Sexual Harassment: The Left’s Three Bad Options

November 2017: The proliferating sexual harassment scandals that started with Harvey Weinstein are now proliferating too rapidly for one to keep track. And they are disproportionately affecting leftist men. Enhancing the deliciousness is the fact that the left itself started this crap, back in the 1990s.

The left now has three bad options for dealing with the current sexual harassment conflagration:

1) Keep going with it, ruthlessly assailing the leftist men and ending their careers. In this scenario, Democrats like Al Franken and John Conyers are forced out of Congress. And many a leftist media personality is gone, gone, gone. The left doesn’t want this, obviously.

2) Admit that it has gone too far and try to step on the brakes. That means that a fullthroated affirmation of the presumption of innocence replaces the “Always believe a female accuser” thing that the left has embraced now. It also means a return to sanity about what constitutes “sexual harassment” and so forth. E.g., grabbing someone’s boobs is sexual harassment; saying something that some woman claims made her “feel uncomfortable” isn’t. This requires a return to sanity by the left and is therefore almost certainly off the table as an option.

The other problem with this option is that feminism is now such a huge part of the modern left. For the non-feminist left to try to excise the feminist branch would not be like excising a tumor; it would be like the tumor trying to excise the rest of the body.

Furthermore, the culture and incentives of “victimhood” are too deeply embedded in leftist constituencies for this to be stopped now. Victimhood claims now ARE the left; that’s what modern leftism IS. To admit, even as a theoretical possibility, that a claim of victimhood could ever be wrong would be to undercut the very foundations of modern leftism itself. They will never do this.

3) Explicitly say “It’s okay if leftist men do it, but not okay if non-leftist men do it.” They actually do go that far, some of them, but it’s not a convincing argument for sane people, naturally.

The problem for the left here, obviously, is that “Anyone who agrees with my politics should be allowed to get away with sexual molestation” is not going to be a winning argument with most people.

In the event, what they are actually going to do is try to have their cake and eat it too, as the left has always tried to do. That is, they will try to make a big deal out of it when men of the right commit some leftist sin, or are accused of doing so, but to totally ignore it, or do the minimum amount of media coverage and commentary possible, when men of the left do it or are accused of doing it. This is a bad choice for the left, especially now that we have the Net to provide information, but they may think that it’s their best of a set of bad options.

Memo to leftists: The actual best option is (2), Admit that it has gone too far and try to step on the brakes.

The left won’t want to do this, though, because it would constitute an admission that it is possible for a leftist witch hunt to go too far. For the left, even admitting that such a thing is possible in theory is unacceptable. So, while that would actually be best for everyone, it won’t happen.

This is one of the reasons, of many, that I hate sharing a planet with leftists. Out of spite and blind stubbornness, they will do everything in their power to AVOID win-win situations, if that requires admitting that non-leftists are correct about something.

ADDENDUM: Mike Pence’s rule about being alone with women who aren’t his wife doesn’t look so dumb now, does it, left-wing morons?


We’re Past Peak Leftism

Not that Brexit and Trump didn’t already make it plain, but…

Glenfilthie in the comments here, refuting some pathetic defeatists/ trolls:

The media is no longer relevant. Consider: they hated Trump with the heat of 1000 suns; but you annoying peons and peasants voted for him anyway – in spite of the prepared hoaxes, the cooked polls, and the fake news. The media is deader than a dodo.

When the left marches through an institution they inevitably destroy it. The NYT can’t sell a subscription to save its life, our universities are laughable intellectual wastelands, and city states where they rule are going the way of Detroit. Leftism is dead – you boys are grossly over-estimating their power. Watch them – they are turning on each other as their money and influence drains away!

The slitting of Harvey Weinstein’s throat, and Donna Brazile tossing Hillary Clinton out the car window a couple of days ago, are just two recent examples, of many, of that last part.

The Dismantling of the Clinton Machine Accelerates

Even the Washington Post (!) mentions – in a headline! – that Tony Podesta has resigned from the Podesta Group as a consequence of Mueller’s investigation:

Amid swirl of controversy, Democratic power lobbyist Podesta steps down

The first paragraph:

“Tony Podesta, a Democratic power lobbyist, announced to colleagues Monday that he is stepping down amid a series of indictments that cast a shadow on work his firm had done with Paul Manafort that may have benefited a Ukrainian regime friendly to the Kremlin.”

Second, NBC News says,

Podesta Group, Mercury Are Companies ‘A’ and ‘B’ in Indictment

The indictment, unsealed Monday, refers to “Company A” and “Company B” as the firms Manafort and Gates solicited in 2012 to lobby on behalf of the Ukranian government.

Tony Podesta, who founded the left-leaning Podesta Group in 1988, stepped down from his position with the firm on Monday morning, an employee told NBC News.

Tony Podesta is the brother of Hillary Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta, who is not under investigation.

And HOLY SHIT! Another NBC News piece has THIS as its HEADLINE!!!!:

Mueller Now Investigating Democratic Lobbyist Tony Podesta

For a major Old Media organization to be reporting on a Democrat being investigated like this is surprising, but to put the fact that he’s a Democrat in the headline – whew! That’s new, seriously new.

Then, just yesterday, Donna Brazile absolutely hangs Hillary out to dry – in Politico! – in an exerpt from her forthcoming book:

Inside Hillary Clinton’s Secret Takeover of the DNC

Brazile rips into Clinton for taking over the Democratic National Committee, in terms of finances and decision-making power, before the 2016 Democratic nomination contest had even begun, let alone concluded. In other words, Clinton took over the party apparatus that was supposed to oversee a fair nomination contest between Clinton and others like Sanders. That is, one of the players in the game managed to get herself appointed referee of the game.

Brazile is a corrupt and self-serving asshole, but never mind that for now. The important thing is that the anti-Clinton preference cascade continues.

Lame Journalist Cries Over Trump

Just hours after CNN self-importantly and sanctimoniously claimed they’d be the network of “Facts First” one of the 3rd place news outlet’s anchors took to the air and read a letter he’d written to President Donald Trump and Gold Star Widow Myeshia Johnson. He then broke down in tears overcome by the emotional power of his own words.

LOL, what an outrageous pussy. Have you EVER gotten more entertainment for your dollar, than the money you spent on gas to drive to the polls to vote for Trump last year? No. No you haven’t.

Via Anon Conserv:

Hillary’s Deal with Russia: Uranium One

In case you just got back from a trip to the Large Magellanic Cloud, Hillary! is now implicated in at least two scandals involving Russia.

One is that a Democratic organization involved in her campaign paid for the ridiculous Russian pee-pee “dossier” on Trump. And this was facilitated by Obama’s FBI.

The other is, as Secretary of State, selling a fifth of the US supply of uranium to this unfriendly foreign power. She should be put on trial for this, and if found guilty, executed for treason.

Vox Day’s Third Law of SJWs is SJWs Always Project. Leftists yelling “Trump colluded with Russia!” is a perfect example.

Officials of Fusion GPS, the company behind one of the fake Russia dossiers, take the Fifth:

Julian Assange investigated both presidential candidates. Found no Trump corruption involving Russia. But Clinton has such:

From the “This is my surprised face” files: The fake dossier was originally started by a cuck before being handed off to the Democrat machine:

UPDATE to the above:
This guy says,

“Some outlets have incorrectly reported that Republicans began financing the [fake Trump] dossier before the Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee took over last Spring.
But that is incorrect. Democrats are solely responsible for the dossier, which was passed around by their research firm, Fusion GPS, to Beltway reporters and select lawmakers during the heat of the presidential campaign.”

For a laugh:

Wow, interesting! I recently typed uranium; into Google, and uranium one was actually the first auto-fill to come up! In fact, you don’t even have to finish the word uranium; it comes up at ura! Holy shit, this story grew so fast it caught the SJW censors at Google napping!

Ha ha, sweet! Eat shit, assholes!

Two links from Heartiste:

Media note: My local paper (I don’t subscribe, but my woman does for some reason) picks up stories from services like the Associated Press, etc. They could report on this if wanted to, but they haven’t. In the world according to this newspaper, the Uranium One deal never happened. They have breathed not one word about it. It’s totally invisible. If there’s anyone whose only source of news is this paper, that person is completely unaware that any such scandal ever occurred.

I have said this before in another context, but it bears repeating: Orwell was not exaggerating.

Media’s Reputation Continues to Fall

Washington Post: Trump’s already largely won his war against the media

…a poll released on Thursday from Marist College. Poll respondents were asked whom they trusted more, their favorite news source or Trump. Most Americans said their favorite news source, including large majorities of independents and huge majorities of Democrats.

But most Republicans said they trust Trump more, including just shy of two-thirds of those who voted for Trump last year.

I’m surprised it’s not 100%. Surely “people who voted for Trump” and “people who trust the media” are disjoint sets? Oh, wait a minute: It didn’t ask them if they trusted the media absolutely, just who they trusted more. And whatever their opinions about the relative trustworthiness, many Americans now know that the situation is so desperate that even if you believed everything the media said about him, you still knew it was imperative that he be elected, and Clinton NOT be elected.

Still, how can anyone think the media is more trustworthy than Trump? WTF?

Well, it’s actually not quite that, either:

…Consider the language used in this question. Marist didn’t ask people whom they trusted more between the media at large and Trump; it was a choice between the media outlet you like the best and the president. Presumably, the media outlet you like the best is the one you consider most reliable and informative, but even pitting a Trump supporter’s top pick of all of the media outlets against the president, the president wins.

Additionally, the fact that they worded the question that way is a good example of one of the many ways they try to bias poll outcomes.

Another poll asked a different question about the media (I love this one):

…A Politico-Morning Consult survey conducted online found that nearly half of Americans, a plurality, thinks that the media makes up stories about the president out of whole cloth. (Specifically, the question asked: “Based on what you know, do you believe the nation’s major news organizations fabricate news stories about President Trump and his administration, or not?”) That number includes three-quarters of Republicans and even 20 percent of Democrats.

Leftists Fear a Certain Phrase


So we should start using it a lot.

iSteve with an analysis:

Steve quotes a frightened attempt at “Don’t believe your lying eyes!” by one Andrew Rosenthal at the Carlos Slim blog (formerly known as the New York Times; no, I’m not going to link it):

The next time there is an act of violence by an African-American against police officers, brace yourself for the right-wing media or the attorney general or the tweeter in chief to seize on the phrase “black identity extremists.”

Er, yes. Because killing someone at random just because of the color of his skin is extremism, to put it mildly.

Also, I love that “The next time there is an act of violence by an African-American against police officers…” That acknowledges that this is a common thing that is going to happen again. Thus Rosenthal feels a need to try to get out ahead and pre-empt discussion of it.

In summary, remember: Leftists fear the phrase

Black identity extremism

so be sure to use it whenever applicable.