Gay Patriot Header Image

What the Hill Is Wrong with Her?

Posted by V the K at 7:05 pm - August 10, 2017.
Filed under: Hillary Clinton

Not to beat on a dead (alcoholic, brain-damaged, deeply corrupt, in-bed-with-the-Saudis) horse, but some video footage has ’emerged’ of Hillary Rodham just casually walking down the street in New York City enjoying a shopping day with some friends. What is fascinating to me about the video footage is that the camera operator is always perfectly positioned to capture her ‘casual stroll,’ and is able to keep her constantly framed, and tracks her perfectly… as though the camera operator knew exactly where she would be moving at all times. There’s even a spot in the video where Hillary stops momentarily to look in a store window, and the camera pauses precisely at the moment she does.

This casual stroll was blocked and stage-managed better than last year’s horrible Ghostbusters movie. (You really need to check out Plinkett’s brutal review.)

I get that except for a few embarrassingly deranged and obsessed dead-enders like Peter Daou and Lena Dunham, most people recognize that Hillary is over. It’s not about sticking another fork in the old bag, it’s… what … psychologically speaking… is her deal? First it was the ‘spontaneous meeting’ in the woods with a ‘neighbor’ who turned out to be a Hillary 2016 campaign worker. And now, it’s this ‘casual stroll’ in New York City carefully documented by a professional videographer.

First of all, what is the source of this psychological need to present herself as a normal person? Real, normal people don’t obsess over being perceived as real normal people. Second, why is the vehicle for her portraying herself as a normal person… carefully choreographed and stage-managed ‘spontaneous events?’ that are professionally documented and provided to the press.

I honestly don’t understand this psychological phenomenon. I feel like Lt. Commander Data watching Commander Riker pick up an alien bimbo and having no comprehension of human behavior.

ACLU does something right

As political lobbies go, the ACLU is infuriating because they are so often wrong, left-oriented and Social Justice Warrior-ish. For example, they defend racial preferences (also known as racism) in college admissions. But on rare occasions, they will get something incredibly right.

In this instance, the ACLU challenges advertising restrictions in our nation’s capital from DC Metro:

The ACLU, ACLU of D.C., and ACLU of Virginia are teaming up to represent a diverse group of plaintiffs whose ads were all branded as too hot for transit: the ACLU itself; Carafem, a health care network that specializes in getting women access to birth control and medication abortion; People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA); and Milo Worldwide LLC — the corporate entity of provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos.

To put it mildly, these plaintiffs have nothing in common politically. But together, they powerfully illustrate the indivisibility of the First Amendment. Our free speech rights rise and fall together — whether left, right, pro-choice, anti-choice, vegan, carnivore, or none of the above…

Let’s start with the ACLU. Earlier this year…the ACLU decided to remind everyone about that very first promise in the Bill of Rights: that Congress shall make no law interfering with our freedoms of speech and religion. As part of a broad advertising campaign, the ACLU erected ads in numerous places, featuring the text of the First Amendment. Not only in English, but in Spanish and Arabic, too — to remind people that the Constitution is for everyone.

ACLU intended their First Amendment campaign stupidly as an anti-Trump thing; but the ads themselves merely stated the text of the First Amendment, which people on the Left definitely need to be reminded of. Beautiful! But then:

Our ad was rejected because WMATA’s advertising policies forbid, among many other things, advertisements “intended to influence members of the public regarding an issue on which there are varying opinions” or “intended to influence public policy.”

Get it? The wise authorities at DC Metro refuse to let the First Amendment be posted on their trains. The mere text of the First Amendment! As to the Milo aspect:

Milo Worldwide submitted ads that displayed only Mr. Yiannopoulos’s face, an invitation to pre-order his new book, “Dangerous,” and one of four short quotations from different publications: “The most hated man on the Internet” from The Nation; “The ultimate troll” from Fusion; “The Kanye West of Journalism” from Red Alert Politics; and “Internet Supervillain” from Out Magazine…the ads themselves were innocuous, and self-evidently not an attempt to influence any opinion other than which book to buy.

WMATA appeared to be okay with that. It accepted the ads and displayed them in Metro stations and subway cars — until riders began to complain about Mr. Yiannopoulos being allowed to advertise his book. Just 10 days after the ads went up, WMATA directed its agents to take them all down…

The ideas espoused by each of these four plaintiffs are anathema to someone — as is pretty much every human idea. By rejecting these ads and accepting ads from gambling casinos, military contractors, and internet sex apps, WMATA showed just how subjective its ban is. Even more frightening, however, WMATA’s policy is an attempt to silence anyone who tries to make you think.

Bingo.

Stupidity, Delusion, and Virtue Signaling

Posted by V the K at 2:55 pm - August 10, 2017.
Filed under: End of Human Race

We are living in a very, very stupid era of human history.

A British cop tasks a British retail chain to task for listing tampons under the banner ‘Feminine protection.’ (Because ‘men have periods, too.’)

(more…)

Flailing lefties (and: March on Google, Aug 19)

First, a sidebar: I’m changing my web browsers to use DuckDuckGo as default search engine. Just sayin’. It seems good. Doesn’t track your searches. And when you want to copy/paste a link address, it lets you have the real link right on the search-results page (unlike annoying Google).

DuckDuckGo - Because Google is so 1984

Anyway….A new entry in Breitbart’s “Rebels of Google” series: Google makes a big thing about tolerating its high-autism employee, then fires him when he questions ideology about gender not being either-or.

“There used to be a Googler very high on the autism spectrum. At our TGIFs (weekly propaganda sessions) he would always take up time during the question period with long, strange, frustrating questions.”

“This went on for months, and was always tolerated until one fateful LGBT-themed TGIF when he expressed skepticism about the gender “spectrum.” He was fired very shortly afterward.”

Before publishing, we checked with [another interviewee] to see if he recalled the incident and could corroborate. He did.

Meanwhile, Google’s CEO has doubled down:

Google CEO Sundar Pichai defended the dismissal of former Google employee James Damore in a blog post on Tuesday, where he called Damore’s manifesto “harmful.”

“First, let me say that we strongly support the right of Googlers to express themselves, and much of what was in that memo is fair to debate, regardless of whether a vast majority of Googlers disagree with it,” Pichai opined in the blog post. “However, portions of the memo violate our Code of Conduct and cross the line by advancing harmful gender stereotypes in our workplace.”

The contradiction is lost on Pichai. If you “strongly” support free expression and debate, you can’t fire employees for taking the other side in free expression and debate. Period. But especially given that Damore’s actual memo did not stereotype anyone and was almost milquetoast, as V noted.

“To suggest a group of our colleagues have traits that make them less biologically suited to that work is offensive and not OK,” says Pichai, which makes no sense because Damore’s memo did not remotely suggest that. RTFM, Mr. Pichai!

March on Google, August 19, 2017

Click on the image above, for updates and a map of locations.


For dessert, we have the Jennifer Lawrence train wreck. She tells President Trump “F— you!” (complete with dramatic middle finger), then tells an interviewer “We can’t continue this divide and anger.” Again, the contradiction is lost, on her.

The Left Needs Rage to Keep the Progressive Con Job Going

About that Google memo that is this week’s Rage Fetish for the Progressive Left. The left is claiming that it is “anti-diversity” and that it makes claims that women are unsuitable for jobs in the tech industry because they are too emotional and inferior to men. The actual memo says none of those things. What it actually says is that inclusiveness and diversity should be extended to thoughts and ideas instead of being limited to race, gender, symbolism and feelings.

I value diversity and inclusion, am not denying that sexism exists, and don’t endorse using stereotypes. When addressing the gap in representation in the population, we need to look at population level differences in distributions. If we can’t have an honest discussion about this, then we can never truly solve the problem.

Why is the left lying about this fairly anodyne memo? They are lying because they need to stoke outrage. Why do they need to stoke outrage? Because constant rage is absolutely necessary for the progressive left to achieve its goals.

Socialism — properly understood — is a scheme by which wealth is acquired through political power rather than economic success. Fidel Castro, Robert Mugabe, and Hugo Chavez are typical of socialist ‘heroes of the people’ who impoverished their people but died (or on Mugabe’s case, will die) with billions of dollars in foreign bank accounts. Bill and Hillary Clinton … with a net worth of well over $100 million… have done well on their modest salaries as ‘public servants.’

Misdirection is essential to keep the marks at the bottom from noticing that the politicians spouting the rhetoric of equality are getting very, very wealthy while their own economic circumstances are stagnant or declining. The oligarchs have to keep them in a perpetual state of outrage about ‘racism,’ or ‘sexism’ or ‘homophobia’ or ‘Islamophobia’ or whatever. They even came up with a term, ‘intersectionalities’ to make it possible for *everything* to be racist, sexist… et cetera. And because it’s a seven syllable word, the marks feel like they’re reall smart when they say it and don’t realize they’re being conned.

And the fact of the matter is there really isn’t a lot of racism or sexism or homophobia left in society. So, the left has to make stuff up. It has to make up that a Google employee wrote an ‘anti-diversity screed’ that attacked women as having no business in the tech industry, or that Michael Brown was an innocent young school boy shot to death by a racist cop as he pleaded for mercy. (“Hands Up, Don’t Shoot.”) They know that their base is too lazy to look up the facts and too cowardly to dissent even if they have doubts about the Narrative.

The left’s social, economic, and political ideas cannot stand up to scrutiny (which is why diversity of ideas is so threatening to them). Therefore, it is essential to keep its people in a state of rage, lest they calm down and start thinking about leftism objectively.