Bleeding Edge

Rarely has the idiom “virtue is its own reward” looked better than it does in light of the sex scandals sweeping the nation. The so-called “prudishness,” of a previous generation and the respect most men were once taught to have for women — and which Hugh Hefner and his disciples of “free love” mocked — are looking better with each passing day.

But with the advent of the breaking story about the virtuous Matt Lauer of NBC, coming undone — who by now you know as the Today Show superstar Matt Lauer who got fired, allegedly for repeated sexual harassment, rape, and assault against his female colleagues. The firing came Wednesday morning after an NBC executive claimed an official complaint about Lauer’s behavior was filed Monday night. NBC framed the issue as new and sudden, but reporters from Variety Magazine have been onto Lauer for months and came out with a bombshell story Thursday night with the details of his behavior. According to their report, Lauer locking women in his office, gave a woman a sex toy with a detailed note about how he was going to use it, regular showed women his genitals and much more. Further, NBC executives protected him for years. Of course, sure liberal Matt Lauer’s conduct was not a secret among other employees at “Today” show of the NBC, as numerous sources says. At least one of the anchors would gossip about stories she had heard, spreading them among the staff. “Management sucks there,” says a former reporter, who asked not to be identified, speaking about executives who previously worked at the show. “They protected the shit out of Matt Lauer.”
The allegations against Lauer aren’t new and back in 2012 former Today Show host Katie Couric told Bravo’s Andy Cohen that Matt Lauer’s most annoying habit was “pinching her on the ass a lot.”
Keep in mind Lauer was close friends with now disgraced Hollywood movie mogul Harvey Weinstein. When NBC executives were approached with the story about Weinstein’s behavior by NBC reporter Ronan Farrow earlier this year, they squashed it. So, when allegations surfaced that Matt Lauer, at 30 Rockefeller Center in 2006, had ordered his office in a secluded space, and he had also gotten a remote door locking button installed under his desk, that allowed him to lock his door from sitting in his desk, without getting up. This afforded him the assurance of privacy. It allowed him to welcome female employees, and initiate inappropriate contact, and abuse them at will, rape them, and fvck them hard, all the while feeling secure knowing that there would be no witnesses, since nobody could walk in on him. This is the case, according to two women who were working at NBC, and were sexually harassed by Matt Lauer in a serious and serial manner and lived to tell the tale, about Matt Lauer, the preachy NBC morning host of the “Today” show who was apparently a sex freak to rival Harvey Weinstein…

And then you have the ICON.

This icon is Rep. John Conyers (Democrat-MI) who says that he has “no plans to resign” numerous women accused him of sexual misconduct and harassment. Conyers’ attorney made the statement on Wednesday, after multiple allegations against Conyers began to surface last week. Since then, many on both the left and the right have called for his resignation. Journalist Cokie Roberts said over the weekend it was an open secret among the women in the press corps that Conyers was a predator, and that women should avoid being in an elevator with him. Democratic Representative Conyers, has served in Congress since 1965, and by any sensible measure, he should have retired long ago, but another geriatric person, Representative Nancy Pelosi (Democrat-CA) defended him and called him an “icon” of that particular Retirement Home of Senile Representatives called the United States Congress.

But as for now, it looks as though Democratic Representative Conyers will still be sticking around Washington prancing the Halls of Congress in his Playboy briefs or boxers, the choice dependent on the day of the week.

Yet in the after Harvey Weinstein era, at least some liberals are finally starting to tell the truth about their past sins and they start with Bill Clinton — just 20 years after it happened of course. Now, considering that it took the Democratic Party a century to discover that slavery was wrong, two decades is lightning speed for these paragons of morality and virtue.

And yet while edging up to the Continent of Reality, where admitting that Bill Clinton maybe shouldn’t have raped the protesting Juanita Broaddrick, and he shouldn’t have flashed, groped, and masturbated with the unwilling Paula Jones — the liberal crowd of bloviators, still can’t own up to their utterly hypocritical defense of a Clinton Ex-president, who was credibly accused of repeated sexual assaults, rapes, and associated felonies.

Recently, The New York Times’ Maureen Dowd tried to cover up the left’s shameful response to Clinton’s sleazy behavior with the “both sides” argument. According to Dowd, liberals “tried to kill off” Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas “over sex when the real reason they wanted to get rid of him was politics.” And then conservatives “tried to kill off a Democratic president over sex when the real reason they wanted to get rid of him was politics.”

Yet, Anita Hill’s accusations against judge Thomas involved words — just words — whereas Clinton was accused by multiple women of being a sexual predator on a scale to rival and eclipse Harvey Weinstein, because Bill Clinton, also targeted young fragile women, mere interns at the White House, who were not quite there in regards to the Power Dynamic and the disequilibrium, of the age of consent…

And the evidence against judge Thomas consisted of a single accuser, with no corroborating witnesses, whereas the evidence against Bill Clinton included, among other things, multiple witnesses; contemporaneous corroborating witnesses; secretly recorded confessions of the assaults and liaisons from Clinton himself (the Gennifer Flowers tape), Monica Lewinsky (Linda Tripp tapes) and Juanita Broaddrick (two separate tapes by people who wanted her to tell the truth about the rape); a DNA-stained dress; and, eventually, when he had absolutely no other choice, Clinton’s own admission under oath.

As Dowd says, the left was using Hill’s made-up charges against Thomas to save Roe v. Wade. By contrast, it’s absurd to imagine that Republicans were enraged by the policies of President Clinton — a neoliberal, Third-Way, welfare-reform-signing, Ricky Ray Rector-executing Democrat. Clinton was the last of a vanishing breed, the moderate Democrat. That just wasn’t a good enough reason to overlook his repeated sexual assaults, felonies and bald-faced lies.

It was liberals, and only liberals, who did an about-face on everything they supposedly believed about sexual harassment for political gain. The exact same people who had pretended to need smelling salts when told Thomas had joked about “Long Dong Silver” in the offices of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (never happened) were suddenly A-OK with a governor summoning a lowly state employee to his hotel room, dropping his pants and saying, “Kiss it.”

The erstwhile lynch mob against judge Clarence Thomas was fine with a presidential candidate using his campaign staff (including ABC’s George Stephanopoulos) to squelch “bimbo eruptions.”

Liberals were totally copacetic with the president of the United States using the full power of his office to smear his victims as liars, bimbos, trailer park trash and — in the case of Monica Lewinsky — a “stalker.”

In the middle of the Lewinsky scandal, feminist icon Gloria Steinem penned a New York Times op-ed launching the all-new “One Free Grope” rule. Steinem explained that Clinton’s smooth “kiss it” line to Paula Jones merely showed that — I quote — “Clinton took ‘no’ for an answer.”

No correction to Steinem’s pronouncement was issued days later when news of Juanita Broaddrick’s rape charge against Clinton began to circulate.

If you doubt that the media are run by the totalitarian left, note that Steinem’s op-ed piece has been wiped clear away from the New York Times’ archives. So I guess liberal journos do know how to wipe hard drives, and maybe Hillary Clinton is by now an expert in rewriting history to her liking and the rest of the Mass Media establishment toe the line of criminal revisionism.

Still despite all that — Bill Clinton was impeached for perjury, and other felonies, that he had committed in full lawyerly knowledge, just in order to defeat Paula Jones’ sexual harassment claims against him.

Yet back then — same as now with iconic Representative Al Franken, or Conyers, or others — not one Democrat in the Senate voted to remove him from office.

Not one.

As a consequence, the rule on sexual assault at least since Teddy Kennedy drowned Mary Jo Kopechne was this: Liberals were free to grope, rape, and drown women, and to smear them, and their defenders. But conservatives, lacrosse players, fraternity members, pompous Fox News hosts, and other objects of liberal hate, would have to be destroyed at the slightest hint of any sexual impropriety, whether true or comically false.

What didn’t matter: The nature of the charge, credibility of the accuser, use of force, contemporaneous witnesses, photographic evidence, DNA evidence …

What mattered: Who’s the accused?

It would be as if pollution laws were enforced only against companies with Republican CEOs. Oh! It’s Harvey Weinstein’s firm? My mistake — go ahead, dump toxic chemicals into this pristine river.

That’s why the most shocking revelation to emerge from The New York Times’ expose of Weinstein last month was that it was published at all. Least shocking was that, before Ronan Farrow took his detailed account of Weinstein’s assaults to The New Yorker, NBC killed the story.

Also unsurprising: Soon after refusing to publish Farrow’s report on Weinstein, NBC was frantically peddling a letter by “Saturday Night Live” staffers defending Al Franken from his own multiple groping incidents. It’s looking like the best way to defend Roy Moore would be to allege that Democratic Senator Al Franken once fondled 14-year-olds against their will, same as he fondled each and every woman within range of his grabbing hands…

Still, with the New York Times expose’ of Harvey Weinstein, for the first time in 20 years, liberals have finally begun to notice the prodigious abuse of women by liberal men — other than Al Franken, or Representative Conyers, or anyone else in the House of Representatives, or i Government, like the protected species of pedophile Mayors, like Ed Murray Mayor of Seattle, and his enabling aunt Senator Patti Murray — of course.

Perhaps the day is not far off when in the following century, by the year 2100, we will have ONE standard of Virtue, for both liberals and for the people liberals hate.

Let’s dream of that liberation from the bonds of Slavery…

Conservatives have been told they can’t impose their morality on others, so how is its opposite working out for individuals and the culture?

Washington Post columnist Christine Emba writes, “…now could be the time to reintroduce virtues such as prudence, temperance, respect and even love.”

“What’s love got to do with it?” asked Tina Turner? Everything. If you love somebody or something — from institutions, to people — you are bound to treasure them, as opposed to what you dislike, don’t respect and treat like a disposable item that is useful for the moment, but is discarded when it has served your purpose.

Who decided traditional virtues were no longer viable and should not be taught to schoolchildren? Was a study conducted that found young people were being damaged from learning how to live and respect one another? Were they expected to catch these virtues on their own without guidance from elders? If so, why do we teach table manners, not interrupting when someone else is talking, sharing and many other things to counter what our lower nature doesn’t teach us?

The idea behind virtue being its own reward is that people who pursue virtue enjoy a layer of protection from the sins now being exposed in so many, from Washington to Hollywood and in between. People who are faithful to their spouses in marriage, honest in their financial dealings, respected for their character and integrity in public and in private don’t have to worry about being “embarrassed and ashamed” as Senator Al Franken said of his behavior toward some women.

Former Secretary of Education William J. Bennett published “The Book of Virtues” in 1993. It is a collection of moral tales designed to instruct us on the benefits of virtue and the consequences of its opposite.

The chapter titles reveal a list of ancient truths that seem increasingly scarce in modern society. They include some of the things Ms. Emba notes we are missing in today’s culture: Self-discipline, Responsibility, Courage, Honesty, Loyalty and Faith. Question: Would anyone argue these virtues have exceeded their “sell-by” date? It turns out that living by one’s own moral code, or none at all, has been a disaster for individuals and for the nation.

In the introduction to his book, Bennett writes of the necessity of reaching “the inner part of the individual to the moral sense.” Today, he writes, “We speak about values and the importance to ‘have them’ as if they were beads on a string or marbles in a pouch. But these stories speak of morality and virtues, not as something to be possessed, but as the central part of human nature, not as something to have, but as something to be, the most important thing to be.”

In the train wreck of our present culture, we are witnessing the failure over the last 50 years to instruct and discipline our children in ways that as adults they are more likely to embrace the values that can lead to a virtuous life. Why did we expect any other outcome after mostly abandoning these virtues? If you penalize and discourage virtuous things you will get less virtue; conversely, if you subsidize and encourage virtue, you will get more of it.

The scandals playing out in newspapers and on TV speak to this. The question now is will we “repent,” as the Scriptures advise, and seek a new path which, in fact, is a very old path that leads to a more virtuous life, or continue down the current path which leads to destruction?

It is a political, tactical and moral mistake for Republicans to continue backing Judge Roy Moore for Alabama’s Senate seat.

In brief, he has been accused by multiple women of, decades ago, making unwanted and inappropriate sexual advances toward them when they were teenage girls — one as young as 14 — and he was in his 30s. At least four women say he initiated sexual contact with them.

When asked if he thought the Moore allegations were true, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said, “I believe the women, yes. … I think he should step aside” — a sentiment shared, publicly and privately, by nearly all Republican senators.

President Donald Trump at first struck the right chord. After his handpicked Republican candidate lost the primary election, Trump called Moore to congratulate him. Everything was fine, until the allegations. Then Trump said, “If the allegations are true, he should drop out.” When the Republican National Committee withdrew its funding for Moore, Trump went along with it.

Then Trump began to twist, and he now says that Moore is innocent until proven guilty, that these are all old claims and that we can’t have a lefty in the Senate:

“(Moore) denies it,” the President said last week. “Look, he denies it. I mean, if you look at what is really going on, and you look at all the things that have happened over the last 48 hours, he totally denies it. He says it didn’t happen. And, you know, you have to listen to him also. You’re talking about, he said 40 years ago this did not happen.”

Trump then blasted Moore’s Democratic opponent, Doug Jones, via Twitter: “The last thing we need in Alabama and the U.S. Senate is a Schumer/Pelosi puppet who is WEAK on Crime, WEAK on the Border, Bad for our Military and our great Vets, Bad for our 2nd Amendment, AND WANTS TO RAISES TAXES TO THE SKY. Jones would be a disaster!”

These are not good enough reasons.

Again, Moore was not Trump’s guy. Luther Strange — the incumbent appointed to complete the term of former Sen. Jeff Sessions, who became Attorney General — was Trump’s choice. But Steve Bannon, Trump’s former aide, wanted Moore, presumably because the former judge supported Bannon’s desire to ditch Senate leader Mitch McConnell. Yet during the Luther Strange and Roy Moore debates, the candidates fell all over themselves to argue who would be more closely linked to the Trump agenda. So, no matter who won, he figured to be an ally to the President.

Defenders of Moore ask, why now? After decades in public service, why are these allegations only now coming out? A better question, why the allegations in the first place? Are they credible? But to answer the timing question, the more likely “culprit” is not Democratic opposition, but Harvey Weinstein, whose sexual abuse and misconduct opened the door for other accusers in other fields to come forward. That these allegations are only now being taken seriously is too little too late, but the timing could not have been worse for Moore.

Of course he is “innocent until proven guilty.” This is not a court of law. This is politics. Are the defenders of Moore willing to discount all of his accusers but believe the accusers against Bill Clinton?

The voluminous allegations against Harvey Weinstein, a friend and patron of the political left, have forced the Democrats to reconsider their adoration for the likes of Bill Clinton and Ted Kennedy, whose resumes include credible allegations of sexual assault, allegations long ignored.

For now, Republicans occupy the high moral ground, as Democrats, already dealing with allegations of sexual misconduct by Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn., and Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., squirm to explain how and why they ignored, downplayed or accepted the sexual behavior of party icons Clinton and Ted Kennedy.

With Moore defenders, in part, circling the wagons on Moore, many Trump voters apparently cannot answer this question: Why did you “overlook” the allegations made by some dozen women against now-President Donald Trump?

That’s easy.

Trump was not running against Mother Teresa. Trump ran against Hillary Clinton, a canny, self described nasty woman who enjoyed killing people and boasting about it as she did with Gaddafi and myriad others, and even threatened to drone Julian Assange for his Journalistic Transparency, and a seriously deviant alcoholic woman who attacked and intimidated Juanita Broaddrick just two weeks after Bill Clinton had raped her. Conservative Barbara Olson’s book “Hell to Pay” and liberal Christopher Hitchens’ book “No One Left to Lie To” depict Hillary as the modern Agrippina who also conceived the “nuts & sluts” strategy effectively employed to muddy, malign, and marginalize, her husband’s victims of sexual abuse who turned to become whistleblowers and public accusers…

This is the person against whom Donald Trump ran. So, no, Republicans need not apologize for supporting Trump against a person whose actions enabled, covered up for, and therefore perpetuated her husband’s misconduct.

By supporting Roy Moore, Republicans, on the issue of sexual misconduct, risk turning into the my-guy-wrong-or-wrong hypocrites from across the aisle, and also falling victims of the liberal feminists, and the LGBTQ wagon of nut jobs that are waging the war on Men that is now brewing all over the country…

This is going to be an unpopular opinion, offered as it is in a maelstrom of headlines and revelations — many long overdue — about powerful men who have sexually abused, harassed, assaulted or otherwise exploited others. Each day brings new allegations, and nearly every day, more heads roll. But obscured behind the legitimate outrage against sexual predators is an unceasing cultural onslaught against men that should concern us every bit as much as the predation dominating the news.

I am absolutely not referring to current efforts to expose the men accused of sexual harassment or assault. The men who engage in that behavior deserve the public opprobrium they’re getting. I am speaking of a longer-term and more insidious attack against men — and masculinity — generally.

Masculinity itself risks becoming a dirty word. Across the country, workshops are being held to teach men how to avoid “toxic masculinity.” It’s one thing to suggest, as some of these workshops do, that there is healthy and unhealthy masculinity. (Personal definitions of “masculinity” that equate maleness with violence or exploitation, for example, are clearly detrimental.) But the same could be said of any human attribute or relationship. There are toxic parents, toxic spouses, toxic co-workers; there is healthy self-love, and then there is narcissism, and so on…

Yet, it is something else altogether to suggest that masculinity is in and of itself toxic — a not-infrequent idea expressed on social media and by some so-called feminist writers. A workshop offered at the Claremont Colleges last year was promoted with a flier that read, in part, “Masculinity can be extremely toxic to our mental health…” Such a view smears all men, simply because they are men.

We have seen a similar dynamic play out in discussions about race. Decades ago, efforts were made to raise awareness about eradicating “discrimination,” which focused on actions that were unfair and harmful to racial minorities. Later, the conversation broadened to “racism,” which focused more on attitudes behind the actions. Recently, however, these have morphed into “white privilege,” which conveniently requires neither reprehensible individual conduct nor hostile personal attitudes in order to impose culpability. This trajectory reaches its logical conclusion in the statement that “all white people are racist” just by virtue of being white — a sentiment so pervasive that Googling it brings up dozens of videos and articles making that very argument.

Is it a stretch to worry that the same kind of attitude is developing toward men? I don’t think so. Earlier this week, a nurse named Taiyesha Baker who worked at Indiana University Health posted a tweet which read, “Every white woman raises a detriment to society when they raise a son. Someone with the HIGHEST propensity to be a terrorist, rapist, racist, killer and domestic violence all-star. Historically every son you had should be sacrificed to the wolves B*tch.” IU Health later released a statement saying that the nurse in question no longer worked for them.

That may be one rash tweet. But author and columnist Stephen Marche published a serious piece in The New York Times on Nov. 25, “The Unexamined Brutality of the Male Libido.” Drawing precisely the wrong conclusion from the Weinstein et al parade of horribles, Marche invokes the notion of Freudian repression and intones soberly, “If you let boys be boys, they will murder their fathers and sleep with their mothers.” He concludes, saying, “It is not morality but culture — accepting our monstrosity — that can save us. If anything can.”

Where to start?

Are we seriously going to argue that male sexuality has never been “examined”?

Not all men are monsters. And morality shapes culture. But that conclusion is deeply unpopular with large segments of the American population, especially on the left. The “anything goes” ethos of the sexual revolution — and the abandonment of individual restraint and traditional sexual morality — has only empowered the Harvey Weinsteins of the world.

Nor do these pronouncements happen in a vacuum. Over the past couple of years, there has been an explosion of media coverage — almost a fetishizing — of transgender and other gender-nonconforming individuals. It isn’t limited to Caitlyn Jenner, Chelsea Manning or other adults. The New York Times published an article last week titled, “His Eye Makeup Is Way Better Than Yours,” in which the author sings the praises of young boys who have become social media sensations for their adept application of makeup. Marie Claire magazine calls them “the beauty boys of Instagram.” The youngest boy in the story is 10.

While heterosexual and “cisgendered” men endure a barrage of criticism and suspicion, the media fawns over men who wear makeup, dress like women and cut off their genitals.

The symbolism here is profoundly disturbing.

There have always been men who exploited their power over women, or children, or other men. But this is not characteristic of all men, and saying so is a terrible slur. The solution is morality — a return to sexual restraint, and personal and professional decorum.

What we need are more men who are trained to be gentlemen, not boys who have been indoctrinated to be feminine.

And that brings us to former FBI Director Robert Mueller who was supposed to run a narrow investigation into accusations of collusion between the Donald Trump campaign and the Russian government. But so far, Mueller’s work has been plagued by almost daily improper leaks (e.g., “sources report,” “it emerged,” “some say”) about investigations that seem to have little to do with his original mandate.

Now, there are leaks claiming that Mueller is going after former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn for his business practices before he entered the Trump administration. Specifically, Mueller is reportedly investigating Flynn’s security assessment and intelligence work for the Turkish government and other Turkish interests. Yet possible unethical lobbying on behalf of a NATO ally was not the reason Mueller was appointed.

The Roman satirist Juvenal famously once asked how one could guard against marital infidelity when the moral guardians were themselves immoral. His famous quip, translated roughly as “Who will police the police?” is applicable to all supposedly saintly investigators.

Independent counsel Ken Starr was supposed to look into Bill Clinton’s supposed shady Whitewater dealings in Arkansas. He ended up investigating every aspect of Clinton’s life, including his many sexual escapades.

No doubt Clinton was a philanderer. But it was not Starr’s mission to prove to the nation what it had already suspected when it voted Clinton into the Oval Office.

In 2003, Patrick Fitzgerald was appointed as special counsel (by now-notorious former FBI Director James Comey) to determine whether Lewis “Scooter” Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, had illegally exposed the allegedly covert status of CIA operative Valerie Plame. As with the Starr investigation, Fitzgerald soon presided over a media circus.

When the investigation was over, Libby was charged on five counts even though Plame may not have been a covert CIA agent at all. Also, it was reported early in the investigation that Fitzgerald knew someone other than Libby was almost surely guilty of first leaking Plame’s status (Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage).

But Fitzgerald was desperate for a big administration scalp. So he continued to lead an investigation that resulted in Libby’s conviction on four charges — in part based on Libby’s supposed disclosures to journalist Judith Miller. In her memoir, Miller later disavowed that Libby had ever given her classified information.

Special counsel investigations are only as good as the society at large that orders them. The idea that a godly inquisitor, invested with extralegal authority, can somehow use superior wisdom and morality to solve an unsolvable ethical problem is a stretch.

Usually, these chasing-your-own-tail appointments are born out of media and political hysteria. The special counsel immediately feels enormous pressure to find anything to avoid being accused of running a “whitewash” or wasting time and money.

If the original investigation finds little traction, the all-powerful special counsel then ventures into ever new territories — apparently on the theory that everyone has at least something to hide in his past. Or the special counsel tries to cross up panicked targets in order to find inconsistent narratives that can be banked as fallback evidence of lying or hiding something that was not necessarily a crime to begin with.

Yet counsels themselves are not above reproach. Starr later voiced regret about venturing into Clinton’s tawdry sex life. Fitzgerald did not disclose that he had targeted the wrong leaker. In unethical fashion, Fitzgerald never brought charges against Armitage, who lacked the sensational media buzz that had surrounded Libby.

In predictable fashion, Mueller himself may soon be the target of inquiries. He came to the job in part because his old acquaintance and successor at the FBI, Comey, testified that he had deliberately (and perhaps illegally) leaked to the press his notes on private conversations with Trump, whom he had just assured was not under investigation.

The stated aim of the Machiavellian Comey was to force the appointment of a special investigator — which turned out to be none other than his friend Mueller.

In the charge/countercharge swamp of Washington insider politics, Mueller’s prior tenure at the FBI during the Barack Obama administration may likewise come under scrutiny.

Mueller was serving as FBI director when the Obama administration approved a deal allowing a Russian company, Rosatom, to buy a Canadian company that owned the rights to a large share of U.S. uranium supplies. Before the deal went through, the FBI reportedly learned that the head of a Rosatom subsidiary was corrupt and that Rosatom officials knew about the corruption. It’s unclear whether Muller’s FBI alerted the administration about its findings. Did Mueller wrongly slow down the investigation, or was he sidetracked by higher-ups? Why did his investigation amount to nothing?

Will officials soon be investigating for collusion the current investigator of collusion? Do we now need a special counsel to investigate the, oh … so special counsel?

The point is not that Mueller may have acted unethically, but that he, in theory, could be policed just as easily as those he polices.

If we have lost faith in our institutions, then creating starry-eyed new ones will not solve the problem, given that the fault is in ourselves.

AND NOW HERE IS MY CHRISTMAS GIFT FOR THE YOUNG PEOPLE READYING FOR COLLEGE NEXT YEAR IN THIS “SNOWFLAKE & BUTTERCUPS UNITED” HIGHER EDUCATION IVY LEAGUE WORLD OF ACADEMIC AMERICA…

AS A MATTER OF FACT THIS SUGGESTION FITS BERNIE SANDERS SOCIALIST EDUCATIONAL POLICY INITIATIVES FOR FREE COLLEGE EDUCATION LIKE A GLOVE.

ALBEIT WITH A BIT OF A TWIST UNCLE BERNIE “SOCIALIST MADDOF” MIGHT ENJOY TOO, ALONG WITH HIS FRIEND HILLARY CLINTON…

In fact, any white male that decides to pursue higher education might find this useful: Say that you are white and you want to become a Politician. You can rightfully expect to be attacked viciously by various wealthy Marxists, Facebook Socialists, “chick-with-dick” feminists, broken gay-boys, doghouse marms, and all those morons that set out to “transform” the world, directly or indirectly, starting from classroom level cultural revolution, subjugation of our Liberties, usurpation of the Powers of the Constitution, and all such lofty humanitarian ideals — using proper academic tools like communist torture, girl power “vajayjay-in-your-face” waterboarding, muslim conversion, feminist jihad, and socialist indoctrination.

Of course the folks who perform these heinous and dastardly acts are regular people, classmates, and nice “girls” or “near-boy-girls” and they certainly aren’t professional revolutionary criminals. Hell, they aren not even going to be teachers, or academicians. They are just sanctified bigots, tenured terrorists, and barbarian invaders — usurping & occupying the very institution they wish to destroy. They are like the atheists who enter seminary just to undermine religion, or the zealots that enter the citadel under Christian banners so they can be admitted inside — and then they wait for the right opportunity in the middle of the night, and they open the doors to the Muslim hordes waiting to seize the city…

To make matters worse, the typical academic department also requires students to take several feminist, queer, or transgender classes — just to start identifying with these identity politics personas that will inevitably rule society through their righteous anger and malice. In these classes, tenured white feminists routinely preach about white privilege while directing virtually all of their vitriol towards white males. Ironically, the lectures of many of these unhappy women are fueled by seven dollar white mocha cappuccinos, and then go get Starbucks frappuccino enemas up the other end. Indeed, they pay hundreds of dollars to receive “Fancy Party Colonics” that will cleanse them of all their sins from now till eternity. Or at least until the next gratifying colonic next week and their tummy enteric cleanser, that titilates the back door…

These assorted “bytches” are indeed a new species of political deviants, Sanders Stalinists, and Colon Cleansing Queens. For this crowd of miscreants — getting their weekly Starbucks-colonic-enemas, does not qualify you exactly as “Flaming-Ass-Loving-Gay” nor as part of the crowd of angry as fvck “Take-Your-Coffee-Up-The-Derriere-Mamas” — but as a combination of the two.

Good Luck finding your way out of both of these…

Fortunately, because I spend a lot of time thinking about these weighty matters, I have come up with a solution to protect white male students from the academic lynch mob that earns a living marginalizing them, in the name of diversity, identity politics, social justice and anti-inclusion. I call it the “White-Witness-Minority-Protection-Program” and it is technically a Federal Government department, because the “Feds” are the ones who eventually pick up the “bill” for this fabulously bling inducing boondoggle.

Of course like everything else “academic” these institution related programs increase their potential for success, by entrenching themselves in the University’s long-term viability — if we judge by recent trends in higher education.

The first of those trends is the constant movement towards online education over the Internet, called MOOCs. The MOOCs are massive online open courses, that further popularize normal culture and contribute to the cultural revolution we ar undergoing through. So using the MOOCs, a future Politician, can today get a degree without ever setting foot on a brick and mortar campus. And some of these degrees come from the highly placed Ivy League schools that summon all and sundry to their offerings. That way, when our future Politician enrolls in class, the professor doesn’t know his race, gender, or sexual orientation, and he can only guess about the students hiding behind their computer screens. So the prospective Social Reformer, that aspires to be a Politician, can start to weigh-in the online discussion forums, and interact with the Professor and with the other students, in a near-complete demographic presumption of innocence.

Of course, it won’t take long for the professor to inject a controversial topic like the Black Lives Matter movement into the online class discussion – and all hell will break loose. And as soon as our aspiring Politician student, makes a pro-State, pro-Law&Order, or pro-Police remark, the professor and all the other students will immediately assume certain demographic characteristics that will disadvantage swiftly the student. For example, a student named Chris or Jim Jones will be assumed to be a male, paternalist who enjoys his white privilege and aspires to maintaining the hated Patriarchy. All this is a particular safe assumption of the Cultural Revolution brigades of this Society’s grievance & other assorted garbage collectors, and demonstrators. But Jim, or Chris, will also be assumed to be straight and quite AngloSaxon white, which is a less safe assumption for the hate Brigades to make. So the professor might decide to try to verify Chris’ and Jim’s demographic attributes before they are given appropriate grades that reflect their personality.

And this is where the second trend, gender identity politics, comes in handy. Because gender is no longer a binary concept based upon biology — Chris & Jim, can now claim that they are women when they sign up for the online degree program. They can even demand that their professor uses the pronouns she, her, and hers, — when addressing them, even without having gone through the “Sex-Conversion-Normalization-Process” of psychological operation, hormonal treatments, or the surgical genital alteration, and body part augmentation.

As a mater of fact, I would urge any conservative white male like Chris and Jim, to just go all the way, and demand that their professor call them Christina and Jemima respectively, for safe measure.

Because by “becoming” females, Christina & Jemima, have taken a load off the Professor’s mind, but he still needs to insulate himself from the attacks on his white privilege by diminishing the white part of his identity, and instead ingratiating himself with the Black Lives Matter LGBTQ liberal-tears-shedding and tear-stainned-floor-mopping brigades. And the way to do this is actually quite simple. He can just mark the box for “African American” on his college employment application. Or he can claim the box for “Native American Indian” identity. Or he can join the Transgender movement, and claim himself as a self identifying Woman. And that box when combined with the Native American or the African American identity box — is like hitting the lottery or the jackpot in the average Las Vegas casino. This way the Professor Pocahontas, is now enshrined in a cultural identity intimacy that is unshaken and unchallenged by anyone angry at white privilege and the patriarchy.

As for the two white boys, Chris, and Jim, trying to be included in the properly confused and confusing Millennial student social status, they are now called Jemima, and Christina, having also properly marked the appropriate boxes in their student applications to identify themselves as “Female” and “African American” or “Female” and “Native American” so if and when they are challenged by academic requirement, homework delivery, or essay paper completion, or even average examinations — both Jim & Chris can claim sexual & racial discrimination.

I hear you frothing in the mouth out there, but clearly, the claim that someone can change their assumed at birth gender status, but not their assumed at birth race — is indefensible in these days of Social and Political Correctness. And if the furies of gender identity politics fly in the forefront of the diversity movement while sending racial identity politics to the back of the bus, are revealed — we will have an earthquake in our midst and the Ivy league will have none of this. So today, for practical purposes — you can pass yourself as whatever the hell you like and get away with it. Look at the main Pocahontas today, Elizabeth Warren: She bluffed her way to large tenured job at Harvard with a hefty salary and also got elected with the Indian vote as the female(?) and native American Indian(???) Senator from Massachusetts. And that’s clearly racist, but please don’t tell Lizzie that because she will have conniptions since she also marked her Harvard employment application as a person with developments difficulties and liable to frothing in the mouth and rolling on the floor under the influence of the Moon, while experiencing Mal Seizures, when challenged. So she was never challenged…

What a Crock…

Sadly there is no question about sexual orientation on the recent vintage of sexual justice appropriate college applications, however, it goes without saying that if Chris & Jim, are still sexually attracted to women after they “became” Christina & Jemima — they can claim lesbian status and check off a third victim category, that will surely entitle them to another few years of College Freebie education. You gotta love Bernie Sanders and his handling of the Free College Tuition scheme that worked so well for the College of Vermont that his wife run to the ground.

Yet now we have to overcome the last remaining hitch for our entrepreneurial and gender fluid prospective politician, students. And this is the prospect of having to take their picture for a student ID upon enrolling at the university. If that happens, students should just refuse to take the picture. If the university insists on a photo, a lawsuit is in order. Facial profiling, and the ideology of facial supremacy, upon which it is based, simply have to be eradicated. All progressives should be on board with this. Abolishing photo IDs is the key to their future electoral success. If an illegal alien can vote without one, why can’t a white guy pretending to be an African Female Queen, cannot enroll in college without one?

So there you have it, white male conservatives, tired of playing second fiddle for the Patriarchy — they can now fvck all, and get on with their lives as African American Lesbians.

To recapitulate, the key to escaping from classroom oppression involves just five easy steps:
1) Enroll in an online degree program using your temporary black lesbian identity. This will make you a BLUG, which is even more chic than being a LUG (lesbian until graduation).
2) Decline the request to submit to the facially discriminatory photo ID requirement. Or hire someone as a stand-in for the picture. It’s not identity theft if you consent.
3) Inform your professors of your preferred pronouns and your new gender-bender name. If you really want to have fun, demand to be called “her majesty” (because in the gender fluid world — being called “Queen” sends you back to the 1970’s and that’s not fashionable anymore).
4) Reclaim your former straight white male identity after you graduate. Of course, this is optional if you decide to take a job somewhere in the Socialist Republic of California, in Cannabis Oregon, in Queer Alaska, in submissive Hawaii, or in the Soviet State of Washington.
5) After you get your college degree and as you prepare for your Political graduation into the mainstream political parties — you must join up with the devastated and brain addled Log Cabin Republicans who no doubt will have you if you claim to be broken by the strict rules of Academia and Patriarchy that combined to rob you of your God assigned identity.
And that should about do it.

Yours,
Dr Churchill

PS:
Perhaps the best part of this “White-Patriarchy-Witness-Protection-And-Free-Education-Program” is its temporary nature. One can simply leave the program at any time, after graduation. But you should be daft and stupid to leave this gravy train before you get a triple Doctorate in Humanities, like Feminist Studies, African Toleration Studies, and Native American Indian Identity Anthropological Studies. The cultural experience alone of the shock your mere presence would cause to the other claimants of the particular Cultural identity that you have expropriated (Sorry) Liberated, is enough to keep you laughing in stitches until your old age when you regale your grandchildren with the larceny of your Youth.

And you’ll also be safe from any threat of retribution, A) because real lesbians fight like girls and their punches hold no weight whatsoever, B) because unlike the real mob, the Academic mob will never come looking for you, after you leave campus, and C) your average Starbucks quaffing Marxist Mob of BLMers are all like the Log Cabin Republicans — Black in name only and more given to sexploitation than Jackie Brown. And lastly D) because your professor derives power from her/his tenure, which no one recognizes as valid in the real world, but his/her white ass clings onto, like a drowning person holding on to a Life Saver for dear life, since living in the despair of those cold and long alcoholic years of the Academia need the security of a regular paycheck and a pension to keep you adequately hydrated in Gin and Tonic chasers.

PPS:

Now I understand that this all, may sound a bit dodgy, or somewhat controversial, but as the famous Champion for Women uber-Feminist representative of Minnesota Mr Al Franken says, everyone wins under my new policy of groping women while they are asleep and taking selfies while doing it — so I cannot deny doing it later on.

This particular straight white male NEEDS and DESERVES to get an education free of retaliation for his so-called white privilege, because the traditional classroom could become an unsafe space for the sharing of grievances by minorities, feminists, and alphabetically marginalized Americans — when the unfunny comedian Al Franken shows up, and starts grabbing everybody’s buttocks, vajayjay, and cleavage appendices…

The love and merriment will surely continue until Al Franken, grabs onto the vajayjay of Christina, and Jemima, of course — when he will soon lose the forest for the woods…

Ahhh and in the latest social news — the ginger prince Harry is getting married with a pushy social climber that is going to make his life “hell-on-earth” and his only way out would be to declare himself an African Lesbian Queen and take to the jungle.

He can get survival skills advise from Mr Bear Grylls on how to survive in the wilderness without any posh royal butler and chamber maids…

We wish him Good Luck with that project…