Check Your Privilege, Liberal Woman

By Matt Walsh  March 23, 2015

There is an old saying that dates back to Socrates, I think, and it goes something like this: you know you’ve won the argument the moment your opponents start flashing their genitals at you. Actually, maybe it was Lincoln who said that. Anyway, it’s a rather urgent bit of wisdom in our time.

Now, I don’t want to reiterate the entire ancient history of the last five and a half days, but I’ll give you a little context so that you understand.

It started with the belligerent rantings of a pop singer-rapper named Azealia Banks, who appears in Playboy magazine this month. Banks’ last album sold only 15,000 copies or so in its first two weeks — making her about as musically relevant as a Creed cover band — so she has instead achieved fame by taking off her clothes and saying inflammatory things about white people. This is the first strategy they teach you in Marketing 101 at rapper school, and it’s extraordinarily effective.


In her Playboy interview/stripping session, she spoke proudly of her hatred for white conservative men, white teenage girls, white farmers, white Middle Americans, and anything else created by or associated with white people, presumably including democracy, the automobile, air travel, antibiotics, computers, electricity, photography, and about a 100,000 or so other essential innovations that were born by the bloody hands of whitey.

Shortly after these interview excerpts were published, I wrote a piece to retort Banks and to point out her hypocrisies and prejudices. I intended to call her out for being such a classless, fanatical bigot, and to make the magnanimous gesture of offering to pay for her one-way ticket out of this cesspool of oppression and to a land not plagued by the terrible cancer of white America. You know, an oasis like Nigeria or Pakistan or some other paradise.

My post to her was stern but reasonable, contentious but calm, critical but not crass, and of course quite financially generous.  Her response was, shall we say, not in the same vein.

Late on Friday, Banks took to Twitter to send me and another conservative, Wayne Dupree, a close up photo of her genitals. I suppose this is what passes for dialogue in more progressive circles, but among sentient humans it tends to derail the conversation considerably.

Two days later, she followed up with a lewd Tweet to my wife. When I expressed dismay at this tactic, she proceeded to hurl racial slurs at me and call my wife ugly. All of this was applauded by her legions of young, progressive fans. Some of them followed suit and bombarded me with their own graphic pictures. Several wished death on me, because how else are you supposed to react when someone criticizes your favorite singer?

I’ve never been on a safari, so I’d say this is the closest I’ve come to being gnawed on by a pack of rabid hyenas. It was a depressing and bewildering spectacle, but not unprecedented.

All the while, of course, I was repeatedly informed that I am the sexist, the racist, and the bigot. In fact, according to some, it was sexist for me to criticize her for sending nude photos. She’s “comfortable with her body” and I shouldn’t “slut shame” her, they insisted.

If only Anthony Weiner had thought of using that line.


I’d say Banks has gotten a free pass for her hatefulness and bigotry, but that wouldn’t be completely true. A “pass” insinuates that she did something wrong, but in the minds of many liberals, she behaved heroically. Pass? More like applause and a trophy.

She certainly hasn’t been condemned by anyone but a small smattering of conservative pundits. Our culture, generally, has either raised no protest, or come to her defense. As usual.

It needn’t even be said (but I will anyway) that the reaction would be slightly different if a white conservative male — say, a country star or something — said in an interview that he hated black Americans, then sent an unsolicited picture of his penis to a black female blogger who criticized him, then spewed more racial slurs, then attacked the blogger’s family, then swarms of his white male fans descended on her and sexually harassed her and told her to suffocate on her own puke.

This fictional honky would not even make it past the first stage in this process before being metaphorically, or maybe literally, stoned in the middle of the street. If he somehow pushed through the onslaught of national outrage and proceeded to the next several steps, he would go down as probably the evilest scumbag in American history, if not among the most dastardly in the entire existence of the human race. And I’m really not exaggerating.

Conservatives tend to make this dichotomy worse by — as some have urged me to do here — ignoring the slobbering liberal bigots and trying to be the “bigger person.” But progressives continue to use even the flimsiest of examples to support their narrative of racist white America, and they win. People believe them. Their story sticks, and nobody says a peep or attempts to refute it, because, you know, we’re too mature or something.

Well, I guess I’m not that mature and not that “big.” The progressive racial and gender narrative is a deranged fiction, and I intend to make that fact known.


The double standard is so bad that it isn’t a double standard at all. For progressives — particularly women, particularly minority women — there is simply no standard to speak of. As we’ve seen demonstrated this past week and countless times before, if you have the right ideology (and it helps to have the right gender and skin color), you can say whatever you want. Really, whatever you want. I mean, anything you want, seriously. You are untouchable. You will not be condemned by society. The media will leave you alone. Your bottom line will be unaffected. There will be no boycotts, no resistance, no blow back of any severity or significance.

If any discernible privilege is given to any demographic group in this country, this is it. If you are progressive, and especially a woman, and especially a minority woman, you can lash out in whatever manner you like, launching whatever attacks you like, against whatever group you like, provided the victims aren’t homosexuals or liberal black people. That’s the deal. That’s America, and everyone knows it.

Privilege? Azealia Banks has the privilege. Lena Dunham has privilege. Your average gender studies major has privilege. They have the privilege of Perpetual Victimhood, a status that affords infinite entitlements and endless excuses.

In the midst of dealing with the savage hordes this weekend, I was informed over and over and over again that Banks cannot be sexist or racist, no matter how often she specifically details her very passionate distaste for white men. Being, I’m reminded, a member of not one but two “oppressed” groups, it is literally impossible for her to be a bigot.

Her feelings aren’t bigotries because, they tell me, she has no power. Never mind that she’s a presumably well-off celebrity. Blacks and women have no power. Never mind that a black guy is the most powerful man on Earth. Blacks and women have no power. Oprah herself has no power, apparently. Even if they have power, they don’t have power. It’s just the way it is, whether it is this way or not.

This is the slimy genius of modern liberalism. It packs a lie on top of a lie, and forces you to inadvertently accept one premise by arguing against the other. I can try to point out that America is not “institutionally racist” — and if our institutions were designed to oppress black people and women, they’re clearly doing a really bad job of it — but by having this debate, I’m giving off the impression that the definitions of “racism” and “sexism” somehow hinge on this question. They don’t.

Racism is hatred of another race. Sexism is devaluing someone based on their sex. Those are the definitions. If you engage in those things, you are those things. Black, white, male, female, it doesn’t matter. No excuse. No mitigation. A racist is a racist is a racist, a sexist is a sexist is a sexist. Simple.

The rational person reading this might find the whole discussion pretty tiresome, but sadly, these are not fringe notions I’m trying to dispel. This is mainstream thought. They teach this crap in college. Banks can say and do what she wants, not out of some incidental hypocrisy, but as a matter of principle for progressives. They whine about “privilege,” but they have just claimed the most profound privilege of all. They have invented a moral get out of jail free card, and they get to play it as many times as they want.

It’s important to underscore, however, that it’s only liberal women and minorities who wield this incredible privilege. Non-liberals in those groups have the least leeway out of everyone, and can be attacked more viciously than anyone. Just look at what happens to black conservatives and female Republicans. Ask Ben Carson or Sarah Palin. Ask my wife, who was gleefully heckled and bullied by an army of petulant trolls just for asking a a pop singer to stop Tweeting crotch shots to her husband (a reasonable request, in my opinion).

And the privilege for liberal women extends beyond mere words. If a man sends unwanted pictures of his privates to women, he’s a creep, a deviant, and possibly a sexual harasser. If he runs around like a drunken fool, having sex with anything that moves, he’s a pig, a chauvinist, and probably a sex criminal. These labels are never attached to the other gender. Never. Slut Walks and Vagina Monologues and pop music and college propaganda have brainwashed society into believing that women who do these things are liberated and confident. In fact, a woman’s sexual behavior is so above reproach, that if an inebriated female has sex with an inebriated male, the male is the rapist and the female the victim.

That’s not to say that women cannot be criticized for their lifestyle choices. What I’m saying is that they can’t be criticized for progressive, sexually aggressive lifestyle choices. Now, should they decide to, for instance, get married, have several children by the same man, and stay home to raise the kids, suddenly their decisions can be harshly analyzed.

Female privilege is profound, but specific.

It’s also an extreme hazard.

In my spat with Ms. Banks, I was very aware of that fact that I was working within the strictest of confines. As she attacked my family, sexually harassed us, and hurled invective, I knew that if I answered with even a fraction of the vulgarity and racial hostility, I would end up the villain. That’s the game. Berate me until I respond in kind, then magically I become the bad guy. The contrasting principles are irritating, but maybe more of a handicap for the people on the privileged side of it.

Liberals, particularly liberal women, are operating in a void without any standards of basic decency. They know society will allow them to say or do whatever, so there is a much greater temptation to descend into downright barbarism. It’s a constricting sort of liberty, because once you plunge those depths, it’s difficult to make it back to the surface where adults have grown up discussions and everyone keeps their pants on.

So these last few days have taught me what I already know: that the rules don’t apply to liberals, and even less to liberal women, and even less to liberal minority women. They indeed have the unmitigated privilege to speak with hate and act without self-control, but maybe, in the end, that’s not much of a privilege at all.

Listen to Matt’s latest podcast here. Contact him with general comments and inquiries about speaking engagements at

#liberal #woman #privilege

( )


April 23, 2015 By Alexander Marlow

On Thursday, the New York Times verified and confirmed facts presented in the forthcoming book Clinton Cash which reveals that in October 2010, then-Sec. of State Hillary Rodham Clinton approved the Russian government’s takeover of a company named Uranium One—a decision that gave away half of U.S. uranium output to the Russian government, resulted in the deal’s investors giving the Clinton Foundation $145 million, and occurred while Bill Clinton made hundreds of thousands of dollars in speaking fees paid for by Kremlin-connected businesses.

Breitbart News has also learned the names of several additional Clinton Foundation donors who were the beneficiaries of Hillary Clinton’s State Department policies beyond those revealed by other sources that have reported on Clinton Cash.

Included in the Clinton Foundation donations were $2.35 million in hidden contributions from Canadian executive Ian Telfer that the Clintons never disclosed—a striking and direct violation of the Clintons’ agreement with the Obama administration that all foreign Clinton foundation donations would be publicly disclosed.

Clinton Cash, which contains 57 pages of endnotes totaling over 600 primary sources and contains no off-the-record interviews, establishes the first reported instance of an undisclosed donation by a foreign individual with business before Hillary Clinton during her tenure as Sec. of State.

Alarmingly, until February 2015, Ian Telfer was the chairman of the Russian-controlled Uranium One—the company Hillary Clinton approved as Sec. of State for the Russian takeover of half of U.S. uranium output.

Most shockingly of all: According to the New York Times, despite assurances to the contrary, the transfer of U.S. uranium to Russian control lacked safeguards to prevent uranium dug out of U.S. soil from being exported.

In a 4,000-word, front-page New York Times exposé, Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative reporter Jo Becker and Mike McIntire reported on and confirmed the accuracy of the uranium revelations, one of many featured in the new bombshell book, Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Made Bill and Hillary Rich by three-time New York Times bestselling author, Breitbart News Senior Editor-at-Large, and Government Accountability Institute (GAI) President Peter Schweizer.

According to the Times and Schweizer’s book, former President Bill Clinton and Clinton Foundation mega donor and Canadian mining executive Frank Giustra flew to Kazakhstan in September 2005 and met with Kazakh dictator Nursultan Nazarbeyev. Giustra wanted lucrative uranium mining concessions, and within 48 hours of Clinton and Giustra’s trip, Giustra’s company, then-named UrAsia Energy, signed memos of understanding outlining the transfer of uranium mining assets.

Months after the trip, Giustra transferred $31.1 million to the Clinton Foundation and announced a multi-year commitment to donate $100 million to the Clinton’s family foundation, as well as half of his future profits.

“All of my chips, almost, are on Bill Clinton,” said Giustra. “He can do things and ask for things no one else can.”

UrAsia Energy then transferred its uranium assets through a merger with a company called Uranium One. In 2009, the Russian State Nuclear Agency (ROSATOM) purchased a minority stake in Uranium One. During Hillary Clinton’s tenure as Sec. of State, Clinton served on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), a small executive branch task force created in 1975 to evaluate investment transactions that might have a direct effect on U.S. national security. When CFIUS approved Russia’s October 2010 purchase of Uranium One, the deal was projected to transfer half of U.S. uranium output to the Russian government by 2015.

“The ultimate authority to approve or reject the Russian acquisition rested with the cabinet officials on the foreign investment committee, including Mrs. Clinton — whose husband was collecting millions of dollars in donations from people associated with Uranium One,” reports the New York Times.

In addition to Giustra, Clinton Cash reveals—and the New York Times confirms—a host of Clinton Foundation donors were connected to the uranium deal, including:

  • Frank Holmes, a shareholder in the deal who donated between $250,000 and $500,000 (the Clinton Foundation doesn’t report exact amounts, only in ranges) and is a Clinton Foundation adviser
  • Neil Woodyer, Frank Giustra’s colleague who founded Endeavor Financial and pledged $500,000 as well as promises of “ongoing financial support”
  • Robert Disbrow, a Haywood Securities broker, the firm that provided “$58 million in capital to float shares of UrAsia’s private placement,” gave the Clinton’s family foundation between $1 and $5 million, according to Clinton Cash
  • Paul Reynolds, a Canaccord Capital Inc., executive who donated between $1 million and $5 million. “The UrAsia deal was the largest in Canaccord’s history,” reports Schweizer
  • GMP Securities Ltd., a UrAsia Energy shareholder that pledged to donate a portion of its profits to the Clinton Foundation
  • Robert Cross, a major shareholder who serves as UrAsia Energy Director who pledged portions of his future income to the Clinton Foundation
  • Egizio Blanchini, “the Capital Markets vice chair and Global cohead of BMO’s Global Metals and Mining group, had also been an underwriter on the mining deals. BMO paid $600,000 for two tables at the CGS-GI’s March 2008 benefit”
  • Sergei Kurzin, the Russian rainmaker involved in the Kazakhstan uranium deal and a shareholder in UrAsia Energy, also pledged $1 million to the Foundation
  • Uranium One chairman Ian Telfer committed $2.35 million

As the New York Times reports, “Amid this influx of Uranium One-connected money, Mr. Clinton was invited to speak in Moscow in June 2010, the same month Rosatom struck its deal for a majority stake in Uranium One.”

The Times adds, “The $500,000 fee — among Mr. Clinton’s highest — was paid by Renaissance Capital, a Russian investment bank with ties to the Kremlin.”

According to HarperCollins, Schweizer and the GAI spent over one-year conducting their exhaustive deep dive investigation.

The New York Times says Schweizer’s Clinton Cash is written “mainly in the voice of a neutral journalist and meticulously documents his sources, including tax records and government documents.” And the Wall Street Journal on Thursday said Clinton Cash“adds fresh details” to previously unreported Clinton financial dealings.

The Times hails Clinton Cash as “the most anticipated and feared book of a presidential cycle.”

#hillary #hillaryclinton #hillary2016 #clinton #clintoncash #corruption

How The Trans-Agenda Seeks To Redefine Everyone

June 23, 2014 By Stella Morabito

The Transgender Movement Has Strong Totalitarian Undertones That Americans Don’t Fully Understand

Did you think only women get pregnant? Or only women get abortions? Planned Parenthood and NARAL—ironically both pro-abortion organizations that self-identify as champions of women’s rights—may soon be trying to change your mind about that.

One signal comes from a little petition drive that goes by #protransprochoice. It urges both Planned Parenthood and NARAL to adopt language more “inclusive” of transgender persons and to acknowledge “gender-non-conforming” people. Both pro-abortion organizations, which have been longtime supporters of the LGBT lobby, tweeted back supportive replies.

So what does this mean and why should we care?

Well, maybe Exhibit A should be Oprah Winfrey introducing us to “the first pregnant man” in 2008. This would be a woman named Tracey who “transitioned” to being Thomas by having a double mastectomy with a dose of hormones to produce facial hair and such. Thomas thought it would be nice to have a baby someday, and so decided to keep “his” vagina, uterus, and ovaries intact. But for some reason, even though Thomas was legally documented as male, she (oops!) needed a sperm donation. (Life isn’t fair.) In any event, when pregnant, Thomas was happy to pose nude (mostly, anyway) for the camera.

Thomas has since had two more children and in 2012 decided to undergo surgery for a more complete transition to a male bodily appearance. She now lectures on “trans fertility and reproductive rights.” Most do not understand what a seismic shift in language is being pushed here. In this scheme of things, using the pronoun “she” to refer to a person who goes through pregnancy and gives birth to a child is grounds for punishment.

Already, there is social pressure for everyone to comply with the gender theory notion that biological facts are mere ‘social constructs.’

So what does it all mean? At root, this isn’t really about people like Thomas. It’s mostly about everybody else. It’s all about changing you and your self-concept. As fringy as they may sound, injecting such lies into our language—“the pregnant man” and the push to separate the word “pregnancy” from the word “woman”—are clear signals that we are moving steadily towards erasing all gender distinctions in the law.

And why should we care? Because erasing gender distinctions, especially as they apply to childbearing and rearing, would serve to legally un-define what it means to be human. A new legal definition of human—as neither male nor female—would apply to you whether you like it or not. Already, there is social pressure for everyone to comply with the gender theory notion that biological facts are mere “social constructs.”

We should especially care because we are well on the way to enacting such laws already. In November, the U.S. Senate voted in favor of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). The law is based on the assumption that one’s perceived “gender identity” does not always “match” your sex “assigned” or “designated” at birth. So, the thinking goes, the law should allow a more ambiguous array of gender identities: male, female, both, neither, or something else entirely. It’s not an overstatement to say that ENDA is a huge step, mostly under the radar, to codify a new definition of humanity.

It’s all about changing you and your self-concept.

In the Senate, every Democrat and ten Republicans voted for ENDA: Senators Ayotte, Collins, Flake, Hatch, Heller, Kirk, McCain, Murkowski, Portman, and Toomey. So all that remains is for the House of Representatives to take up ENDA (which hasn’t happened just yet) and follow suit.

(I have a modest proposal. If and when ENDA is taken up by the House of Representatives, members might consider proposing an amendment that allows equal treatment for a neglected category of oppressed: those who suffer from discrimination based upon age identity. It would simply extend the logic of gender identity laws. You can read more here at The Federalist: “If We Can Pick Our Gender, Can We Pick Our Age?”)

It’s About Control, Not Rights

The transgender movement has strong totalitarian overtones that Americans (especially certain senators) don’t fully understand. How else to describe a crusade with such far-reaching consequences for First Amendment rights? The legal destruction of gender distinctions will inevitably dissolve family autonomy, thereby uprooting freedom of association. Free expression becomes “hate speech” if one doesn’t fall into line with the directives of the transgender lobby or its pronoun protocol. Freedom of religion takes a direct hit any way you look at it.

Under the guise of “rights,” the transgender movement can serve as convenient cover for consolidating and centralizing power under an ever-expanding State. Once we allow the State to refuse to recognize that children result from the male-female union, we grant the State more power to separate us from our children. As power becomes more centralized in the State, the individuals and institutions of the State, inevitably flawed, end up owning our personal relationships. With weakened mediating institutions—family, churches, private associations—we lose the buffer zones that stand between individuals and an encroaching state.

Free expression becomes ‘hate speech’ if one doesn’t fall into line with the directives of the transgender lobby or its pronoun protocol.

Contrary to popular belief, this push to eliminate distinctions of sex from law and replace them with variable and sundry perceptions of gender does not do what it promises. It doesn’t simply provide us with a panoply of gender identities from which we can choose, like the 50-something identities available on Facebook  Rather, it’s the setup for a gender vacuum. As you enter this vacuum of gender-neutrality, less and less separates and protects you from the State.

Let’s think this through a bit more. If gender distinctions are erased in law, all marriage will become legally obsolete. The elites pushing same-sex “marriage” have known this all along. If you thought it was really marriage equality they were after, see point three in this Federalist article, “Bait and Switch.”

If we agree to change language to suit the transgender lobby, we ultimately agree to destroy in law the entire basis (sex distinctions) for the only union that can result in autonomously formed families. The implications for privacy and personal relationships are vast, and we need to understand that.

Under the guise of ‘rights,’ the transgender movement can serve as convenient cover for consolidating and centralizing power under an ever-expanding State.

If you think you’ll be able to cultivate and preserve strong personal relationships in this new matrix, you are mistaken. That can’t easily happen in a system in which your familial relationships are not acknowledged or respected by the State. This gender-neutral scheme obliterates the template for the family as a unit. And if the family is no longer accepted as a union that originates through the union of male and female, there is no real basis for the State to recognize any family as an autonomous unit. Without any such obligation, children become more easily classified as state property and our personal relationships are more easily controlled by the state. If that sounds totalitarian, that’s because it is.

The legal erasure of gender distinctions, especially as they relate to the conception, gestation, and birth of children, would effectively cut us off from our spouses and children in the eyes of the law. How can it be otherwise? Yeah, maybe in the bargain we’ll retain the right to “freely” call ourselves male, female, or other. But once we’ve in essence sold our birthright, this is nothing more than a bowl of pottage.

Where Are We Now?

While Americans have been distracted by same-sex “marriage,” transgender activists have been quietly changing laws all across the nation to redefine humanity on their terms. In fact, the enactment of gender identity laws has in many cases outpaced same-sex marriage legislation. So far they’ve passed in 18 states, the District of Columbia, and about 150 municipalities 

But now the “transgender revolution” is going on offense. In the past few weeks, a virtual blitzkrieg of drag has rained down upon us from the media. Here are just a few items in the lineup:

It’s ironic that those leading the charge for the transgender revolution would claim there is only one right side to history. Nevertheless, none of this should surprise anyone who has been paying attention. The whole movement has been prepped by the push for genderless marriage. The Supreme Court’s Winsdor decision last year, and its consolidation by activist judges striking down state laws on marriage, has been the cue the transgender movement has been waiting for.

After all, the “T for Transgender” in LGBT has been around for decades, custom-built into the LGBT agenda. If you think this is the end of the line, you’re kidding yourself. There is much, much more to come.

How Deep Are We Into This Transgender Thing?

There’s no end in sight. On the surface, the transgender package, with its assortment of gender identities, to many still resembles a fringe movement, or a passing fad. So lots of folks have been duped into thinking that the purpose of it all is to grant equal rights to a minority demographic. But it’s really about changing the language, and thereby redefining us all.

If gender distinctions are erased in law, all marriage will become legally obsolete.

Indeed, “civil rights” is always a nice line. It works well to stop debate. There’s lots of emotional blackmail involved because of the social punishments (labels of “hater” or “bigot”) heaped upon anyone who might question the agenda.

So how might an elite impose “collective belief formation” upon an unwitting public? It’s about marketing, of course, injecting memes (an older term is “hype”) into public discourse in order to build opinion cascades. An interesting academic look at this is in a Stanford Law Review article by Cass Sunstein and Timur Kuran on “availability cascades.” It explains how you can take an implausible idea and make it seem plausible by raising its availability in public discourse. Once you’ve shaped public opinion through all the usual channels—Hollywood, academic, the media, and so on—then the road to public policy has been nicely paved.

Of course, we see these things applied by mass marketers like Oprah Winfrey and talk shows like “The View” that serve to shape and mold and cajole “new ways of thinking” into the mindset of millions of listeners.

The Role of Linguistic Fascism in the Cult of Transgenderism

We can’t underestimate the role of the language police in forcing compliance with any agenda that hides under the “civil liberties” claim.

Transgender advocacy groups seem to hold very high and specific requirements and expectations from the public and media in terms of how they expect to be understood and talked to. GLAAD’s Media Advisory Guide contains a long checklist of “do’s and don’ts” when one is talking to or referring to a transgender person. Pronouns, of course, are a very touchy subject. Other lists are put out by various advocacy groups, including Transgender Equality, the Human Rights CampaignGender Spectrum, and a Cal Berkeley group, to name but a very few.

Forcing changes in our language forces changes in our thoughts.

These convoluted lexicons foisted upon a docile public are daunting. And they’re no doubt meant to be. Interestingly, use of such linguistic gymnastics happens to be an essential device in teasing out a cult mindset.

Margaret Thaler Singer, an expert on cults, has written about the role of rhetoric in stifling independent thinking among cult members: “As members continue to formulate their ideas in the group’s jargon, this language serves the purpose of constricting members’ thinking and shutting down critical thinking abilities. . . . . One large international group, for example, has dictionaries for members to use. . . . One can search from term to term trying to learn this new language.”

According to Singer: “Orwell reasoned that if a government could control all media and interpersonal communication while simultaneously forcing citizens to speak in politically controlled jargon, it could blunt independent thinking.”

As we navigate the labyrinths of identity politics, we must never forget that forcing changes in our language forces changes in our thoughts. And in the case of gender identity, this means accepting language that universally redefines—or perhaps more accurately, un-defines—us all.

Hygge’s Yang

Frequently, when discussing the merits & demerits of a socialized economic order, the apologist is likely to cite the present-day “success” of socialism in Scandinavian countries, specifically Denmark, which enjoys designation as the “happiest country on earth”, (per the United Nations).

Also, the collectivist apologist may cite the “hygge” found within the Danish folk themselves, described as a feeling which manifests itself in social settings as an ineffable cozy/togetherness.

While lovely, there is a Yang to the hygge Yin.  The following well-written article analyzes various cultural indicators throughout Scandinavia, and presents a strong case against the purported “success” of collectivism:


#scandinavia #denmark #danmark #happiness #hygge #unitednations #socialism #legos