#misogyny exists and the world is unfair and therefore it always will be and women will always suffer and be miserable

[pwurrz]

of course terfs would get mad at a post reminding them that there’s more to being a woman than misery and suffering: they’re misogynists. they hate women. their misogyny is just the ‘woke’ kind where they re-enforce the idea that women are weaker and stupider and generally less capable compared to men but like, in a ‘feminist’ way 🤪💅

when you hate women and genuinely believe they are inferior, that they are lesser, it’s impossible to see that there’s any joy or pride or anything positive about being a woman. especially if you yourself are a woman who believes in this kind of self-deprecating mindset.

[ploppythespaceship]

In Defense of Will Riker

Riker gets such an unfair reputation in the Star Trek fandom. So many people genuinely can’t stand the guy, which is their right. He can be a somewhat boring character with a strange and even nonexistent character arc. But a lot of this dislike stems from the idea that Riker is a sexist, misogynistic creep who is actively trying to get into the pants of every woman he meets. Which is so far from the truth, I don’t understand how it’s still the perception.

First of all, we’ve done this song and dance with Kirk before. Enjoying dating and sex does not make someone a creep. If everyone involved is a consenting adult, it shouldn’t matter who you’re dating and/or sleeping with.

Secondly, TNG goes out of its way to show that Riker is a great guy. If you actually go through his episodes and look at how he treats both the women he works with and the women he’s interested in, you’ll see that he always treats them with respect. And in instances where he has an easy opportunity to take advantage, he never does it. Because Will Riker is a gentleman who drinks his respect women juice.

I’m so sick of this argument that under the cut I’ve compiled all of Riker’s important relationships with women on the show to demonstrate exactly what I mean.

I pulled most of these from the relationships section of Riker’s Memory-Alpha page, which is pretty thorough, and a few just from memory since I rewatched the whole show pretty recently. I don’t think anything relevant has been left out, but feel free to let me know if you think of something else. I’m all for some civil discussion of these things! Emphasis on civil.

Deanna Troi

Starting with the big one! The very first episode establishes that they have a romantic history, and have since split up. The details of their relationship are pretty scarce, but it’s clear that they had an intense, intimate connection. Initially they’re awkward but professional around one another, and this eventually softens into genuine friendship. They are close, possibly closer than anyone else on the ship. But Will never, not once, pressures Deanna into romance with him. He is entirely respectful towards her. In a few episodes they’re possibly shown to be dating again (it’s unclear) but Deanna gives no indication of being uncomfortable with this arrangement. When they officially get back together in the films, their feelings are clearly mutual and neither is being pressured into anything.

Frankly, Will and Deanna are an excellent example of a healthy relationship with one’s ex, respecting boundaries while maintaining closeness. The two of them are always shown supporting each other. It always bugs me that people think there’s something insidious going on here. Will isn’t just trying to get back into her pants. He genuinely loves and respects her.

And it’s worth mentioning that in “Second Chances”, when Deanna is interested in dating the alternate version of him (later known as Thomas), Will clearly isn’t thrilled about it, but also respects her decision and does nothing to intervene. When she talks to him about it, he is very clear that he does not expect her to ask for his opinion or for his approval, and that as long as she’s happy, he supports her.

Tasha Yar

Frankly they don’t have many distinct interactions that I recall, but Riker treats her the same as he treats everyone else on the crew. He is respectful of her, her rank, and her position.

Beverly Crusher

Not a hint of romance in their relationship. They are friends with a healthy connection built on mutual trust. Again, he is respectful of her, her rank, and her position.

Kathryn Pulaski

You can copy paste everything I said about Crusher, tbh. They’re friends and quite respectful of one another. Nothing untoward happening here.

Lwaxana Troi

Lwaxana flirts with Riker sometimes. Cause she flirts with everyone. Though she leaves him alone a bit more since he’s involved with her daughter. And yet again, Riker is entirely respectful of her, though he does gently have to tell her to back off at times. Eventually they settle into the classic son-in-law / mother-in-law relationship.

Beata (“Angel One”)

Does this episode suck? Yep. Is this relationship awkward as hell? God, yes. Is Riker being misogynistic? Nope! He actually goes out of his way to be respectful of this matriarchal society’s customs, even wearing an outfit that many in his culture would consider demeaning. Not to mention, Beata is primarily the one coming onto him, not the other way around. He’s simply reciprocating. It might be poor judgment, but it’s again entirely mutual and consensual.

Minuet (“11001001″)

Riker goes into the holodeck to relax, and then meets a nice holograhic lady to help him do just that... and people get mad that he enjoys that? Minuet is programmed specifically for this. Not to mention the Bynars literally designed her to be irresistible for him. Of course he’s gonna be besotted with her. And, issues of hologram sentience aside (Trek hadn’t delved too deelpy into it by that point), this is once again entirely consensual.

Minuet does pop up again in “Future Imperfect”, sort of, simply because Barash needed to choose a figure to serve as Riker’s late wife. With someone unable to distinguish holodeck memories from real ones, Minuet would seem like a perfectly reasonable choice.

Brenna Odell (“Up the Long Ladder”)

This is an entirely consensual one night stand. The feelings are clearly mutual. Even while they’re bickering, it’s obvious there’s an attraction underneath it, on both sides. Again, their fling might be poor judgment, but absolutely not misogyny.

Yuta (“The Vengeance Factor”)

This is one of the few episodes where I can see why their relationship might make some viewers uncomfortable, but I also think it’s the most telling as to why Riker is not the creep people assume him to be.

The cultural and status differences between them place Riker at a clear power advantage compared to Yuta, which makes for an imbalance. Yuta is a servant, and her entire mindset is that of serving others. Having a relationship on equal footing with someone like Riker is entirely foreign to her, and she struggles against her instincts to follow all of his wishes without question. That being said, Riker does basically everything he possibly can to address and negate that imbalance. He does his utmost to respect her and her position. He doesn’t force her into anything she isn’t ready for. Any time she tries to fill the role of a servant for him, he stops her to explain that he wants her to be his equal. You could argue that this relationship is inappropriate regardless, because the power imbalance still exists whether he wishes it to or not, but I think it’s important to note how dedicated he is to not taking advantage of this girl.

And of course, at the end of the episode he is forced to choose duty over love and must kill her, but it’s hardly his fault that she’s a secret assassin.

Lal (“The Offspring”)

He flirted with her while unaware of who she was, and stopped immediately upon realizing. And she kissed him, not the other way around. Just look at his face! He clearly didn’t expect that. He did absolutely nothing wrong here. Using this brief scene against his character is just absurd.

Commander Shelby (“The Best of Both Worlds”)

For some reason the consensus in this episode is that Riker is rude to Shelby because she doesn’t want to sleep with him. And that’s just a complete and utter misread of the episode.

First, there is absolutely no indication that Riker is romantically interested in her. Nor does she does not reject his advances, because no advances are even made. Second, Riker gets short with Shelby at times because she has been assigned to work under his command, and she’s questioning his decisions and generally being difficult to work with. It’s literally his job to call people on things like that. That being said, he’s never particularly rude to her -- at least, no more rude than she is to him. They also grow into mutual respect by the end of the episodes, to the point where he trusts her to serve as his first officer.

Lanel (“First Contact”)

( TW: rape mention )

Quite frankly the next person to point to this episode as evidence of Riker’s misogyny is getting slapped. She. Raped. Him. Full stop. He needed to escape, she offered to help if he slept with her, and he agreed because at the time it was the only way to save his life. Consent under duress is not consent. He does not appear comfortable with the arrangement, and his joking afterwards is forced. So let’s just stop holding this episode up as proof of Riker’s sexism, mkay? He was undeniably the victim here.

Carmen Davila (“Silicon Avatar”)

There’s not much to glean from their brief interaction where Riker asks her to dinner, but again: feelings are mutual. Everyone’s consenting. Nothing untoward happening here. Besides, she’s killed not five minutes into the episode, so it doesn’t particularly matter.

Etana Jol (“The Game”)

Riker’s having a fling with her on Risa. Because that’s what you do on Risa. You go vacation and have fun, and if you so choose, you can find someone else there wanting to have fun. And you have some sexy fun together. That’s just how it goes on Risa.

Also, she’s revealed to be playing him and literally brainwashes him to access the Enterprise. So the situation is not entirely within his control. Again, let’s not blame the victim here.

Ro Laren

There’s clearly sexual tension between them in some episodes, which mostly comes across as bickering. Riker is sharp with her when he needs to be, as a commander, but also tells her when she’s done a good job. The only time they sleep together is in “Conundrum”, when all their memories are erased. Therefore they’re unaware of the context that a romantic relationship isn’t entirely appropriate. When they remember again, they are awkward but respectful of one another, and now have a stronger friendship for it. And I’ll say it for the umpteenth time: mutual and consensual.

Soren (“The Outcast”)

This episode is controversial as hell, and it’s always a tricky one to dive into. But as far as Riker’s relationship with Soren is concerned: there’s honestly nothing bad happening here. He is respectful of her culture and is impressed by her as a pilot and scientist. Though he clearly has feelings for her, it’s unclear if he would have been the first to pursue them, because she confesses hers for him first. Before then, he was entirely professional with her. Only when their mutual attraction is confirmed does Riker actually pursue a relationship with her.

(Side note, that conversation is also when she comes out to him as female.(Yes, Riker was attracted to her before knowing she was female! At the time he believed her to be androgynous/non-binary. Which makes him canonically not straight.)

Additionally he is 100% respectful of her gender -- one of the only people to do that, in fact -- and does what he can both to respect her culture while also supporting her and her journey. He’s genuinely gutted when she’s forced to conform to the expected gender of her society, and isn’t allowed to be who she truly is.

Don’t get me wrong, this episode is a hot mess in many other aspects, but Riker’s treatment of Soren is one of the few things it got right.

Kamala (“The Perfect Mate”)

Is this episode super uncomfy with an almost laughably sexist plot? Oh yeah. But can we blame Riker for anything? Not really. Kamala can read men to make herself everything they desire -- the perfect mate, as the episode’s title says. Naturally this extends to her scenes with Riker as well. She flirts with him, comes onto him, and he’s clearly very into it. They kiss briefly, he’s tempted -- and then he stops her, because he knows this isn’t appropriate and she’s promised to someone else.

Let me say that again: Riker has a perfectly willing woman in front of him, who is literally doing everything in her power to be as appealing to him as possible. She is right there for him to have if he wants. Which he does. And he still tells her no, to keep a clear professional boundary between them. It would have been so easy to take advantage of that and later say she was too irresistible. Yet he didn’t.

Amanda Rogers (“True Q”)

Amanda is a young girl, 18 at the oldest, when she arrives aboard the Enterprise. She’s pretty enamored with Riker, cause she’s a kid who doesn’t have a great sense of what’s healthy/appropriate and what’s not yet. Riker is very aware of this, and does absolutely nothing to encourage her. He sets boundaries where appropriate and is obviously just waiting for her crush to die down, so he doesn’t have to hurt her feelings. When Amanda really starts to make moves on him, he very clearly tells her no. She actually starts to force him to play out her romantic fantasies using her Q powers, though she stops when she realizes it’s not real and isn’t right. Riker does nothing wrong in this episode.

Rebecca Smith (“Genesis”)

There’s nothing to go on here except that they had a date in the holodeck. Everything seems on the up and up. She’s not even shown onscreen, just mentioned in a couple lines of dialogue. I’m just including her for the sake of being thorough.

tl;dr

All of Riker’s relationships are either entirely consensual, or non-consensual with him as the victim. In several situations he could easily have taken advantage of someone, but never does, instead choosing to set clear boundaries. I have been thinking and scouring through Memory-Alpha and I genuinely cannot find a single instance in which he behaved in a sexist or misogynistic manner. That isn’t to say it never happened, I certainly can’t remember every moment of a seven season show. But it’s hardly a defining character trait for him the way many seem to think.

There are plenty of other reasons to dislike Riker. He can be immature. He rather stupidly stays in the same position for a decade because he can’t be bothered to take his own command the way he should. He can be a bit dull as a main character. The way he gets into chairs looks very stupid. But he is not sexist or a creep. *drops microphone*

[mom-of-today]

Hard Talks

Happy Friday/Saturday/Fourth of July, friends and followers!  I was listening to one of my classic podcasts and they were talking about the horrible misogyny that exists within politics. The way the women were questioned more harshly than the men, forced to take more hard-line directions, not allowed to get away with the generic, broad strokes, that their male counterparts were expected to give. They had to give solid answers, were judged not just on their words, but also on their attire. They could not look too “old” but they also could not dress too “young” and the conversations were often not about what they said, but how they seemed to “behave” on screen, and to their male counterparts.  It made me consider the conversations we have had in our household in the last couple of months. We want to raise well-rounded young boys who don’t grow up to hate themselves, with suppressed emotions they are never allowed to express among other things. But as we are also white, cis-gendered, heterosexual individuals we have had to explain concepts that are foreign to us.  Our oldest son was very concerned about the concept of gay marriage, and the ability of two boys to get married. He thinks mostly from his own perspective because, of course he does, he’s eight, so he was mostly thinking about boys. And when I say he was “concerned” I mean he was concerned that two men could not get married because they were two men, rather than the idea of two men getting married was somehow a gross concept to him. As two straight people, how do you explain that of course two people should be allowed to get married if they love each other? Regardless if those two people are of the same gender.  Openly we have had these conversations regarding gender-norms and what other people might expect of them, but also that we just want them to live their very best lives and be happy. That is our only expectation. So when my son wants to paint his room a shade of reddish-pink we say “Absolutely!” and paint his room that color. When he gravitates towards the pink end of the red spectrum we support him. Our middle child is much more of a typical “boy” in that we have never had these questions from him, and he has always gravitated towards “boy” things. Just to be clear, it isn’t that I’m leaving him out of this conversation, he just fits what most people consider to be “gender normative” and therefore he has never pushed the limits of social acceptability when it comes to norms (at least not in that way, but that’s another post all together).  Despite our best efforts to help him understand, it’s a tricky conversation to navigate without telling the whole story. And without having many real-life representations. Neither my husband or I have a huge social group; I moved around so often that I never become any good at keeping in touch with people (and before the internet and cell phones you had to actually call people, gross), and my husband moved a couple hundred miles away from his family/friends, became more liberal and lost many of this childhood friends. Since he isn’t the most social person, making new friends has always been more of a struggle for him, but I find that I struggle to make friends because I’m awkward af in real life. So while I know people in my personal life that are members of the LGBTQIA+ community, we have lost touch over the years and don’t see much of each other now.  So how do you explain to your children about social constructs that you yourself have no experience with? How do you do this justice without trying to sound like apologist?  With all the protests going on in the country, we have also had to discuss what BLM stands for, why they are protesting, and why it’s a good thing. While we might have issue with the destruction of property on some level, we also understand that no real change has ever been achieved through passivity. So we have had to have these conversations with our children about race.  Did I mention that we are white. I mean look at me! I am almost as white as it gets out here, and talking about the unfair treatment of BIPOC members of our community feels awkward. Possibly because it isn’t a habit, because it isn’t part of our daily conversations, because I have never really had these conversations myself with anyone and wouldn’t even know where to begin.  Over the last several months I have attempted to educate myself, and it’s been eye opening, but I can’t exactly sit my children down with a book about how to be a better ally that was designed for an adult. So we have just been encouraging them to understand that this is important, that there are people who are not treated fairly because of the color of their skin, and that they get judged no matter what choices they make in their life. That their lives are in danger just for existing.  Attending public schools in which they have been in many diverse classrooms, they, quite honestly, do not understand what I even mean when we have these conversations. They look at me and say “But that doesn't matter, mom, everyone is important.” And they aren’t wrong. They don’t quite understand why people would judge anyone based on the color of their skin, and I don’t either. Not that I have not been guilty of micro aggressions against the BIPOC community in my life, because I most certainly have (but again, not the time for that post here), but in my adult life I have actively tried to be better and not judge anyone, but definitely not BIPOC, just because they present themselves in a certain way. Forcing myself to learn about their actual lives, their systematic oppression and all the big, and small, ways in which we force them into certain lives I understand why racism and white supremacy is such an issue.  Explain that to an eight and six year old. Teach them 31 years of life experience in one conversation, or one million, why these members of our community are suffering and so, so angry. You can’t. You can try, but they will never fully appreciate a lifetime of experience. They are too young to sit through a movie they don’t find all that interesting, let alone an entire conversation that is too “adult” for them. But we try, and we make connections, and we buy (or are planning on buying) books to help them engage with the BIPOC community in a way that is more child-friendly, but also doesn’t minimize the damage that white people have caused. Do we want them to feel guilty? No, not really. They can’t help it. But we want them to be allies to people who have had no choice, and limited voice, in what happens to them. We want them to love, and be loved, and we want them to never think that a black man running in their neighborhood is threatening, intimidating, or something to be suspicious of. We want them to think critically of the world they live in, and we want them to be mindful of the people who live in it with them. To care more about ALL people, but especially those of the BIPOC community and the LGBTQIA+ who do not have the same opportunity to speak up and stand up.  Love is stronger than fear, than hate, than violence and we will try to do so much better raising this generation. I just hope we’re doing enough. If you have any solid books you recommend for children, let me know! I am always open for better book ideas to help my children understand complex social issues.  hugs and love.

[republicstandard]

Thought-Criminal Jordan Peterson Versus Cathy Newman & The Baader-Meinhof Gang

I say now that it is impossible to deny that the majority of news media in the Western world is little more than a machine for manufacturing Neo-Marxist opinions.

The reason I say this with such certainty is that the body of evidence to support this conclusion is now insurmountable. The idea of an impartial media no longer exists. The proof of this is revealed whenever the topic of identity politics comes up. When you see Daily Mail columnists stumping for feminist ideology, we are in serious trouble. Welcome to Pravda reality.

The catalyst comes from a simply stunning interview that took place on British television last week. If you haven't seen the utter demolition of feminist thought conducted -or should I say committed- by Jordan Peterson yet; you are late to the fun.

For analysis of the absolute hammering that Channel 4 News' Cathy Newman took in this 30-minute conversation, look no further than Douglas Murray in the Spectator.

If I was Channel 4 I would take it down. If I was Cathy Newman I would sue or seek a super-injunction. I don’t think I have ever witnessed an interview that is more catastrophic for the interviewer. - Douglas Murray

Always grateful for advice from @DouglasKMurray but I won’t be suing or taking out a super-injunction. I thoroughly enjoyed my bout with @jordanbpeterson as did 100s of 1000s of our viewers. Viva feminism, viva free speech. Stay tuned Douglas.

— Cathy Newman (@cathynewman) January 17, 2018

As is so often the case, when a feminist gets shown to be a public fraud the engines of spin fire up. The justification for the damage control exercise was laid at the end of the interview with Peterson itself. Newman points out that critics of Peterson get lambasted online, and claims "there's a lot of it [abuse] out there." I'm sure you can see where this is going.

Such is the scale of threat we @Channel4News are having to get security specialists in to carry out an analysis. I will not hesitate to get the police involved if necessary. What a terrible indictment of the times we live in.

— Ben de Pear (@bendepear) January 19, 2018

Mr. de Pear is basing this drama on using the search function to find instances of the word 'bitch' in the comments below the Youtube video. Of over 50,000 comments, he found 500 occurrences. If we are charitable and assume that all of these comments are directly calling Newman a bitch, we have 1% of the comments being misogynistic. As we know that there are many uses of the word bitch that are not directed at Newman, let alone the many different contexts, and not to mention that this is the comments section of YouTube which is both a cess-pit and full of people calling each other 'bitch' all day every day.

Apparently, this outpouring of hate was amusing to Newman, who was snapped by her producer laughing at the so-called threats as the police were called.

The police have evidently decided not to proceed with charging anyone, or you can be certain that would be front page news. Instead, Channel 4 has hired a 'security expert' to deal with the imminent fedora-Jihad.

Speaking of the news, what angle do you suppose the media are taking? Of course, the reasoned and polite Peterson thrashing the living daylights out of their colleague for the world to see is not newsworthy. Alleged abuse? Now we're talking.

Quick as a flash, the media rallies around their wounded comrade to build the narrative that regardless of the content of the debate -in which Newman effectively tried to call Peterson a white supremacist while apologizing for Maoist philosophy- the real story, as always, is online misogyny.

The reality that Peterson calmly broke down the hail of inept leftist barbs from Newman with grace, politeness and factual positions is irrelevant. The important thing to note is that Peterson is On The Wrong Side Of History And Might Be A Thought Criminal Associated With The Alt-Right And That Is Bad. Please consult your local commissariat for re-education if you found yourself swayed by any unauthorized arguments.

News media personalities were quick to shift to the "misogyny abuse" narrative. Its all they have. Cathy Newman acted in bad faith. She continuously attempted to put words in his mouth, deliberately misquoting him. She was wholly unprofessional & SHOULD get harsh criticism. pic.twitter.com/PtF8mdoQyV

— ☢S.C.R.U.M.P. - Call of Bants (@CheekiScrump) January 21, 2018

The bizarreness continued as Twitter commentators have had a field day pointing out inconsistencies. Indeed, why is it that left wingers get a free pass from behaving terribly, but moderate centrists (or worse) like Jordan Peterson get pilloried? The double standards are quite surreal and signify a dangerous trend in Western society.

My friend @RektRolfe hit the nail on the head: If a conservative says ANYTHING & gets hounded online, the narrative is "freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences of speech." But as soon as its somone on the left that goes out of the window. Its "harassment & abuse.: pic.twitter.com/K1lWOIDTeT

— ☢S.C.R.U.M.P. - Call of Bants (@CheekiScrump) January 21, 2018

The answer is clear. The leftist needs to be shielded from critique at all costs. When the leftist ideology is exposed by an expert interlocutor like Peterson, there is no chance of a victory by fair means. Peterson knows this and has offered Newman another bite at the cherry, which has as much chance of happening as I have of winning an Olympic medal.

How about, instead, we talk again, and try to have a real conversation? You know, where reasonable people try to exchange information instead of where two primates clash for dominance? @cathynewman

— Jordan B Peterson (@jordanbpeterson) January 21, 2018

In the absence of evidence or champions in the realm of debate to fight the cause fairly, the leftist narrative must thus be protected by foul tactics instead. These tactics include but are not limited to misdirection, denigration, slander, and misrepresentation. In this way, two goals are achieved.

First, Jordan Peterson is further pushed to the 'right' of the political spectrum, by a mass-media assault on what it even means to be in the center. Only the far-right engage in such misogyny, only the far-right are 'transphobic' so, therefore, Peterson must be at best an enabler and at worst far-right himself. Nevermind that he has been an academic at liberal institutions for over three decades and has taught for years about the dangers of National-Socialist thought. The Overton Window is dragged to the left by framing Peterson's supporters as uniformly far-right. This happens because Peterson's positions in this instance are unassailable through debate or dialectic.

Second, the brand of Jordan Peterson is tainted by association with events that are roundly branded as controversial by the media. The idea that the state should mandate what words come out of your mouth should be controversial, not the resistance to it. The idea that men and women are biologically different and that results in different life outcomes but should not entail unfair treatment to either sex is only controversial if you are at some level corrupted by Neo-Marxist ideology.

Save your clicks, here is the hilarious top hits from this garbage. pic.twitter.com/Z0V8FXs0oZ

— Ash Sharp 🇬🇧 🇵🇱 (@6crip) January 21, 2018

It is now mandatory for the hive-minded and spiritually bereft media complex to reference these events every time Peterson makes an appearance. There is a great line from the discussion with Newman where she asks what right Peterson has to comment on such matters that she feels must only be spoken of from a feminist perspective. He replies;

"Because I am a clinical psychologist."

This answer seems to be a perfect one; except that to Neo-Marxists, professional competence always comes second to the pursuit of ideological purity. This is the equality of outcomes that is demanded by leftists- your skill, your person, is second to your ideological purity.

In the media and in future encounters with the Neo-Marxists who operate and control the flow of mass-market information, Peterson is as good as a Nazi. The redefinition and misrepresentation of language itself will continue until morale is destroyed. There is an angering game one can play when presented with a story like this one. Imagine if the roles were reversed, and Peterson was interrogating Newman in this combative style, pushing and poking at feminist thought. The outcry against such misogyny would ring across the planet- and yet it would still only be a battle of ideas. As I said in a recent piece about art on this site, Identity Politics has infected our society to the extent that what we perceive as a mainstream television interview is impossible for the media to analyze without resorting to this Neo-Marxist ideological framework. The fact that Peterson can defend his ideas against Newman's weak critical theory interrogation is a clear sign that Peterson is oppressing her. Viva feminism, indeed.

While this drama has been playing out I noticed a parallel bleeding through. Last night I watched a film called the Baader-Meinhof Complex. I highly recommend you see this film to gather an insight into how the mind of the radical leftist actually works- as a former anarchist myself I recognize many of the logical reasonings of the  Rote Armee Fraktion in the thought processes of myself and my former associates.

The leftist ideologues of the Baader-Meinhof gang believed in the Communist struggle against Western Imperialism in  Vietnam and Israel, and therefore alliances with Islamic terrorists was perfectly logical. The deaths of Vietnamese civilians was cause to bomb civilians, police and military targets in Germany. The primary issue with ideologues -particularly leftist ideologues- is that they see ideology everywhere except within themselves.

The point is that the Baader-Meinhof gang follow the same fundamental principles of thought that the leftist critics of Peterson follow. While I do not imagine Cathy Newman as being some kind of modern Ulrike Meinhof ready to denounce her opponents as pigs who can be legitimately murdered, the posing of her ideological positions as reasonable despite their extremity is interesting to me. Newman appeared offended by the idea that the ideology of trans-activists was Maoist. The concept that leftist ideology today is related to that murderous diktat followed by Mao, Stalin, and the Baader-Meinhof is alien to her. I hope she would not be offended if I said that this attitude is that of the useful idiot- a partisan mouthpiece for political positions that she does not understand in full. If Newman did understand her own professed ideology, then she might well not hold those beliefs any longer.

Feminism is Neo-Marxist.

I do not intend these words to offend, but then as Peterson points out in the interview, in order to think I must accept I may offend someone. Newman and her ilk are engaged in a permanent struggle to paint themselves as the moral superior to everyone else, as all subscribers to Marxism must. In this way, you -the consumer of news products- are being forced to accept their position to be true, or else you are a bigot, a sexist, et cetera.

This is exactly what Mao, Che Guevara, and the Baader-Meinhof gang did too, to various degrees. While the modern supremacist will clearly delineate that they believe the black or the Jew is the Untermensch, the Neo-Marxist is more subtle but more deadly by far. The totalitarian left understands that human emotions are powerful and the manipulation of these, coupled with the desire within us to be doing a 'moral'act -whatever our perception of that concept is- this is a powerful method of creating compliance. In the cause of righteousness, Baader-Meinhof terrorists kidnapped, bombed and hijacked. With the best of intentions -according to him, at least- Mao gave the order to liquidate and starve millions, and millions complied.

Thorwald Proll, Horst Söhnlein, Andreas Baader and Gudrun Ensslin.

As I've said in these pages before, now that the attempt to control the world through economics has failed, the Neo-Marxists live through control of culture. The difference between Newman's special pleading and Ulrike Meinhof's rigid and violent dogma is not as huge as any of us might like to think. The core concept both Newman and Meinhof considered true is that someone, somewhere, is a victim. For the noble goal of saving that victim, all manner of tyranny against perceived oppressors is not only justifiable but eminently desirable. In the 1970s when there was a possibility of Communist hegemony, guns and bombs were used. Today, the gun is out of fashion but the pen -or keyboard- is more powerful than ever.

As Peterson himself writes;

The dangers of self-deception about past events, far from trivial in the personal case, are tremendously magnified in the social arena. The careless use of memory can lead directly to the grave abuse of people.

Conducted daily through the media and politicized social media complex is a reframing of history, even up to events of a few moments ago. In thirty years, who will choose to watch a thirty-minute interview between a now-elderly psychologist and feminist journalist? A few, perhaps. How many more will know the story, but only know the story as it is stored in our collective cultural memory and its replacement/augmentative structure, the internet?

The narrative shaped today will persist like never before in human history, which is why it is so important to not allow this abuse of reality by mainstream media ideologues to pass without protest.

from Republic Standard http://ift.tt/2G3zdNH via IFTTT