You can only use a label as long as it fits you, your purpose and convictions. Once a label is soiled, or you realize you’ve been sold a bill of goods, it’s time to ditch alliances and labels that do not serve any good. Liberals, from classical to Anti-fa, con and swindle empathetic people who want to see the world be a better place with guilt trips, psychological warfare, character assassination, and manipulative logical fallacies.
Before I begin this post on various forms of liberal hypocrisy and sociopathy, let me start by clarifying I’m not a conservative, I’m not religious, and I have no “dog in the fight” in regards to the human rights issue in which I’ve found myself. And I’ll explain that Southern colloquialism so even most dense European academic can comprehend what I mean: I’m not a mother of loss; I’m not an adoptee. I haven’t changed. But liberalism has changed. I’m still non-religious and pro-choice. Even though I don’t agree with everything either side says, I still like to know why folks think the way they do. However, you cannot share views, you can’t compare and contrast, with liberals.
It will be three years this coming fall that I’ve accidentally found myself a human rights activist. This blog is a little WordPress thing where I write in various styles about observations, musings, family stories, and commentary on issues in the public domain. Some posts are cheeky rants on injustices in the public domain, some posts are accessibly academic. When one blog post went viral, women who’d been so irreparably hurt by forced adoptions just for the crime of being unwed and poor (not to be confused with any social service cases), reached out to me just to thank me for being a voice for the voiceless.
I simply wrote about a human rights violation both my husband and I witnessed in childhood. I am/was livid that this shit is still on-going in the 21st century. As one mother of loss to adoption trafficking told me: “Losing your child to adoption is worse than rape. It’s the worst thing that can happen to a woman.” And she should know; she’s experienced both. (If you, reader, do not understand the difference between ethical and unethical adoption, here ya go: Do Liberals Support Unethical Adoptions/Adoption Trafficking?)
Liberals, people I thought were allies and like-minded, are the very sociopaths who don’t give one turd about any form of human trafficking. Liberal acquaintances have either justified adoption trafficking because it suits their agenda, or have attempted to debate me with eugenics-invoking rhetoric. Almost every classical liberal I know would rather engage other types of liberals in debates about gender studies, toilets, “cultural appropriation” and “microaggressions” than address an actual human rights violation. Classical liberals, fancying themselves some great defenders of logic, are anything but logical. The only thing they’ve done with logic is wipe their ass with it.
The Classical Liberal “Pop Academic” Cult
Classical liberals are just as culpable and hypocritical as their younger counterparts. Classical liberals, and their new atheist buddies, are the anti-SJW SJW. It’s a revolving dance they do with these younger liberals. Inadvertently, they validate SJW/Antifa when they award them too much attention. Instead of condemning them and bluntly calling these tittle babies out for being attention whores, classical liberals make a show of debating them and self-righteously acting like Emily Post/thought police martyrs. Of course, their objective is gaining more popularity, more little followers on social media. Thus, they too ignore all too real human rights issues to engage coddled brats.
Classical liberals are morally ambiguous. It saddens me that people I considered to be good people, people I admired, could be so heartless and shallow. I understand if a particular human rights issue in not their thing; that’s fine. But if it’s not your thing, don’t play devil’s advocate. And don’t purposefully confuse and conflate an issue if it’s not your interest. One well-known new atheist pop academic – Helen Pluckrose – pretended not to “understand” adoption trafficking, or comprehend how surrogacy is a human rights violation that preys on poor women. Pluckrose’s demagogue Sam Harris even states that free will is not a thing, yet this nitwit believes women in financial crisis trying to support their family are making a “free choice.” Notice in this screenshot that she used the word “selling” in regards to human beings. Helen Pluckrose identifies herself as a liberal new atheist. She’s more concerned about fitness of adoptive “parents” than women in financial crisis pushed to surrogacy, or shamed and coerced into relinquishing their babies to pregnancy crisis centers and for-profit, private agencies all because of their single status. Surrogacy is illegal in much of Europe, increasingly criminalized in Asia where Asian women are used as surrogates by wealthy westerners, and commercial surrogacy is illegal in Canada. But liberals support, even advocate, surrogacy for gays and transgenders. If adoption and surrogacy are issues of free choice, then why aren’t rich women giving their babies to poor women or offering their wombs up for surrogacy?
Below is the response I wrote the classical liberal/new atheist academic. And she still claimed not to understand because she is committed to not understanding. The commitment to not understanding, or playing dumb, is one of their tactics.
I was very disappointed in your knee-jerk response: “Are you anti-adoption?” I’m anti unethical and forced adoptions. This is why adoption reform advocates refer to forced/for-profit adoptions as adoption trafficking. And if one thinks adoption in general is largely justified, and separating an impoverished mother from her newborn is a good thing, then why do the countries that take care of mothers and children have a virtually non-existent adoption rate??? (Sweden, Australia, etc.)
We have made it very clear that these coercive adoptions via pregnancy crisis centers is NOT any sort of social services like DHR/CPS. Yet it is the liberals that largely attempt to conflate ethical and unethical for their own agenda. Whether they don’t want to believe forced adoptions still occur, or they ignorantly believe it is a choice, liberals are carrying on what religious conservatives started – adoption trafficking, that is the selling of babies to wealthy customers. And surely you don’t deny incidents such as the Madelene Laundries didn’t take place across the globe? This is well documented, and the basis for “The Handmaid’s Tale.” To deny this human rights violation is akin to denying The Holocaust.
I don’t know how many times I clarify to liberals, who are supposedly the folks all for human rights, that newborn adoption of poor and/or single mothers is night and day different from abuse cases/social services cases, but it does seem to fit the liberal narratives. For the record, when my embryo dropped out of me into my hand in 2016, I didn’t even consider coveting another women’s baby or “surrogacy” because I am not a sociopath. I don’t take from others; I help others. It’s called altruism, and evolutionary biologists state it is the key to our evolutionary success.
Surely you have heard of rich Westerners using poor Indians as surrogates. In the United States, women have died due to surrogacy. The United States has the highest maternal mortality rate of first world nations. She’s just an “oven” as *Neil Patrick Harris and his partner called the surrogate of their child. Surrogacy is not a “choice” when it’s a shitty choice that lower class women make to support their families.
Adoption isn’t a choice when it’s the only option, the father threatens to kill the mother and child, and/or the family colludes with a private agency/adoption attorney to separate a young mother from her child. Please, please, please do your research before knee-jerk assumptions.
After the election, I held both sides accountable for the stark division in our country. Both sides were equally culpable. But I’ve witnessed a change in the last two years. The Left lost me when they became the party of gender studies, thought/speech policing, and pseudo victim narratives. They lost allies because they care more about pronouns than the United State’s maternal mortality rates, which is the highest of the first world. The Left may point fingers at the Right, however, they are the very misogynists they call conservatives. Leftists care more about “offensive” t-shirts than human rights. They’ve forgotten about global warming for their creepy transgender campaign where they’ve sexualized children. Their former fringe is now their status quo.
I know every side and angle has extremists. However, I’ve never been as personally attacked by conservatives as I have liberals. And all for not blindly following their group-mind. I’ve been accused of being a “pro-lifer,” “right-winger,” and every brand of bigot just because I have taken up for conservative, poor, and often single women who “choose life.” I’ve spoken out against adoption trafficking – the forced adoptions of babies from poor mothers whose only “crime” is being “unwed.” Because I have compassion for those who don’t think exactly like me, liberals despise me. Note: I was on the state ballot to be a delegate for the Sanders campaign. And Pluckrose’s minions call me a “right-winger.”
The Cancer that is Feminism
Feminism has become a cancer. Intersectional feminism, the 21st century’s brand of a hijacked movement, is a failure. There’s no more rights left to gain in the western first world. All this opportunity gained translates into being a “supermom” – doing the cleaning, child bearing and rearing, and “getting” to have a full time job as well. Feminism took the dependency women had on their husbands into the workforce where the majority work menial jobs. Instead of husbands, women are now dependent on employers and 21st century wage disparity.
Feminism has largely ignored, and even denied female-on-female aggression, dismissing our reported accounts as “internal misogyny.” Due to intrasexual competition, women sabotage each other’s careers and personal lives. From abusive nurses viciously abusing female patients in their care (a local case of such abuse – “Another Nurse Held My Baby’s Head Into My Vagina to Prevent Him From Being Delivered”), to girls driving other girls to suicide from psychological and physical bullying (Why Pretty Girls Get Bullied), intersectional feminism is a sad, sick, sorry failure. It doesn’t protect girls and women from abusive girls and women. And female-on-female aggression actively perpetuate the ungodly high mortality rates of mothers in the United States, especially black mothers. Shalon Irving, an epidemiologist at the Centers for Disease and Prevention, is dead because of this bullshit: “The nursing culture is white, middle-class & female, so is largely built around that identity. Anything that doesn’t fit that identity is suspect…”
You won’t hear feminists addressing the maternal mortality rate, even though many cases are also instances of racism. Feminists are too busy worrying about “cultural appropriation,” attacking free speech, and thought policing/psychological warfare. And these attacks come in the form of pseudo victim narratives that cry wolf and hurt actual victims. Yes, there’s still sexism and misogyny. However, so much has been put on these terms by self-righteous tittie babies – the “social justice warriors” – that these are diluted terms.
Indigenous cultures across Africa, and Radical Islam in countries such as Indonesia, commit female genital mutilation. Often, it is the older women of the community that continue this inhuman custom. Intersectional feminism, which is more than cozy with radical Islam, denies the fact that female on female violence not only is an age-old problem, but they deny the very existence of female on female violence. When questions arise about female sociopathy, liberals pull the devious and dishonest “we can’t generalize because generalizing causes black people to be profiled by the police in American.” Yep, that gas-lighting line of hogwash was said to me by a British pop academic who’s okay with me quoting FBI statistics regarding physical violent crimes committed by men. But when I questioned how we could potentially measure unreported crimes committed by women, or even psychological warfare committed by females, she became skittish, dishonest, and attempted to make me look bad for asking an honest question. And the only one who said anything about “black people” was this pop academic using them as a shield.
It isn’t just pop academics who attempt to gaslight anyone who speaks about female sociopathy and bullying, or what I call the power whore phenomenon. (Power whore phenomenon – female on female aggression. Both overt and passive aggressive bullying, as well as classist. Often, the coveting and taking of a woman’s assets, identity, talents, even offspring by another woman acting out of dominance, jealousy, and/or mental health issues.) The older women who are guilty of a lifetime of enforcing hen-pecking orders and emotional terrorism claim bullying is something kids grow out of after age thirty-five. One such woman attempted to make this fallacious claim mistook me as being in my twenties. I am forty years old. I corrected her mistake regarding my age. She had a little fit, especially after this article slapped down her incorrect claim: ‘It’s like ‘Mean Girls,’ but everyone is 80’: How nursing homes deal with bullies
Here’s a picture of older women committing female genital mutilation on a young girl. This photo alone should make women who dismiss and trivialize female on female violence feel some amount of emotion. But they’re more than likely sociopaths – sociopaths don’t feel empathy.
Male feminists make the best gas-lighters.
Male feminists are the most dangerous emergent of the alt-left – excusing FGM as “cultural.” Would they encourage the barbaric and grotesque Hindu practice of sati as an apology for colonialism, which ended sati? Liberals continually not only excuse but defend the mutilation of girls. Would they do so if FGM was practiced by white people on white girls? Do they defend cultures over human beings because they’re unconsciously racists? If liberals and male feminists saw pictures of girls put under the knife, and medical files of the horrid consequences, would they still excuse genital mutilation? Would they still yell about how culture trumps the rights of girls and women?
The Left’s brand of egalitarianism makes everyone equally worthless. Their demonizing of “cis” hetero men is particularly disturbing. This is their way to “take down the patriarchy” – attack and demonize all men who don’t drink their Kool-aid. One method of how they achieve this fracturing of masculinity is to pit man against woman. It’s a well-used feminist strategy. By attacking motherhood and traditional femininity through supporting MRAs, egalitarians and male feminists back abusive men. Documented in social and legal studies,* it is abusive men who use children as a power play in divorce. And these are the very men with whom egalitarian feminists have figuratively jumped into bed.
This was my response to classical liberal feminist regarding her essay of why she’s still a feminist. She largely panders to men, namely the new atheist egalitarian “dudebro” type. Her argument is that women who choose to be mothers should be selfless breeders, especially traditionalists. It’s the same argument conservatives have used. And this woman is a liberal feminist. Interestingly, the folks who liked my response tweet were men.
One interesting account named “Scientific Feminism” comments on anthropology, culture, and biology with facts and sources. This platform receives various reactions from every side due to their stoicism and unapologetic facts.
Traditional and/or conservative men don’t have a problem with this assertion and tested claim. It’s liberals, including members of the LGBTQ community and egalitarians, that do have an issue with the biological fact hardwired into mammals. You can cite a number of research projects and papers, such as “Chemical communication and mother-infant recognition”, and it is liberals that will deny biological and genetic facts.
And for good measure, here’s another source: Maternal status regulates cortical responses to the body odor of newborns”.
Despite emotional appeals, emotional blackmailing, psychological warfare, yellow journalism, character assassination, and cry-bullying, the facts are the facts. Tested and and studied, science is my sling-shot. Many religious peoples don’t have a problem with biological and genetic fact. But on the topic of gender studies and motherhood, liberals science deny.
Personal Interactions with the Alt-left
Recently, I had a former guest from Southern Belle Humanism bully a young girl in the name of “cultural appropriation.” He sent a lynch mob after her, and strategically did so in the midst prom dress fiasco. Because he was on my channel, I felt responsible for boosting his ego. My name is directly attached to Southern Belle Humanism. Raised to be forth-right, I am not anonymous. I worried that if I hadn’t of offered him a platform, maybe him wouldn’t have gotten the idea that he could be some internet celeb for “IGen.” I felt partially responsible, therefore, attached to his cruelty simply because I gave him a platform.
I confronted and condemned his behavior, and I repeatedly tweeted out the video of him “culturally appropriated” an entire continent via his martial arts expertise. This shutdown much of the mob. But after being outed as a hypocrite and bully of young girls, he recovered by convincing himself he is destined to be the face of the Alt-left. Therefore, his video has been removed from Southern Belle Humanism.
Because this man, like liberal academics and new atheists, wants to be known for his cruelty and sanctimony, I have marked through his name. And this is the only screenshot I am including from our vicious exchange. He and his acolytes were racist and cruel to a descendant of the Cherokee.
(My mother’s DNA test showed American Indian. We confirmed that my great uncle William Tate Harris did stay on the North Carolina reservation with my third great-grandparents – Cherokees. Their great-grandson, my maternal grandfather, was a solider on the ground in Germany on D-day. He was there for the clean-up of the camps. Riley Andrew Harris never spoke of what he saw. But it left such an imprint on our family that my mother had me read “The Diary of Anne Frank” as a young girl. My grandfather was a humble share-cropper with a third grade education. He died at 52 from cancer contracted from DDT and other pesticides he was exposed to in the cotton fields. Social justice warriors consider men like my grandfather “privileged” along with coal miners and homeless veterans.)
The Back-stabbing Vegan
Whether they’re called social justice warriors, classical liberals, new atheists, Anti-fa, or the Alt-left, these modern day crusaders desire to be idolized as both saviors and martyrs of imagined microaggressions and thought crimes. There’s no actual human rights violation they’re fighting, no suffering they aim to end. That’s the most frightening thing – they have no literal cause. As my friend Matt Norman says, “Giving people purpose without knowledge is dangerous.” Back-stabbing Zena had no knowledge. She was out to win browning points with her leftist Anti-fa pals by sanctimoniously character assassinating activists all because we like cheeseburgers.
Zena was a young woman, a single mother, I took up for back in 2015 on my old Twitter account. New atheists guys were inappropriate and mean to Zena. I caught their wrath for stepping in when I witnessed a couple older men target her. She’s watched my advocacy and platforming of mothers of loss to adoption trafficking, even once vaguely expressed sympathy. However, when she saw me and an acquaintance disagree on veganism, she claimed I had “changed” and immediately started attacking the adoption reform movement. All because I’m not a vegan. Activists addressed Zena’s temper tantrum asking her not to use the adoption propaganda narrative out of spite and vegan revenge:
This twenty-something entitled brat, who didn’t mind me being assertive when it was about defending her, attacked an entire marginalized, demonized, and voiceless group of girls, women, and adoptees. Not only did she attack a marginalized group, and an entire human rights issue of which is she completely ignorant – she self-righteously lectured a forty-year-old women, who went to bat for her when she was bullied, on how I shouldn’t “use” my miscarriage. This grown brat threw a public tantrum where my parents saw her belittle the miscarriage of their only grandchild. This self-righteous brat actually believes she has the authority to tell women how they can speak about miscarriages and other traumas. I will continue to “use” my miscarriage as an example of how a miscarriage, or any other health issue, doesn’t entitle you to another woman’s baby. To feel entitled to inflict suffering onto another woman just because you lost your embryo or child is sociopathic.
No “scene” was painted for Zena. She’s the only one who used the word “stealing” just as the female pop academic, Helen Pluckrose, was the one who used the term “selling.” And look at the interesting typo Zena made with the linking verb. Because the Left dismisses the trauma of women as hyperbole, activists try to stir clear of such wording. I wonder if they both unconsciously chose their words because their conscience haunts them?
I did not mark through her name, as I suspect she may come to regret what she has done. I don’t know if she was under some kind of influence, or if she’s just been bitten by the SJW bug. Whatever is wrong with her, she’ll live with the knowledge that she lashed out in hate at someone who supported her.
And, now, let’s look at the very first tweets that “triggered” Zena’s ire and spite. All because she wants the world to be vegan, Zena advocated for gays to have access to unethical adoptions via adoption trafficking. Because gays and transgenders are at the top of the progressive stack, they can do know wrong – commit no crime – in the eyes of liberals. If gays want to adopt they should go through the foster care system where, hopefully, children and adopters are both well vetted.
I will keep repeating this again and again: According to the Alabama Department of Human Resources, there are 6000 children in foster care now. Why take a loved, wanted, and well cared for baby when there are 6000 children in foster care in the state of Alabama alone? If liberals are the people all for human rights, why are they confusing and conflating ethical and necessary adoptions with unethical adoptions? Because acknowledging that there’s a huge difference between ethical and necessary adoptions via social services in response to abuse/neglect, and the unethical, forced adoptions occurring in the private adoption industry, doesn’t fit their agenda.
And, now, two days after belittling the trauma of having a child coerced away from its mother and/or forcibly removed from a single poor mother, Zena fakes indignation over the same basic practice implemented by US Customs and Border Protection and Health and Human Services’ Administration for Children and Families. (“She says federal officials took her daughter while she breastfed the child in a detention center”) A mother in Alabama had her baby removed while breast-feeding, and no social services were involved – just private attorneys with wealthy adopters and improper court orders reportedly perpetuating fraud upon Juvenile and Probate Courts. But liberals ignore, deny, and defend the unethical and forced adoptions of poor Americans because of the money trail. Follow the money trail and you will find limousine liberals with their own legal offices, their money in the pockets of judges. A glaring example of liberal cognitive dissonance is the indignation at the forced removal of children at the U.S. border, but not the domestic removal of Americans babies from poor and single mothers via third parties – not social services. Both are horrific.
The Sociopathy of Liberalism
Liberals/leftists repeatedly thought and speech policed instead of addressing very real actions that cause suffering and turmoil. Their modus operandi is not only to avoid having to do any actual work addressing human rights but to mentally break down each individual they target through psychological warfare, character assassination, and emotional terrorism. To use a term they’ve overused, liberals gaslight. And when liberal men do this to women, they eerily echo the rhetoric of sexual predators, acquaintance rapists, and narcissists.
The internet brings attention to you for something as mundane as a book review. And I’ve received positive and negative commentary from strangers regarding my YouTube channel, Southern Belle Humanism. A couple weeks ago, a recently new follower of my channel wrote to tell me to keep doing what I’m doing – that he’s never seen anyone address the issues I’m addressing or have honest, civil conversations with all kinds of guests. It was a very nice message, and I cordially responded.
Now, this man is supposedly some kind of Canadian classical liberal – I’ve already addressed in previous posts how “classical liberal” is a loaded term. When Zena threw her public temper tantrum, he lied that she was being “bullied” because she initiated an argument with me and activists. He didn’t like it that we shutdown her tantrum. He sided with a brat throwing a tantrum because we didn’t validate her fit, or convert to her world views. Below is a private message this creepy Canadian sent me, and my series of tweets in reply:
I will repeat, I did not know Zena personally – she was just an acquaintance, a young woman, I stopped guys from harassing. She once asked me for advice on how to deal with religious relatives – that’s the extent of any further conversation I’ve ever had with her other than her tantrum. This “LeContrarien/Mark” is a complete stranger who expressed that he liked my channel. His fake familiarity is delusional and/or a rhetoric tactic employed by predators (The Gift of Fear). If he did actually know me, he would know the cornerstone of my personality is my bluntness and caustic wit.
As I explained to the interwebs, this is the modus operandi, the method the Left uses to break anyone down who doesn’t subscribe to their world view, group-think, and life-style. The pernicious way they shame and guilt women is not only gross, it’s dangerous. No “shit-posting” free speech advocate or conservative pundit commits the mental fuckery that Zena and this creepy Canadian pull on women. This is the typical method/tactic implied by the Left. It certainly didn’t originate with a vapid brat.
But liberals have shown their hypocritical hand – it’s okay for them to attack you verbally, even physically. Yet they are offended by “gendered slurs” and name-calling – not human rights violations. Resist liberal abuse, and you’re the bad guy. They project and gas-light their own actions, words, and behavior onto you. This is their psychological warfare. And you are evil for disagreeing with them.
The Alt-left Endgame
The self pro-claimed party/side for human rights, supposed champions of the poor, the minority, and the disenfranchised, has become the party of totalitarianism, paternalism, and plutocracy. We didn’t change. They did. And we have no place to go. I’m certainly no conservative. I’ve realized the labels are unhealthy, especially as the pendulum thrashes back and forth. The Alt-right, beating their drums right after the elections and during the Charlottesville tragedy, results in Anti-fa. Today, Anti-fa is a growing domestic terrorist group often compared to ISIS.
When Anti-fa first emerged, I thought it best not to validate a silly bunch of privileged university kids and trust-fund babies with an over-abundance of free time on their hands. The response to have “watches” keeping tabs on these coddled brats seemed to encourage bolder and meaner behavior. They organized and grew even more violent. Now, they dress like ISIS and carry all forms of terrorist-looking weapons. Any attention given to them by citizens drives their anti-American zeal. Perhaps it is best the FBI address the domestic terrorism that is Anti-fa?
My mama witnessed the Civil Rights Era firsthand. She attended Dr. King’s open memorial service in Memphis, Tennessee. My family has a history of advocating for civil rights, human rights, and animals rights. It’s chilling when your seventy-year-old mother tells you she’d never thought she see the amount of hate and cruelty she lived through in the 1960s. “And this time it’s the Left.”
What is their endgame? We know the Left despises multiculturalism with their racist “cultural appropriation” bullying. Liberals hate families – real, biological families. They rip mother and child, husband and wife, apart through social engineering, a resurgence of Progressive Era eugenics, Marxist propaganda, and what I call the shame game – portraying biological families as “traditional” and therefore “bigoted.” I see their endgame as being the end of our civilization. And, no, Star Trek’s future isn’t their goal. Philip K. Dick’s prophetic dystopia meets “Mad Max” is their endgame. And there will be no Vulcans to save us.