RUSH: By the way, folks, one of the motivations, one of the reasons — purposes, if you will — of defining a new normal is also defining the new weirdos. When society’s norms come under assault and attack as discriminatory, mean-spirited, bigoted, racist, homophobic, sexist, misogynist, whatever — when those norms come under assault as rooted in those characteristics and new norms are sought and desired — the new norms now will consist of homosexuality and transgenderism and different definition of marriage and what have you.
One of the purposes of doing that is to also redefine the new weirdos, and who do you think the new weirdos are? I don’t think there is any doubt that this is a studied attempt. At least from those that are doing all of this with a political agenda attached, the objective here — and it’s not new. It’s been happening for quite a while right in front of our eyes. It is to portray conservatives/Christians/Republicans as the real weirdos.
“They’re the real oddballs! They are the ones! They’re the ones that are not cool. I mean, they’re antiques. They’re from a long-gone era that has long ago been bypassed. They’re just relics, and they’ve got to be just phased out.” I think that is, in large part, one of the objectives as well as to redefine not just the new normals, but the new weirdos.
I think that’s actually what’s going on. When you hear people talk about the Republican Party and its “branding problem,” that’s really what they’re talking about, unknowingly. That’s manifesting of all this. And really what’s… If you strip it all away, what really is the objective here as to eliminate any political opposition to the Democrat Party, any viable political opposition. I mean, the long-term, way-way out there in the future. That’s what this is.
RUSH: Folks, do you remember over the course of many years in the past my expressing grave concern to you over the rise in popularity of social media, and not because it’s a competitor here. I don’t even look at it as that. My concern has been for the impact on our culture, the impact on our country, and I know many of you are gonna remember this. Some who’ve forgotten it will remember it when I mention it to you.
The biggest problem or fear that I have associated with social media is what I saw as this overwhelming quest for fame on the part of people, and it was leading them to do things, to say things, to engage in things for the express purpose of getting noticed, because they so desperately wanted fame. It is directly proportionate to the rise in entertainment media. Entertainment media is known for something that’s, I think, unique in all other media.
Well, maybe sports media has the same thing. That is that everybody covered is idolized. Everybody reported on is idolized. Actors, actresses, TV stars, musical artists — and in the sports world, the athletes. There are exceptions, of course: If they discover an athlete’s a Republican, a conservative or a Ray Rice-type thing. But for the most part in sports and entertainment media, it’s total lionization and idolatry. In the mainstream media, it is, too, for most Democrats.
But not always, because the mainstream media is also filled with a bunch of things the entertainment media is not. You may not wholeheartedly agree, but the mainstream media is as critical of Republicans as it is praising of Democrats. So in the mainstream media, you see criticism; you see hard-hitting questions. You see disrespect shown to largely successful people, by the way: Conservatives. Pick your conservative, pick your Republican. They’re destroyed. The attempt is made to destroy them.
In the entertainment media, it doesn’t happen. You could be the biggest reprobate in the world and you will be celebrated and lionized and put on a pedestal. My contention has been that people in social media that have been watching all this entertainment stuff from Entertainment Tonight to E! Entertainment network. You know, some people are able to watch it and keep it separate. But a lot of people watch it, want be to part of it, and they see the lifestyles portrayed by these shows. “Oh, wow man! I want to do that. That’s so cool.”
Because to them it’s all red carpets. It’s all parties. If they’re guys, it’s all parties with models. I mean, if you ask them what they think of Leonardo DiCaprio, I guarantee you the last thing they’re gonna think of is hard work. When they think Leonardo DiCaprio or take your pick, they’re not gonna think work. They’re not gonna think study. They’re gonna think party. And so social media has provided this opportunity for people to try to become famous.
Then reality TV came along and started plucking some of these poor souls from what is a well-deserved obscurity and making them famous. And then they get torn down and ripped to shreds. And you know who I’m talking about, these poor schlubs that end up on these TV shows in the family with 19 kids or the Octamom or all this stuff. To me, it has been coarsening and destructive to our entire culture, and I think that’s where all of this Caitlyn Jenner stuff is. I don’t think that you can take the celebrity component out of this.
In terms of why it’s news and in terms of why it’s promoted and accepted and all that. I know there are many factors involved here. But there is something falling by the wayside while all of this is happening. And let me see if I can find it. I’ve got that little piece that I shared with you from a blog earlier today. Let me read this to you again, because, by the way, this goes to exactly what I was saying before the break at the top of the hour, that this quest to redefine normalcy has another component to it, which is to redefine the new weirdos.
That’s us, folks.
Conservative and Republicans are the new weirdos, the new kooks, and that is part of the political objective here in normalizing all of this really marginal behavior. I mean, if less than 1% of the population’s engaging in it, it’s marginalized behavior. It isn’t normal, no matter how you define it. But the quest to make it normal contains with it the objective to make people who might disapprove of it or the people that don’t do it weirdos and kooks. That’s where the Republican branding problem resides.
Because the objective here has been to portray the old norms and the practitioners of the old norms as the deadbeats, the dryballs, the sticks in the mud — or worse, the racists, sexist, bigot, homophobes. But they’re the weirdos. And all of this other behavior, however you want to describe it, is celebrated now as a new norm, and we need to have a conversation about it, and the reason we need to have a conversation is to rip and criticize the arbiters of the old norms.
Which happens to be religion, Christianity, conservatism, Republicanism, you name it. Do not doubt me on this. If I’m going by too fast, please go back to my website later today and reread this and study it and understand it, because it’s exactly what’s going on. I quoted to you earlier a couple of short passages from a blog. I didn’t identify the blog, but I told you it’s a conservative Republican blog. I’m gonna quote it again, because it proves the point that I just made to you.
“With the momentum from this announcement and affiliation, Catilyn (sic) inadvertently gave the Republican Party something it desperately needs more of — ‘street cred,’ simply put, an understanding sense of humanity.” So here we have a conservative blog celebrating the fact because Caitlyn Jenner has identified as a Republican. This is great news for us, because this is gonna show people that we are human and that we’ve got credibility. Look, here you have a transgender who feels totally at home in the Republican Party!
This is written about here as a big plus for us. Why is this a big plus? It’s a big plus because whoever wrote this is of the belief that all of the criticism of us — racist bigot homophobe, weirdo, oddball, weirdball — is true, or at least it’s thought to be true. So something like this… Which is grasping at the straw if you ask me. But something like this is: Ah, now, this! This is a great opportunity for us! And then the next line is this: “If the [Republican P]arty overall was to warm up to these ‘differences,'” i.e., embrace all of this:
Gay marriage, homosexuality, gay rights, transgenderism (and wait ’til you here what transable is). If we would just “warm up to these ‘differences’ and use them as a broader tool to crush problems (not people)…” So the assumption here from a conservative blog is that the conservative movement Republican Party crushes people. How do we do that? Well, we obviously discriminate! Remember, now, this is not a left-wing blog writing this. This is a conservative blog writing this.
They’re thinking this is all a great thing because it will allow us to show that we’re not mean-spirited, or we have a chance to prove it to people. Well, once again we’re left to having to prove a damn negative, which you cannot do. Here you have somebody accepting the premise that the left has postulated that we are racist, sexist, bigot, homophobes. It’s just absolute nonsense, but that’s where we are. No doubt this person’s young writing this.
The last line of this little passage is: “[U]se them as a broader tool to crush problems (not people) that really matter — like insurmountable national and student debt, ever-increasing national security threats and domestic encroachments on constitutional liberties — Democrats would stand no chance.” So the theory here is if we just embrace people like Caitlyn Jenner and gay rights and gay marriage — if we just embrace it — we can wipe the Democrats out, because then we could get people’s attention and focus ’em on the real problems.
Debt, student loan, national debt, taxes, spending, and all that.
Well, the blog was HotAir, for those of you who want to know. I’m not gonna mention the name. I didn’t print the name because I didn’t want to get into the name because I didn’t want to make it about names. Mere moments ago, Ed Morrissey who is, I think, management/ownership. He sent me his latest post, and he sent it to a lot of people, and he said, “I respectfully dissent from my colleagues.” I didn’t know what he meant.
So I read it during the top-of-the-hour break. He goes into business of this Canada National Post story today about “transabled,” and when he heard about it, he thought (paraphrased), “This is The Onion.” He thought, “This is satire. Somebody making a joke about it,” and it’s not. I’ll get to that here in just a second. I want to get to his analysis ’cause it is so close to mine. He says, “We’re celebrating the end of natural and objective truth, and turning dysfunction into virtue on the basis of celebrity.
“Not only that, but many people suffer from disability without much choice in the matter — my wife, for one, who lost her sight at 24 from diabetic retinopathy. This turns their challenges into sport or status symbols in a very odd manner, and mainstreaming it” is not healthy, and I think he’s exactly right. The great loss here is truth, objective truth, and we are turning dysfunction into virtue. But it’s the celebrity component that provides the basis for it. The celebrity component which makes it acceptable.
The celebrity component which makes it not only acceptable, but even admirable, because celebrities are the closest thing we’ve got to royal in our country. “Oh, if they do it, it’s gotta be cool!” With so many young people wanting to be just like them (sigh), it’s a-self-feeding destruction. Now, what is “transabled”? Get ready for this. From the Canada National Post: “When he cut off his right arm with a ‘very sharp power tool,’ a man who now calls himself One Hand Jason let everyone believe it was an accident.
“But he had for months tried different means of cutting and crushing the limb that never quite felt like his own, training himself on first aid so he wouldn’t bleed to death, even practicing on animal parts sourced from a butcher. … People like Jason have been classified as ‘transabled’ — feeling like imposters in their bodies, their arms and legs in full working order…” But I don’t feel like I should have a left arm!
This is what Morrissey read and thought it was a parody.
Morrissey says (paraphrased), “You know, the last thing I’m gonna do is comment on this as though it’s true. I’m not gonna be embarrassed. If somebody’s making a big joke here in the midst of all this, I’m gonna find out.” He researched it. It’s not a joke. Transabled are people who are just fine physically and they’re perfectly healthy, but they feel disabled and they feel like their left arm, their right arm is unnatural and shouldn’t been there and they shouldn’t have been born with it.
They want to get rid of it.
And none of this is made up.
Snerdley is looking at me like he still doesn’t believe this.
“People like Jason have been classified as ‘transabled’ — feeling like imposters in their bodies, their arms and legs in full working order. ‘We define transability as the desire or the need for a person identified as able-bodied by other people to transform his or her body to obtain a physical impairment,’ says Alexandre Baril, a Quebec born academic who will present on ‘transability’ at this week’s Congress of the Social Sciences and Humanities at the University of Ottawa.” So this is a whole economic presentation.
“‘The person could want to become deaf, blind, amputee, paraplegic. It’s a really, really strong desire.’ Researchers in Canada are trying to better understand how transabled people think and feel.” Well, folks, does anybody want to seriously make the case that this is normal? Obviously these people need serious help, because they’re not gonna get it. What’s gonna happen is, “Well, we must respect their feelings. They’re human beings, and if they don’t think they should have a left arm, then we’ll facilitate them losing their left arm.”
That’s what this presenter is gonna do. “Most of them are men. About half are in Germany and Switzerland, but he knows of a few in Canada. Most crave an amputation or paralysis, though he has interviewed one person who wants his penis removed. Another wants to be blind.” Transabled. And we must not judge, you see? We must not judge and we must not condemn. But these people need prayer and help. They don’t need assistance in what they want to do.
Where do you draw the line here?
RUSH: There has to be a limit on this. What if I decide I want to X. At some point, somebody’s gonna have to stand up and say we’re dealing with people who need some serious help here. This is not something we need to be celebrating. We certainly don’t need to be promoting it. We don’t need to be encouraging it. It’s not good for them, and we are guilty ourselves if we help them engage in all of this behavior that’s gonna hurt them or harm them.
I think this has long gotten out of control, folks, from the compassion side of things. All of this so-called tolerance? I’m telling you, to understand it, because it logically makes no sense, but if you put it in the political context and arena where it lives, you will find the motivation for it. And even spelling it out, making it as crystal clear as I have, I know some people still are not gonna believe it or accept it, meaning this is ultimately a political agenda aimed at us. But it is. And this is not the first. We’ve been in this war for years now, and this war is successful.
Whenever you hear the whole subject of the Republican branding problem, it’s exactly what we’re talking about. We’re letting the left choose our candidates. We’re letting the left define who we are, both as a party and attitudinally, make no mistake about it. It is happening out there. And every one of these people, now the disabled, the transgendered, they become tools. And further, the left gets to pretend they care about individuals, when all they’re doing is taking these sad cases of confused people and encouraging a total socialist, collectivist government to deal with it.
RUSH: Okay, folks, a quick pregunta. A little Spanish lingo there for “question.” What if a woman said that she wanted to marry a dolphin. She wanted to engage in sexual relations with a dolphin, with the flying finger of fate. Now, what would you say? No, no. Serious, serious question. For those of you in the audience, what would you say? Because our society today has said, “Well, we must understand her desires. Nothing is to be condemned. If that’s what she wants, if that’s how she feels.”
Hey, we’ve redefined marriage now. So if I’ve wanted to always, you know, have two women in my bed every night, who’s to condemn it? So long as we love each other and, you know, it’s nobody’s business who I love, what is your reaction? If we’re gonna allow all of these norms to be evaporated and blown to smithereens, at what point, kind of like the minimum wage, at what it do you say, “Nah-nah, we don’t need to raise it that much.” At what point does our society say, “Nah-nah-nah, wait a minute, not really gonna go that far.” Because we haven’t gotten there with this transable business. We got people actually thinking of enabling this. If somebody wants to go blind, we’re gonna facilitate it.
Some academician in Canada thinks we need to help these people. If they want to miss their left arm, they feel like they shouldn’t have it. They feel abnormal, that left arm doesn’t feel like theirs. They want get rid of it. You know, at what point do we reach the end of tolerance? So a woman comes along and says, “You know, I really wanna have sex with a dolphin.” Well, it’s happened. It happened more than once, but it happened in the UK, and I don’t remember the exact year, but we talked about it on this program and we had a lot of fun with it in fact. It was in the nineties sometime. The woman was dead serious, and she was thought to be ill.
At the time it happened, it wasn’t that long ago, but there wasn’t anybody who wanted to make it happen for her. There wasn’t anybody around to facilitate it. There wasn’t anybody around to promote it. Nobody said we need to have a conversation about this. Remember the stories we had about this twisted mind that was having sex with horses out in Oregon? My point is it wasn’t that long ago that we were condemning this stuff and deciding that the people expressing these desires needed help. Now look at the direction we’re going here, just trying to point all this out.