A Red Pill for Laci Green

A lot of people are making a big deal about the possible redpilling of Laci Green, of MTV infamy.

I try to be as comprehensive as possible in my writing and videos, but for the sake of brevity I’m going to assume that if you’re watching this video you already know a bit about Green and why she tends to be controversial or disliked among those who have come to find the brand of progressive identity politics peddled by MTV and the like toxic and insufferable.

Green published a video May 11th titled “TAKING THE RED PILL?” in which, after a long hiatus that in part involved interactions with anti-SJW YouTubers, such as Chris Ray Gun, and Blaire White, she might actually be coming around at least to being open to dialogue with anti-SJW/anti-feminist types, or perhaps even reconsidering some of her political opinions:

Having been a dissident leftist in the past, I applaud her for this even if there are some who question her sincerity.

I’m actually going to give her the benefit of the doubt for the moment precisely because it takes quite a lot of courage to break away from progressive-left orthodoxies.

On the left, one’s social and political circles tend to overlap significantly to the extent that to break away from the latter risks losing the former.

Laci may now know what some of this like, certainly in greater proportions than I considering the size of her audience since some of the reactions to this are about as predictable as it gets:

As I’ve said and wrote earlier, I understand what this is like particularly from my experiences in the political left which I quit in part over the strict ideological conformity ruthlessly policed by “call out culture“, social media shaming, or the targeting of livelihoods among other tactics of silence and intimidation at the sign of the slightest deviation from the party line.

It’s dangerous to question progressive-left orthodoxies because, to borrow from Dennis Prager, we think they’re wrong, the progressive-left thinks everyone who disagrees with them is evil.

To disagree isn’t merely to take issue with the specifics of one issue or another, but a sign of moral failure that must be forcibly corrected or purged by any means necessary.

Though I’ve quit left-wing politics outright, I did come out of the anti-SJW left — the types who might, for example, be for single-payer healthcare, support same-sex marriage, or a higher minimum wage, but think the pure insanity of identity politics that has come to dominate the left today is too radioactive to bother with anymore.

I’ve walked my own path politically since then, which as been as scary as it has been exciting, so this isn’t to suggest Green will put on a MAGA hat and start posting Pepe memes, nor even that’s where I’d necessarily like or want to see her go.

My own political evolution has been been an interesting journey, the tale of which may take a very long time for me to tell, and I certainly welcome her openness to dialog.

I think the important takeaway from this is that people can change, and that’s okay.

With that said, if you’re Laci Green if you’re watching this I wish you the best and I hope you feel better and sharper for having engage with people on the other side of the aisle.

What If Donald Trump Was a Woman?

It’s the question that New York University asks in a Feb. 28 post titled “What if Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton Had Swapped Genders?

The question is meant to address whether Donald Trump’s behavior on the campaign trail — whatever anyone thinks of it — would have been tolerated were he a woman.

To that end, INSEAD associate professor of economics and political science Maria Guadalupe  decided to put that question to the test in a production called Her Opponent which reverses the genders of the 2016 candidates.

Her Opponent casts Rachel Whorton as “Brenda King”, a female version of Trump — Daryl Embry plays “Jonathan Gordon”, a male version of Hillary Clinton.

Together with clinical associate professor of educational theatre Joe Salvatore, they map out the speaking styles and mannerisms of both Clinton and Trump to reenact the 2016 presidential debates to see how audience members would react to a female version of Donald  Trump:

After watching the second televised debate between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton in October 2016—a battle between the first female candidate nominated by a major party and an opponent who’d just been caught on tape bragging about sexually assaulting women—Maria Guadalupe, an associate professor of economics and political science at INSEAD, had an idea. Millions had tuned in to watch a man face off against a woman for the first set of co-ed presidential debates in American history. But how would their perceptions change, she wondered, if the genders of the candidates were switched? She pictured an actress playing Trump, replicating his words, gestures, body language, and tone verbatim, while an actor took on Clinton’s role in the same way. What would the experiment reveal about male and female communication styles, and the differing standards by which we unconsciously judge them?

They assumed that Trump’s aggressive style and willingness to go on the attack wouldn’t be tolerated coming from a woman, but Her Opponent shattered that presumption for audience members at two sold out Jan. 28 shows:

Based on the conversations after the performances, it sounded like audience members had their beliefs rattled in a similar way. What were some themes that emerged from their responses?

We heard a lot of “now I understand how this happened”—meaning how Trump won the election. People got upset. There was a guy two rows in front of me who was literally holding his head in his hands, and the person with him was rubbing his back. The simplicity of Trump’s message became easier for people to hear when it was coming from a woman—that was a theme. One person said, “I’m just so struck by how precise Trump’s technique is.” Another—a musical theater composer, actually—said that Trump created “hummable lyrics,” while Clinton talked a lot, and everything she was was true and factual, but there was no “hook” to it. Another theme was about not liking either candidate—you know, “I wouldn’t vote for either one.” Someone said that Jonathan Gordon [the male Hillary Clinton] was “really punchable” because of all the smiling. And a lot of people were just very surprised by the way it upended their expectations about what they thought they would feel or experience. There was someone who described Brenda King [the female Donald Trump] as his Jewish aunt who would take care of him, even though he might not like his aunt. Someone else described her as the middle school principal who you don’t like, but you know is doing good things for you.

What did you find most surprising?

I was particularly struck by the post-performance discussions about effeminacy. People felt that the male version of Clinton was feminine, and that that was bad. As a gay man who worked really hard, especially when I was younger, to erase femininity from my body—for better or worse—I found myself feeling really upset hearing those things. Daryl [the actor playing Jonathan Gordon, the male Clinton] and I have talked about this multiple times since the performances. Never once in rehearsal did we say, “play this more feminine.” So I think it was mostly the smiling piece—so many women have told me that they’re taught to smile through things that are uncomfortable. It’s been really powerful to hear women talk about that, and a learning experience for me. I was surprised by how critical I was seeing [Clinton] on a man’s body, and also by the fact that I didn’t find Trump’s behavior on a woman to be off-putting. I remember turning to Maria at one point in the rehearsals and saying, “I kind of want to have a beer with her!” The majority of my extended family voted for Trump. In some ways, I developed empathy for people who voted for him by doing this project, which is not what I was expecting. I expected it to make me more angry at them, but it gave me an understanding of what they might have heard or experienced when he spoke. (Emphasis added)

Whatever the implications (namely to me that Hillary Clinton lost because of the inescapable downside of being Hillary Clinton, not because she’s a woman) when I watched the clip I couldn’t help but think I’d like a female Trump more than Trump himself.

As “Brenda King” channeled the politics of Trumpism, I found myself affirmatively liking King, as opposed to having voted Trump with an enthusiasm that manifested in me as “well shit…I guess I’m doing this…” on Nov. 8.

Cathy Young — who is as far from a Trump fan as I’ve been able to gather — sums it up pretty well:

You can read the rest here.

Bashing, intimidating huge swathes of the electorate is a bizarre get-out-the-vote strategy

It’s an article that was published at the Huffintgon Post back in June (but “updated” Sep. 12) which I managed not to know about (or remember) until now titled “If You Don’t Vote Democrat This November, Then Fuck You“.

Without reading a single word, my immdediate thought was “Well fuck you too, HuffPo”.

Granted, it’s part of the blogger section, where presumably anyone can set up shop, just as I can here, but with the added benefit of riding on the Huffington Post’s name recognition while providing them with free content.

What was so stunning to me was how immediately off-putting this was in every reasonable way, to the extent that I’m flatly uninterested in learning anything about who wrote this, much less responding to it directly because the title alone is a non-starter.

Perhaps it’s fitting that this resurfaces shortly after Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s “deplorables” gaffe in which she smeared presumably a quarter of the American electorate as racists/sexists/bigots/homophobes out of hand.

It’s the first phase of what’s become a marquee political tactic of the identitarian, regressive-left called “kafkatrapping” which in part involves the twisted, sinister, and corrosive use of honest denials of bigotry as further evidence of it.

She’s since walked it back, but the truth remains that smears, bashing (sometimes physical), and intimidation not just of Trump voters (particularly voters the opinions of whom stray from political lines mandated for them by authoritarian left-wing elites), but the abuse of those considering third party tickets as well has become a staple of the Democratic party in general, and Clinton surrogates in particular.

It’s breathtaking to behold the arrogance and self-entitlement Clinton surrogates flash when they insult or threaten enormous swathes of the electorate, people they presumably need to convince to vote for their candidate, as a way to somehow entice people to vote their way.

Chances are, if you’ve decided to read this, you likely have already thought of an instance in which a Democrat tried to shame or indimidate you into voting for Hillary Clinton, whomever your actual candidate of choice (if any at all) actually is.

I still don’t even know who I’ll vote for this year, if I even vote at all.

Sticking with the realpolitik of Electoral College math, my vote for President probably wont matter since I live in Texas, which has not gone for a Democratic candidate since 1976.

I still struggle with the decision because even if it doesn’t matter in the big picture, it matters to me as I’ll have to live with it.

Tactics like this however are among the many reasons the Democratic Party indefinitely lost me as a voter.

There’s immense value in knowing when not taking the bait. Anyone watching Donald Trump knows this, as there seems to be no squabble too petty to bait him into.

I don’t even care to unpack a screed like the before-referenced HuffPo piece.

I know I’m not going to win over people like that, much have a civil, substantive conversation. Whether it’s worthwhile to even try is a seperate conversation.

People who say, more or less, “fuck you, now vote for my candidate” instantly disqualify themselves as anyone to be taken seriously. The only response I reccomend?

“Well fuck you too…”

Whatever your values are, it’s important to stand by them, ignoring the threats, smears, violence, and intimidation deployed by Clinton surrogates, cherishing the freedom to vote however you feel is right.

Exercise that right if only to spite those who would almost certainly take it from you.



Caitlyn Jenner Wants to be Ted Cruz’s “Trans Ambassador” and I’m Perfectly OK With It



Also found at egbertowillies.com

Caitlyn Jenner evidently wants to be the “trans ambassador” for Ted Cruz.

Queue the predictable shit-fit

I think it’s great because politics based on ideas are vastly superior to politics based on identity. I’m a Bernie Sanders supporter, so I imagine there’s very little on which I agree with Jenner (certainly not Cruz) but I think it’s wonderful anytime anyone refuses to allow their demographic make up (race, gender, sexuality, etc.) dictate their politics whatever they may be or what ideas they might adhere to.

Gay men have already been kicked off the progressive stack and are now fair game for attack, so why not open up the field of play to transgender conservatives? Trans people can be in favor of low taxation and limited government just as much as the next person; Jenner being trans has no impact on that. We now have anarcho-capitalist feMRAs, and anti-feminists who are openly transgender.

I hope that this will help the acceptance of transgender people outside the usual boundaries because If someone like Jenner can expand the voting base, and bring money to GOP coffers, I speculate that Republicans and conservatives who object to transgender people will eventually shut up about it and at least try to learn something new.

I also speculate that you’ll then see more who will come out as conservatives as well as transgender but unfortunately find it more difficult to come out as the former than the latter more because of the vitriol from the left than the ignorance of the right.

Likewise I also believe you’ll see transgender conservatives get the kind of insults that the left denounces as bigoted, but feel perfectly entitled to use against demographic minorities with the “wrong” opinions and “wrong” politics, such as Stacey Dash; Jenner will be no different.

As much fawning, saccharine praise as the left had for Caitlyn Jenner when she transitioned and came out, I knew it would only be a matter of time before the left turned on her like a shoal of pirhanas the moment they remembered or realized she’s a conservative Republican.

I was right and I take no pleasure from that.