Smarting from the loss

of Roy Moore in Alabama. PTT had both predicted and rooted for a Moore win, so this one hurts a bit. We take mild consolation in this PJMedia analysis, and also in that Sailer too apparently got this prediction wrong — at least insofar as can be inferred from the passage excerpted in the previous post.

Speaking of Sailer, his latest takimag title, “Threatening Jewish Prosperity”, appeared to portend the usual mad knife skillz. But once you get past the obligatory “anti-gentilic” tic, the main thrust of the article is fairly sensible. The conclusion that “the social justice jihadis […] are increasingly threatening Jewish prosperity” could have come straight out of the PTT playbook.

Advertisements

Coalition of the fraying fringes

Sailer gets this one exactly right:

what does it say to the most important demographic group in the country at keeping the country running, the hated cishet white males, at what their future fate would be in a Democratic Party-affiliated institution? If Franken goes down while Roy Moore gets elected, which party would you as a young white man feel more appreciated in? Which one would be your (relatively) Safe Space?

Yes, the very “diversity” that propelled Obama into power will be the Democratic Party’s undoing. Oh, and this will be the party’s new face, after all the men are gone:

woke-white

Woke. White. Women! Did we mention that PTT is an adamantly pro-abortion blog?

This is why we can’t have nice things

The Commissariat has issued a new directive:

For articles with a particularly poor gender citation ratio, journal editors could ask authors to reflect upon and justify why their particular manuscript necessitates a disproportionately large number of references to male-authored work, and then reject work if the justification is not compelling.

I used to think this sort of thing couldn’t possibly happen to the leading journals in my field, but now I’m not so sure. Just in case, I’m going to start citing Autumn Kent multiple times in every new submission.

Cut the bullshit II

So now we’re supposed to believe that the Democrats actually give a fig about sexual harassment. PTT will not play the game of “who’s worse”, but we will make the uncontroversial claim that the Democrats have certainly done their share of harassing and protecting harassers (as well as rapists, pedophiles, murderers).

Thus, PTT calls upon all sides to Cut. The. Bullshit. The current stink being raised about Roy Moore makes us think the Democrats don’t have any substantive issues to attack him on. This is the guy who was removed from the bench for refusing to comply with a higher court’s injunction to take down the Ten Commandments. Attacking him as a Christian fundamentalist would be fair game. Instead, the Democrats’ chosen line of attack is about as flimsy as this one on Trump, and we predict that it will have as much success.

Pathetic spectacle

Few spectacles are as cringeworthy as watching (nominally) conservative white guys falling over each other to proclaim their love for MLK. “MLK is my idol! See, I’m not a racist!!” (LOL this WaPo piece from Jan-2017 titled “Martin Luther King Jr. was a true conservative”.)

You can feel their visceral anger when it’s pointed out that MLK was, putting in mildly, a flawed individual. “Stop giving away the game, you damn fool! Don’t you understand that we need a black hero as a symbol?! Who cares what he was actually like in real life? Plus it was all so long ago!..” [Oh, but the Dixie flag has got to go, right Phil?]

What a wretched pack of cowards, dweebs, myopic naïfs! Hiding behind MLK to deflect racism charges is so 1998. If you’re not dancing in step with the latest SJW tune, you might as well have a white sheet over your head. And you’d better stay current with the latest, as some bona fide progressives recently found out when they made the mistake of deviating slightly from the dogma du jour.

The “conservative” love for MLK is pure Dane-geld (perhaps with an admixture of Stockholm syndrome). We know how this story ends.

An intersectional dilemma

“Explosive” allegations against Martin Luther King:

Among its other accusations are that:

  •  Dr King was surrounded by advisers with strong links to the Communist Party USA
  • His statements were always subject to approval by the alleged communist sympathisers
  • He was a secret supporter of communism, “a whole-hearted Marxist”
  • His organisation, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, set up a “tax dodge” to raise funds for its activities
  • Dr King took part in “drunken sex orgies” and coerced young women to participate

(He was also a shameless plagiarist — so much so that BU actually considered revoking his doctorate.) What’s a woke white ally to do? I mean, we can probably dump “one of most visible scientists in the land” and swap him in for TehGenius “Black Bodies” Coates as “one of most visible intellectuals in the land”. But who could take MLK’s place as the nation’s moral compass? Paging Prof. Ellenberg, our resident expert on intersectionality.