Featured Post

The Coup Attempt Continues

Some eight days before Trump's inauguration, and in the midst of the Russia hysteria, I wrote I have never seen such a pile on as the ...

Sunday, January 22, 2017

Marching for the Right to Kill

As a rule, I do not care for mass marches. Some, admittedly, are conducted and headed with discipline, dignity, and a sense of purpose, e.g., MLK, Tea Party, General Sherman. Most, however, prove unruly, unfocussed events that leave behind trash, and attract the weird, the bored, the sad loser, and, of course, the so-called "A-List" narcissist celebrity who jets in, delivers some bombast, and then jets back out. In most of these events participants say mean and little things, and the march produces mean and little things of no lasting impact--except, perhaps, to the small businesses that have had their windows broken and premises trashed.

The "Million Women March" falls into the same category as most of these events. To their credit, these marchers did not trash businesses but, as typical with leftist marches, left behind piles of trash for others to clean up. From what I saw of it, and its companion marches in Europe and elsewhere, this was, perhaps and at best, some vague expression of unhappiness with an election that didn't turn out the way the marchers wanted, and so . . . they march. OK. They have that right. Doesn't bother me at all. Other than that, what was it about? We heard and saw marchers exhibit girlish delight in using "grown-up" profanity and coarseness, and we read pompous statements from the organizers bragging, "They said it couldn't be done!" Who are "they"? What "couldn't be done"? Are we to swoon in amazement over the organizers' ability to solicit and obtain a marching permit from DC authorities? Hate to break it to the marchers, but it's been done before--many, many times--and will be done again. This is neither the first nor last rodeo, ladies, not at all. For that, you can thank the Constitution, and a lot of men who have marched to war to defend it for you.

Still, we have the unanswered question: What was this really about? I, for example, never understood the march in Paris put on after one of the Islamic atrocities and wrote about my disgust that,
It was a very typical, in fact, an extremely typical leftist/progressive/narcissist manifestation akin to so many others we have seen over the years. It was replete with the usual trademarks of progressivism: prancing and preening; empty slogans and rhetoric; and equally empty gestures and cartoonish props, e.g., giant pencils, rakishly worn bandanas, silly make-up, etc. . . In sum, the "march" was a call to do, what exactly? Simple: It was a call to do exactly nothing. The march was about nothing.
We can say much of the same about the January 21 festivities: a lot of mostly white middle and upper class women, wearing funny hats, claiming to be "oppressed" in some way, and giving "notice" that they will "resist." They said nothing about the real oppressor of women today, Islam, and, in fact, went out of their way to make nice with Islam; a prominent Muslim pro-Sharia "activist" had a major role in organizing the event. I am surprised that CAIR did not put on a Sharia-approved honor killing demonstration, or one on how to throw acid in the face of girls who "dishonor" family, or how to perform a clitoridectomy on a screaming girl, or how to hang gays from construction cranes: well, maybe next year, along with one on how to drive a truck into a crowd . . .

The only concrete theme was abortion. That seems to serve as the sole unifier of today's feminism, i.e., preserving and expanding the right to kill the unborn with no restrictions. That seems to define bravery for these folks; that's the core impetus behind the move to "resist."

So, in the end, I guess I am partly wrong. Unlike the march in Paris, this march wasn't about nothing. It was a march for the right to kill.


  1. I especially enjoyed watching the marches in the Muslim countries. Oh wait....

  2. Read that one of the DC organizers is a pro-Palestinian, pro Sharia Law activist. Encouraging women to choose Sharia to get interest-free loans:


  3. I heard a lot of "I want, I want", "gimme gimme gimme".

  4. Ouch! Thanks for that, DipII: right on!

  5. The incoherence embodied in the women's movement, as it's currently presented, befuddles me.
    What they are saying is, "We don't want the government in our wombs, telling us what to do with our bodies....BUT....we want the taxpayers to pay for our decisions by subsidizing PP, forcing insurers and employers to pay for birth control and abortions.....and making laws that require the Government to be involved in reproductive decisions."
    What they don't seem to realize is that the minute that they give Government the obligation to pay, they also give the Government the power to impose restrictions, qualifications, and ... going back to Margaret Sanger, eugenic policies.
    I also read that the organizers denied a pro-life group participation. So, they're marching for "women's rights," but only if you think as they do.
    Much as the left is unhappy when it envisions a political opponent using the expanded powers of the presidency that the left created to obviate the left's political victories, they should also give some thought to the potential negative consequences to their crusade should things go politically cattywompus on them.

    1. Wow! One of the most well written comments I have ever read. Thank you.

    2. "Hey government, I want all of your support and the freedom to give nothing in return!"

      Sorry lady, what you want is a husband. And if you're already married, a good husband.

      - reader #1482

    3. The modern single women has a 'husband': it's called the government. Many of the marching women fear that the new Trump government might want a 'divorce' to stop the welfare payments and services to single women without a prospect of alimony thereafter.

  6. "A march for the right to kill."
    Brilliant. We should all use this as a description of these demonstrations going forward.

  7. Deny life unworthy. Abortion rites have a long and notorious history.

  8. "That seems to serve as the sole unifier of today's feminism, i.e., preserving and expanding the right to kill the unborn with no restrictions."
    That was my thought as well. As evidence of this, as ColorComment noted, a right to life group was barred from the march.

  9. Saw a great little post today so I cant take credit for it.
    A young lady wearing a Trump T-shirt. She proclaimed their already was a Woman's March. It happened in November when 25 million women marched into the voting booth and voted for Trump.

  10. Re: the French. Julie Barlow and Jean-Benoit Nadeau in their book The Bonjour Effect, which I recommend, said. "Demonstrations and protests are political forums in France. After the slaughters at Charlie Hebdo and the Hyper Cache grocery, 5 percent of France’s total population took to the street. North Americans, who don’t protest in the street nearly as much as the French do, interpret it as a sign of unrest, if not political chaos. In fact, it’s the opposite: if the French couldn’t protest, that would lead to political chaos.”

    As far as Saturday's shameful exhibition goes, I've resolved to never use foul language, strive to behave with some dignity, and to continue to associate with people of decency and drop any others.

    By shameful, I mean things like showing up with an image of the Virgin of Guadalupe as a vagina [sic - the anatomical part is called a vulva] https://twitter.com/AmyKNelson/status/822847906269032448

  11. Too bad their DC permit wasn't for Sunday instead of Saturday. Thousands of us who were in DC for the inauguration had planned on sightseeing but had our day spoiled by the marchers. Part of the plan no doubt.

  12. Diogenes' Middle Finger also has an excellent rant on this topic.

  13. Abortion. Such an unlikely act to be the seed of bring down a great nation. I'm not sure the left loves abortion so much as they love the divisiveness of it. We have lost elections and rights in the good fight against abortion. More than likely there will be blood in the Senate when Trump picks a pro-life Supreme Court nominee. What we need is a pro-constitution nominee but we will fight to the death for a pro-life judge. One of two things will happen (perhaps both); we will be forced to appoint a judge who can get 61 votes who is not openly pro-life and may be squishy on the constitution. OR we will reinvigorate the left in the bloody but futile battle to put a pro-lifer on the Supreme Court. For what? Roe-vs Wade won't be overturned. And god forbid that it was that single act would reenergize the left like we have never seen them.

    The battle is for the country. The left wants to fundamentally change our country in much the same way that Lenin fundamentally changed Russia. Do not hand them the opportunity to do it. nominate a solid pro-constitution judge, do it each time a court opening comes up. Let's save the country. Don't mistakenly think this narrow Trump victory means a thing in the long run the left intends to take over and the courts were their best ally in that effort.

    1. A fine post you have here. The Left loves abortion mainly because the Right detests it. A SC nominee should acknowledge only that Roe is the law of the land. Say no more. Roe will never be overturned until the vast majority of the public has a mind change on the issue. Before then, Roe or not, abortions will take place in defiance of any overturning. Hearts and minds first. Our enemy is not abortion. Our enemy is Leftism and all its cancerous side effects. It has been our ever present enemy, our current enemy and our enemy for ever. It never goes away.

    2. whitewall,

      The reason the left never goes away is that there are Two Ecologies. City and Country. And with them are two cultures.

      What works for those places on the edge of collapse (cities) does not work in places with room to move (Country).

      If we understood this in our bones we might all get along better.

    3. Trump is correct on abortion. It is not a Federal issue. It is a States issue.

    4. Trump was also correct, - if abortion is murder women who instigate one deserve the death penalty.

      Well that caused an uproar. Even most pro lifers are not willing to go that far. Which means the issue is not as serious as claimed.

      As far as I can figure out it is "misdemeanor manslaughter (for the provider) and the woman goes free". In other words the instigator of the crime is let off the hook. What kind of justice is that?

      Obviously a ridiculous position.

      On top of that there is no statute of limitations on murder. So we have some 20 or 30 million women deserving of the death penalty. Or at least a few years in prison.

      But I'm told that is all too logical.

      So we have a Republican Party basing its position in this matter on feelz. Is this a Great Country or what?

  14. Oh, the delicious irony. The limo burned in DC was a muslim's.

    1. Except that this is likely to be featured in the MSM Fake News as, "Muslim Migrant's Property Burnt In Trump-Inspired Violence"

  15. I'll march for IUD provision to poor people. I'm OK with pharmaceutical abortions early on (I don't want to pay for it, but I understand and accept the logic of them). HOWEVER, once you get to the point where you're tearing apart a little fetus, you've passed the "my body, my choice" stage. It's not your little limbs on the surgical tray or in the vacuum container.

    I'm a woman. They didn't march for me.

  16. Private efforts to reduce abortion are working.

    If Republicans insist on turning to government to solve this problem expect a resurgence of the Democrats.

    The Obama era began when a Republican Congress got involved in the Terri Schiavo case in the name of life.

    Just as the Trump era began with the passing of ObamaCare.

    So what can we tell from that? It takes about 4 to 6 years for a stupid move by Congress/Government to be reflected in the voting.

    BTW the differences in attitudes towards abortion reflect the differences in ecology between City and Country life. And cities now dominate. Trump is an aberration. A welcome aberration. But the Cities will be back. With a vengeance - if they get treated vengefully.




    A Thermodynamic Explanation Of Politics

  17. The problem with politics is that hardly anyone considers, "and then what?"

    OK. You won. What effect will your win and the policies that flow from the win have on the electorate? In the mind of the winners it is always, "We won didn't we? They will love us."

    I have watched this play out over many cycles. It is always a bad attitude. Remember Nov 2016? The Democrats lost because they were not paying attention.

    It happens so often (to both "sides" ) that there must be some kind of law about it.

    This is pretty close:

    Marcus Aurelius: "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."

    And you know what? I'm seeing signs of incipient insanity all around.

  18. The marches are theater, nothing more. They are plays in which we are all stage props and the marchers get to act like they matter and are the stars of the show.

  19. The marches are theater, nothing more. They are plays in which we are all stage props and the marchers get to act like they matter and are the stars of the show.