Cold Fury

Harshing your mellow since 9/01

Lock. Her. UP

No, not Hillary!™ this time. Well, okay, her too.

A student at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill was arrested for larceny last month after she was caught on video taking a sign belonging to pro-life activists. The arrest arrives just days after the arrest of a UNC-Chapel Hill student accused of physically assaulted a pro-life activist after allegedly getting angry over his sign.

After which, hilarity ensues.

“Look, sir, I’m not trying to get arrested,” said the student to the officer, after he had informed her that she was being detained for larceny.

“I cannot believe these are the people who you protect,” continued the student, referring to the pro-life activists.

“I’m not trying to protect anyone, but I do have to enforce the law,” responded the officer, “That’s just how it is.”

“Do you see us being subjected to this shit?” said the student, gesturing toward the pro-life signage.

What I see is a sniveling, overprivileged dumbass OUTRAGED!™ at being “subjected” to any opinion that differs from her own.

“They have a right to be here,” said the officer, “If you don’t like their views, you can go away, you don’t have to watch it.”

“It doesn’t matter how much you ignore them, they’re gonna come back, and they’re gonna come back again, and this is why women have such a problem getting abortions in North Carolina, and y’all just let them get away with this shit,” said the student, “I cannot believe y’all let this happen.”

Since when have women had any problem at all getting as many abortions as they want, as often as they want, in North Carolina or anyplace else, you baby-murdering bitch?

“Take your backpack off, turn around, and put your hands behind your back, you’re under arrest for larceny,” said the officer.

“I cannot believe this is happening,” said the student upon realizing that she was under arrest, “is there something else that I can do?”

“No, I just told you you’re under arrest,” replied the officer, “I cannot un-arrest you.”

And then the piteous weeping starts, which is a pure delight to watch. If you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime. As Ace likes to say: LOL get fucked. More:

The student grabbed the sign from Austin Beigel, a peaceful protester, and walked off with it – not realizing that an officer would meet her at the end of her path.

“Did you steal their sign?” the officer asked the feminist.

“I just moved it,” she responded.

“Well you took it,” the officer confirmed.

The young feminist then had the nerve to ask the officer why she was being detained. With a look of disbelief on his face, the officer responded, “Uhh…larceny. You stole his sign.”

I’m sure you can guess what happened at this point: the student pulled out her cherished “victim card.”

“I moved it 50 yards,” she said as she tried to weasel out of the situation.

“I don’t care if you moved it one foot,” the officer responded before he gave a needed lesson in ethics. “You don’t have the right to take someone’s property. Period. I don’t care what the circumstance is.”

“I know you may not agree with what’s being said,” he continued. “But you don’t have the right to take someone’s property. Okay?”

One would hope that Little Einstein would be capable of learning this vitally important lesson. Unfortunately, one’s hope would be in vain; the fascist cunt will doubtless be carefully nursing a grudge over how horribly she was “victimized” for the rest of her days, self-righteously blibbering on to anybody willing to listen about her “courageous” and “heroic” days of protest and oppression.

Yeah, tell me again about how we can live peaceably among shitbrains so thoroughly and irredeemably wrong about what free speech, tolerance, and civility are all about, whydon’tcha.

Why is that these leftists think they can commit stupid acts without facing the just consequences of their actions?

Because they’ve been allowed to do exactly that for way too long, that’s why.

Share

Sex strike

Yeah, whatevs.

You think, “Nope, progressives can’t possibly be any dumber,” and then they proceed to reset the dumbness bar. The latest example is Alyssa Milano, who has publicly announced she’s not going to have sex anymore until people can once again kill babies without restraint. If that’s what counts as foreplay these days, count us conservatives out.

The 80s TV teen turned leftist Twitter twerp recently tweeted that “Our reproductive rights are being erased. Until women have legal control over our own bodies we just cannot risk pregnancy. JOIN ME by not having sex until we get bodily autonomy back. I’m calling for a #SexStrike. Pass it on.”

Let’s review. Alyssa Milano is not going to have sex unless and until you allow her to kill babies. I am unclear on what our reaction is supposed to be. Does she expect us to pull a 180 on pre-birth infanticide in order to keep the Alyssa Option open?

Liberals are already thoroughly confused (at best – a lot of them know that liberalism is nonsense but embrace it as a vehicle for their personal power), yet when they get going on the abortion issue they get exponentially worse. It’s a pretty simple question – is it okay to kill a human being who has not yet been born? I say “No,” you say “No,” and they say it’s practically mandatory.

It’s not exactly clear why they draw their hardest ideological line on abortion, but they do. Maybe they love to freak out us squares. Maybe they hate the idea of traditional motherhood. Maybe liberalism is just a hideous death cult that has substituted Margaret Sanger for Moloch.

Probably some of all three.

Consequence-free sex via abortion is just one of the weapons in the Left’s anti-family arsenal. Along with his excerpt from the above, Glenn furnishes this amusing graphic:

abstinence-600x403.jpg

Heh. When it comes to baby-murdering Hollywood ho’s, abstinence makes the heart grow fonder. But wait, it gets even worse.

Milano received support from fans and fellow actress Bette Midler joined her in also calling for a sex strike. “I hope the #womenofGeorgia stop having sex with men until these indignities are overturned,” Midler said.

Not that they know me from Adam or would give a shit if they did, but Midler and Milano don’t need to go on any strike as far as I’m concerned. I’d gladly go WAY the hell out of my way to avoid having sex with either one of ’em.

Update! Ouch.

If memory serves Bette Midler’s first hit was her version of “In the Mood”. Forty-five years later, she’s finally not in the mood.

And for that, we can all be thankful.

Share

“The biggest voter suppression mechanism in American politics is Hillary Clinton’s personality”

To know her is to loathe her.

For the entire 40 years of Hillary Clinton’s public life, one thing has been consistent: The less people see of her, the more popular she is.

The Deplorables of Arkansas in the late ’70s, were not thrilled by the snooty feminist from Chicago who refused to take her husband’s name—so she was hidden at the Rose Law Firm where money could be funneled to the Clintons through her supposed legal prowess (a continuing theme).

Before Obamacare became an epithet, the term “HillaryCare” was used to stop the Clinton socialized medicine plan of the 1990s. And if you think that Hillary’s involvement in it didn’t have as much to do with popular rejection of it as its content did, then you weren’t there.

Sure, she won in New York after the Republicans went through a candidate shuffle when Giuliani declined to run (due to personal issues that seem tame today)—but hey, that was New York.

Hillary was the inevitable president in 2008—until people had to contemplate four years of the screech that Rush Limbaugh wickedly said reminded men of their ex-wives, over the dulcet tones of Barack Obama.

And so it goes. When Hillary is in the background, her popularity rises. When she is front and center, it goes down.

Hillary Clinton is right, however, when she says: “I take responsibility for all my decisions, but that’s not why I lost.”

That is correct. You lost because of who you are, not what you did.

Such a nasty woman. If Trump only ever said one perfectly true thing in his entire life, that’s it.

Share

A matriarchy, if you can keep it

The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world.

In contemporary America, women and men still act out ancient roles. From the point of view of the men, the society is a matriarchy: Women have physically less demanding jobs — with the sole exception of childbirth, by now a rare event in the average woman’s life. Women sustain far fewer injuries on the job, are not required to go to war, take better care of their health, and for these reasons and many others enjoy a lifespan significantly longer than that of men.

In this society, men use their physical strength, when necessary, on women’s behalf. Women claim to be equal partners when that suits them and claim to be entitled to special consideration when that suits them. They insist on autonomy in maintaining or aborting pregnancies, but at the same time, they determine the fathers’ duties-and rights, if any. Women claim child support. They can either demand or impede fathers’ continuing involvement with their offspring, as the women see fit. The result is that women have advantages over men in child custody suits, just as they have learned to use charges of child sexual abuse and domestic violence.

Though dozens of studies show that women, by their own account, initiate violence against their domestic partners as often as (if not more often than) men, and cause as much injury when weapons are involved, somehow the social mythologies of this country keep that fact from gaining broad public attention, let alone credence.

But worst of all, in terms of the interactions of daily life, are women’s emotional demands on men. At home, men routinely sit through harangues that demonstrate women’s greater verbal skills and emotional agility. Men, inarticulate, try to figure out what is required of them in a given situation. Not by accident, verbal therapies in this society archetypically began with men listening and women speaking. Even as little boys, males learn to be in awe of girls’ verbal fluency. The feeling of ineptness, of being no match for females at the verbal and emotional level, is the common inheritance of all but a few exceptional males.

At home and on the job, men are reminded of their emotional inferiority and verbal inadequacy. Nowhere are they as quick as women in their emotional responses, their verbalization of those responses, or their acuity in gauging the dynamics of interaction or situation. And constantly they are reminded of this disadvantage. Women berate them, browbeat them, even physically attack them out of frustration at these characteristics.

Somehow it is always men who are to blame. Even in the schoolyard, little boys suffer from puzzlement, pain, and ostracism as little girls make comments and express expectations boys cannot quite grasp or respond to. Thus, boys are trained into a lifelong awareness of inferiority. At home, mothers demand expression of their sons’ and husbands’ feelings and berate them when they are confused and reticent. At work, women exchange knowing smiles signifying that men ‘Just don’t get it.”

Why, what kind of despicable, sexist, misogynist, knuckledragging PIG of a male could POSSIBLY come up with such outrageous twaddle? It’s extraordinary, even for them.

Ummmmmm…oops.

Dumbass Progtard harpies psychologically castrate our boys; revile them horribly and ceaselessly; shame them for crimes they didn’t commit, and most likely never will; relentlessly drive home their supposed worthlessness and degeneracy; suppress any and all healthy expression of their natural masculinity; encourage them to wear dresses, “explore their feminine side,” and have their dicks chopped off; and just generally make a career out of denouncing, discouraging, and tormenting them at every possible turn. Instead of nurturing them, encouraging them, and appreciating them, they have drawn the boundaries of decent society so as to exclude them.

And then, these boys’ heads all aswirl with confusion, fear, and self-loathing, the harpies turn around and wonder why something like this happens.

Toxic feminism has one hell of a lot to answer for, seems to me.

(Via Insty)

Share

Meat-beat manifesto

This culture cannot survive. And it damned well shouldn’t.

College promotes men’s cuddling group to ‘redefine masculinity’

Oh, you’re redefining it all right, I’ll give you degenerates that fucking much.

Dr. Christopher Liang, a counseling psychology professor at Lehigh University’s College of Education, recently came out in support of a Philadelphia area “Men‘s Therapeutic Cuddle Group,” a function advertised by Lehigh University in a news release. The Meetup.com page for the group currently has 69 members and the group has held 46 events so far. The meetups are held once every other week.

Organizers have established quite an expansive set of guidelines for attendees. The men attending must be “hygienically sound” and “remain fully clothed at all times.” The group’s organizers state that all cuddling is “non-sexual.” However, they do note that participants may become aroused during cuddling

Of course they will.

and that if that occurs, it should be treated as a normal thing.

Oh, absolutely.

Liang believes that “these types of groups can be healthy and helpful for men and women,” according to the news release.

Most especially for men who wish they WERE women, or believe themselves to be, or who are, y’know, gay.

“Traditional masculinity is psychologically harmful,” the APA’s news release said

Well, it surely could be—to YOU, if you ever get within arm’s reach of me.

while adding that “socializing boys to suppress their emotions causes damage that echoes both inwardly and outwardly.”

So who advocates such harmful socializing, pray tell? Might it be—hmmm, I dunno, let’s see now—all you fucking liberal degenerate assholes trying to repress innate behavior hard-coded into male DNA and emasculate them instead? Telling boys their natural, immutable male instincts are “harmful” instead of teaching them correct behavior and providing them with positive outlets for their inborn fondness for competition, physical play, aggressiveness, and such? Teaching them to be ashamed of being male, trying to crush out any spark of normal male behavior to instead brainwash them into mincing, namby-pamby, effeminate little pussyfarts? Encouraging grade-school kids to go ahead and chop their fucking dicks off the moment they show the slightest sign of uncertainty about their own gender identity—a perfectly normal and routine part of the process of growing up, one that will work itself out in due course—for Christ’s sweet sake?

Let’s just acknowledge straight up that there are two, and only two, types of “man” who are going to be interested in this “cuddle group” crapola: 1) the exact species of quivering, lily-livered, useless twerp cranked out on purpose by our abominable schools, and 2) gay men. That is absolutely, positively IT.

And I’ll also acknowledge straight up that I have no problem with gay men myself, and don’t give a damn if they want to snuggle up in groups, make cow eyes, and sigh dreamily on each other’s necks til the cows come home, six days a week and twice on Sundays. If they want to call that “therapy,” well, I’m fine with that too. Whatever gets you through the day, fellas. Ain’t really no business of mine.

No, what frosts me about this bushwa is that this isn’t really a legitimate, above-board effort to service a heretofore overlooked market hungry for this sort of thing; no, it is yet another insidious attempt at societal tinkering by Progwits who don’t really care whether it makes anyone genuinely happy or a better, more fulfilled person. The Left intends to rewrite the manual on what constitutes healthy, normal manhood, as the psych prof in charge himself admits, to redefine men as neutered, enervated…well, as women, actually. Being weak sisters themselves, all a-tremble and continuously in need of a “safe space” and a good cry, they hate the thought of being snickered at by far better men than themselves for their sissy-mary pusillanimity.

Ultimately, it comes back to that social engineering I already mentioned. One world; one government; one bland, uninteresting race; one indistinct gender—all distinguishing traits and quirks blurred, individuality subsumed into the collective whole, with the “experts” lording it over the whole sorry shebang. That’s the Progressivist project in a nutshell, folks; always has been, always will be, until either they conquer us or they are stopped. Period. Fucking. Dot.

The nice thing is, I guess, that these self-selected eunuchs show no interest in reproducing, even the cishet binary oppressors among ’em. So all normal Americans really have to do in the long run is just wait them out. They’ll die off quicker than the dinosaurs without our ever having to lift a finger. So we got that going for us.

(Via Insty)

Share

It’s only a matter of time

And not a lot of it, either.

UNDISCLOSED—According to a US special ops team in an undisclosed location, a feminist activist and blogger endangered their team’s mission by popping up out of nowhere to lecture them on the gender balance of their squad.

The team leader later claimed that “this crazy lady” jumped out at them and began to scold them for their lack of gender balance.

“Excuse me, are there any women in your squad?” she said, frightening the officer, who nearly put a round into her right there.

“Wha—who are you?” he responded. “You scared the crap out of me. You really shouldn’t be here.

“Just what I thought,” she said, shaking her head. “You’re against me being here because I’m a powerful womyn, and that somehow threatens your white male existence.”

The men of the elite special ops team then offered to carry her out of the dangerous combat zone, but instead received a lecture on how women are just as capable as men and how she didn’t need to be carried like some piece of property.

At publishing time, the woman had been captured by enemy forces but was quickly set free after she annoyingly lectured the terrorists for several hours on the gender balance of their terror cell.

Eh, if they’d chopped her empty head off one could only nod ruefully in sympathetic understanding. It’s from the Bee, so I THINK it’s satire. Not at all their fault that that’s become such a very damned difficult thing to do nowadays.

Share

Unmasked!

The truth about Titiana.

Last April, I decided to set up a satirical account on Twitter under the guise of radical intersectionalist poet Titania McGrath. She’s a po-faced young activist who, in spite of her immense privilege, is convinced that she is oppressed. She’s not a direct parody of an existing individual, but anyone who regularly reads opinion columns in the Guardian will be familiar with the type. Given that such individuals are seemingly impervious to reason, and would rather cry ‘bigot’ than engage in serious debate, satire seemed to be the only option.

The obsession with victimhood from predominantly bourgeois political commentators is something I have always found inherently funny. It’s a phenomenon that has been amplified to a great extent by social media. This extremely vocal minority of activists enjoy pontificating to the masses from their online lectern, berating those who fall short of their moral expectations, and endlessly trawling through old tweets in the hope of discovering a misjudged phrase or sentiment that could justify a campaign of public shaming. In their eyes, there is no possibility of redemption. The most vicious remarks you’ll find on social media come from the racist far right and woke intersectionalists. They are two heads of the same chimera.

That last is the first of several dubious assertions in the article; this one I won’t address, having no experience myself with any “racist far right” social-media commentary.

American physicist Steven Weinberg famously remarked that ‘with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil – that takes religion’. It makes sense, then, to think of the social-justice movement as a kind of cult. Its members are generally decent people with good intentions. They have an unshakeable certainty that their worldview is correct. They feel the need to proselytise and convert as many of the fallen as possible. And even though they are capable of the most horrendous dehumanising behaviour, they think they are the good guys.

Wrong. “Decent people with good intentions” don’t indulge in “unshakeable certainty that their worldview is correct”; they try to nurture in themselves a modicum of humility, tolerance, and broad-mindedness instead. Nor do they propose to coerce people who don’t share their views into either converting or submitting. They don’t work to instate their dominance by force of law, at the muzzle of the government gun, or denounce all who disagree in the vilest, most threatening terms. They damned sure don’t menace dissenters with direct threats of violence and murder; terrorize their enemies’ spouses and children in their very homes by kicking in their door at 2 AM, or disrupt their lives with screaming, days-long protests on their lawns and porches; contact their employers hoping to wreck their livelihoods; or physically gang-assault them with bike locks and/or other weapons, then run away like the cowards that they are.

The Woke admittedly are delusional enough to believe they are the good guys. But they are very much the opposite—and that definitionally precludes them from being “decent people,” or anything even close.

The problem is compounded because identitarians on both the right and the left typically believe themselves to be the underdogs, and are fuelled by a sense of grievance. In spite of the fact that we have a right-wing government,

Uh huh. Right.

we should be in no doubt that woke politics is culturally dominant. I have previously argued that the notion of political correctness – a broadly agreed social contract that recognises that overt racism, sexism and homophobia are uncivil – is a laudable concept.

Which concept was commonplace among truly decent people long before the term “woke” came along.

Woke ideology has little to do with political correctness.

Sorry, wrong again. Woke ideology has way more than just “little” to do with PC. It’s an extension of it, political correctness spun out to its logical conclusion—the distilled, uncut form of it. The Pure and Blushful Hippocrene, one might say.

But enough picking on the guy. Doyle’s Titiana creation was as timely as it was brilliant, a perfectly conceived and executed trolling. He dropped a barbed hook into some truliy fetid waters, and my hat is off to him for throwing that line out there.

Share

Eating their own

Okay, okay, so maybe I should have phrased my title a little more carefully.

Actress and left-wing activist Debra Messing caught major backlash from social justice warriors after her woke International Women’s Day post of empowering vagina cupcakes was deemed transphobic. In the current year, not all women have vaginas, or something.

Messing, a privileged cis-gendered white woman, was eventually forced into an apology for her transgression.

“Happy International Women’s Day! Powerful, beautiful, and sweet,” the “Will & Grace” actress posted Friday, captioning an image of cupcakes that look like vaginas.

Most of the comments on the post are critical of Messing for apologizing for the photo or for posting the “nasty” photo in the first place. But the limited comments critical of the photo’s apparent exclusion of trans “women” seemed to hold a lot of weight for the actress.

My personal favorite is the first one listed:

So when are we gonna stop equating genitalia to gender?

Ummmm…okay, moving right along.

“I want to apologize to my trans sisters,” she wrote. “This photo was supposed to be light, & sassy. The first thing I thought when I saw this photo was ‘wow how wonderful. Each one is unique in color and shape and size.’

“The porn industry has perpetuated this myth of what a ‘beautiful’ vagina looks like and as a result there are women who feel shame or insecure about the shape of the vulva,” Messing continued. “I loved that this picture said ‘every single one is beautiful and unique and that’s powerful.’ I did not, however, think ‘but there are innumerable beautiful, unique and powerful women who don’t have a vagina.[‘] And I SHOULD have. And for that I am so so sorry.”

Pretty sure that there’s not a single true word in the third-to-last sentence, excepting “I did not think.” And forgive me if I’m missing something here—I’m quite sure I’m not near “woke” enough to grasp the advanced scientific concepts involved—but if someone has NOT had the requisite chopadicktomy or addadicktome surgery, should they really be calling themselves “transgender”? I mean, isn’t having had gender-reassignment surgery sort of the defining condition for being a transgender, rather than, y’know, a boring old garden-variety transvestite?

Ahh, to hell with it; let’s get back to the dope Messing’s lovely, empowering snootchycakes. I wanted to download the pic and embed it for y’all’s edification, but couldn’t find a way to do it. So the image is here, and the horrible things are every bit the appetite suppressant you’d expect them to be.

Now don’t get me wrong here, folks: I have whiled away many a happy hour just staring intensely at various real-world, fleshly versions up close and quite personal, utterly captivated by their matchless allure. Wonderful things, them vaginers. They just never seem to get old—their appeal never tarnishes, their luster never dims. I don’t know any red-blooded cisgender binary fascist misogynistic male H8888R who doesn’t feel exactly the same way. In fact, I wish I had one close by and ready to hand right now. I bet you do too.

But dammit, keep ’em off of the baked goods, excepting maybe for novelty or bachelor-party purposes. They ain’t food, and their power can only be diminished by such irreverence, rendering them no more than mundane and uninteresting. I know the entire point of being a Leftard is to ruin, sully, and destroy—taking all the magic out of our most revered talismans; making meaningful things meaningless; uglifying our art; producing atonal “music” that sickens rather than elevates; all that witless, iconoclastic rot. But could you guys maybe leave off trying to demystify and cheapen everything, just this once?

Share

Biology matters

Boys will be boys. Or girls. Or, y’know, whatever.

I’ve written before about how transgenderism destroys Title IX sports opportunities for girls and how this absurdly anti-science and anti-women stance will destroy women’s sports.

Shouldn’t even BE any “women’s sports.” Not anymore. Liberals worked very hard, for a very long time, to advance the ridiculous, reality-twisting idea that there is literally no difference between men and women. If that stupidity now clashes with their childish obssession with “fairness,” too damned bad for them. They should be forced to enjoy the fruits of their victory. They distilled this bitter cup of contradiction and folly themselves; now, let them drain it to its very last dregs.

Regarding hormones, men do not suddenly have more testosterone in puberty. To the contrary, boys, even in the intrauterine environment, are washed in different hormone concentrations than girls. They grow more quickly than girls. They’re different in babyhood. It happens again in toddlerhood. It happens finally, forcing secondary sex characteristics in puberty.

This is science. And then, these boys, who would be average athletes if they were to run, swim, wrestle, etc. against other boys, demolish the field because of their formidable, and unfair, biological advantages. The girls running against the boys know the difference.

Being a woman is not simply a matter of estrogen and progesterone. A woman’s hormones vary dramatically depending on her life cycle. For example, a woman’s testosterone elevates when she is pregnant. It also goes up proportionally against estrogen and progesterone during menopause. A female’s hormonal system is extraordinarily complex and ever changing. She can add more testosterone and growth hormone and even steroids to this mix but her bone density and structure, her brain, her lung capacity, muscle density, and on and on don’t magically change into a male’s.

Biological males cannot be women. Period. They can manipulate their hormones. They can receive breast implants. They can castrate themselves and mutilate their penises. None of these superficial changes can unwind the DNA helix.

All good, all true. But then things go a little sideways:

The solution to the dilemmas of the gender dysphoric child wanting to compete as the opposite sex is simple, but not easy: let them compete, but do not let them win. They have biological advantages over their female compatriots. A girl “transitioning” to boy and on testosterone, also should be allowed to compete but not win. Every race, match, etc. should automatically go to her competitor. Why? Because she is hormonally enhanced. A boy competing against a girl is hormonally enhanced. It’s not fair.

So what? What on earth could possibly be the point of allowing someone to “compete”…but not win? Doesn’t that sort of, I dunno, nullify the whole concept of competition?

No. HELL no. The very existence of “women’s sports” is discriminatory, segregationist, and sexist. It promotes inequality. Every athlete, regardless of gender or anything else, must compete on equal terms, on a truly level playing field, with no favoritism or distinction made according to gender identity. Only then will we achieve true equality. And that’s the most important thing of all, right?

Gender is a construct—a hateful, anachronistic holdover from a less enlightened era. Our betters have told us so, and we must accept their wisdom. So let us all embrace the new age of Progressivist enlightenment. Let us all finally take that last step into Liberal Utopia. Stop your whining about the “unfairness” of it all, girls; get out there on the field and take your lumps. This is the world the Left wanted, the one your feminist forebears made for you. Now you get to live in it too. Don’t let mere biology keep us all shackled to the old oppressive patriarchy and its restrictions, its degradation and denial of your boundless capability. Spread your wings and SOAR!

Remember to fly right on past all those chickens on your way up, and pay them no mind. They’re only coming home to roost, that’s all.

Share

The playground of social justice

Should we ever foolishly allow our national “leadership” to drag the US into yet another pointless, eternal war, we are going to get our asses kicked up between our shoulder blades.

What follows is a compendium of my own personal observations as a Marine Corps officer, as well as an exploration of official policies that reveal the Leftist corruption of our military institutions.

Like academe and the mainstream media, the American military bows before the altar of political correctness, offering up sacrifices of its very being and purpose in order to satisfy this jealous god. The indoctrination into the sacred rites begins early in a marine’s career. For me, it started at The Basic School (TBS), the 6-month initial training for newly commissioned Marine Lieutenants. Throughout the course, the new officers attend a variety of social mixers with senior Captains and Majors in different occupational fields in order to discern which job they wish to be selected for at the end of the training.

The staff of TBS and the Infantry Officer Course (IOC) set aside one of these mixers for women and minorities only, so they could plead with these groups to join the combat arms—artillery, infantry, and tanks. While the staff fêted the “oppressed,” the white males returned to barracks to clean.

After the mixer, the Commanding Officer of IOC made an appeal to our class as a whole to join the infantry, while reiterating the need for women and non-whites as platoon commanders for the grunts. In his words, “Without diverse leadership that looks like America, future marines would not respect their officers.”

This kind of favoritism for “marginalized peoples” was manifest throughout my entire instruction. The treatment of women was especially egregious. Female marines rarely carried squad or platoon gear such as radios, machine guns, or batteries. They were more likely to fall out of hikes. Their injury rate was higher overall. During one hike, I witnessed a male Lieutenant, one of the largest in our platoon, carry not only his pack but that of a diminutive female officer who had been injured in the course of the march. While she limped along in tears, he plodded with her gear on top of his own in order to prevent her from falling out.

Basic School instructors, mine included, liked to say that in the Marine Corps “there is only one standard, the Marine Corps standard.” This is a lie. There are two standards: one for men and one for women. Thus, on the annual Physical Fitness Test, required of all marines, a perfect score for a 21-year-old male is 23 pull-ups, 110 crunches, and a 3-mile time of 18 minutes. For a female of the same age a perfect score is 9 pull-ups, 105 crunches, and a 3-mile time of 21 minutes.

Women also receive special benefits for family life. After giving birth, female marines receive 42 days of non-chargeable leave and can take an additional 12 weeks of maternity convalescent leave. “Secondary caregivers”—that is, fathers—only get 14 days. Female marines can take the 12 weeks of leave at any time in the year after giving birth. Although their duties are interrupted by taking leave, that cannot be used as a factor in determining whether women shall be promoted.

That’s only for starters. Boyd then links and excerpts a Heather MacDonald WSJ piece:

In September 2015 the Marine Corps released a study comparing the performance of gender-integrated and male-only infantry units in simulated combat. The all-male teams greatly outperformed the integrated teams, whether on shooting, surmounting obstacles or evacuating casualties. Female Marines were injured at more than six times the rate of men during preliminary training—unsurprising, since men’s higher testosterone levels produce stronger bones and muscles. Even the fittest women (which the study participants were) must work at maximal physical capacity when carrying a 100-pound pack or repeatedly loading heavy shells into a cannon.

The upshot to this PC nonsense? This:

The double standards and censorship wrought by the Left evidence the corruption their ideology inflicts in our ranks. The Marine Corps, like the rest of the American military, no longer places winning wars and defending the nation at the top of its priorities. If it did, how can we explain the insistence on special privileges for an entire class of physically and spiritually inferior “warriors?”

Easy: the Left doesn’t care about winning wars, and actively dislikes warriors, see. In addition, infiltrating, undermining, and eventually destroying organizations, institutions, cultures, and entire nations is part of Leftard DNA: that’s what they are, that’s what they do. So nobody should be in the least surprised over the predictable result of their insidious tinkering with the Marine Corps. And let’s not be kidding ourselves that the termites’ gnawing is limited to the Marines, either:

Improving diversity and acceptance across the Air Force isn’t just about being politically correct, it’s a “warfighting imperative,” USAF Chief of Staff Gen. David Goldfein said Friday.

Speaking to a room packed full of airmen at AFA’s Air Warfare Symposium, Goldfein said for himself and many leaders across the service, it can be hard to recognize issues other airmen face. These leaders need to accept that “we have blinders on as leaders,” and need to reach out to airmen from all backgrounds, races, genders, etc., to point out ways to improve.

To illustrate his point, Goldfein told a story about his first chief master sergeant when he was a squadron commander, and a box. One day, the chief came into his office and handed him the box and said that it “makes your airmen mad” and it “oughta make you mad.” He said he couldn’t understand his point. Looking closer, it was a box of flesh colored Band-Aids.

“I ain’t getting it,” Goldfein said he told him.

The chief pulled out the pink, “flesh-colored” Band-Aid and put it on his skin. The chief is black, the Band-Aid is made for white people, and the bandage completely stuck out.


He said, ‘That ought to make you mad, because it makes a lot of your airmen mad.’ And he winked and he walked out,” Goldfein said.

Then those airmen are basically your Mark-1, Mod-0 oversensitive pussyfarts, who need to be vigorously encouraged to nut up and get right the fuck over it.


“The challenges we face as a nation are wicked hard, and it’s going to take folks with different backgrounds, different life experiences, and different perspectives to be able to come in and sit down together and provide the creative solutions that we as a nation need to be able to fight and win,” he said.

That’s twaddle, feel-good liberal word salad that means nothing whatsoever. What those “wicked hard” challenges will require is wicked hard warriors—doughty, resilient, clear-eyed fighting men, not whiny snowflakes who might lose their shit over the color of a goddamned Band-Aid.

Share

The world you made

Now live in it, bitches.

On Friday, a Texas judge ruled that the Selective Service System (SSS) violates the Constitution by requiring only men to register for the draft. The court ruled with the National Coalition for Men (NCFM) in a lawsuit claiming the male-only draft constitutes discrimination against men. NCFM’s lawyer told PJ Media that even if the SSS appeals, they are likely to lose again. He also suggested the Pentagon will not end the draft, so women may have to register.

Marc Angelucci, NCFM’s lawyer, told PJ Media he does not know whether or not the Selective Service will appeal. “I don’t think they’ll win an appeal,” he said.

If the ruling stands, the Pentagon will either have to scrap the draft altogether or force women to register. “They could do either of those, but I don’t think they’ll get rid of the draft because the Pentagon is arguing strongly to keep the draft,” Angelucci said.

“We take the position that if women are in combat then they should have to register for the draft,” the lawyer explained. “There’s no more excuse to discriminate against men because women are in combat.”

In a press release on the victory, the National Coalition for Men explained why fighting this discrimination is important. “Forcing only males to register is an aspect of socially institutionalized male disposability and helps reinforce the stereotypes that support discrimination against men in other areas such as child custody, divorce, criminal sentencing, paternity fraud, education, public benefits, domestic violence services, due process rights, genital autonomy, and more.”

“Even without a draft, men still face prison, fines, and denial of federal loans for not registering or for not updating the government of their whereabouts,” Angelucci explained. “Since women will be required to register with the Selective Service, they should face the same repercussions as men for any noncompliance.”

Men and women are equal; there is absolutely no difference between them, either physically or mentally. Women can do anything men can do, period fucking dot. We know these things are so because that’s what feminists have been telling us for decades. So they have to be true, right? That means no more discrimination, no more privilege, no more distinction made between the genders—all 73 flavors thereof, mind—of any kind whatsoever. Time to nut up, Lefty “ladies,” and face the music: y’all can have your cake. You can eat it. But you can no longer do both.

Update! Related? I’d say so, yeah, if only obliquely.

Three Swedish feminist organisations, Sweden’s Women’s Lobby, the National Organisation for Women’s Shelters and Young Women’s Shelters (Roks) as well as the empowerment organisation Unizon have published a joint appeal in the newspaper Expressen, in which they demand a state ban on “dangerous” sex robots for men.

The debaters noted that today’s sex robots often have the “appearances and attributes typical of the objectifying, sexualised and degrading attitude to women found in today’s mainstream pornography”.

“Why are men willing to pay tens of thousands of dollars for a robot that obeys their smallest command?” the feminists asked rhetorically. 

Boy, talk about a question that answers itself.

The leaders of the women’s organisations claimed that fantasies stimulated by such technology may lead to real violence against girls and women.

Why on earth would it? The whole point of such technology is to relieve men of the necessity for any contact at all with women, thereby providing them with both an outlet for their natural desires and an escape route from the endless harangues, derogation, and complaints heaped on them by “feminists.”

They also drew parallels with pornography, whose consumption, they claimed, leads to sexist attitudes and actual violence. The dehumanisation of women justifies slavery, and the exploitation of the female body through new technology is part of this, they claimed.

Not to worry, gals, once sexbot tech is fully developed you won’t be faced with that problem a whole lot longer, I’d bet. But ain’t the irony delicious? They made men pariahs…and then they found themselves made irrelevant. For most any problem, there’s always a workaround out there just waiting to be found; all that’s needed for it to be unearthed is a motivation for finding it.

Share

Whodathunkit?

Why, you could knock me over with a feather. Literally, maybe.

Surprise, surprise. Men who are physically weak are more likely to favor socialist policies.

An academic study from researchers at Brunel University London assessed 171 men, looking at their height, weight, overall physical strength and bicep circumference, along with their views on redistribution of wealth and income inequality. The study, published in the Evolution and Human Behavior journal, found that weaker men were more likely to favor socialist policies than stronger men.

Exhibit A:

Now go check out Exhibit A. Trust me, you’ll love it. Meanwhile, there’s more bad news for soyboys, vegans, Male Feminists, and other miscellaneous slope-shouldered Leftard sissymaries everywhere.

Many people still think that testosterone will cause you to kill your parents and run over small woodland creatures. But paradoxically, it’s often men with low testosterone levels that are moody, depressed, and even angry, while men with normal or high testosterone levels are generally sociable and gregarious.

Dr. Christina Wang of UCLA found that men with low T were likely to be snarkier and more aggressive than men with high T, but once the snarky ones received T replacement, their attitude and anger disappeared.

Hey, can’t argue with Science!™, man. Funny, though, how it seems to just keep right on vaporizing so many treasured Lefty shibboleths as arrant nonsense, innit?

Share

Anatomy of feminism

Like the Progressivism that enfolds and inspires it, it’s a fabric of dishonesty draped over sinews of authoritarian/totalitaranism, all supported by a skeleton of stark raving madness.

Feminist leader Kate Millett wrote Sexual Politics in 1970, which the New York Times called “the Bible of Women’s Liberation.” But her sister Mallory Millett reveals in this interview the destructive legacy of radical feminism.

Mark Tapson: Your sister was an icon of female empowerment, but what do you think the reality of feminism has been for generations of women since Kate helped launch the second wave of the movement?

Mallory Millett: How bizarre it is to have to argue the obvious; to have to prove over and over again what is self-evident so let me be as offensive as I possibly can: Men are men and women are women. They are essentially different and designed for a natural division of labor. Period.

I get a kick out of the feminists’ love affair with the word “empowerment.” They have clever formulas for ensnaring hapless souls into their deceits. One of their slicker moves is to create a vocabulary designed to get around long-held beliefs, mores, taboos or fears. “Pro-choice” is their Newspeak euphemism for the casual murder of a human being; “Dreamers” means illegal immigrants; “Progressives” denotes a group dragging us back to the cave; “Sanctuary City” means a place where no actual U.S. citizen is safe. This “empowerment” thing makes me especially crazy.

When women ran society, power emanated from the home. Men labored to keep their families sheltered, warm, clad and fed while women mostly stayed in the home to run the children and the community. Mother oversaw the household and carefully watched the children’s behavior. Most of the neighborhood women knew each other and had informal meetings in their living rooms and kitchens, called “coffee klatches.”

It was here that the community developed ground rules on how to manage children and husbands. Any mother was free to chastise anyone else’s child should they misbehave. It was pretty unheard of for someone to say, “How dare you correct my child!” They would agree amongst themselves what was desired behavior. Good manners were required and trained. Neighbors backed each other up. It was expected.

The essential rules that Moms formed in their infants and homes radiated outwardly into streets, schools, offices, boardrooms, departments, factories and agencies to form the framework of Western ethics. The communities, churches and schools all echoed the same values because most people went to Church or Temple and so, the foundation of our mores being Judeo/Christian, Mom’s rules were designed by the Ten Commandments. Many towns didn’t lock their doors, even at night.

So, after fifty years of the almighty “consciousness-raising” experiment to empower women, and during the recent Harvey Weinstein [sexual assaults] scandal, what we are hearing from the little girlish voices of the victims is, “I froze, I was paralyzed. I gave in because I didn’t know what to do. I was terrified!” Hey, that’s some weird kind of empowerment. When I was a girl we did what our moms instructed: we yelled “NO,” slapped his face, and left the room or called a cop.

Today, 60 percent of babies who escape abortion are born outside of marriage. On top of that they are miserably reared, thrown into child-care shortly after birth, with not only a lousy education but a miseducation in classrooms infiltrated by Mao, Che Guevara, Fidel Castro, Howard Zinn, Noam Chomsky, Karl Marx, and Saul Alinsky rather than readin’, writin’, and ‘rithmatic, American history, and civics. Our children now score poorly compared with other countries, whereas before the feminist “experiment” we led in almost all categories. In 1964 we had 90 percent literacy and 5 percent illegitimate births. We now score shockingly low on literacy (38 percent of American men read at the lowest levels; only 11 percent of men and 12 percent of women are proficient readers) and of course, those out-of-wedlock births at 60 percent.

I would say that raising several ill-prepared fatherless generations of slackers, meth and opioid users, porn dogs, disheveled rockers, and illiterates speaks poorly of any degree of empowerment in parenting. Most parenting is done by absent single women since two-thirds of mothers are raising their youngsters outside of marriage. So, we have the filthy clothes, ten o’clock shadows on guys, shocking grammar, plethora of tattoos, sullen misfits in torn filthy clothing listening to violent hate-filled so-called music; entitled attitudes and non-existent manners say it all. Empowerment? Why, the facts scream that feminists are two generations of the worst-ever educators of America’s children. In what manner does this speak of empowerment?

The stuff I elided, chronicling the heavy hand of Maoism as it guided the founding of NOW, is interesting indeed. And then we get to the “madness” part:

Tapson: Can you tell us a bit about Kate’s mental instability, and if you think it had anything to do with her radicalism? Or vice versa — do you think her radicalism affected her mental state?

Millett: Kate was mentally ill for as long as I remember. She was five when I was born and our elder sister Sally says that once I arrived, Kate was hanging over my bassinet plotting my murder. We shared a bedroom from my birth. From my earliest memory I recall trembling from the vibrations of her insanity. She was the most disturbed, megalomaniacal, evil and dishonest person I have ever known. She tried to kill me so many times that it’s now an enormous blur of traumatizing horrors. She was a sadist, a torturer, a deeply-engrained bully who took immense pleasure in hurting others. Incorrigible and ruthless, she was expelled multiple times from every school she attended. I spent my childhood with heart hammering as I tiptoed through the house so as not to be noticed by the dreadful Kate. Our mother was helpless, paralyzed with terror in the face of Kate.

It’s a grinding hardship to bring oneself to write such harsh things about one’s own blood. It took some bucking up for me to start telling the truth. I must say here that, always and forever, I had a reservoir of love for my sister Kate, but reality trumps all and her brand of nihilistic darkness was an implacable obstacle.

I love the term “Feminazi,” as these humorless women are, indeed, fascists, killers of faith and society. So many people think the rise of women and the evisceration of our culture are somehow coincidental. But it’s been calculated and deliberate. It’s the only way America can be “fundamentally transformed” into the Marxist test-tube to dazzle the world. It’s the result of HATE: hating God, hating life, hating society, hating men, hating babies, hating history, hating our fathers, hating our families, hating our white male founders, hating happiness, hating heterosexuality, hating Western civilization. Is this not madness?

If it isn’t, then the word has no meaning. Damned smart woman, this Mallory Millet is. Read all of it.

(Via WeirdDave)

Share

Girl Boy Whatever Scouts?

But of COURSE they did.

BIRMINGHAM, Ala. (WIAT) — The Boy Scouts of America welcomed the establishment of Troop 86 in Vulcan and Troop 219 in Helena on February 1st. But these two troops are different — no boys, all girls. The first two of their kind in Central Alabama.

Uhh, s’cuse me and all, but…isn’t “no boys, all girls” kind of…y’know…discriminatory? Sexist? Unethical? Illegal, even? Moreover: where, pray tell, is the accomodation for our newly-minted 73 Flavors Of Gender™ in all this? If a boy is biologically, genetically, and genitally male but “identifies” as a girl, will he now be allowed to join one of the all-girl troops? If not, why the hell not? Can we start calling these two “Boy Scout” troops “Girl Scouts”? And the biggest question of all: wasn’t the whole idea behind allowing girls into the Boy Scouts to do away with segregation by sex in the first place?

But no, it wasn’t. All this ever was about, really, was to sow chaos and discord, and to above all else to seize control of another venerable American institution in order to, as Iowahawk so astutely said years ago:

Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive—ourselves, about who and what SJW shitlibs are, then knuckle under to them instead of battling them tooth, nail, and claw. Call it a demonstration of Mike’s Iron Law Of War, which I just came up with: if you don’t fight, you lose. It should go without saying, yes, but these days a lot of us seem to need a reminder. Prediction: the Boy Scouts will be nothing more than a memory within five to ten more years—at most. It’s a damned shame. Vox says: they never saw it coming. But honestly, they should have. The next intended victim will have NO such excuse.

Share

Post-birth abortion

Baby-killing end-game.

The total embrace of abortion on demand was on full display last week as New York state lawmakers cheered the passage of their abortion bill, offering the odious bit of legislation a thunderous, standing ovation. New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo even ordered for the One World Trade Center’s spire to be illuminated in pink light in honor of the bill, transforming the peak of “Freedom Tower” into a massive blood-tinted monument to pro-abortion excess.

In the Virginia House of Delegates this week, there was an equally ghastly display of pro-abortion zeal, as Democrat Kathy Tran introduced a bill that similarly allows for late-term abortions. In a video circulated online this week, a clearly discomforted Tran clarified for the state’s deliberative body that her bill allows for abortions to be performed even when the mother is “about to give birth” and even when “she’s dilating.”

One difference between the pro-abortion circuses in the Empire State and the Old Dominion is that Tran at least had the appearance of being ashamed of what she is seeking to normalize through law. But all that tells us is that Democrats are still united in the push for total abortion, even when some of them are clearly uncomfortable with what they’re advocating. Further, the Virginia bill will likely be defeated by the House’s majority Republicans, but only after enjoying a resounding endorsement from the state’s Democratic governor, Ralph Northam, who went out of his way Wednesday to defend the bill on the largest local media platform available to his office.

This is the modern-day Democratic Party. It’s all abortion, all the way down.

To borrow the old Virginia Slims catchphrase: you’ve come a long way, baby.



Walsh rails at the supine, feeble response of the Church:

Meanwhile, those who actually are in the business of devil-fighting, instead of devil-worshipping, are AWOL. That would be the Catholic Church (the rest of the Christian sects are too far gone to care, or care about), in the form of the Irishman, Timothy Cardinal Dolan, the Archbishop of New York, and the Argentine-born Italian pope, Francis. If any single public figure has richly earned public excommunication from the Church, Andrew Cuomo is him. And yet, where are Francis and Cardinal Dolan?

So, what are you going to do about it, Your Eminence? Nothing: “Notable canon lawyers have said that, under canon law, excommunication is not an appropriate response to a politician who supports or votes for legislation advancing abortion,” he said in a statement.

This is not only wrong, it’s cowardly, which is what we’ve come to expect from the American bishops, who have been so busy trying to bury their gay clergy scandal without getting the hems of their skirts dirty that—since many of them have no skin in the game in more ways than one—they don’t have time for matters of faith and morals any more.

Ah, but the Dagger Johns of the Church Militant are long gone, and in their place have come the mincing social-justice warriors in cassocks and mitres, too fearful of man to be fearful of God, false to their faith and false to their mission. Andrew Cuomo and his gloating, murderous, ilk are bad enough, but these whited sepulchers are even worse, because they know better and don’t care.

Which, I propose, is a big part of the reason why the Christian flock is abandoning its putative shepherds in droves. Well, that, and the ubiquitous degeneracy of America’s sick, narcissistic culture.

What I’m not seeing anywhere, though, is any recognition of what this argument is really all about. It’s not, or at least not entirely, about the Democrat-Marxist “culture of death,” or Sangerian eugenics, I don’t think. It’s about consequence-free sex and wholesale promiscuity. Abortion is now purely a matter of convenience, a last-ditch birth control method. When Democrat-Marxists encourage a perception of babies as life-limiting, choice-restricting inconveniences—not an enrichment of one’s life, but the end of it, to be not welcomed with joy and anticipation but dreaded with horror and despair as a crippling affliction—how could it possibly be otherwise?

Female prerogative update! The truth revealed, as Demonrat “logic” finally catches up with them.

As my colleague David Harsanyi pointed out on Twitter, is there a difference between aborting a fetus in the third trimester because it’s causing the mother emotional distress, and killing a premature infant in the NICU for the same reason? If there is a difference, what is it? Will any Democrat say?

They will not, because there is no difference, and they know it. These bills demonstrate that the debate over abortion was never about when life begins. All that hemming and hawing about a fetus just being a “clump of cells” was disingenuous from the start.

In fact, there has never been any doubt about when human life begins (it begins at conception). The debate was always about whether we would by law make the life of the unborn—or the just-born—subject to the convenience and desire of the mother. Democrats have decided that we should.

Until recently, abortion advocates refused to acknowledge this. But now they are coming around, in part because the Democratic Party’s leftist base has demanded it. They don’t want any more talk about abortion being “safe, legal, and rare,” they want to proclaim it as a positive good. But to do that, abortion mustn’t hinge on a question of biology or gestation or fetus viability, but on the sheer will of the mother.

We used to hear abortion defenders talk about a woman’s body—“my body, my choice”—and how male legislators shouldn’t be telling a woman what to do with her body, as though the fetus were an appendage or an organ. To some extent we still hear that sort of language. But with the Democratic Party’s sharp leftward lurch, and the legislation Democrats are now advancing in blue states, the emphasis has unmistakably shifted from a woman’s body to her will.

Now at last the pretense has lifted and we can talk about what we should have been talking about for the past 46 years: whether parents have the right to commit infanticide against their unwanted children.

And, as I mentioned above, whether sexual profligacy free of constraint and consequence is a good and desirable goal—or even possible at all—and if it is, is abortion-as-contraception a morally defensible means of achieving it.

Share

The new rules

The most sidesplitting photo I’ve seen all week.

TrannyWassle.jpg


But…but…but…why is a DUDE rasslin’ a CHICK, you ask? Easy-peasy: because he believes he ain’t a dude, and whatever he wishes reality to be, that’s what it must be, that’s why. Ace says:

The transgender is actually biologically female, but “transitioning” to male via male hormone injections. Which, you may have heard from professional sports scandals, are considered an illegal and unfair advantage in sports.

The problem is that Texas is making this female wrestle as a female. The rule should be changed to reflect the idea females are special category in sports, and that anyone who was born male or who is taking male steroids for whatever reason must compete as a male. Whether xe identifies as male or not.

Nope, no way. Sorry, but these are the New Rules, and if we must be forced to live by ’em, then so must they. The situation is not without its layers and layers of toothsome irony:

For the second year in a row, a transgender wrestler has won the Texas girls’ Class 6A 110-pound division.

Mack Beggs, an 18-year-old senior from Euless Trinity High School near Dallas, entered the tournament in Cypress outside of Houston with an undefeated record. He beat Chelsea Sanchez — whom he beat for the title in 2017– in the final match Saturday.

Back to Ace for the ironic bit:

Chelsea Sanchez would thus be a two-time female wrestling champ if she had not been forced to compete with someone who is using male hormones. Something she would be banned from the sport if she were found using.

Tough noogies. I do kinda feel sorry for the female wrestler, sure. Doesn’t matter. Liberals are making a better world. All of them, better worlds—whether we like it or not; whether their reckless, lunatic tinkering makes sense or not; even whether they’re actually better worlds or not. Ours not to reason why, people; ours but to take what we’re given, shut the fuck up, and live with it.

So everybody repeat the New Rules after me: gender is fluid, malleable, a matter not of biology but of simple preference. There is no meaningful difference between males and females—physically, mentally, or in any other respect. Traditional gender roles based on common sense and objective reality: BAD. Capricious destruction of them: GOOD, no matter the real damage done to both society and individuals trapped within it. These are but a few of the Rules, and there will be more. Learn ’em, live ’em, love ’em. Or else.

Share

More estrogen, stat!

Yeah, this is a perfectly normal, stable, mentally-healthy person here.

It’s an amazing time to be alive, full of wonder and terror and confusion all mixed together in a soup of “what could possibly happen next?”  that keeps us all on our toes. Today’s dose of insanity comes from a viral video of a transgender man who had a testosterone-fueled meltdown because someone called him “sir” in a GameStop in Albuquerque, New Mexico (video below). The minimum-wage employee who took the brunt of the all-male rage-a-thon should win Employee of the Year for trying his hardest to diffuse the situation.

It’s interesting that his first outburst is at a woman standing off camera who calls him “sir,” as if a woman, who can clearly see for herself what she is looking at, should have to cater to a man’s particular fantasy and properly “gender” him according to his wishes and not according to her own eyeballs. This is the kind of insanity the left wants to foist on biological women in the locker room. Can you imagine encountering him when you’re half-dressed and scared? Yikes.

The employee is going to be under fire if I know anything about the outraged tranny mob, so buckle up for a smear campaign to get him excused from his position and rendered unemployable anywhere else. This is despite the fact that he apologized to this tantrum-throwing man several times and began calling him “ma’am,” as requested. If you’re a six-foot-tall 200-pound man who likes to be called “she,” shouldn’t you have some compassion for others around you who have no idea? For all the guy behind the counter knew, maybe it likes to be called “xe” or “they.” How is anyone supposed to know? (And it is more than a little humorous that he pulled out the “I’ll show you a sir” line when it suited him to be a tough guy.)

The other problem here is the idea that one person can force others to comply with his personal fantasies. This man, who wants to be seen as a woman, is living in his own fantasy where he demands that others not involved in the same fantasy take part in it. This is not what a free society looks like. Mister Roid Rage (as I’ve taken to calling him in my head) has a right to live how he pleases and dress how he pleases but he does not have the right to force free people around him to take part in his internal delusions. If he wants to be around people who will look past the obvious and call him “her,” then he should go to drag bars. But if he’s shopping in the real world, he should expect that normies are gonna normie and call a man a man, not to belittle, but because that’s the reality.

Actually, I suspect it’s more likely that they really weren’t sure WHAT the hell this guy was supposed to be, and blurted “sir” more or less reflexively, without much forethought or intent at all. They were in the presence of a damned big weird-ass dude in a dress, speaking in a deep, masculine voice. He was agitated, confrontational; it was obvious at a glance that this wasn’t somebody any normal person would want to have any interaction with at all. In fact, he was precisely the sort of unbalanced whackjob almost all of us would go a good bit out of our way to get away from—the kind of unnerving Bedlamite any city-dweller knows not to make eye contact with at all, ever. Have a look and tell me different:




Far as I’m concerned, this toxic, dangerous freak shouldn’t even be allowed to run around loose and unsupervised. Guess that opinion makes me “transgenderphobic” or something, I dunno. Don’t care, either.

As for the ongoing campaign to force demented, hair-triggered freaks like this down everyone’s throats as perfectly normal or natural, just slightly “different,” it’s all part of a Soviet-instigated project to undermine and weaken the US by sowing FUD and chaos in direct challenge not only to traditional American values and norms, but to the accepted definition of certain words and concepts—a project now being faithfully carried on and even expanded by our own homegrown Marxists. If that sounds far-fetched, even paranoid, to you, I’ll refer you yet again to Eric Raymond’s two seminal essays on the topic.

And if it STILL puts your credence to the test, consider this: how many Leftards do you think will hail this lunatic as a “hero” for xims’ “courage” in standing so firmly against bigotry, oppression, and hate?

Yeah, there ya go.

On the other hand, just for contrariness’s sake, if ever there was someone who could really use a stiff daily jolt of estrogen to keep him relatively docile and dial back the rampant testicle-juice aggro somewhat, it’s probably the guy in the video. I’d bet the locals who have to deal with him on anything like a regular basis would be quite willing to have their taxes pay for it, too.

Share

Easy-peasy

All this confusion and angst over such a simple, obvious fact.

Two Princeton groups recently held an event celebrating menstruation where students were told that menstrual periods are not limited solely to women, and that people other than women can menstruate. However, the groups refused to comment or expand on this argument. Princeton feminist groups contacted by The College Fix also declined to discuss the issue.

At the recent “Menstruation Celebration,” hosted by Princeton Students for Reproductive Justice and Princeton Students for Gender Equality, the organizations were “urging people to stop referring to menstruation as a women’s issue, since transgender and non-binary people get periods as well.”

Menstruation, a monthly biological event in which the uterus sheds its lining if there is no embryo present, is widely understood by biologists and scientists to be a phenomenon that affects only females.

“Widely understood”? It is to laugh. Since the definition of “female” can be reduced to “homogametic (ie, two X chromosomes), ovaries, fallopian tubes, and a uterus,” then mentally-ill people such as “transgenders” and “nonbinaries” who possess those characteristics are, BY DEFINITION AND ACCORDING TO SCIENCE, female, and their fantasies, desires, and/or delusions be damned. The only—ONLY—exceptions would be true hermaphrodites, which are quite rare.

Why, oh why, do libtards hate Teh Science™ so?

Then we lapse into some real hilarity:

Neither Princeton Students for Reproductive Justice nor Princeton Students for Gender Equality responded to repeated requests for comment from The College Fix on the position that individuals other than women can menstruate. The Fix also asked the groups whether or not other topics commonly seen as “women’s issues,” such as abortion, should no longer be referred to as such.

Princeton is home to a wide array of women’s and feminist groups. The College Fix reached out to several of these organizations to see if they had differing opinions on menstruation being strictly a women’s issue. All eight organizations failed to comment, including the Princeton Association of Black Women, Princeton for Women in Politics, the Graduate Women of Color Caucus, Women’s Political Caucus, Wym’on Stage, and SpeakOut.

Well, naturally. You microaggressed ’em, dude. That always sends ’em screaming off to their safe spaces to curl up into a fetal ball and tremble for a few hours.

The umbrella organization for these feminist groups, the Princeton Women*s Center, has lately promoted LGBT ideology in its programming and events. This past October, the Women*s Center began coordinating two “Queering the Color Line” events each month to create “an affirming space for LGBTQIA Students of Color to meet and share a meal.”.

Explaining why the Women*s Center uses an asterisk rather than an apostrophe in its name, the organization writes on its website: “When you come upon an asterisk in your reading, you recognize it as a [sic] indication that there’s something more to learn. We use the asterisk to suggest that we are much more than our name implies: the Center is not just for women nor is it just about women. We welcome and engage persons of all genders here, including genderqueer, nonconforming, transgender folks, and cisgender men.”

Like I always say, you just can’t parody these goofballs anymore. Lucky for those of us who still occasionally try, though, they’re doing it themselves.

Share

The price of her soul

Moochelle unmasked, back in 2008.

Barack Obama, I argued, evinces a preternatural sangfroid, for he is in America but not of it, a Third World anthropologist profiling Americans. But his wife’s anger at America will out, for it is a profound rage amplified by guilt.

Mrs Obama averred that she could not recall the contents of the thesis she composed in 1985, but that cannot be quite true, for it is a poignant cry from the heart. It explains her controversial outburst during the campaign to the effect that she felt proud of her country for the first time in her adult life in 2008, after “feeling so alone” in her “frustration” and “disappointment” at America.

Princeton both humiliated her and corrupted her, Michelle Vaughn Robinson complains in an undergraduate prose that is all the more touching for its clumsiness. By condescending to the young black woman from a Chicago working-class family, the liberal university made Michelle feel like an outsider. Worse, by giving her a ticket to financial success, Princeton caused her to feel that she was selling out to the institutions she most despised.

The thesis is poorly written—barely literate, in truth—incoherent, and, as Spengler says, brimming over with anger and self-loathing. The ugly chip on her shoulder against Whitey burdens every awkward paragraph—a crippling resentment she’s just smart enough to be aware of but not smart enough to overcome, and actually prefers to indulge anyway. This is one seriously conflicted, screwed-up female here.

Black students who reject white society, she concluded, understand the desperation of the black lower class, and therefore feel hopeless, whereas assimilated blacks ignore this desperation and therefore are more cheerful. It is hard not to admire the young black woman whose indignation over the predicament of the black lower class bursts out of the bland style of academic sociology, and who throws the condescension of her white liberal professors back in their faces. But that is not what afflicted the future Michelle Obama.

To the young Michelle’s sense of hopelessness about the prospects for the black lower class, Princeton added something even worse, namely guilt over “striving for many of the same goals as my White classmates – acceptance to a prestigious graduate or professional school or a high paying position in a successful corporation”. Despite her black separatist sympathies, Michelle Vaughn Robinson succumbed to the temptations of which she wrote in her thesis and got a law degree from Harvard, earning around $400,000 a year in salary and corporate director fees by 2005.

Her “hopelessness”, “frustration” and “disappointment” remain, exacerbated by guilt over her own success. That is not speculation, but a precis of her own account. One might speculate that the guilt became all the more poignant to the extent her success was unearned. Michelle Obama’s employer, The University of Chicago Hospitals, paid her $121,910, a reasonable sum for the skill level evident in her thesis, but raised this to $316,952 shortly after her husband was elected US senator.

And this straight-up bribe of a salary was compensation for a job so vital, so meaningful and important to the function of the hospital, that when she and her husband moved to the White House they didn’t even bother to replace her. Nice “work” if you can get it.

These internal conflicts help explain Michelle Obama’s erratic behavior. Despite her own financial success, Michelle Obama continues to preach austerity and self-sacrifice to others. Speaking before a working-class audience in Ohio on February 29, she urged her listeners to eschew corporate law or hedge-fund management, which was odd, because most of them did not have a high-school diploma, let alone a university degree:

We left corporate America, which is a lot of what we’re asking young people to do. Don’t go into corporate America. You know, become teachers. Work for the community. Be social workers. Be a nurse. Those are the careers that we need, and we’re encouraging our young people to do that. But if you make that choice, as we did, to move out of the money-making industry into the helping industry, then your salaries respond…many of our bright stars are going into corporate law or hedge-fund management [quoted by Byron York in The National Review Online].

But she did not leave corporate America. She did leave the corporate law firm that hired her out of Harvard Law School, but there is no reason to believe that idealism drove that decision. The major law firms make partners out of a fifth of their new hires, who slave for years for the opportunity. Michelle Obama was not partner material for a top firm. She took more than a year to pass the Illinois Bar Examination, a substandard result, and – as her thesis makes clear – lacked the command of written English required for legal success. Her skills were better suited to the hospital position she eventually filled. Not only did she sell out, but she sold out for mediocre results.

Understandable. She’s a damned mediocrity herself, as is her deplorable husband. The Presidency is probably hers for the taking in 2020; all she has to do is decide she wants it, then reach out her hand to seize it. Then we’ll have eight years of her complaining miserably about how awful being Prez-Mo-Dent is, and a best-selling book about her term in office.

Share

Good women: gone

Just walk away.

This is not a debate. This is not me being snarky or sarcastic. It is a very REAL fact men are facing today when it comes to marriage – that the only younger women out there to date and potentially marry up are all brainwashed, leftist, NPC women. They ALL vote democrat. They ALL are feminists. They ALL put their career above everything else. They ALL have crippling debts. They ALL have dubious careers. And to any man who takes having a wife and forming a family seriously, these women are simply unqualified for the job. This isn’t to say literally “all” women are like this (there are engineers, accountants, and traditional women), but the statistics are so skewed, so bad, there is effectively no choice for most men today. I roughly estimate less than 5% of the female population are conditioned AND CAPABLE of being a wife an mother, which falls incredibly short of the 82% of men who wish to marry. Ergo, you can have your Ford in any color you want, as long as it’s black. And most men today can have wife as long as she’s an NPC leftist.

But did you ever wonder how women became so standardized, common, democrat, and (ultimately) boring? Did you ever wonder why there’s truly NO diversity in thought, life-goals, and life-philosophy among young women? Did you ever wonder why ALL of them want a career, an education, a party-lifestyle, shoes, handbags, and none of them want a husband or children? Well, allow me to ask you a question:

How many trillions did you spend training and programming women to be good wives and mothers?

The reason I ask this question is because while it seems absurd (why would you spend any resources programming women to be anything?), trillions have, in fact, been spent on programming, training, and ultimately indoctrinating women into becoming NPC leftists.

The K-College education industry alone has spent trillions of dollars over the past 50 years indoctrinating women to become men, putting their careers ahead of family, their educations ahead of individuals, and their politics ahead of love. Certainly the lion’s share of all education budgets since the 1960’s has been dedicated towards actual education. But if you look at the feminist indoctrination young girls received in K-College to put their careers above all else, you can in an accounting-like-sense attribute at least a couple trillion towards a clear and obvious intent to make women want to be wage-slaves, while belittling, even criminalizing being a wife and a mother.

While trillions of actual dollars have been invested in turning women into NPC, leftist, worker drones, what about the trillions of human hours also invested in conditioning women to become NPC leftists? From teachers to guidance counselors to professors to government PSA’s to media to women’s magazines to women’s studies departments to Jezebel and XOJane to even your own parents, it’s impossible to calculate how many millions of women (and men) spent thousands of hours of their lives, promoting and propagandizing hundreds of millions of women over the past 50 years to abandon being wives and mothers and instead be good, little, obedient, debt-laden careerist NPC democrats. Matter of fact, I can’t think of a single larger expenditure of time in all of the US that comes even close to the resources we’ve spent conditioning women to become NPC leftists. There has never been such a large, nation-wide, institution-wide push to form, program, and ultimately mold a people into something the powers that be want.

And I don’t even know how to begin to measure the total resources spent by media, marketing, and advertisers to sell women the “empowered-don’t-need-no-man-brave-executive” image all so women can buy $5,000 Prada handbags, $10,000 Chanel shoes, and $250,000 masters degree. Be it movies showing the strong independent woman, or Silicon Valley fawning over the latest female CEO hire, or all of the MSM worshiping Hillary Clinton during the election, the entire entertainment/media/social-media world only reinforces to women today that the ONLY thing that matters is your career, your leftist politics, and your feminism. Being a wife or a mother doesn’t even come up on the radar.

Now I could go on citing other instances where resources have been purposely spent on conditioning women to become NPC’s, but my larger point is how much has been spent on conditioning women to become good wives? How many trillions in education budgets have been spent on teaching women to be good mothers? And what institutions of our society (government, educational, media, corporate, etc.) actively promote motherhood and wifery?

And the answer is “none.” Not one cent, not one second, NOT EVEN BY THE PARENTS OF WOMEN THEMSELVES, is spent preparing, educating, explaining, or conditioning young women to be wives and mothers.

Of course not. Quite the opposite, in fact: they’re trained to think of marriage, motherhood, and family as stifling drudgery, unfulfilling and frustrating, the very next-of-kin to literal, outright slavery itself. This did NOT happen by accident:

The sad truth is like sausage, rolls of sod, reams of blank white paper, most women have been purposely conditioned to become mass-produced, boring, unmentionable, unnoteworthy, borg-like NPC leftists. It benefits the democrat party through votes. It benefits the government through increased taxes (both via increased rates AND having women working and paying taxes as well). And it benefits the media/corporate/college/materialist industries as women spend their money on trinkets, bobbles, handbags, and Masters in Social Work degrees. But it will NEVER benefit a husband, children, a family, or loved ones. And I’m not here to tell you some kind of “comeuppance” story, where women in their late 40’s hit menopause and ask “where have all the good men gone” while cuddling their cats.

Personally, I’m glad I’m old and out of all that myself.

Share

More futile post-mort

The people have spoken, and now they must be punished.

Arizona’s Senate race was perhaps the most surprising, and disturbing, midterm result for Republicans and Trump fans. Many struggle to understand how Barry Goldwater’s home state will send a former pink tutu-wearing antiwar activist to Washington. The answer is instructive regarding what Trump Republicanism must do to build a majority.

The biggest reason Martha McSally lost is the same reason Republicans lost control of the House: RINOs. Across the nation, moderate college-educated independents who had frequently backed Republicans in prior elections switched sides. We can see this trend both in the Arizona exit polls and the results reported to date.

Support for Republicans has collapsed since 2012 among college-educated Arizonans when Mitt Romney cruised to a 54-44 win over Barack Obama, crushing him by a63-36 percent margin among college graduates. This year, while Republican Governor Doug Ducey even more easily won victory by a 56-42 margin, he barely carried college grads with only a 51-46 margin. McSally ran against a much tougher opponent in Kyrsten Sinema and ended up losing college grads by a 52-47 margin. Since college grads cast nearly one-quarter of the state’s votes, that 10-point swing added nearly 2.5 percent to Sinema’s margin. Since her lead is currently below two percent, this was the difference between victory and defeat.

Oh come now: Sinema, a “tough opponent”? The über-liberal candidate who contemptuously sneered that the state she represents was “the meth lab of democracy,” who called stay-at-home moms “leeches,” who said that Arizonans were “crazy”?

And yet.

And yet she WAS a tough opponent, as it turned out, because after a short round of the usual Democrat Socialist ballot-diddling, rigging, and fixing, she emerged victorious.

Arizonans, it would seem, ARE crazy—after sending the odious John McCain back to Mordor On The Potomac again and again and again, then sending the perhaps-more-repugnant airhead Jeff Flake off to replace him, then putting the cherry on top of the shit-sundae by allowing the Sinema-McSally contest to wind up within the margin of fraud, what else could they possibly be called?

Then again, in a sane country, there wouldn’t even be a Democrat Socialist Party to begin with—not one like the commie cavalcade of freaks, frauds, whiners, liars, and degenerates we’re afflicted with now, there wouldn’t.

Share

Degenerates gotta degenerate

Part of a long, LONG list.

Ashley Judd ranting about her menstrual period and Madonna offering promises of oral sex if one voted for Hillary are words. Unfortunately, there is this disturbing trend of late on the Left where words are being replaced by actions.

Take the case of Micah Rhodes, a protest leader in Portland, Oregon. He and his group of protesters have been responsible for blocking traffic and just being general a-holes in their attempt to show their displeasure with Trump. He was recently arrested during a protest, but his court appearance was a charge of pedophilia. He faces four counts of second-degree sexual abuse. Apparently Mr. Rhodes met underage victims on a site called Grindr, were aware they were underage, yet sodomized them anyway. In fact, Rhodes had, as a juvenile, also engaged in such activity and was charged and supposedly under supervision.

There is a strange pattern here. It would seem strange when a feminist march in Washington is co-chaired by a Muslim woman- a religion that is not feminist and is homophobic. Liberals and Muslims seem like strange allies, but not if viewed in the light of making degeneracy normal. One could make a case that depraved perverts have hijacked the Left’s decadence for their own particular peculiar perversions.

But then again, the Left and degeneracy seem to go hand-in-hand. There are certainly historical antecedents. In the 1920’s, German intellectuals justified the rampant prostitution in Berlin where children were sometimes sold into revolting sex acts. Thirty to 40 years later you had the bearded Allen Ginsberg and other beatniks coming out as little boy lovers. Ginsberg even joined NAMBLA.  Michel Foucalt, Jean-Paul Sartre and Simone de Beauvoir, three French intellectuals on the Left, wanted the age of consent in France lowered to 13.

From the decadence of Berlin in the 1920’s to the sex trafficking by black activists today, the one common thread is duplicity.  Proponents of justice, they ignore “justice” when it does not suit their narrative. The reason is simple: they do not care about justice. They do care about their own self-gratification. If society has to be burnt to the ground to satisfy the burning in their loins, so be it.

They are not at war for justice. They are at war against normalcy.

Well, yeah. In the larger picture, it’s all part of the Left’s bratty, juvenile self-absorption. While we’re on the topic of degenerates, here are few sets of said burning loins:



Oog. I just threw up in my mouth a little here. As I said the other day: can’t somebody find a way to make these unappetizing, lumpy road apples keep their damned clothes on? Ace suffers a slightly more severe reaction than mine:

Twitchy reports that an outlet called Seven Days wrote:

Unhappy with the direction of the country, the women of varied shapes, sizes, ages and backgrounds bared it all for an intimate, empowering photo session in Burlington, said organizer Dawn Robertson.

“How can we inspire women to vote after the Kavanaugh confirmation, the #MeToo movement and Trump?” said Robertson, a Harvard Law-educated attorney who writes about sexuality and relationships. “It’s a culmination of all those factors.”

Well you’ve inspired me into homosexuality so, halfway to Democrat I guess!

I have to admit that, considering all of the above, emulating the “transgender” freakazoids by chopping off my dick looks one hell of a lot more appealing all of a sudden.

Share

Comedy GOLD

Look, it’s plain she’s NEVER going to just go away. That being the case, yeah, I hope like hell the miserable, sickly old sot climbs out of the gin bottle and runs (staggers) again. At this point, she can hurt them way more than she can hurt us.

On Friday, failed Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton stated she would “like to be president” during a live taping of Recode Decode at New York City’s 92nd Street YMCA.

“I’d like to be president,” stated Clinton. “I think, hopefully, when we have a Democrat in the oval office in January 2021, there’s gonna be so much work to be done.”

Hillary Clinton’s return as a potential presidential candidate in 2020 could not come at a worse time for Democrats. The Democratic Party is trying to seal the midterm elections and complete a takeover of the House majority for the first time in nearly a decade, but the race has tightened in the weeks leading up the November 6 midterm election.

By most accounts on both sides of the aisle, Hillary Clinton’s return to national electoral politics would likely be a disaster for the Democratic Party. Republicans and Democrats have spoken out about Clinton’s negative influence on the Democratic Party in the midterm elections, and any effort by her to run for president again would likely only energize the GOP even more than the party’s base is already fired up.

“The longer a scandal-plagued Hillary Clinton lingers in American politics, the worse off House Democrats will be,” said Jesse Hunt, a spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee, according to NBC News.

“Hillary Clinton is the kiss of death and she represents the part of the Democratic Party that led to historic losses and that elected Donald Trump president,” said a leading Democratic strategist who requested anonymity due to fear of political retribution, per the Washington Examiner.

Political retribution ain’t the kind you oughta be worrying about with this one, bub; the Clintons are well known for handling problematic individuals a lot more, shall we say, dynamically than that.

Has there ever BEEN a more clueless, self-serving, out-of-touch political sewer-crawler than Her Herness? Oh, the fun we’ll have!

Share

Look away, Dixie lamb

Is there NO WAY to convince these repulsive, blubberous, eye-tearing, saggy skanks to keep their fucking clothes on? Why must they inflict their wrinkled, baggy asses and wilted udders on all and sundry whenever they think they have some “important” statement to make? Don’t they realize that A) we don’t give a shit about their juvenile political opinions, and B) stripping off is the surest way I can think of to guarantee that any normal American, of whatever sexual proclivity, will be driven to unswerving hostility towards said opinions by even a brief glimpse of them in the buff? Heartiste says:

From Garth V., a pithy bit of insight revealing the shared motivation of ugly shitlib broads accosting people with their ugliness and totalitarian marxists forcing subjects to swallow their propaganda,

They get off on making you repeat their big lies. The more obviously false the lie is, the more you debase yourself in repeating it. When you instead affirm the truth, you’re letting them know that you will not be their slave.

The lie here is, “These are strong, empowered women. Beauty comes in all shapes and sizes.” The Fuggernaut wants us to abide this Big Lie, and in so abiding we debase ourselves. We bring ourselves down to their level.

I say no to that.

I say HELL NO to it. All of it.

Yes, in case you might have been wondering, it does in fact appear that the last in the highly-emetic series of obscene manatees has a dick. As for that “beauty comes in all shapes and sizes” twaddle, I dispensed with that nonsense years ago:

Hey, here’s a revolutionary idea: how about we just own up to a few basic facts at long last? Beauty is what it is — an ideal, something to admire and aspire to — precisely because everybody doesn’t have it. in fact, most of us don’t; if it wasn’t rare, it wouldn’t actually be “beauty” — it would be “ordinary” or “common” or “plain.” I suppose that’s in reality why politically-correct nanny-state ninnies have such a hard time dealing with it: first, their politics-as-religion ideology requires that they cobble together a position paper and a bureaucracy to maintain control over every aspect of life, including ones that are patently outside of mortal jurisdiction — see Climate Change (formerly Global Warming, formerly Global Cooling, formerly “the weather”) for further examples; and second, it sort of upends their “all must be equal in a grey drone world” agenda.

Human physical beauty is a peacock-feathered rebuke to the idea that underneath the drab, one-size-fits-all tunic liberalism would force over our heads, we’re ever going to be anything like equal, no matter how hard statists try to reshape reality.

I also included a pic with that post that I promise you you’ll like WAY better than any of the ones Heartiste ran.

No, everybody is NOT beautiful, in their own way or otherwise, no matter how many silly-assed 70s pop songs mught claim otherwise. And what’s beautiful to one person ain’t necessarily so to another. That’s the, uhh, beauty of it, see. Different societies have different standards for beauty, and even within societies there’s plenty of room for, shall we say, a wide range of opinion between individuals. You’d think, given the libtard obssession with “diversity,” that they’d get that easily enough, and maybe even be enthusiastic about it. After all, that wide range of opinion between and within disparate cultures is the very meaning of the damned word.

And yet.

Thanks a pantload to CA, the heartless bastard, for pointing us all to this horror, even going so far as to repost one of the pics himself. I suppose it IS appropriate in at least one way, it being so close to Halloween and all.

Share

Get it now?

Word to Yertle: these people are NOT your friends, your colleagues, or your countrymen. They are the enemy. Period, full fucking stop.

Anti-Kavanaugh Protesters Harass Mitch McConnell at Airport
‘Do you always turn your back on women?’

Details:

Two of the activists have been identified by The Huffington Post as Tracey Corder, Center for Popular Democracy’s “racial justice campaign director,” and Naina Khanna, Positive Women’s Network USA’s executive director.

McConnell, seemingly unfazed by the harassment, looked straight ahead and even shook a random man’s hand on his way out of the airport.

This did not sit well with the feminists, as you might imagine.

“It is really telling that you shook the hand of a man while a woman is trying to tell you her story,” yelled Corder.

“We would like to know if you believe survivors of sexual violence?” said Khanna.

At one point, Khanna bizarrely accuses one of the men escorting McConnell of “assaulting” her after she repeatedly brushes up against him. “I keep stepping on her feet,” he responded, explaining why he moved.

As McConnell walked up an escalator, Khanna yelled, “Senator McConnell, do you always turn your back on women like this?”

He was also asked if we would “support a full FBI investigation.” There is already an FBI investigation underway, of course.

“We walked up to him respectfully. We really wanted to ask him about his vote and how he felt,” Corder told The Huffington Post. “This is three women of color trying to talk to him. He saw a white man and instantly shook his hand. That felt pretty hurtful.”

You weren’t trying to “talk to” anybody, bitch. And if it had been me, it would have been a lot more than just your feelings that got hurt, I promise you. How McConnell kept from hauling off and popping these contemptible, lying whores right in the mouth is beyond me. Hard to believe his bodyguard let these crazed cunts anywhere near him.

Share

Categories

Archives

"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards." – Claire Wolfe, 101 Things to Do 'Til the Revolution

"To put it simply, the Left is the stupid and the insane, led by the evil. You can’t persuade the stupid or the insane and you had damn well better fight the evil." - Skeptic

"Give me the media and I will make of any nation a herd of swine." - Joseph Goebbels

Subscribe to CF!
Support options

SHAMELESS BEGGING

If you enjoy the site, please consider donating:



Click HERE for great deals on ammo! Using this link helps support CF by getting me credits for ammo too.

Image swiped from The Last Refuge

2016 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

RSS FEED

RSS - entries - Entries
RSS - entries - Comments

E-MAIL


mike at this URL dot com

All e-mails assumed to be legitimate fodder for publication, scorn, ridicule, or other public mockery unless otherwise specified

Boycott the New York Times -- Read the Real News at Larwyn's Linx

All original content © Mike Hendrix