Most of us have moved on from that whole “Mike Pence refuses to go to dinner alone with women other than his wife because he’s apparently afraid they might end up doing it on the table right there next to the Crispy Shrimp Lettuce Wraps.”
But the internet Nazis over on AltRight.com are still plenty mad — not at Pence or his little rule, but at those in the “Lügenpresse” who made fun of it (or pointed out that such a rule systematically disadvantages women in business). As AltRight.com’s
This example of solidarity between Whites called for a coordinated psychological assault on our sexual ethics. A powerful White man with a stable marriage is an indigestible quantity. Any union between Whites, including the private one between a man and a woman, is a possible threat to the neoliberal order.
I mean, who else but an evil hater of all things white could possibly Tweet something like this?
(He calls his wife “mother,” you see.)
as a bisexual i am unable to go out for meals with anyone. socialising is a nightmare. please help i'm hungry https://t.co/PcwbK4TnC5
— daisy (@daiseaaa) March 30, 2017
Or even this?
This is the best internet video I've ever seen pic.twitter.com/RooSpAMGhH
— Dorsey Shaw (@dorseyshaw) March 30, 2017
Ok, that last one has nothing to do with Pence. It’s just a really funny video.
Anyway, Ms. Bernard is sick of your anti-white tomfoolery:
Beneath the apparent absurdity of the media reactions is a deadly serious hostility to the foundation of our resistance to our dispossession and historical erasure — the love of one’s own. Our decency frightens our enemies because of its metapolitical implications.
Yeah, I don’t think the issue here is “decency.” It’s that Pence and his fans seem to think that heterosexual men and women can’t get together to talk about the state of the Penguin Boiling Vat industry (or whatever it is they do for a living) without being overcome by carnal lust.
Is Pence truly too sexy for the dinner table? Millions of men and women regularly eat in public with representatives of the gender or genders they find sexually attractive and aren’t overcome by their uncontrollable passions. Because passions aren’t actually uncontrollable, for one thing.
But I have to give Ms. Benard some credit for her, er, lively prose. At one point, she attacks Stephen Colbert for making a joke about Pence, first describing him as “characteristically over-animated but dead-eyed behind his Communist glasses,” before declaring that his eyes were “wide with Botox and aggression.”
So were his eyes “dead” or were they “wide” and aggressive? Or can he switch back and forth at will? And what does Botox have to do with it?
Ms. Bernard offers no answers to these questions, but she is pretty sure WHY Colbert unleashed his dastardly jokes:
Transient commissars like Colbert attack the love stories of our people because marriage is the foundational White institution upon which all other White institutions are built.
Bernard proudly declares that proud whities like her are “beyond [the] reach” of people like Colbert trying “to corrupt,” then dials her purple prose up to 11 for an energetic if not always coherent finale:
The oaths we make to one another insures our impudence to survive and our mirth in the face of the abyss that the left insists is our destiny. We will continue to realize the promise of generativity hinted in the first simpers of courtship, and we will continue to envision a dawn of our own making. There is nothing more blithe for our morale, nor grave for our enemies, than the love between our people. Out of love for our people, we will strive and sacrifice. We will not rest until we have secured a future for white children. Love is indeed, reactionary.
The real question I am left with is why the hell do so many reactionaries write like this? I mean, Jeez, put away that thesaurus before you hurt someone.