much of a logical leap to deduce that liberals in general are on the whole more womanly and thus more frightened of harsh moral dividing lines and of the judgment of peers.

*I invented the term of art “leftoid” because it captures the anti-human nature of the liberal vision, and the robotic incantations with which liberals autonomically resort to defending their faith when attacked by apostates.

PS Here’s a fantastically brutal judgment of Jon Leibowitz in the Post. Money shot:

Stewart is a journalist: an irresponsible and unprofessional one.

He is especially beloved by others in the journo game. (For every 100 viewers, he generated about 10 fawning profiles in the slicks, all of them saying the same thing: The jester tells the truth!)

Any standard liberal publication was as likely to contain an unflattering thought about Stewart as L’Osservatore Romano is to run a hit piece on the pope.

The hacks have a special love for Stewart because he’s their id. They don’t just think he’s funny, they thrill to his every sarcastic quip. They wish they could get away with being so one-sided, snarky and dismissive.

That’s it right there. Leibowitz and his ilk succeed because the entirety of the media industrial complex share the same targets of hate. That’s why he gets so much positive ink, and why he’s catapulted into icon status, however pinched and domed the arena in which he rules.

The leftoid machine is a hate machine, and but for the pretense of objectivity that constrains “journalists” they’d all be taking up pitchforks and driving their hated enemies — core white Americans — into the flames, cackling like maniacs the whole time.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,195 other followers

%d bloggers like this: