Some Animals Are More Equal

Let’s begin with this….


There we are, as reported by the Sun, a feminist vegan cafe has decided to charge men 18% more in order to combat the dreaded and woefully mythological “wage gap”. They even seat women before men by giving them “preferred seating.”


You know, like whites once had priority seating before Rosa Parks decided she didn’t want to give up her seat and ride in the back of the bus. Feminism is about equality: thus – men sit in the back and the front is reserved for women.

If you’re directly charging male patrons more based on sex: I believe that’s discrimination and is in fact illegal. I don’t think it’s legally permissible to charge your patrons more based on discriminatory factors like race or sex.

I double checked just to make sure, and I was right.

According to human rights dot gov dot au, the official Australian government online location which lists the various human rights acts in Australia.

This feminist vegan cafe is in direct violation of the “Sex Discrimination Act 1984” which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex for nearly all aspects of society including “provision of goods, services and facilities, accommodation”.

Not only does this cafe discriminate it’s billing practices on the basis of sex, which is provision of goods and services but it also discriminates in preferred seating for women: which is accommodations.

However, far be it from me to just trust a fact sheet, no no no: I’m far more anal retentive than that. So I tracked down exactly which federal violations of the law this feminist vegan cafe was in violation of. You know, in case someone decides to send my article to the Australian authorities… They’ll know exactly which legal codes to charge the owner and managerial staff of this cafe with.


I do so enjoy aiding the local constabulary mind you, I may not be a citizen of Australia but I consider myself a citizen of the world: I’m always willing to lend a helping hand.

With regards to discriminating on the amount of money charged: this is a clear violation of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 Article 22 1.B & C

22 Goods, services and facilities

1. It is unlawful for a person who, whether for payment or not, provides goods or services, or makes facilities available, to discriminate against another person on the ground of the other person’s sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, intersex status, marital or relationship status, pregnancy or potential pregnancy, or breastfeeding:

(a) by refusing to provide the other person with those goods or services or to make those facilities available to the other person;
(b) in the terms or conditions on which the first‑mentioned person provides the other person with those goods or services or makes those facilities available to the other person; or
(c) in the manner in which the first‑mentioned person provides the other person with those goods or services or makes those facilities available to the other person.


With regards to discriminating on the preferred seating of women: this is a clear violation of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 Article 23 1.C

23 Accommodation

(1) It is unlawful for a person, whether as principal or agent, to discriminate against another person on the ground of the other person’s sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, intersex status, marital or relationship status, pregnancy or potential pregnancy, or breastfeeding:

(a) by refusing the other person’s application for accommodation;
(b) in the terms or conditions on which accommodation is offered to the other person; or
(c) by deferring the other person’s application for accommodation or according to the other person a lower order of precedence in any list of applicants for that accommodation.


In their quest to combat muh wage gap, a ridiculously broken narrative based on no credible evidence other than statistical dishonesty. Here’s famous feminist Christina Hoff Sommers, who defines herself as an “Equity Feminist” and who some of my readers may know as “Based Mom.” Going over the details of the wage gap as studied by both public and private entities on vastly larger scales than the common feminist narratives.

Never mind all evidence to the contrary: the feminist wage gap myth is real because feminist narratives claim it’s real. So in the quest to vanquish the non-existent myth: Feminists are quite willing to violate very real federal laws. Even if those laws, were in fact lobbied for and advocated for by Feminists.

The Sex Discrimination Act 1984 implements Australia’s obligations under the United Nation’s Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) which came into force in September 1981 and which Australia ratified in July 1983.

How can they rationalize this abject violation of the law? Laws which again, were lobbied for by, advocated for by and proposed by Feminists: to end discrimination? Especially since Feminism all about muh equality?

As I have stated, a multitude of times, to believe the propaganda of feminism: without examining the actions of feminism; denotes an easily manipulated mind.

“Feminism is about equality” – Then why the single largest feminist organization in existence, the National Organization for Women, publicly state on their own website that they oppose shared parenting laws which would give men equal legal rights to that of women? (NOW’s NY branch website was taken down).

“Feminism is about equality” – Then why do feminists advocate that women not be put in prison when they commit a crime? Such as was reported on by JezebelThe Daily Mail and the BBC?

“Feminism is about equality” – Then why did Feminists in the US make it a less legally punishable crime for a woman to rape a man than for a man to rape a woman? Also in Israel and India.

“Feminism is about equality” – Then why do Feminists advocate against False Rape accusers being tried for having falsely accused someone who was innocent of any crime? As reported by The Guardian and TIME magazine? If the accusation went all the way to trial the Accusers are guilty of filing false reports, perjury and slander.

“Feminism is about equality” – Then why do feminists protest so many men’s rights conferences, even though about male suicide when men are dying of suicide at four times the rate of women?


“Feminism is about equality” – Then why do Feminists support the Violence Against Women Act when men are the majority of assault victims, men are the majority of murder victims and in the arena of domestic violence: even Jezebel couldn’t find fault with a study which showed that women perpetrate domestic violence more than twice as often as men? Not only did they not find fault with it: they laughed at the fact that most of their fellow feminist staff members had in fact committed domestic violence in spite of not having been on the receiving end.

“Feminism is about equality” – Then why did feminists create and lobby for the Duluth Model which has been proven in several studies to be nothing more than a gender based discrimination which is used to arrest male victims of domestic violence at 3 and 5 times the rate at which women get arrested in duel arrests for domestic violence?

“Feminism is about equality” – Then why did Feminists lobby for “Yes means Yes” / “Enthusiastic Consent” to be made the standard ruling on college campuses which denies the accused any rights of an actual trial and has been shown to be so blatantly one sided that even when the co-author of the law was asked how one could prove one’s self innocent after being accused: she responded by saying “Your guess is as good as mine.”

“Feminism is about equality” – Then why does women’s forms of cancer receive 4 times as much government funding as men’s cancers even though men die of cancer more often?

“Feminism is about equality” – Then why did Feminists make Female Genital Mutilation illegal, at the federal level but not male genital mutilation illegal even though (1) an avg of 112 male children die every year in the US from routine infant circumcision and (2) it’s in violation of the 14th amendmentwhich states “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


With all of the equality, where’s the equality? Not seeing much equality, but I am seeing double standards in every law that feminists support. Including double standards so outright and egregious that they’re purely in violation of the 14th amendment to the constitution like the Federal Prohibition of Female Genital Mutilation Act of 1995 and the Violence Against Women act.

I also find it more than a little hysterical that it would be Feminists who lobby for laws which violate the constitutional amendment which was written in order to protect blacks from the various “black codes” which former slave territories used to oppress them. Yeah, “equality”, men just need to be protected by the 14th amendment to prevent them from being exploited and denied equal rights against the Feminist “male codes.”

Again, to be taken in by the rhetoric of feminism “muh equality” while paying absolutely no attention to the reality of feminism: is either an act of doublethink or extreme naivety.

“If your ideology is in conflict with Reality – it is not Reality which is wrong.”

Here’s the kicker: for everything I laid out above, there’s ample rationalizations to justify them. this is why I created the logical fallacy “Ad Minus Aequius”.


If you actually read and follow the dictionary definition of a Feminist: I am a feminist. However, paying attention to reality – I o not call myself a feminist because the vast majority of those who CALL themselves feminists: don’t qualify under the dictionary definition of a feminist. If you haven’t read my article “Political Abandonment“: I’ll report the juicier bits here.

“I’ll give you a practical example; me, being a classical liberal, a strict constitutionalist – am a centrist. Here’s the banner which adorns my twitter, minds and youtube pages.


A full throttle no holds bared statement that all people regardless of any identity of any kind should be treated equally under the law with no special treatment of any kind be it negative or positive.

No second class citizens, no special privileges, no special protections. Everyone treated equally before the law and their individual rights / civil liberties protected BY the law: against the malevolence of others or even against the state itself.

It doesn’t GET any more classical liberal than this. This is the essence of the greatest political and moral philosophers of western civilization boiled down into a single opus that the rights of the individual are sacrosanct and everyone within society should be protected or punished equally by the same code of law.”

I publish verifiably factual information which dispels popular mythos and propagandic narratives as a direct confrontation to those who wish to use rhetoric to deny the rights of others.

What I advocate for, is exactly what you see in the quote for my article “Political Abandonment“, equal rights.

What I advocate against: is all those who advocate for special privileges, special protections, special exemptions, preferential treatment and two tier legal systems which promote some groups to being first class citizens and other groups to being second class citizens.

Those people, persons, groups and organizations who DO advocate for special privileges, special protections, special exemptions, preferential treatment and two tier legal systems which promote some groups to being first class citizens and other groups to being second class citizens: are anti-freedom and anti-equality.

No matter how they define themselves or what they define themselves as, even if they claim to be Feminists and the dictionary definition of feminism is all about equality: the dictionary definition of “an advocate of the supremacy of a particular group, especially one determined by race or sex” is a “supremacist.


If you’re advocating for or lobbying for superior rights to be given to a group or groups OVER THAT of another group or groups: you are categorically, unabashedly and undeniably, by definition, a supremacist.

It’s a simple concept really and it goes utterly unnoticed.


Depth of Leftist Indoctrination: Islamophobia

It all started with that video. To which I replied with a quote from my own article on the subject. Taken from “Islamophobia < Reality“.

“So to answer that question: is it irrational to be fearful of Islam? Not, at, all. Not to any degree. Looking at the reality with an unflinching view and examining the results of European nations which took in large communities of Muslims verses Poland which took in zero. To enact a Poland policy of “no entry” is not only not IRRATIONAL, it’s the single most rational position to take.

Now we come to the final conclusion: not only is the current definition, demonstrably an example of Propaganda: but it’s also a false premise. There is nothing irrational about being fearful of Islam or large groups of Muslims.

Islamophobia is a complete and utter fallacy.”

When a leftist showed up and things got…. well: there’s a reason we refer to it as “Liberal Lunacy.”


I totally disagree with you. Terms like xenophobia, anti-semitic and islamophobia are all very valid terms. I’v personally been really surprised how black and white the discussion is when people talk about Islam. The total disregard to the fact that world wide christians kill the most people and inflict the most suffering. The total denial of the fact that Europeans have been the most destructive force on the globe for at least 500 years or more. Totally fucked up 5 continents and countless societies and high cultures, robbing wealth from virtually everybody, and now everyone’s suddenly scared that these historical facts are coming back to bite us from our asses. The hypocrisy is just un fucking believable. Besides the current trend of blaming muslims from shit that’s actually the fault of the western elitism and imperialism. Has historically astonishing resemblance to the rise of anti-semitism of the early 1900′.


This was beyond my ability to so much as tolerate unpacking. So I simply zero’d in on the one aspect I knew would make the house of cards crumble. Since he was so quick to defend muslims: all I had to do was prove what kind of horrors they’d been up to and boom – he’d be out of the running. Leftists are very easy to upset and are also easily shaken as soon as their world view is challenged.

The indoctrination they undergo makes them very fragile to confrontation or opposing points of view: particularly if backed up with verifiable information proving them wrong. As soon as you pick one thread out of place from their carefully woven constructed reality it’s like pulling on the corr ect portion of the thread in cat’s cradle. The whole thing falls apart in their lap.


“The total disregard to the fact that world wide christians kill the most people and inflict the most suffering.”

Ask an Indian about that sometime: till then, read a book.


That little leftist, ever evading of reality decided to fire back.


“No I’ll ask a historian whom can back his claims with real statistics instead of a crappy meme.”

Ha ha, oh little leftist, little leftist.

I simply responded….


“Okey doke.”

Then I proceeded to unload several news articles and a documentary on the topic. Each link sent separately in it’s own @ attack filling his notifications on minds. Which I will provide here. “Islamic India – The biggest holocaust in World History

Hinduism Today “India’s Holocaust “ISLAMIC INDIA: The World’s BIGGEST HOLOCAUST Wiped Out From History Textbooks “A Holocaust that everyone Forgot

To all of this, all of this. Books, citations, historical accounts he replies the following…


“People usually forget that every main religion forbids killing other humans”

Then the gloves came off. I will not permit such fluffy fluffy pleasant lies.


“People usually forget that every main religion forbids killing other humans” –

You are a liar: Islam specifically tells it’s followers to kill or convert all non-muslims.

YUSUFALI: And an announcement from Allah and His Messenger, to the people (assembled) on the day of the Great Pilgrimage,- that Allah and His Messenger dissolve (treaty) obligations with the Pagans. If then, ye repent, it were best for you; but if ye turn away, know ye that ye cannot frustrate Allah. And proclaim a grievous penalty to those who reject Faith.

YUSUFALI: (But the treaties are) not dissolved with those Pagans with whom ye have entered into alliance and who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor aided any one against you. So fulfil your engagements with them to the end of their term: for Allah loveth the righteous.

YUSUFALI: But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

Typical to what I’ve come to expect of leftists… he attempted to evade. Of course….


Be a bit more specific are those verses from the Koran or the book that followed that has    absolutely nothing to do with the real religion?

Like he was getting off that easy. Ha!


They’re from the Quran ya half witted lunatic.
(ordinarily I’d hide the link or blend it into a statement: but I wanted you to see how the link was provided in the actual message sent across minds)

9.3 “And [it is] an announcement from Allah and His Messenger to the people on the day of the greater pilgrimage that Allah is disassociated from the disbelievers, and [so is] His Messenger. So if you repent, that is best for you; but if you turn away – then know that you will not cause failure to Allah . And give tidings to those who disbelieve of a painful punishment.”

9.4 “Excepted are those with whom you made a treaty among the polytheists and then they have not been deficient toward you in anything or supported anyone against you; so complete for them their treaty until their term [has ended]. Indeed, Allah loves the righteous [who fear Him].”

9.5 “And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, let them [go] on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.”

Muslims are permitted to make peace with non-muslims: only for a short while – then are COMMANDED to utterly annihilate them by every possible method and strategy – unless the non-muslims agree to convert.

Right from the horses mouth – like I said in my first message to you: read a book.

(ordinarily I’d hide the link or blend it into a statement: but I wanted you to see how the link was provided in the actual message sent across minds)

2:190 “Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors.”

2:191 “And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers.”

2:192 “And if they cease, then indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.”

2:193 “Fight them until there is no [more] fitnah and [until] worship is [acknowledged to be] for Allah . But if they cease, then there is to be no aggression except against the oppressors.”

Muslims are commanded to kill all non-muslims: unless they agree to convert to Islam.

How many more examples of this do you want – directly from the pages of the Quran? Set a number. Is 2 examples good enough? 3? 5? How many different sections of the Quran do you want me to send you of the same concept being proclaims that “Muslims are commanded to kill all non-muslims: unless they agree to convert to Islam.”

How many leftist? name it.

LOOk bud, I know you’ve sold on and told over and over again “Islam is a religion of peace” ad nauseum – I know, I understand. However: you only – need – read the Quran, for yourself: and allow the eyes in your head to actually SEE the words for yourself: for you to know – you’ve been told lies.

Oh noes; the big bad right winger’s being mean to me, wah!


Hey there’s no real reason for you to start spewing personal insults even if we disagree on this specific issue. I’m just saying I’m not going to accept anything as a truth without examining the issue from various points of view. Such as the political, religious, socioeconomic aspects, customary behavior of the traditional people of a specific region before the main religions and so on. Calling me a half wit won’t help either of us.

(ordinarily I’d hide the link or blend it into a statement: but I wanted you to see how the link was provided in the actual message sent across minds)

9:111 “Indeed, Allah has purchased from the believers their lives and their properties [in exchange] for that they will have Paradise. They fight in the cause of Allah, so they kill and are killed. [It is] a true promise [binding] upon Him in the Torah and the Gospel and the Qur’an. And who is truer to his covenant than Allah ? So rejoice in your transaction which you have contracted. And it is that which is the great attainment.”

That is the passage which justifies suicide bombings and grants them paradise.

the Quran SPECIFICALLY tells Muslims: if they kill and are killed in the name of Allah: they will be rewarded with paradise. There it is, black and white, stark as day.


I’m not really sure that translation is correct.

Yet another evasion. You’ll see this multiple times: he is just steadfast committed to holding to his narratives in flagrant denial of reality.


that’s the Sahih International translation.,20,101,17,84,18 offers many translations of each text. Here’s the other translations of that same passage.

Verily, Allah has purchased of the believers their lives and their properties; for the price that theirs shall be the Paradise. They fight in Allah’s Cause, so they kill (others) and are killed. It is a promise in truth which is binding on Him in the Taurat (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel) and the Quran. And who is truer to his covenant than Allah? Then rejoice in the bargain which you have concluded. That is the supreme success.

Surely, Allah has bought their lives and their wealth from the believers, in exchange of (a promise) that Paradise shall be theirs. They fight in the way of Allah, and kill and are killed, on which there is a true promise (as made) in the Torah and the Injīl and the Qur’ān. And who can be more faithful to his covenant than Allah? So, rejoice in the deal you have made, and that is the great achievement.

Surely Allah has purchased from the believers their selves and their riches for (the reward) that the Garden will be theirs; they fight in the way of Allah; so they kill, and are killed. It is a promise, truly (binding) on Him in the Tawrah, and the Injil, and the Qur’an; and who fulfils his covenant (better) than Allah! So feel glad of the tidings of the selling you have made (Literally: allegiance you have sworn) with Him; and that is the (bargain) (that is) the magnificent triumph.

Indeed, Allah has purchased from the believers their lives and their properties [in exchange] for that they will have Paradise. They fight in the cause of Allah, so they kill and are killed. [It is] a true promise [binding] upon Him in the Torah and the Gospel and the Qur’an. And who is truer to his covenant than Allah ? So rejoice in your transaction which you have contracted. And it is that which is the great attainment.

God has purchased the persons and possessions of the believers in return for the Garden- they fight in God’s way: they kill and are killed- this is a true promise given by Him in the Torah, the Gospel, and the Quran. Who could be more faithful to his promise than God? So be happy with the bargain you have made: that is the supreme triumph.

Allah has indeed purchased from the believers their lives and wealth in exchange for Paradise. They fight in the cause of Allah and kill or are killed. This is a true promise binding on Him in the Torah, the Gospel, and the Quran. And whose promise is truer than Allah’s? So rejoice in the exchange you have made with Him. That is ˹truly˺ the ultimate triumph.


Well anyways you don’t have to get mad at me for thinking for my self. I’m just saying that it really doesn’t seem to me like your taking everything to account.


I just keep trying to reach this guy – I really do. I keep confronting with verifiable proof: he keeps evading. It’s amazing. Leftist indoctrination has reached astonishing degrees of mind control.  Finally I just put it in as simple terms as is possible….


Again I say “I know you’ve sold on and told over and over again “Islam is a religion of peace” ad nauseum – I know, I understand. However: you only – need – read the Quran, for yourself: and allow the eyes in your head to actually SEE the words for yourself: for you to know – you’ve been told lies.”

First you tried to evade reality with “are those verses from the Koran or the book that followed that has absolutely nothing to do with the real religion?

Then you tried to evade reality by questioning the Translation.

Now, having been presented with absolute irrefutable proof that the Quran undeniably, unquestioningly, irrefutably directly TELLS muslims to kill non-muslims unless they convert: and that if Muslims kill for the name of Allah and die in the name of Allah – they are rewarded with paradise:

Now you’re further, still, continuing to evade reality in asserting “I’m just saying that it really doesn’t seem to me like your taking everything to account.

If I tell you that 2 + 2 = 4: will I not be taking everything into account?

2. My assertion is “The Quran tells Muslims to kill non muslims unless they convert, and that if muslims kill and die in the name of alah they are rewarded with paradise”


2. I then show you in the Quran where it directly says exactly that….

2 + 2 = 4

Capitulate to reality or admit that you are a propagandist ideologue doubling down on the lies you have been told, which you are WILLFULLY choosing to continue to hold in spite of the verifiable abject reality you have been shown.

Trying to get through to these people is just a practice in absurdity. He did not respond to that last message by the way. I’m sure he will, eventually, when he figures out his next method for evading reality. Probably some form of relativism or some kind of false equivocation.

Islam is a religion of peace because it has always been a religion of peace because leftists are told that Islam is a religion of peace therefore Islam is a religion of peace and all contrary evidence to this premise must be false because Islam is a religion of peace. It’s like watching 1984 happen, live.


UK Police: Slipping All Over That Slope

1) Ayden “And let me ask you a question, my friends… Were any of you able to really pick up at any point, during that completionist game play, as to where the “right wing extremism” had anything to do with it? Until, until I absolutely murdered a black person, because that’s what happened at the end is it not? At the end of that I went to one rally and I thought it was funzies and then I went to a second rally and at the second rally I beat a black man to death. That is what they are saying here, that’s it” –

No, the dead body was that of a white person. Due to the nature of propaganda: equating “hate crimes” to whites harming non whites; you automatically equivocated that you beat a black person to death in the video game EVEN THOUGH this was your second play through – but no – the dead body was a young white man. Screen cap at time index 7:42.


2) The whole simulation is a Slippery slope logical fallacy.

“You said that if we allow A to happen, then Z will eventually happen too, therefore A should not happen.

The problem with this reasoning is that it avoids engaging with the issue at hand, and instead shifts attention to extreme hypotheticals. Because no proof is presented to show that such extreme hypotheticals will in fact occur, this fallacy has the form of an appeal to emotion fallacy by leveraging fear. In effect the argument at hand is unfairly tainted by unsubstantiated conjecture.”

3) Equate valid concerns and civic activities as gateway to extremism in order to devalue those valid concerns for which there is verifiable evidence and demonize said civic activities. This is propagandic slander.

4) The 3 people beating the dissenter, looked non-white and the dead body was a white person.

5) During the monologue at the end: the dead body who’s hand is in frame: is also a white person. As seen here at time index 8:45.


6) Are they really trying to market this as anti-right/white extremism when it’s a white person who was murdered by non-whites?

7) It is of paramount importance they create a fictional event in which a hate crime against a non-white theoretically occurs, because the number of non-whites killed in hate crimes inside the UK is utterly dwarfed by comparison to the terrorist attacks carried out against whites by non-whites, particularly muslims, within the UK. yet these are “terrorist” attacks and are not counted as “hate crimes.”


8) Provide statistics on “hate crimes” but not “death tolls” in order to hide the fact that far more whites are killed by non-whites than the reverse.

9) The Hate crime, England and Wales, 2015 to 2016 DOES NOT parse the hate crimes list to show how many of said hate crimes are committed by non-whites against native whites.

10) Hate Crime statistics reported: are those which are REPORTED, not those which are tried and convicted. Anyone non-white can phone in, lie to the police and report a hate crime, no matter how fictitious: and it will be added to the registry of data presented in this simulator.

Screen Cap of Script

Taken from “the Hate crime, England and Wales, 2015 to 2016″ – page 8
“Table 1). These racially or religiously aggravated offences are by definition hate crimes. However, the hate crime collection on which the majority of the bulletin is based has a wider coverage of race and religious hate crime. This is because the police can identify other offences as hate crimes, not just those for which there is a separate specific racially or religiously aggravated offence for the police to record against. Therefore, the number of race or religious hate crimes in this bulletin will be greater than the total number of police recorded racially or religiously aggravated offences.

11) “Hate Crimes” in the UK also include mean words on the internet, such as facebook or twitter – speech which is declared to be hate speech is recorded as a “hate crime”.

Screen Cap of Script

Taken from “the Hate crime, England and Wales, 2015 to 2016” – page 8
This release contains figures on the number of racist incidents reported to police forces in England and Wales (excluding British Transport Police). A ‘racist incident’ is any incident, including any crime, which is perceived by the victim or any other person to be motivated by a hostility or prejudice based on a person’s race or perceived race.”

12) What the Hate crime, England and Wales, 2015 to 2016 uses as a guideline for what is and is not a “hate crime” has no legal frame work of any kind: it is entirely based on subjective opinion of the person reporting it.

Screen Cap of Script

Taken from “the Hate crime, England and Wales, 2015 to 2016” – page 8
“This release contains figures on the number of racist incidents reported to police forces in England and Wales (excluding British Transport Police). A ‘racist incident’ is any incident, including any crime, which is perceived by the victim or any other person to be motivated by a hostility or prejudice based on a person’s race or perceived race.

Ladies, gentlemen, boys, girls and those who identify as mayonnaise or attack helicopters: this is precisely the kind of wtfery which Social justice Ideologues use in order to produce their propaganda. This is what you can expect. Nebulous terms which permit vague interpretations in order to artificially create false statistics.

This is what they do with rape, this is what they do with domestic violence, this is what they do with “Toxic Masculinity”. Here you see first hand right from the document which they cite as their source: this is what they use to create their propaganda regarding “hate crimes”.



Causality, Venezuela: You Asked For This!



To the Venezuelan people….

Fuck You.


You voted for this, enticed by Utopian fallacies thinner than a wet t’shirt contest over spring break. Don’t expect us to come bailing your asses out. Socialism and Communism fails, has failed, continue to fail in every single corner of the globe. This was the eventuality you embraced through your own short sightedness and greed for the wealth of others which you did not earn.

You sought to improve your own personal circumstance by raiding that which you did not earn using the state as a truncheon with which to bludgeon those who DID earn that which you elected to steal.

Now that that the same truncheon you so avidly polished is being used as a cudgel on YOU: you expect others to bail you out of the mess you created. You didn’t have a problem with stealing the earnings of others when the funds were deposited into your coffers – and you certainly didn’t mind empowering jack booted thugs to perform the seizures for you.


Now that the jack boot is on YOUR neck: life looks just a little bit different – doesn’t it?!

Your greed for that which you did not earn encouraged you to establish and embellish a state which has the all encompassing power to take everything you wanted. Well, you – got – your – wish. You now suffer at the hands of an all powerful state. This is your doing, this is your fault, you did this and you’re going to have to be the ones to clean it up.

Short sightedness and greed motivated your actions: predicated on the mistaken belief that nothing would ever change. One fluctuation in the oil market upon which you decided to base your entire national economy on: forced you to rely on the dwindling funds of the bourgeois who you so thoroughly despised. Now the money is gone, the well has dried up, there is nothing left for you to steal because the very people who could have saved you from this – are gone.

You cannot evade the law of causality forever.


Using oil as a supplicate for every advantageous and otherwise normal economic venture has left you with no farmers, no farm land, no live stock and nothing to trade with in order to gain even the basic subsistence of life. You sold every prosperous, industrious, productive member of your society down the river when you decided to tax 3/4 of everything they earned. As a result: they went out of business, they’re gone.

What’s more: you didn’t care while you were doing it because all you saw was a disposable resource you were greedy to suck dry like a parasite which eventually kills it’s host. A tic instinctual knows better than to kill the dog upon which it feeds: you glutinous fiends sapped and suckled like a tape worm until the work animal keeled over and died.


This you did with avarice and intent, disdainful of those who were productive and earned their success. Doing so while high on the premise that you could sell your oil at a high enough price from now until the end of time: and always be able to trade oil for food stocks, toilet paper, soap and name brand cereal.

The moment the price of oil went down: all the goods, services, products and basic necessities which were formerly provided by the most productive members of your society, and later provided by the government via oil – evaporated so quickly you didn’t have time to realize you went from high on the hog to scavenging the streets for cats and squirrels.

I’d tell you to go fuck yourselves but you already did that when you decided your greed for what others had earned: was of greater importance than the individual rights and liberties of those you decided to extort.


Enjoy your despotic regime: such is the fate of those who’s foolishness, folly or greed prevents them from understanding that a state big enough to give you everything you want; is also big enough to take everything you have. I hope it lasts a year for every dollar which your vaunted proletariat decided to seize from your demonized bourgeoisie.

You made your bed, you lay in it: and don’t come crying to me about it. You deserve everything you are getting.

You are utterly incapable of comprehending the depth, breadth and euphoric catharsis I will continue to relish in watching your society of greed and the Utopic fallacies upon which it was predicated burn to the ground around your ears. And as the internal war within your borders rages: the only thing climbing higher into the night sky than the flames of what was your civilization will be the echoing bellows of my laughter.



When Equality kicks You in the Taint

The problems:

1, Procedures. Transgender people were demanding the US Tax payer pay not only for hormone replacements but also their surgeries.

2, Supply chain. Transgender individuals need a routine supply of hormones, how’s that going to work in field duty?

3, Health. Transgender individuals who don’t get their routine therapeutic hormone replacements face detrimental trans-formative alterations to their body and mind which inhibit their ability to function in the field.

Transgender individuals are physically unfit to perform the job, require undue maintenance to allow them to perform ANY duty and cost the tax payers the same cost as 2-3 other non-trans soldiers.

Speaking of equality: every job I’ve ever signed up for had a statement about disabilities directly from the Department of Labor.

“Title I and Title V of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended, protect qualified individuals from discrimination on the basis of disability in hiring, promotion, discharge, pay, fringe benefits, job training, classification, referral, and other aspects of employment. Disability discrimination includes not making reasonable accommodation to the known physical or mental limitations of an otherwise qualified individual with a disability who is an applicant or employee, barring undue hardship”

“reasonable accommodations” and ends with “barring undue hardship”. For the reasons 2 and 3 highlighted above: transgender individuals require greater than reasonable accommodations and present an undue hardship in that if in the field and unable to obtain their routine hormone replacements – they become physically and mentally incapable of performing the duties.

People who require mood stabilizers such as those with Bi-Polar disorders are also barred from military service for the same reason of inability to be catered to with corrective medication on call at all times under field conditions. People with epilepsy are also barred for that same exact reason as well. The same holds true for people with diabetes.


Transgender people denied their hormone therapy face wildly fluctuating hormone levels and disorganized behavior, inability to focus and rapid mood swings not unlike people with Bi-Polar disorder. They have elected to undergo and self impose a disability and a liability in field conditions. As such, they are physically and mentally unfit to serve.

Transgendered, due to their medication needs: are NOW being treated by the same standards as people with Mood Disorders, Epilepsy or Diabetes – you can’t serve because you are a liability in the field. One set of standards – that is equality. Previous to now: transgender person’s were being treated with special privileges in that they were permitted to serve in spite of their medication necessities.

It is only now that Transgenders are being barred from serving: that they’ve been knocked down to being equal and judged by the same standards as others. Now they’re being held to the same standard as other routinely medicated conditions: they’re not permitted to serve.

Welcome to equality – is it everything you dreamed it was?


Snopes = Propagandic Shills

Styx my man, even your explanation of Snopes provides far too much credit.

I’ve personally fact checked Snopes several times from some Liberal or SJW throwing it at me pretending it was absolute proof of their claim: check it for myself and then prove Snopes was lying through their keyboards. It’s happened on multiple occasions over the last 3-4 years.

So not only will Snopes lie by omission via skewing the sampling: but they will, in fact, absolutely put out verifiably false propaganda to aid their political leanings. I have personally seen it for myself.

Just for shits ‘n giggles I decided to track one such example down.

Snopes “Russian to Judgment”
(re-saved moments ago. Check date: 26 Jul 2017 22:22:49 UTC )

And I quote…

“By law, the committee can’t veto a transaction; only the president can. According to The New York Times, Clinton may not have even directly participated in the Uranium One decision.”

NOTE – Snopes did not directly quote the New York Times article, nor did they provide a link to it. This presentation is a blatant falsehood. I happen to have read that very same article, from the New York Times: so reading Snopes I was able to quite adamantly point at the screen and call “Bullshit”.


What that New York Times article stipulated, was the scandalous behavior conducted by the Clinton foundation, and the millions of dollars donated to it by the Mining company in question: leading up to that sale.

New York Times “Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal”
(re-saved moments ago. Check date: 26 Jul 2017 22:25:04 UTC )

“As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.

And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.”

Also: No where in this New York Times article did the New York Times article’s Author state or stipulate that “According to The New York Times, Clinton may not have even directly participated in the Uranium One decision.” That statement is fictitious. The New York Times article, which Snopes NEGLECTED to provide a link to while making assertions about what the article contained without directly quoting it: was in fact quoting Clinton Spokesperson.

What the New York Times article did stipulate, and this is why Snopes neither quoted it nor linked to the article directly:

“The Clinton campaign spokesman, Mr. Fallon, said that in general, these matters did not rise to the secretary’s level.”

Snopes paraphrased a line from the New York Times article: which quoted a Clinton campaign Spokesperson and while not directly quoting the original article, nor providing the reader a link to it: presented the Clinton campaign spokesperson’s paraphrased quote as having come FROM the New York Times.

You see Snopes needs some exterior third party to lend credibility to this propagandic puff piece. That’s why they co-opted a line from the New York Times: respectability and credibility. However, they need to be able to pass this off skewed in a way which helps them.

1, Snopes absolutely MUST paraphrase and cannot directly quote the New York Times article because then they would have to lead with the phrase “Clinton campaign spokesman, Mr. Fallon, said”. All but the hardest of the hardcore leftists wouldn’t accept that. Most people would read that and say “Wtf, you’re literally quoting a spoke person for the Clinton campaign? Forget shilling, that guy is employed for no other purpose than to produce spin. What a load of bull.”

2, Snopes also cannot provide a direct link TO the New York Times article because far from dismissing the possibility that Hillary was directly involved in the sale of Uranium One to Russia: the article strongly suggests she played a major role in it via the connection of contributions to the Clinton Foundation.

3, Another reason Snopes cannot provide a direct link TO the New York Times article is issue 1, the paraphrasing. the statement Snopes made: is not in the New York Times article, you can do 50 word searches and it’s not there. Yet you can’t have people finding out that they paraphrased instead of quoted because then you’d discover the wtfuckery Snopes was up to. Snopes wouldn’t want it’s readers to directly discover, too easily, that they paraphrased a quote from the Clinton campaign spokesman.

So with all of the above in mind, Snopes paraphrased a Clinton campaign spokesperson who was quoted in the New York Times article specifically without directly quoting and without linking to said article.


Hoping that their readers wouldn’t notice and would respond “Snopes says the New York Times said so George, and if Snopes says the New York Times said so George then the New York Times Said so George.”

Proof positive, before your eyes: it was this easy to catch Snopes in the act of lying, this very day. They are a propagandist organization shilling for leftist progressives and demonstrably telling bold faced lies to their readership in order to create said propaganda.

It was this hard, it took this much effort. Oh wait, reverse that: it was this easy, it took this little effort. Folks, Snopes is fake news on a good day and flagrant propaganda on an important day.


Ninety-Nine Gray Ash Plumes

You and I in a little black box
patiently waiting our turn to be shot
sentence to death at the break of dawn
till one by one we’re all gone
back at base the feminists cheer
hashtaging hate and tweeting fear
preaching men deserved to die
99 gray ash plumes go by

99 gray ash plumes
Floating in the summer sky
was Toxic Masculinity
proved by no control group study
False rape narratives spring to life
twisting truths and telling lies
feminists chant all men must die
When ninety-nine gray ash plumes go by

Ninety-nine decision street
Ninety-nine feminists meet
gamer gate to the mythic wage gap
they’re reporting news with no facts
This is what they’ve waited for
This is nineteen eighty four
Jess Valenti is on the line
As ninety-nine gray ash plumes go by

Ninety-nine false articles
written for false narratives
Everyman’s a misogynist
Everyman’s opressing you
Agents of the patriarchy
Welcome to feminist theory
light the flames and say goodbye
ninety-nine gray ash plumes go by

As ninety-nine gray ash plumes go by

ninety-nine dreams i have had
in every one a gray ash plume
it’s all over civilizations gone
In this dust that was a city
If I could find a souvenir
Just to prove the world was here
And there are still gray ash clouds
you know the lies you told weren’t true


Think this parody was hyperbolic? Allow me to introduce you to some Feminist academics: the people who have written “Feminist Theory”. These are the people who wrote the books, essays and “proofs” which are mandatory reading in gender studies classes all over the western world.


First up we have Mary Daly taught women’s studies at the University of Boston for 19 years. In a 1999 EnlightenNext Magazine article titled “No Man’s Land,” Susan Bridle quoted Daly as saying:

If life is to survive on this planet, there must be a decontamination of the Earth. I think this will be accompanied by an evolutionary process that will result in a drastic reduction of the population of males.

During the 1980s and 1990s, Daly continued to lecture to audiences around the world. She was an outspoken critic of popular phenomena such as the Christian men’s movement as personified by an organization called the Promise Keepers. Answering a reporter who asked, “Who has hurt women?” Daly responded, “These creeps, the Promise Keepers, rightwing Christians. It’s not just the ancient fathers of the church and it’s not just the church. It’s all the major religions.”

Next, we have Sally Miller Gearhart, who taught women’s studies at San Francisco State University from 1973 until 1992, created one of the first women and gender studies programs in the United States. From her book The Future, If There Is One, Is Female:

Such a prospect is attractive to women who feel that if they bear sons no amount of love and care and nonsexist training will save those sons from a culture where male violence is institutionalized and revered. These are women saying, “No more sons. We will not spend twenty years of our lives raising a potential rapist, a potential batterer, a potential Big Man.

The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race.

She’s written nine books, most of which are required reading in gender studies, even her works of fiction and fantasy.

Her last speaking engagement was November 9, 2013:

“Sally Miller Gearhart “Worlds Beyond World” Symposium: Feminist Utopian Thought,” sponsored by: Sally Miller Gearhart Fund, Center for the Study of Women in Society, Department of Women’s and Gender Studies, ASUO Women’s Center, College of Arts and Sciences, University of Oregon Libraries, Oregon Humanities Center, School of Architecture and Allied Arts, Robert D. Clark Honors College, Office of Equity and Inclusion, Office for Research, Innovation and Graduate Education, Vice President of Academic Affairs, Center for Latino/a and Latin American Studies, Center on Diversity and Community, Department of English, School of Journalism and Communication, Jordan Schnitzer Museum of Art, Department of Ethnic Studies, Department of Romance Languages, Department of Anthropology, Department of Sociology, Department of International Studies, Department of Political Science, Department of Psychology, and the Comparative Literature journal (American Comparative Literature Association).

All those people and groups and organizations and universities not only showed up but sponsored an event to host her and other like-minded women. A woman who has publicly stated and continues to state that 90% of men should be killed off. She openly advocates for mass genocide and she’s welcomed to speaking engagements at major universities sponsored and attended by Ivy League college departments.

These two women were not simply radicals on the fringe of feminism. They wrote the literature that is still studied in gender studies master courses to this day in major universities all over the world. Daly wrote her last book in 2006 and over her lifetime wrote eight books in all that are studied today in gender studies/women’s studies.

These people are not the radical fringe—they’re the driving force behind academic feminism and gender feminism. They’re the ones who know what real feminism is about. That’s the true face of feminism. Puppets like Emma Watson know nothing of these people: she has a liberal arts degree in English literature—not gender studies or women’s studies. She’s a public figure, not someone with influence.

Just for funzies, here’s a comparison for you… If you had not already read the above and known the quote is correctly attributed to Sally Miller Gearhart – would you have been able to tell the difference between her statement and that of a KKK member or a Nazi? 


Moving right along, one of my favorites: Julie Bindel. Bindel is a visiting researcher at Lincoln University and former assistant director of the Research Centre on Violence, Abuse and Gender Relations at Leeds Metropolitan University. In 2010, she entered The Independent’s “Pink List” as 89th of the top 101 most influential gay and lesbian people in Britain. She writes regularly for The Guardian.

In 2009 Bindel penned an article for the guardian titled “I’ve changed my mind about men

A life spent fighting abusive men meant I had little time for the gender, even the nicer specimens. But now we can be friends

A pleasant lie to tell considering that in 2015 she was interviewed by the “radfem collective“, and in this interview she unequivocally stated that she thought all men should be placed in concentration camps. 

It won’t, not unless men get their act together, have their power taken from them and behave themselves. I mean, I would actually put them all in some kind of camp

Further stipulating…

they wouldn’t be able to fight – we would have wardens, of course! Women who want to see their sons or male loved ones would be able to go and visit, or take them out like a library book, and then bring them back.

More over in 2016 she tweeted out the following…

All men are rapists and should be put in prison then shot

Golly Gee Julie, I certainly hope none of my “friends” want to see me placed in a concentration camp or prison and then shot. Certainly doesn’t seem very friendly.

Joanna Russ, a full professor at the University of Washington and a noted author in the feminist community, documents in her book The Female Man how a group of women from a planet called “While-away” butchered all the men like cattle in the quest for their lesbian utopia. As for misrepresenting feminism, this same feminist makes threats against men in her own work.

Rebecca Carter, who boasts a dizzying number of art exhibitions and publications on her personal resume/bio page: published “Proposition 777″ online and quickly removed it, claiming it was a joke. Genocide is always such a comical topic after all. On a side note, her list of solo exhibitions actually is quite impressive. I think her work is post modernist garbage but nonetheless: solo exhibitions are no joke, so good for her on that front.

Susan Brownmiller began in journalism with an editorial position at a “confession magazine”. She went on to work as an assistant to the managing editor at Coronet (1959–1960), as an editor of the Albany Report, a weekly review of the New York State legislature (1961–1962), and as a national affairs researcher at Newsweek (1963–1964).

In the mid-1960s, Brownmiller continued her career in journalism with positions as a reporter for NBC-TV in Philadelphia (1965), staff writer for the Village Voice (1965), and as network newswriter for ABC-TV in New York City (1966–1968). Beginning in 1968, she worked as a freelance writer; her book reviews, essays, and articles appeared regularly in publications including The New York Times, Newsday, The New York Daily News, Vogue, and The Nation.

In her book  Against our Will, denouncing and justifying in the same paragraph the torture, mutilation and murder of 15-year-old Emmett Till for whistling at a white woman:

We are rightly aghast that a whistle could be cause for murder, but we must also accept that Emmett Till and J. W. Milam shared something in common. They both understood that the whistle was no small twee t. . . it was a deliberate insult, just short of physical assault, a last reminder to Carolyn Bryant that this black boy, Till, had in mind to possess her.

On the lighter side of things, advocating genocide (imagine the out rage if the genders were reversed of course) Lori Day. Day is an educational psychologist, consultant and parenting coach with Lori Day Consulting in Newburyport, MA. She is the author of Her Next Chapter: How Mother-Daughter Book Clubs Can Help Girls Navigate Malicious Media, Risky Relationships, Girl Gossip, and So Much More, and speaks on the topic of raising confident girls in a disempowering marketing and media culture.

Lori writes for both the Huffington Post and also Feminist Current. In 2016 she penned an article called “We Need a Mandemic” in which she blamed everything but solar flares on the activities of men. With no regard to women’s role in anything. Even blaming “strip mining” on men, hilariously – since the article itself was published online only. Digital data housed in servers made from precious metals only accessible by digital communications completely made from metals harvested how? Strip mining.

Quoting the article…

Ok. You probably do love men. Most women have some men in their lives that they dearly love. There are tons of wonderful men! So sure, it will be sad and tragic when the Mandemic rages with the fire of a thousand suns and randomly selects enough male victims to disrupt the current power structure around the world. This will be necessary to create an opening for women to become equal — maybe even dominant.

But isn’t our only hope the removal of excessive male humans from the continents? If women don’t take the reins of this doomed planet and get cracking on resolving those few items listed above, we don’t stand a chance.

One is quick to wonder whether or not the Huffington Post would hire, or how quickly they would be to fire, a male author who publicly advocated for the engineering of a biological weapon of mass genocide which would kill off the majority of the female population. As she did, when earlier in that same article she states the following…

What can be done? Well, I’ve decided the Earth needs a Mandemic. The human herd must be culled, and it’s time for buck season.

I know what you’re thinking… Cool! How could this work?

I happened to be watching an episode of Star Trek: Voyager last night when the idea came to me. There could be a virus that causes gene mutations in men that rewrites their DNA. Then, when men have sex with women, they are drained of their DNA, “where it is then implanted into females, causing the death of the males. As a result, new males are constantly created and harvested” by women, as suits their needs. You should have seen the desiccated corpses on the Taresian planet!

But perhaps this is too harsh implausible. It is science fiction, after all.

Look, I’m not an infectious disease specialist. I’m not exactly sure how this could work. I just know that there are 200 million missing females in the world because of patriarchy, so Mother Nature needs to put her finger on the scales, and if She would kindly oblige, just push down a little extra hard.

Keep in mind here:

Philip George Zimbardo, psychologist, professor emeritus at Stanford University, from The Lucifer Effect:

At the core of evil is the process of dehumanization by which certain other people or collectives of them, are depicted as less than human, as non-comparable in humanity or personal dignity to those who do the labeling. Prejudice employs negative stereotypes in images or verbally abusive terms to demean and degrade the objects of its narrow view of superiority over these allegedly inferior persons. Discrimination involves the actions taken against those others based on the beliefs and emotions generated by prejudiced perspectives.

Dehumanization is one of the central processes in the transformation of ordinary, normal people into indifferent or even wanton perpetrators of evil. Dehumanization is like a “cortical cataract” that clouds one’s thinking and fosters the perception that other people are less than human. It makes some people come to see those others as enemies deserving of torment, torture, and even annihilation.

Still think the parody at the beginning was hyperbolic?