Cold Fury

Harshing your mellow since 9/01

SHE’S IN!

Only HILLARY!™ can save us.

WASHINGTON, D.C.—Hillary Clinton has announced that after much debate she will seek reelection as president of the United States.

Pundits on MSNBC, CNN, and ABC News have long pondered whether Clinton would seek reelection or allow someone else to step in, and now she’s made a definitive declaration.

“After much deliberation, consultation, and prayer to Moloch, I have decided that I will seek a second term,” she said to a crowd gathered at a local Wendy’s restaurant. “I feel I haven’t accomplished everything I wanted to in my first term, and I really need a full eight years to implement my final solution to all of America’s problems.”

Aides then gently ushered her back onto the bus to take her back to Bright Sunrise Home For Seniors.

Looks like deranged old Granny Grifter has been into her “tonic” again. On a very, very slightly more serious note:

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump is about a “much more serious set of charges” than anything related to President Bill Clinton’s impeachment.

And that “serious set of charges” would be…WHAT, exactly? Making a phone call to a foreign leader in which investigation of the Democrat-Socialist attempt to rig the 2016 election was glancingly mentioned? Not being guilty of “collusion,” as directly and clearly stated by the failed Mueller witch-hunt’s report? Putting American interests first abroad, instead of selling them down the river as you did? Refusing to cooperate with a ginned-up, illegitimate “impeachment” fraud unconstitutionally launched as a purely partisan coup plot? Fighting back against the treasonous, anti-American Democrat-Socialist criminal organization and its myriad depredations?

Did I leave anything out of that list of spurious, contrived, fraudulent “crimes” there, Madame Secretary?

“And, as a former secretary of state, I just want Americans to stop and think, why are we allowing this president to, in effect, undermine our sovereignty, turning over foreign policy to foreign governments, what he just did with the Kurds, empowering Turkey and Russia against our staunchest allies in the Middle East?” she added.

Umm…Turkey is an actual American ally, Hills. Y’know, as guaranteed by their membership in NATO, the archaic, outdated alliance established by a seventy-year old treaty drawn up to defend Western Europe in the event of an invasion led by a nation that, y’know, no longer exists? The one you all were shrieking blue murder about Trump’s having suggested leaving or modifying it?

The Kurds, our “staunch allies”? Really? That ain’t what your side was saying back when you were demanding that we hightail it out of Bush’s “blood for oil” war in Iraq, as I recollect. No, according to y’all, we couldn’t abandon the Kurds fast enough in those days. But it gets even worse for you, I’m afraid: those Kurds you’re boo-hooing yourselves sick over Trump “abandoning”? Should Turkey cross into Syria and attack them, the NATO agreement arguably requires us not just to “abandon” them, but to actively assist Turkey in making war on them, should the request be made of us.

“This is the goal of the Trump strategy. It is to raise questions.”

Well, in fairness, I can easily see why somebody like you might have a real problem with that.

“There is no evidence that either one of them did anything wrong. Could there be a question of judgment about his son? Well, that’s fair game but there is absolutely no evidence, and there will not be any evidence, that Joe Biden did anything wrong,” she said.

Heh. You so funny. Once again, Democrat-Socialist projection comes into play.

“Enough with these wild, unfounded conspiracy theories, using the help of foreign governments to interfere in our elections and to undermine people who have been in the public eye for a long time and I hope that the American public rejects this, as they should,” she added.

Run again and find out what the American public rejects, you loathsome carbuncle.

Update! Birds of a feather.

One of the many news-making revelations in Ronan Farrow’s upcoming book, Catch and Kill, is that he received pressure from Hillary Clinton to back off his reporting on Harvey Weinstein.

But even without this reporting, what we also know is that Weinstein’s alleged misconduct and abuse were no secret in Hollywood and Washington, DC. Report after report after report confirm that “everyone knew,” but no one did anything because 1) Weinstein had the power to make or break your Hollywood career and 2) Weinstein raised a ton of money for Democrats — most especially, the Clintons; most especially, Hillary Clinton.

Anyway, this Hillary Clinton bombshell could not come at a worse time for the two-time presidential loser, a time when she appears to be seriously flirting with the idea of a 2020 rematch with President Trump. She might want to remember that during their 2016 battle, Trump was not afraid to remind voters that Hillary played a leading role to personally destroy the women who claimed to have been raped, abused, molested, and mistreated by her husband, former President Bill Clinton.

Gee, corrupt much there, Cankles?

Share

Ouch!

A righteous rip on Her Herness that stings like an enraged hornet.

With Bernie Sanders last seen in an ambulance and none of their other 2020 candidates looking like a proven national vote getter, it’s easy to imagine desperate Democrats turning to the former First Lady and two-time loser to save the party from a disaster she helped to create.

But when Hillary Clinton is the solution to your problems, your real problem might be problem solving itself.

If she does get in the race, Hillary will need a lot of money. At the moment that’s an issue, since many of the benefactors who were there for her in the past, are spread thin or—like Hollywood movie mogul Harvey Weinstein—sidelined by the #MeToo movement.

So until the field narrows and more funds are available Hillary’s working her blue-state base in community centers, churches, and lesbian bookstores while her publisher picks up the tab.

It has to feel a little like old times to the aging grifter. In 2000, she listened her way through every county in the state of New York before elbowing Caroline Kennedy aside to win a seat in the Senate. In 2008, she tried the same thing in her first run for the White House.

Even though Barack Obama proved to be the better con artist that year, Hillary was the first to cash in, turning her job as Obama’s secretary of state into the most lucrative pay-to-play operation Washington’s ever seen.

That’s one reason she lost the 2016 election to Donald Trump. Another was the fact that too many voters, for obvious reasons, found her “cold,” “aloof,” and “untrustworthy.”

This time things will be different, a familiar refrain whenever the Clintons are up to something.

And then it really gets vicious. And hilarious.

Share

I hereby personally condemn whoever he or she might turn out to be

Oh, the courage of this courageously courageous woman! She’s a real hero all right, bless her honest heart. Her, and the forty or fifty other sad sacks and head cases the Demonrats no doubt already have lined up and fully briefed on their heartrending stories, ready to trot out for the usual confirmation shitshow.

This is incredibly difficult for me to do but I feel that it’s necessary to come forward and expose the type of person that Trump will select for the Supreme Court of the great country.

I was raped by whoever Trump selects to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg for the Supreme Court.

It was in the 1990s and the details are a little fuzzy. We were at a party and I distinctly remember this person coming on to me and rubbing up against me.

I told this person I wasn’t interested but whoever it was persisted and when we were alone forced himself or herself on me, pulling off my clothes and penetrating me while I constantly said, “No!”

I haven’t come forward yet because I was ashamed and afraid. This person is clearly very powerful, but now that this person is being considered for the Supreme Court, I think it’s necessary to let people know who they’re dealing with, especially after Trump picked a literal serial killer last time.

And the Soros money doesn’t hurt.

No, it never does, does it? Via Glenn, who also professes himself mightily impressed with the bravery of this paragon of integrity and virtue.

Share

Mo’ bettah hilarity

The great Godfrey Elfwick is back, and in the very nick of time too.

Refusing to wax a woman’s balls is transphobia at its most blatant… and yet here we are, in 2019, still disrespecting trans women’s rights by denying them a smooth nutsack.

I’m referring of course to the recent publicity surrounding Jessica Yaniv, a stunning and brave trans woman who has filed complaints against more than a dozen female waxers with the Human Rights Council in British Columbia. And what is the justification these women have attempted to make in order to disguise their obvious bigotry? Well, among other flimsy excuses, ‘religious grounds’ (the majority of these women are immigrants) and the bizarre claim from one of them that her husband feared for her safety due to the fact that she works from home and has small children to take care of. What on earth does a woman have to fear from a 200+ lbs trans woman who is simply asking to come round to her home and have the hairs removed from her testicle satchel? 

As a trans woman myself, I’ve lost count of the amount of times I’ve been misgendered in Dorothy Perkins because of my beard, and so I have skin in the game here, so to speak. I understand all too well the shame that a denial of service can bring. For the past two years I’ve been trying to get my doctor to give me a Pap smear which he has point blank refused purely based on his misguided logic of me ‘not having a cervix’. As a medical man, I would expect him to understand that biological sex has nothing to do with gender and if I feel that I have a cervix, that should be more than enough for him to throw his anatomy charts into a bin and never refer to them again. These days, doctors know nothing compared to people like myself who have spent six months doing Gender Studies before being forced to quit due to the stress of being made to write essays twice a month.

Okay, that oughta be plenty enough to convince y’all you need to read the rest of it, which is not nearly as long as I’d like it to be. Don’t be such a stranger, Godfrey, the world needs you now more than ever before.

(Via MisHum)

How you slide down a slippery slope update! Gradually at first, then all at once.

One of the first articles I ever wrote about the transgender movement was in 2014, when I argued that the Chicago Tribune was wrong to retract Kevin Williamson article in which he stated that trans women are in fact men. This particular trans-identifying man was actor Laverne Cox, and pulling the plug on Williamson’s sensible column was an early salvo in a fight that has gone on now for five years.

At that time, most of the blowback I received from the left had to do with minding my own business. What did it matter to me, this early line of argument went, if men become women or women become men? Why couldn’t I just live and let live? It was such a tiny group of people, after all. Why was this such a big deal?

In response, I began to argue that if society allowed this monumental change to the very nature of sex and gender, then there would be policy implications. I talked about women’s sports, set-aside programs for women-owned businesses, and women’s-only spaces. Shortly thereafter, the bathroom wars began.

But hey, the past is the past. What seemed obvious and troubling to conservatives seemed impossible and nonsensical to progressives. What else is new? But here we are. Right now, the leftists who promised that it would never come to this, that it would never come to men forcing their penis and testicles into the faces of unwilling women, need to address the fact that, to their shock, this is exactly what happened.

I’m all for letting bygones be bygones. But can we now please finally all realize that there are real policy and personal implications to this rash decision to suddenly change the definition of men and women? Can the left stop pretending that none of this matters? Can we protect women who don’t want to wax the testicles of men, or women, or whatever the left wants to call them?

No, you BIGOTED HHH888RRR BIGOT, we most certainly can NOT. We must now move on to the next step: forcing MEN to wax the testicles of men. After that, we’ll move on to forcing cisgender het binary HHH8888RRRR men to date gay men, transgender mish-mashes, and eventually, say, squirrels.

Yeah, you readers probably think I’m being facetious here. You just wait.

Share

Wrong, righted

What the heck, why not.

HOUSTON, TX—As a tribute to the 50th anniversary of its fake moon landing, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration has announced a reboot of the staged event that fooled billions worldwide, only this time featuring an all-female crew.

NASA officials confirm they will release a shot-for-shot remake of the meticulously concocted phony moon landing, originally filmed at an undisclosed soundstage 50 years ago this week. The rejuvenated hoax will follow in the footsteps of other recent all-female reboots like Ghostbusters and Ocean’s 8.

So, an unwatchable flop, then.

Rumors claim the part of Neil Armstrong will be played by Scarlett Johansson, with Melissa McCarthy acting in the role of Edwin “Buzz” Aldrin. The Michael Collins character will be portrayed by Dame Judi Dench.

According to sources, the only change in the script is a more inclusive update to Armstrong’s famous words when setting foot on the moon, which will be replaced with the line “That’s one small step for a woman, one giant leap for womankind, mankind, transgenderkind, genderfluidkind, and otherkin.”

Hey, you forgot to include the Muzzrats, RACIST!™

Share

“Fit in or F*ck off. I’ll help you pack your bags”

Thomas Kendall gives Trump an assist with calling the Cod Squad on their bullshit.

Since the Democratic party is suddenly the party of open borders, I feel like it’s maybe important to the discussion that three of their battiest socialist yahoos are, in fact, from immigrant families. For those who are behind on the issue, the Democrats want unchecked illegal immigration because… supposedly… it’s fair and just that we let literally anybody who shows up at the border become an American. All they need to do is come from, oh, what’s a good term for it…  a shithole. Their home country has to suck. That’s the only qualification. Which really means, given our neighbors, that if they have a pulse and can cross the border, then they’re just as American as the next person. Probably that border will be the Southern border that you might recall we’d asked for a wall across, mostly for this exact reason (Because somehow I doubt the impoverished masses of Canadians are straining to come down here? Not until they need timely medical treatment, anyway.). If you question the wisdom of letting all comers in, you’re wrong because… ah, I just got the argument back from the professional logicians… ahem…  “shut up racist”. I hope that clears things up.

Now hang on! Just look at all the societal benefits to be reaped from this policy. After all, the proof is in the pudding, right? Why, look at these three American success stories, every one of them from, I think we agreed, an immigrant family. And every one of them is a vitriolic, America-hating, openly socialist, race-baiting pain-in-the-ever-loving-ass. Just imagine how many more families just like theirs we could bring in with an open-borders policy that had an even lower bar for… say, where are you going? Come back, damn it! Diversity is our strength, I tell you!

So, genuine question… why shouldn’t we call them on their bullshit? Somalia and Puerto Rico are shitholes. So are the pieces of land around Israel still occupied by “Palestinians”. Two of those are occasionally explosive shitholes, arguably the worst kind. Their families came from places that are objectively worse, compared to the United States. But, uh, boy, you’d never know it listening to them. They sure have a lot of problems with us, considering. Why the Hell should we suffer in silence while these wanna-be commies back-seat drive our government?

We damned well shouldn’t; in fact, we damned well mustn’t. And since Trump is the guy we elected specifically to front for us on this sort of thing, that goes double for him whenever aspirational revolutionaries with more gall than grey matter start popping off about the finer points of Commie shitrapies and grumbling about how our country just generally gives them the pip.

By all means, languish not in this intolerable Hellhole, ladies. The rolling sands of Mogadishu await. Well, await one of you at any rate. But AOC and Tlaib can take the long way round, assuming they survive landing in Mogadishu. Call it girl’s night out (of the country). If you aren’t just here to try to crawl to the top, institute radical redistributionist schemes, and then mysteriously have a lot of the wealth redistributed to you in the process of it being passed around “fairly”, the places your families ran from are available. Send us a post-card. You may need to institute a functioning postal system first, but damn it, I believe in you. If those countries won’t do, there are also dozens of countries where people have already crawled to the top, instituted radical redistributionist schemes, and mysteriously had a lot of that wealth redistributed to themselves, and… I can’t help noticing… they are also mainly shitholes. There would be a lesson there for you three, but I’m not sure I can break it down into the requisite monosyllabic words. I’d have to maybe find a way to express half a syllable in AOC’s case, which explains a lot about her, really.

Now, I know what you’re thinking. What will we do without you? Well, don’t worry. Brace for life-changing news as I reveal this— we don’t need you three. And we don’t particularly need any more like you three. We can find probably about a billion people just as stupid and un-American right outside [or inside] the border. In fact that’s kind of the problem (Or…  as the traitorous elements of the Democratic party that see non-functioning borders as their own personal ticket to dissolve the people, elect another, and crawl to the top to yadda, yadda, yadda, would call it…  the opportunity). Frankly I’m not sure any nation needs vacuous anti-nationalist Marxism-gargling moppets clogging its political houses, but we especially don’t. Yes we know you hate the wallpaper and the stuffing is too dry for your tastes. Enough. Pick another country to annoy already, would you? I hear France is… used to be nice this time of year.

Not that the “squad” has nothing useful to tell us about immigration, mind you. Just one day reading the news tells you, the immigration system that let their families in? Too. Lax. By all means, let’s finally start talking about how to let in people who actually like America, not just people who want to loot America. We deserve patriots, not pirates.

DAMNED skippy, Thomas. Not only couldn’t I have said it better myself, I can’t think of anyone right offhand who could. Why, of course you’ll want to read it all; why do you ask?

Via Gerard, who has some other good stuff I’m gonna be putting up here in a trice.

Share

Facts is facts

STOP CONFUSING ME WITH REALITY, DAMN YOU.

Segregating the sexes in sports is not unfair to women—if anything, it’s exceedingly kind.

But equality is a hill that many true believers are willing to die on, no matter how foolish it makes them look.

In a 2017 article for The Guardian, professional female golfer Anya Alvarez concedes the undeniable fact that men “are stronger than women” and that their average golf swing is about 18MPH faster than the female average. She says that despite these male advantages, “suggesting that makes females lesser athletes is ridiculous.” Then she compares the stats of select female pro golfers against that of select male pro golfers without stating where they stand in the rankings of their respective genders.

But in 2003 when Annika Sorenstam—widely acknowledged as one of the all-time great female golfers—competed in a gender-blind tournament against men, she ranked 96th out of 113 competitors.

An article in Duke Law examines track and field events for 2017 and cites how many times that year’s world-best performance for women was bested by boys under 18. There wasn’t a single event in which the best woman in the world wasn’t bested by at least 10 under-18 boys; in the 400-meter dash, 285 boys outperformed the world’s fastest woman.

When compared to adult males, it looked even worst for the gals: In 2017 alone, the best woman’s result in the 100-meter dash was beaten over 10,000 times by men; in the 800-meter race, men outperformed the best woman’s time in the world nearly 14,000 times.

When it comes to men’s and women’s power-lifting world records, the listing for actual world records doesn’t even specify men because it’s assumed that men hold every record; it simply says “World Records.” The male record for squats is 542 pounds heavier than the female record. The pattern persists throughout all categories: It’s 415 pounds heavier for deadlifts, 298 pounds for bench presses, and 810 pounds for one person’s totals in all categories combined. In three of the four women’s categories, the world champeen is an American named April Mathis.

April Mathis was born a man and still looks like one, complete with the pattern baldness. So the best “female” weightlifter of all time is actually a man.

If you’re truly concerned about being fair to women, you should forbid male-to-female trannies from competing against them in sports.

I might be concerned about being fair to women, but I am not in the least concerned about being fair to “feminist” Leftards. Since the current ludicrous chaos is but the inevitable end-stage of Proggy’s relentless and destructive campaign to undermine families, muddle traditional sex roles and relations between them, and distort the very idea of gender itself, I want it all crammed right down “feminist” throats, just as far as it will go. I want to see them forced to abide by the spurious assertions of total, no-difference equality between the sexes they’ve been promoting for decades.

Their own toxic ideology disallows any distinction between male, female, transgender, or Other; in fact, it precludes the existence of “womens’ sports” in the first place. Fine, then. If it’s true that a “transgender woman” athlete must be acknowledged as being nothing less than a real, true woman, then zhym must be allowed to participate in xhyr’s chosen sport as one.

The original leaders of the “feminist” movement, some of them anyway, allowed themselves to be seduced by cultural Marxism and abandoned what may once have been a reasonable quest for greater automony and freedom. The rank and file went along with it. So let them live under their own New Rules. If, as Goad says, “equality is a hill that many true believers are willing to die on,” then by God let them die on it.

Share

WAX THEM, I SAY!

Remember me speculating the other day about the Canadian “transgender” bikini wax contretemps, and whether Zhir or Xhym whatever was actually serious or just some bored dude having us all on and taking the piss, as they say in Old Blighty?

Well. About that.

Jessica Yaniv, a transgender Canadian woman, has filed over a dozen gender-identity discrimination complaints against women in the Vancouver area who have refused to perform Brazilian bikini wax procedures on her male genitalia.

Yaniv’s identity was revealed Wednesday after the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal overturned an order protecting Yaniv’s identity from being disclosed by the Canadian press. However, Yaniv’s identity has long been suspected by the public, according to John Carpay, President of the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, which is representing five women Yaniv has filed complaints against.

Yaniv posted a tweet Thursday arguing the refusal of women to wax her genitalia is “about businesses and individuals using their religion and culture to refuse service to protected groups.”

Fuck you, freakazoid. It’s actually about you trying to strongarm everyone into not just tolerating but vociferously endorsing your mental illness, forcing Normals who weren’t bothering you in the least into compliance with your fascist PC ethos. Well, that, and you cashing in along the way, apparently.

Even if the women are successful in defending themselves against the allegations of discrimination in violation of section eight of the British Columbia Human Rights Code, the complaint could cost them $10,000, $20,000 or even $30,000 in legal fees, said Carpay. He also believes some women have already paid Yaniv thousands of dollars in settlement money to avoid going to court.

There’s a picture of the repellent blot singlehandedly wreaking all this havoc and destruction. It’s…exactly what you’d expect.

Waitwait, what? A lesbian? SRSLY?!?

So to sum up then, what we have here is: an intact male who nonetheless wishes to be regarded, treated, and legally identified as a “woman”; who calls him/her/itself “transgender” while lacking the wherewithal to go under the knife and “transition” into…whatever, thereby making Xhym not a “transgender” anything, but a FUCKING ORDINARY TRANSVESTITE; and who, all the beforesaid notwithstanding, is STILL sexually attracted to women?

Riiiight, got it. Thanks for clearing things up for us, pal. It all makes perfect sense now.

Share

When women were women

Did 70s Hollywood kill feminism, or was it vice the versa?

The great auteurs of the 1970s used women as props, either victims or vixens. The ’70s women were plot devices, not fully developed characters. I grew up in the ’70s, with only two kinds of Hollywood women. They were either murder victims or prostitutes; unless they were prostitutes getting murdered. With the exception of a certain princess from Alderaan, as a teenager, I never saw a strong woman on the big screen.

In contrast, when I’d watch movies on the old movie channel, there were reporters, businesswomen, army nurses, even scientists. I was told again and again, that women of the 1930s were oppressed and women of the 1970s were liberated. But the old movie channel told a very different story.

Those women from black white movies were tough in a realistic way. They were not like today’s ridiculous female heroines—chicks who are all of 95 pounds and beating up men three times their size. The women in the movies of the 1930s and ’40s were resilient, resourceful, and intelligent. In other words, they were tough in a feminine way. They were not just carbon copies of male heroes.

She goes on from there to cite several sterling examples of female strength and power in the old classics before getting to one of my favorites:

Finally there is the champ—one of the strongest women ever put on film. You aren’t allowed to say that of course, because she was on the side of those whose statues we must now tear down. But there never was, and probably never will be, as strong a woman in movies as Vivien Leigh’s Scarlett O’Hara. Her entire life, quite literally, is burnt to ashes. But she rises and builds a great business. She has financial success; when everyone around her says it is unseemly for women to do anything but stay home. Scarlett has more right to the name Phoenix than any of the X-Men.

Scarlett O’Hara still stands atop the adjusted for inflation box office.

I think she always will. The entire Yankee army couldn’t take Scarlett down, and a horde of super and space heroes won’t be able to topple her, either.

Those were the strong, female characters, that inspired me in my youth. These women fought against villains and succeeded without fantasy super powers. They brought men like Henry Fonda and Jimmy Stewart and, yes, even the epitome of the male hero, John Wayne, to their knees.

The great auteurs of the ’70s threw women like that under the bus. They beat women and raped women and killed women and degraded women. Now Hollywood pats itself on the back for their ridiculous dress-up paper dolls and proclaim voila! As if it is the first time we’ve ever seen the “strong female character.”

In fairness, though, they’ve done a real number on men, too. And I don’t mean just in terms of the characters, but of the actors themselves. Or do any of y’all want to compare such classic male exemplars as Clark Gable, Erroll Flynn, or Robert Mitchum with any of our forgettable, slope-shouldered effeminates of today by way of argument?

Yeah, thought not.

Aubert makes a stronger point than she might realize in citing GWTW, though. Hell, nearly every damned women IN the film, excepting Aunt Pittypat and Scarlett’s whiny sisters, was tough, courageous, and entirely admirable. Melanie Wilkes, Belle Watling, Mrs Meade, Ellen O’Hara, even Mammy: ain’t a hothouse flower or shrinking violet in the bunch, bless their indomitable hearts.

Share

Envy is always an unlovely thing

Oh shut up, Whoopsie.

It’s beginning to sound an awful like victim-blaming.

Actress Bella Thorne leaked her own personal, private pictures on Saturday in an effort to take power back from an alleged hacker who threatened to release them to the public. The 21-year-old posted on her Twitter account screenshots of the NSFW images, along with text messages from the hacker who demanded money in exchange for not posting the pictures.

Many fans and other Twitter users offered support and praise for Thorne’s actions, but on Monday’s episode of The View, Whoopi Goldberg  essentially blamed Thorne for taking the nude photos in the first place.

“If you’re famous, I don’t care how old you are. You don’t take nude pictures of yourself,” Goldberg said. “Once you take that picture, it goes into the cloud and it’s available to any hacker who wants it, and if you don’t know in 2019 that this is an issue, I’m sorry. You don’t get to do that.”

Thorne responded with a note posted to her Instagram Story. “Dear Whoopi, I have loved u for so long but honestly I’m so displeased and saddened by your response to my leek [sic],” she wrote. “Blaming girls for taking the photo in the first place? Is sick and honestly disgusting.”

Just because nobody wants to look at nekkid pics of Goldberg’s ugly old ass is no reason she should go bustin’ on Thorne. You go, girl. Let ’em breathe, I say.

Reminds me of a good old joke: a little boy is at the beach, swimming in the surf alongside a comely, buxom young lass in a tiny bikini. A serious rogue wave comes a-crashing over them both, rough enough to rip the hottie’s skimpy top right off and away. As she’s desperately trying to keep her arms over those fun-bags and hold them underwater so’s nobody gets a free peek, the boy says to her, “look, lady, if you’re gonna drown them puppies I’ll take the one with the little brown nose.”

If I was at the beach and such a thing happened to Whoopie, I’d hold her damned head under, for as long as it took.

Share

Equal means EQUAL, dammit!

Victimized by end-stage Femileftism.

Two transgender male athletes kept high school track runner Selina Soule from advancing in the New England girls’ track regionals. Soule needed to be in the top six runners to advance, but came out eighth because the two biological males were also competing as transgender girls. She is now taking legal action with Alliance Defending Freedom(ADF) to uphold her rights under the federal law providing equal access to women in education, known as Title IX.

“Girls like Selina should never be forced to be spectators in their own sports,” Holcomb said. “But unfortunately that is exactly what is taking place when you allow biological males to compete in sports that have been set aside and specifically designed for women like Selina.”

Look, I’ll say it one more time: they are NOT “biological males.” They are fully, completely, in every way that matters nowadays (ie, politically) WOMEN. I don’t care if they’re swinging a schlong big enough to make a donkey blush in shame: THEY. ARE. WOMEN. All they have to do is believe it to be so, and it is so. To claim otherwise is to reveal oneself as nothing but a bigoted, transphobic H888TRRRR—to do unconscionable injury to a perfectly normal, courageous Hero™ just trying to Live Xzhir Truth. Full stop, end of story.

Title IX is supposed to protect girls in athletics so they are not prevented from competing at the highest levels. According to ADF, the Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference has a policy allowing transgender males to compete in girls’ athletics. One of the transgender athletes who competed in Soule’s race broke 10 state sports records previously held by biological women, which took women some 20 years to achieve.

It is unsurprising for biological males to destroy female records. Men are physiologically stronger than woman, having more muscle mass and a higher bone density, ADF reports. Typically an average male athlete in any sport will beat the best female athletes in the same sports because of males’ biological height, weight, speed, bone, muscle, and other physical advantages compared to women.

Lies, nothing but lies, told by the revanchist enablers of patriarchal repression who have for too long stifled us. We are exactly the same, one and all; gender is fluid, malleable, eternally switchable from amongst a Baskin-Robbins-style menu of endless choices. There are no boundaries, no limitations. Thanks to the Left, we can all enjoy total freedom without limitations or restraints, even those once imposed on us by what we erroneously called “reality” and “science” back in a darker, less-enlightened era.

This isn’t unfair competition dominated by mentally-disturbed ringers; it isn’t delusion and degeneracy über alles. This is the face of the new True Equality, as conceived and enforced by the bughouse Left. Sorry, sweetie, but these are the rules passed on to us from the Sisterhood and the rest of the Left, and submission to them is NOT optional. I didn’t make ’em. Nor did you. But they’re here, and now we all have to live by ’em.

Hey, you can always join the Marines or something.

Share

When men were men—and so were boys

Remember this Steyn quote I posted yesterday?

They were young, but they were not children. Five years ago, I listened to President Obama explain from Brussels that the deserter he brought home from the Taliban in the days before the D-Day anniversary was just a “kid”. In fact, he was 28 years old. I remember walking through the Canadian graves at Bény-sur-Mer a few years ago. Over two thousand headstones, but only a handful of ages inscribed upon them: 22 years old, 21, 20…But they weren’t “kids”, they were men.

Yeah, well, about that—and about how much more bold and manly the young boys of yesterday were than the sniveling, weepy, ambi-gender SJW dorksnorts we’re afflicted with today.

Louis (sometimes styled Louie) Abernathy was born in Texas in 1899 and Temple Abernathy was born in 1904 in Tipton, Oklahoma. Their father was cowboy and U.S. Marshal Jack Abernathy.

In 1909 the boys rode by horseback from Frederick, Oklahoma, to Santa Fe, New Mexico, and back. Louis was nine, and Temple was five.

When the boys completed their Santa Fe journey, they began planning a cross-country horseback ride to New York City, again by themselves, to meet Theodore Roosevelt when he returned from his trip to Africa and Europe. They made that trip in 1910. They were greeted as celebrities, and rode their horses in a ticker-tape parade just behind the car carrying Roosevelt. While in New York, the boys purchased a small Brush Motor Car, which they drove, again by themselves, back to Oklahoma, shipping their horses home by train.

In 1911, they accepted a challenge to ride horseback from New York to San Francisco in 60 days or less. They agreed not to eat or sleep indoors at any point of the journey. They would collect a $10,000 prize if they succeeded.

After a long trip, they arrived in San Francisco in 62 days, thereby losing the prize but setting a record for the time elapsed for the trip.

In 1913, the boys purchased an Indian motorcycle, and with their stepbrother, Anton, journeyed by motorcycle from Oklahoma to New York City. This was their last documented adventure.

Now, admittedly the Abernathy kids were unusual even for their own more rugged era, sure. But here’s the thing: the manliness gap between them and their contemporaries was nothing NEAR as wide as the one between them and today’s pathetic piss-boys. Even at 10 years old, these boys out-masculine the pitiful excuses for men you’ll find in present-day college dorms, offices, or fancy-schmancy workout emporiums by a YUUUGE margin. Sadly, mass societal emasculation is what you’re buying into when first you accept the FemiLeftist premise that all masculinity is toxic, and start raising your sons accordingly.

(Hat tip for the steer to OB-KT)

Share

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

CF Comments Policy Statement

Comments appear entirely at the whim of the guy who pays the bills for this site and may be deleted, ridiculed, maliciously edited for purposes of mockery, or otherwise pissed over as he in his capricious fancy sees fit. The CF comments section is pretty free-form and rough and tumble; tolerance level for rowdiness and misbehavior is fairly high here, but is NOT without limit. Management is under no obligation whatever to allow the comments section to be taken over and ruined by trolls, Leftists, and/or other oxygen thieves, and will take any measures deemed necessary to prevent such. Conduct yourself with the merest modicum of decorum, courtesy, and respect and you'll be fine. Pick pointless squabbles with other commenters, fling provocative personal insults, issue threats, or annoy the host (me) and...you won't.

Should you find yourself sanctioned after running afoul of the CF comments policy as stated and feel you have been wronged, please download and complete the Butthurt Report form below in quadruplicate; retain one copy for your personal records and send the others to the email address posted in the right sidebar. Please refrain from whining, sniveling, and/or bursting into tears and waving your chubby fists around in frustrated rage, lest you suffer an aneurysm or stroke unnecessarily. Your completed form will be reviewed and your complaint addressed whenever management feels like getting around to it. Thank you.

Categories

Archives

Notable Quotes

"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

"Ain't no misunderstanding this war. They want to rule us and aim to do it. We aim not to allow it. All there is to it." - NC Reed, from Parno's Peril

"I just want a government that fits in the box it originally came in." -Bill Whittle

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