You can’t make this stuff up. Niggers truly aren’t human.
Although I cross my fingers and pray the nigger killed some white lefty’s baby boy, it’s probably just another darky.
You can’t make this stuff up. Niggers truly aren’t human.
Although I cross my fingers and pray the nigger killed some white lefty’s baby boy, it’s probably just another darky.
“Jim has noted that two NYT journalists published Darren Wilson’s home address so the Ferguson mob can lynch him and kill his pregnant wife.
In response, common citizens can help show them not to wage war on us. I do not have a big a platform as the NYT but I can help boost the signal. Here is the information on the two responsible for doxing Officer Wilson:
Magically, all whiteys have caused all darkies to behave like chimps.
Everything is whiteys’ fault, Negroes are blameless.
Blacks are perfect, whites are the devil.
Fuck the subhumans. Fuck their enablers. Burn them to the ground.
In the era of Hope and Change
There is no hope
There are no jobs
There is no future
There is change….
The gas is up
The unemployment is, too;
The niggers riot daily
and the leaders ignore black evil.
The world is collapsing
And everyone is afraid
Of being called a racist, a homophobe, or a sexist.
Fuck you, trash.
Lena Dunham, the pre-op version of Boss Hogg, is a minor celebrity who has recently admitted she molested her sister.
Previous to copping that she copped massive feels on her own flesh and blood, Dunham was feted by the fags, Jews, feminazis, and other supercilious jackasses on both coasts for allegedly making a little-watched HBO show called Girls. Girls is so little-watched that it doesn’t even average a million viewers per episode. Truth be told, no one is watching Girls except TV critics, who laud the shit out of it due to the excellent P.R. work done by the show’s producers. The very fact that this failure of a show got this fat hog of a child molester on the cover of Vogue is proof that the concentrations of power in this country are very small indeed.
Now before Dunham revealed herself as a child-diddling fucking deviant, my biggest issue with her was the fact that I don’t think she actually makes the show herself. The biggest boost to Girls‘s buzzworthyiness came because Dunham was only in her mid-20’s when HBO greenlit Girls, with her ostensibly in charge; thus she was hailed as the “voice of a generation” and a wunderkind, thus getting critics to pay attention.
I immediately smelled a rat, especially when I found out that her parents, Laurie Simmons and Carroll Dunham, are rich, weirdo avant-garde artists. I remember the J.T. Leroy scandal, and how people in showbiz are so desperate for a hit they’ll make up false fronts, names, etc. just to break in. All-in-all, HBO taking a risk on a 25-year-old with no TV experience made no sense; but taking a risk on her parents doing the show for her and using her as the front man? That made sense. HBO doesn’t really care about the truth anyway, as its left-wing propaganda shows.
But now Dunham has admitted that she molested her kid sister. Bear in mind Dunham is 6 years older than her sister. In her recent memoir, she laughingly recounts three episodes of abuse to her sister:
All of which Dunham recounts as humorous and exploratory.
Now I will mansplain a few things to you guys. Sexual deviancy laws do apply to children. Children who touch others is sexual ways are punished, placed in foster homes, and put on sex registries. What Dunham did to her sister are enough that, were Dunham not a privileged celebrity cow, she would be registering with the local police for the rest of her life. And no, that’s not a joke; Dunham has literally admitted to crimes.
Lena Dunham is a molester of children.
Now Dunham is facing a backlash because she not only got away with these acts (perhaps—depending on what the statute of limitations were in the states she did them in), but because she thought they weren’t bad acts. In fact, she has tried to deflect criticism by an ironic swat:
That’s right, you guys, it’s soooo weird that you’re freaked out by her actions. Stop being such a prude! Everyone does it!
Remember this the next time someone tries to tell you left-wingers are mentally balanced and/or are morally good. Lena Dunham is their moral and mental leader.
Dunham, being the left-wing ‘tard she is, is desperately trying to stop all dissent. She is threatening to sue people who merely repeat her own admissions to child molestation.
Well fuck you, Lena Dunham.
You’re an unrepentant child molester.
You are an evil fucking ugly cow.
And you don’t even run Girls, a show no one watches.
Lefties invented and perfected the Big Lie. The National Socialists used it to great effect, but other leftists (Soviets, Cubans, Venezuelans, North Koreans, Libyans, etc.) also abused it to death.
One part of the Big Lie is repetition: people will truly believe anything if its said by enough people. Peer pressure wasn’t just something your D.A.R.E. officer told you about to scare you; it is very, very real.
One Big Lie the left likes to tell is that Jesus commands people not to “judge” others, and by judge they mean “say that someone is doing something bad, or that a person is evil.” In fact they often quote Jesus’s words (twistedly, of course): “Judge lest ye be judged.”
Of course they’re lying.
Jesus never says don’t judge someone as sinning or being evil. The context of his quote is that Jesus is saying “don’t be a hypocrite when you judge people.” This is the whole “remove the mote from your own eye” argument-context. In fact, Jesus was condemning the Jewish high priests for their hypocrisy, as they would condemn people for sins they themselves or their family were committing and getting off scot-free.
Jesus had no problem for you condemning another’s sins if you were free of such sin yourself. In fact, in both the Gospel of Luke and in the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus orders his followers to do just that.
What Jesus hated in sinners was hypocrisy, which the Jewish high council had in droves. Compare Jesus’s treatment of prostitutes, thieves, and tax collectors. He dines with them because they know they are sinners and want t do better. Jesus curses those who sin and don’t care, or worse complain abut others doing their same sins. Compare, again, Jesus’s treatment of the two thieves he is crucified with—one has no repentance, and demands Jesus save them; Jesus ignores him, likely knowing that, that day, he would see him in hell. The other begs Jesus’s forgiveness for his crimes; Jesus pardons him and promises him heaven.
For example, if you don’t molest children, condemn homosexuals.
Fuck the left. Yay Jesus. Condemn sinners.
This is what you nigger-fucking and nigger-worshiping whores get and deserve: death and suffering at the hands of subhumans. lol
And no man will bother to save you anymore. Because you don’t deserve it.
Good riddance to bad rubbish. Let’s hope it gets out and kills a dozen more of you worthless bestiality-loving skanks. Because you don’t deserve to be saved.
The left has partially spent the last 70 or so years in the U.S. dismantling social clubs of the anti-left, whether they were openly anti-left—e.g. the Klan, the John Birch Society, the Minuteman border-enforcement movement—or else suspected of harboring future/underlying opposition to the leftist agenda—e.g. unions, the VFW, the Knights of Columbus, the Rotarians.
I’ll note that the only organization that is prominently anti-left today and not being diminished by leftist actions is the NRA.
Now, you might find it surprising that I would include unions as one of the groups that leftists have sought to dismantle. After all, aren’t unions reliably pro-democrat? Haven’t communists and socialists always supported and led union organizing? Didn’t Obama use the bailouts as cover to give taxpayer money to the unions that helped his election—a blatant kickback?
Yes, yes and yes. But the unions pre-1950s and the unions post the 1950s are very different things.
Pre-1950s unions were run on ethnic lines. Irish unions, Italian unions, Polish unions, etc. were the order of the day. While they often were under umbrella organizations like the AFL or CIO, the local union first and foremost looked out for local ethnic interests. This meant exclusions of other ethnicities when possible from local contracts, especially Negroes. In fact, the cooperation possible under the AFL and CIO between ethnic unions was largely driven by overt agreements to keep blacks from taking jobs from civilized humans. The patriotism displayed by such unions was designed to both quell communistic fears and for the pleasure of the members, who were genuinely pro-U.S.
The post-1950s social engineering of the left was designed to break non-black and non-Jewish ethnic solidarity. Hence unions, which had long supported leftists, were targeted by leftists with being forced to take black members. The pre-1950s unions would have never allowed the disaster of Detroit of the 1960s and 70s; however, once blacks were gerrymandered into union power and ethnic solidarity discouraged/threatened, the unions were the mere puppets of lefist social engineers and severely weakened.
Make no mistake that the free trade movement has been turned and used by leftists to destroy ethnic unions. The only unions in the U.S. left today are those where blacks and illegal immigrant Hispanics have mucho power. This is by design. And these are the unions who supported Obama.
The left also used the 1960s onward to attack ethnic-only clubs–while suspiciously leaving black and jewish organizations alone. Such ethnic-only organizations served as powerful local voting blocs, enforcers, and buffers for years against Negro savagery and leftist amoralistic propaganda. Your grandfather probably was very strongly encouraged by his elders to join at least one organization; today, precious few are.
Any victory over leftism must require the re-emergence of these social clubs, guilds, and, yes, unions, based on ethnic lines. Such clubs, when functioning well, ofter powerful political and social resistance to the left. This, of course, requires legal victories in court. The moment leftists suspect that X organization is just a front for non-Negro/non-Jewish ethnic interests, they will use the Civil Rights Acts to rip them apart and the media to demonize them. Long -term legal planning and propaganda planning would be necessary. This is not a victory we would see in this generation, just as the founders of the Fabian Society did not see the victories of their socialistic policies in their lives.
But it can be done.
This post was inspired by this unintentionally hilarious article. Go read it, please.
In case of tl;dr, the woman writer complains that women need to start asking men out on dates because men are too weak/stupid/unmacho/ungentlemanly to ask women out on dates anymore.
That’s right; according to authoress Lauren Martin, women deserve to be taken out on dates—proper, old fashioned, man pays-and-buys-flowers-and-holds-doors dates—and the only thing stopping this wonderful thing is the failures of men.
Now, at first, I was going to just link to the article and laugh.
Then I thought, nahhh, I should respond point-by-point, giving the shiv of truth to each and every one of Lauren Martin’s lies.
Then I thought, nahhh, too much work for soon-to-be-forgotten Feminazi whack-a-mole articles like this. Instead, why not give the girls some chick crack—e.g. a Cosmo-style quiz—while at the same time having each question mercilessly fisk and fuck their delicious little egos into fillet, sending them running to their wine cabinet and therapists and Girls reruns and gay bffs and feminazi studies classes for at least 5-10 years of rehab.
So ladies, please see the quiz below. Answer all the questions and answer each question truthfully. At the end, we can tally up your score and find out if you are truly worthy of a man taking you out on old fashioned, fun, dressed-up, he pays, he holds the door, dinner-and-a-movie, flowers-candy-card, classy dancing, sweet-peck-on-the-lips-on-your-front-stoop-but-nothing-more-expected date.
Ladies, Are You Date-Worthy?
As you can see ladies, the questions really answer themselves, don’t they? That is to say that, immediately upon reading each question, you knew–almost instinctively–what answers would be correct and render you still date-worthy, and what answers would be wrong and render you not worth it for a man to take out on a date. You knew it in your gut, though you hated the fact that you knew it, and that you knew it so well.
And, for some of you, what hurts even more is that even for so-called left-wing men, the “correct” answers and the “wrong” answers remain the same. That is to say that, even though certain men that you would date would express the views that my questions are stupid/don’t matter, you know instinctively that such men still would greatly prefer the “correct” answers.
Some of the questions are super-damning for wrong answers, while others aren’t so much deal breakers. I mixed and matched according to my whims and what struck me at the moment. Like a good psych quiz, I asked the same questions different ways, and followed easy questions with hard ones, just to keep you off balance. I’m awesome like that.
But I don’t need to really tell you if a certain wrong answer is super-damning or merely hurtful to your date-worthy chances; if you aren’t sure, ask a few gfs, or even your token gay bff. The more offended they are by a certain question, the more you can be certain that that question is a super-damning, automatic-disqualifier if you give the wrong answer.
By the way, this list is by no means exhaustive; I barely grazed the anti-male area of family law, for example. But it is comprehensive enough to give 90% of women out there a very, very good idea of what men want out of women, and, equally as important, what they, in the strongest terms, do not want.
What Date-Worthy Really Means
What Date-Worthy really means, ladies, is whether you are worthy of a long-term, locked-down relationship/marriage. You know that and we know that; that’s why, when you really like a fuck buddy, you’ll start whining or setting up circumstances—such as meeting for drinks around dinner time before you’re going to fuck—that will encourage him to lay down some change, hold a door, and otherwise be a boyfriend-on-a-date.
You know that if a man invests his money, time, and charm in public on you, it starts to lock him down into relationship status. Men who put time, money, and effort into courtship behavior are setting themselves up for relationships, whether they know it or not. It is instinctual and natural; when we invest effort into something, we expect it to mean something.
Once upon a time, most middle class women in America gave the “correct” answers to all the questions on this quiz. This is why men then took women on formalized dates; such women, because they gave the correct answers, were deemed date-worthy, and dates were designed to further test the waters for lifelong commitment, i.e. marriage. Other women—the sluts of their times—were not taken on dates; they ended up as bar floozies, prostitutes, yoked to underclass or unrespected men, or else lonely and alone in their lives. Johnny the Good Boy didn’t marry Suzy the Floozy, he married Mary the Good Girl.
And here’s a very important part you ladies need to hear: Johnny married Mary because it was a good deal for Johnny. Johnny got a loving, virginal wife who never compared his faults or shortcomings to past lovers; obeyed his word; respected him; cooked and cleaned for him; stayed feminine for him; gave him regular, faithful sex; and all-in-all remained a loyal wife.
These are what the “correct” answers mean to men: she is worthy of a man’s time and investment because she will reward the man with what he wants. And this is why your “wrong” answers today hurt you so much inside: you instinctively know that your actions have devalued you so that investing time, money, and effort on you isn’t worth it to a man today, unlike, say, your grandmother. Ladies, you are much less worthy of love—less “date-worthy”—than your own grandmother. Unlike your grandmother, you ladies aren’t a good deal for a man today.
Another way to put this for women is to stop thinking “what do I want out of a man” and start thinking “what does a man want in a woman.” Men—especially men in the PUA community—spend an inordinate amount of time wondering what he has to offer to a woman to get what he wants. Women would do well to wonder what they have to offer to a man to get what women want—dates, intimacy, long-term commitment, etc. And it ain’t just sex, ladies; no man every went to war, worked for 40 years at a worthless job, or built a mansion for a prostitute or the easy chick down the block.
What Happens When You’re Not Date-Worthy
There are some things you can do to mitigate the damage your “wrong” answers indicate. However, that is left to another post and time. I will say this much: many times the Rubicon cannot be uncrossed; the bell unrung; the die uncast. But despite this, you can at least mitigate such damage—and not in the ways you’re probably thinking.
Here’s an addendum to my last post:
This WASP + Jews v. Irish-Catholic would also go to explain the strange post-Civil War behavior of Northeast trader WASPs in their fight against Southern agricultural WASPs—otherwise known as the The Civil War.
When all WASPs landed here, they had no greater-than-normal moral problems with slavery. Northeast trader WASPs owned slaves and didn’t mind Southerners owning them either.
But slavery enabled the Southern WASPs to grow rich and powerful, while slavery didn’t help Northern WASPs do the same. Slavery was largely useless in the smaller farm lands of the North.
So the Northern WASPs sought to curtail Southern WASP power by cutting off slavery. Hence why Northern WASPs suddenly started getting “troubled” by black slavery, growing their movement into a full-scale religious movement—never mind that the Bible clearly has no agenda about slavery; it merely takes it as an existing human condition. The Bible’s only problem with slavery is when the Chosen People (Jews) are made slaves as a nation under the Egyptians.
The Northern WASPs stoked this moral crusade deliberately so that they could justify obliterating the Southern economy later—“yes, its sad your poor and starving now and without power, but what you did was sooooo eeevil.” They began heralding black achievements, propping up Frederick Douglas, fomenting slave rebellions (which inevitably failed, due to blacks being unable to sustain them), publishing The Liberator, etc. —all to give themselves the moral upper hand.
Then, post-Civil War, all this love of the black man just plain stopped. Once the Southern WASPs weren’t a threat, the blacks were no longer worth using, and the savages were forgotten to be dealt with by local Southern authorities. Reconstruction was ended because it was never really the goal.
This explains why the North could get so “morally outraged” over black slavery but not give a whit about the treatment of the red man going on at exactly the same time. One savage was useful in the fight for power; the other was just in the way of land grabs.
Today’s PC moral crusades are the same thing—and the feminazi and Negro and fag and trans crusades will be as quickly abandoned if the WASPs and Jews ever wrest power away and destroy the Irish-Catholic-power.
My belief is strengthened by these arguments.