My friend used to have a big crush on this girl when he was younger. Now she's a dude, a communist, SJW cultist, obnoxiously militant atheist and generally disconnected from reality. It really is sad, and it didn't hit him until he saw the image above...
I've been making the point to people, in liberty and otherwise, that the real fight isn't over policy, it's over culture. Not that you could pin me down as socially conservative or liberal proper, but there's something truly troubling about it being trendy to be transgendered and it's a third rail to suggest it's not normal.
Is anyone else realizing that our divisive social culture is becoming increasingly aligned along economic lines? This chick/dude/thing could have gone places.
Even if achieving some modicum of success in life, her lifestyle will put a ceiling on how successful she can be. We live in a free-market society and she will be unable to take full advantage of Free Market Capitalism. You see, she'll be sucked into the Bernie-Blame-Rich-People-SJW-Crowd and she'll repeat the talking points that 'capitalism is evil' and 'Rich White Men' and are the reason she can't get ahead blah blah blah when in fact, she's just lacking as a "Value-creator" to society.
We live in a capitalistic society. In order to succeed you're challenged to provide value. You'll know when you're successful when others voluntarily trade their money for your services. They agree that the services or product you provide is more valuable that the money they give you in exchange. That's how all this works.
Socialism and Communism work because value is forcefully taken from others.
We love the #FreeMarkets around here. It's the principle means that you need to create value for others in order to be rewarded and enriched. Bernie Sanders' message is one of demonizing and stealing from those who are more successful in order to enrich yourself.
I hope the best for our friend here. Maybe, upon seeing her again, we could fist-bump and I could share the message of Liberty. There is still a lot of opportunities to succeed even when, economically and culturally speaking, much is dim.
Dear Mr Republican's Prediction: The women's rights protests will not succeed, at least not in the way that many of the protesters conceive of success.
This isn't a malicious statement; rather, it's an objective one that I believe is grounded in cold, hard reality. In my view, protests need to have several qualities in order to be successful:
(1) They need to be large.
(2) They need to be sustained over a long period of time.
(3) They need broad buy-in across geographic AND demographic groups.
(4) They need to coalesce around a clear leader--or small group of leaders--who can speak for their masses, especially with policymakers.
(5) They need to revolve around a problem whose nature is clear.
(6) They need to advocate for very clear policy solutions. This means literally laying out precisely which legal steps should be taken in order to remedy the problem(s), not just holding signs saying that this, that, or the other thing "is bad."
(7) They need to ensure that their method of protest doesn't push away some of the very groups that they need to win over. The leader mentioned in number 4 needs to be able to set the tone and style of protest for nearly everyone.
"Get the equivalent of a Ph.D. in libertarian thought and free-market economics online for just 24 cents a day."
Unfortunately for these protesters, their nascent movement meets the first criterion but none of the rest of the criteria. (This has been the case for, as best as I can recall, ALL modern protest "movements.") Let's take them one at a time.
 This is the one criterion that the protests met: they were very large by almost any measure.
 So far, these protests just are not a long-term going concern. Perhaps that will change; some of the organizers are pushing to keep this movement from losing momentum. We shall see. Time will tell.
 Though the protests seemed to have broad geographic appeal (though more nearly-exclusively urban than some successful past movements), they didn't appear to have broad demographic appeal. From what I can tell, the composition of the protests was overwhelmingly female, disproportionately white, and almost exclusively more than just a little liberal. The support they have among those who didn't actually protest also seems to be largely female, white, and liberal. (Compare this to the civil rights movement, which, though frequently largely black on the actual streets, nevertheless drew substantial support across large swaths of the white community--as an example.) Furthermore, despite the largely female nature of the protests, I've actually been surprised at how divided females actually are: I cannot count the number I've seen, heard, and read criticizing the marches.
 There simply are no leaders of this movement. There are a lot of "speakers" and mouthpieces, but, much to the surprise of some of our "leaders," leadership involves more than a love for microphones. When I think of leaders who can corral a protest movement, I think of people like Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
 The murkiness of the issues at the heart of this protest is probably among the gravest of the obstacles. Honestly, I'm having a very hard time ascertaining any truly "women's" issues that unite all of the protesters. It appears that if you ask 12 of them why they're protesting, you'll get 13 different answers, many of which don't appear to be unique to women. As far as I can tell, there are only two themes that unite the vast majority of the protesters: anti-Trump and pro-abortion. This is dangerous for a protest movement because one can logically ask whether this is a women's rights protest or an anti-Trump protest, a women's rights protest or a pro-abortion protest. Donald Trump isn't going anywhere for the time being and, in any event, has offended far more people than just women. He also doesn't seem to care about protests. Abortion is certainly partially a women's health issue, yes, but the later the pregnancy becomes, the more people--including many women--see it as not ONLY a women's health issue. For most Americans, it grows into an issue that is more than simply women's health. Many people, especially in later stages of pregnancy, see opposition to abortion not as taking away a woman's right but as providing a right to a baby. Scientifically, this position cannot be refuted. So on both themes, the practical relevance seems to me to be dubious.
 As far as I can tell, the protesters have offered no policy solutions at all. They've let us know what they like and what they don't like. They've let us know their perceptions. What should be done about it though? This is what protesters must clearly answer, and it hasn't happened.
 Protests leaders must be able to set the tone more effectively than they have to date. Peaceful, civil protests are one thing. Blocking interstates during rush hour, however, probably pushes more people away from your cause (especially those then stuck in even worse traffic) than it draws. Damaging a person's property wins the sympathy of but a few. Protesting against men per se is a sure way to cause most men to lose interest. Exposing the parts of her body that the protester claims to be trying to protect seems more suited to late night talk show fodder. Overtly offensive and/or vulgar signs have precisely the opposite of the "unity" impact that is so badly needed. Vilifying as sexist those who simply do not share one's perspective--even if the disagreement is grounded in objective facts--leaves a bad taste in many people's mouths. I could go on and on, but I've made my point. To be sure, I am NOT accusing all, or even most, of the protesters of doing these things. Only a small number did. Even so, those are the small number that dominate headlines, which is precisely why the protests' leadership must be able to set the tone of the movement.
Guns have only two enemies; Rust and Liberals. Liberal Tears Gun Oil protects against both.
**NOW BACON SCENTED**
Yes, I am aware that enormous movements that don't meet all of these criteria have brought about change, but it's usually not the change that many of the protesters wanted. The "Arab Spring" is an excellent example of this. Those protests were huge, but that's all that they were. As a result, they ended up with change, though not the change many had envisioned. Saudis simply were given a bit more welfare. Bahrainis came under far more repression by security services. Egypt is now ruled by a de facto military dictatorship, while Libya now has no government at all. Syria descended into a civil war that rages still today and whose fighting has killed or displaced millions of people. This, if anything, is what happens when a movement involves only large numbers and nothing more.
For now, we need to focus on unity. What it all boils down to is that we need to worry about one demographic above all others: Americans. The constant focus on one demographic group or another--especially during times of heightened tension, discontent, and uncertainty--serves only to drive more wedges. Right now, we need to focus on our country. That's the number one priority, and that's one category that includes us all. Speak in terms of what you feel is good or bad for the United States.
With the effectiveness of their thought-control mission breaking down all around them, leftists are going hysterical.
Last week the San Francisco teachers' union, the United Educators of San Francisco, released a "lesson plan" for students in the wake of Donald Trump's election.
It is exactly what you would expect.
Nobody other than leftists has a point of view worth respecting. Everyone is a "racist" and "sexist."
Here's how it begins:
"Tomorrow, I hope that you will take the time to put all lessons aside and talk to our students about what has happened and how they feel. Please, let them speak and be heard. Let them say what is on their minds, this is crucial for our school and our community. Let us please not sidestep the fact that a racist and sexist man has become the president of our country by pandering to a huge racist and sexist base."
And now, the "objectives," followed by my translation:
"Students express their concerns and voice their thoughts/feelings."
Of course, they'd better be the correct thoughts, or they'll be reeducated by the San Francisco teachers' union until they turn 18 or die of lunacy, whichever comes first.
"Students gain empowerment/hope."
Students are taught that bullhorns, marches, and political activism are the best way to improve their lives, and are not juvenile, demeaning, or dehumanizing in any way.
"Students feel safe and respected."
What this will mean for any student who, in this atmosphere of intimidation, dares utter a thought that diverges from the herd, is unclear, but given the tone of this document, this provision is chilling.
"Anti-Racist/Anti-Sexist/Anti-Islamophobic/Anti-Homophobic (etc.,) teaching lenses are magnified and put into full use tomorrow and students should come away with an understanding of this through discussions held in class/norms established."
No one will be allowed to mention racial crime statistics. No one will be able to mention differences between men and women -- we have declared, a priori, that there can be no such differences. All income differences among races and sexes is attributable exclusively to "discrimination" and "white supremacy."
Although criticism of Christianity is of course welcome, no one may wonder about any aspect of Islam, which is an unalloyed good not to be questioned. And anyone who thinks commercial transactions -- cake baking, to choose an example at random -- should occur peacefully and without threats of violence, is "homophobic."
"Students gain a working knowledge of context of American racial violence, sexism etc."
Can't imagine any bias coming through here. I'm sure the Ron Unz article on racial killings will be assigned, for balance. On the off chance that it isn't, I link to it here.
The instructions continue:
"Let the students speak one at a time. PLEASE VALIDATE STUDENTS FEELINGS. Example: 'What you are saying is valid,' or ' hear you,' 'I support you, I understand you,' 'you are right and this is unjust.' Let them speak, guide the discussion, use a talking piece if necessary."
Huh. Well, suppose someone said, "I personally think the likelihood of war with Russia is now diminished, and this is more important to me than whether the president says sweet things to me before sending me off to die."
Would that student's feelings be validated?
In my view, the more the left pulls stunts like this, the better. Americans are getting a valuable education in the true nature of the left. Any fool watching television, even with a biased media, can see where all the hate is coming from.
Then this warning not to instruct students to avoid bad language:
"(I know that they might curse and swear, but you would too if you have suffered under the constructs of white supremacy or experienced sexism, or any isms or lack of privilege. You would especially do so if you have not yet developed all of the tools necessary to fight this oppression. It is our job to help them develop these tools, ie the language etc., Let’s not penalize and punish our youth for how they express themselves at this stage.)"
Of course: white privilege. Let's test that theory. What race would anyone in his right mind want to belong to when applying to college? Has any black student ever lied and claimed to be white on a college application? If not, why not?
Then we read, in bold: DO NOT: Tell them that we have LOST and that we have to accept this. We do not have to accept ANYTHING except that we must and will fight for justice against an unjust system and against unjust people.
What exactly would minority folks in America's inner cities have "lost," exactly, by the election of Donald Trump? All those world-class schools black and Democratic mayors and city governments have built for them? Those enviable, crime-free neighborhoods they've had over the past 50 years of Democratic rule? What, exactly, are they losing?
Finally, the Resources section of the lesson plan is drawn from Michael Moore and other leftists, and is replete with horrified outrage that convicted felons can't vote.
The point of education, in other words, is to make students think a certain way. An inane, fact-free way, to boot. Trump Derangement Syndrome is bringing it out of them more brazenly than ever.
Everyone has a tipping point. For some of you, maybe it's this. Maybe it's the next thing. But whenever that tipping point comes, your liberation is one click away:
"Get the equivalent of a Ph.D. in libertarian thought and free-market economics online for just 24 cents a day."
MORE FROM LIBERTYLOL:
Random Liberty Lover spouting random Liberty goodness.
Purchasing your Amazon items through this search box supports libertyLOL and doesn't cost you a penny more at checkout!
Tom Wood's Liberty Classroom
"Get the equivalent of a Ph.D. in libertarian thought and free-market economics online for just 24 cents a day...."
Most of us learned politically correct U.S. history in school. The economics was at least as bad.
It's never too late to learn the truth.
At Liberty Classroom, you can learn real U.S. history, Western civilization, and free-market economics from professors you can trust.
Short on time? No problem. You can learn in your car.
Find out more!