20 October 2013

Where Are They?

Where are all the feminists asking for greater representation in the logging industry? In fishing? Mining? Garbage collection? Welding? HVAC?

Oh, that's right - you can't wear pantsuits and "lean in", then take home $70K per year for all of the hard work of going to meetings about meetings, sending emails, and browsing Facebook on your iPhone when Debbie in HR isn't looking. Never mind.

20 July 2013

Like a Rolling Stone

I have to admit, it's quite entertaining watching & reading all the "outrage" over Rolling Stone's decision to feature Tamerlan Tsarnaev on the cover of their latest issue. It seems like one of those rare instances that unites  tempeh-munching progressive sodomites and Murrica-worshipping Bible Belt yahoos, much to my chagrin. Anything that unites garbage people is sure to be something I will oppose, simply out of principle, and partially reflex. Even frontment of washed-up nü-metal bands are voicing their displeasure, and in all caps. This is serious stuff, apparently.

Let's get this straight: all y'all are wailing and gnashing your teeth over a magazine's decision to put a boy who killed 3 people with homemade explosives on the cover, but are not spending ANY energy pointing out that the response to the actions of this boy (devoid of any facial hair, and possessing a weak chin, no less) was to effectively declare martial law in an entire city, and bring in hundreds of black-clad police officers with body armor, select-fire rifles, and APCs to search for a frightened 19-year old? Am I understanding correctly? You're getting bent out of shape about a magazine cover while your own government - to which you've graciously ceded so much liberty in order to pertect us from the terr'ists - is very likely examining ways it can spy on you, detain you without warrant or cause, threaten you with guns, herd you into various facilities, and ultimately kill you without media elites (without whom 90% of Americans would have no opinion about anything whatsoever) declaring that the Constitution is actually being subverted (for real this time, folks, we mean it!). Not even restricting the franchise to property-holding white men can fix how severely wrecked the electorate is. Like the universal rule of programming holds, garbage in = garbage out.

The same people who worried that George Bush would implement martial law shortly before his time in the Presidency would have ended are batting nary an eye at the actual jack-booted thugs they feared would come to drag off their Iraq War protest groups to Gitmo, back in 2004.

Then again, I have a feeling the coming kinder, gentler, gender-neutral police state that seeks to forcibly eliminate all microaggressions and other forms of white, cisgendered privilege will be so hilariously inept that it will all just crumble under its own weight (because they will all be so fat, ha ha, get it?) and the US will merely Balkanize.

Чёрт его знает...

But seriously, a magazine cover? We are utterly and completely BONED.

27 March 2013

Fake It 'Til You Make It (Then Fake It Some More!)

Funny thing about lots of "hate crimes" that create a flood of outcry among the social-justice warriors is that so many of these incidents are staged.

Very recently, UC Santa Barbara's Queer Student Union co-chair, Morgan Triplett, cooked up a tall tale about being raped on-campus during a visit to UC Santa Cruz. Her story was quite elaborate, going into great detail about her imaginary assailant, but she later admitted to the fabrication. Up until then, though, there was a heavy police presence on campus while an investigation was conducted.

Now that the hoax has been unmasked, is Ms. Triplett going to be billed for all the police overtime, the paperwork, and the campus teach-ins she caused? Nope, she's just going to be charged with a misdemeanor for filing a false report. Just a slap on the wrist that could very well be tossed by a feminist-friendly judge.

From the 1st link:

"According to her Facebook page, Triplett is majoring in sociology at UC Santa Barbara, works as an HIV test counselor at Pacific Pride Foundation, and is a member of UCSB's Queer Student Union."

Majoring in Victim Complex Creation at an expensive public school known for its reckless and hedonistic partying, working with addicts and sodomites, and leading an organization that champions post-modern gender studies idiocy? She'll get hugs from her queer allies, then go back to creating a world where anyone who disagrees with her opinions should go to jail.

Why is it that when hate crimes are staged, the only thing feminist buffoons and the social justice warriors want to focus on is how to use this hysteria as a stepping stone for demeaning whites, men, and heterosexuals? They clamor on and on about how this is a teachable moment and that even fake victims should never be blamed, as it just reminds us about all the Oppression™ and Injustice™ certain groups face in society despite the fact that nobody is ever allowed to criticize them about anything they do, or call into question their motives.

Speaking of teachable moments, this is how far gone coastal America is - as long as you're the right type of person, you can make up all kinds of crazy shit, and people will rally around you like the faithful around the relics of their patron saint.

Now that the deck is stacked in favor progressives, feminists, public university cockroaches, Disadvantaged Minorities™, and others, they're starting run out of scary white men who want to kill Jews/gays/brown people, so they decide to create their own imaginary ones. After all, if Oppression™ ceased to exist, many of these people would no longer be employed due to the inability to wax prolific about anything else. If feminism wasn't predicated on the looming presence of The Patriarchy™ just waiting for the chance to enslave women, it wouldn't have such undue influence in society.

To all the male students at UC Santa Cruz & Santa Barbara: don't ever have sex with female student if she's majoring in a social "science". The odds of a false rape accusation are enormous if she in any way regrets the consequences of her actions. It could have been your mugshot all over campus flyers.

Republicans Are Weak Faggots

Fat, doughy Republican asshole says that the reason people who are legally able to carry a handgun almost anywhere shouldn't be able to carry on college campuses is because people have a right to not feel uncomfortable. FEEL UNCOMFORTABLE.

Parallel to the "Slut Walk" phenomenon, this is yet another case of "fuck your rights, my feelings are at stake!"

You know what else probably makes Ted "Pasty Faggot Fuck" Harvey feel uncomfortable? Black people. Something tells me, though, that he's not gonna go on CSPAN-2 and say "Pampered white people like myself have a right to not ever feel uncomfortable, which is why I'm supporting this bill to keep blacks out of my city." Yet, here he is, spreading his flabby, pockmarked asscheeks and pinching off a loaf all over someone who reminds him that violence is a real thing that happens to people outside the bubble of workin' for the government.

If there's one thing anyone even casually studying politics can learn, it's that positions of bureaucratic power attract people who seek their own gain while lording their privilege over others. Feeling good about oneself is the highest goal of modern society, and being in a position of power in today's institutions merely amplifies the sanctimony of that pursuit.

Republicans are weak faggots who will sell you & yours up the river if it means they can feel safe. That's what the entire gun control debate comes down to - ugly, weak assholes who sucked several cubic yards worth of cock to get a "Sen." or "Rep." in front of their name want to feel safe from people they might piss off when the economically & politically illiterate electorate bring their horrid legislation to life.

06 February 2013

Want To Preserve Traditional Western Culture? Repeal the 19th Amendment

I love women (I consider feminists an entirely different classification, so the preceding value judgment does not apply to them). I can appreciate their beauty (well, at least some of them) and their charming natures (again, at least some), but they are 100% unfit to have influence on the political system of a nation that seeks to cultivate aretē and be a sterling example of manly virtue to the world. The reasons for this are manifold, but I will condense them into two main ones:

I. Women & men are fundamentally different from one another in regard to their interests, goals, and basic biological drives, and these differences alter the priorities of men & women from a political standpoint.

II. Women have a propensity to break up men-only institutions and organizations, and this is commonly done by turning men against one another, or by distracting them.

The fundamental difference between men & women that so readily manifests itself in the political realm is that men by and large are interested in freedom, whereas women are interested in security. Men seek to push boundaries, to engage in high risk/high reward activities, and to set out on their own to satisfy curiosities. This is why any successful liberation movement or revolution is built on the blood, sweat, and tears of men. They are the ones who are on the receiving end of anti-revolutionary violence. Women in revolutions, while convenient figureheads, are usually either left out, are used as emotional fodder, or in some cases a few bulldyke pseudo-intellectuals get to be a mouthpiece. This is because women are fundamentally interested in safety. They won't rest until everyone is dressed in pastel colors, and the world around them is turned into one massive nest.

Men-only institutions are built around camaraderie, exclusivity, honor, sincere connection, and plain ol' gettin' important shit done. Introducing women to that kind of environment disrupts any lofty goals, and other aspects that men bring to a group of other men. Suddenly, the purpose of the group is no longer one of advancement and excellence - getting laid or impressing the women becomes the new goal. Women introduce their own special brand of mayhem - passive-aggressiveness, dishonor, backhanded compliments (the way women go about them is different from the way men go about them), mean-spirited competition, and an overall lowering of the bar so that everyone can feel special.

In essence, women eventually ruin whatever activities and institutions that were up until recently, men-only.

This delicate flower and others like her, are why we can't have nice things. Women, along with effeminate men, will not go door to door confiscating income or rifle magazines or any other product they either deem necessary to their own survival or they seek to remove from society. When you can't get something done on your own, the next best thing is to pay someone to do it for you. In this context, however, instead of paying Jose $50 to paint your garage door, the manboobs and the shrieking harpies buy the services of politicians with their votes. You think some fucking cardigan-clad tofu-nibbling Wymyn's Stydys professor will take up mugging as a side job on weekends and donate the proceeds to his/her/its political cause du jour? Obviously not - they use their votes and their subsequent tax dollars to hire people who will do that for them. Like the old saying goes, "it's not robbery if you have to fill out a form". They can confiscate property from men in a myriad of ways - alimony, TANF/WIC funding, Title IX, tax dollars that go to public universities that openly demean masculinity and favor women & fashionable minorities, the list is manifold and ever-increasing - all with the help of legislators and their legions of alphabet soup agencies full of affirmative action hires.

Delegation of unattractive policies and procedures to authority figures is a trait that is womanly in nature. Rather than direct confrontation that invites shame, outrage, and the possibility that the other guy will use deadly force to resist your attempts, we send a check to faceless bureaucracies, because we know deep down inside what happens to people who don't send that check. The next time one of your progressive acquaintances (I sure hope you don't have any progressive *friends*) makes mention of increasing taxation, gun control, or any other policy involving the use of force or coercion by a government agency, ask them this simple set of questions: "Is is morally acceptable to personally force someone to __________?" If they answer NO, the follow-up question is naturally "If not, then how is it morally acceptable to have another person or an institution do the same thing on a larger scale?"

Maybe you want to give them an example - "If I'm robbing you at gunpoint in your own home, but I tell you that the money and goods I am taking will be used to put my children through college, or to pay for a necessary medical procedure, do you have any right to demand that I leave your property alone at once, or any right to even be resentful?" Sit back and watch as they try to justify their desire to use government force to accomplish what they wouldn't dare do on their own.

Now that we have awarded the franchise to women, the results have been fraught with emotional knee-jerk policies that demonstrate a very high time preference. This is coupled with a very egotistic refusal to consider long-term ramifications and unintended consequences, and a refusal to blame the real guilty parties. We have seen an explosion in social ills, more government policies to fix problems that earlier government policies created, and a culture of petty tyrants.

Let's hope that when the empire's death rattle is heard from sea to shining sea, we don't make the same mistake twice. Women are wonderful, strange beings who in many ways make existence a worthwhile endeavor, but for God's sake - don't ever let them near the voting booth!

11 January 2013


Accusing the gun industry and gun owners at large of fomenting fear and paranoia is pretty rich coming from a group of people who want the general public to be terrified of guns that look a certain way, that gun owners are just a few millibars of blood pressure away from a homicidal rampage, and that the desire to own an AR-15 should be considered a mental disorder.

These are the same folks who
warned us all about the shootouts and the massacres that would occur in states that established themselves as right-to-carry states, and when the '94 Assault Weapons Ban expired in '04. Just like how all those Patriotic 'Murricans warned us about how the mosque close to Ground Zero was going to mean that the Caliphate would be taking over soon - everything turned out to be nothing but sound and fury.

Hey, remember that one time, after a big national tragedy, we passed a bunch of short-sighted and ill-conceived laws without considering the unintended & long-term consequences, we stereotyped and became immediately suspicious of millions of law-abiding people based on the actions of a few dozen others, and voluntarily handed more power to the central government & law enforcement just so that we could "feel safe"? Yeah, me neither.

You're Doing It Wrong.

I have mostly refrained from discussing the verbal diarrhea about an "assault weapons ban" that has been taking place over the past several weeks, but I find that my positions on this matter have started to solidify, and thus I find it high time to lay them on the table. For starters, I am ANGRY - as in super ripshit-pissed, veins bulging, crush-a-beer-bottle-with-my-bare-hands furious. Angry that bowl-cut aspie shitweasels raised by single mothers are getting undeserved attention, which means there are more of the same who will see that they too can become a household name if they pick up a rifle with scary black polymer hardware hanging off of it and spill the blood of the people who "wronged" them, or whichever other target they choose. Angry that every copycat of Klebold & Harris just serves to wreck everything for gun owners like me.

The legions of troglodytic moral busybodies were chomping at the bit for an Aurora or a Sandy Hook, as any gun control legislation needs a body count in order to justify it. "Somebody doooooo something!", bleat the hordes of effeminate soldiers of social justice. The mayors and senators and cabinet members, with their 'round-the-clock, gun-toting security details, are more than happy to oblige. As Jack Donovan mentions in his recent article, Police State Progressives, the left, generally speaking, is no longer interested in restraining the enormous security apparatus that has grown so quickly and quietly over the past decade and a half. After all, now that "their nigga" is running the show, you'd be hard-pressed to find a DailyKos or Indymedia poster who wouldn't bat an eye if tomorrow morning brings an executive order for federal, state, and local law enforcement to round up every "teabagger" and toss them in a North Dakota labor camp. They are more concerned with flash hiders, folding stocks, and shoulder things that go up than they are about all the warrantless wiretapping, seizure of private property, and the drone surveillance that got them so riled up from 2001 to late 2008.

Progressives have no principles, other than "as long as the people I agree with are in power, everyone else can get fucked". I remember all the butthurt and the shrill whining that went on regarding how all the 'Murrican Patri'ts were demonizing and stereotyping Muslims based on the actions of a tiny minority of violent extremists. The word "Islamophobia" was rapidly coined. Now that the shoe is on the other foot - their niggas are in office, and the wind seems right for them to enact policies they've been lusting after for so long - all the hand-wringing and big talk about not punishing the many for the deeds of the few has flown out the window, right alongside their opposition to Camp X-ray staying open for business, and military actions that don't have Congressional approval.

Now, let's turn from what utter pricks progressives have shown themselves to be to what gun owners really ought to be saying & doing.

Case in point: Piers Morgan vs. Breitbart's Ben Shapiro

I'll get right past the obvious - that Piers Morgan doesn't know his elbow from his asshole when discussing firearms, and that he most certainly is exploiting the deaths of children to fit his policy views - and cut to the heart of the matter. This question is asked time & time again: "why do civilians need assault weapons?" While the question should more accurately be phrased "why do civilians need semi-auto rifles in intermediate calibers that share some cosmetic features with common military carbines", the common answer from the pro-self-defense (see what I did there?) crowd usually stops at "well, I don't think felons & the mentally ill should have them" or perhaps a half-hearted "it's to defend against tyranny".

There are 1 of 2 correct answers. The first, and more civil of the two, is "Civilians should not be prohibited from possessing these types of firearms because according to US Code, all able-bodied males between the ages of 18 and 45 are considered the unorganized militia, and militias were intended to be a check on not only centralized bureaucracy, but a standing army as well. Besides, why should innocent people get shafted just because some head case decides he's had enough of society and wants to take anyone he can down with him? In addition, that's pretty bigoted and judgmental, that you would cast such aspersions on millions of people, the vast majority of which have barely a parking ticket among the lot of them." The second answer is "Because maybe there will come a time in the near future when I have to defend myself against fuckfaces like you who think it is their right to tell me what I can and cannot possess, and to defend myself against agents of the same fuckface government you want to elect." 

Same goes for demonstrating a right to own 30-round magazines: 1st answer would be something like "If I am faced with more than one individual who seeks to do me harm, I am not willing to take the risk that however many rounds you would like to limit me to will be sufficient to stop my attackers if I miss some of my shots. I could carry 3 10-round magazines, but I probably won't be wearing a vest with magazine pouches should a lot of trouble come a-knocking at 2 in the morning." The 2nd answer is "Contrary to what you've learned in video games & movies, life doesn't have 'auto aim'. Also, because it's not your place to decide, fuckface."

In the CNN segment, Morgan is unwilling to address the hundreds of gun-related homicides in cities like Chicago and Mogadishu West Washington, DC. Why, do you ask? Simply put, because it is easier to force suburban whiteys to comply with legislation than it is to do the same to the feral, coffee-colored residents of Chicago. Frankly, nobody in gun-ban fantasy world wants to address *that* can of worms. Why do that when you can go after the low-hanging fruit and then give yourself a pat on the back because you "did something about it"? Loud is the wailing and the gnashing of teeth when white children die in "gun-free zones" at the hands of boys raised by single mothers, and men who are marginalized by feminism, but when it comes to the question of taking guns away from criminals (those people who don't like to follow laws) you can hear that pin drop. Almost as quiet as those times when police empty a few dozen rounds inside people who were removing their wallets from their pockets.

In the end, though, gun control has been and will continue to be a way for urban elites, who have the money and influence to circumvent practically any law they want to, to exercise more control over poor whites and the brown people those elites claim to support. Maybe I'll consider handing in my 30-round mags and shoulder things that go up when the police and private security contractors that keep a constant watch over Bloomberg, Feinstein, Biden, and David Gregory hand in theirs first.