Today’s DEM’S Leftist, Athiest, and Feminist Wars Against the Human Male Animal

…

GILLETTE AD WAXES NOSTALGIC ABOUT THE FATHERS  THE LEFT HAS YANKED FROM BOYS’ LIVES

.

by Chad Felix Greene  at the Federalist:             (Article sent by Mark Waldeland.)

Boys are not lost because of toxic masculinity; they are lost because their fathers have been taken away from them and they cannot figure out how to fill that void with anything but rage and shame.

.

Culture continuously recycles itself. The revolutionary social ideas of the past are now considered conservative and backward, and the new radical enlightenment often reflects what was once viewed as not progressive enough. One of the more profound ways this cycle has manifested has been in the role of men and masculinity in our society. Today, the left seems to be longing for the father figure they so arrogantly dismissed, mocked, and demonized decades ago.

From an endless stream of TV dads portrayed as childish, selfish, lazy, drunk, clownish, and failures to the celebration of childhood independence and maturity, the role of fathers has been largely removed from our media-driven notion of life. We have been encouraged to view dad as a humorous, but optional, counterpart to our primary parent, mom, who manages to keep our lives running smoothly mostly on her own, if not in spite of him. The media today appears surprised at the resulting cultural consequences.

Gillette, a men’s shaving company, released a new ad titled, “The Best a Man Can Be,” targeting their key demographic with a sobering and stern lecture on what failures men have become in our society.

The ad features older men staring at their own reflections in the mirror looking lost as a group of young boys chase another boy before the word “freak” flashes on screen. Another young boy is being held, crying, by his concerned mother as the group of boys breaks through the scene with various chat bubbles appearing, one saying “sissy.” The next scene shows moments of TV, from a black and white cartoon of men leering at a beautiful woman to a man slapping the rear-end of his housekeeper to what looks like a classic MTV spring break montage of young men and women behaving promiscuously for the camera.

Although the message aligns with current ideas of “toxic masculinity” and the concept of “rape culture” in which progressive feminists argue men are taught they can do, say, and get away with whatever they want, I saw a different message. The ad is telling a story of respectful, confident, moral young men taught self-respect and self-restraint from their fathers.

The image of a father teaching his son how to shave has become an iconic portrayal of the unique bonding between a father and son and the importance of that relationship on a young man’s development. The ad wants the audience of men to reflect on their behavior and consider the influence they have on their sons. The problem is, the cultural perspective behind the ad caused the very issues it is trying to address.

The Gillette Ad Promotes a Conservative Message

Ironically, the concept of young men having confident, positive male role models is a conservative message and has been for a long time. It has been the progressive left and the media that encouraged several generations of young men to indulge their every desire outside of morality or social structures like marriage.

Both young men and women have been told for decades to sexually objectify themselves and consider their impulses sacred rights rather than denying themselves through responsible behaviors. The culture has downgraded marriage and the family to, at best, a comic annoyance one grows out of to, at worst, a repressive and unhealthy outdated concept that should be rejected. The obsession with celebrating single motherhood as an act of feminist self-determination and a society that views fathers suspiciously as optional caregivers has denied far too many males sufficient role models.

An overly sexualized media combined with an overly violent entertainment culture has left generations of boys growing up with only TV shows to guide them. Fathers have been largely neglected and are often only celebrated when denouncing masculinity and embracing feminism.

While the progressive scoffs at this line of reasoning and has for a very long time, the truth is everything they lecture us about proper male behavior today, they aggressively shamed out of society a generation ago. This is simply what happens when the father’s authority in family life is denounced, shamed, and cut out altogether.

This is evidenced by the persistent fixation on toxic masculinity, as exemplified by the American Psychological Association’s (APA) recently issued guidelines, which posit that males who are socialized to conform to “traditional masculinity ideology” are often negatively affected in terms of mental and physical health. They acknowledge that ideas about masculinity vary across cultures, age groups, and ethnicities. But they point to common themes like “anti-femininity, achievement, eschewal of the appearance of weakness, and adventure, risk, and violence.”

The narrative the left holds to is one of progressive female empowerment in spite of male social dominance to which men have fought against losing power. The ideas of men behaving in a sexually aggressive manner toward women in everyday life, openly engaging in violence, and bullying and dismissing sexual assault with careless phrases like “boys will be boys” is mythology largely driven by fictional portrayals of American life by previous generations of progressive cultural activists.

Christians and Conservatives Warned Us about This

In truth, conservative culture––Christian culture in particular––went to great lengths to protect young men from the cultural revolutions that shamed away sexual modesty, impulse control, and respect for parents. Conservatives were mocked for encouraging young men to remain virgins until marriage and advocating for courtship and including parents’ opinions and consent in decisions to date. In subsequent decades, every social norm instilled in young men regarding respectful treatment of women in public and private was challenged, shamed, and openly rejected by feminist social activists.

When the ad talks about the past, what they mean is the story of sexism rooted in an assumption of masculinity being a less evolved form of human experience. Feminist culture has always portrayed masculinity as the reason for societal woes and it has simply become assumed truth.

To make men better, the reasoning goes, you must shame away all remnants of the barbaric masculine past. It is assumed that our grandfathers’ generation represented the worst of sexism and violence, and society has slowly moved forward since. They don’t seem to realize the men they want for their sons today belong to the exact generation they worked so hard to erase.

Men do not become more compassionate and responsible citizens by renouncing their masculinity and embracing feminism. The culture of obscenity, meaningless sex, and perpetual adolescence is the result of failing to develop masculinity within men. The excesses, abuses, harassment, and violence we see as a social concern are the consequences of young men lost and left to their own devices.

Boys are not lost because of toxic masculinity; they are lost because their fathers have been taken away from them and they cannot figure out how to fill that void with anything but rage and shame. The social change Gillette and progressive activists want, it turns out, is a return to the moral and social values the conservative movement has been shouting from the rooftops for decades.

Can the left recognize this or will they continue tearing down men even more in their efforts, never understanding the damage they seek to repair they cause themselves?

 

http://thefederalist.com/2019/01/16/gillette-ad-waxes-nostalgic-fathers-left-yanked-boys-lives/

To Troublesome Vision on the Gulf: Fsyevo Luchyevo….Ya Tozhe Stroga Za Ezrael!

To the Sentinel on the Gulf:   Vision is essential to all of us human….Yet, the brain with a soul that directs and corrects vision   is its “Mother Superior”,  as our Roman Catholic friends would contend.   I am sure you shall recover from the trouble…YOUR COUNTRY NEEDS YOU!  (Spaceeba za Shalom….vam  tozhe!)

Ghr…my vision is a bit troublesome. I have re-edited the previous…I trust you’ll understand…I have postponed all travel…This week I’ll see the eye doc for a final evaluation before surgery…thanks a bunch…dobry nochi…Shalom…

—The President Must Stand His Ground on the Matter of US National Security: Build the Wall!—

After the assurance (“I’ll have more flexibility after the elections”) Barack Obama uttered to Putin’s envoy Dmitry Medvedev at the White House, most of America confirmed that Barack Obama was the highest “mole” the Russians had planted in the US Government. Oh yes, Comrade Putin, ex-KGB spymaster, had realized the dream of his Soviet idol Josef Stalin.

Also keep in mind that the ‘patrician’ Democrat FDR was a great admirer/sympathizer of Stalin.

Now the un-American Democrats and their liberal media ‘apparatchik’ are trying to spin the tale by suggesting that Trump is Putin’s mole, not Obama or Hillary or any other American politician. Nothing could be further from the truth; yet Mueller’s office continues to leak falsehoods about Trump and his campaign. In fact for two long years Mueller has been conducting a bogus investigation to cover up the bad deeds of the Obama administration, in his attempt to paralyze the Trump administration as the nation is kept distracted by tabloid ‘hysteria’ generated by left-wing ‘fake-news’ jerks.

Needless to say, if we had an honest and patriotic media the anti-American Barack Obama would have never been elected to the US Senate and much less the Oval Office. Even now we permit the treacherous Obama and his anarchists (amply funded by the anti-American ‘globalist’ George Soros) to violate our immigration laws, stymie our duly elected government while wreaking societal havoc at large.

Enough is enough, now is the time for the President to act with the full legal force of his Constitutional power and authority to put an end to the Democrats’ political machinations and Mueller’s unconstitutional investigation. Yes, the President can, and should, declare a national emergency to effectively stop the migratory disturbances at our southern borders. And it would be appropriate, under the current circumstances, for the President to direct the US Army Corps of Engineers to build the “Wall”…No doubt the Democrats incited by the ‘anarchists’ in the left-wing media will yell and scream rubbish about a ‘Constitutional’ crisis; but the majority of Americans aren’t buying into the DNC lies anymore.

This past week ‘ditsy’ Pelosi and her political US House flunkies were about to board a ‘taxpayer-funded’ military transport to spread anti-Trump propaganda in Belgium, Egypt and Afghanistan. But the President swiftly countered such a capricious and irresponsible self-serving political tour. That old California hen with the gavel can’t lay eggs anymore and her spent rooster ‘big Schu” is looking for a new chicken because the ‘Duke of Orange’ is tearing down their musty hen house!

The last thing our battlefront troops need is a visit from self-serving political clowns. I tell you from my own experience as a combat soldier, the troops will always prefer a USO show than a visit from political waste bags like ‘big shu’ and ditsy Pelosi. These two ‘morticious’ politicians have lost, not that they had much before, all sense of decency and respect for the fighting men and women defending the values and ideals of the American republic.

Pelosi and Schumer have gone too far with their impudence and disrespect for our duly elected President. And George Soros, who is funding the waves of Central-American illegal caravans in defiance of our nation’s laws, should be arrested for crimes against the sovereignty of our nation, fined, stripped of his naturalized US citizenship and deported to his alpine digs in Switzerland. George Soros is an evil denizen for whom there should be no place in the US.

In conclusion, I have no reason to believe Bill Barr will not overlook the conspiracy to overthrow our duly elected President. Bill Barr and Bob Mueller are good friends! Barr strikes me like a man itching to add his footnotes to our nation’s political history. Nothing of substance will come of his work as US Attorney General.

As committed as he has been to “drain the swamp” Trump’s political naiveté has empowered his seasoned political enemies in the US government and the American left-wing media. And in all of this it has been sad to witness the deadly silence of Conservative America.

Cjack…Sentinel on the Gulf…January 20, 2019

Where, What Would We Humans Be If There Were No Global Warmings The Past 15,000 Years?….Make a Guess! Look It Up!

GLOBAL WARMING: THE BIG PICTURE

by  John Hinderaker   at  PowerLine:

Regular readers know that we have been debunking global warming (aka “climate change”) hysteria for a long time. As data accumulate the realist position that we have espoused becomes ever stronger. While it is often useful to take a deep dive into the data, it is also helpful to step back and see the big picture. That is what Ken Haapala, President of the Science and Environmental Policy Project, did in the most recent The Week That Was–an email to which you should subscribe, if you haven’t already. Turning the floor over to Haapala:

Last week’s TWTW discussed the two primary energy flows from the surface through the atmosphere into space as speculated in the influential 1979 Charney report: 1) carbon dioxide (CO2) absorbing and re-radiating (interfering with) some of the outbound long-wave radiation from the surface to space and 2) increased water vapor absorbing and re-radiating (interfering with) even more outbound long-wave radiation. According to the Charney Report, the increased water vapor is more significant than the CO2 in causing a warming of the planet.

Two key points here: 1) pretty much everyone agrees that the scientifically supportable consequence of doubling the CO2 in the atmosphere, a 1 degree increase in mean global temperature, would be a good thing. To get to the alarmists’ horror stories, you need to assume that increasing temperature by 1 degree would entail positive feedbacks that would quadruple that increase, or more. (This supposition seems obviously false, since in the past, when global temperatures were more than 1 degree warmer than they are today, no such feedbacks appeared.) The main positive feedback is a hypothetical increase in water vapor, which is far and away the main “greenhouse gas.” There is no basis in observation for this theory.

Further, TWTW discussed the 1997 model of the earth’s “Annual Global Mean Energy Budget” as presented by Kiehl and Trenberth paper published by the American Meteorological Society. In their graph, Figure 7, one can see the component allocated to outgoing longwave radiation and the component allocated to increasing water vapor, evapotranspiration and latent heat. Other publications disagree with the specific numbers but accept the concept.

According to the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and their followers, there is a water vapor component of release of latent heat in the upper troposphere. This is the so called “hot spot,” which is assumed to be located over the tropics and strongest at a pressure between 300 to 200 millibars (mb) (roughly 9 to 11 km, 30,000 to 36,000 feet above the tropics). Over 50% of the atmosphere is below 6 km.

This “hot spot” has not been found and is not increasing as it should if the water vapor component of “CO2- caused global warming” is as strong as claimed in the Charney Report and repeated by the IPCC and others for 40 years. The recent McKitrick and Christy paper demonstrated that 60 years of weather balloon data have shown no such warming is taking place. Many other publications have likewise not found it.

If the “hot spot” doesn’t exist, the models on which global warming hysteria is based are wrong. Period.

Sunlight creates thermal chaotic motion of the atmosphere, which causes air with water vapor entrained to rise up. This convection process drives the winds and turbulence of the atmosphere. At the much cooler temperatures of altitudes like 10 km, water vapor condenses and becomes liquid, then ice. The conversion (phase change) from a gas back to a liquid (or solid) releases the latent heat into the atmosphere, slightly warming the nitrogen and oxygen. From high altitude, some heat is radiated into space, and part remains in the atmosphere. The entire process can be called a heat engine, or weather engine. When the Charney Report was written, the process was understood. This issue in question was: will a CO2-caused warming increase the intensity of this process, the weather engine?

That would seem to be an empirical question. But for the global warming hysterics, theory predominates over observation. That is the opposite of the scientific method.

Forty years of comprehensive atmospheric temperature trends, the last twenty years with no statistically significant warming, and 60 years of balloon observations show that the global atmosphere is not warming in a way indicating that the process is intensifying. The weather engine is not becoming more extreme. Thus, projections / forecasts / predictions from climate models or other means that CO2 warming is causing more extreme weather events are not supported by the hard evidence of temperature trends in the atmosphere.

If there is any greenhouse gas effect that is significant at this time, it is the warming of the Arctic, not the Antarctic that is both warming and cooling. The Daily Mean Temperature graphs of the Danish Meteorological Institute (DMI), from 1958 to current, north of the 80th northern parallel, show that temperatures are rising in the cold months, not the summer. In the cold months, the Arctic is extremely dry, thus the warming may be from an increase in water vapor from El Niños, the causes of which are not understood.

Please note that the above discussion does not include transport of heat from the tropics to the polar regions both by the oceans and the atmosphere. As Richard Lindzen has discussed, any greenhouse gas warming of the polar regions is likely to be beneficial, because it lessens the temperature extremes (temperature gradient) between the tropics and the polar regions, thus reducing the driving forces of winds and severe storms. As climate change pioneer H.H. Lamb discussed in his book, “Climate, History and the Modern World,” the fiercest storms to hit Western Europe occurred during the Little Ice Age, a cold period.

To repeat: the alarmists’ models predict warming over the poles. That would reduce severe weather events, which are largely driven by the temperature difference between the poles and the equator. The corrupt alarmist kleptocracy ignored this rather obvious fact and propagandized a non-existent increase in severe weather events to keep the cash flowing. However low your opinion of global warming hysterics may be, it isn’t low enough.

 

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/01/global-warming-the-big-picture.php