Renegade Third Worlder

Dissuading the West from joining our lowly club of nations

Month: February 2017

Feminist self-sabotage, Argentina edition

Last week, a few dozen women took their tops off at Buenos Aires’ Obelisk monument to protest for the “right to make free use of our bodies,” as one of them told The New York Times.

The few naked women were joined by only a couple hundred dressed protesters. It is a sign of the times that such a relatively small gathering generated a massive amount of local and international media coverage.

The protest was sparked by a specific incident that occurred a few weeks ago near Buenos Aires, in which police expelled several topless women sunbathers from a beach under threat of arrest.

However, the outcry was clearly directed more generally at what contemporary feminists see as oppressive, patriarchal social norms that violate women’s rights “to the free use of our bodies,” as another protester told The Associated Press.

In other words, this was nothing more than a regurgitation of what radical feminist groups such as Femen have been doing for the last couple of years.

Facepalm moment

Of course, it didn’t take long for feminists to show their true character with as much zeal as they showed their bare breasts.

A couple of hours into the protest, many of them started attacking men that happened to be around.

Many of them, obviously, were indulging in the very natural pleasure that looking at breasts provide for the tetosterone-laden member of the species:

Attraction to breasts “is a brain organization effect that occurs in straight males when they go through puberty,” [Larry Young, a professor of psychiatry at Emory University] told Live Science. “Evolution has selected for this brain organization in men that makes them attracted to the breasts in a sexual context, because the outcome is that it activates the female bonding circuit, making women feel more bonded with him. It’s a behavior that males have evolved in order to stimulate the female’s maternal bonding circuitry.”

Men were pushed, screamed at, and even pepper-sprayed.

As usual, men’s “objectifying gaze” was considered a terrible offense that justified a violent response.

Lashing out against a law of nature is enough to elicit a facepalm from anyone with a brain.

But in this case, reasonable people will find an even stronger reason to slap their foreheads with all their might.

The perverse effect of boob oversupply

Obvious as it seems, this is the more important point that feminists fail to grasp:

Obliterating the taboo against boob nudity is what makes men “objectify” women’s bodies.

We live in a world of sheer boobitude.

In the history of mankind, it has never been easier for men to see naked breasts. Either in the flesh, or in the computer screen.

Men’s incentives to make any effort whatsoever to obtain that delightful view, are weaker than ever.

The “empowerment” babble that usually accompanies Kardashian-emulating pictures on social media couldn’t be more Orwellian.

Whereas in the past men would attempt to move heaven and earth in pursuit of a woman,

Today, they might swipe right. Of course, ancient depictions of the beauty of female bodies also required months, if not years, of intense work to produce, which is a completely different scenario than getting a high-school or college hottie to instantly text you topless photos.

Ancient art also elevates a woman’s body as something worth years of effort in pursuit, while pornified bodies degrade and commodify human beings as pixels to callously flip through and discard.


Take what happens when there are more women than men in a dating pool. Manhattan has three women for every two men in the under-30 college grad dating pool. Men in a market like this, where there is a preponderance of available boobs women, tend to not settle down and engage in productive activities like building a family. They may even start to see women as interchangeable, as the market incentives drive them to move on as soon as they need to put in some effort to sustain a relationship.

The women/men ratio in a city like Buenos Aires is similar: 86 men for every 100 women.

No wonder men in Buenos Aires have gained a reputation as master players (chamuyeros):

The Argentine equivalent of our Anglo-Saxon “player,” the chamuyero will go to any and all lengths in order to literally charm the pants off of you. This, regardless if he’s in a serious relationship, married, engaged, or on the brink of death.

(Not to mention the fact that about one in four Argentine homes are single parents, 72 percent of which are single mothers.)

And Argentine feminists are trying to fight men’s “objectification” of women’s bodies by increasing their exposure to boobs?

Good luck with that.

Human Rights Watch’s José Miguel Vivanco’s utter cluelessness about Trump’s travel ban

José Miguel Vivanco, director of Human Rights Watch’s America division, is outraged at President Donald Trump’s reaction to U.S. District Judge James Robart’s blocking his executive order temporarily halting travel from seven terrorist-mass-producing countries:

Obviously, like most liberal pundits and wonks as of late, Vivanco fails to grasp that the one recklessly exceeding his lawful duties is Judge Robart.

As Joseph Klein makes clear at FrontPage magazine:

President Trump acted well within his constitutional and statutory authority to issue his executive order. “The exclusion of aliens is a fundamental act of sovereignty,” the Supreme Court concluded in a 1950 case. “The right to do so stems not alone from legislative power, but is inherent in the executive power to control the foreign affairs of the nation. When Congress prescribes a procedure concerning the admissibility of aliens, it is not dealing alone with a legislative power. It is implementing an inherent executive power.”

The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA)

Furthermore, in 1952, Congress enacted the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), clearly reaffirming the president’s power to exclude aliens that he might consider detrimental to the national interest:

“Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.” (8 U.S.C. § 1182(f)).”

Nevertheless, Robart simply decided to substitute his judgement for Trump’s.

Specifically, during oral argument, Robart said to the Department of Justice attorney,

“You’re here arguing on behalf of someone who says we have to protect the US from these individuals coming from these countries, and there’s no support for that.”

Irrational assesment

Of course, Robart is simply not in a position to make a rational assessment of the threat these individuals might represent.

He simply lacks access to the kind of classified information on threats to national security that the president of the United States has at his disposal.

Robart also overlooked the fact that the countries were selected based on a list of “countries of concern” compiled by the Obama administration.

These countries have been proven unable to control both terrorism within their border and/or the export of terrorism.

Preposterous claims

Robart’s decision was based on preposterous claims by the states of Washington and Minnesota, according to which the temporary suspension of aliens from the seven countries considered in the Executive Order “adversely affects” their own “States’ residents in areas of employment, education, business, family relations, and freedom to travel.”

This overlooks the fact that the individuals affected by the executive order are obviously not residents of these states, and therefore not entitled to the states’ protection.

Robart also stated that the executive order somehow would inflict damage on the states’ operations, tax base and public education system.

Under this theory, individual states would have the right to challenge any federal policy decision on the basis of virtually any claim of possible harm to their states’ more parochial interests. The result would be to upend the relationship between the federal and state governments under our constitutional system.

So instead of going off on a knee-jerk reaction, freaking out on Trump’s harsh words about a federal judge’s decision, Vivanco should have at least done his research and looked hard into the facts of the matter.

Checks and balances cut both ways

Perhaps he would have then realized that in a clear case of judicial overreach, the president’s remarks are not out of place at all.

Like Dinesh D’Souza recently pointed out, in a world of runaway judges, “check and balances” cut both ways:

“Typical Latin American authoritarian language”

The clearest evidence that Vivanco is completely out of touch with the reality of this case comes from his characterization of Trump’s tweet as typical Latin American politicking.

Because a quick Google search shows that, in any case, Robart is the only one to blame for Latin-Americanish behavior.

Last year, while presiding over a case regarding the implementation of new police practices in Seattle, Robart became the first federal judge to officially support the vile race-baiting activist group Black Lives Matter from the bench:

Statistical fallacies galore

As if Robart hadn’t made his anti-police bias clear enough, he proceeded to regurgitate one of the American left’s favorite fallacies:

Black people are being shot at disproportionate numbers compared to the rest of the population. Ergo, cops are racist.

Of course, when the situation is seen in its appropriate context, it’s easy to realize black people are more likely to get shot by police simply because they are more likely to try killing a cop.

Actually, a recent Harvard study shows that police officers are less likely to shoot a black suspect than a white suspect when the context of the shooting is prperly factored in.

Overlooking a key feature of looney, lefty Latin American politics

Vivanco should know better, but anti-police bias is one of the very defining features of looney, lefty Latin American politics.

As usual, Venezuela is perhaps the clearest example of this.

A key element contributing to the country’s becoming one of the most violent places on Earth, was Hugo Chávez’s systematic demonization of police as a tool of capitalist oppression.

As criminologist Roberto Briceno-Leon, director of the Venezuelan Observatory on Violence, told a Los Angeles Times reporter in 2012,

“Chavez has promoted the idea that violence forms part of the class struggle against the rich and the landowners, and so it’s not so bad,” Briceno-Leon said. “He has always rationalized high crime by saying the problem exists on every country on Earth, and that it’s the fault of poverty and capitalism. He won’t hire more police because he sees it as a right-wing policy.”

“The moral force that police should have in a society has been lost in Venezuela. It wasn’t so great before Chavez arrived, but it’s gotten worse. Chavez himself has referred to police as mafiosi. His interior minister has said police are responsible for 20% of the crimes in Venezuela,” Briceno-Leon said.

Bolivarian Circles, US edition

Vivanco should also be aware that today, people in Venezuela are not only at the mercy of common criminals.

They are also systematically terrorized by the nefarious Bolivarian Circles, a network of armed, far-left chavista groups that operate as a paramilitary arm of the government.

The Bolivarian Circles are a clear example of how easily far-left activist groups turn to violence, especially when empowered by government.

Is it so hard for Vivanco to see what Black Lives Matter might end up turning into? Especially when lefty presidential candidates, government officials, and judges like Robart pander to them?

Their divisive, toxic rhetoric has already had clear murderous consequences.

THey even have openly expressed their admiration for Hugo Chávez and his Bolivarian Revolution.

Despite all this, the sad truth is one shouldn’t be surprised at Vivanco’s blind spot.

After all, it’s impossible for him to see anything Latin-Americanish in Robart’s behavior if he doesn’t see the big-picture implications of the judge’s decision.

If he doesn’t see how massive third-world immigration could turn the US into just another Latin American hellhole.