Hard on the heels of the Grimm’s Fairy Tales atrocity comes this blast of fetid air from the zeitgeist :
The youngest generation’s greater willingness to embrace nontraditional gender norms has opened up a new market within the beauty industry: men’s makeup.
One-third of young men said they would consider wearing makeup, according to Morning Consult polling, while 23 percent of all men said the same. Founders of men’s cosmetic brands credit the increased interest among young men not only to a wider acceptance of the idea that gender is fluid but also to the pressure to be picture perfect at any moment, thanks to social media.
In August 2018, Chanel debuted a line of men’s makeup, called Boy de Chanel, that includes a foundation and an eyebrow pencil.
Okay, you all may snigger at this, but even I am not immune to the siren call of male cosmetics: a little dab of Hoppe’s No. 9 behind the ears does wonders for the self-esteem.
I even carry a small bottle in my
gun bag purse for the occasional touch-up. (And all you Kroil and CLP devotees can get knotted. If Hoppe’s was good enough for my Dad, and his dad, it’s damn well good enough for me.)
City Journal puts men’s magazines under the microscope, and doesn’t like what it sees:
In a tough media environment, men’s magazines are suffering more than most. Some—notably, Playboy and Esquire—appear to have decided that appealing primarily to men is no longer the best way forward.
Yeah, good luck with that, assholes, and watch your readership (and business) disappear. Good-bye and good riddance.
Come to think of it, this humble website offers more to men than any of the glossy so-called “men’s” magazines. On these electronic pages can be found pictorials of topics wanted by men: guns, cars, women, food, booze and articles including straightforward political discussion, cultural content — such as the occasional review of movies, music and fine art — and even historical analysis, all on a daily (not monthly or quarterly) basis. Oh, and no ads.
And it’s free, except for voluntary contributions (thankee).
Oh, this is nice.
“Fair warning. Several community organizations are planning to shut down your showing of the Jordan Peterson propaganda film. While many of us aren’t Christian and some even flat-out condemn the religion, we do not want any harm to come to your place of worship or those within. However, we cannot allow fascism to continue to rise and will not tolerate its presence in our city, whether it is on the streets or on the waterfront or in a church. Read some history books, read about eugenics, read about sex and gender and then compare it to Peterson. Pray on it if you must. Do the right thing. As much as we joke about it, we really don’t want to have to bring out the guillotine to fix society.”
Way I see it, it’s a little difficult to guillotine people when they’re all holding loaded AK-47 rifles. But hey, whatever floats their delusional boat.
Still, if these pricks can label Jordan Peterson — who must be one of the gentlest souls on the planet — as a Nazi, you really have to ask yourself who, in fact, should be lining up for decapitation.
Can American exceptionalism be revived? At City Journal, Alan C. Guelzo gives a cogent reasons why we can, after a look at our history and the three legs of its foundation: political, economic and diplomatic.
I believe that the American experiment, based on the Declaration and embodied in the Constitution, belongs to an exceptional moment in human history, and remains exceptional. I believe that the U.S. economy is flexible enough to recover its mobility and astonish the world with its capacity to disrupt artificial barriers. And I believe that we can repair the deviations we have sustained from an overconfident mission-mentality without needing to accommodate ourselves to the mores of globalization.
Read it all (it’s long, but very worthwhile). However, there’s a whole ‘nother essay brewing in his final analysis:
Can this, realistically, be done? Can we disentangle our public life from the grasp of the new hierarchy of bureaucrats and, overseas, pull back from foreign-policy crusades? Can we, in short, recur successfully to our first principles?
Well, we did it once before. [emphasis added]
And it’s getting to the point, I think, where we may have to do it the same way as the Founders did it. As the man said:
As we conservatives gird up to face what would destroy us and our beloved country, consider this article a warning.
Under a prevalent view that has emerged from universities in recent years, a wrong opinion is seen as tantamount to a thrown punch or even an indication of a willingness to genocide—which invites the idea that an offended party who throws a real punch (or worse) is simply acting in self-defense. This idea has become so pervasive and is so taken-for-granted at this point that even workaday journalists now pay homage to this academic conceit in their work.
Who defines what constitutes a “wrong” opinion? (Hint: it isn’t you.) Read the whole disgusting thing.
And as a wise man once said:
“Of course, the game the Left has always played is to use violence as a pretext to impose their preferred policies. We’ve had waves of left-wing violence since the Obama administration, all intended to elicit a response. Those responses are used to justify what amounts to political terrorism.”.
Feel free to see what people think, here.
Damn, and I was only at the range a couple days ago, practicing with a sniper rifle.
Well, if you’ll excuse me… that 1911 isn’t going to shoot itself. Maybe it’s also time for a little AK practice, too.
From Liz Sheld at PJM:
Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), chairman of the House Oversight Committee said on a Sunday snuff show that Trump’s tweets telling The Squad to “go back to where they came from” reminded him of the time he was told to “go back from where he came from.” Cummings made his remarks to George Stephanopoulos, who also revealed that has been told to “go back to where he came from.” This is a new epidemic, so many Democrats have been told to “go back,” why are we only hearing about it until now?
I have to say that nobody has ever told me to go back to where I came from, but that may be because I’ve made every effort not to change the United States nation as I see it, but to preserve it — original intent of the Founders, traditional American values and traditions, strict Constitutional construction, reverence for the flag and all it stands for, unswerving loyalty to our Armed Forces, respect for law and order, paying taxes, serving on a jury, defending the United States against criticism when traveling overseas (okay, I’m not sure whether a drunken fistfight with a Scot constitutes actual defense, but hey)… and of course, I don’t think I have to prove my undying support for the Second Amendment (along with the nochschleppers in the Bill of Rights). Frankly, if someone were to tell me to go back, I’d have nowhere to go. I’m here, and I’m staying — to the utter dismay, I hope, of liberal assholes and socialists everywhere.
As for these fucking Socialist Congressweasels (we all know who they are), the same cannot be said.
I’m not setting myself up as some paragon of civic virtue, here; but at the same time, I would suggest that my version of civic virtue is more in line with mainstream America than theirs — and I suspect that there are far more like me than there are of them — even among “traditional” Democrat voters.
I guess we’ll just have to wait for the 2020 elections to see if what I say is true.