Archive for the ‘TV’ Category

Lena Dunham Molests Children; This is What a Child Molester Looks Like

November 4, 2014
Lena Dunham: Child Molester

Lena Dunham: Child Molester

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:

  • She admits that, when she was 7 and her sister was 1, she pried open her sister’s legs to view her vagina while watching her sister. There is also an implication at this point that Dunham then stuffed rocks into her sister’s vagina and tries to blame it on her 1-year-old sister.
  • She admits that she used to manipulate her sister into lying in bed on top of her while she (Dunham) masturbated.
  • She admits to bribing her sister with candy and other ruses to make out with her—and calls her methods “anything a sexual predator might do.”

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.

Just a reminder: The Bible says you should judge

October 20, 2014

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.

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.


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.

Leftism as a Cult?: A Tenative Hypothesis

January 20, 2013

I’ve had a rather murky epiphany as of late. If it holds true, it could provide to myself and other anti-leftists a wealth of power and knowledge in combating the evil that is leftism. And it comes, strangely, from fire-bomber Ann Coulter.

I do not know quite how to take Coulter—is she a career-driven loudmouth who only takes extreme right wing opinions because she thinks it will give her more fame? Is she genuinely adhering to most or all of her extreme beliefs? Or is she merely a right-winger who deliberately pushes more extreme right wing views to “give space” to more moderate righties? I do not know. But in thinking about her thesis in Godless: the Church of Liberalism, I have realized that she was on to something.

Certainly she was not the first, nor the most articulate in pointing out that left-wing ideology is like a religion to adherents. However, to the generation of people who became politically aware in the 1990s and 2000s, she is the loudest voice asserting this.

So I’ve explored this issue, and concluded that the idea the leftism is a religion is both right and wrong. It is right to say it is a substitute spiritualism for leftists. However, it is wrong to say that leftism is a religion.

Instead, leftism is, I tentatively believe, a cult.

Any assistance from readers in helping me flesh this out in the coming weeks would be greatly appreciated. I plan on a series of posts explaining my belief that left wing thought is a cult.

America Hates Christians and Niggers Hate White Guys Who Play Better Than Blacks

January 12, 2012

America hates Christians and niggers hate white guys who play better than blacks.

Tim Tebow’s detractors have been covered all over the manosphere, the whiteosphere, the conervativeosphere, and even in the mainstream media. Pretty much everyone, both supporters and detractors, agree on the following points: 1) Tebow is a very nice guy who is projecting a good role model for youth; 2) Tebow’s numbers aren’t that good; 3) he isn’t doing anything in his proselytizing that other athletes, both black and white, have done for years; 4) his wins have been exciting, underdog, last-minute miracles that keep people entertained; and 5) for some reason, despite never having a public fight (or even disagreement) with anyone, he’s extremely polarizing.

Much of this is akin to Duke Hate—that phenomenon where black people and white lefties hate white athletes (and other entertainers) who do better than a majority of blacks at perceived “black” activities. The visceral hatred that black people (and their white suck-ups) display towards such whites goes back at least 30 years—I remember during the 1980s in Boston the Celtics, a dominant championship team, were “black America’s most hated team” because: 1) the Celtics could legitimately field a floor of five talented white guys who could beat a floor of black guys; 2) their superstar, Larry Bird, was a white cocky asshole who trashed talked black guys without remorse and beat them in the clutch; and 3) they had heated rivalries with the L.A. Lakers (a predominantly black team led by Magic Johnson, a charismatic black superstar), the Houston Rockets (led by white-hating Moses Malone), and, last, the late 1980’s Detroit Pistons (who, in addition to representing the black-Democrat-ghetto failure city known as Detroit, had black mega-assholes Isiah Thomas and Dennis Rodman leading their team—where Thomas and Rodman stupidly argued that Bird wasn’t as good as them).

Most likely, such racial hatred goes back to the beginning of time. Now, I get that every ethnic group feels that an interloper doing better at an activity that the ethnic group takes pride in will engender a large amount of hostility. In fact, this is often why the reverse is true—an interloper will be held up by the interloper’s own group as a “hero” for doing well at an activity the group traditionally does poorly at. Everyone wants to cheer for someone who looks like them; this is natural and, if kept civilized, such pride in ethnic accomplishments and desire to dominate the activity is a positive trait.

However, in in the current p.c. world, whites are not allowed to openly display such pride, feelings, and thoughts, while blacks (mostly niggers) not only display them, they amplify them to extreme. utterly hypocritically, lefties allow blacks thsi broad social path while attempting to shun any white who even sets foot here.

And then we get a true nigger here, Charles Barkley, dissing on Tebow openly, making thinly veiled attacks on him based on religion and race, all the while claiming that Tebow’s a good guy (I’m surprised Barkley doesn’t call him “boy” while he’s at it).

Barkley has often been celebrated (especially by lefty sportswriters, but sometimes by idiot anti-lefties) as a racial truth teller, who says things that are deep and profound and true to challenge us all with his intellectual profundity and our societal hypocrisy.

In truth, Barkley says these things because he’s a dumb nigger who spouts off whatever comes into his mind, and, because he is a black superstar athlete with a loudmouthed reputation, he doesn’t get punished for any assholishness that comes with it. People trying to claim he’s a deep truthteller are like people who claim their dogs understand what they are saying; nope, honey, the dog is just a stupid, unthinking animal.

But beyond Barkley and his niggerness, take a look at the slide show attached to the article, showing various athletes and celebrities “Tebowing”—that is, bowing onto one knee, hand on forehead, mocking the position that Tebow takes when he prays during games, which is often as Tebow is an evangelical Christian.

Could you imagine if a devout Muslim player, who openly proselytized his faith and prayed during games, had his prayer position mocked in public? Or an Orthodox Jewish player? Or even a Black Christian player? It would never happen. Such people would be blasted by both the p.c. police and any interest groups associated with them (ADL,NAACP, I’m looking at you). Apologies would be issued by the celebrities by the cartful, endorsement deals would be lost, money would have to be “donated” and suspensions would abound.

The fact that so many celebrities feel that Christianity in white people can openly be mocked without incident is another sign of the decline of the America. The religion of the majority of Americans is now a punchline all because a clean-cut whitey is sincerely promoting it.

Fuck you, niggers. Fuck you, NFL. Fuck you, America.

A Tough Grrrl Feminist Rocker…Is Nothing but a Player’s Fuckdoll

December 29, 2011

A tough grrrl feminist rocker…is nothing but a player’s fuckdoll. She’s a slave to game and her ovaries, not feminist credo.

Joan Jett is a famous girl rock star. She achieved most of her fame during the 1980s, where she was the token girl “hair band” singer who allowed feminists to pretend that women can compete with men in music. She was also in a semi-known band from the 1970s called The Runaways, who mostly got fame as a novelty group (all young fuckable girls playing guitars) and feminazi over-promotion.

Anyway, Joan Jett has tough grrrl credentials that should make any women’s softball catcher swoon: hard left politics, wearing “leather” and non-girly outfits, vegetarianism, skankiness, and general outspokenness for “women.” For this forward-thinking, non-traditional, totally out-of-the-box musical genius gyno-american, we can definitely expect her to embrace soft, sensitive men, respectful white-knight feminist manginas, or even the occasional butch cis-trangender alternative gyno-american….

And then comes this song, one of her biggest hits, which she claims to have co-written: I Hate Myself For Loving You. And forever Joan Jett is shown to be what she is: a slave to evolution.

The lyrics to I Hate Myself for Loving You reveal that Joan Jett’s tough grrl, feminazi act is just that…an act.

Important Note Note: I’m ignoring for the moment that there’s a co-writer on this song, and that there’s a good probability (common in the music industry) that Jett’s name was probably slapped onto this song to give it “credibility” as “authentic” and not “studio-approved, producer-written rock” which is what Jett’s career has largely been. (This is a common practice in the music industry—an “artist” can receive writing credit on a song he didn’t write, if only to keep up illusions to the audience, but the royalties for the song will remain with the real writers.) However, even if Jett did not write the song, she still chose to sing it and embrace its lyrics and meanings at a time when she had control over her career—making the words as true for her mindset as if she’d written them herself.

If you’ve never heard the song, I urge you to watch the YouTube video of the original video. It’s a pretty rockin’ 1980’s song, fun to listen to, fun to sing along to, and probably pretty great for drunk girls to sing when they’re all riled up at a boyfriend on the fritz.

Anyway, now let’s get to the lyrics, which prove Jett to be, at heart, a weak-willed girl submissive to game:

Midnight gettin’ uptight Where are you
You said you’d meet me now it’s quarter to two
I know I’m hangin’ but I’m still wantin’ you

So this first verse establishes that Joan Jett…Joan fuckin’ Jett…is waiting up all night for a guy to show up. The song indicates it was at least two hours (midnight to 2am), but it’s pretty obvious whoever the guy is, he told her to meet him that night…probably a lot earlier, since she’s uptight by midnight waiting for him.And yet, despite the fact that this “tough grrl” is hanging out, she still wants the guy currently standing her up, not the fun times she’s supposedly having out at a bar/club/with her friends.

Hey Jack It’s a fact they’re talkin’ in town
I turn my back and you’re messin’ around
I’m not really jealous don’t like lookin’ like a clown

Now, not only do we learn that he’s standing her up after promising to hang with her, and after she’s still pining for him despite having “fun,” he’s openly cheating on her with other women in public. And yet she still wants him that evening! And the last line is a great feminist-hampster-spin-rationalization of her alpha lust, a face-saving maneuver only a woman could believe: oh, she’s not jealous (she’s having lots of fun waiting for him to come pump her after he’s done with the other whore!), she just doesn’t like the social approbation of being played on. Yeah right, she loves it!

Now, the CHORUS:
I think of you ev’ry night and day
You took my heart then you took my pride away
I hate myself for loving you
Can’t break free from the the things that you do
I wanna walk but I run back to you that’s why
I hate myself for loving you

The emotional turmoil of a girl in love with an alpha-player who also claims feminism: she fell for his bad boy alphaness hard, and it kills her, because her feminist training and wee little brain are telling her this guy is not the soft, sensitive, her-respecting man she’s supposed to want…but despite what her brain is telling her, her slutty legs (opened up for him, thankfully, by feminist dogma) keep running her back to a man standing her up and openly cheating on her.


Daylight spent the night without you
But I’ve been dreamin’ ’bout the lovin’ you do
I won’t be as angry ’bout the hell you put me through

Now, not only has he stood her up for a few hours, but THE ENTIRE NIGHT. And probably with some random hookup slut. And yet, even in the cold light of morning, with the night’s power worn off, drunk horniness assuaged, and the prospects of a busy day, with her pride in tatters, she STILL pines for the man putting her through the ringer–she dreamed of only him all night.

The last line’s a bit murky. Either she’s saying a good fuck will make her forget her anger about the last 24 hours, or else she’s saying that the good dreams/passage of time overnight has lessened her anger. It doesn’t matter; in both cases, its proof that alphaness overrides any negative emotion directed at it by an entranced female. She is a hapless stooge to his testosterone.


Hey man betcha you can treat me right
You just don’t know what you was missin’ last night
I wanna see you beggin’, say forget it just for spite

Gentlemen, this is a shit test, writ large—it’s the last defense of the female ego, but it is never fully broken down. Women will ALWAYS shit test, and this proves it, if only for their pride. Being a “tough grrl” Jett needs to show something more than “I wish he wouldn’t treat me so bad.” She tries to project her tough facade, shit testing him with a lame dare/test, which tomboy women thinks makes them one of the boys. And the test? Demanding he treat her well.

Then she tries to entice him by implying that the sex with the other chick (s) wasn’t as good as hers would have been—either 1) claiming he’s never fucked her (laughable, this is skanky Joan Jett); or 2) she would do more than the other girls did (showing her weakness to do anything to retain her alpha male). Every woman, gentlemen, thinks her pussy is made of gold and shoots rainbows into your dick. But this is also a shit test…she’s testing whether promising more/better sex can stop the alpha from tom catting around. The immortal Roissy (now Heartsie) would merely grin and laugh at this.

Finally, she states that she wants to get the alpha begging for forgiveness/sex, and then she wants to say no just to hurt him. Men, this is EXACTLY WHAT ALL WOMEN WANT. Ever wonder why beta orbiters never get their One True Love Girl? It’s because it’s more fun for a girl to break your heart and give you blue balls when you’re on your knees than to have good sex. Women enjoy sex, but women enjoy power trips and trashing weak willed men rather than having sex with them; but what they enjoy most is having sex with alpha guys who don’t beg. The alpha in the song would never beg her for sex/forgiveness, because that’s not what she really wants nor what he wants. What she wants is what she’s got: an alpha who comes around to screw her on his terms, while she pines away for him.

Like I said, Jett’s a pussy girl who’s putty in the hands of a player.

To cap it all off, take a look at the video I linked to earlier. Joan Jett never sold herself as an unpretty girl. She’s an in-shape vixen, wearing tight leather pants that show off her ass, with big girly 1980s hair and makeup to make her more attractive. She was as much a tough girl as Megan Fox.

Alec Baldwin: Violent, Murder-Inciting Idiot

December 8, 2011

Alec Baldwin is a violent, murder-inciting nutcase.

Because we know how you lefties love to pretend history disappears when it hurts liberals.

This scumbag said it was parody when cornered on his violent rant. Fine, I hope an angry mob storms his home and STONES ALEC BALDWIN TO DEATH!!!!!! (it’s parody!)

In other news, this violent psychopath recently threatened flight attendants because Alec Baldwin cannot be subject to the rules.

But lefties will never shun him or call for his apology. In the lefty mind, everything a lefty does is always correct. Morality be damned.

And fuck you Conan O’Brien for using Baldwin as a conduit for your own hateful left-wing politics. No surprise a man stupid enough to do that got outsmarted by Jay Fucking Leno.

We will never forget your crimes, lefties. The internet lasts forever, bitches.

Circus Freak/Fucked Up Person Chaz Bono Discovers Sexual Double Standard

October 26, 2011

Circus Freak/Fucked Up Person Chaz Bono Discovers Sexual Double Standard.

In a word, this is hilarious.

First, Chaz is a girl. A big fat girl. If she stops taking hormones, she grows breasts and her fake penis will shrink and she’ll stop having facial hair, etc. If you’re born with the sexual equipment of a woman, you’re a woman, no matter how much surgery and drugs and denial therapy you do.

Secondly, the only good thing about these freaks running amok in society is the fact that they both intrinsically and explicitly say that men and women are different. Face it, lefties: if there were no fucking difference between men and women, these lefty-loving mentally deranged freaks wouldn’t bother with a bunch of surgery and hormones and therapy, because the differences wouldn’t matter. The very fact that these should-be-mental-patients exists proves the mega-differences.

Now, transgender people go through this craziness because, deep inside, they recognize the social advantages of being a woman granted by society, and of the advantages of being a man as granted by society; therefore, they wish to “change” genders to gain the advantages of the other sex. Yet, in doing so, they necessarily take on (if they want to be recognized as the opposite gender) the disadvantages as well.

So Chaz is just whining about a double standard she long knew about and embraced. Chaz wants to be considered a man, wanting all the advantages that men get socially over women—e.g. larger room to be crass, rogue-ishness versus sluttiness, etc. Yet she whines that men get disadvantages socially too—namely, in our P.C. society, fat women trying to lose weight are to be protected, while fat men get more mockery.

The fact that Chaz whines about this is hilarious precisely because she is whining about differences she openly embraced, wanted, and loved. She’s basically wanted to her have her (piggy piggy) cake and eat it too—she wants all the advantages of manliness, but not the drawbacks.

In other words, Chaz is acting like a typical woman—a whiny bitch who can’t accept the consequences of her fat ass actions. Chaz thus proves that she is a woman after all, despite all the p.c.-bullshit and acceptance and surgery and hormones and therapy. Perhaps she should understand what “manning up” truly is all about.

Like I said, hilarious. lmao.

NCIS: A Tale of Two Alphas

October 6, 2011

NCIS: A Tale of Two Alphas

In the last year, I’ve begun watching the top show on television, NCIS. Like most TV shows nowadays, I only encounter it in reruns, either on USA marathons (a desperately undervalued channel), on DVD, or else on the web—Hulu, Netflix, or network television websites. Most TV, as the great [[LINK TO WHISKEY]] has pointed out, is a gay-female ghetto, with implausible and unmanly TV shows directed towards beta males (aka left-wing men), faggots, and broads who enjoy emasculated and emasculating men. But I caught it on a late-night marathon on USA one insomnia-fueled night and realized it wasn’t the usual faggot TV show.

Yes, for the most part, its just a lighter weight police procedural—chock full of witty (for TV at least) banter and massive plot holes, and the stories tend to get wrapped up in a rush to hide the weak logic, no CSI-sciency graphics, etc. It’s hook—and by “hook” I mean the twist that is designed to draw viewers initially into it—is that it’s about the police detective force for the U.S. Navy (hence the name NCIS—Naval Criminal Investigative Service), and not the run-of-the-mill city (especially NYC) cop show. Oh, and the title was a deliberately misleader—CSI was a big hit at the time NCIS came out, so NCIS was slapped on the title to get some confused viewers to tune in. In a non-CSI world, I can see this being called “Navy Cops,” “Naval Blue,” “Sea Blue,” or some other variation.

Ok, enough with the apologies.

NCIS is character driven—viewers tune in weekly not for the freak-of-the-week crime (though they can be lurid), but for the character interactions and quips. This didn’t surprise me when I learned that the show’s creator was Donald P. Bellasario, who created the great 80’s series Quantum Leap and Magnum, P.I. While I was not a watcher of Magnum as a child, I was a fan of the great sci-fi/time travel/history trip that was Quantum Leap, which, even as a child, was a show short on plot, and long on character interaction. The great dynamic between Sam and Al—the main characters from Quantum Leap—and Sam’s acting befuddled, intelligent, and angelic in his various time-leap situations were perhaps the only things holding the show together at most times—which says a lot about a show on network TV for five years and is a prominent hit in reruns and DVD. Bellasario is great at creating shows with very good actors and very good character dynamic, but tends to be poor to lousy on plot holes and logical leaps. And NCIS follows a similar pattern—good acting with great dynamics, but as for the plots…well, it’s not exactly the tales of Sherlock Holmes.

Now, a lot of shows on TV have shitty plot holes. However, they fill them up with typical shitty-fag fillers—sexy people getting it on in exotic scenery; “moral” stories where every white man is a racist and every woman/faggot/nigger is a wrongly-accused innocent; quick cuts and flashy fades; special guest stars; etc.

Not NCIS. NCIS instead plugs the holes with an alpha male leading a team like a hardass and an underling alpha hotstepping it with every hottie he sees.

The head of the investigative team is named Jethro Gibbs [[link]], and is played by [[Mark Harmon.]] Most modern male authority figures on TV seemingly have to be portrayed as nurturing, understanding, mothering types: Gil Grissom on CSI, Donald Cragen on Law and Order: SVU, etc. You know: they treat mistakes as “learning moments,” hug their guys and give them time off for “emotional issues,” compliments the fuck out of “his guys” for a job well done, and seem to be about three more sensitivity classes from being Oprah with a penis. They’re also very loquacious, p.c., and polite.

Not Gibbs. Gibbs: 1) rarely compliments; 2) if he does compliment, it’s a terse, two word praises; 3) physically smacks his guys around (including girls) if they fuck up; 4) isn’t afraid of sexist language to female subordinates; 5) doesn’t exlain things; 6) tells his guys to get over his emotions; and 7) emits little emotion besides anger. Gibbs, in short is a male leader—a true male leader of the old school—stoic, aggressive, and demanding, without a hint of apology. And his staff (even the girls) love him for it, as does the audience; respect with Gibbs is truly hard-earned and performance-based (one episode even had Gibbs berating a black NCIS subordinate throughout for sloppy, lazy work. That’s right: Gibbs called a black co-worker lazy and sloppy on national network TV. And the black guy was ultimately proven to have done a crap investigation and agreed with Gibbs’s assessment). Gibbs’d punch out a faggot like Gil Grissom in a second for his touchy-feely sensitive guy approach.

Mark Harmon, who plays Gibbs, is an old school guy himself. He transferred his way onto the UCLA football team in the early 1970s and won the starting quarterback position (when quarterbacks got hit like all football players were, and weren’t protected by weak-ass rules limiting contact with them to merely tag football). Afterwards, he drifted to acting (his mother was a semi-famous actress), and actually got named People’s Sexiest Man Alive in 1986 (when desirable men weren’t hairless bisexual faggot whiggers), but his career became spotty after that till NCIS hit it off in the early 2000s. Harmon’s stolid, solid, laconic leader on NCIS is a throwback, as is Harmon himself.

However, this is a tale of two alphas. And the other alpha on the show is Gibbs’s second-in-command: Tony Dinozzo, played by Michael Weatherly. Dinozzo, unlike Gibbs, is an uber-loquacious sexaholic. Although a good worker, he often unleashes sexist and put-down lines multiple times in scenes, openly leering at pretty girls in his wake. Of course, Dinozzo is very good-looking, so his cocky asshole routine is allowed by the ladies; his act reminds me of that SNL skit “How to avoid Sexual harassment”, step one being “be attractive.”

How can there be two alphas in a group, you ask? Simple, he answered: what kind of alpha-ness appeals to a given female. Gibbs is an old school guy; his character is a Marine veteran who enjoys building boats with his bare hands, riding on barren cargo jets, and being a loner. Dinozzo is a cocky asshole with a taste for fine suits, flashy cars, and witty repartee.

Michael Weatherly, who plays Dinozzo, seems like he has this attitude in real life. Talentless nigger-fucker Jessica Alba dated him for decent period when he was nothing and she had name recognition, which takes a lot of game on his part, since that cunt “hates white babies” and will go home with any brother who can dance decently at a club. That’s like getting Joy Behar to read a book with facts in it; just accomplishing the task has improved her as well. Well played, Weatherly.

What’s very interesting to me (aside from the dual alpha interplay) is how the show began. As I got into the show in reruns, I decided to go back and watch the earliest seasons to see how it all began. What I saw in the first season was this: early in the series, there was a main agent character named Kate Todd (played by Sasha Alexander). She was youngish (early 30s/late 20s) and hot, in that TV-career-girl way. She later gets written out (by mutual agreement) via an assassination and replaced by another cute-career girl agent.

Anyway, she and Dinozzo usually had a flirty, will-they-or-won’t-they relationship; constantly “annoying” each other, but with clear sexual attraction—Sam and Diane, etc. Gibbs, like any other male-TV boss of females, treated her as an underling and didn’t trifle with her. No chemistry beyond tough boss/good employee.

However, in the very earliest episodes—the first half of the first season—it isn’t Dinozzo, but Gibbs who has the sexual chemistry with Kate. In fact, Kate is shown to have something of an obvious crush on Gibbs. The first episode is about Gibbs hiring her after her resignation from the Secret Service (don’t ask), so she immediately owes him, but the first episode also has them flirting, and locked into close quarters with each other where they wrestle and expend a considerable amount of heat (body and otherwise) between each other. In another episode, when she gives a particularly sharp answer to a Gibbs question and he praises her, she sexually bites her bottom lip while gazing wet-eyed at him. In still another episode, she’s shown doodling a flattering sketch drawing of Gibbs, like a teenage girl in “love.” In still another episode, when on a submarine and thrown at each other due to a ship’s maneuver, they are seen holding each other tenderly and, when the maneuver is over, they exchange sexualized banter about their embrace. During all these episodes, Dinozzo’s sexual chemistry with Kate is nil.

So why the big shift later from Kate-and-Gibbs to Kate-and-Dinozzo? Demographics and feminism. Gibbs is a 50+ man and known to older audiences as the Sexiest Man Alive in freakin’ 1986. Dinozzo and Kate, meanwhile, are within 5 years of each other, agewise. I think its clear; about halfway through the first season, some TV exec went to Bellasario and staff and said something like this:

“Look, the show’s a hit, we want to keep it, but the feminists don’t like this hot chick going all gooey over a man in power more than 20 years her senior. Yeah, it’s a bullshit gripe, because ladies do like older men in power, but the feminazis’ll make some noise and we might lose some sponsors. Feminists like to make women date men their own age or lower so as to keep them in contempt of men and loving feminist dogma—to prevent them from going all gooey and weak-kneed like little girls and forgetting their indoctrination. And the older women viewers who aren’t feminists will be mad too, remembering all the sexy older men like Gibbs who’ve rejected them for hot young fertile tail. So put Gibbs with more “age-appropriate” pussy and make the sexual tension between Dinozzo and Kate, since they’re closer in age, and also because 30 year old spinsters (who listen to feminazis and won’t go after the older men they really want) want to see a hottie alpha like Dinozzo with someone his own age like Kate (and also like thr 30 year old spinsters) and not banging the 18 year olds you know he would rather have.”

And Bellasario and staff did. Or something like that. I’m sure it wasn’t that explicit. But moving on…

Now, which alpha do I think a man should emulate to get girls? The answer is the old law school device: it depends. Gibbs and Dinozzo are alphas with different styles wholly their own. Gibbs is old school tough; he doesn’t have huge muscles infused with steroids; he has a Marine Corps background, a love of working with his hands, and a laconic, abusive attitude. Think an old Western hero. Dinozzo, in contrast, is David D’Angelo cocky-funny, a whirlwind of silver tongued lines and sexist jokes. But he’s also good looking, well-dressed, and has social proof by being constantly with good-looking women and being second in command.

You can take either or neither as a hero to emulate. But be warned each comes with its own faults. Gibbs flirts well when aroused, but if you’re not the actual rough type (and not NWA-fake-ass-shit rough; I mean taciturn rough), girls will see through you and walk away. Also, your personality demands that you be in command of something or have obvious ambition and talents, even small, to garner respect; otherwise, you’re an angry dude at the bar who won’t talk to anyone. Dinozzo, meanwhile, gets through life on a shit-eating grin and his looks; like Hugh Grant, he in no way could away with the lines he says and his game if he looked and sounded like Joe Pesci (sorry Joe, much respect). Again, the aforementioned SNL sketch is informative: if you don’t look as good as Tom Brady, you can’t parade in front of a girl in your underwear at work making sexist jokes and get away with it.

Then again, even if you don’t fit their molds, you can still borrow their styles. Gibbs professes to love sawdust, hard liquor, and quiet nights; Dinozzo loves frats, parties, and the high life. If either of these suit you, you can express it in similar terms. If you love working with your hands, getting your fingers dirty, you can express this in fewer words than normal: “I like building things with my hands, feeling the raw materials becoming something real.” She’ll be intrigued if you’re her type and ask you what you make (be careful, however, if you’re a taxidermist). If you like the frat scene, ask her to play beer pong and then throw in a line about beer pong being the best way to get a girl’s shirt off while having a cocky grin on; if you’re on the right wavelength, she’ll definitely smile back.
Good game is about being true to your own personality, but highlighting the best parts.

Moving on…

Now, how does the television industry reward a show that brings masculinity to the table along with viewers? Trick question: it doesn’t. Thanks to the show’s unabashed masculinity and pro-military (usually) theme, the show consistently gets shut out of awards shows. Yes, the premium cable channel shows get love for more in-depth writing and more extensive budgets (Mad Men, Curb your Enthusiasm, etc.) but this is also a TV-awards world where crap like Desperate Housewives, Modern Family, Thirty Rock and, god help us all, Jay fucking Leno and Jimmy fucking Fallon all get awards for being there; NCIS should be making a ton of Emmy gold. But, you see, we can’t have an action show that celebrates men, masculinity, the military, and the US of A getting awards. We need more p.c., pussy, anti-male bullshit taking us home. That’s the ticket. Which is why, year after year, NCIS goes home emptyhanded
Bottom line: Watch NCIS for something worthwhile and manly. And some good lessons on good game.