March 14th, 2006


Good thing we have our priorities straight

Lately, the Bitchdowne School of conservative opinionating has been making lots of noise. The school is so named for the fact that any time a woman suggests that the status of women in our society is still somewhat inferior and that perhaps we still have work to do in this arena, they rise en masse to scream "Bitch, down!" Any statement of feminism is 'shrill', 'strident', 'man-hating' and worst of all, 'unnecessary', because as is the case with race relations in America, everything is fine now, and so shut up.

The leading theorist of the Bitchdowne School is Carolingian criminal justice professor Mike S. Adams, who finds time between preparing lesson plans for the prison guards of tomorrow to froth ceaselessly about those horrible rabid shrews of the left who just can't stand his virile ability to protect the balls of our country from their steel-gloved busting. Adams is a genetic freak who literally cannot keep his mouth shut, the sort of horrible bore who follows you around at parties trying to convince you that you're not really uninterested in his endless fulminations against women; you've just been brainwashed by liberal feminist political correctness into thinking that you find him insufferably dull. The intellectual equivalent of a "NO FAT CHICKS" t-shirt, Adams is not our target today: it's his #1 Scold Brother, right-wing man, and ideological doppelganger, Doug Giles.

Giles' gimmick is a sort of bullying Christianity, as if Jesus' entire teachings consisted of throwing rocks at Pilate's window and calling the Saducees a bunch of pussies. The host of something called "Clash Radio", which despite the title is not songs by and interviews with the left-wing punk godfathers but rather endless exhortations to keep a Bible tucked under your big swollen testicles, Giles posits himself and his followers as hypermacho, un-neutered "bulldogs" lifting a potent leg over the effete, faggy, feminized "poodles" of the left. Some of us aspire to be human beings, but Giles has little advice to offer in that regard, apparently thinking that opposable thumbs are only good for making a fist with which to rabbit-punch homos, college professors, and other assorted sissies. Let's take a look at his latest.

Raising boys that feminists will hate: Part two

Some people, misguided poodles that they are, would want to raise boys who are decent, intelligent, respectful, civilized and humane, but Doug sees right through that homo nonsense and prefers that we focus on making sure that someday, our sons will piss off feminists. This sort of ridiculous adolescent spite is all over the right wing, where the priority seems not to solve problems, come up with ideas, or say something intelligent or insightful, but rather to annoy some theoretical thin-skinned liberal just for the sake of doing it. (Here in Chicago, billboards for WIND, the right-wing talk station, trumpet not their intelligent programming, unique perspective or stellar guests, but rather the fact that "liberals hate it".) The "part two" is a nice touch; this sort of third-rate thinker loves to put their bottom-shelf thoughts in series, thinking it lends them intellectual weight rather than being a pedant's cover for having no new ideas. See also Dennis Prager's interminable series on the innate superiority of Judeo-Christian morality (and his new one, "What is a Jew?" -- answer: someone who agrees with me) and Mike S. Adams' "Why I Don't Take Feminists Seriously" and "Life and How To Live It" (answer: like a grade-D professor at a grade-C school whose colleagues are constantly trying to get him fired) series.

Masculine values are vanishing from within our nation faster than a Chimichanga dipped in motor oil would zip through your digestive tract. A myopic Cyclops can see that.

Giles fancies this sort of punchy joke, thinking it makes him sound witty instead of like the kind of failed preacher you get at corporate retreats for Slough-based paper merchants. But who can argue with his premise? Aside from sports, business, war, consumerism, pornography, and the other aspects of life which totally dominate our entire culture, masculine values are nowhere to be found.

Look, if you’re a girl or a girlie man, well then . . . this is your day, Girlfriend. So, get on with your bad self.

Now that we've gotten the mockery of black slang and the equation of gays with women (and both with weakness) out of the way, let's move on to the issue at hand.

The neckerchief wearing “progressives” are ruining their new manicures working hard to have our nation Nancified.

Neckerchief? Who exactly does Doug picture as the exemplar of progressive politics, Rip Taylor? Note again the "nancified" line, again equating liberalism with weakness and thus with feminization and homosexuality. REAL men are conservatives.

Make no mistake about it: misandry (man hatred) is now the dominating motif of postmodernism.

It's axiomatic that if someone starts a sentence with "make no mistake", he's about to make a major mistake; case in point.

The day has come when you, as a parent, are going to have to be defiant for your son’s masculine rights and upbringing.

The right seems awfully concerned lately with rights that are unfamiliar to me, such as the right to celebrate Christmas and these so-called "masculine rights". However, the erosion under their hand-picked candidate of actual rights enumerated in the Constitution doesn't seem to bother them very much.

Pink Floyd’s “Hey, teacher, leave these kids alone” line from “Another Brick in The Wall” takes on a whole new meaning in this new millennium as far as sons are concerned.

I bet Doug Giles and Roger Waters could have endless fun sitting around blaming everything bad that ever happened to them on those horrible emasculating bitches.

One great source for rebellious inspiration comes from the Bible. The scripture is a great font for prissy, culture-defying fodder.

That's true; if you're looking for a blueprint for oppressing women, you need look no further than the Bible. Or, hey, the Q'uran!

In the scripture you see the men being men, and the demons being scared.

Scaring demons, of course, being a priority in our society today. Actually, I can't think of too many instances of demons being scared in the Bible, but I'm no Radio Clash host, so maybe I misremember. I do remember Isaac being pretty scared when God ordered his father Abraham to slit his throat; that's just the sort of lesson that can teach your son to be a real man, so I'm surprised Doug doesn't mention it.

What does God want His kid with the gonads to be?

I hate to break it to Doug, but women also have gonads. They're called ovaries. Doug seems to think "gonad" means "testicle", but unfortunately, he is mistaken; perhaps he should consult a college professor, like Mike S. Adams.

Well, here are six of the characteristics: a kid who is comfortable in the wild, who’s ready to rule, is a savvy steward, is a dragon slayer, pursues wisdom and reflects the image of God.

The increased concentration of the population in urban areas and the lack of availability of dragons to slay are only two of the challenges facing non-fruity children these days.

Having covered the necessity of the wild in your kids’ upbringing in last week’s column, let’s check out God’s desire to make him a conqueror.

What is best in life? To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of the women. That is good.

Yaweh didn’t construct Adam to be a passive clod, some indolent handout addict who abnegates his responsibility to other people or institutes; but rather, Adam was to be a bold and imaginative chief.

God, in other words, didn't want us to collect welfare.

Look, according to the scripture, your son is a natural born leader who will naturally want to control. It is only, and I mean only, when boys are cowed by abusive authority, Ritalined out of their brains or indoctrinated to believe this God-given behavior is bad that they turn into the followers, the veritable sheeples of stupid cultural morays, folding to high pressure peers and ideological BS.

But...aren't the abusive authorities also wanting to control? Why is it okay for your son to be a domineering, oppressive bull-stud, but wrong for the authorities to do it? Aren't they just exercising the alpha-male tough-guy values their parents taught them on the advice of the Doug Giles of previous generations?

Also, I hate to correct Doug again, but the word he wants after "cultural" is not "morays", but "mores". They're pronounced the same, so I can see how he would get a little mixed up, but a moray is a type of eel, and has no culture that a human being could possibly understand.

Therefore, parent, your job is twofold: 1) Unleash the leadership beast within your boy and 2) Superintend it to make sure it doesn’t get weird; rather ensure it is used for the purpose of justice, truth, provision and protection.

So, you know, encourage his fascistic tendencies, but only to a point.

Take God’s lead and show your son how to exercise dominion rather than how to get in touch with his feminine side.

Couldn't you do both? You know, like by being a top?

Maw and Paw, stand against the swill of society that seeks to erase this grand masculine trait from your little treasure and teach that kid how to be a constructive conqueror.

Because if history has taught us anything, it's that conquerers are always constructive! Thanks, Doug Giles. God bless you, and all hail Bitchdowne!
flavored with age

I hates the ladies

A Doug "NO GURLS ALOUD" Giles follow-up: in case you missed his previous blast about how God intends for you to raise your sons, I can give you a precis without your having to actually read the piece by simply excerpting some of the language:

"nancy-boy", "metrosexual", "feminized", "sissy", "dandy", "castrated", "Sally", "stemless", "effete", "poodle", "pantywaists", "tidy", "prissy".

This is what our "pusillanimous pomo" society will do to your boys if you don't take them out shark-hunting once in a while.

Interestingly, Doug reveals that he doesn't have any sons, but rather daughters -- or, as he puts it, "two alpha teen-aged females". Never one for armchair psychologizing, I'll refrain from any speculation about whether his hyper-macho demeanor is some sort of defense mechanism at his inability to produce a boy-child, but I will ask this: what message do you think a teenage girl gets from her father when he constantly refers to her gender in terms of being weak, marginalize, sissified, ineffectual, peurile, helpless, lame, feeble, submissive, and insubstantial? A PRETTY GOOD ONE I BET!
flavored with age

Boy, we haven't heard from the IMDB message boards in a while, have we?


I constantly hear Liberals saying that the US should've stayed out of the Middle East; it's not our business.

This is very contradictory. Before the US even got mixed in with the whole.... treating women like garbage, treating anyone who isn't part of the government like garbage, murdering a girl who was raped bc having sex before marriage is against religion, not allowing girls to run from a burning school building because their faces were uncovered, offering $10,000 to families who would give up their children to be suicide bombers and when they mother gave up all her kids to die for a religious war, she cries because she doesn't have more children to give up for death ..... Bush had to wait for permission from the UN to go into Iraq for proof of harboring terrorists. The permission didn't come for, what was it, a year and a half?? Plenty of time for Saddam to get rid of any evidence (but not all, obviously). Meanwhile, Iraq kills the Curds, the Kuwaitis, etc. Did he do this win guns? I don't think he could wipe out entire nations with guns ... Maybe biological weapons? Oh, but no! That's not in Saddam Hussein's character, right? It just wouldn't make sense, right? There were no biological weapons found in Iraq when the US searched a year and a half later, right?

I know this doesn't apply to all Liberals, but many of you are ignorant.


Did it EVER occur to some of you morons, that conservatives/liberals/libertarians/just anyone breathing and with a brain would object to a movie showing sympathy with terrorists tactics, ESPECIALLY AFTER, the london subway bombings of only a few months ago?

How completely disconnected and tone deaf can Hollywood be showing terrorists as heros, given 9/11, 3/11 (Spain) and the London Subway bombings?

It's no mistake "V for Vendetta" shows Britian as the bad guy. Orwell is proven right over and over again.


I'm a libertarian, which is a Republican that upholds and defends the Constitution. I like this movie. As I am also Catholic, I can relate to the underlying Guido(Guy) plot to kill a King- a King that has outlawed your existence and killed all of your Priests. I think most people can relate to self-defense at one time or another. This is something abhorrent to any Catholic, but is necessary amidst religious and physical genocide.

The man in the mask is Guy- Guido. The Catholic bent on overthrowing a government that outlaws life and faith. And I am speaking historically- not in reference to the movie. I haven't seen this movie.