new

Crypto-Islamic news editors at CNN were in shock yesterday: ‘Qandeel Baloch: Pakistani social media star strangled by her brother.’

This was apparently front page news, nestled between stories about Donald Trump’s vice presidential pick, the assault-style truck attack in France, and the aborted coup attempt in Turkey. I doubted many of CNN’s readers knew or cared much about Pakistani social media stars, so I dove into the article to see what I could learn about the mass mind-control apparatus that is CNN. What did they want me to think because of this article?

The answer came quickly, in the vein of why we are all constantly force-fed praise about Malala Yousafzai: women are being oppressed in the Indian subcontinent, and you should feel bad about it. This time the oppression took the form of an angry Pakistani man who strangled his sister, who was making a name for herself posting half-naked selfies on Facebook and Instagram. He protested the “kind of pictures she had been posting online.”

CNN described Qandeel Baloch’s online exploits as “brazenly sassy, and increasingly political.” She was “curvaceous and self deprecating.” Here’s a money quote:

"In recent weeks, several of her posts encouraged her audience to challenge old practices of Pakistani society. In a July 14 post, Baloch referred to herself as a “modern day feminist.”"

Haha, oh man.

Qandeel Baloch’s brother didn’t murder her. Feminism murdered her.

I almost feel bad for Qandeel Baloch. Almost. This chubby female of middling looks, with the desperate need for attention common to her sex, somehow found a way to boost and buttress her own status and popularity. In a traditional Pakistani society, she found the Internet. She found Facebook and Instagram, doubtlessly shortly thereafter followed by Western ideas about “women’s visibility.” She found that, even though she was pretty average and unremarkable, she could do a simple thing to become famous and popular: post half-naked pictures of herself on social media with captions using words like “empowering.”

What happened next? The Cathedral found her, of course. Feminists found her. NGOs found her. Journalists found her. Did they tell her to stop posting such lewd and stupid stuff online? Did they tell her that Kim Kardashian is a warning, not a role model? Did they tell her she’d be better off doing something actually productive, like raising children? No, of course not!

...

That newspaper eagerly encouraged and fueled Qandeel Baloch’s narcissistic endeavours in order to further a political goal: the advancement of feminism and other progressive norms in Pakistan. Baloch made a reckless but predictable deal with the Devil. She would be the cudgel with which the Cathedral would beat traditional Muslim Pakistanis. In exchange, she got attention, fame, notoriety, and money. In theory.

In reality, the deal got messy very fast, and her own traditional Muslim Pakistani brother strangled her before she became a Kim Kardashian. He saw her become the Pakistani Lena Dunham, and he had enough.

Now CNN is eulogizing her as yet another martyr in the global and endless war of feminism and progressivism against human nature.

...

Tanqeed is not quite a fully-fledged Soros operation yet, but its donor list is suspiciously full of non-Pakistani names: Brady Calestro, David Dencker, Anna Waltman, and so on. Tanqeed, much like Dawn, provided cover and incentive for Qandeel Baloch. Do they reap any blame for her death? Are they at all ashamed or apologetic for pushing her into the role of a crowdfunded Lena Dunham in a country where honor killing is still common? No, of course not!

...

It’s clear she wasn’t rich, because if she was, she would have been writing a feminist column in The Harvard Crimson far away from Taliban and honor killers. She was a working class woman who took the high-risk job of being the Cathedral’s frontline feminist culture war shock trooper in a heavily Muslim country.

...

The Express Tribune, needless to say, is another major English-language Pakistani newspaper. It is Pakistan’s only newspaper affiliated with the International New York Times. Its editorial stance identifies with “social liberalism.”

What is the real story here? CNN wants to spin an epic tale of an average woman standing up to patriarchal oppressors against all odds. CNN wants to turn her into a martyr and a heroine. But she is neither of those things, and CNN’s tale is false on its face.

The real story is a sordid one. It is a story of a number of news organizations and NGOs following Anglo-Saxon ideologies of feminism and progressivism, funded and directed from abroad, working on a long-term project to undercut traditional Pakistani society and remake it in the images of Harvard and Oxford Utopia. It is a story of a lower-class Pakistani woman without a husband who got sucked into the pointless spiral of selfies, clicks, and likes that is Western social media, and was then selected and fueled down that path by those same news organizations and NGOs in order to further their political goals.

When she met her inevitable fate in Muslim Punjab, they eulogized her and blamed the patriarchy. And yet, before Qandeel Baloch was having phone calls with journalists at major left-of-center newspapers, she was not likely fearing for her life, nor twerking half-naked for millions to watch on YouTube. Qandeel Baloch was not empowered, she was a political pawn for organizations that did not care whether she lived or died.

Feminism killed the Pakistani Lena Dunham. It’ll kill the American one too, but that inevitable wound will be self-inflicted, unlike in Muslim Pakistan.

In the days after Wikileaks released the emails, leftists went berserk, claiming that the Russians were behind the hack (with no proof whatsoever), accusing Vladimir Putin of trying to influence the presidential election, and even accusing Donald Trump of being a Manchurian candidate for Moscow. Curiously, none of them have taken note of the multitude of other countries who are also sticking their hands into the American cookie jar, most notably Mexico, whose government has been funding riots at Trump’s rallies.

It’s quite telling that the only country that leftists don’t want influencing the government is a white, traditionalist, Christian one. The left’s anti-Russian hysteria isn’t simply repugnant: it’s a throwback to the anti-communist fervor of the early 1950’s. The difference is that while Joseph McCarthy’s claims that communists had infiltrated the government had validity, the left’s hatred of Russia is rooted entirely in their paranoia and hatred of healthy, prosperous societies.

...

Before and during the Cold War, leftists were in love with Russia. The Soviet Union represented the end goal of leftism: total state control over every aspect life. Because of this—and also because the Soviets extensively funded efforts to infiltrate Western institutions—the American and European left sided with Russia at every opportunity. For example, during World War II, leftists promoted the idea of opening a second front in Europe with the goal of taking pressure off of the Soviet Union, when the militarily smart move would have been to let the Nazis and Soviets destroy each other. The Normandy invasion was completely unnecessary; all it did was enable the U.S.S.R. to colonize much of eastern Europe.

Similarly, in the 1950’s, leftists in the media and government smeared Senator Joseph McCarthy when he courageously pointed out that Soviet agents were deeply embedded in the State Department and other prominent federal agencies. The Venona Papers—a collection of decrypted messages from the Soviet Union’s intelligence agencies released in 1995—later vindicated many of McCarthy’s claims. Later, in the 1980’s, leftists vociferously opposed Ronald Reagan’s aggressive stance towards the U.S.S.R., claiming it would lead to war; Ted Kennedy even begged the Russians to intervene in the 1984 presidential election and help defeat Reagan (irony).

The love between the Western left and Russia died when the Soviet Union collapsed. Since the end of the Cold War, Russia has transformed itself from a failed socialist state into a patriarchal, traditionalist one, reasserting its place as a world power. Christianity has been revived and takes a central role in Russian life, open homosexuality is frowned upon, and George Soros-funded front groups have been banned from the country. The reason why Russian (and other eastern European) women are known for their femininity and beauty is because these nations resist the moral turpitude of the West.

All this naturally makes Russia an enemy of the degenerate left. Anti-Russian feelings among leftists exploded in 2012, when members of Pussy Riot, a Western-funded leftist agitator group, were arrested after they broke into an Orthodox church and disrupted a mass in process. Leftists began foaming at the mouth a year later when the Russian government formally banned homosexuals from distributing propaganda to minors. When Russia began attacking ISIS last year—and actually made progress towards dismantling the Islamic State—Barack Obama shit a brick and “moderate” Republicans such as John Kasich and Lindsey Graham began speaking of war with Russia.

The left’s fear of Russia is simply their fear of normality, of white heterosexual men taking back what’s theirs. They’re aided by clueless cuckservatives who still think the Cold War is on and Russia is the Red Menace. Additionally, a large number of Russian Jews in the American political establishment, such as neocon Max Boot (a prominent #NeverTrump Republican) and radical lesbian activist Masha Gessen, have spent their careers agitating for more conflict with Russia. (Ilya Sheyman, another Russian Jew, is the head of MoveOn.org, which was behind the riot that shut down Donald Trump’s rally in Chicago last March.)

...

Common Filth and other commentators have quipped in the past that the U.S. will start World War III with Russia over the issue of gay rights, and those predictions are disturbingly close to coming true. The left’s irrational hatred of Russia combined with our constant meddling in their internal affairs (for example, see Ukraine, where we helped instigate an anti-Russian coup right in their backyard) ensure that tensions with Putin will continue to escalate.

This is lunacy. Beyond the fact that Russian society is one that we should aspire to emulate, Russia is a superpower with a nuclear arsenal. Vladimir Putin is not some tinpot potentate of a third-world hellhole; he’s a crafty leader with a strong military and a nation of hundreds of millions behind him. Hillary Clinton will almost assuredly escalate tensions with Russia, possibly bringing us to war, destroying what is left of America with it.

The left hopes to distract Americans’ from the Democrats’ corruption and malfeasance by ginning up a Red Scare 2.0, and we can’t let them get away from it. Leftists’ hatred of Russia, combined with the apocalyptic ramifications of war with Putin, are too significant to ignore.