I started this blog nearly six years ago. Back then I was a blue-pill libertarian. I was so stupid.
I took the red pill and became a white nationalist. Economically speaking, I believe that capitalism is better than socialism. But let's be realistic, most capitalists are Jews and liberals. Fuck them. I hope Bernie Sanders raises their taxes to kingdom come if he is elected. I hope Donald Trump does the same. I'm sick of being a shill for the ruling caste. They hate people like me. They hate people like you. Working-class and middle-class whites are their enemies. They import illegals to do their literal dirty work. They tweet #BlackLivesMatter, which means they want to unleash Negro criminals upon us, while they live safely among their all-white bastions. They wear $40,000 dresses to the Oscars while telling us we should give more of our hard earned tax dollars to nonwhites spewing out bastard children.
"The capitalists will sell them the rope we will hang them by." It's not a saying. It already happened. The capitalists sold the third world invaders the rope. We control the trap door.
I'm done being a libertarian.
Some libertarians are great. Murray Rothbard was one. But modern libertarians are basically Cuckservatives who support legalizing drugs. Fuck them.
Maybe the day will come when I can support libertarianism, but right now I can't.
1488.
Trump/Putin 2016.
The Dark Side is fun. Come join us.
Friday, January 22, 2016
Saturday, August 2, 2014
Repost: Blacks Ruin Everything
My most popular blog post has, by far, been my April 11, 2010 post entitled: "Blacks Ruin Everything." The post was inspired by an incident when gangs of Negro "yoofs" ran amok (I apologize to any Malay or other southeast Asian readers for using the word "amok" when describing native blacks, I was not meaning to compare normal Negro American practices to a mental illness in your community) in an upscale restaurant/shopping district in Kansas City known as the Country Club Plaza. Since then, Negro youths have run amok (once again, I apologize to any southeast Asians reading this, but I believe "amok" is the only English term that can adequately describe these "yoof"'s behavior) many times, most recently last February.
As of right now, it has over 90 comments, more than 10x any other post I've created. Most of them are anonymous comments. It's amazing how white Americans are candid about race when they don't have to worry about their employers, professors, Negros, mestizos, liberals, Marxists, race traitors, Jews, and other malcontents judging them.
Here, I repost my most popular post in all of its glory and infamy:
In Kansas City, Missouri, the Country Club Plaza is an upscale outdoor shopping center encompassing a few city blocks. It has a number of restaurants and stores, all of which are relatively pricey and attract large numbers of suburban whites, usually from Johnson County, Kansas. Unfortunately, it is on the northern end of an oasis in a typical urban wasteland. If you go to the west you will find the bar district of Westport (which is relatively safe because it attracts mostly whites), if you go south you will find expensive homes and yuppie neighborhoods. If you go southeast you will find the University of Missouri-Kansas City and Rockhurst University. However, to the north and east are black ghettos.
Due to private security and police, the Plaza had managed to remain relatively safe from black wildings that have plauged so many other locales around the United States. Until now.
On Saturday night, hundreds of Negro "youths" went rampaging like a bachelor herd of wildebeests. Between 500 and 1000 Negroes swarmed the Plaza, damaging property, attacking actual shoppers, harassing motorists by banging on windows and jumping in front of cars, firing off guns or fireworks, breaking store windows, robbing people, seriously injuring at least one person, and fighting amongst themselves. The police had to block of roads and unleash pepper spray on these clowders of chaos. Naturally, the liberal media referred to the Negroes as "youths" without detailing their race, but non-establishment sources revealed that they were black (as most people who read the MSM stories probably suspected).
Many whites in the Kansas City metropolitan area are leary of the Plaza as a result of this and if another wilding occurs, the Plaza will die. It might even die as a result of this one. The fact that it occurred on a prom night when many suburban white kids were eating at the Plaza restaurants will make the damage much worse - many suburban parents will avoid the Plaza and ban their children from going there after this. Suburban whites in general will soon realize that the Plaza is no longer safe and will retreat to their suburban entertainment centers, leaving the Plaza to rot just as Bannister Mall did years ago for the same reason. Naturally, Negro leaders will whine about how racist whites are because they don't want to share the Plaza with blacks, just as they did when Bannister Mall failed. Of course, if the Plaza was saved by allowing the police and security to kick out miscreants or prevent them from entering, the Negroes would object to that as racist, too.
Segregation is reviled by most people today, but was segregation really bad compared to the black kleptocracy that we have now? The fact is, segregation existed (and not only in the South) prior to the 1960s because whites understood the fact that crime, chaos, and violence follow blacks. A wilding like this would never have happened in Kansas City in the 1960s and before - during the MLK riots, for example, suburban police blocked off entrances to the suburbs and prevented blacks from entering. Back then it was understood who the troublemakers were and how to stop them.
Businesses should be allowed to ban Negro youths and the police should not be restrained from blocking them from entering white areas to prevent wildings like this from occurring. Some may say that this would be a "police state" and no one can suggest this and still call himself a libertarian. The problem is, libertarianism works if there is a population of people who respect others' rights to life, liberty, and property. Blacks, however, do not. Libertarianism will not work in places with large black populations where the "youths" spend their time ruining everyone else's lives.
(Heh. I bet this post will cause me to be delinked from a few blogs. Also, if anyone objects to me using the word "Negro" in this post, go complain to the United Negro College Fund while you're at it.)
As of right now, it has over 90 comments, more than 10x any other post I've created. Most of them are anonymous comments. It's amazing how white Americans are candid about race when they don't have to worry about their employers, professors, Negros, mestizos, liberals, Marxists, race traitors, Jews, and other malcontents judging them.
Here, I repost my most popular post in all of its glory and infamy:
"Kansas City Police were busy on Saturday night after massive crowds took over the Plaza. Some people compared the wild scene to rioting in downtown L.A."Whenever large numbers of young blacks gather together, whether it is in South Africa, New Orleans, Congo, Chicago, or Paris, chaos, destruction, and violence are sure to follow due to their low average IQ and different social order. Whether it is a rap "concert," basketball game, track-and-field event, a movie, or just a Saturday night in a shopping district, anything that attracts blacks will attract trouble.
In Kansas City, Missouri, the Country Club Plaza is an upscale outdoor shopping center encompassing a few city blocks. It has a number of restaurants and stores, all of which are relatively pricey and attract large numbers of suburban whites, usually from Johnson County, Kansas. Unfortunately, it is on the northern end of an oasis in a typical urban wasteland. If you go to the west you will find the bar district of Westport (which is relatively safe because it attracts mostly whites), if you go south you will find expensive homes and yuppie neighborhoods. If you go southeast you will find the University of Missouri-Kansas City and Rockhurst University. However, to the north and east are black ghettos.
Due to private security and police, the Plaza had managed to remain relatively safe from black wildings that have plauged so many other locales around the United States. Until now.
On Saturday night, hundreds of Negro "youths" went rampaging like a bachelor herd of wildebeests. Between 500 and 1000 Negroes swarmed the Plaza, damaging property, attacking actual shoppers, harassing motorists by banging on windows and jumping in front of cars, firing off guns or fireworks, breaking store windows, robbing people, seriously injuring at least one person, and fighting amongst themselves. The police had to block of roads and unleash pepper spray on these clowders of chaos. Naturally, the liberal media referred to the Negroes as "youths" without detailing their race, but non-establishment sources revealed that they were black (as most people who read the MSM stories probably suspected).
Many whites in the Kansas City metropolitan area are leary of the Plaza as a result of this and if another wilding occurs, the Plaza will die. It might even die as a result of this one. The fact that it occurred on a prom night when many suburban white kids were eating at the Plaza restaurants will make the damage much worse - many suburban parents will avoid the Plaza and ban their children from going there after this. Suburban whites in general will soon realize that the Plaza is no longer safe and will retreat to their suburban entertainment centers, leaving the Plaza to rot just as Bannister Mall did years ago for the same reason. Naturally, Negro leaders will whine about how racist whites are because they don't want to share the Plaza with blacks, just as they did when Bannister Mall failed. Of course, if the Plaza was saved by allowing the police and security to kick out miscreants or prevent them from entering, the Negroes would object to that as racist, too.
Segregation is reviled by most people today, but was segregation really bad compared to the black kleptocracy that we have now? The fact is, segregation existed (and not only in the South) prior to the 1960s because whites understood the fact that crime, chaos, and violence follow blacks. A wilding like this would never have happened in Kansas City in the 1960s and before - during the MLK riots, for example, suburban police blocked off entrances to the suburbs and prevented blacks from entering. Back then it was understood who the troublemakers were and how to stop them.
Businesses should be allowed to ban Negro youths and the police should not be restrained from blocking them from entering white areas to prevent wildings like this from occurring. Some may say that this would be a "police state" and no one can suggest this and still call himself a libertarian. The problem is, libertarianism works if there is a population of people who respect others' rights to life, liberty, and property. Blacks, however, do not. Libertarianism will not work in places with large black populations where the "youths" spend their time ruining everyone else's lives.
(Heh. I bet this post will cause me to be delinked from a few blogs. Also, if anyone objects to me using the word "Negro" in this post, go complain to the United Negro College Fund while you're at it.)
Tuesday, July 1, 2014
I'm Back
Four and a half years ago I started this blog. Three years ago I basically abandoned it. It's kind of a shame. I was active in the alt-right blogosphere (do people still use the term alt-right?) and paid attention to the PUA, libertarian, WN, and MRA blogospheres.
Half of the blogs I used to comment on, link to, were linked from, and were commented on by are now gone. I used to visit OneSTDV, Guy White, and Inmalafide multiple times a day to view their new posts and engage in debates with the commenters. Now they are gone.
Fun story: I went to a weekend long party hosted by an old friend of mine a while back. While I was there, I met a man who espoused certain right-wing views that caused me to believe he had taken the red pill. This was confirmed when we conversed about paleocon/libertarian economic, political, and racial views and even touched on PUA Game (both of us were interested in the science behind it but disagree with the ultimate aims of it). I mentioned that I had an alt-right blog. He asked which one but I said I prefer to stay anonymous. He asked if I was Guy White or Ferdinand Bardamu. Of course, I said no. But I was amused.
Our conversation brought me back to better times, to what I consider the Golden Age of the alt-right blogosphere. The period of time in 2010-2011, when libertarians, paleoconservatives, PUAs, MRAs, anti-statists, and WNs collaborated together in opposing the current regime of socialism, interventionism, statism, and feminism
Sadly, on the first day of July in 2014, it appears everyone has gone their separate ways.
Our common enemies grow stronger.
Post-script: My most popular posting is my "Blacks Ruin Everything," originally posted on April 11, 2010. Four years later I'm still approving comments for it. Ironically, it currently has 88 comments.
Half of the blogs I used to comment on, link to, were linked from, and were commented on by are now gone. I used to visit OneSTDV, Guy White, and Inmalafide multiple times a day to view their new posts and engage in debates with the commenters. Now they are gone.
Fun story: I went to a weekend long party hosted by an old friend of mine a while back. While I was there, I met a man who espoused certain right-wing views that caused me to believe he had taken the red pill. This was confirmed when we conversed about paleocon/libertarian economic, political, and racial views and even touched on PUA Game (both of us were interested in the science behind it but disagree with the ultimate aims of it). I mentioned that I had an alt-right blog. He asked which one but I said I prefer to stay anonymous. He asked if I was Guy White or Ferdinand Bardamu. Of course, I said no. But I was amused.
Our conversation brought me back to better times, to what I consider the Golden Age of the alt-right blogosphere. The period of time in 2010-2011, when libertarians, paleoconservatives, PUAs, MRAs, anti-statists, and WNs collaborated together in opposing the current regime of socialism, interventionism, statism, and feminism
Sadly, on the first day of July in 2014, it appears everyone has gone their separate ways.
Our common enemies grow stronger.
Post-script: My most popular posting is my "Blacks Ruin Everything," originally posted on April 11, 2010. Four years later I'm still approving comments for it. Ironically, it currently has 88 comments.
Sunday, March 17, 2013
How to Pick Up a Waitress
In both the manosphere and real life, I've heard of men trying desperately to sleep with a waitress they met at a restaurant or bar. I've worked in the service industry for several years, so for those who you who want to sleep with the waitress who served you a burger or rum and Coke, here's my advice on how to sleep with them:
Get a job as a server, bartender, barback, host, or busser, and hook up with girl(s) you work with.
No, seriously. If you are a customer, you have no chance of sleeping with a female server or bartender.
Yes, the cute, young, blonde server or bartender may be giving you so-called "indications of interest," but these are almost certainly false and meant to encourage you to tip more. The average restaurant or bar, after 9:00, is filled with couples and a 5:1 single male to female ratio. The women who serve you food and drink flirt with you, yes, but they do so in order to turn a 15% tip into a 50% tip.
In my years in the restaurant/bar industry, I have never once met a female bartender or server who has slept with a customer. But, I've known dozens who have slept with their coworkers
Yes, what I'm saying is that even though your cute server may act flirty with you, once you tab out and leave her $10 on a $20 tab, she'll end up going home with the 16 year old busboy before she goes home with you.
I've also noticed that male servers and bartenders are much more likely to sleep with customers. I remember at one place I worked, the managers assigned a male to work cocktail on a weekend night. He ended up netting several numbers. Most male servers and (especially) bartenders I've known have slept with customers, but as I've mentioned, I've never met a female server or bartender who has. When female servers get numbers on credit card receipts, they pocket the tip and throw away the number, but if a guy gets a nice tip and number from a cute girl, he will keep both.
So, wannabe PUAs, if you want to add a waitress to your belt notch count, instead of wasting money at a bar and tipping your waitress 50%+ in hopes that she will reward you with a number, get a job at a bar or restaurant. You'll end up having a lot more success.
Get a job as a server, bartender, barback, host, or busser, and hook up with girl(s) you work with.
No, seriously. If you are a customer, you have no chance of sleeping with a female server or bartender.
Yes, the cute, young, blonde server or bartender may be giving you so-called "indications of interest," but these are almost certainly false and meant to encourage you to tip more. The average restaurant or bar, after 9:00, is filled with couples and a 5:1 single male to female ratio. The women who serve you food and drink flirt with you, yes, but they do so in order to turn a 15% tip into a 50% tip.
In my years in the restaurant/bar industry, I have never once met a female bartender or server who has slept with a customer. But, I've known dozens who have slept with their coworkers
Yes, what I'm saying is that even though your cute server may act flirty with you, once you tab out and leave her $10 on a $20 tab, she'll end up going home with the 16 year old busboy before she goes home with you.
I've also noticed that male servers and bartenders are much more likely to sleep with customers. I remember at one place I worked, the managers assigned a male to work cocktail on a weekend night. He ended up netting several numbers. Most male servers and (especially) bartenders I've known have slept with customers, but as I've mentioned, I've never met a female server or bartender who has. When female servers get numbers on credit card receipts, they pocket the tip and throw away the number, but if a guy gets a nice tip and number from a cute girl, he will keep both.
So, wannabe PUAs, if you want to add a waitress to your belt notch count, instead of wasting money at a bar and tipping your waitress 50%+ in hopes that she will reward you with a number, get a job at a bar or restaurant. You'll end up having a lot more success.
Monday, September 26, 2011
The Lesson Liberals Should Learn From the Troy Davis Murder
A few days ago, the state of Georgia murdered Troy Davis. Predictably, liberals and black activists are outraged, blaming America's justice (sic) system, white racism, and law-and-order conservatism. They are overlooking, perhaps intentionally, the real culprit: big government.
This is what governments do: they give people fancy uniforms, titles, and weapons and let those people kill others without consequence. Governments are founded upon violence. Whether it's by starving and working to death people in concentration camps or gulags, by dropping atomic or conventional bombs on cities, or injecting lethal drugs into peoples' bloodstreams, governments have perfected the art of murder.
If liberals want to prevent another murder such that of Troy Davis, instead of wasting their time ranting against White America, they should use their energies to combat the mafia that the sheeple have foolishly given the power to destroy lives.
This is what governments do: they give people fancy uniforms, titles, and weapons and let those people kill others without consequence. Governments are founded upon violence. Whether it's by starving and working to death people in concentration camps or gulags, by dropping atomic or conventional bombs on cities, or injecting lethal drugs into peoples' bloodstreams, governments have perfected the art of murder.
If liberals want to prevent another murder such that of Troy Davis, instead of wasting their time ranting against White America, they should use their energies to combat the mafia that the sheeple have foolishly given the power to destroy lives.
Thursday, June 16, 2011
Wherein I Try Game for the First Time
I've been reading Game sites for about a year and a half, at first not for the Game advice and tips, but for their anti-feminist and gender realist content. Yet, I've never really tried to use Game. I have three major problems:
1) I'm an ex-shut-in. I spent college playing video games instead of engaging in social interaction and making friends. Indeed, whenever people would try to befriend me I would decline their friendships and when girls would express interest in me I would ignore it. In the last year I've been becoming much more social, but I still suffer from aftereffects of my wasted past.
2) I don't meet enough girls in the course of my daily life. I'm out of college. Gaming girls at work would be a bad idea for several reasons. As I'm a former shut-in, most of my friends are male and they are mostly nerds, meaning their friends are mostly male nerds, too. I go to bars occasionally, but the problem is I don't have any good drinking buddies. Only two of my friends go out to bars and such. One lives too far away to be a regular drinking buddy. The other is a drunkard who has cockblocked me in the past.
3) I suffer from approach anxiety. It's not that I'm too scared to approach random girls, it's that I can never think of any good openers (although I've heard that even "Hi" can make a decent opener since most AFCs are too cowardly to do even that). If I have a reason to approach them other than the fact that they are a cute girl at a bar, I'm fine.
Anyways, I was getting some late-night food with a friend last night when we ran into an old friend of his who was planning on going out to a nearby bar later. We ended up joining him.
My friend is very charismatic, but doesn't go after women. He's divorced with custody of his children and he doesn't drink, although he DDs a lot for his friends. My friend's friend was a gay guy, so he was outgoing and friendly.
The gay guy is a regular at the bar, so he knew everyone, including all the girls. One of his female friends accompanied us outside and soon another gay guy showed up. She was cute, blonde, somewhat skinny, and looked about 5 to 10 years older than me. The girl was friendly towards me, but I didn't talk to her much. They gay guys were the center of the conversation. I definitely should've talked more. My friend and the gay guy were talking a lot, so I should've engaged the girl in conversation.
We left that bar to go to another one and by this time both her and I were varying degrees of intoxicated. We talked a lot more a this bar and it was soon clear she was interested. I've read about negging countless times, but I always thought it seemed like a douchebag thing to do. I gave it a try and found it to be very effective.
At one point, she got really angry at me over a remark I made about straight girls at gay clubs. In retrospect, this may have been a shit test. My beta instincts were to apologize to her, but I managed to shake them off and passed with a mixture of redirection and humor.
I have no memory of most of the details of what happened at the second bar, but she ended up unbuttoning two of my shirt's buttons in a very flirtatious manner. Here's the weird part. I remember this event and her walking away, but I have no recollection what occurred in between - probably due to the alcohol. I was pretty drunk at this point. My friend says that she walked away to go the restroom, I was drunk and mistakenly thought I'd been rejected, and became a douchebag for the rest of the night.
I'm still irked at myself about my failure, but I did better than I expected I would. And I learned that if I'm trying to pick up a girl at a bar, I should limit the number of drinks I have (I had a pitcher of beer, a shot, and a mixed drink). Also, she said I have "pretty eyes." Every girl who has expressed romantic/sexual interest in me has said that to me soon after meeting me. I should find some way to take advantage of this.
Hopefully I'll have another chance to practice Game soon. The problem, like I mentioned before, is that I don't have very many friends who like to go out and going to bars alone doesn't sound like fun.
1) I'm an ex-shut-in. I spent college playing video games instead of engaging in social interaction and making friends. Indeed, whenever people would try to befriend me I would decline their friendships and when girls would express interest in me I would ignore it. In the last year I've been becoming much more social, but I still suffer from aftereffects of my wasted past.
2) I don't meet enough girls in the course of my daily life. I'm out of college. Gaming girls at work would be a bad idea for several reasons. As I'm a former shut-in, most of my friends are male and they are mostly nerds, meaning their friends are mostly male nerds, too. I go to bars occasionally, but the problem is I don't have any good drinking buddies. Only two of my friends go out to bars and such. One lives too far away to be a regular drinking buddy. The other is a drunkard who has cockblocked me in the past.
3) I suffer from approach anxiety. It's not that I'm too scared to approach random girls, it's that I can never think of any good openers (although I've heard that even "Hi" can make a decent opener since most AFCs are too cowardly to do even that). If I have a reason to approach them other than the fact that they are a cute girl at a bar, I'm fine.
Anyways, I was getting some late-night food with a friend last night when we ran into an old friend of his who was planning on going out to a nearby bar later. We ended up joining him.
My friend is very charismatic, but doesn't go after women. He's divorced with custody of his children and he doesn't drink, although he DDs a lot for his friends. My friend's friend was a gay guy, so he was outgoing and friendly.
The gay guy is a regular at the bar, so he knew everyone, including all the girls. One of his female friends accompanied us outside and soon another gay guy showed up. She was cute, blonde, somewhat skinny, and looked about 5 to 10 years older than me. The girl was friendly towards me, but I didn't talk to her much. They gay guys were the center of the conversation. I definitely should've talked more. My friend and the gay guy were talking a lot, so I should've engaged the girl in conversation.
We left that bar to go to another one and by this time both her and I were varying degrees of intoxicated. We talked a lot more a this bar and it was soon clear she was interested. I've read about negging countless times, but I always thought it seemed like a douchebag thing to do. I gave it a try and found it to be very effective.
At one point, she got really angry at me over a remark I made about straight girls at gay clubs. In retrospect, this may have been a shit test. My beta instincts were to apologize to her, but I managed to shake them off and passed with a mixture of redirection and humor.
I have no memory of most of the details of what happened at the second bar, but she ended up unbuttoning two of my shirt's buttons in a very flirtatious manner. Here's the weird part. I remember this event and her walking away, but I have no recollection what occurred in between - probably due to the alcohol. I was pretty drunk at this point. My friend says that she walked away to go the restroom, I was drunk and mistakenly thought I'd been rejected, and became a douchebag for the rest of the night.
I'm still irked at myself about my failure, but I did better than I expected I would. And I learned that if I'm trying to pick up a girl at a bar, I should limit the number of drinks I have (I had a pitcher of beer, a shot, and a mixed drink). Also, she said I have "pretty eyes." Every girl who has expressed romantic/sexual interest in me has said that to me soon after meeting me. I should find some way to take advantage of this.
Hopefully I'll have another chance to practice Game soon. The problem, like I mentioned before, is that I don't have very many friends who like to go out and going to bars alone doesn't sound like fun.
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
Keep the Change
During the Bush administration, liberals (rightly) claimed that Bush was waging an illegal war in Iraq. In 2008, Obama campaigned on the promise of bringing change to Washington. Gullible white liberals and moderates bought it up and sent him to the White House, where he is now waging a war in a foreign country and claiming he doesn't need the authorization of Congress. So much for change.
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Another Raceless Criminal
In Rock Hill, a city near Charlotte, a woman wore a bikini that featured the design a Confederate flag to an apartment swimming pool with some friends. The Charlotte Observer says that a group of "people" came up, surrounded them, and called them racists. When one of the woman's friends stood up, a "suspect" pointed a gun at him before fleeing.
The Charlotte Observer doesn't give the race (or any other description) of the suspect, but his race was probably the same as most of the people who went wilding over Memorial Day weekend (including in Charlotte, where one man was killed and 70 people arrested after a gang melee).
The readers of the Observer's website aren't as clueless as the commissars of political correctness. The article has a postscript:
In other words, someone mentioned that the gunman was black, which prompted a discussion of blacks and crime in the comments, leading the horrified liberal editors to shut down the comments to prevent the spread of politically incorrect ideas.
(h/t Rebellion)
The Charlotte Observer doesn't give the race (or any other description) of the suspect, but his race was probably the same as most of the people who went wilding over Memorial Day weekend (including in Charlotte, where one man was killed and 70 people arrested after a gang melee).
The readers of the Observer's website aren't as clueless as the commissars of political correctness. The article has a postscript:
Editor's note: Comments have been disabled because of repeated violations of site policies. Please refrain from profanity, obscenity, racist remarks, spam, name-calling or attacking others for their views.
In other words, someone mentioned that the gunman was black, which prompted a discussion of blacks and crime in the comments, leading the horrified liberal editors to shut down the comments to prevent the spread of politically incorrect ideas.
(h/t Rebellion)
Thursday, May 19, 2011
Chicks Dig Jerks, Exhibit #9000
The LA Times broke the story earlier this week that Arnold Schwarzenegger fathered a child with a servant (I'm sorry, I meant "domestic worker") ten years ago. Firstly, how does this qualify as news? Rich and powerful men have been producing bastards with servants for thousands of years. If Arnold admitted that he had not fathered any children with servants, that would be news.
Secondly, the reaction from feminists and women in general is pretty amusing and revealing. Amanda Marcotte, whom I bashed a few days ago, typed up one of her typical acidic diatribes, complaining about how men in power objectify women and use them for sex. Jos at Feministing claims that his dalliance is in line with the rest of his sexist behavior. His previous sexist behavior according to her includes "sexually harassing" women at Rio's Carnival (check out the video she linked to and you will find that "sexual harassment" is the feminist term for "flirting with a girl"). Schwarzenegger's wife herself was a feminist gender warrior who reaped what she sowed. Live by the sword, die by the sword.
Various alt-right bloggers have suggested that feminism is essentially a massive shit test. The feminist reaction to Schwarzenegger's adultery supports this. The liberal betas and pro-feminist manginas who worship women on a pedestal, never offend them, white knight for them, and nod their heads in agreement with feminist shews like puppies begging for a treat aren't spreading their genes across the world. The men whom feminists despise are. That should tell you something about what women really want when free of any societal constraints on their sexuality.
Secondly, the reaction from feminists and women in general is pretty amusing and revealing. Amanda Marcotte, whom I bashed a few days ago, typed up one of her typical acidic diatribes, complaining about how men in power objectify women and use them for sex. Jos at Feministing claims that his dalliance is in line with the rest of his sexist behavior. His previous sexist behavior according to her includes "sexually harassing" women at Rio's Carnival (check out the video she linked to and you will find that "sexual harassment" is the feminist term for "flirting with a girl"). Schwarzenegger's wife herself was a feminist gender warrior who reaped what she sowed. Live by the sword, die by the sword.
Various alt-right bloggers have suggested that feminism is essentially a massive shit test. The feminist reaction to Schwarzenegger's adultery supports this. The liberal betas and pro-feminist manginas who worship women on a pedestal, never offend them, white knight for them, and nod their heads in agreement with feminist shews like puppies begging for a treat aren't spreading their genes across the world. The men whom feminists despise are. That should tell you something about what women really want when free of any societal constraints on their sexuality.
Monday, May 16, 2011
The Ten Worst States to Be a Dumb Slut
Amanda Marcotte, the harpy queen of the feminist blogosphere, has a new article on Alternet about the ten worst American states to be a woman. She doesn't mince words, including claims that that "Mississippi has been such a bad state for women for so long it rarely even gets noticed in the news anymore." and "Kansas went from being a pretty bad place to be a woman to a hellhole rapidly."
What laws have Mississppi, Kansas, Arizona, Texas, and six other states passed? Are they allowing men to beat their wives, requiring women to wear shawls in public, banning the education of women, not allowing women to vote, and/or disallowing women from owning property?
No, it turns out that all of these states have passed or are considering passing laws that more closely regulate abortion.
I've noticed that when feminists use the word "woman," as in "women's reproductive healthcare" or "women's rights," they really mean "dumb sluts." Let's face it, in 21st century America, between condoms, pregnancy tests, IUDs, EC, and abortifacients, it is incredibly difficult for a woman of even below average intelligence to unintentionally get to the stage where surgical abortion or pregnancy are her only options.
If you want to laugh at feminist illogic, overemotion, incendiary rhetoric, and sensationalism, click here.
What laws have Mississppi, Kansas, Arizona, Texas, and six other states passed? Are they allowing men to beat their wives, requiring women to wear shawls in public, banning the education of women, not allowing women to vote, and/or disallowing women from owning property?
No, it turns out that all of these states have passed or are considering passing laws that more closely regulate abortion.
I've noticed that when feminists use the word "woman," as in "women's reproductive healthcare" or "women's rights," they really mean "dumb sluts." Let's face it, in 21st century America, between condoms, pregnancy tests, IUDs, EC, and abortifacients, it is incredibly difficult for a woman of even below average intelligence to unintentionally get to the stage where surgical abortion or pregnancy are her only options.
If you want to laugh at feminist illogic, overemotion, incendiary rhetoric, and sensationalism, click here.
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Freedom in Feminazi America
This story pretty much speaks for itself. In Chicago, a 17 year old boy was arrested and charged with "disorderly conduct" for ranking girls at his school based on their looks and posting this listing on the Internet. Disorderly conduct, of course, is what cops and prosecutors use to punish people they dislike but did not break any laws.
Feminazism in America has reached totalitarian levels. If this boy can get arrested for ranking females based on their sexual attributes, than virtually every man could be arrested, too. The only men who aren't in danger of being arrested are gay men, who would instead rank males based on their physical looks, which is still acceptable. As Ferdinand Bardamu notes, this boy is getting arrested for something the liberal establishment celebrated when it was done by a college slut.
This is the culmination of fifty years of feminism, Jewish liberalism, Christian conservatism, and "civil rights" movements polluting America.
Feminazism in America has reached totalitarian levels. If this boy can get arrested for ranking females based on their sexual attributes, than virtually every man could be arrested, too. The only men who aren't in danger of being arrested are gay men, who would instead rank males based on their physical looks, which is still acceptable. As Ferdinand Bardamu notes, this boy is getting arrested for something the liberal establishment celebrated when it was done by a college slut.
This is the culmination of fifty years of feminism, Jewish liberalism, Christian conservatism, and "civil rights" movements polluting America.
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
Obama: Fraudster of the Century
First, Barrack Obama refused to release his birth certificate until two years into his presidency. Then when he finally released it, he released a forgery.
Now, he claims that American forces killed Osama bin Laden. But then within 24 hours of Osama's alleged death, his "body" was dumped into an ocean. There is allegedly photographic evidence of Osama's death, but Obama won't release it because his administration feels it would threaten Americans (here's an easier way to keep Americans safe: don't get involved in needless wars halfway across the world). Regardless, Americans are still celebrating Osama's "death."
The Obama administration reminds me of the phrase "There's a sucker born every minute." Barry Soetoro is a con artist and the American sheeple are his marks.
Now, he claims that American forces killed Osama bin Laden. But then within 24 hours of Osama's alleged death, his "body" was dumped into an ocean. There is allegedly photographic evidence of Osama's death, but Obama won't release it because his administration feels it would threaten Americans (here's an easier way to keep Americans safe: don't get involved in needless wars halfway across the world). Regardless, Americans are still celebrating Osama's "death."
The Obama administration reminds me of the phrase "There's a sucker born every minute." Barry Soetoro is a con artist and the American sheeple are his marks.
Monday, May 2, 2011
May 1, 2011, is not May 1, 1945
Osama's dead.
Americans are in a very celebratory mood. I don't think I've seen a Facebook status in the last three hours that didn't mention or reference Osama bin Laden's death. On the East Coast, it's around 2:00 am, but hundreds of people are celebrating in front of the White House and Time Square. Tomorrow, New York will probably look like it did on V-J Day 1945. The World War II comparisons are inevitable, especially since the deaths of both Hitler and Osama were announced on May 1. Myriad pundits, politicians, and normal people will compare the death of Osama to the death of Hitler, VE-Day, or VJ-Day.
Hitler's death was nothing like Osama's. Hilter WAS Nazi Germany. He was an uncrowned absolute monarch who created and was integral to Nazi Germany. Without him, it could not exist. When Hitler committed suicide, he did so because his soldiers were fighting the enemy blocks away from his Bunker. His suicide did not end the war, he committed suicide because the war was over.
But in the War on Terror, the US is not fighting a totalitarian nation-state. It is fighting assorted violent non-state actors. Killing the leader of one of them won't cause the others to capitulate. It's also worth noting that al-Qaeda itself is decentralized. Al-Qaeda in Iraq, for example, is not run by Osama. They will continue fighting. They continued fighting when their own leader was killed in 2006. There's also the fact that Islamists have a fetish for martyrdom. Since 2002, Osama didn't really do much except release propaganda videos from time to time while on the lam. As a shahid his death will serve as propaganda for future generations of Islamists.
Killing Osama bin Laden won't end the War on Terrorism. The only thing that can end the War on Terrorism is an end to the American Empire and its foreign adventures. As long as we meddle in the Middle East and elsewhere, there are going to be people who are upset enough to turn to violence. Until the root causes are addressed, new Osamas and Zarqawis will continue to sprout like weeds.
America didn't slay the hydra, she just cut off one of its heads.
Americans are in a very celebratory mood. I don't think I've seen a Facebook status in the last three hours that didn't mention or reference Osama bin Laden's death. On the East Coast, it's around 2:00 am, but hundreds of people are celebrating in front of the White House and Time Square. Tomorrow, New York will probably look like it did on V-J Day 1945. The World War II comparisons are inevitable, especially since the deaths of both Hitler and Osama were announced on May 1. Myriad pundits, politicians, and normal people will compare the death of Osama to the death of Hitler, VE-Day, or VJ-Day.
Hitler's death was nothing like Osama's. Hilter WAS Nazi Germany. He was an uncrowned absolute monarch who created and was integral to Nazi Germany. Without him, it could not exist. When Hitler committed suicide, he did so because his soldiers were fighting the enemy blocks away from his Bunker. His suicide did not end the war, he committed suicide because the war was over.
But in the War on Terror, the US is not fighting a totalitarian nation-state. It is fighting assorted violent non-state actors. Killing the leader of one of them won't cause the others to capitulate. It's also worth noting that al-Qaeda itself is decentralized. Al-Qaeda in Iraq, for example, is not run by Osama. They will continue fighting. They continued fighting when their own leader was killed in 2006. There's also the fact that Islamists have a fetish for martyrdom. Since 2002, Osama didn't really do much except release propaganda videos from time to time while on the lam. As a shahid his death will serve as propaganda for future generations of Islamists.
Killing Osama bin Laden won't end the War on Terrorism. The only thing that can end the War on Terrorism is an end to the American Empire and its foreign adventures. As long as we meddle in the Middle East and elsewhere, there are going to be people who are upset enough to turn to violence. Until the root causes are addressed, new Osamas and Zarqawis will continue to sprout like weeds.
America didn't slay the hydra, she just cut off one of its heads.
Monday, April 25, 2011
Ignorant Video Game Bashers at it Again
There's a new video game app for Android called "Dog Wars" that lets you train, care for, and fight virtual dogs. Video game bashers, animal rights activists, the sensationalist media, and the lemmings flocking to today's Cause of the Day are calling for Google to ban it, of course.
I wonder if any of the fools supporting the Cause of the Day have heard of this game called "Pokemon."
I wonder if any of the fools supporting the Cause of the Day have heard of this game called "Pokemon."
Monday, April 18, 2011
To Liberals Who Think We Don't Pay Enough Taxes
It's Tax Day in America, which means that for the next several hours we will be treated to articles by pompous liberals who think that "we" (read: middle- and upper-class white people) don't pay enough in taxes; that we should be thankful that the government steals a third of our income to redistribute it to the lumpenproletariat, bankers, the military-industrial complex, Big Business, and foreign dictators; and that they would gladly pay more taxes if only the money would go to social services (sic) rather than war.
Guess what, liberals? There is a way for you to get your wish of giving more money to the government. Simply write a check or money order to the United States Treasury and mail it to this address:
Guess what, liberals? There is a way for you to get your wish of giving more money to the government. Simply write a check or money order to the United States Treasury and mail it to this address:
Gifts to the United StatesThis way you can get your wish of giving more money to bureaucrats who will waste it without forcing the rest of us to do the same. Of course, I don't really expect any liberals to donate their money to the Gifts of the United States. Liberals are much more charitable with others' money than with their own.
U.S. Department of the Treasury
Credit Accounting Branch
3700 East-West Highway, Room 622D
Hyattsville, MD 20782
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
A Question Regarding the Intervention in Libya
Why is it that America is bombing Libya to stop its dictator from killing civilians while suppressing a rebellion when most Americans venerate Abraham Lincoln, a dictator who killed civillians while suppressing a rebellion?
Monday, February 14, 2011
What Would We Do Without Liberal Muckrakers?
In Alternet's main story for today, Stan Cox informs us that mariners live dangerous lives. Truly, what would the world be like without such insight from liberal journalists?
Friday, January 21, 2011
Fuck Sin Taxes
Normally I am more eloquent in my expression of my dislike for big government, but profanity is pretty much the only way I can concisely describe my dislike for what statists refer to as "sin taxes." To all of you fundie yokels who want to tax alcohol out of existence: fuck you. To all of you latte liberals who want to tax tobacco out of existence: fuck you. To all of you middle American moderates who want to put "common sense" taxes on everything that offends your low moral standards: fuck you.
Sin taxes are an embodiment of everything wrong with American politics: the idea that if 51% of people personally dislike something, they have every right to use the state to force the other 49% to stop doing that something.
They are the scion of an unholy alliance between two enemies of freedom: the red state fascist Christian theocrats and the SWPL/Jewish liberal totalitarians. In other words, they are the natural product of centrism and bipartisanship and the combination of both forms of statism that are fucking up America.
In particular, support for alcohol taxes always gets me. In most non-Islamic cultures, alcohol plays an important role. Alcohol was independently developed by by countless cultures. Even the Indians of the Amazon rainforest make drinks from fermented manioc. Yet, in both the "liberty-loving" red states and the "personal freedom-supporting" blue states of America no one bats an eye if a state doubles the tax on alcohol.
The fact that Christian fundamentalists/evangelicals/conservatives are so vocal in their support for sin taxes, especially on alcohol is surprising considering that Jesus was the ultimate bartender. Do any of them remember the part in the Book of John where he transmuted water to wine? If God is against alcohol consumption, as megachurch preachers blather wheneverpetty tyrants state legislators consider raising taxes on alcohol, why was his own Son was a miraculous vintner?
Liberals also put their hypocrisy on full display with regard to sin taxes. Any libertarians who are stupid enough to believe liberals when they say they are in favor of "personal freedoms" and "pro-choice" should take a look at the liberal record when it comes to sin taxes. For example, while they support marijuana legalization, they want to heavily tax it.
They have no problem with putting enough taxes on cigarettes to the point where the taxes cost more than the tobacco, ostensibly because of the public health hazard of tobacco. The claimed public health hazards of smoking have always struck me as overblown. I remember when my great-aunt died, her death certificate listed smoking as the cause of death even though she was in her 80s and in poor health all around. I wonder how many other "smoking-related deaths" were like hers. In 21st century America, doctors apparently don't think that people can die of old age anymore.
They even support putting special taxes on the use of indoor tanning. As with tobacco, they claim this is due to the health hazards of their use. (An alternate explanation is that feminists hate tanning salons because they make women more attractive and, as Rush says, "feminism was established so as to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream of society." Thus, anything that makes women more attractive to men, including tanning, breast implants, and make-up is verboten according to feminists and manginas.)
The mental disorder called liberalism, with its support for socialism, abortion, illegal immigrants, and coddling criminals, is certainly a public health hazard that has led to far more human deaths than smoking ever will. A tax on liberals would probably do more to save lives than a tax on cigarettes.
What sin tax proponents, both left and right, fail to realize is that it is not merely the use of tobacco, alcohol, and/or tanning that causes health problems, it is the excessive use. If you socially smoke you probably won't get lung cancer, but if you smoke three packs a day from age 18 to 60 you probably will. If you drink alcohol at a bar every Friday night, you probably won't develop health problems (instead your health will probably benefit), but if you chug a 12-pack of beer every night you will probably develop them. If you use a tanning bed prior to your vacation to Hawaii you probably won't develop skin cancer, but if you use them weekly for fifty years, you might.
Proponents of sin taxes do not understand the concept of moderation. They don't understand that many people who partake in "sinful" things such as alcohol are not compulsive or habitual users. True, some people abuse alchol, tobacco, etc., but why should the vast majority of people capable of self-control be punished for the high time preference of a few people? Those people will be punished for their lack of personal responsibility in due time. There's no need to tax everyone else for it.
Sin taxes are an embodiment of everything wrong with American politics: the idea that if 51% of people personally dislike something, they have every right to use the state to force the other 49% to stop doing that something.
They are the scion of an unholy alliance between two enemies of freedom: the red state fascist Christian theocrats and the SWPL/Jewish liberal totalitarians. In other words, they are the natural product of centrism and bipartisanship and the combination of both forms of statism that are fucking up America.
In particular, support for alcohol taxes always gets me. In most non-Islamic cultures, alcohol plays an important role. Alcohol was independently developed by by countless cultures. Even the Indians of the Amazon rainforest make drinks from fermented manioc. Yet, in both the "liberty-loving" red states and the "personal freedom-supporting" blue states of America no one bats an eye if a state doubles the tax on alcohol.
The fact that Christian fundamentalists/evangelicals/conservatives are so vocal in their support for sin taxes, especially on alcohol is surprising considering that Jesus was the ultimate bartender. Do any of them remember the part in the Book of John where he transmuted water to wine? If God is against alcohol consumption, as megachurch preachers blather whenever
Liberals also put their hypocrisy on full display with regard to sin taxes. Any libertarians who are stupid enough to believe liberals when they say they are in favor of "personal freedoms" and "pro-choice" should take a look at the liberal record when it comes to sin taxes. For example, while they support marijuana legalization, they want to heavily tax it.
They have no problem with putting enough taxes on cigarettes to the point where the taxes cost more than the tobacco, ostensibly because of the public health hazard of tobacco. The claimed public health hazards of smoking have always struck me as overblown. I remember when my great-aunt died, her death certificate listed smoking as the cause of death even though she was in her 80s and in poor health all around. I wonder how many other "smoking-related deaths" were like hers. In 21st century America, doctors apparently don't think that people can die of old age anymore.
They even support putting special taxes on the use of indoor tanning. As with tobacco, they claim this is due to the health hazards of their use. (An alternate explanation is that feminists hate tanning salons because they make women more attractive and, as Rush says, "feminism was established so as to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream of society." Thus, anything that makes women more attractive to men, including tanning, breast implants, and make-up is verboten according to feminists and manginas.)
The mental disorder called liberalism, with its support for socialism, abortion, illegal immigrants, and coddling criminals, is certainly a public health hazard that has led to far more human deaths than smoking ever will. A tax on liberals would probably do more to save lives than a tax on cigarettes.
What sin tax proponents, both left and right, fail to realize is that it is not merely the use of tobacco, alcohol, and/or tanning that causes health problems, it is the excessive use. If you socially smoke you probably won't get lung cancer, but if you smoke three packs a day from age 18 to 60 you probably will. If you drink alcohol at a bar every Friday night, you probably won't develop health problems (instead your health will probably benefit), but if you chug a 12-pack of beer every night you will probably develop them. If you use a tanning bed prior to your vacation to Hawaii you probably won't develop skin cancer, but if you use them weekly for fifty years, you might.
Proponents of sin taxes do not understand the concept of moderation. They don't understand that many people who partake in "sinful" things such as alcohol are not compulsive or habitual users. True, some people abuse alchol, tobacco, etc., but why should the vast majority of people capable of self-control be punished for the high time preference of a few people? Those people will be punished for their lack of personal responsibility in due time. There's no need to tax everyone else for it.
Monday, January 17, 2011
Happy St. Martin's Day!
Every Martin Luther King Day, we are treated to the same spectacle of the media and politicians - both Democrat and Republican - venerating America's most popular communist, adulterer, and plagiarist. It's embarrassing that so many whites worship the man who destroyed America.
I wouldn't be surprised if within a few decades "Dr." Martin Luther King, Jr. is canonized by a major church. The only question is, which denomination will be the first to do so?
I wouldn't be surprised if within a few decades "Dr." Martin Luther King, Jr. is canonized by a major church. The only question is, which denomination will be the first to do so?
Friday, January 14, 2011
Mainstream Conservative Organization Defends American Renaissance
When the media, including "conservative" Fox News, was promoting the claim that Jared Loughner had ties to American Renaissance, the conservative media watchdog organization Accuracy in Media stepped in to refute their claims.
What's interesting about this is the language that AIM used to describe Amren. Normally conservatives parrot liberals and label such organizations as racist, white supremacist, neo-Nazi, and/or anti-Semitic. Instead, AIM referred to Amren as a "conservative publication" and described it as "on the right side of the political spectrum and is politically incorrect because of its criticism of racial preference and “diversity” programs and immigration policies that weaken the strength of a country."
This is a nice development, but I'm still not holding my breath for the Tea Party movement to come to its senses on racial issues.
What's interesting about this is the language that AIM used to describe Amren. Normally conservatives parrot liberals and label such organizations as racist, white supremacist, neo-Nazi, and/or anti-Semitic. Instead, AIM referred to Amren as a "conservative publication" and described it as "on the right side of the political spectrum and is politically incorrect because of its criticism of racial preference and “diversity” programs and immigration policies that weaken the strength of a country."
This is a nice development, but I'm still not holding my breath for the Tea Party movement to come to its senses on racial issues.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)