Here, Richard Spencer interviews Dr. Hill about the League of the South and Southern Nationalism, a term I have never liked. Dr. Hill explains the evolution of the League over the years. He mentions some of the controversy that came along with this evolution, but there is a lot of nuance there that you have to have followed the organization to be aware of.
Amanda Marcotte (who else?) writes at Salon (where else?) decrying all the “rape truthers” who have arisen in the wake of the Rolling Stone gang rape story falling apart. (The article was originally published at Alternet. That, I guess, is where else.)
First of all, Ms. Marcotte needs a lesson in liguistic equivalence. 9/11 is an actual event that has a conventional explanation that is broadly accepted. People who dispute this conventional and broadly accepted explanation are called “9/11 truthers.” On the other hand, it has now been established beyond a reasonable doubt that the gang rape as described in the RS article did not happen, and it seems very likely that nothing in the way of a rape or sexual assault happened to Jackie that night. We can never prove that something didn’t happen absent a recantation from Jackie, but there is really very little reason to believe at this point, knowing what we know about Jackie’s catfishing scheme to win a man, that anything did happen. So, since the gang rape described in RS didn’t happen, how are people that point this out “rape truthers?” They’re actually rape realityers.
The fact that PC warriors like Marcotte are less concerned about women getting sexually assaulted than they are about having a bludgeon to beat up on men with, is evidenced by her language. Rape is not a “serious social problem.” The existence of outlets like Salon is a serious social problem. Rape, too the degree it happens, which is much less than the 1 in 4 or 1 in 5 that the PC brow beaters continually repeat, is two things, a criminal problem and a sin problem. If they really wanted to deal with the criminal issue, then they would encourage more women to report it and would work on things like making sure every ER was up to speed on how to do a forensic rape kit. Maybe they could raise some funds to get more nurses certified, for example.
And while I seriously doubt that too many PC storm troopers are worried about Christian sexual morality, if they were serious about cutting down on sexual assaults they would decry hook-up culture and not have a conniption fit every time someone suggests that perhaps avoidance of alcohol and chaste behavior would be a wise and prudent course of action.
BTW, notice that Marcotte didn’t mention Steve Sailer. I wonder if she doesn’t want to direct attention his way.
Charles Johnson interviews a cyber security expert at GotNews.com who doesn’t think so.
It’s plausible that North Korea is behind it, because they have a reason to be, but I’m not willing to just accept that as gospel because the government says so. Here’s what I posted on Facebook:
The primary reason to not believe that North Korea did it, is because the Fed Gov says they did it, and their minions in the MSM have dutifully reported it. Everything the Fed Gov says is not a lie, but on significant public matters like this, the default position should be skepticism. Uncritical acceptance of something because the Feds say it and the MSM reports it, is foolish.
I’m sorry, this is a couple of weeks old news now, but I just stumbled across it yesterday. For those who don’t know, The Internet Aristocrat had a YouTube channel with a lot of followers, and he produced humorous videos that skewered the SJW crowd. It was one of his videos that CHT posted at the pre-crash site that described GamerGate when it first started to become a thing. Well he has bowed out. I apologize for the language in the video. The IA uses a lot of choice words. But the reason I’m posting this is less about GamerGate per se and more about his take on why it has become less effective.
I agree with his take on the problem with GamerGate moderation entirely. The PC enforcement crowd is not reasonable or rational. They are hysterical. Since you are not dealing with a force that would consider compromise, it is a foolish strategy to attempt to moderate to appease them. Rational people can be reasoned with, ideologically addled hysterics cannot. The PC policers need to be resisted with equal and opposite force. That is not to say that they should be cussed at or called names, as is often the response of people who are reacting in anger. They just shouldn’t be conceded to or placated. My preferred response is to just relentlessly call them out on their thought enforcing. Thought enforcing ought to be a shameful thing, not a badge of honor. It’s carrying water for groupthink. What honor could there possibly be in carrying water for groupthink? It is a sad commentary on our current state of affairs that so many people consider it a measure of virtue to shill for the hivemind.
I’m not suggesting that extremism is the way to win a political campaign. I think “extremism” is the way to counter extremism when what you are primarily doing is being a rhetorical warrior.
Ann Coulter is right about the UVA rape hoax. We can’t let go of this UVA gang rape that didn’t happen until the left admits it was a hoax, rather than saying “we don’t know what did or didn’t happen.” Yes we do know what didn’t happen. A gang rape at the Phi Psi fraternity didn’t happen.
We now know that Jackie concocted a scheme to ensnare a guy who she had the hots for. And this thing is getting weirder and weirder by the day. Now it turns out that her love letter to her would-be boyfriend was plagiarized.
So before anyone moves on from UVA, we need to get it in writing that this case was a hoax. Jackie’s got to apologize to the fraternity; UVA’s president has to not only apologize, but pay restitution to the Greek system for shutting it down for an entire semester; and Rolling Stone authoress Sabrina Rubin Erdely has got to swear that she will never, ever write again.
My conversation with Thaddeus below made me think of this old Etherzone column of mine from 2006. This one’s for you Thaddeus:
There is something very satisfying about enthusiastically embracing the epithets that are hurled at me by my enemies…err…critics. Apparently, I am not alone in this. Retired Senator Jesse Helms once earned the knick-name “Senator No” because of his tendency to vote against legislation. As a result he began to proudly wear on the Senate floor a button created by his opponents with that moniker, and the name was quickly adopted by his supporters as well.
Well I intend to carry on in that grand tradition. When my detractors call me a “bible-thumping fundamentalist” I reply, “I’m just a sinner saved by grace, but I am trying hard to live up to that description.” When they say I want to “dismantle the entire federal government” I object, “No, not the whole thing. I want to retain the border patrol.” When they say I am a “reactionary” I plead, “Please don’t leave out ‘knee-jerk.’” And when they claim I’m “living in the past” and “want to roll back the clock,” I suggest, “1776 might be a good place to stop.”
But there is one epithet that until now I have only been able to embrace half-heartily at best. My tendency to grouse about Lincoln and his invasion as well as my Georgia raisin’ and fondness for fishing, pickup-trucks, country music and professional rasslin’ have often earned me the label of “redneck.” This is usually in jest, but it is sometimes, especially in a political context, a definite term of derision.
Some Southerners have embraced the term. Gretchen Wilson’s hit “Redneck Girl” is a prime example. On a more scholarly note, Dr. Clyde Wilson uses it fondly in his essay “The Rednecks Did It.”* (If you have time to read all the replies, there is a lengthy and enlightening discussion on the mixed meanings of “redneck,” and the concerns I have about whole-heartedly adopting the term.) In brief, the problem I have with the word “redneck” is that it seems to have at least two meanings. It more benignly implies rural, usually Southern but not exclusively, unsophisticated, favoring “mass” culture to “high” culture, and working class among other things. This is generally the way Jeff Foxworthy uses the term, for example, or the way Charlie Daniels uses it in his song “What This World Needs is a Few More Rednecks.” (“What most folks call a Redneck ain’t nothing but a working man, who makes a living by the sweat of his brow and the calluses on his hand.”) I have no objection to this aspect of the term.
However, it also less benignly connotes excessive alcohol use, chewing, dipping, and smoking, Hell-raising, underemployment, and various other social pathologies. Here we have dueling Southern stereotypes. On the one hand we are all supposed to be a bunch of Bible-Belt fundamentalist, and on the other we are all hard-drinking, tobacco spitting, degenerates. Of course, both elements exist as they do in any society. I will admit, for example, that there are a few pious Yankees among all the apostates, but all Southerners can not fit both stereotypes. Of course logic never stops the Yankee in his attempts to demonize Southerners. And for the oh-so-modern Yankee, the two indictments are equally negative. By their reckoning it is just as bad to be a true believer as it is a semi-literate, hard living, alcoholic.
As I stated above, I am just a sinner saved by grace, so I find the Bible-Belt stereotype worth embracing and nurturing. One of the most noble aspects of the South is that is has retained its religious orthodoxy to a much greater degree than the North, despite all the insults of modernity. But as someone who was raised in one of those Southern church-going households, I’m not sure I want a label that implies excessive drinking and partying. Unfortunately, I believe some who have embraced the “redneck” label are glorying in the more unsavory aspects as well. The above mentioned Gretchen Wilson’s follow-up hit “All Jacked Up” is a perfect example.
So with that disclaimer and some trepidation, I can now say that I have found a variation of the term that I can embrace. I have at last found my true niche. I am a “white-collar redneck.”
First, a little personal background. Since I am a physician I can no longer credibly claim working class status, although I proudly claim working class roots. I am well educated and reasonably professionally successful. As a result, I often find that people will make certain assumptions about my tastes, preferences, beliefs, etc. It is often assumed that my success has caused me to reject the more stereotypically “redneck” aspects of my Georgia roots for more “appropriate” pursuits and interests. It really throws them off when they discover my interest in professional rasslin.’ An interest that has waned significantly since Yankee Vince big-footed the smaller regional promotions and replaced them with his irreverent soft-porn, but that is an essay for another day. It is fun to watch their jaws drop when I defend the Confederate flag, contend that contrary to Yankee received wisdom the South is not the sole repository of racial strife, or tell them that I belong to the Gun Owners of America because the NRA is too wishy-washy. On hearing these revelations, I am often told that, “Gasp. You sound like a redneck.” As I said, sometimes this is said in jest, but other times it is definitely not used flatteringly.
But if Charlie Daniels is correct with his “sweat of the brow” and callused hands references, can I truly be a “redneck?” My wife frequently suggests that I am actually a “wanna-be redneck.” (The nerve of her!) She even suggests that my desire to buy a four wheel drive pick-up with at least a six inch lift and the work boots, flannel shirts, and jean jackets that I frequently wear are an effort to “overcompensate” for my professional and scholastic success. (Again, what nerve!) She says I am too bookish and strait-laced to be a “real redneck” and that my more “redneck” pretensions amount to wishful thinking at best or posing at worst. She has even compared my antics to super diva J. Lo’s laughable protest in song that she is still “Jenny from the block.” (As you can tell, my wife speaks her mind.)
Just recently someone described me as an enigma. But thankfully, I need be an enigma no longer. A few days ago I Googled some term and one of the articles that returned in the search was “Beware of the White-Collar Redneck”* (WCR) by Rabbi Marc Howard Wilson. Intrigued, I explored further. According to Rabbi Wilson’s liberal mind this was definitely a term of derision. Note that we must “beware” of the WCR as if he is some sort of guard dog seeking to maul us. But, happily for me, the WCR is not defined by his excessive indulgences but by his failure to uncritically accept all the Rabbi’s liberal assumptions. I will deal with his article specifically in a future essay, but as for not uncritically accepting all his liberal assumptions, I readily plead, “Guilty as charged.” For now, I would just like Rabbi Wilson to know how thankful I am that he has finally identified my true niche. Now when my wife pokes fun, I can tell her that I am in fact a redneck, a white-collar redneck, that is. It sure beats being an enigma.
*There are supposed to be a couple of links in the original, but for some reason they are not intact.
This UVA rape/Jackie story just keeps getting weirder and weirder. Haven Monahan, a name that apparently no one in the United States actually has, is the name Jackie gave to her imaginary suitor that she was using to reverse catfish “Randall” (actually Ryan) and make him jealous. This story could not be worse for the PC left. But now that it has been essentially conceded that the whole UVA rape thing didn’t happen, the press has grown conspicuously silent on reporting the details.
We have to make #IBelieveInHavenMonahan trend.
Here is what I don’t get. Jackie is obviously pretty smart. They don’t let dummies in UVA, and it is reasonable to infer from what we know that she was accepted to Brown (unless that was a lie). But she must also at the same time be a complete blithering idiot to think it would be a good idea to send a text to her would be beau from the guy who allegedly lured her into a room to be gang raped. How could his reaction be anything other than “Ummm… aren’t you the guy who RAPED MY FRIEND!!!” Bizarre does not begin to describe this. My hunch is that these two friends were on to her pretty quickly, but are not saying so outright because she is still their friend. At this point both of them would also have to be blithering idiots not to have figured out what happened. Their equivocations strike me as people who just don’t want to come out and state the obvious.