The Economist magazine takes on one of the great injustices of our time: no, it’s not factory farming or female genital mutilation in Michigan (thanks Islam!)… it’s women being judged for vocal fry:
The scene highlights two vocal features associated with young women: vocal fry and uptalk. Uptalk, as the name suggests, is the rising intonation that makes statements sound like questions? And vocal fry—often said to be typical of Kim Kardashian, an American celebrity—happens at the ends of words and phrases when a speaker’s vocal chords relax, giving the voice a kind of creaky quality (a bit like something frying in a pan).
From these descriptions, an alien observer would be bemused to learn that these harmless phenomena drive some people to scorn, or even anger. But they do. When Christine Blasey Ford testified to the Senate Judiciary Committee that Brett Kavanaugh, Donald Trump’s nominee to the Supreme Court, had sexually assaulted her, some viewers were so infuriated by her speaking style that they denounced it on Twitter: “Christine Blasey Ford’s little girl voice…vocal fry, and uptalk worse than clubbed toenails down a chalkboard.”
It’s true though. Here’s a good example in a previously unreleased video of Dr Ford practicing her fake testimony:
The article goes on to explain why women are “damned whatever they do,” whether they adopt a cutesy, fake-vulnerable vocal creak or the upward-inflected bimbo-speak once favored by Valley Girls and gay men, but now entrenched and universal among our post-literate and nearly post-verbal society. It concludes thusly:
It may be good practical advice to tell women who want to get into the voice-over industry—or indeed others that have been historically dominated by men—to use firm and deep voices if they want to impress. They might also take care to avoid the distraction of vocal fry, while simultaneously ensuring that they don’t sound too mannish. Women, in other words, are required to walk a thin line when they speak in public, a no-room-for-error performance never expected of men.
You know, maybe The Economist should stick to its areas of expertise, such as business and economics, and leave the social justice commentary to the blue-haired fatties. I actually like The Economist. As the mouthpiece of the globalist establishment, it’s hard to beat – and the news reporting is quite good. But the magazine will not survive its transition into a vehicle for hardcore campus-style leftism. That is not, shall we shall, its wheelhouse. Sadly, the social justice convergence process appears to be terminal at this point.
But anyway, the reality is that not only are very few women expected to deliver “a no-room-for-error performance”; women are barely ever expected to perform at all. What they are expected to do, is be women. This consists of being attractive, nice and feminine – things that come naturally to most women around the world. Very little else is expected or desired by men. When it comes to vocalization, the rules are simple, intuitive, and easily grasped through observation and experience. They are essentially the same for men and women, and what they boil down to is this: Don’t be an asshole.
Don’t yell indoors. Don’t speak so softly that people can’t hear you.
Enunciate your words properly. Don’t garble or slur.
If you are a middle-aged woman, don’t speak like a teenager.
If you want to be taken seriously, don’t speak like a Valley Girl.
It really isn’t that hard. Men know this. Women know this. We are all adults; we know the score. If you’re a woman who feels victimized by voice-based sexism, the odds are you’re just a narcissist with an annoying voice. Fix it. If it makes you feel better, men with socially unacceptable traits have to do this too.
And if you want to know what a woman should ideally sound like, let this your be your guide:
Man, do I love gun culture. Hard as it may be for some people to understand, gun culture is the single most important brake on the Pozzed Republic’s otherwise inevitable slide down the short, greased slope to hellish tyranny.
One of the blessings of the current era is that the enemy’s auto-unmasking is nullifying the tedious, generations-long debate between the opposing sides in the culture war. Of course, the usual arguments continue, often in amplified form, on social media and elsewhere, but I think everyone knows they are mostly irrelevant now. You don’t debate with someone who threatens to nuke your house, any more than you debate with a rattlesnake. By the same token, the good congressman apparently sees his opponents in the gun debate as vile subhumans that deserve to be wiped out. In his mind, and in the minds of many (millions of) libtards, an American Hiroshima is a reasonable and justified mechanism to enforce a gun ban.
There is simply no way to bridge this divide. We now know that most, if not the vast majority, of the policy details we have quarreled about as a nation for decade after decade were just a distraction from the core conflict, a postponement of the inevitable showdown. We just want to be left alone; they want us dead. Everything else flows from this simple principle. We just wanted to buy our guns, raise our families, play our video games; they wanted to disarm us, atomize us, mock and subvert our culture, and force their inversion of morality down our throats.
But enough about the Cold Civil War. Is the good California congressman Eric Swalwell correct on this point? Could the government, if push comes to shove, simply take away all our guns, using the overwhelming might of the US military to impose its will on a defiant population?
The answer is no. And this is a point worth repeating and drilling into thick libtard skulls, because a growing number of them are dangerously emboldened, believing that the gummint and its shiny weaponry will force compliance with their hideous utopian schemes. When it comes to guns, this is the opposite of the truth, and while it is not important for libtards to understand why we love guns, it is very important for them to understand that their vision of a gun-free America is literally, physically impossible.
Fortunately, author Larry Correia has delivered himself of what may be the mother of all posts on why this is the case. Basically, the math doesn’t work. If the federal government is ever foolish enough to declare a nationwide gun ban, it would have to collect firearms from a population *at least* the size of Great Britain or France (this is an extremely lowball estimate). Assuming just 1% of those people decided to #resist such a gross usurpation of their constitutional rights – and you can bet the actual number would be way higher than 1% – the US government would suddenly find itself dealing with a continent-wide insurgency that would make Iraq look like a playground brawl. The greatest military in the history of the world was bogged down for almost nine years in Iraq, facing an insurgency force of perhaps 22,000 people at any given time. The government would have to fight 30 times that number of people on American soil. Minimum.
If they understand nothing else, libtards need to get it through their heads that they cannot win this particular fight. Never gonna happen. And the more brazenly and hysterically they push their violent fantasies, the more we hate them.
This fawning Pozzfeed piece on the angry and energized women who flocked to BETA OʹRourkeʹs campaign is pretty interesting.
A few details struck me. First – making allowances for potential Fake News exaggeration – the remarkable enthusiasm of these female groupies and their willingness to volunteer their time for Beta’s campaign.
Second, their scolding, self-righteous attitude towards all men, and the astonishing self-abasement of the men around them, including Beta.
Third, the role of the 2017 Women’s March – itself a response to the 2016 election – as a seismic event that activated many of these women to get involved in politics, after a lifetime of passivity.
No doubt the Betamania was propped up by Democratic money and organizational support, but it also drew much of its energy from a hydrothermal vent of organic female hysteria. Trump’s victory unleashed something deep and dark in the female psyche, and the effects are still rippling through the body politic: #Resist, #MeToo, #TimesUp, and now this.
I think we may be seeing something like a revival of the women-led Temperance Movement of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, translated into the modern vernacular of feminism (“Temperance” –> #TimesUp), and without the Christian overtones of the TM. It’s a pseudo-religious movement, but the god they are worshiping is not God.
“I remember this time, two years ago, when women were hiding their energy in secret Facebook groups,” one woman told me, referring to groups like Pantsuit Nation that flourished in the days leading up to the 2016 election. “Righteous, visible anger is much better.”
Bill Kristol is a dishonest globalist shill, but when he’s right, he’s right:
I’ve always disliked the phrase “demography is destiny,” as it seems to minimize the capacity for deliberation and self-government, for reflection and choice. But looking at tonight’s results in detail, one has to say that today, in America, demography sure seems to be destiny.
We’re running a census every two years as much as an election.
After 30 years of multiculturalism, the bonds of racial solidarity trump the bonds of national solidarity. Democrats have a very strong story to tell about what we owe the victims of racism and oppression. They do not have a strong story to tell about what we owe to other Americans, how we define our national borders and what binds us as Americans.
Here’s the central challenge of our age: Over the next few decades, America will become a majority-minority country. It is hard to think of other major nations, down through history, that have managed such a transition and still held together.
It seems that the Democratic Party is going to lead us through this transition. The Republicans have decided to pretend it’s not happening. Trump had a chance to build a pan-ethnic nationalist coalition but went with white identity politics instead. [Ed: A lie. Trump is an avowed civic nationalist. He has made this perfectly clear, over and over and over again.] Republicans have rendered themselves irrelevant to the great generational challenge before us.
Well, let’s take a look at how this great generational challenge played out in the midterm elections:
The implications of these figures are grim, though not, if you’ve been paying attention, particularly surprising. No, Latinos are not “natural Republicans,” and it’s time to retire that tired trope. Asians are almost as liberal as Jews, voting Democrat by a more than 3 to 1 ratio. And blacks… oh, man. What happened to Trump’s alleged 36% approval rating among blacks? This election was supposed to be, in large part, a referendum on Trump. What about Kanye West and Candace Owens and that whole #Blexit thing? Blacks were finally taking the red pill, remember? They were finally “escaping the Democrat plantation”? Except they weren’t, because 90% of blacks voted Democrat. Ninety percent.
Although the Republicans did reasonably well overall, strengthening their control of the Senate while losing the House, the outcomes of several key races have disturbing implications for the future of the party. Particularly ominous was the US Senate race in Texas, where the Republican incumbent Ted Cruz clinched a narrow victory over the ludicrous Democrat Beta O’Rourke, winning by a margin of less than three points.
The tightness of the race is alarming in view of the fact that Cruz captured the seat in 2012 with a 16-point margin. This mirrors a statewide trend, in which Republicans faced shrinking margins of victory as electoral preferences have lurched to the left in just the past four or six years. John Daniel Davidson of The Federalistobserves:
Democrats’ hold on urban areas is tightening, with every major urban county in the state now firmly in the hands of the Democrats. In some cases, Democratic dominance is overwhelming. In Harris County, home to Houston, one of the largest metro areas in the country, every single elected office is now held by a Democrat.
It’s easy for Republicans to mock the Democratic mantra that “demographics are destiny,” especially since Democrats keeping losing statewide races in Texas. [Ed: That phrase again!] But to ignore the changes underway across the state would be naive. Despite the stereotype among coastal elites that Texas is a backwater of oil fields, cattle ranches, and gun-loving cowboys, Texas is a diverse, urban state. Seven of the country’s 15 fastest-growing cities are in Texas, and the state’s booming economy continues to draw in new residents from all over the country and the world, accelerating its urbanization and diversification.
For some reason, the article doesn’t spell out what those all-important demographic changes might be, so let me do it for you: Hispanics are on the verge of becoming (in 2022 or so) a plurality of the Texas population. Last year, they comprised 39.4% of the population, versus 42% for non-Hispanic whites. I couldn’t find the corresponding US Census figures for earlier years, but the state of Texas reported that the Hispanic population was only 32% in 2010, while the “Anglo” population stood at 53.1%.
In the Texas Senate race, 64% of Latinos voted for Democrat Beto O’Rourke while 35% voted for Republican incumbent Ted Cruz. In the state’s race for governor, about half of Hispanics (53%) voted for Democrat Lupe Valdez and 42% backed the Republican, Greg Abbott.
Ah, ok. Now I’m starting to understanding what Davidson meant by his cryptic references to demographics. Texas, formerly the reddest major state in the union, is inexorably turning blue as a massive influx of immigrants from Mexico and elsewhere transforms the electorate.
Similar forces are reshaping a host of other states, including Florida, Georgia, Arizona and Nevada. Ron Unz comments:
These negative indications were even stronger in the high-profile gubernatorial races in Florida and Georgia, each narrowly won by a right-wing white Republican who faced a left-wing black Democrat. In the past a matches along such racial and ideological lines in Southern states would have been expected to produce a blowout GOP victories, but this year the margin was less than two points in Georgia and less than one in Florida. […]
The apparent Democratic victory in a close Arizona Senate race represents another severe warning sign to the Republicans. With the sole exception of 1996, that state had backed the Republican presidential ticket without fail in every national election since 1960 and both senators had been Republican since 1995, with the Congressional delegation generally skewing in that same direction for the last half century. Yet a Democrat now seems to have won an open Senate seat, something that had last happened in 1976.
The obvious factor driving the political realignments in both Georgia and Arizona are the long-term demographic trends, especially the rapid growth of the local Hispanic population.
Meanwhile, Latinos voted for Democratic candidates by wide margins in Nevada. About 67% of Latinos voted for Democrat Jacky Rosen in the Senate race, compared with 30% who voted for Republican Dean Heller. In the race for governor, Latinos voted in a similar manner.
Here’s more about the changing electorates of Georgia and Virginia. And here’s Breitbart on how districts with large foreign-born populations in New York, Massachusetts and Minnesota sent radical leftists to Congress last week.
Most Republicans are adamantly unwilling to face the stark reality, even as the evidence piles up election after election and sneering globalists like Bill Kristol rub it in their faces. Instead, they focus on the relatively minor issue of immigrant crime and clamor for a border wall, which is useless at stopping legal arrivals. The real problem, which they ignore, is the societal, political, and economic transformation that mass immigration imposes on the US.
Basically, what happened to California is being replicated on a nationwide scale. The Unz article quoted above is very clarifying in this regard. I am not entirely clear on how Unz feels about it, but his description of what happened to California is chilling. The population of California has doubled since the late 1960s, driven almost entirely by mass immigration. The resulting ills are well-known: overcrowding, horrendous traffic, sharply rising housing costs, falling wages, and a plummeting quality of life as the post-war “California dream” has all but collapsed. California now has the highest poverty rate in the nation and is witnessing a large and accelerating exodus of people.
Needless to say, these are deeply negative trends and most Americans do *not* want this same process to play out across the entire United States. For conservatives in particular, the lessons of California are sobering. Unz describes how the once heavily Republican state was rocked by fierce political battles over immigration issues in the 1990s. Those bitter controversies ultimately faded away into complete irrelevance, however, as the overwhelming scale of the immigration permanently altered the political landscape of the state. The Republican Party collapsed, with Republicans now making up less than 25% of the electorate.
Fortunately, severe ethno-political warfare has been averted in California. Unfortunately, it has been averted by turning California into a one-party Democratic state, forever.
Most self-described conservatives are nice people who have no desire to stigmatize foreigners and immigrants. This is a perfectly understandable, Christian impulse. But calling for a time-out on America’s gigantic experiment in migration is hardly xenophobic or cruel. On the contrary, it’s the only sensible response to radical demographic change, which is on the verge of creating an eternal Democratic majority.
What Steve Bannon calls the “nullification project” – the sprawling Democrat/media/Deep State conspiracy to reverse the outcome of the 2016 election – has entered a new phase following the Democratic takeover of the House of Representatives last week. Basking in victory after scooping up as many as 40 seats in the House, the Dems are now gearing up for a massive assault on Trump, in which they plan to subject the duly elected president and his staff to a nonstop blizzard of crippling, ruinous investigations and subpoenas.
The logic seems to be that if you can’t control the presidency, you should use any and all means at your disposal, no matter how shady and ridiculous, to paralyze the White House. There is not one person alive who sincerely believes that Donald Trump colluded with Vladimir Putin to steal the election. It’s an obviously retarded, baseless conspiracy theory that would get you laughed out of the room in a sane society. Most of the other complaints about Trump’s alleged abuses of power are bogus or trivial, although there may be some issues (like potential violations of the emoluments clause) that warrant scrutiny.
But these fine distinctions matter not at all to the feral Dems, who intend to throw everything at the wall to see what sticks. The guiding principle here is, “Show me the man and I’ll find you the crime.” The Dems are slavering in anticipation of January 4, 2019, when the 116th Congress convenes on Capitol Hill and the party of #resistance can finally take its revenge on the president. And they are looking at DOZENS of attack vectors:
House Democrats plan to probe every aspect of President Trump’s life and work, from family business dealings, the Space Force and his tax returns to possible “leverage” by Russia, top Democrats tell us.
What they’re saying: One senior Democratic source said the new majority, which takes power in January, is preparing a “subpoena cannon,” like an arena T-shirt cannon.
Based on our reporting and other public sources, Axios’ Zach Basu has assembled a list of at least 85 potential Trump-related investigation and subpoena targets for the new majority. […]
Top Democrats, who had largely avoided the subject during the campaign, now tell us they plan to almost immediately begin exploring possible grounds for impeachment. A public report by Robert Mueller would ignite the kindling.
I am skeptical that the Mueller report, if it even appears, will be anything more than a dud. There is only so much you can do with nothing. But such a report will merely be the opening volley of a relentless lawfare campaign designed not to bring justice (lol), or even to remove Trump from office, but instead to fatally cripple the presidential team and bring the MAGA agenda to a grinding halt. Who would risk being driven to bankruptcy with legal bills in order to work for Trump?
It seems unlikely that cooler Democrat heads will be able to stop this congressional Operation Barbarossa. According to Axios:
Tom Steyer, the liberal activist who spent more than $100 million during the campaign to build support for impeachment, said establishment leaders who are trying to postpone talk of impeachment are “the outliers”: “80% of registered Democrats think … we’re right.”
At the same time, there is a giant pent-up appetite among Democrats to hold Mr. Trump and his administration accountable in ways that Republicans have refused to over the last two years. […]
Striking the right balance is a political imperative for Democrats, who owe their majority to a new, younger and more diverse crop of members-elect — about half of them women — many of whom won races in centrist or Republican-leaning areas after campaigning as change agents.
In other words, buckle the hell up – it’s going to be a bumpy two years.
The intensifying battle over the Trump presidency is part of a broader effort by the regnant progressive class to thwart the will of the American public. This is not new, but it’s coming into sharper focus due to the rise of populist-nationalism in the US (and globally), which rejects the liberal international order so dear to the progressive elites, as well as the existence of social media, which is exposing all sorts of fascinating oddities and anomalies about our political process.
A case in point is the current shenanigans in Florida, where the Democrats are engaged in a shockingly blatant theft of both the Senate and the gubernatorial elections. And I mean shocking: I literally cannot believe what the Dems are attempting to get away with. For instance, an Avis rental car that was returned at the Fort Lauderdale airport yesterday was found to contain two boxes, one of which was officially tagged and labeled “PROVISIONAL BALLOT BOX.” When this was reported to the police, the Broward County sheriff’s office called in a bomb squad and shut down the entire airport for several hours. Broward County, along with Palm Beach County, happens to be ground zero for the current vote recount crisis in Florida. Funny, that.
This is to say nothing of the 95,000 heavily Democrat-favorable ballots that magically turned up three days after the Senate election. We all know what would happen if Republicans pulled a stunt like this. There is simply a different set of rules for the left.
Until now, that is. Fortunately, it seems Trump is not inclined to take this sitting down. America is truly blessed to have a president who cares about the nation and is willing to fight back. Let’s see if he has the steel will and ruthlessness to follow through and drain the fetid swamps in Washington and South Florida. At this point, only Trump stands in the way of the left’s endgame, which is to dissolve the American people and elect another.