They hate you, they really hate you

Fecalicious empathizes with an abortionette saddened by an unexpected encounter with reality:

I’ve just started a new job, as editor of coolwomen.ca. As such, I’ve set up a Google news search for any item referring to feminist or feminism.While I expected to receive a fair number of stories that were anti-feminist, I have been saddened by how overwhelming the ratio is. I’d say at least three attacks for every positive or neutral story.

Is there any way to turn this around?

Short answer? No. What’s amusing is that feminists are such mindless herd animals that they have no idea how completely and utterly their foundational ideas are dismissed by most WOMEN. And they have nothing whatsoever to offer men who have not been neutered, which is why they find it so hard to find dates, much less husbands.

Worst of all, they are still, despite their best efforts, women, so they find themselves sexually drawn to the very Alpha males they despise ideologically. Only the supremacy of biology over belief explains how feminist freaks can happily become subservient members of cults with leaders that make Stalin look like a management-by-consensus guy without ever noticing the irony. For a more mainstream example, consider NOW and Bill Clinton. With this constant interior struggle bubbling beneath the surface, it’s no wonder that so many of them come off as total lunatics who can barely complete a sentence without spinning wildly out of control.

No matter how well-reasoned, opposition to their society-killing, scatter-brained ideology is always put down to personal inadequacies, usually a failure to score with women. In fact, every single time I write a column mocking feminism, I’m informed that I’m only bitter because women don’t wish to share their bodies, themselves, with me. Right, because women just loathe Lamborghini libertarians… one self-professed feminist even sent me a picture of herself “to prove that she wasn’t one of those ugly feminists”. (And she wasn’t, she was maybe a six. Maybe.)

That being said, Fecalicious is dead-on with regards to Professor Adams unconventional interpretation of readership as well as his ungainly attempt to segue into a fundraising appeal. And something about Worldview Weekend Branson Family Reunion gives me the shivers as well….

Still, we can forgive the good professor his failure to execute flawlessly in light of the fact that publishing that Canuck’s little hissy fit was good humor.

And here she thought the Internet was private!

Professor Mike Adams teaches that electronic information is for sharing:

Hi there! It’s Mike Adams – the guy you were just talking about in your Canadian feminist chat room….

“What can you do to fight such a thing? Townhall’s Doctor Professor Mike Adams, PhD is an inveterate liar who has been accused of making up correspondence from his supposed readership to advance his patently women-hating views (…there is some scuttle-butt going around that he’s in fact a self-hating homosexual who goes on ‘hunting’ trips with another suspected closet case and former-drug-dealer-turned-anti-feminist-mall-preacher/whacko Doug Giles).

I really wish that country had some respect for ethics in public discourse, but it obviously doesn’t.”

Well, now that you are reading the full text of your remarks – remarks you never expected to see broadcast in an internationally-read column – you are becoming painfully aware of the fact that I am not guilty of “making up correspondence” from a fictitious readership. Since anti-male feminist whackos really exist, there’s no need for fabrication.

I found it very interesting that once I started replying publicly to my hate mail, the volume dropped dramatically. People will still occasionally snipe around the perimeter, usually some clueless loser who doesn’t grok the nametag and is nearly wetting himself in his hurry to “out” me. But despite the increasing readership of both my column and this blog, the amount of hate mail is down more than 90 percent from before the first Mailvox appeared on WND.

And on a tangential note, is there any male columnist on the right who HASN’T been accused of being a secret homosexual by leftist lunatics? The inescapable conclusion is that outside of the realm of politics, where one is forced to make alliances where one can find them, the Left regards homosexuality as something extremely undesirable. No doubt this is why left-wing governments have historically placed gays up towards the front of the line for Schiavozation.

I mean, if they’re not going to breed and do their bit in creating the next generation of New Soviet Man or the Aryan master race, then where’s the benefit to society in keeping a bunch of evolutionary dead-ends around?

Even a permabull gets it right from time to time

Larry Kudlow writes of Pope John Paul II’s influence on his life:

It was sometime in 1993 when I first read the great papal encyclical “Splendor of Truth,” written by Pope John Paul II. The slender book was recommended by Fr. C. John McClosky while he was counseling me during the worst personal crisis of my life: Alcohol and drug abuse were dragging me down. The problem got much worse before I finally surrendered to God, literally on my knees, and began a new life of faith — and sobriety.

John Paul’s book had no direct advice on drugs or alcohol. But, then again, as I came to realize later, it had everything to do with these things. The book is about the need for spiritual and moral courage in choosing good over evil in our daily lives. It is about being personally accountable for our actions. It is about abiding by our conscience so that we may hear the voice of God and follow His direction.

As a full-fledged member of a twelve-step fellowship, I later learned that the biggest problem facing all those who suffer from chronic addiction is “sickness of the soul.” That’s exactly what John Paul II talks about in “Splendor of Truth.” He tells us to “be not afraid” in pursuit of the life of faith. Be not afraid to trust God. Be not afraid to stand for the right values. Be not afraid to be faithful to your spouse, or unselfish to friends, or diligent in work and the many duties of everyday life.

As the subset of readers who follow my economic writings know, I disagree with Mr. Kudlow on almost everything with regards to what has happened in the economy, what is happening now, what will happen and the reasons why. But despite my vehement opposition to his rosy-viewed interpretations, I have always respected the man’s forthright Christianity.

It takes some courage to insist that we are still in a bull market. It takes even more to confess how one’s past failings have led one to accept Jesus Christ. I have to respect that in the man, regardless of what I think of his cheerleading for Wall Street.

The risk of biometrics

From WND:

Police in Malaysia are hunting for members of a violent gang who chopped off a car owner’s finger to get round the vehicle’s hi-tech security system. The car, a Mercedes S-class, was protected by a fingerprint recognition system…. The attackers forced Mr Kumaran to put his finger on the security panel to start the vehicle, bundled him into the back seat and drove off.

But having stripped the car, the thieves became frustrated when they wanted to restart it. They found they again could not bypass the immobiliser, which needs the owner’s fingerprint to disarm it. They stripped Mr Kumaran naked and left him by the side of the road – but not before cutting off the end of his index finger with a machete.

Like it was hard to see this coming. Chipping children to “protect” them from kidnappers and whatnot is only going to ensure a little ad hoc surgery is performed. You would think that somewhere within the giant Mercedes organizatio, there would be one person who would stop to think through the obvious implications of their new “security” system.

Mr. Kumaran is lucky that his car didn’t have a retina-scanning system. Even if it didn’t work for the thieves, that would be little consolation.