Gay Patriot Header Image

Protest Culture Was and Is a Commercial Phenomenon

Posted by V the K at 10:15 pm - April 6, 2017.
Filed under: Political Correctness

Pepsi is a product. Barack Obama was a product. #BlackLivesMatter is a product. All things that people have been persuaded to buy or buy into based on slick marketing campaigns and careful image manipulation.

Sometimes marketing strategies work and the country gets run for eight years by a lazy socialist demagogue. Sometimes, they misfire.

Obama was a can of delicious and refreshing Pepsi. His domestic policy never amounted much to other than “fair shot” or “yes we can” and having subordinates in the media push his message out to take to the streets or block traffic as a means of somehow attempting to get politicians to change what they believe and vote the way he wanted them to on issues he cared about. Legislating was never an option. Symbolic gestures of marching across bridges is what sold.

When a Florida teenager was shot in an act of self defense, Obama wasted no time ginning up the masses. When Michael Brown robbed a convenience store in Ferguson Missouri and assaulted a police officer, resulting in his death, members of the Obama administration attended Brown’s funeral. Leaders of the movement that “sprung” up from it were invited to the White House and encouraged to keep the outrage machine at full spin. Franchises awoke in places like Baltimore, Chicago and New York.

And after eight years of screaming about every grievance online or off, what does the Obama inspired protest culture have to show for all of it? A Kendall Jenner Pepsi commercial and a Donald Trump presidency.

And from the sidebar of that story, here is a very weird attempt by Sweden to market itself as a destination for transgender refugees. (It’s two — two — two virtue signals in one!)

The graphic 32-page booklet – published by the non-profit RFSL group, the Swedish Federation for LGBTQ Rights – contains a series of cartoons depicting people of differing skin tones having solo sex, three-way sex, gay sex and one picture of a wheelchair-bound man having sex with a transexual man.

Thank You Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer

Posted by V the K at 2:56 pm - April 6, 2017.
Filed under: Dishonest Democrats


Some fret that the Republicans are giving up their own ability to filibuster the future SCOTUS picks of a Democrat President. Like that would ever happen. Even when Democrats have nominated hard-left radicals like Ruth Bader Ginsburg or addlepated lackwits like Sonia Sotomayor, they have sailed through the Senate with Republican support.

Democrats, on the other hand, might… might… have lost the leverage they would have had should the very, very elderly RBG or Stephen Breyer leave the court while PDT is still president. Had they kept their powder dry, they might have been able to persuade Republicans to replace those leftist hardliners with moderate wing votes. (They may yet, Republicans are notorious … um… things that might be grabbed by Donald Trump.)  There’s no reason for Republicans not to insist on Originalists now.

BTW: It should be stunning that the former Attorney General of the State of California is arguing that feeeeeeeelings should be more important to judges than the letter of the law. (The essence of Origianlism.) But, sadly, in this day and age, that’s what the Democratic Progressive Left believes.

Imagine how chaotic society would be if all law were subjugated to feeeeeeeeeeelings. “I know this contract says I’m supposed to pay my mortgage every month, but doing so would cause me undue psychic trauma.”

Sorry LGBT, the Left Has Met Someone They Like Better

(HT: pst314) A liberal New Yorker finds out the hard way that gays are no longer the left’s favorite toy; Mohammedans are the shiny new thing.

Last month, when Marine Le Pen refused to put on a headscarf for a meeting with Lebanon’s “Grand Mufti,” a friend of mine, whom I’ll call Dave, commended her for it on Facebook. Dave, as it happens, is a Manhattan liberal who voted for Hillary Clinton, despises Donald Trump, and thinks Le Pen is a fascist. But he’s also a gay man who’s very clear-eyed about the danger of Islam, especially to gay people, and who is angry at the left, both in the U.S. and Europe, for appeasing the Religion of Peace. And so he gave Le Pen a thumbs-up for her gutsy action.

Since Dave’s own friends list consists almost exclusively of other big-city liberal types, he was immediately savaged for his post on Le Pen. One of them wrote that just because Muslim women decide to cover their hair or body doesn’t mean they’re oppressed, and added that Le Pen, by refusing to wear a headscarf, wasn’t standing up for women but simply “trying to spread hate” towards Islam. Another of Dave’s friends agreed: Le Pen “didn’t behave properly.” …

In response to his friends’ complaints, Dave tried to play the gay-rights card, explaining to them that if they accepted the Muslim rule that women need to don a veil to meet a mufti or enter a mosque, they also had to accept the Muslim requirement that gay people – people such as himself – be stoned to death. Plainly, Dave expected that this argument would win the day with his oh-so-liberal, oh-so-gay-friendly friends. But it didn’t. On the contrary, their responses made it clear that they’d fully accepted the current progressive pecking order among officially recognized oppressed groups: gays (especially affluent gay American males such as Dave) are at the bottom of the ladder; Muslims are at the very top. Which means that when gays criticize Islam, a decent progressive is supposed to scream “Islamophobe”; but when Muslims drop gays to their deaths off the roofs of buildings, one is expected to look away and change the topic.

The Democrat Progressive Left has no fixed set of ethical standards, moral principles, or concept of inalienable rights. What they have is “What feels good right now” and “What is politically advantageous right now.” And what feels good right now is virtue-signaling about Mohammedans. Inconvenient realities about the beliefs of Mohammedism vis-a-vis homosexuals must not be allowed to stand in the way of self-righteous virtue-signaling.

And there is a political calculus as well. Globally, Mohammedans outnumber gays and mass immigrations and high birth rates mean there are more votes in mosques than gay bars. Also, Mohammedans share the Democratic Progressive Left’s lust for absolute political authority and violent repression of opposing belief systems. So, there’s that.

Democrats Against Reason and Enlightenment

Posted by V the K at 6:34 am - April 6, 2017.
Filed under: Ideas & Trends

Did you know that Stanford accepted a kid into its freshman class whose application essay was nothing but the phrase “Black Lives Matter” repeated 100 times? This is the product of an elite culture that values virtue-signaling over reason: Schlichter:

But it is progressives’ total rejection of the norm of reason that is the real problem. It’s actually a wholesale rejection of the Enlightenment by those who babble loudest about being enlightened. Facts, evidence, logic – they have determined that these are horrendous obstacles to the imposition of their progressive dictatorship, and they are trying their best to stamp them out. In the place of offering Fact A and Fact B as the reasons to accept Conclusion C, they instead offer Hack Cliché A to lead to Pre-determined Conclusion B – as in “Be Silent and Obey Us.”

A conservative might argue, “Studies and experience show that the government giving free money to people tends to make them less likely to work and causes disintegrating family structures, leading to more poverty.” To which a progressive would respond, “You racist!”

Or a conservative might argue, “History has shown that military weakness and strategic indecision emboldens dictators.” To which a progressive would respond, “You racist!”

Or a conservative might argue, “Cheeseburgers are better with bacon because bacon is awesome.” To which a progressive would respond, “You racist! Plus I’m differently-abled due to lactose intolerance and also bacon offends our Muslim friends. So you’re ableist and Islamophobic too.”

Responding to reasoned points with personal attacks is not an argument. It’s throwing tantrum in the hope your opponent will simply grow frustrated and give up.

Goes a long way toward explaining why we can’t have honest, intelligent debate about policy. How can you have a reasoned debate with people who just want to attack the First Lady’s picture and get excited because one of Trump’s aides got taken off the National Security Council? How can you discuss logic and facts with people who just want to virtue-signal and chirp idiotic cliches like “building bridges not walls?