And speaking of Camille Paglia…
…which we were doing yesterday—there’s an article about her in yesterday’s WSJ.
Paglia is a curious amalgam. She prides herself on being unique and iconoclastic, and she certainly defies categorization. She seems to ally with the right on Obamacare, global warming, and the foolishness of denying the differences between men and women, and she doesn’t pull her punches discussing any of them. But she voted for Obama in 2008.
Here’s a Paglia quote that seems to ally her strongly with the right in a basic philosophical way:
These people [most Americans, post-draft] don’t think in military ways, so there’s this illusion out there that people are basically nice, people are basically kind, if we’re just nice and benevolent to everyone they’ll be nice too. They literally don’t have any sense of evil or criminality.
Paglia on schools and masculinity:
They’re making a toxic environment for boys. Primary education does everything in its power to turn boys into neuters…This PC gender politics thing””the way gender is being taught in the universities””in a very anti-male way, it’s all about neutralization of maleness…Masculinity is just becoming something that is imitated from the movies. There’s nothing left. There’s no room for anything manly right now.
On college for everyone:
Michelle Obama’s going on: “Everybody must have college.” Why? Why? What is the reason why everyone has to go to college? Especially when college is so utterly meaningless right now, it has no core curriculum…[the drive for college is] social snobbery on the part of a lot of upper-middle-class families who want the sticker in the window.
Actually, there is nothing in the WSJ article that indicates a leftist or even a liberal orientation on Paglia’s part, although that vote for Obama would certainly suggest it. That is the puzzlement of the Obama appeal; how could someone like Paglia have ended up voting for him?
There’s a hint of the answer in this interview with Paglia from October of 2012. She didn’t support Obama any more by 2012, but asked why she wasn’t voting for Romney instead, this was her answer:
I cannot cast a vote for a party that cast so many votes in the primaries for the vile Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum! The Democrats may be naive about institutions and economics, but the Republicans seem to be culturally and psychologically naive in imagining for a single second that Newt Gingrich is a deep and erudite thinker!
Did she consider Obama “a deep and erudite thinker”? And is that the proper criteria by which to elect a president, or is it more akin to the selection of a professorship in the academia Paglia has criticized so strongly?
Paglia goes on to add, “No, the Republican Party has become very provincial in terms of culture,” in contrast to Nelson Rockefeller’s abstract art collection; I kid you not. But that’s Paglia for you.
That is bizarre reasoning, or at the very least a frivolous response (selecting presidents for their attitude towards abstract art?). And after all, it’s not as though Gingrich or Santorum won the nomination, either, and it’s not as though Obama is noted for his abstract art collection.
But I don’t think “reason” really had a lot to do with any of this for Paglia, although she would probably strongly disagree with me. I think (from personal experience) that it’s just very very difficult for someone—even someone who prides herself, as Paglia does, on being an independent thinker—living in a liberal environment to actually vote for a Republican, so thoroughly has the Republican party been demonized.
It seems like she like to raise hell as long as it doesn’t threaten her membership in the enlightened elite. She couldn’t bear ostracism from the artsy crafties.
“I think (from personal experience) that it’s just very very difficult for someone–even someone who prides herself, as Paglia does, on being an independent thinker–living in a liberal environment to actually vote for a Republican, so thoroughly has the Republican party been demonized.”
98% of the time I’d agree with you, but not in Paglia’s case. She’s so energetic-combative, I think she’d relish the opportunity to flip the bird at her fellow professors (and sundry other lefties) by voting Republican and then loudly announcing she’d done so.
Something else is holding her back. Despite her lightning-quick mind, vast stores of knowledge about history, art, culture, etc and her contrarian nature, she still feels beholden to those left-wing vows she made to herself back in the 60s, IMHO. Alas, I think she’s just another instance of “a mind is a difficult thing to change.”
Paglia seems torn between the logic of rational thought and the social acceptance of PC fashionable thought.
Why doesn’t Camille Paglia go full Pub, given her aversion to the PC drivel coming from the left? Politics, especially to the well-informed, comes down to a choice of the lesser evil.
She has not yet made up her mind- in the “plague on both your houses” mode.
I was in the “plague on both your houses” mode for years. It took a long time for me to decide that the Pubs/wingnuts represented for me the lesser of the two evils.
“Alas, I think she’s just another instance of ‘a mind is a difficult thing to change.’”
Excuse me for quoting myself. I say “alas” because it would be wonderful to have Paglia as reliable ally against the tsunami of leftism currently ruining our country. Instead, she sporadically fires shots at the left and then turns around and fires some at the right and then fires a bunch more in random other directions.
Here’s where I go into my shtick about intelligence being grossly overrated. Paglia must have an IQ of 140 or more, and is a true scholar to boot. Yet she fails to perceive the overwhelming danger from the left and that whatever differences she has with conservatives, it’s time to take a side and fight the destructive left.
In the article Clever Sillies – Why the high IQ lack common sense, the author describes the “novelty-seeking” personality style of highly intelligent people. I think this may explain Paglia: though she can see the idiocy of the left (see Neo’s quotes above) and the good sense of conservatives, she absolutely must define her own unique path so that she is not pigeonholed as either a standard progressive or conservative. To solidly get behind conservatives would be too prosaic, too ordinary, marking her as just another mediocrity who votes Republican most of the time.
Rush loves to recount how Camille and he were seated together at some big deal dinner and, at first, watched closely for the assumed explosion. Instead the two had a blast talking with each other and became friends to-this-day. Love it.
TheResultsOfHerAndHerSisters Work Stand For Itself
The U.S. birth rate dipped to an all-time low last year as more women like Ms. Wexler decided against motherhood. In 2012, there were 63 births per 1,000 women of childbearing age, compared to 69 births in 2007 and 118 in 1960, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. It marked the fifth year in a row for the birth rate decline and the lowest rate on record since the government started tracking fertility rates in 1909.
I like Gary’s explanation of “novelty seeking.” Wanting to be unique. It sounds plausible though I’m not certain it’s true.
It could also be that, like many Muslims vis-a-vis Islam, Paglia is a good person despite being a leftist rather than because of it. To whatever extent that she thinks for herself, it is because she is rejecting the groupthink aspect of liberalism, if not the rest of it.
After all, even though most people accept the whole parcel of baggage that comes with -isms, technically there’s no reason they have to.
Paglia is one of those group-thinkers who desperately does not want to be a group thinker. She delights in angering her group, but when the votes are being counted she marches in lockstep. I really don’t see what conservatives see in her.
Paglia is just another latter day faux intellectual who needs to have her mind cleared with a chainsaw.
After that, she’ll be fine. Trust me.
If you look at Paglia’s Wikipedia entry, you’ll see she’s all over the place in her beliefs. She seems to style herself a libertarian, whatever that means. In her case, it involves opposition to laws against prostitution, pornography, drugs, and abortion. At the same time, she’s been critical of transsexualism.
While at times what she says seems to fit with conservative beliefs, I don’t think she’d ever be truly comfortable with them all the way and that would keep her from voting Republican. I think it’s personal with her, not that she feels pressure from “PC fashionable thought”; in fact, she’d probably relish fighting back against that.
She is original because she should be a rabid maniacal liberal evil person…according to the usual markers.
But she isn’t. She is extraordinary in our zombie world because she talks about standard truths and realities everyone knows are true and real and yet which are killed off by liberals anyway. But they can’t touch because she has the double victim status of woman and gay; plus she is a pop-icon with cred.
Liberals despise her, but they despise truth in any guise it takes.
I love her. She is like an oasis in a desert. She is not brilliant or amazing. She is normal, and like Sarah Palin that makes her incredibly brave, strong and true.
Once again she proves the point that women are more manly than men these days…which is exactly what she hints at in the piece.
We men should be ashamed of ourselves. We totally wimpled out from the normal manly life. There are so few decent men left it’s tragic on 27 different levels.
She votes for Obama and supports Democrats. While it’s interesting what she does in her spair time pwning feminists and academics, she was able to get a toe hold early on when the Left was not as strong as they are today. So they mercifully “allowed” her to do as she wills.
But make no mistake, this is not because of her personal “power” or anything of the sort. Like Horowitz concerning that book, they are not fully deconditioned. You cannot trust people who have been enthrall to the Left’s mind control and expect them to be de-brainwashed just because they say things you like. You may get surprised.
Btw, Pag like most intellectually dishonest slaves that think they are free, promotes the idea that they have to vote for the good intentioned but corrupt Demoncrats, because the republicans are worse.
Never did it occur to her to vote for no one at all, to withhold her vote, support, and citizen powers because she lacks the qualifications and knowledge to determine Good from Evil. It never occurred to her because the LEft Does Not Allow it to occur. She has to pick a side. Her thinking was conditioned at a very very early age. She doesn’t even realize she is discarding her options yet claiming “free will”.
I think (from personal experience) that it’s just very very difficult for someone–even someone who prides herself, as Paglia does, on being an independent thinker–living in a liberal environment to actually vote for a Republican, so thoroughly has the Republican party been demonized.
Quite so. Mind control is essentially a farm of con, where you get the mark to give you his money of his own free will. Except you knew it wasn’t his choice, you conned him into it. Mind control is allowing people to think they are making choices based on free will, when the puppet master understands that he predetermined it all based upon skill, triggers, conditioning, punishment, negative/positive reinforcement, and so forth.
Like a hard drive with a hidden partition, reformatting the HD does not get rid of that partition. The partition is safe, unless directly affected or the HD physically destroyed or stimulated. This is why shock, physical or emotional, is often capable of breaking through the conditioning placed on slaves or those undergoing torture, sexual and emotional. But it’s generally a shock so strong that it can kill people’s soul and identity, strong enough to shatter them if they don’t defend themselves with denial and projection and Stockholm Syndrome.
Camille is not inferior or worse than any other America because of this. It’s just that while I or we may like or agree with what she writes… I have yet to see proof that Camille is actually in charge of her own mind, spirit, and soul. Before feminism can start talking about Republican patriarchies or evil, first they need to demonstrate to me that they are human beings. That they are not operating via puppet strings manipulated by the Heart of Evil.
Paglia in Time, 12/16/2013:
“After the next inevitable apocalypse, men will be desperately needed again! Oh, sure, there will be the odd gun-toting Amazonian survivalist gal, who can rustle game out of the bush and feed her flock, but most women and children will be expecting men to scrounge for food and water and to defend the home turf. Indeed, men are absolutely indispensable right now, invisible as it is to most feminists, who seem blind to the infrastructure that makes their own work lives possible. It is overwhelmingly men who do the dirty, dangerous work of building roads, pouring concrete, laying bricks, tarring roofs, hanging electric wires, excavating natural gas and sewage lines, cutting and clearing trees, and bulldozing the landscape for housing developments. It is men who heft and weld the giant steel beams that frame our office buildings, and it is men who do the hair-raising work of insetting and sealing the finely tempered plate-glass windows of skyscrapers 50 stories tall.
Every day along the Delaware River in Philadelphia, one can watch the passage of vast oil tankers and towering cargo ships arriving from all over the world. These stately colossi are loaded, steered and off-loaded by men. The modern economy, with its vast production and distribution network, is a male epic, in which women have found a productive role – but women were not its author. Surely, modern women are strong enough now to give credit where credit is due!”
Read it all: http://ideas.time.com/2013/12/16/its-a-mans-world-and-it-always-will-be/?iid=ent-main-mostpop2
As a male who has watched the devaluation of all that is male in our society, these words are music to my ears. She doesn’t explain it directly, but infers the truth that the wealth enjoyed by the West is based on agriculture, mining, oil/gas drilling, lumbering, fishing, construction, and transportation. All those industries required the muscle and courage of men to establish them. Of course, private property laws backed by courts and representative government allowed their efforts to create the wealth. Far many more men than women do those things that require dirty/calloused hands, strong backs, and the willingness to take chances. The denigration of those traits/talents are, IMO, one reason why the basic industries built by men are being attacked by our dysfunctional government. It is a popular delusion that all that wealth just kind of fell out of the sky and will always be with us. Paglia sees that it isn’t so. More power to her.
Whatever else you think about Paglia, you have to acknowledge that she took a very brave position when she pointed out that men have to be credited with creating the infrastructure that makes modern life possible. Without men, she says, women would be living in huts. And she’s right.
I recall reading a commenter saying something about not wanting to be ruled by people who think wine comes in two flavors, red and white.
I have some relations who are about to get hammered by Obamacare, which they supported to the extent of nearly a family breakup. The reason they didn’t listen, at least in part, is that the person telling them about it–I’m in insurance to add a layer of frustration for them because they know I know–is that simply I’m a hard-hearted meanie.
Frank Shaffer (sp?) some years ago wrote a book about his son joining the Marines. It was a shock. Nobody he knew was a veteran. The parents at his son’s precious snowflake school wanted to have a meeting to see what they’d done wrong. “Marines. They’re kind of southern, aren’t they?”
Point is, you can’t allow yourself to vote for something the bitter clingers like no matter the facts. ’cause that would mean you’re…like them.
Wonder if Paglia has some of that going on. Sure men do the work. So did draft horses, but who’d want to have one to dinner?
Seems to me she thinks women can have equal rights without bringing men down or trying to fundamentally change men.
Mizpants: “Whatever else you think about Paglia, you have to acknowledge that she took a very brave position when she pointed out that men have to be credited with creating the infrastructure that makes modern life possible. Without men, she says, women would be living in huts. And she’s right.”
Well, we have certainly reduced bravery to the least common denominator.
I don’t pretend to understand Paglia. I do believe that there have always been those who enjoy shocking their social peers, so long as they stay within the bounds of safety.
To put it in the simple terms to which I can relate, I liken it to the kind of ridiculous commentary we sometimes hear during basketball games; “He or she will get the call because he or she has established that style of play”. Paglia can do what she does, because she has established her style within the rather broad bounds that her peers tolerate.
It is interesting that a presumably high IQ person would vote for an Obama and justify this because some people who oppose Obama voted for Newt Gingrich. Tell me again about the relationship between IQ and functional intelligence.
She voted for Der Obamafuhrer in 2008, but I am not sure she did in 2012. I rather doubt it, but I could be wrong.
My take on Paglia is that she was brought up probably Catholic and therefore knows truth when it is uttered and can’t bring herself to deny it. The nuns got to her and she will never get over that.
In her most recent book, she extols the simple virtue of contemplation, and especially related to art as the function of art.
A generation ago, this would be the most unremarkable thing imaginable. Culture demanded it and it was practiced by rich, poor and in-between. “Everyone knew” art was meant to instruct, to refine, to still, to broaden, to enrich, etc., etc. It was to humanize and educate and enliven.
Now, she sounds like some kind of crazed radical for saying, essentially, that two plus two is four.
But in a 1984 world where two plus tow is whatever our monster overlords say it is, her simple truth saying and virtue encouragement is like a miracle. God bless her.
As a side note: Look at or listen to the “art” which the zombie children produce these days. Their music is ironic dirge. They couldn’t write a “Dancing in the Streets” a la Martha and the Vandellas if their lives depended on it. And their lives do depend on it. The poor kids have been abused by liberals from day one. Of all the bad things a liberal is, it is essentially a child abuser and that is the worst. It robs children of their youth and innocence, and uses them as political tools, and teaches them more about condoms than it does about having fun and loving life.
Oldflyer
It is interesting that a presumably high IQ person would vote for an Obama and justify this because some people who oppose Obama voted for Newt Gingrich. Tell me again about the relationship between IQ and functional intelligence.
Like it or not, political affiliation has a lot of social signifying attached to it- especially for Demos. Professor Paglia conveniently ignores such repulsive Obama supporters like Bill Ayers [who advocated dictatorship of the proletariat for the US in Prairie Fire], Nancy Pelosi, and Ted Kennedy. Apparently Professor Paglia is repulsed by Newt Gingrich, but is copacetic with the the mentioned sleaze trio. Or at least she views the trio as the lesser of evils, compared to Newt Gingrich.
Not to mention that Obama overwhelmingly carried the high school dropout vote. What say you to voting on the same side as the unlettered, Professor Paglia? 🙂
Assistant Village Idiot maintains that our political affiliations are largely connected with what “tribe” we belong to. He associates liberals with what he calls the “Arts and Humanities Tribe.” My STEM background precludes me from membership in that tribe.
She and Cruz are probably on the same page about the Duck Dynasty. I remember reading that she did not think much of Hillary as a presidential candidate. I wonder who she would vote for if Cruz or Paul was running.
I think you just have to take Paglia for what she is. I saw her once briefly on TV but just from that it was quite clear that she is very egocentric and loves drawing attention to herself. No doubt some of her pronouncements are made simply for the shock value.
But she is also intelligent and educated and frequently makes penetrating insights into modern politics and culture that are aligned much more to the right than you would expect from a lesbian, leftist-voting professor. She isn’t going to lead any movements. On the whole she is a plus for “our side” because her bold against-the-grain rightist assertions get a lot more attention than the exceptionally mundane fact that she is an academic who votes Democrat (*yawn*).
Since Benghazi is back in the news: from an interview Paglia had with Salon.com last August — “As far as I’m concerned, Hillary disqualified herself for the presidency in that fist-pounding moment at a congressional hearing when she said, “What difference does it make what we knew and when we knew it, Senator?”
Here’s more:
So, it looks as if she won’t be voting Republican any time soon, but, wow, heavy-duty on Hillary.
On the whole she is a plus for “our side” because her bold against-the-grain rightist assertions get a lot more attention than
I’d like to be shown one person that converted or at least stopped being a Democrat supporter, because of her influence.
So far, the conversions have been the result of other names I’ve heard. But hers never particularly gave up as all important.
Richard Aubrey,
If they consider you mean Richard… whatever would they think of me?
So many great observations in this thread about Paglia and otherwise.
It strikes me that the political world nowadays can most accurately be divided into Leftist and non-Leftist.
The Leftists now rule our country through near monolithic control of the soviet media, academia, the permanent government bureaucracy, low culture, and the hugely influential disguised Leftist bastion of 501(c)(3)s.
Among other significant attributes, the Left has honed group-think and epistemic closure to 99.99% medieval purity. Leftist predictability is matched only by Leftist dreariness.
Non-Leftists cannot be coherently categorized politically except by their non-conformity to Leftist religion.
There is one exception. Non-Leftists can be divided into two groups, those who (for many reasons) are intimidated by the Leftist religion, and those who are not.
Per Neo:
I think (from personal experience) that it’s just very very difficult for someone–even someone who prides herself, as Paglia does, on being an independent thinker–living in a liberal environment to actually vote for a Republican, so thoroughly has the Republican party been demonized.
This has always been my guess about Paglia. I vote Republican but rarely with relish. Gingrich and Santorum are two (of many) reasons why the lack of enthusiasm for the party.
Voting for Romney was no great difficulty for me, considering the alternative, but for a Paglia it could easily be seen as voting for The Party which evokes plausible shivers of disgust in Paglia’s circles.
But I am happy to have a Paglia out there and love to hear what she has to say.
She didn’t support Obama in 2012 but voted for him any way.
That’s great.
So her way of thinking is she does not like cancer but decided to vote to give the nation the cancer of unchecked lawlessness and out of control spending because the Republican candidates would give the nation cooties.
I’m sorry, but in the end she is just another lefty destroying this country.
One thing people should notice is that amongst anti Leftists, there’s no particular agreement or group think. The conclusions may turn out to be the same, so it looks like an echo chamber, but the reality is more subtle.
It’s because when the Left tells their fodder that person A, like Palin, is persona non grata and not a human, not a feminist, not a patriot, this is a sign for the troops to obey and destroy the target as a nonhuman.
No matter what individuals here think or feel about Camille, it is not a threat to the rest of us. Thus we have no desire to make them obey. We do not use authority to make them obey even if we could. We have no motivation to make people change their behavior or thoughts.
The Left, however, when they command you to think a Republican evil, will be obeyed. There is no mercy, no appeal, to them. While they are speaking of female equality, government corruption, class inequalities, and black poverty, what they are doing is enforcing the Rod of Authority on the weak. Evil is all they are doing. It has no relation to good intentions or good works.
My take on this from October 2012. I wrote at some length.
http://neoneocon.com/2013/12/28/and-speaking-of-camille-paglia/
Shorter me: Neo-Neocon is right. Paglia can’t bring herself to kiss-off her whole career in The Arts just because voting Republican is the right thing to do. To date, anyway. We’ll see if she’s stiffened her spine more in November 2014 and 2016.
ghost707:
She voted for Obama in 2008. She did NOT vote for him in 2012, nor did she support him. But she said she could not vote for Romney either.
She voted for this greenie. (This info is in some of the pieces I linked to in the post.)
The city slickers are full of themselves. They don’t realize just how insular they have become. Paglia is likely pro-choice and has, perhaps grudgingly, accepted membership in the Dodo Dynasty. Only time will tell if this reincarnation will be as “successful” as the last. Anyway, that’s why she will not vote her principles. Everyone has their priorities.
Correction to my comment at 1:06pm. Upon re-reading my posting of October 2012, it was commenter Black Mamba who discerned Paglia was protecting her career.
I put it down to genius and burning stupidity inhabiting the same body simultaneously. Silly me. 🙂
You are quite correct about Paglia not voting for Barry in 2012, she did say she was voting Green Party as a protest. Which prompted my comment about burning stupidity.
I love Ben Stein.
BUT …
There is an interview on the net of Stein by Brian Lamb (the second Lamb did of Stein).
It is fascinating. Stein is fascinating.
Stein said he was voting for Nader, whom he liked a lot (I forget what year this was.)
Stein said he wrote an “autobiography” for Jesse Jackson which was not published, but he liked (admired?) Jackson a lot.
Stein explained his making of the movie “Expelled” in a way which sounded very short on personal conviction (this is my subjective opinion).
Stein’s wife sounds like your typical animal rights kook (again, my subjective opinion).
Stein believes rich people need to be more heavily taxed to provide more for poor people, period. Nary a thought about the intervening government role and its fiscal and cultural effects.
Stein makes a big deal about his AA philosophy, which is great, but he says he was not much of a drinker. Huh?
But I love Ben Stein and will always read what he has to say, even if things do not really add up. I suppose I should add that his constant wealth-flaunting is a little off putting, but what the heck.
Neo wrote:
“She voted for Obama in 2008. She did NOT vote for him in 2012, nor did she support him. But she said she could not vote for Romney either.
She voted for this greenie [Jill Stein].”
I think this gives some insight into Paglia’s deepest beliefs. On the one hand she’s aware enough to realize that King Barack is a fraud and a serious danger who doesn’t deserve her vote or support. Good for you, Camille.
But then, on the other hand, she turns around and casts a purely symbolic vote for a lunatic green-Stalinist from Taxachusetts, joining the detestable Noam Chomsky on Wikipedia’s list of people who endorsed Stein.
Why not cast your symbolic vote for a Libertarian rather than a totalitarian? Or almost anyone else. Evidently when push comes to shove, Paglia’s instincts are to go left–and even hard left. It’s really too bad.
“I’d like to be shown one person that converted”
How many people has, say, Mark Steyn converted, great as he is? I suspect most conversions come from talk radio rather than any print pundit. Any chip in the left-wing media wall helps.
It’s not a chip. It’s a way for Leftists to say to themselves that “Camille sounds reasonable and expresses a viewpoint the Left doesn’t allow me to say”.
By having a person like Camille repeat the doubts about Leftist ideology, yet showing absolute fealty to the LEft’s authoritarian system, people have less of a reason to escape the Left.
When people give allegiance to a creed, cult, ideology, or faction, it’s not because they think the good ideas are really nice. It’s more of an emotional commitment.
The Left needs dissidents they can control. But they don’t need dissidents that support the enemies of the Left. That’s a step too far.
She functions as a stress relief valve. She allows people who have conflicts over Leftist feminism and anti male platforms, to have a voice. And to know that this voice exists at a high level on the LEft. But it’s merely a mirage.
You must realize that the anti-Republican brainwashing has been tremendous. I fully get that someone could think Obama is horrible and not bring themselves to vote R. These people have been lied to and hectored and guilted into hating Rs for 5 decades now.
In 1984 they were brainwashed and trained like monkeys to hate Goldstein. The monsters knew that hatred would be the most effective tool. The object of ingrained hatred would be the last thing to be rooted out of these abused brains.
That is what we are dealing with here.
The solution as always is the truth. You have to tell even someone as immune as Camille Paglia 500 times over that she is wrong about hating Rs; that Romney was a good man; that Bush was good; that their ideas are good…and most importantly that hatred is wrong.
This is why I always claim I do not hate Obama. And I truly do not. I fear him, like the Bubonic Plague I fear him, but not hate. Like the Plague I would banish him – to Elba if possible – but hate, no.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-mind-body-connection/201312/in-hookups-inequality-still-reigns-1
Generally, like that article, people don’t want to change things until it gets too painful or they can no longer run away from it.
Bookworm wrote a piece on re humanizing conservatives and Republicans too.
The double aura protection of feminist and homosexual, is very potent. Juan, if I recall, only had the minority of being black as his shield, which wasn’t very strong when it came down to the crunch. The black community is far tougher on sanctioning and whipping their propagandists, like tv representative Bill Cosby, than the feminists are. The feminists, after all, called Ted Kennedy a Lion of a Man. Their standards for propaganda loyalty isn’t that high, so long as the money flows.
But homosexual activists and black power activists are notorious for their inquisition tactics, precisely because they lack the “majority” numbers. Having the Leftist member with probably the most members, (females being 50% of the population), combined with a zealous invader like GLAAD, makes for a potent combination for any Leftist that wants to yank on Camille’s chain. But if it should ever be yanked, I do not believe she will disobey as she thinks she will.
American society and culture isn’t dying because of policies or wars. It’s dying because the roots are being poisoned and burned out. Look at what they have done to the children. They’ll tell you flat out that they are the good guys, defending and saving children, though.
Ymar,
Your 6:02 comment was right on. Camille gives cover to those who have some doubts but don’t want to endanger their status in their tribe. Ann’s Salon piece showed what she could do to Hillary, but as the primaries draw near will she work against her? She may just vote present.
Pingback:Maggie's Farm
The Left(liberals, Democrats, Progressives) will believe, and make you believe, that no matter how bad things get under their rule, it would be much worse under those evil Republicans, Conservatives, and that Tea-party trash.
Remember, life under the benevolent guidance of Comrade Stalin was so much better then under that awful Tsar Nicky.
Paglia goes on to add, “No, the Republican Party has become very provincial in terms of culture,” in contrast to Nelson Rockefeller’s abstract art collection; I kid you not. But that’s Paglia for you.
A relative by marriage makes a living by selling his art. According to my cousin, a lot of rich Republicans buy his art.
Gringo:
But I bet it’s not abstract art :-).
Pingback:Camille Paglia and Her Problems | Blackmailers Don't Shoot