LET'S GO "FULL RETARD"

by Matt Parrott

Richard T. Ford's new article, Rights Gone Wrong, laments the Alinskyite strategy increasingly deployed by White males of forcing the Civil Rights hustle to live up to its own rhetoric. He drips with contempt for his fellow males, appealing to his warped notion of "common sense". For him, common sense boils down to the unspoken premise of the Civil Rights Movement: It's a weapon to bludgeon White males. It's inappropriate and nonsensical to apply the statutes as written, because the intention is the opposite of what's written. It's a fig leaf of universal rhetoric over the giant throbbing obscenity of anti-White and anti-male zero-sum identity politics.

Ford's leopard-print thong is in a bunch because a man alleged sexual discrimination in a Mother's Day contest. Of course he was sexually discriminated against for being a man, it was a Mother's Day contest. Ford echoes the popular sentiment which is that the man should shut up and "man-up". In a sane world, I would concur. However, there's only one way to fight a social and legal system which is half-retarded and throws the retarded half in your lap: go full retard. There's nothing wrong with ladies' nights and Congressional Black Caucuses, but when the system sanctions fairness for thee and retardation for me, I have a moral obligation to support what this gentleman had the foresight and courage to do.

He was defeated, of course...

Rest easy: The courts dismissed the lawsuit, and the Golden State remains safe for maternal celebrations. The California Court of Appeals pointed out that the Angels did not in fact intend to denigrate or disadvantage men; instead the team wanted, as Scripture admonishes and as loving children have done for millennia, to honor their mothers:

“The intended discrimination,” the court insisted, “is not female versus male, but rather mothers versus the rest of the population.” The court further noted: “It is a biological fact that only women can be mothers. … [T]he Angels did not arbitrarily create this difference.”

In other words, it was not the Angels’ Mother’s Day celebration that discriminated against Michael Cohn. It was Mother Nature, and her policies are not subject to the court’s jurisdiction.

Wait a minute...Why is Mother Nature a defense in their case but not in ours, Mr. Ford? After all, Title IX is based on the asinine proposition that disparities in athleticism are due to sexual discrimination rather than obvious congenital differences. Affirmative Action is based on the asinine proposition that disparities in  math scores are due to Vietnamese refugees enjoying all the breaks and "privilege" middle-class Black Americans missed out on.

In 1979, a student named Dennis Koire saw the ugly face of discrimination when he was excluded from a bar that admitted his female companion. [...] When Koire sought to assert his equal rights, not only was he rebuffed—he was ridiculed. “Come back when you’re wearing a skirt,” quipped one car wash manger[sp]. “So sue me,” dared a nightclub proprietor.

Koire did just that: With the help of the ACLU he took his complaint all the way to the California Supreme Court, which in 1985 held that “Ladies’ Nights” violated the state’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, which in dramatic and unequivocal language entitles anyone in the state to “full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever.”

Koire fought the system and won, hoisting the anti-male regime on its own petard. For Ford, any dissent or dispossession outside the multicult context is illegitimate. Should Rosa Parks have "lady'd up" and realized that it's not that big of a deal which bus seat you get? Of course not, hers was a symbolic issue of sweeping world-historic proportions. The current anti-male hegemony dictates that men are to continue fulfilling their traditional roles and duties while women are to enjoy the benefits of chivalry while relieving themselves of their traditional roles and responsibilities. Chivalry is for ladies, for whom I gladly doff my hat and relinquish my seat—not for feminists who've instigated a legal and cultural identity war on me and mine.

Of course, read literally, without the mediating influence of good judgment or common sense [common sense = anti-White and anti-male bias], the laws that prohibit truly demeaning and invidious sex discrimination apply to ladies’ night promotions and the use of female sex as an expedient proxy for mothers in a Mother’s Day giveaway. Rights go wrong when propelled beyond the boundaries of good sense by abstract thinking. Justice Bird’s admonishment notwithstanding, legal prohibition must depend on judgments about which practices are important or harmful. Not every distinction—even if based on race or sex—is invidious.

There are two points I've attempted to make in the past which Mr. Ford unintentionally makes for me. The first is that men's rights and White rights are one and the same struggle. The second is that contemporary conservatives are integrally unfit for winning this fight because they don't understand the fight. Because they don't understand the struggle in its complete context, they foolishly cling to every surviving relic of Tradition even after they've been subverted and perverted.

Calling all patriotards!

Conservatives pay tithes to churches which are destroying their neighborhoods and flagrantly cuckolding their communities in favor of hostile strangers. They support men treating women with kid gloves while women take off with their kids. They support Republicans who are shipping their jobs to foreigners and importing foreigners to take what's left. The only ones left hiring are the military recruiters shrouding their greedy imperial schemes in the raiment of martial tradition.

Ours is a struggle between Tradition and Modernity and this is the Kali Yuga—a period of chaos in which the forces of destruction have stripped the society of its tribal loyalties, family ties, transcendent duties, time-honored protocols, and initiatic rites. We shouldn't be scuttling around trying to "conserve" every last rotting relic of the Ancien Regime; we should be fighting for a vital Tradition which is relevant and sustainable. The dying order's institutions are zombies, superficially resembling cherished allies while feasting on our brains and sucking our blood. Decapitate them without mercy or restraint.

The feminist movement likes to prattle on about their precious "choices", even insisting on and winning their "choice" to kill babies. Fathers have no choice in the matter. Our society offers women the choice to either marry or leech off alimony, child support, and public welfare. They have their choice of scholarships, quotas, lobbies, clubs, and special treatments...including free admission and drinks on ladies' nights. In the spirit of being pro-choice, I propose we insist that females make a choice between Tradition and Modernity and that we stop indulging them with the best of both worlds. If they want to act like ladies, we'll treat him like ladies. If they choose to compete against us as an identity group rather than cooperating with us as a traditional familial and tribal team, then we'll make a choice of our own: We'll choose to defeat them with lawsuits, with game, and with a refusal to humor their cloying pleas for special treatment.

We'll make the choice to go full retard.