Archive for the ‘Masculinity’ Category

Are You Date-Worthy? A Quiz for Women

September 11, 2014

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.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.

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.

Excellent plan.

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?

  1. Are you a virgin?
  2. Have you had 3 or fewer sexual partners?
  3. Have you ever had a one-night stand/fuck buddy/”it’s complicated” relationship that included physical sexual gratification for either of you?
  4. How many men have you kissed?
  5. How many men have you made out with?
  6. How many men have you given blow jobs to? How many of those have you swallowed? Allowed to cum on your face or body?
  7. How many men have you given hand jobs to?
  8. How many human penises have you deliberately touched?
  9. Have you ever had sex with a black guy? If so, how many?
  10. Are you lying about your answer to question #9?
  11. How many black guys have you kissed?
  12. How many black guys have you given a blow job to?
  13. How many black guys’ penises have you touched?
  14. Have you ever felt attracted to a black guy? Please explain.
  15. Have you ever said out loud that a black guy was attractive, “sexy”, or in any way sexually worthy? How many times and to whom?
  16. Do you listen to rap/hip-hop/whatever marketing word they’re calling it this week? Have you ever been to a rap/hip-hop/etc. concert?
  17. Have you ever had an abortion?
  18. Do you believe abortion should be legal? Paid for by the government? Celebrated as a right?
  19. Are you a feminist? If not, how much of feminism do you agree with?
  20. How often do you masturbate? Do you have a dildo?
  21. Do you vote Democrat, or anything that Fox News would call left-wing?
  22. Are you proud America elected Obama?
  23. Do you think we need more blacks and/or women and/or other minorities in political power?
  24. Do you believe that blacks are held down because of unfair racism against them, and that they are just as smart and good and kind as anyone else, or more so?
  25. Who do you think was right: Trayvon Martin or George Zimmerman?
  26. Who do you think was right: Michael Brown or the cops of Ferguson, MO?
  27. Do you think nationalized healthcare is good for America?
  28. Are you in favor of affirmative action?
  29. Are you in favor of gay marriage?
  30. Do you believe gays and transgender people are just born that way?
  31. Do you believe gays and transgender people are normal?
  32. Do you want to get married and have children?
  33. Did you major in a humanity? If so, did the title end in “studies” or “theory”?
  34. Do you have a graduate degree?
  35. Are you overweight according to the BMI scale?
  36. Have you ever kissed, fondled, or had sex with another woman?
  37. Have you ever been involved in a sexual encounter involving more than two people? Kissing, making out, and light petting count here.
  38. Do your friends consider you sexually adventurous?
  39. Have you ever taken a naked selfie, or one where you are dressed provocatively? Have you ever sent it to a straight male or posted it where a straight male could see it?
  40. Are you on Twitter?
  41. Do you think a man should be king of his castle?
  42. Do you think a woman should obey her man?
  43. How often do you get drunk? (note: “tipsy”=drunk for the purposes of this quiz).
  44. How often do you use recreational drugs/illegal substances? When was the last time?
  45. How often do you date or have sex outside your race? Races for this quiz: White, East Asian, South Asian, Arab/Persian, Native American/Red. If you are considered “mestizo”, you may claim both races. Jews can group themselves by skin color here.
  46. How often do you date or have sex outside your ethnicity? Your ethnicity is the country of origin of your parents’ ancestors. Don’t be obtuse; if you’re a mutt but mostly Northern European, use most of those countries, but if you’re 100% Irish or Chinese, use that one nationality alone. Jews count as a separate ethnicity here.
  47. Do you go to the same house of worship for services at least 2x a month?
  48. Does that house of worship have only male clergy? What percentage of the administrators are female?
  49. Do you believe in your religion’s teachings? Do you believe in God (or gods)?
  50. Does your religion/church support homosexuality, abortion, affirmative action, government-provided healthcare, or any other planks of the Democratic party?
  51. Do you have a gay bff? Is he promiscuous?
  52. Do you believe a woman should have a career when she is 22?
  53. What is the proper age for a woman to start having children?
  54. At what age do you want to have children?
  55. Would you or have you ever gone backstage or on the tour bus or into a VIP lounge with a male celebrity?
  56. Same question as #55, but with the condition that you have been on or have gone on at least one date with a guy that went well and you two are texting?
  57. For older girls: were you Team Aniston or Team Jolie?
  58. Have you ever cheated on a man you were dating? Kissing, making out, holding hands, touching each other’s bodies, foreplay, sex are all cheating.
  59. Have you ever competed with a man for a job or promotion?
  60. Is it ok for a woman to cheat if she’s lonely, depressed, or she’s fallen out of love with her man?
  61. Did you ever beat a man in competing for a job or promotion?
  62. Did you ever want to beat a man in competing for a job or promotion?
  63. Can you cook a complete meal? Do you do so at least 3 times per week?
  64. Can you clean? Is your home/apartment/room clean?
  65. When not dressed for work, do you dress feminine?
  66. When not dressed for work, do you wear dresses? How often?
  67. Do you watch reality TV? Talk shows? TV dramas? TV scripted comedies? Which ones? How many hours per day?
  68. Do you watch pornography?
  69. Do you have tattoos? How many? How large? Are they visible when wearing any of your own skimpy summer outfits?
  70. Do you believe organizations and companies should be allowed to be all male and exclude blacks?
  71. Have you ever flashed anyone?
  72. Do you swear? How often?
  73. Do you ever say or think that you get along better with men rather than women?
  74. Is there a box of condoms in your room?
  75. Do you believe a woman should look pretty for her man?
  76. If you are overweight, are you ruthlessly trying to get underweight?
  77. Have you ever participated in or cheered on a Slut Walk?
  78. Do you believe women have a responsibility to dress appropriately?
  79. Do you believe single mothers are good mothers?
  80. Do you believe in divorce?
  81. Have you ever been divorced?
  82. Do you agree to raise any children in the religion, town, and way your husband decides?
  83. Do you believe sex is about intimacy, or is more physical?
  84. Do you believe a woman in a serious relationship/marriage has a duty to sexually please her man even if she isn’t in the mood?
  85. If you get into an argument with a man, would you ever throw a drink at him or hit him in anger? Note that “playful hitting”=hitting. If so, and he punched you or slapped you hard, would you consider that fair?
  86. Do you know that regret is not rape?
  87. Do you watch “Keeping up with the Kardashians,” “The Daily Show”, “The Colbert Report,” any kind of talk show, “The Today Show”, anything on MSNBC, or anything on Bravo or E!?
  88. Do you listen to top 40 radio? What about NPR?
  89. Have you ever embarrassed a man who was trying to flirt with you? Ask you out on a date? Get your phone number?
  90. Have you ever liked a man, only to have your gfs/gay bffs dissuade you from dating him?

Quiz Answers

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

You’re fucked.

Just kidding.

Kind of.

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.

Strong Fathers=Strong Anti-Feminist Daughters: Margaret Thatcher

April 25, 2013

I watched a documentary tonight on Margaret Thatcher, the recently deceased, long-time right-wing British prime minister. It aired tonight on New York’s local public television station, and surely the commies there must have gnashed their teeth, as it mostly praised the “Iron Lady,” whose politics led Britain from near bankruptcy and turmoil of the 1970s caused by left-wing policies to the prosperity of the “Cool Brittania” 1990s (which Tony Blair’s left-wing Labour Party took credit for, but only by adopting much of Mrs. Thatcher’s economic policies).

Now the documentary flashed back a few times to her youth. Thatcher was a plain-faced girl; she was no great beauty in her youth, despite several politicians trying to paint her as such. She had a rather man-jaw appearance for her time (still more feminine than the muscular beasts of today, however), as well as a lazy eye. She was, all in all, a good example, physically, of the common potato-sack English country girl that have disappointed many a foreigner foraging England for tasty bits to eat. They are not as fat as American girls, but we still have a baseline of beauty in the U.S. (excluding our descendant-of-slave women, natch) that exceeds England’s roses; no wonder so many English men fantasize about an American lass (Ted Hughes, John Cleese, hell, Russell Brand anyone?).

Given her flawed appearance and above-average intelligence—she was an Oxbridge girl— in today’s world, Mrs. Thatcher would have been told, nay, ordered to think that she was a lesbian. And had her father left her family, as so many do today, or been a weak man, her lack of father figure would have made her easy prey to the feminist lies that so easily slip in when men do not slam the door in their faces. Dykes would have stalked her to and fro, and “sexual experimentation” would have been set upon her to fill the void of a father figure. She would have grown to hate men, loathe men, blame men for to loving her, not taking care of her—and demand the state fill the void. The wolves of perversion most easily slip into meadows where no sheep dogs lie to protect tender, weak lambs.

But no; she had a strong father.

One solid reason for the rise of feminism—the “feminazi loop” as I think of it—is the percentage of women and men who grow up with single-parent (re: female) households. The more this has increased, the more feminism has risen. And the more feminism has risen, the more men have checked out of marriage; the more weak men, subservient to women, have bowed down to their wives and feminism; and the more transient men have become “temporary daddies” to the daughters of the women they fuck. All this allows daughters to feel a whole in their lives where fathers should have been, to feel abandoned, and to have that abandonment easily turned to hatred for the men not in their lives.

But Margaret Thatcher’s father was different, as the documentary (and evidence) shows. Thatcher’s father was not the bumbling simpleton of modern sitcoms, content to be pushed around by a domineering wife–which is the story a feminazi would have you believe causes strong women who lead. Nor was he some terrible tyrant who inspired great hatred in Thatcher for his evil, making for a narrative about Thatcher being some social crusader against evil Patriarchy. Nor did he abandon the family, thus making some narrative about how Thatcher learned how to be strong from a “strong, independent womyn,” i.e. her mother.

No: Mrs. Thatcher’s father, Alfred Roberts, was a self-made man (a dirty term to many British) who built himself from a poor boy with no employment into a successful businessman, local politician, and local church leader. He lectured strongly but lovingly to his daughters, and probably encouraged Margaret, the smart but plain one, to do chemistry at college (which she did major in) so that the plain girl could have better prospects for a husband (as nerdy men would be less picky) or a solid career should no man take her (STEM degrees, then as now, never suffer for demand like fluffy humanities do).

But his most important job was as the moral and intellectual shaper of his children’s lives. He lectured them from the pulpit and the dinner table. He emphasized frugality and never spending more than what you had, and lived by such an example—he seldom, if ever, borrowed money. He encouraged modesty and femininity in tune with self-confidence; a combination any historian can recognize in the best females of history, but is alien to the twisted dogma of feminazis today. He filled his home with the intellectual discourse of conservative-libertarian thought that he followed, and made his daughters read the same. He taught them that self-reliance was one of man’s highest goals, and that shame, not greedy palms, should mark the hands of those who needed a handout. People, not laws of the state, should help those in need. He enforced Christian, patriotic, dutiful morality upon them, through example, lecture, and testing. And he kept them from the idle froppery and lazy self-indulgence that many rising-class families can suffer. He demanded a feminine daughter, and he got her.

As a result, Margaret Thatcher did not grow up hating men, become a lesbian, sire brats out of wedlock, or demand a totalitarian welfare state. Instead, she valued men, especially her father. As the documentary points out, he was largely the most important person in her life; one of the only ways to make her lose her cool was to insult him. She loved the man, and his strength gave her the strength to save her nation. She never doubted herself, or used her femininity to claim that she was a victim (Hilary Clinton, anyone?); she refused to have herself, or her nation be womanish victims, as her piercing actions against the many union rioters (stirred up by KGB agitators, no doubt, and forerunners of our Occutards) and the Argentinians in the Falkland Islands war show.

Perhaps the most touching moment of the documentary is her T.V. interview following her victory in the Falklands, where she is happiest that not one more British solider or sailor will be at risk. This is especially touching considering that, just before, the documentary showed peaceniks blaming her for “needlessly” attacking Argentinian ships. Mrs. Thatcher angrily replies she attacked a ship “supposedly” not doing anything for one reason—to save British military boys whom those Argentinian ships threatened.

This women loved masculinity, and masculinity in one of its highest forms: military men patriotically dying in battle.

The shame cast on all feminists is that this towering figure of history—this woman–is never possible in a feminazi-made world. It was only a strong father that could make a daughter love men, deplore left-wing thought and all its weak, blame men, celebrate female-illogic bullshit.

Strong fathers=strong women. Women unafraid to love men, and to rip man-hating feminazis and other leftists a new one.

R.I.P. Iron Lady. For you truly were equal parts lady and iron.

Men of the West, Listen to Aurini’s Gold

March 13, 2013

Men of the West, listen to Aurini’s gold.

Sharia law is looking very good, ladies. Beat you into submission and silence, castrate the niggers, stone the fags, re-promote male leadership and greatness.

Leftist chickens…are coming home…to roost.

Stupidity, Thy Name is Kayla Monster

December 7, 2012

Here’s a typical idiot, a left-wing “womyn” trying to argue that Atlas Shrugged” is stupid, without ever having read it.

Read her post here, and then come back for my counter below. I posted it as a comment today, but I doubt she has the balls or intellectual capacity to allow it through moderation—the “too mean/too nasty/stop pointing out I’m stupid!”-hamster logic of a woman.

This is the kind of stupidity feminism hath wrought.

————————————————

God, this is dumb. You fail so hard. You must be a woman.

1. You admit you that “I still haven’t read Atlas Shrugged.” And yet you discern from only the first page that, in Atlas Shrugged, “Rand chose Atlas for her Titan because the image of Prometheus would destroy her entire argument. Cherry-picking the evidence, she took traits from both brothers, combining the (incorrect) image of Atlas holding the world on his shoulders with Prometheus’ compassion.”

Um, what? What proof do you offer that Rand painted her “Atlas”-folk as compassionate?

None.

In fact, Rand never said Atlas ever acted out of compassion. She deplored charity, compassionate religions (well, all religions), and altruism. She was a very strong proponent of the notion that people should act selfishly.

Nowhere does Atlas Shrugged say that Atlas acts out of compassion. And your ignorant statement that it does only underscores your assertion that you haven’t read it. If you’re going to make a statement about what a piece of writing says, you have to read it first.

In other words, your criticism as to why Rand didn’t name it Prometheus Unchained is completely invalid.

Ignoramous.

2. To start, Atlas isn’t carrying the world on his shoulders. He’s carrying the sky

—Yawn. Weak criticism. Common artistic interpretations of Atlas are of his holding the earth on his shoulders, and most people who are not Ancient Greek scholars/heavily into ancient Greek myth study would make that error. Given that the metaphor is well understood (“having the world on your shoulders”), it’s pathetic of you to require it of Rand. Are you going to require it of the thousands of artists who created images of Atlas holding up globes?

What is more, think of the metaphor of Sisyphus. If we describe a task as “Sisyphean”, does that mean we think it’s a punishment for betraying the trust of someone, or murdering houseguests? No? Because that’s what Sisyphus did to earn his torments. But artistic interpretation and common usage have both come to use the phrase “sisyphean” as merely a task that is endless, monotonous, burdensome, and pointless.

Unless you’re going to start scolding and dismissing thousands of artists (poets, prose writers, sculptors, painters, musicians, etc.) who have used these commonly accepted meanings of the Atlas and Sisyphus myths, I’d suggest leaving the cheap-grad-school-like nitpicking behind on this one.

Moron.

3. Disregarding the myths, she created a new one, where Atlas’ punishment is self-inflicted, the result of a societally-created belief in the virtues of compassion.

—Wrong again, stupid.

Atlas’s punishment in Rand’s world is that he holds up the burdens of the entire world—the finance, the innovation, the tax burdens, the governments, the technology, everything.

Rand didn’t believe everyone was the same or equal in ability or importance. Rand believed that there were some incredibly smart, incredibly talented people whose accomplishments and self-interest benefited society greatly—and without these few, the vast majority would founder. Call it her own version of the Great Man Theory.

In Rand’s world, it is their self-interest that supports the world and its burdens—but if the world asked too much of them, they will show the world who supports whom.

Again, like an idiot, your arguing that Rand claimed these Great Men had compassion or should have it. Nothing of the sort.

Liar.

4. Atlas can’t shrug, because if he somehow managed it, Zeus would come by and stick the heavens right back on his shoulders.

—-Except that the world trembles, and, if done completely, it falls crashing down.

The point of Rand’s story is what happens if Atlas (again, using the common artistic metaphor of holding the world on his shoulders) momentarily “shrugs.” He could shrug the world off his shoulders completely, thereby bringing it crashing down. Or he could just give a minor shrug—causing the world to rattle, shake, and its inhabitants to fall down in stupor and terror.

Which is the point of Rand’s story—which you could see if you’d even bothered to do a modicum of research of even the base plot outline (or, you know, like an intelligent person, read the book).

When the Atlases of the story—the genius, self-interested capitalists–shrug, they merely refuse to work anymore due to onerous social and governmental requirements/punishments. In the story, the economy and transit of the US grind to a half–because it was precisely the Altases who kept them going.

Yes, in the myth, Zeus may come back and “force” the world back on Atlas’s shoulders—but, should Atlas not be pleased with his burden, the people of the world will be punished again, as he will “shrug” again when Zeus is not looking, causing the world to fall apart again (and this will result in fewer sacrifices for Zeus and the gods, who need the people’s sacrifices to survive).

And here we see another meaning of the metaphor of the shrug. When a person “shrugs”, they express a disinterest or uncaring and dismissive attitude towards a subject. “Atlas Shrugs” also means the self-interested “doers” of Rand’s world simply do not care if the world falls apart due to their actions—they “shrug” at the problems, and are only self-interested. As they accomplish their goals in “going Galt”, we can see that “shrugging” at the problems of the world in pursuit of your own goals is a positive in Rand’s book.

I realize this is a bit beyond you, since you’re too ignorant to read something you’re criticizing , but the point isn’t that Zeus would put the globe right back on Atlas’s shoulders.

The point of the title-metaphor is at least two fold: to show what happens when common people punish society’s producers for no crime, and to show the attitude that the producer’s should have towards such punishers.

Philistine.

5. this is the same woman who went on Medicare late in her life, but did it under a false name; to admit she needed help from the government would have been to admit the flaws in her ideas.

—LMAO ROFL.

Here’s where you show yourself to be truly dumb. And I’ll bet you think this is a “strong” criticism.

Home mortgage deduction: Let’s say a person hates the home mortgage deduction tax deduction that we get from the IRS. This person thinks it’s both inefficient and a revenue killer for government, and that it screws up the housing market (even more than Fannie Mae,/Freddie Mac/FHA loans/and Al Sharpton already have). This person rail against it and think says publicly and loudly that we should abolish it.

Does he need to forgo the tax deduction on his next tax bill to prove he’s not a hypocrite?

No.

This person identified what he sees as a flaw in the system. He believes that if everyone had it taken away, the country would be better off. However, given that such a flaw still exists the next time he does his taxes, his forgoing it would do nothing. Those people he hates would use it, become richer, and market would still be screwed up, and his energies would be diverted from railing against the inefficiency to earning money to make up for the loss of not applying for the tax deduction. His actions do nothing but punish him from feeding at the tragedy of the commons.

This man’s taking the mortgage deduction does not affect his credibility.

Hypocrisy would be saying that something is morally or legally evil/wrong, being “caught” doing it, and yet claim the same punishments he put on others should not be put on him.

Like that fine lefty Eliot Spitzer.

A poor person can recognize that the Welfare State keeps many poor from moving up. However, he can still collect from it while railing against it. A great-scoring hockey player can recognize the stupidity of the penalty shot format in a tied game and holler against it at union meetings, but still can participate in it while it is part of the rules. A lawyer could think that the Fifth Amendment is a ludicrous idea and should be abolished, but still advise his clients to take it on the stand while it is still good law.

Perhaps this kind of nuanced, deep thinking is beyond someone with the simplistic brain of a “stealing money good/rich people are evil” mindset. But…

It is not hypocritical to take advantage of a (legal) flaw in the system that you’ve noted should be removed.

Eejit.

Kindly go light yourself on fire. And next time you open your fat, hairy trap about something, make sure you know what you’re talking about first.

Reasons Why I Drink, #1

November 28, 2012

Reasons why I drink, #1

Gavin McInnes is Canadian, who came here because it was a refuge from Canada’s increasing police state. But now that we’re a police state—where can we go?

Caveat to the fact that not all of his “outrageous arrests” hit home with me. I’ve learned that sometimes one-side of a story is very different from all the facts. For example, the Indy 500 driver he mentions who got arrested for trespassing on protected land—I immediately thought “he could have been illegally hunting and covering it up.”

But still—those news stories on his list that I know of make me cry. And do a shot of Jameson.

Here’s to what America once was, and down with what it has become.

Ann Althouse: Murdering a Newborn Child is Ok, We Should Have Sympathy for the Murderer

October 3, 2012

Easy Annie A. does it again.

First, it was 1984-ing any comments that brought up factual black dysfunction while at the same time posting that showing videos of black people taken with their permission is evil racism.

Now, it’s claiming that a girl who murdered her newborn son after hiding her pregnancy is somehow a sympathetic hero.

This is leftism, America; where truth goes to die, and murdering children is an act of heroism.

Chuck Rudd must feel right at home there.

A Great Combination of Black & Female Solipsism

May 24, 2012

A great combination of black & female solipsism. And, of course, the stupidity of both groups.

8.5 minutes of an ugly, stupid Auntie J whore complaining that black men who can’t “handle” her are:
1) tiny-penised; 2) short; 3) poor; 4) desperate; and 5) angry. And that such men who won’t date her should be violently killed.

Gotta love her pseudo-Bilbical language she poorly attempts to lend her credence, and her attempts at a call-and-response WHEN SHE IS ALL ALONE. That’s the kind of nigger-I.Q. that supposedly is merely held down by racism.

Stupidity. Ugliness. Violence.

Welcome to the base of the Demon-rat party. Welcome to Obama’s bitch.

A Silver Lining to the George Zimmerman Murder Charge?

April 12, 2012

(This post is a re-post of a comment that I made at Firepower’s blog Eradica, on a post entitled “Zimmerman MUST Die“).

This is a witch hunt, a mob lynching, an Ox-Bow incident, a blood libel—this we know.

However, upon hearing more of these reports , I think I may see a silver lining. Hear me out:

Zimmerman’s father is a judge, and knows the value of two things in a trial: “air support” (i.e. getting the media to agree to your message/version of events) and cooling off rabble rousers who delight in chaos (e.g. Al Sharpton, Pres. Obama, etc.).

Zimmerman’s family has put out statements defending him, while scrupulously keeping him hidden, preventing 1) his being killed by a lefty; and 2) keeping him from being caught unawares, like a sacrificial lamb, by a lefty reporter with Al Sharpton in tow.

So that’s all and good. But Obama, Holder, and Sharpton demanded blood. Now, the prosecutors may have thought this: we don’t have a case. We might get an indictment, but then we couldn’t drop it without fanfare. But the niggers are out in force on this, and would riot and murder people if we don’t do something—-heck, they’re already threatening his life.

So here’s the plan (which they make with Zimmerman and his legal team):

We charge him without indictment, so there is less procedural evidence to muck up a dismissal later. Then we don’t arraign him for a while—two months—-while he sits in jail. Yes, it sucks for him, but he’ll be in protective custody, and the niggers will be pacified he’s in jail.

In two months, hopefully, the media will have moved on to another story, and the panthers will have left town/been arrested for their continuous crimes. We arraign him, and then put off the trial for a long time–six months–till after the election.

Then, after the election, no matter who wins, we just quietly drop the charges. After the campaigns are over, David Axelrod will have very little use for Trayvon.

It means we can’t give a big fuck you to the niggers and the left. But at least George survives the lynch mob and Al Sharpton leaves town.

Let’s pray this happens.

(h/t: Firepower)

SWPL Doctor Lies About Black Crime, Attacks Whitey Who Says Otherwise

April 11, 2012

I was at OneSTDV‘s blog the other day, reading this post here on Derbyshire’s article (I talked about Derb’s article on this post here).

Anyway, someone on OneSTDV’s blog post linked to a post on a website known as A Cartoon Guide to Becoming A Doctor, ostensibly by some broad finishing up her medical training (side note: isn’t affirmative action grand, when a less-qualified, dumber woman is a doctor instead of the white/Jewish/Asian male whose spot she took because of diversity? Yeah, we’re all safer with less-qualified doctors.)

The post linked to was one entitled “Legendary.” In the post, the doctor recounts a “good” story from her youth. Basically, she’s a good SWPL, as were all her friends, but one guy in her high school class was not. They all got into a debate on capital punishment, where the “bad” guy said that “more crimes are committed by blacks.”

The “good” part of the story? According to the SWPL-doctor, a darkie from the NAACP was there and chewed out the white boy for “being wrong”—i.e. sat there and got angry and screamed and yelled and used her seniority, adulthood, and SWPLs-will-allow-blacks-to-do-anything-and-never-criticize-them position top publicly embarrass this boy and shout him down.

And, of course, the SWPL doctor loved it. Because SWPLs believe lying is ok when it comes to covering up black crime statistics.

Even better, when I sent her a few emails calling her what she is—a lying, two-faced, blame-whitey cuntrag—-she got so pissy and scared that she had a boy email me nasty things back—-because she was too chicken shit to stand by her own words. And, of course, being a lefty, she immediately “censored” any comments on her blog that challenged her fucked-up worldview. Because free speech to lefties is only valid when it supports their lies.

Pray to god she meets Trayvon Martin’s friends in a back alley somewhere.

This is How to Fight Lefties

April 9, 2012

This is how to fight lefties.

Use their goddamn alinksy tactics against them. Hold their hypocrisy high. And when they refuse to correct it, purge them from their jobs.

Go to hell, lefties.

I stand with George Zimmerman and John Derbyshire. Trayvon Martin was a miserable thug nigger WHO DESERVED TO DIE.