Cancel Culture Cancels Carano

I know this is old news but I have to write about it.

Cancel culture, an orgiastic struggle session for those who aren’t submissive to the collective, has impaled the employment of renowned UFC fighter, Gina Carano. Carano, who had previously starred in the action-romp Haywire (2011), had taken up employment under Dear Leader Mickey Mouse. She was the star of the Disney+ streaming show, The Mandalorian until she decided to disagree with the edicts of The Grand Rodent. In terms of cancel culture, I’d say Emperor Rat has been definitively caught without his white gloves.

Cancel culture has been here for quite some time and has successfully cancelled or attempted to cancel everything and everyone from app icons, sports mascots (Redskins, Cleveland Indians, Gauchos, etc.), band names, the renaming of schools, food mascots, food itself, art, pillows (you know who I’m referring to), books, statues, teachers, reporters, gravestones, hand gestures, movies (including Disney ones), Star Wars itself (surprised yet?), and Halloween costumes. Sometimes, it’s proactive like some of the examples given above in order to prevent extermination via red-haired, blue-checked and nose-pierced executioners. Usually, in those cases it’s because of virtue-signaling (Hey! Look at me!). Most of the time, it isn’t due to market or social demand but instead by the puppet masters themselves.

Bill Maher rips them a new one!

Check this out as well – Everything is Sexist – Chris Ray Gun

Let’s understand what drives cancel culture.

Origin – One could make a strong argument that its rise to fame in contemporary society was in Mao’s communist China under the banner of ‘struggle sessions‘. Struggle sessions are conducted when a person (sometimes wearing a dunce cap!) would stand in the center of jeering comrades who would hurl insults, slurs and threats to torture those who committed thought crimes. Usually, an execution followed. Several years ago, our current cancel culture was known as ‘call-out’ culture. That’s an incredibly abbreviated rundown. You could easily go back to the Bible to find instances of cancel culture if not further back before recorded history. Since struggle sessions are there to shame, they inevitably lead to erasure (also known as censorship).

Collectivism – The initial basis of cancel culture is collectivism (i.e., the treatment of individuals as a group). This must be maintained in order for the shepherds to maintain total homogeneity. What breaks homogeneity? Individual thinking. If you allow the sheep to splinter off with their own thoughts your rule starts to crumble. So, in their quest for conquer, the leaders (the most vocal) must maintain ideological conformity while the pions must unconditionally obey orders. In order to avoid ending up “under da see”, you must sacrifice your views for the sake of others who might be ‘offended’ or angered.

Moral righteousness – In order to radically maintain the fire that stokes their Maleficent mob, they must eject those who differ. To do this, they brainwash their Kronks into believing that anything outside of their cage is sinful. Anyone or any organization that disagrees is instantly deemed everything wrong with humanity. They make sure they swallow all the proper slogans and trigger words so whenever someone deviates that person will immediately get slapped with one of those ill-defined labels. They re-define words because they believe words can alter reality and therefore leverage them more control. A good example of this is the term ‘racism’.

The old school definition heavily focused around judging people by the color of their skin whereas today’s definition centers around “power + privilege” (i.e., any disparity is due to racism). If you disagree with their definition (what if disparities are caused by other factors?), you’re a racist. Carano is being accused of saying something ‘racist’. Psychologists are considering moral righteousness a mental illness in lines with narcissism.

Motivation – A prime motivator of cancel culture is who they’re going after. It’s one thing to crucify a private citizen but it’s another thing to go after someone like Gina Carano. These ‘noble crusaders who are on the right side of history’ are a lot of the time driven by Critical Theory. If that’s the first time you’ve heard that term you might be brainwashed by it. CT summed up is the idea that everything we are subjected to are oppressive (sometimes undetected) inherently political social constructs that are meant to subjugate the masses. Gina Carano, when associated with Marshal Mouse, was on the top of a societal hegemony and essentially in a position of power (CT is all about the seizing of ‘power’).

Power is viewed through the half-cocked idea that our brain is easily malleable to media if not entirely. This makes it all the more important to dethrone her. They’re called ‘woke’ because they’re the ones who are superior enough to be ‘awake’ to all of this oppressive propaganda. Carano was employed by the woke mafia and was therefore monitored carefully by their henchmen. Once dethroned, these relatives of Scar got a boost in self-esteem and as an inadvertent benefit can get a rise in social status. You see, it’s okay for them because they’re good. They crave that Hercules reputation.

What happened?

Pronouns – This didn’t start with the Nazi comparison post but instead with gendered pronouns. It seems as though a lot of Disney Red Shirts have plastered pronouns on their Twitter profiles to…I don’t know. Nonetheless, Carano didn’t want to be pressured into putting what gender she obviously is and instead put what she considered to be R2D2’s pronouns (beep/bop/boop). That’s funny. In fact, it’s not just funny, it IS funny. I pressed my caps lock key so hard on that one that the room I’m typing this in resembled the green night-vision you see on Big Foot hunting shows.

Now, the plot thickens.

Nazis – If you didn’t live under Nazi, Germany nor suffered PTSD from fighting off actual Nazis and Orange Man is Bad you’ve most likely compared, at some point, Trump to Hitler. Once losing that argument, you eventually labeled your Republican friends (what liberal has Republican friends?) as Nazis, fascists (the irony on that label is sweeter than Winnie The Pooh’s honey), KKK members, or White nationalists. That’s a given. In fact, it’s more given than a cherished Christmas present. To perhaps stay hip in principle, Carano hopped in the 21st century Nazi-analogy People’s Car (sorry Herbie!) except she didn’t take the exit to The Democratic People’s Republic of The Magic Kingdom. Instead, she used her three-speed to compare cancel culture and social media censorship to Nazism.

Why would that make sense? Did the German Socialist Workers Party implement censorship and despotic cancel culture? As someone who had grandfathers who had the male privilege of being drafted into ‘The Big One’, I don’t like Nazi analogies mainly since it degrades the memory of those who suffered and fought under Nazi rule. They’re too unrealistic. That being said, I think it’s permissible to perhaps make ideological comparisons but with regards to Orange Man Bad you’re full of it (‘it’ being the cotton they use to stuff Disney stuffed animals). This was NOT an Anti-Semitic remark however. This is Anti-Semitic. I admit the image is in bad taste but nonetheless I can’t say I disagree.

She was trying to make a point as to why censorship and banning opposing ideas are akin to Nazism. The Nazis used censorship to get rid of those they didn’t like. Now, I suppose you could argue, “Let me educate you, Jones. Censorship is only when the government does it. I have now got you.” Really? What keeps in place a dictatorship? The less than 1% that dictates behavior or the brainwashed masses who report their neighbors and smack it over their heads daily? Media today does the dirty work of an unestablished ‘official’ censor. It’s called ‘soft-totalitarianism’. If the government agrees with the behavior of multi-trillion dollar conglomerates, why even bother establishing an ‘official’ censor?

I could easily go into a stream of consciousness rant about why the Nazi label is whored around and the Communist Disney label isn’t. To make it short, the radical left has control of every major institution including Sexcrimewood.

The people that support this decision through the lens of Chinese accomplice Dictator Disney have no moral criteria to make any kind of judgement here because they refuse to weigh “beep/bop/boop” against the support of one of the most inhumane dictatorships in human history. Mainland China is unapologetically responsible for the persecution of Muslims, Christians, Uyghurs, and the LGBTQ community. They maintain and have maintained labor camps that Disney supported, racism, organ harvesting, population control, cannibalism, book and letter banning, persecuting Hong Kong protesters, segregation, forced sterilization, forced marriages, lying about COVID-19, unleashing COVID-19, being the most polluted country on earth, and produced history’s undefeated mass murderer, Mao Zedong (you thought it was Hitler). They still do, for the most part, all of this TODAY (my caps lock is sore now). If you support cancelling a strong and empowered woman for no reason you should also support Chairman Mouse committing suicide without mention.

When is the entirety of the Noble Progressive movement going to cancel itself? Colin Kaepernick’s unapologetic support of Castro, Jay-Z’s support of Che Guevara, a Portland mayoral candidate who loves Mao, BLM leader Susan Rosenberg who committed acts of terrorism on the Capitol, Bernie Sanders’ ode to Castro, The anti-semitic Women’s March leader, Linda Sarsour praising terrorist cop-killer, Assata Shakur, Joey B’s salacious conduct, and Kamala Harris’s rioter bail fund seem to be worthy reasons. There’s other minions (sorry, wrong studio). There’s other 101 filmmaking Disney diabolical Dalmatians that have gotten away with heinous (sometimes) actual crimes such as accused sexual abuse, domestic abuse, and threatening to blow up The White House. I’m not a lawyer but a grown man that pretends to be a pirate for a living blowing up The White House sounds illegal.

A definitely simple slip of the tweet was when, producer of Beauty and The Beast, Jack Morrissey said he wanted the MAGA kids (Nick Sandmann and friends) chucked into a woodchipper. Guardians of The Galaxy 3 director and writer, James Gunn, thinks a movie about a tree giving a kid a blowjob is wholesome Old Yeller entertainment. Thankfully, they got rid of him though. But what about these racists and sexists who were hired to write the new Star Wars franchise? They don’t count. Let’s instead persecute a former NFL player because he said ‘All Lives Matter‘.

If Eternal President Mouse hypocrisy was beautiful this is what it would look like. Pedro Pascal (he/him) is the actor who portrays the protagonist of the space helmet show. He posted this on Twitter in 2018 with the hashtag #ThisisAmerica. The bottom picture isn’t even from the US. It’s Palestinian children awaiting a meal in a (get this) “play area” during Ramadan. And yes, I just cited Snopes. That’ll be the last time.

The difference between this guy and Carano is that he thought the ‘right’ way or should I say the ‘left’ way. Hey feminists! Could this be sExiSm????

The vaccine – I’m skeptical too. I can already hear science-denying conspiracy theorist accusations coming from people who, ironically, think gender is entirely a subjective social construct. Carano was also found guilty of questioning the slapdash pop-out-of-nowhere totally safe and effective COVID-19 vaccine that is so scientific health officials (including firemen) don’t want to get it. Who are Carano and I (both martial artists) to question Noble Napoleon and his trusty white lab coat (that’s trademarked) and his on ‘the right side of history’ brigade?

It’s their own business – It is. That being said, why do I get the feeling that the people who say that are the same people who either don’t mean it or are selective at applying that bromide? I’m hungry for cake but something tells me “tHaT’S dIFfeRenT!!”. First off, that’s not entirely true. You can’t do whatever you want on your own property. There’s still a significant amount of restrictions. For instance, if TGI Friday’s had a policy that said, “All patrons must be assaulted with a crowbar”, I’m fairly confident that’d be illegal. As far as employment goes, I think it’s just to be able to sue the source of your income if you believe there’s unfair treatment. Employers can’t just randomly fire you. It seems as though these flightless Peter Pans don’t know you can still criticize private companies. Why? Because they’re hoping they’ve got you on this pittance of an argument.

Money – Sexualassaultwood thrives off of whatever sells. They have no morals or principles like those who think they’re a moral organization. They just want money – specifically money from the parents of the ‘lil kiddies who can potentially be brainwashed by someone who is beeping, bopping, and booping.

Forget Carano for a bit, this next part is on dealing with life lessons in general.

Pragmatic Consequentialists – Not only do we have Shenzis, Banzais, and Eds finally embracing laissez-faire business practices but now they’re finally embracing personal-responsibility. Not really. As uttered by Alexandria Occasional-Cortex and her desired conservative hit list, multiple times, the cancel culture deniers will spout something along the lines of, “Actions have consequences” or “Weren’t you taught you need to be responsible?” Teaching people and yourself the importance of responsibility and the faculties that enable goal-setting and long-range thinking is a great pursuit. That being said, something tells me, either they don’t understand it that way or they’re playing fast and loose. It might be neither considering the fact that they hurl it out with close to no context.

Everything in life has consequences just by nature of existing. The question is are the consequences faced ‘rational’?

Someone who gets mugged walking down an ally could’ve made the wrong decision in the first place but he didn’t deserve those consequences nonetheless. This involved the needless coercion of others. This is opposed to dropping out of high school, having illegitimate kids, doing drugs and then expecting others to subsidize your reckless behavior through welfare. No one forced those people into those situations.

Utilizing free speech should not have these consequences. The most Carano should’ve been subjected to for such mundane things was argument and debate. If someone simply wants erasure in response to what someone has said it goes to show you how worthless their argument is. This is assuming they have one to begin with. It’s usually nothing but vapid hot-air rhetoric.

I see a much larger snowball forming.

The White Privilege of Storming the Capital

We all know what happened and it was only a matter of time. I’m still surprised to hear people say, “This will start a civil war!!”. Where have you been? The Capital was just stormed by the Vandals and this past summer large portions of the country were on fire as rioters clashed with law enforcement. We’re in it already and it’s going to have to get a lot worse before it gets better.

Before I get into the meat of what has happened, I’d like to educate the virgins to history as to why, as serious as this is, is not the worst time in American history. The Capital has weathered worse including other terrorist takeovers, bombings and was even literally cremated as it burned to the ground once.

Who’s to blame, for what many are inclined to believe, is the most recent use of violence on the Capital in contemporary history? Donald Trump and his goon squad, rightfully so. It’s hard to pin down exactly who that squad is now considering he fires people every 9 seconds but by this point it’s anyone who wants to be employed by him.

Of course, those who rioted this past summer and claim to be against violence will instantly blame the entire Republican Party and those who voted for him. The exact opposite could not get anymore opposite. Almost everybody on the political spectrum has spoken out against this – hypocritically or not. For the 1 in 5 Trump supporters who think he has done a great job in handling the results of the election, I’d say I agree with you as his incitement to violence on his own government worked for several hours.

The biggest discussion now does not seem to be how we can all come together and act sensibly but instead further stoke the flames of the race riots we’ve already had by blaming white people. Not only blame white people, but once again make anecdotal divisive comparisons between police conduct at similar events as, once again, white police officers supposedly treated skin colors differently. I usually have a hard time understanding the concept of white privilege but this one is mind-boggling.

How do you maintain white privilege by having white people topple a government run by white people who rule over mostly white people that provides them with their white privilege? The people that did this were savages so I can see them not thinking through their plan of preserving “whiteness”.

Of course, I’m being told by Joey B. and his massive forehead that had this been black people they all would’ve been massacred for no reason.

Thousands of Twitter pions echoed this claim with Joey B. and his IMAX screen-sized forehead actually being one of the echoers. I’m not sure who started this unoriginal and used up race-baiting eureka talking point. I’m also not sure what this point is supposed to make. Is it pointing out double standards? Is it finally an admission that what happened over the summer weren’t mostly peaceful protests? Are they saying police brutality should have been used for both?

White privilege seems to be expanding so far to the point that now even being killed by fellow white law enforcement is deemed a form of privilege as multiple whites were either killed or died later due to the raid. To top off their white privilege, 82 white privileged arrests were made. Those who were killed in a typical white privileged manner included capital police officer, Brian Sicknick and Air Force veteran, Ashli Babbitt. Sicknick was smashed in the head with a white privileged fire extinguisher and Babbitt was shot in the neck with a white privileged rubber bullet. Among the white privileged capital police, 50 of them were injured.

It doesn’t get anymore white privileged than that.

The non-white disadvantage this summer resulted in total carnage as future cackling “fweedom” President, Kamala Harris set up a bail fund for rioters to get back out and destroy things.

In Washington, DC, whose summer was so hot it was on fire most of the time, multiple prosecutors dropped charges on rioters.

We had the Defund the Police movement that resulted in hoards of assaulted police officers with one being killed. The National Guard was called in only to be ordered to move out. The Mayor of Portland, Oregon, Ted Wheeler also continuously rejected Trump’s recommendation to send in the National Guard because that’s how much he wanted to maintain white government brutality.

In Seattle we had the incredible experiment of Chop/Chaz, run by Hip-Hop artist, Raz Simone, where an entire portion of the city was seized. In fact, the local police precinct hated the rifle-brandishing African-American so much that they shut down.

Police officers even got so scared that they used their white privileged knees to kneel for BLM rioters due to their white privileged white guilt.

Since the United States has always protected white people and not marginalized groups, let’s now take a time machine back to 1954, when Puerto Rican nationalists were not killed when they shot and killed a white police officer while raiding the Capital.

In 1967, The Black Panther Party decided it’d be a good idea to storm the white-run Capital of Sacramento, California with shot guns where nothing happened to them.

Of course I couldn’t leave out feminists as in 2018, feminists broke through the police barriers on the steps of the Capital building in order to demand the removal of Justice Kavanaugh.

If you initiated devastating violence on a country to dismantle the supposedly oppressive government then you are a traitor. This is, of course, the core message of Critical Race Theory and Marxism.

What’s the cause of all this?

Of course, a scroll on Twitter will tell you white people however it is much more philosophically profound. Altruist-collectivism is the cause. When you dogmatize your movement, put it above your individual life, and sacrifice yourself for its unconditional cause you will get warfare. The belief that your side has a monopoly on truth makes possible the blood-baiting rhetoric of “you’re either for us or against us” and “you’re part of the problem”. Interestingly enough, for those who don’t identify with a side are deemed as the most complacent. It kind of sounds like so long as you’re on a side you’re okay…? Then again, that’s not true either because you must join the “right” side. We’re now all prosecuted by superficial association rather than by individual action.

Worse yet, with this logic, you’ll find massive hypocrisy as suddenly their non-existent morality flies out the window when they believe whenever their side commits a crime it’s just. The virginal “we never inflict violence” left and the virginal “we never inflict violence” right are a great example of this. They are both very potent forms of kerosene that just happen to create their own explosions. I’m not here to try and figure out which is worse. Someone’s business burning down and the government that was supposed to protect that business owner’s rights burning down are both bad.

People must view each other as individuals otherwise we’ll get what we already have. We need to find the common ideas of a free society that liberate us from viewing each other as groups defined by race, sex, and rigid political ideology.

If history shows anything, the most dangerous people are those who believe they are so right that they force it onto others.

In the meantime, the Capital has insurance, it’s just property, and you didn’t like their other forms of protest.

The Left’s Humor

There seems to be a lot of comedians on the left lately. Don’t expect any knock-knock jokes though. Instead, be prepared for both racist and misandrist “jokes”. The two comedians we’ll be analyzing in this post are Democratic presidential candidate, Joe Biden and feminist (feminism is a subsidiary of the Democratic party), Clementine Ford.

Joe Biden, who has been on a standup tour since he first began his career in politics, “humored” the internet in an interview on The Breakfast Club podcast. Biden “joked”, “If you have a problem figuring out whether you’re for me or Trump, then you ain’t black.”

That’s really funny but then again it seems as though the Democratic party is funny in general when it comes to this form of racist “humor”.

The score for decades has been that black conservatives and, in some cases, libertarians are nothing more than a combination of Uncle Toms, Auntie Toms, lawn jockeys, tar babies and (depending upon whether or not you’re Don Lemon) negroes. These racial slurs all tend to get flung at blacks who don’t fit into the Democratic prescribed ideological “mold”.

In fact, conservative commentator Larry Elder is so sick of it that he’s embraced the term in a positive context and is making a documentary about black conservatives.

Forgive my surprise when I found that there was a fair amount of controversy surrounding Biden’s remark as if this is the first time such a comment has been directed at blacks. This is absolutely patently racist. To say that somebody should think a certain way based upon their melanin and never deviate from that is the epitome’s son of everything that is wrong right now in the identity politics bloodbath.

For some, the remark itself wasn’t problematic but instead the melanin of the person who said it as there are black liberals who are not okay with the comment simply because Joe Biden is white. Once again, when my side does it it’s okay and when your side does it it’s not okay. I’m glad to know both good and evil here are largely indistinguishable from one another.

Still, I’m not seeing how this is a joke though but here’s an argument as to why this “joke” isn’t “funny”.

Melanin has nothing to do with ideas. Ideas are the result of thinking. Sure, ideas are black and white but not in the sense of skin color but instead in the sense of right and wrong. To say an idea is rational for one group and irrational for another group is epistemologically erroneous. Being that we are human beings living in objective reality what’s true for you certainly is true for me regardless of the slightly different superficialities we may have.

Most importantly ideas are not the invention of “groups”. To say that people should think collectively is not thinking at all but instead conformity. Thinking is a product of the individual and only the individual. He or she can learn from others but others can never think for him or her. Kim Jong-un does not do the thinking for North Koreans no matter how much he tries to tell them he does.

A supposed group identity is a grammatical fiction. We’re all individuals. To refer to individuals as groups is a violation of the Law of Identity (A is A) at minimum. People and their ideas cannot nor should not be defined by their melanin. If you are a purveyor of group-think you are obviously comfortable with the idea of someone else defining who you are. Those who preach “blackness” or “whiteness” preach collectivism.

I don’t think it’s a joke. Both black and white leftists alike have a glorious history of saying things to a similar effect and Biden doesn’t seem to be deviating from their usual intellectual debauchery. Maybe I’d be willing to settle this as being a joke if liberals declare everything else he’s said as a joke. That’s a fair settlement to make. Biden and the Democratic party are jokes in and of themselves.

Sense of humor is subjective as we’ll soon learn.

On to “my favorite” – feminism.

Radical feminist, Clementine Ford, a malicious misandrist brain butcher of the highest degree has made a career built upon ideological misandry – something that Aussie tax dollars are currently paying for (see bottom).

After her, “KILL ALL MEN” Twitter rampage some years ago, now she’s “joking” about the very real deaths of men at the hands of COVID-19.

Like Biden, there’s nothing too new here. Both are mentally deficient in the “humor” department and both deploy depraved double standards whenever need be.

The cartoonish backpedaling Ford did once she surprisingly found out that people didn’t get the “joke” is cringeworthy. She tried to scurry away by pointing out that men hypocritically complain about women not getting “dark humor” yet here they are getting offended by such a comment.

Ford, like all vagina hat-thumping feminists, then deployed a recently constructed logical fallacy known as a Kafka Trap (named after Franz Kafka’s novel, The Trial). Put simply, a Kafka Trap is when denial or disagreement of an accusation is taken as a confession. The more you disagree or find the claim objectionable the more (in their eyes) you’re admitting to your “crime”. So, their claim is essentially unfalsifiable in the most illogical sense possible.

Here’s a good example of this:

According to her, the more men criticize her the more they exhibit male fragility wherein they fear being made to look “weak” and “emasculated” by a woman. Absolutely. That has to be the only reason why men might get slightly angered and outraged at such a “joke”. Once again, the more criticism and insulting she may receive the more she’ll take it as an admission of male fragility.

Like a massive stroke victim, Ford then flew off the rails in a completely different direction and went on a tangent about how this “joke” was criticizing men for not doing their fair share of “unpaid” housework during the pandemic because they’re too busy dying. This is an old feminist argument dating back to the late 60s and early 70s except here Ford awkwardly inserts COVID-19. The article, which she didn’t even originally post, has close to nothing to do with her contextless “joke”.

I’m not sure how men dying quicker even relates to them doing more housework. It’s a non-sequitur. If you want them to die quicker how can they do more housework? Why joke then if you’re trying make a serious point?

Does this mean she wants them to stop working? If they still work a full-time job to make eating possible for the family and do housework they still have (what sounds like) unequal double-duty. If they die, they actually have quadruple-duty because now they have to work, die, resurrect themselves and then take out the trash. Feminism always seems to actively tout inequality. Then again, with this current pandemic’s rapid unemployment housework may soon become non-existent for everybody for all the wrong reasons.

Take a look at this one.

“Pretend an egregious harm has been done to them!”? I thought it was feminists / women(?) who are pretending they’re the victims because they’re surviving the pandemic. It seems as if the horrific impact feminists claim this is having on women is the shoulder pain they get from acting like a spoon is an airplane for their baby.

By the way, black guys are safe from dying in her demented utopia even though they’re primarily dying from it. I thought she was being racist there for a second but now that she rearranged logic and the english language to her liking her double-standards are sound.

This isn’t a lesson in how to be comedic but instead on how to communicate with other human beings. If you want to make a joke, go ahead. If you want to make a dark joke, go ahead but context is important. If I were to tweet, “It’s funny when women die of ovarian cancer” or “Blacks can’t think for themselves” and you were to accuse me of being a sadistic racist and sexist rodent you’d be right in doing so. What I’m saying is blunt. It’s literal.

There’s no context established here for it to be anything other than what it says. Had I tweeted, “To say, “It’s funny when women die of ovarian cancer”, is absolutely abhorrent”  or “Liberals think blacks can’t think  for themselves” then I’d establish clearly what I’m trying to convey. The same is true of humor but then again a comedian can’t just spat random things out and hope they’re intrinsically funny just because of his or her profession. A good example of that is Wanda Sykes.

In the end, Ford sort of apologized but only once she found out her arts grant from the Australian government was threatened.

It’s not really an apology. What’s she’s saying is, “I’m sorry you’re not superior enough to understand me.”

Usually, the PC police (the left) hate jokes about sex and race but when it comes to insulting straight white males and non-leftist blacks, oh boy, all bets are off.

Pro-Riot Arguments

It’s a blazer outside and especially so if you unfortunately live near any of the areas where rioting is taking place. Businesses burned, lives destroyed, cities destroyed and  violence initiated on the innocent all for no reason.

Since there’s a lot of people who have fallen victim to every philosophical sin you could possibly imagine and its correlating actions you’re bound to see a variation of some of the arguments to be addressed below. It’s amazing to me how fast all of these arguments emerged and how quickly people parroted them to a T.

In no particular order:

They’re protesters.

Nope. Protesters engage in the First Amendment. Rioters destroy the welfare of society therefore violating the rights of all. Protesting is a not a rights violation.

It’s like the Boston Tea Party.

The implied “logic” behind this circus freak claim tries to expose supposed hypocrisy behind people that patriotically support the actions that led up to the founding of our country yet condemn the rioters. It’s put forth sounding something like, “You support the Boston Tea Party, which involved property damage, in order to achieve a political goal yet you don’t support the protests? It’s obvious you’re a racist because the Boston Tea Partiers were white and these protesters are fighting for black rights.”

No. First, the Boston Tea Party had a reason to take place. The British Empire routinely violated the inalienable rights of those who lived under it. Here, we have an ex-con who was murdered by a whack job cop. As horrible as it was, this does not constitute nor justify the random and sadistic targeting of society as a whole.

The tea partiers targeted property that was directly linked to The British Empire and not random stores and people. In the process, the only thing they damaged was the tea itself and the boat’s lock which was quickly replaced by them. The tea partiers also held on to stringent rules. They were to take nothing for themselves and anyone to deviate faced punishment.

It’s self-defense.

Self-defense is the act of protecting yourself from an immediate threat. For instance, George Floyd would have been morally excusable if he was able to overpower the cop and save his life. In that case, it would’ve only been morally and legally permissible if Floyd were to directly fend off the cop using the proper amount of force.

Rioting and revenge ARE NOT self-defense. Rioting involves the non-objective and unfettered act of directing force at anything one chooses. You’re not fighting off anything that’s attacking you. AutoZone, Target and sports bars along with their owners are not attacking you. They had nothing to do with what happened. Causing collateral damage for the sake of causing collateral damage is not defense but barbarism.

Attack the police.

What about the police station burning then? Libertarians who are, from what I’ve seen, against the property destruction tend to exempt the police department burning down. The logic at work seems to be along the lines of, “Well, a police officer killed the man therefore it’s acceptable to destroy anything involving the police.”

Wrong again. The concept of self-defense dictates that the amount of force you retaliate with should be proportionate to the amount of force waged against you. Destroying an entire building and putting the surrounding area in risk of numerous types of destruction far outweighs a sadistic cop killing one ex-con.

By targeting cops as collectively responsible, it also roundhouse slaps all cops as being guilty by virtue of occupation and not by action. It can easily also endanger their loved ones and fails on every level to consider that there’s cops that find Floyd’s death an unforgivable act of injustice. Plus, consider the lives of firefighters and paramedics who may be required to be in the midst of the rioting trying to save lives and property.

You must value material goods over human life.

Interestingly enough, this was something the pro-government mandated quarantine thumpers espoused many months ago. Here, they’ve resurrected this lame tearjerker and are trying to apply it to the nationwide debauchery.

This is conditional. There are certain people who I value my possessions over. That’s a perfectly moral stance. A woman who owns a priceless pearl necklace has every moral justification in the book to value that over the life of a thug trying to break into her house. A man with an Aston Martin has every moral justification in the book to value it over the life of the man who tried to rape his daughter. A person whose livelihood is supported by their business has every moral justification in the book to value it over the looters who wish to destroy it.

This is nothing more than lame brained rhetoric to try and take your breath away and make you look like you’re a materialistic monster.

Like every intellectual abomination to support the riots, there’s flawed premises at work here.

Material goods are the result of human life and establish the livelihood of the creator(s) and the society he or she trades them with. As a result of producing goods, people have established property rights. Property rights entail freedom and protect you from the aggression of others. Property is the moral barrier that prevents humans from dealing with each other by violence. Property rights are an extension of individual rights (i.e., it sustains life). Once you’ve taken away property you’ve violated rights. There’s a reason why slaves can’t own property.

Without property rights you get what we have now.

Someone on Facebook commented to me, “I’d gladly lose my material possessions to be an ally in this fight.”

At first glance, it sounds like he’s admitting that they are rioting burglars. I agree. Once you think about it though it openly advocates suicide. Translated it says, “I’m willing to kill myself for the sake of others who are destroying society.” The anti-materialists though are ironically supporting the materialists. I’ve yet to figure out what stealing spark plugs from AutoZone has to do with Floyd’s life.

By the way, remember that pets are legally considered property. Why do I have a feeling the “anti-materialists” will start to pick and choose which possessions they’d like to keep?

Who’s life is this by the way? Floyd’s life or the life of the looters? One person’s life or death should never overtake the livelihood of others whether it’s Floyd’s or anybody else’s. The reverse is the same. We shouldn’t have to sacrifice ourselves on a societal level to someone that died. We’re not collectively guilty.

Get ready for this one. I’m paraphrasing a tweet.

“We” built this country therefore we get to burn it down.

As you might guess by the use of the word “we”, it was written by someone who is black.

If this is the case, does that mean the assembly line workers that built your car get to destroy it? Does that mean the construction workers that built your house get to cut its gas line? Does that mean that the farmers who laboriously harvested the vegetables in your salad get to eat them? Moreover, does building something mean you automatically own it?

In this case it wouldn’t even be the current laborers that own them let alone produced them. Instead, it’d be people that shared the same melanin as them from centuries ago. In fact, if you pay close attention it’s not even about the type of labor but more or less the melanin of the laborers.

Legally, I’m pretty sure you can’t just destroy your property either. If it’s a windup toy I’m sure you can but if you built your house and burn it down or set your car on fire I’m confident that you’ll face harsh legal penalties rightfully so.

This is also effectively saying whites are slaves to blacks. If blacks are the builders and owners and can take away property from whites they’re the slave masters and whites are the slaves.

There you go. Autozone is the result of the legacy of slavery. Mystery solved.

How dare you tell blacks how to protest.

Not just blacks but anybody. Yes, there is a code of conduct for protests in that it ceases being a protest once rights are violated. Saying whites cannot perform a certain action (i.e., judgment) and blacks can getaway with whatever actions they see fit is a textbook example of racism.

Relativistic thinking is brazenly anti-thinking and therefore immoral. If you refuse moral judgement you can easily end up being the victim of what you refused to judge.

I could’ve stopped it at the initial argument though. There aren’t any protests to begin with so there. Most importantly, when everyone is held to different standards they are immediately placed into an “alternate reality”. And when other people are placed into an alternate reality of judgement we have division. And when we have division, we have a civil war. In the end, we’re all held accountable to different standards and I thought this was about equality.

You didn’t like their other forms of protest Pt. 1.

This refers to any peaceful protests that may have occurred such as the famous Colin Kaepernick NFL “take a knee protest”. Yes. People did have problems with that but it wasn’t the kneeling itself. It was a combination of what he said and where he said it. Hoards of people disagreed with the idea of the United States being an inherently racist country along with those who didn’t want soapboxing in sports.

If they think whites hated their prior forms of peaceful protest what makes them think rioting will change their opinions for the better? This easily plays into the hands of white supremacists who characterize blacks as rioting and looting savages. It seems as though they’re inadvertently proving the white supremacists right even though they’d still be wrong in their racist judgement.

People criticizing a protest doesn’t mean they’re not okay with freedom of expression.

It’s also an argument for the ends justifying the means. Why is this wrong though? It’s wrong because the end doesn’t exist since only means do. We’re always in the present and have to think long range. We have to always be aware of what we’re immediately doing and how it will effect where we’re going. The end justifies the means method has no moral regard for the present so what makes them think it’ll have moral regard for the end. If you want to achieve a desired goal it needs to match up with what came before it. Pertaining to the context of the riots, you don’t achieve peace by violence.

What’s the goal here? Where does property destruction take you other than back to your burned down home?

Interestingly enough, the supposedly systemically racist conspiracy at work has fought back against Floyd’s aggressor. The cop is fired and charged with murder. Police unions have spoken out against his actions and Trump has ordered an FBI investigation.

You didn’t like their other forms of protest Pt. 2: Peaceful protests fell on deaf ears.

No. Peaceful protests like Kaeperknick’s did not fall on deaf ears as evidenced by the public response to them. People strongly disagreed and agreed. If being ignored means getting a 14 trillion dollar endorsement from Nike I wish more people would ignore me.

How does this justify destruction though? If you say it’s a matter of getting others to listen to you you couldn’t be more wrong. You get people to listen by persuasion not violence. If you initiate force the only thing people can do is use force (rightfully so) in return. All you’ll do is further convince them that your side is destructive and built upon threats. Violence isn’t a conversation.

What kind of an argument is this? Being ignored means you’re justified in initiating violence? Is it always permissible for cops to initiate violence on someone who ignores them? Is it permissible to punch somebody in the face for ignoring you? What if a child’s parents don’t listen to him and he kills his sister for their attention? Is that justifiable?

It sounds like they’re saying they’re little demented kids begging for attention. I agree. That shows you what their movement is worth.

Sympathy

Some are saying they’re against the rioting yet are sympathetic or understanding as to why it’s happening. If you manage to complete the rest of the sentence past “sympathetic” you should realize that you cannot ever condemn something and then be “understanding” and “sympathetic” about it. Those are feelings and capacities that must be directed by reason and only deservedly applied rationally to things that you should not condemn.

The supposed arbiters of these sentiments are by default apologists for the rioters. They openly admit they understand the motivations behind destroying cities.

The sympathy argument is one big supposed understanding of a violent non-sequitur. If your mom were killed what would you do? Go outside and randomly target innocent civilians and their homes? How would that be worthy of sympathetic understanding?

If you are to allot sympathy to anybody allot it to the innocent business owners and civilians who were victimized by these savages. Save your tears for the victims not the victimizers.

Why didn’t you criticize the anti-lockdown protests? They had guns and “stormed” state capitals.

1. They protested.
2. They didn’t kill or injure anyone or destroy property.
3. Most of these protesters utilized their First and Second Amendment rights which is perfectly legal. A lot of cops are smart enough to know that it’s not legal to randomly tackle somebody just for holding a gun for those of you who say it was only because they were (predominantly?) white. 
4. Their protest made sense. They were petitioning the government to hand back their livelihoods and not force them into their homes.

Now, you can raise the question of whether or not it was sound to bring guns. I don’t think it was. Then again, cops were arresting people for pretty much being outside so maybe they had a point in “scaring” off cops. Either way, I don’t think the guns were smart.

I’m also not saying they didn’t do anything moronic or uncalled for but I’m okay with an angry belligerent moron if the city is still intact afterwards.

This point also treats white cops as a collective and therefore accuses all of them of having double standards when it comes to white or black protestors. It looks at an incident like the Floyd case and assumes that’s how white cops act when confronted with blacks. So, if a white cop has a “peaceful” encounter with a white civilian it’s immediately assumed it wouldn’t be that way with a black civilian. All of these examples are cherry-picked. They’ll take a photo of an angry white protestor from the quarantine protests and then juxtapose it against the Floyd case and then claim it proves their point.

They take two completely different situations with completely different officers and then try and make ties between them based around skin color.

The bottom line here is if they truly let white quarantine protestors get away with whatever it is they did why’d they even bother sending out cops to patrol these events in the first place? Why are they currently letting white rioters destroy cities right now?

Bankers who looted money during the financial collapse didn’t go to jail but there are “protestors” that did.

Maybe because lunatics on a rampage throughout a city are more of an immediate threat than guys who siphoned money through loopholes and lobbying.

This is assuming the unnamed people that maintain these occupations actually did that.

Conspiracies

Trump has recently tweeted that he is going to label Antifa a terrorist organization. It’s about time. There’s also evidence emerging to suggest that Antifa could’ve agitated the protest to which I wouldn’t be surprised. Antifa (mostly white kids) has continuously billed themselves as an organization that fights against things like systemic racism by rioting. However, here they’re exhibiting a morbid comedy of errors.

They claim to be allies to blacks yet are inadvertently doing the dirty work of would be white supremacists by burning down black neighborhoods.

It’s interesting to note the 180 that’s been pulled here. At first, people were saying these weren’t riots but instead protests against racism. Then the rioting escalated to the point where I think they realized they couldn’t rationalize it as protesting anymore. So, what’d they do? They admitted they were riots and then claimed they were committed by supposed far-right white supremacists and condemned them! I’m a little confused. Now pro-racists are fighting using what were once considered anti-racist tactics? Unreal.

If it’s white supremacists then why do they indiscriminately destroy businesses run by other whites?

Then they’ll claim that they initially started out peacefully. Okay, that’s fine but it didn’t stay that way for long and to blame this on only Antifa is sinful. There’s tons of others participating not limited to Black Lives Matter. Whoever did it should be convicted. We shouldn’t sit around trying to nonsensically pin it on who we want to for the sake of our agenda. If it’s white supremacists jail them. If it’s Black Lives Matter jail them. If it’s the cast of Cats jail them. I don’t care as long as the guilty are jailed.

Collectivism

Collectivism is the way Americans are currently thinking. My side is right. Your side is wrong. When you’re “wrong” you’re everything wrong with the world and deserve everything that my side has directed at you. Black Lives Matter stokes this perfectly. By saying immediately that someone’s life “matters” because of their melanin that will ultimately create rioting and needless protest anytime someone with that melanin gets harmed (justified or not).

It frees them of moral judgement. So, if a black person is killed (especially by a white and it seems like only by a white) no judgement is made as to whether or not the killing was justified. It assumes all my tribe members unconditionally “matter”. This undoubtedly breeds conformity in that they’ve been taught to uphold their tribe at all costs. People’s lives matter in that they should all be held equally under the law regardless of race or sex but still should be judged according to action(s). This we should all have in common.

It’s an absolute religion. Whichever black dies at the hands of only a white he’ll become their Jesus – an inadvertent sacrifice to show what is wrong with the world.

In this religion though black lives matter only when they’re killed by whites and not by blacks.

I hope the rioting stops but at least COVID-19 seems to have miraculously been “cured”. The frustrating thing though is that just as the country was opening up parts of it are shutting down once again except this time it seems justifiable due to severe threats of violence.

Originally, the pious quarantine thumpers and politicians espoused it wasn’t acceptable to open your barber shop but now we can assume it’s acceptable for others to destroy your barber shop.

I support protests against the bastard cop but right now I’m not seeing anything by and large that resembles a protest so I have close to nothing to support.

George Mason University’s Self-Flagellation

George Mason University, a predominantly commuter college in Northern Virginia, is not a radical school in terms of woke elitist left-wing ideology but that doesn’t mean it isn’t immune to it.

As expected of a present day university, they do, hock around a bit of the white-guilt and anti-western civilization agenda.

A recent example of GMU’s white-guilt syndrome with a touch of scorn directed at western civilization is an Enslaved People of George Mason memorial deemed for completion in 2021.

The memorial is to commemorate the more than 100 slaves George Mason owned with the focus being on a child slave named, Penny and a manservant named, James. I guess the other slaves should’ve worked harder to get credit.

As a student of Mason, I have to say that the idea is inherently moot. I’m not for it or against it and, I’m sure, like most of the meaningless waste-of-space sculptures and statues on campus, generations of students will walk past it without notice unless they walk into it.

My criticism isn’t necessarily with the memorial itself, but more with the self-flagellating rhetoric behind it.

This is a quote from Ayman Fatima, the student research assistant who’s behind the project.

“It is important for our campus community to recognize that our university’s namesake enslaved blacks and that his Declaration of Rights did not extend to those he enslaved—because we can only begin to move forward once we have accepted our past,” she said.

Not only has every faculty member and student to ever set foot on GMU property realize our troublesome past but so has everyone else to have lived within the past 70-plus years in the United States.

The United States has accepted its past time and time again. In fact, it has been incredibly apologetic for it within the past 4 decades. It has acknowledged left and right every single atrocity to ever be committed. Educators and public legislatures at all levels have spent probably close to billions on race relations, reparations, diversity offices and programs, history initiatives, study programs, and even bizarro affirmative action programs all to “apologize” for the past.

After all these years, we apparently haven’t realized we’re burned out from our excessive knee-crawling that now we’re actively going out of our way to paint the US – a country that millions flee to – as, if not a scourge to planet earth, but a country that has barely scratched the surface of repentance.

This current form of white-guilt theology postulates that the US has an original sin from birth in the form of systemic corruption and that we are to spend the rest of our lives repenting in a swamp of guilt. By nature, original sin can never be fully repented as it is a genetic defect. This means our only refuge is to spend the remainder of history apologizing.

Self-pity is not an American or rational ideal and therefore should not be considered as a virtue nor form of domestic and educational policy especially at universities named after its founders.

In fact, it’s not uncommon for students to petition against statues and even mentions of the founding fathers. The most baffling cases involve the the University of Virginia where students were outraged at a university email that quoted Thomas Jefferson. Petitioning was also put in place to remove a statue of Jefferson. The reasoning being the man owned slaves and was a rapist. What do you want to bet the majority of those students ironically think Bill Clinton is a cool guy? How far off is GMU from being effected by this mental illness?

This bubonic-like plague is also a part of cancel culture. Cancel culture entails petitions to, not only get rid of tributes to past figures, but also current celebrities, private individuals, politicians, and other public figures who have fallen to past wrongdoings. Usually, the solution is wipe out any trace of what they did from wherever they may have a presence and remove them from a job. Mason students tried to implement this upon the university’s leaders when they hired Judge Kavanaugh to teach law classes.

Millennials and Generation Z: 1984 is not an instruction manual.

This memorial could potentially plant those seeds of absurdity at GMU – a university who is and has been humble enough to already recognize its past for decades.

Notice the misdirection here when it’s pointed out that Mason did not extend his Declaration of Rights to slaves. This is a form of bait and switch that, if not paid attention to, can make one think the founders were dirty rotten scoundrels in every sense even up to their ideas.

The key phrase here being, “did not” – meaning it happened in the past.

Regardless of the inconsistencies of the founders in their own lives, their ideas alone are enough to redeem the fact that they were slave owners. A shocking thing to say? Consider the time frame. They were no different than any other non-white slave owner in the world at the time.

That’s not to say that an issue like slavery should be subjected to moral relativism. It shouldn’t. Ever.

This rhetoric also doesn’t acknowledge that the founders’ ideas are what eventually helped create a societal chain reaction that would eventually free slaves and rocket our country into democratic and (classical) liberal prosperity.

To quote GMU Professor of Economics, Walter E. Williams from his August 27, 2019 Something to Think About column, “Black Americans have made the greatest gains, over some of the highest hurdles in the shortest span of time than any other racial group in mankind’s history.”

“The significance of this is that in 1865, neither a slave nor a slave owner would have believed that such progress would be possible in less than a century and a half, if ever. As such, it speaks to the intestinal fortitude of a people. Just as importantly, it speaks to the greatness of a nation within which such progress was possible, progress that would have been impossible anywhere else. The challenge before us is how those gains can be extended to a large percentage of black people for whom they appear elusive.”

With as much money as GMU rakes in you’d think instead of reaching back into the past for grievances due to lack of present ones, they’d help spread awareness about modern day slavery. Thousands of men and women fall victim to the clutches of Islamic theocratic slavery in the Middle East on a daily basis. Thousands of African males are sold into slavery in Libya as I type. Those truly systemically corrupt nations should be educated in George Mason’s philosophy of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

When things like this get pushed under the rug and we focus on things that we’ve all addressed and can all uncontroversially agree on as being bad, I can’t help but think there’s an anti-US sentiment lurking underneath.

This project is nothing revolutionary. It’s nothing brave. It’s nothing stunning. Also, why keep putting students in control of things?

Reasons to Hate Men?

     

It seems as though misandry is the theme of 2019. With Gillette attacking testosterone, the APA issuing pseudo-scientific guidelines on how to deal with “traditional” masculinity, and the media’s exclusive portrayal of men as rapists, sexual harassers and now mass shooters, it doesn’t look good for the American male.

Constance Marie, a sitcom actress most known for her role as Angie Lopez on the George Lopez (2002 – 07) sitcom, has taken it to Instagram to provide evidence for how much she hates men – especially white men. I normally wouldn’t give attention to such a minor practically unnoticed soon-to-be-forgotten Instagram post, but I think it encapsulates a good textbook example of the current trend of female man haters.

The post starts out with:

“in America WE HAVE A SERIOUS PROBLEM. We need to ADMIT it, STUDY it, And FIX IT!!! America is broken.”

Well, that doesn’t seem to be the case on a lot of levels, but since this post focuses on gun crime and men I’ll focus on those. Mass shootings are low and make up hardly a significant amount of crime even with regards to declining homicides in the United States.

“For decades now the NRA has successfully lobbied Congress to prevent any funding for the CDC to study why gun violence in the US has grown to epidemic proportions.”

She couldn’t be more wrong. In fact, the Obama Administration DID commission a CDC report on gun violence in 2013 that found certain forms of gun violence (i.e., self-defense) can protect us from people with guns.

“I don’t have a Ph.D,”

She’s better without it.

“…and I’m not a social scientist,”

She’s just as wrong as one though.

“…but I’d like to offer a few observations and ask that we perhaps “study” the following:”

Well, I have to admit that, as an actress on sitcoms, she’s more qualified and respectable in my view to speak on this issue, as wrong as she is, than say a Gender Studies or Sociology major.

“1. Nearly all gun murders are committed by one gender. Let’s study why that is.”

She’s right. Most gun murders are committed by men, but guess who shows up to to save people from mass murderers? Men. Guess who may die trying to prevent a mass shooting? Men. Guess who will help comfort injured females at the crime scene? Men. Guess who prosecute mass murderers? Men. Guess who’ll most likely officiate the funeral (or “Celebration of Life”) service? A man. Guess what sex the pallbearers are at a mass shooting victim’s funeral? Male.

Nearly all murderers are arrested, prosecuted, and then deemed guilty, if not thwarted, by men – good men that she chose to evade because she’s a misandrist.

Her biased statement should also have a second part to make it unbiased.

“1. Nearly all gun murders are committed and then stopped or solved by one gender. Let’s study why that is and then thank good men for keeping us safe from bad men.”

There. Fixed it.

“The vast majority of guns are owned by white people.”

She’s correct, but there’s a difference between owning a gun and using a gun. This point is going to be very important once she starts mentioning crime by race.

“Why is that? Most of these white people live in nearly all-white suburban and rural areas which have little or no crime. Why, really, do they need all those guns?”

She sort of brings up a good point as to why you’d need a gun in a safe area, but you fail to see the irony that in areas that don’t have gun control, crime tends to be lower.

“3. Why are most of these school shootings and other mass shootings committed by young white frightened males?”

Why is it that people, when talking about gun violence in general, focus on the rarest form of gun violence (i.e., mass shootings). I know why; it’s because most are committed by white males.

I also hate to break it to Constance that the majority of violence in this country, according to the FBI, is committed by black males. The FBI is an organization not yet corrupted by Gender Studies or Critical Race Theorists.

It sounds like Constance is hinting at some sort of racial biological inferiority when it comes to white males.

“4. So many frightened, scared men say they need a gun.”

She just mentioned how destructive and violently unpredictable men are. I’m scared now and want to own a gun. You can’t say I’m irrational for that.

“Yet women – who have a REAL reason to be afraid in this society – carry hardly ANY of the 300 million+ guns in this country. Let’s study that.”

Okay. We can study that because it seems like she wants to be proven wrong – AGAIN.

Misandry is one thing, but why is Constance painting all women as whiny and scared little bitches? I hate to break it to you, but there’s women out there that love men and aren’t afraid of them or leaving their house.

Are women at a higher risk than men for being the victims of violent crime? No.

Men are more likely to be victims of MOST violent crime in the United States. Subsequently, a BJS study found that men and women are about equal when it comes to the rate of being victims of violent crimes.

Women, on the other hand, do have different risks when it comes to violence as well – namely rape. If her argument is that, in this society, women have the real reason to be afraid, isn’t she inadvertently making  a case for women to be the majority of fearful gun owners? Would the reverse of the situation be okay with her?

Way to libel male gun owners as well. Within that 300+ million, what about all the men who want and have protected their family, friends, and other civilians while using a gun?

And what society is she talking about? The Congo? India? Saudi Arabia? Be specific. She couldn’t possibly mean the United States, a country where she’s very affluent, has her rights upheld and protected, and knows she can walk around in general safety, where crimes like rape are illegal and on a decline.

Since Constance is a Hispanic Woman and, as a Hispanic woman, she should know that her culture has a major problem when it comes to Hispanic men inflicting domestic violence against Hispanic women.

“5. Why are women so often the victims of this violence?”

That’s not true all the time, but maybe they should carry guns?

“Let’s study how millions of boys are raised and socialized in this culture to be man-boys who fear & despise women. And why women end up dead because of ugly misogyny.”

Let’s study how multitudes of boys are raised in single-parent female-headed households while going to school with teachers who will most likely be female to usually bad results because they most likely have close to no masculine influence in their lives. Let’s also talk about how masculinity is demonized as you are helping prove. Maybe your feminist autocorrect is on because it keeps switching “soy-boy” to “man-boy”. There are close to no “man-boys” currently and society (including women) are paying a heavy price.

“6. Perhaps it simply comes down to this: In the US, women hold no real political, economic or social power. 75% of Congress are men. A woman wins the presidency, but a slave-era law prohibits her from taking office.”

Perhaps it simply comes down to this:

In the US and the west, women have a great quality of life compared to most other countries. They somehow hold, in instances, actual political power in a society that supposedly wants to kill them. They have decent control of the economy as they have key purchasing power in important areas. Society, is more likely to be sympathetic to women than men as well.

As for that “slave-era law”, she couldn’t possibly be referring to the very important electoral college? What is a “slave-era law” by the way? Isn’t the First Amendment (that she’s using to type this post) a “slave-era law”? This is an appeal to emotion – a logical fallacy. By bringing up slavery, I’m assuming you’re supposed to think, “Wow. The multi-trillion dollar Hillary Clinton was treated like a slave even though she’s appeased countries that treat women like slaves.”

“Just 6% of the CEOs of the Fortune 500 companies are women.”

Once again, a feminist using the gender pay gap argument. Women, on average, don’t pursue jobs like CEO because they prefer more flexible and shorter hour jobs.

“None of the major religions are run by women.”

She has a point there. Most religions are anti-woman and anti-reason in general with forced burqa, forced hijab, stoning, justified gang rape, sex slavery, and overall hatred of female free choice. If I were you, I’d use religion as an insult toward men.

“Wall Street is not run by women.”

She seriously wants a female Jordan Belfort?

What is the conclusion to all these misandrist points? Am I to assume that if women ran these things they’d be great and not corrupt because somehow women are intrinsically better than men? Instead, you should be thanking all of the men who dominate these positions for helping bring abundance to women.

She’s against female inequality but it sounds like she supports male inequality.

“We still haven’t passed the Equal Rights Amendment for women.”

I think it’s a great idea we haven’t because it wouldn’t usher in the equality we already have, but instead feminist female special privileges which women have enough of at the state, federal, and educational levels. By this I mean there are programs already geared specifically toward women only. Also, what rights, do you as a woman, not have that I, as a man, have?

“Wouldn’t a scientific study by the CDC show that if Congress was majority female (which might give us better schools, universal healthcare, day care and senior care),…”

I’m rarely this stunned. Constance Marie is a total misandrist who firmly believes women are the divine inherently moral sex and men are decrepit inferior violent beasts who have natural tendencies to destroy civilization – never to protect or innovate – as we know it. I don’t know where to start with this.

First off, all of those failed socialist programs that you want were all devised by men if not implemented already by men. If anything ended in bloodshed, it wasn’t because of men being men it was because those ideas you advocate lead to a society of violence (i.e., socialism). Where does that money come from by the way? If men, make the most then they’re the ones who will be paying for misandrist racists like Constance whenever they go to their doctor to get their mildly aching bunions checked out.

Sounds like inequality to me.

“…and if women were paid the same as men (a strong wage so all could live a decent life) wouldn’t this then be the ultimate result: Far less of us will die on any given day from an angry spray of random bullets.”

Once again, the wage gap is brought up. Constance would know first hand about the wage gap considering she probably gets paid more than a lot of other actresses on projects that she’s worked on. What do you want to bet that some of her co-stars get paid less for the same work just because they’re not her? After all, names in show business sell differently.

Wages aren’t determined by sex but instead by work and your product’s value in the marketplace. What you rake in is what you’ve produced and that’s final. Once again, women prefer jobs with lesser hours and pursue ones that generally make less money than jobs that men pursue.

To top this all off, as you’ve seen at the top of this post, Constance used a photo of the mugshots of mass shooters – something she believes represent all white men and men in general. Even though the MAGA mail bomber was part brown (Filipino).

Here’s another one Constance. I support diversity in my mass shooter collage.

The Forgotten Male Suffragettes

With the 100th anniversary of women having their voting rights acknowledged, a step toward the direction of legal equality between men and women was made thanks to brave feminists and the 99% male Congress at the time who helped make the 19th amendment possible.

Since the commemoration of this monumental day in American history is a celebration of equality and a gauge of the horrors of inequality let’s take a look at it from all sides.

Today, the word equality is being put forth in dubious contexts with “altered” definitions. I’m going to assume we can all sit comfortably, without objection, while I even up the playing field and mention the men who did not have voting rights.

This is in recognition of all the men who were once property of the state without a say in policy (i.e., voting rights) whose lives were lost, ruined, drained of youth, and violently interrupted by military drafts.

The Civil War, the bloodiest war in American history, first established the draft for males only of ages 20 – 45. Twenty-year old males could not vote, yet that didn’t stop the Feds from using them as cannon fodder. In fact, there’s great photos of what it looks like to be alive without voting rights while your entire face has been blown off.

Young middle class males, who couldn’t vote and in some instances couldn’t own property, were drafted into WWI. This was strongly the case in the UK where young men were enslaved by the state for military purposes. Eventually, their voting rights were acknowledged.

When the second event of male privilege literally exploded around the corner, men who could not vote were thrown into fighting off some of the most sadistic villainous regimes in human history. You guessed it. I’m talking about WWII and the villains in this chapter of male subordination were Nazi Germany and the Japanese Empire. The male 18 – 20 year olds who could not vote had no choice but to stand nose-to-nose with mortality.

You think men would’ve had a say in elected leaders who loved to kill them this time because the Korean War marched in and more young men who could not vote were forced to kill off Korean men and use their corpses as a sandbags in the name of I’m not sure what.

The worst has yet to come and the Feds want it to be fine. Say goodbye to your freshman sweetheart because, without voting rights in tow, you’re getting a free tour of Vietnam with a meet and greet pass to meet a 15-year old member of the Viet Cong clutching a branch of sharpened bamboo pointed straight at you. If he doesn’t get you, the Agent Orange side effects will 40 years later.

Voting rights were not in the picture for any of these young men.

Do males today fare that much better though? They get to vote at 18 but they still can be forced into war which is a total contradiction to the premise of freedom and voting rights. Feminists fought for women to vote but they’re not fighting to be required to register for the draft. Today’s feminists have a luxury. They can vote in politicians who have the potentiality to forcefully send young men into war while they stay home and talk about how men are privileged oppressors.

I was generous to limit this post to male US history only. Look at the male history of other civilizations. How many of those men (a ton younger than 18) were forced to fight and be killed without voting rights?

Let’s remember to never lose perspective on memorials surrounding social and political issues based upon sex.

I Was Served by a Hispanic Woman at McDonald’s: Why This is a Form of Slavery

The latest traumatic revelation in my life happened today. Being that we live in a draconian capitalistic society that provides us with copious amounts of prosperity I was forced to go get nourished at the oppressive racist fast-food joint by the name of McDonald’s. 

As I entered this bourgeois fascist institution, I noticed that they had, what seemed like unlimited choices of food on their pig menus. Yes! That’s right! Multiple menus. So oppressive. I looked around and saw people who were eating. Some were even victimized by being over nourished (aka fat). Wow, like why don’t you just keep these people as slaves to the manipulative capitalistic restaurant chain that makes their food taste good. 

Anyways, I noticed that the entire staff was Hispanic! What the hell, man, woman, non-binary! Like can it even get anymore oppressive already? The evil white male CEO is only hiring Hispanic (mostly female – even more oppressive) to slave for them at market determined wages. 

Being that I’m a white male, of course they catered to me because of the patriarchy. The woman behind the counter was willing to serve me as if she was born to do just do that. She was like, “¡Hola! How can I help you?”. You see how submissive they’ve made her? At first, I nearly choked on my whiteness as trickles of sweat slid down my privileged honky forehead. I was afraid to speak but my white male-entitled hunger overcame me as I victimized her by saying, “I would like a cheeseburger and small fries.” I got small fries because I wanted to keep their work load low when they shoveled my fries into the paper bag. 

Then she handed me a placard with a number on it. I said, “What is this for?”. She responded with, “Put this on your table and we’ll bring your food to you!”. I was shocked. Let me repeat what she told me. She said, “Put this on your table and we’ll bring your food to you!”.

I couldn’t fight the patriarchal white supremacist system so, begrudgingly with slumped shoulders, I walked to the nearest empty table. I did want to sit at a table near the exit but a black man was sitting there so I decided not to. I didn’t want to ruin his dining experience with my whiteness. I mean, bruh. Think of how hard it is for him to constantly be subjected to white people on a daily basis. I guess this is one instance when I was brave enough to revoke my white privilege of sitting wherever I wanted to.

Also, can you imagine the white supremacy infused into the cheese in his cheeseburger? Every bite of that gooey goodness made his chances of living a shorter life than a white man become more and more a reality. It is well known via white liberal studies that McDonald’s only serves artery-clogging cheeseburgers to control black male population numbers. 

So, anyways I sat down and waited for quite a bit. They probably dock their pay the slower they are. I was so close to going back up to the counter and telling her I don’t want the fries if it’ll take you longer to serve me. I didn’t though. My patriarchal whiteness overpowered me. It has made me self-centered. All I cared about was my hunger and my food to be served by an oppressed Hispanic woman. 

This racist agenda of serving white male customers used to not exist. Look at the disparity over the decades. In 1969, most employees at McDonald’s were white males and they didn’t have to serve customers at their table. In 2019, when they are staffed by predominantly Hispanics they make them go the extra mile – literally – to serve us. 

My food eventually came to me. Seeing the way this marginalized and disenfranchised woman put the tray on the table and the way she said, “Enjoy!” I nearly lost my appetite but I ate on. As I was munching away at my oppressive fattening fascist capitalist meal, that cost me about $7 (greedy bastards), an asian man dressed in his camouflage military fatigues came in with his son. 

There are so many things wrong with this. 

Not to sidetrack but like think how much of a bad influence this dad is for his son. Being in the military, they train you to exude your being with toxic masculinity. I can’t imagine all the times this young boy has been brainwashed with things like, “Man up”, “Suck it up”, “I’ll teach you how to lift weights in order to stay fit and healthy”, “The United States is a great country”, or the worst of all, “Always provide for women, save them from danger, love them, care for them, and it’s okay to be attracted to ones that are feminine.” Somebody needs to get this child a strong empowered single mom and a bottle of glitter. The second troubling realization I had about the most racially tolerant country on planet earth was how badly we have treated the richest segment of the population and then make them fight wars for us. I’m white let me speak on his behalf. 

On my drive home, I thought about my situation with the Hispanic woman and realized that it is a facet of white male entitlement that this society has brainwashed me into acting out. I could’ve said, “You know what? You sit down. I’ll serve you” but I didn’t because I have been taught to expect a service from a brown person I’ve paid. Look at what we’ve become. I am such an ableist. Ronald McDonald is white. The Hamburgler is white. The Beatles are white. Drake and Josh are white. Donald Trump is white. I am white. 

Hopefully, some day us whites will know what it’s like to experience slavery and discrimination first hand. McDonald’s needs to be decolonized. Bigot.

Friends is racist

Out of all the white supremacist propaganda ever inflicted upon media in the history of mankind, the most racist perpetuation of terroristic whiteness is the 1994 – 2003 sitcom, Friends. 

I mean it’s so obvious that the show is racist because the principle cast is all white. We all know that whenever more than one white person is in a room it means there’s always some racist agenda at work. 

That’s why if we are to ever reboot Friends it’s important to make the show “diverse”. It’s always been proven that a wise business investment backed by millions of dollars should be banked upon, not who’s best for the role regardless of skin tone, but on who happens to have the “correct” alternative skin tone. That will definitely ensure getting competent actors perfect for the parts – assuming non-white actors and actresses pursue those parts to begin with – and heighten the chances of it being successful. 

It’s like if white people choose to watch a TV show that stars Jennifer Anniston and not an unknown recent black female theater student graduate with zero resume they’re only doing that because they’re racist.

This definitely has everything to do with creating quality entertainment and not a white-guilt ridden agenda to make ourselves not appear “racist”. As we all know whenever someone touts the diversity agenda white people aren’t the first group to be scrutinized. 

Even if a diverse show is successful we all know it has to do with the fact that the cast is diverse and not because it’s just a good show. 

In a quest to ensure racial diversity we also must tackle shows such as Black-ish because the entire cast of that show is black and therefore not diver…oh wait…I’m sorry. That show is somehow safely under the diversity umbrella. Never mind.

The Friends theme song sings, “I’ll be there for you”…yeah whatever. You’ll only be there if the person is white. Nazi KKK alt-right Reagan Republican bigots. Transphobic.

Please enjoy my next article where we make the next lineup of Friends be racially diverse by having everyone be black but then realize we made the mistake of hiring straight black actors and actresses who’s skin tone is too light. This is aside from the fact that we forgot to cast Native American LGBTQ people, Argentinian trans-disabled queer people, non-binary left-handed Chinese people, Brazilians who are part Japanese, and all the other 6.7 billion variations of human beings. 

I hope you are ready for the biggest sitcom cast ever assembled. 

Only when we get rid of straight white males and whites in general will we have true diversity. 

Defending Hoax Papers Author, Peter Boghossian

Prof. Peter Boghossian, a philosophy professor at Portand U, along with Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay authored several “grievance studies” hoax papers to see whether or not they’d get accepted into highly-accredited peer-reviewed academic journals.

Topics ranged from rape culture at dog parks, fat bodybuilding, all the way to copying and pasting Mein Kampf as feminist criticism with the use of the word “Jews” replaced with “white men”. In another turn of racist events, another article was rejected because of race as it was coming from a person (a fictitious person created by Pluckrose) who was a white lesbian.

To anyone who hasn’t been shot in the head you’d think these topics would not get accepted by anyone in academia however they did.

This is a shortened version of the story. It’s very detailed so I suggest you go and look it up yourself.

The point I want to address is that Boghossian is currently under ironic investigation for violating academia ethics. This is absolute nonsense.

If anybody should be under investigation for lack of academic integrity it should be the academics who accepted these hoax papers with open arms. They fell for these, at times, racist and sexist shams further proving that the US educational system is nothing more than playtime for uneducated rich white marxist-leftist elites.

The counter usually raised is: It’s terrible that they wasted the time of these journals by lying.

I see that as nothing more than changing the subject as a coverup to delete their embarrassment from the media. It’s not working though.

It is ethical to lie sometimes if you are out to expose injustice. It can prove a fabulous point instead of simply speculating of what people may believe. I don’t say this as a way to have the end justify the means but instead as supporting an objective case for lying under certain circumstances.

To be fair, Portland U isn’t even making that claim. Their primary grievance is that Boghossian did this without the university’s permission.

How was this a waste of time though? The academics agreed with the hoax papers. They thought they made great points so even though they now know them as fakes why don’t they at least use the conclusions in these papers to find “truthful” research behind them?

Why are they even offended?

The magician, James Randi, did a similar experiment in the 70s known as Project Alpha. He fooled major parapsychologists into thinking two of his magician understudies had actual psychic powers. It’s all on video.

The same defense was risen. “They wasted time by lying.”

Boghossian, Pluckrose, and Lindsay should be given international mainstream attention due to their exposure of the sad state of American academia.