Race and IQ: the Long and the Short of It

If you want to claim that modern tests of intelligence cannot actually test intelligence – you’re basically a putz. However, just for the sake of argument – lets ignore verifiable, repeatable, reality…..Because you know, dropping an item multiple times onto the ground doesn’t suggest the existence of gravity…. I hope you can see how detrimentally stupid this position actually is with that above statement.

Let’s move past the multitude of studies on IQ, which took place on multiple continents across the educated and uneducated. Let’s ignore all of that…. Wipe it from your mind.

Let us go back to history.

Now, if Group Q is, on average, as intelligent as group P: than group Q should in fact technologically develop at the same rate as group P. Particularly if both groups have access to resources and are left isolated from each other for vast periods of time.

This all make sense, yes?

Well, when the British empire fought the Zulu wars: the Brits used cannons and personal firearms. They fought using weapons which included mass produced steal and chemically propelled projectiles. Wearing mass produced clothing to include chemically treated cured leathers and industrial mechanical loom produced cloth.

The Zulus, on the other hand. Went to war against the Brits with stone tipped short spears, stone knives, wooden clubs, cowhide shields and garments made only from animal hides.

Group P, the Brits, were engaged in the Industrial revolution.

Group Q, the Zulu’s, had yet to invent the wheel, and were firmly still inside the confines of the stone age.

The stone age, according to most timelines, as it sits now (subject to change), is recorded as being around 2,500 BC when it ended. The industrial revolution was between 1750 to 1900.

Group P: had technologically developed, in isolation from group Q, some 4,250 years beyond and in advance of group Q, if one accounts for the end of the stone age to the beginning of the industrial revolution: which, specifically minimizes the technological gap as much as possible, favoring Group Q as having as little gap as possible.

Group Q, the Zulu Nation: was the largest and most advanced Kingdom in Sub Saharan Africa at the time of the Zulu Wars.

So….. when it comes to “race realism” and “IQ is genetic” – it is not *MY* side of the issue which needs to be proven. You understand? The largest and most advanced kingdom in sub saharan africa was 4,250 years behind the technological development of the military force which they faced in the Zulu wars.

This is factual reality. Guns and cannons verses cowhide shields and stone tipped spears. This is factual reality.

It is actually upon the naysayers – to convince —-> ME <—- why, by what rationale, by what logic, by what deduction, by what reason: I should ignore factual reality. It is upon *your side* to provide this argument. It is not – only – studies – on – intellect: which you are dealing with.

So even if we completely ignore all studies on IQ, set them aside and pretend they don't exist: how can group Q (Zulus – sub saharan africans) be as intelligent as group P (Brits – white europeans) when, in spite of both groups having access to natural resources and developing in isolation of each other, group P (Brits – white europeans) had technologically advanced beyond group Q (Zulus – sub saharan africans) by at least 4,250 years at the time of their conflict?

It is upon *your side* to provide this argument.

Let me put this in another light for you, so you can see things from my perspective.

Hypothetical situation.

Alien Species X from world G attained sentience at the same time as homo erectus on Earth. Species X from world G technologically develops 4,250 years past our greatest technological achievements here on earth. Species X from world G traverses space long distance, invades and conquers Earth using weapons and technology that is 4,250 years more advanced than our own weapons and technology.

Do we pretend that homo sapien sapiens are *AS* intelligent as Alien Species X when Alien Species X is no OLDER than homo sapien sapiens, but has technologically developed 4,250 years in advance of homo sapien sapiens?

That is how clearly I view the topic. From my perspective, it is that simple.

I'm not even alt-right: I'm a capitalist Libertarian, the Alt-Right, to include the minority of actual nazi national socialists who self identify as alt right: are all on my political left.

I simply cannot evade factual reality: and I wish you wouldn't, but you seem determined to do so.

From my perspective you all seem absurdly irrational: because none of this means anything. If Whites are, on average, smarter than blacks: so what? Asians are, on average, smarter than whites. Ashkenazi jews are, on average, smarter still.

So – what?


I support the establishment of a Rule of Law which provides completely equality before the law: equal rights, equal protections and equal punishments. That no one person is permitted to be infringed upon by any other person or group there of, which includes infringement by the State. A law in which civil liberties, personal liberties and human rights are sacrosanct.

Here’s the banner which adorns my twitter, minds and youtube pages.

OLtest4

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.


The above taken from my about page.

People are people regardless of their IQ and we should have a system of law which provides equal protections and punishments under that system of law. People should still have equal rights: no special protections, no special exemptions.

The argument in and of itself, from my perspective…

Means – precisely: dick.

From where I sit: I see one group arguing for the acceptance of factual reality, and the other group desperately attempting to evade reality.

Over a topic which is so ridiculously trivial as to be utterly inconsequential.

Aaahhhh – but see there. Do you see how inconsequential the issue is once I’ve laid it for you? So why then, is it such a fantastic spectacle? The inconsequentiality of the topic is the key to understanding why it’s made into a grand spectacle.

It is the leftist side of the argument that there is no such thing as objective truth, that which can be verified and proven, truth is white supremacy.

Reason.com “Pomona College Students Say There’s No Such Thing as Truth, ‘Truth’ Is a Tool of White Supremacy”
Original Link – Archived.

nosuchthingasTRUTH

If that smacks of 1984 and makes your stomach sink, it’s with good reason.

“The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. His heart sank as he thought of the enormous power arrayed against him, the ease with which any Party intellectual would overthrow him in debate, the subtle arguments which he would not be able to understand, much less answer. And yet he was in the right! They were wrong and he was right. The obvious, the silly and the true had got to be defended. Truisms are true, hold on to that! The solid world exists, its laws do not change. Stones are hard, water is wet, objects unsupported fall towards the earth’s centre. With the feeling that he was speaking to O’Brien, and also that he was setting forth an important axiom, he wrote: Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.”

Orwell, George. 1984 (p. 81). Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. Kindle Edition.

It is the leftist side of the argument that meritocracy, is white supremacy.

Campus Reform “Prof claims microaggressions disprove notion of ‘meritocracy'”
Original LinkArchived

meritocracy_is_supremacy

You think that’s a one off of one University skewing towards insanity? Think again.

Campus Reform “‘Meritocracy’ is a microaggression, university guidebook claims”
Original Link – Archived

meritocracy_is_supremacy2

You could respond to me “But those are both from campus Reform, that could simply be a biased source.

Very well…

Town Hall “College Professor: Believing in Hard Work is White Ideology”
Original Link – Archived

Yes Magazine “No, I Won’t Stop Saying “White Supremacy””
Original Link – Archived

The Atlantic: “Why the Myth of Meritocracy Hurts Kids of Color”
Original Link – Archived

The Independent UK: “Meritocracy is a myth”
Original Link – Archived

Media Diversified “Dismantling the Meritocracy Myth”
Original Link – Archived

And lastly, “Dispelling the Meritocracy Myth: Lessons for Higher Education and Student Affairs Educators”, a paper written by Lorriz Anne Alvarado. Available directly from the University of Vermont educational website at the following location PDF location.

“Dispelling the Meritocracy Myth: Lessons for Higher Education and Student Affairs Educators”
PDF Location found here.

It is the leftist position: that truth is white supremacy and that meritocracy is also a myth or a form of white supremacy. The leftist stated position and basic philosophical tenet is that all persons, regardless of race or gender, are essentially identical. No one person is naturally smarter than another, no person is naturally stronger than another, no person is naturally more creative than another, etc. etc.

All human bodies are identical and interchangeable. Therefore, claim the leftists, any possible distinction between them must be the result of some kind of oppression. Some form of prejudice which only need to be discovered so that it can be removed and then all persons regardless of race, religion or gender would be identical.

If there is some form of oppression and prejudice and supremacy to fight: the leftists can then advocate for hiring quotas, gender and race based discrimination.

Such as the various examples I have written and spoke about previously.

Some Animals are More Equal, again… again.

The Truth About Anti-Brexit Former High Court Judge

Some Animals Are Criminally More Equal

Some Animals Are More Equal

When Equality kicks You in the Taint

V-card Pass Strikes Again

On and on and on…

This is why Leftists argue against the existence of truth, against the concept of meritocracy and against the concept of there being any relation between race and IQ. If they cede these arguments, they will lose the ability to advocate for race, ethnic or sex based discrimination. This is also why the Alt-Right and others on the right: all argue in favor of the factual reality of racial, ethnic and gender differences.

In order to disarm the leftists and expose them for being racist, sexist, hypocrites who’s true motivations are giving alms and favors to this or that atomized, supposedly oppressed group, in exchange for partisan devotion and thereby positions of power and authority.

Examine the difference in effect.

Where a leftist would argue that humans are identical and interchangeable, they argue this in order to use this philosophical fallacy as a cudgel with which to brandish and demand that race and sex based discrimination be made legal.

For my part: I argue, as I did above….

“People are people regardless of their IQ and we should have a system of law which provides equal protections and punishments under that system of law. People should still have equal rights: no special protections, no special exemptions.”

My position, is exactly what the leftists do not want: my position is utterly antithetical to the leftists goals.

More over, the leftists are playing a con game with everyone in absolute all of those above denunciations of meritocracy. While the leftists are quick to point out that whites have a greater median income than blacks or Latinos – they never mention that Asians have a greater median income than whites. More over, Jews within the United States have the single highest median income of any racial of ethnic group.

I.E. Bernie Sanders, a Jewish “Democratic Socialist” himself, who is part of the “top 1%”.

CNBC “Bernie Sanders made more than $1 million last year—here’s how much it takes to be in the top 1%”
Original Link – Archived

For a Nation supposedly over flowing with white supremacy… The fact that Asians and Jews earn more than whites is ardently contradictory to the presupposed supposition that the USA is ever so thoroughly white supremacist, now doesn’t it?

Let’s have a look see at the median income by race, shall we?

U.S. Census Bureau Income and Poverty in the United States: 2016 page 5.

PDF Location found here.

I notice something odd, Jews are conspicuously missing from the graph… oh well, we’ll just have to ignore that for now.

Asians $81,431
Whites $65,041
Hispanics $47,675
Blacks $39,490

Let’s compare that to IQ, hm?

Truth Justice dot Net “IQs of Races in the United States”
Original link – Archived

This publication shows the result of The IQ Studies, SAT scores, ACT scores, NAEP scores,  TIMMS and PISA scores for the past 35 years. The data breaks down as follows…

Asians 103.3 (103.26)
Whites 100 (100)
Hispanics 90 (89.75)
Blacks 85 (85.8)

Doesn’t that look familiar? Let’s do a screen cap comparing the two….

That’s right kids… the median income by race exactly matches the median IQ by race….

Now…. lets examine that one group which was suspiciously absent from both the census data and the IQ data….

BEFORE you just to conclusions about alt-right neo nazi blah blah blah blame duh jews propaganda: I’m ONLY going to use information taken from pro-jewish publications. So you don’t GET the luxury of claiming that I’m using antisemitic propaganda.

The Jerusalem Post “POLL: JEWS HIGHEST-EARNING RELIGIOUS GROUP IN US”
Original Link – Archived

Jews are the highest-earning religious group in the United States, with 46 percent of the working population earning a six-digit figure every year, according to a study released this week. In terms of annual earnings, the only other group to even come close to the average Jewish income was the Hindus, with 43 percent earning over $100,000. No other group reached even the 30 percent mark, and the overall US average was only 18 percent earning six-figure digits annually. The study, conducted by the Pew Forum on Religious and Public Life, also showed that, after Hindus, the Jews were the second most educated religious group in the US.

Given that 46% of Jews make at least $100,000, that puts Jews at the absolute top earning bracket in median incomes. I’m going to label Jews as an estimated 100k because we have no detailed data on how FAR above 100,000 their incomes are, we only know that almost half of them make over $100k per year. Let’s add Jews to the previous cited racial median income line up, shall we?

Jews $100,000
Asians $81,431
Whites $65,041
Hispanics $47,675
Blacks $39,490

Next…. Jewish IQ….

Israel National News “Study: Ashkenazi Jews Smartest on Earth, Partly Due to Diseases”
Original Link – (Cannot be Archived) – Wayback Machine

While the average IQ of Europeans is 100, the average Jew of European descent earns an IQ score of 107.5 to 115, making an Ashkenazi Jew almost 6 times as likely to be a genius as a non-Jewish European. In a 2005 paper published by Cochran and Harpending entitled “Natural History of Ashkenazi Intelligence”, the pair notes “During the 20th century, [Jews] made up about 3% of the US population but won 27% of the US Nobel science prizes and 25% of the ACM Turing awards. They account for more than half of world chess champions.

Well now, again, another pro-jewish publication which cannot be claimed to be antisemitic propaganda.

So Jews are are not only the highest earning group in the United States, but also have the highest IQ in the united states. Let’s add Jews to the previous cited racial IQ line up, shall we?

Jews 107 (107-115)
Asians 103.3 (103.26)
Whites 100 (100)
Hispanics 90 (89.75)
Blacks 85 (85.8)

Let’s contrast and compare the new median income with median IQ, having entered the data provided by The Jerusalem Post and Israel National News: shall we?

That’s right kids. From Blacks to Jews: median income perfectly matches average group intelligence. Still think meritocracy is a myth? Or do you now understand why, for the leftists to be able to push their pro-discrimination agenda, they have to denounce the concept of meritocracy and exclaim that there are no differences between racial groups?

More over, while leftists will rail on and on about how much better whites are doing than blacks or Hispanics: they’ll neglect to mention Asians and Jews. You see, if Asians and Jews are out performing and out earning Whites: it shatters the claim that America is a nation over flowing with white supremacy.

There you have it kids. This is why the race IQ issue is turned into a grand spectacle. It’s because the leftists want to be able to assert their ideology, which is contrary to reality, in order to enact legalized discrimination in favor of “minority” or supposedly “oppressed” groups: in exchange for partisan devotion from said groups. That is what provides them with positions of political power.

In order to accomplish this: the leftists absolutely must decree that there is no such as truth, meritocracy is a myth, there are no racial differences and absolutely all discrepancies among groups are the result of white supremacy and white prejudice…. NEVERMIND the Asians or the Jews! Don’t look over there, don’t pay attention to them, don’t look behind that curtain!!

The Nature of Leftist Ignorance

This is an enormous topic, read through my personal website, observing libertarian.com for examples. Let’s just pick one… Islam.

The only way leftists can perpetuate slogans like “Islam is a religion of peace” or the absurdly laughable “Muslims are the true feminists” – I swear that’s a real claim they made, I’m not creative enough to think up some horse shit like that.

Anyway… The only way leftists can perpetuate slogans is that they are wholly ignorant of what is actually IN the Quran. Leftists, spoon fed propagandist indoctrination since grade school: believe what they are told if they are told by authority figures they are instructed to obey. So when they are told “Islam is a religion of peace” or “Islam is the most feminist religion“: they believe it.

If anyone actually cracks open a Quran and reads it – they find out something quite different. Which is why leftists don’t do that.

Leftists, are taught even at top level universities, by leading leftist academics… That there is no such thing as truth, that truth is unknowable and that they should rely on what they are told by experts, not because they can prove what they claim is true, because truth is unknowable, but they should rely on experts simply because they are experts.

Don’t believe me? Think I’m being hyperbolic? Think I’m making that up? Well buckle up buttercup, you’re in for a bumpy ride.

This is Dr. Harry Collins, who’s written 18 academic books, Director at Cardiff university, speaking at Memorial University during the Knowledge Institutions, Free Expression and Democracy in Canada symposium, in front of the Royal Society of Canada, media, civil society organizations and government.

Saying exactly what I just stipulated. I, in fact, quoted him verbatim regarding truth and experts.

The video’s pretty long, but the link on my website will take you to time code 26:27. Which is directly the part where I quoted him. So you need not watch the whole thing, just a minute or less.

And there you have it boys and girls, attack helicopters and mayonnaise. This is why if you attempt to interview or talk to and ask questions of leftists on the street at protests they can’t tell you which, or any, of Trump’s policies they disagree with. This is why Feminists continue to believe feminism is about equality, in spite of all the inequality which is supported by feminists. This is why Leftists are so profoundly ignorant about what’s actually in the Quran and what the Quranic teachings actually are.

In every conceivable realm of knowledge and actuality: if leftists are challenged, questioned or presented with factual information which is contrary to their narratives they appear to be astonishingly ignorant of reality.

Leftists accept what they are told by people they are instructed to obey. Thus, If they are told “Islam is a religion of peace”, then Islam is a religion of peace. If they are told “Islam is the most feminist religion”, then Islam is the most feminist religion. If they are told the openly Gay Jew Milo Yianopolis who’s married to a black man is a Nazi: then Milo’s a Nazi. If they are told the Orthodox Jew Ben Shapiro, complete with yamaka perched atop his head is a Nazi, then Ben Shapiro’s a nazi.

Not because any of this is true, there is no objective truth, truth is unknowable, but because experts tell them it’s true.

nosuchthingasTRUTH

Feminist “Studies” – How Ideology is Purported as Science

In this blog post on minds, I just exposed how a recent “study”, published by several leftist news media sites and also men’s health magazine, is a complete and utter fraud, and was **intentionally** designed as such. Didn’t take much investigation to do so, either, by the way.

femme_study

It’s a typical bullshit feminist ideology confirmation ceremony. Meaning: the “study” was intentionally built to ensure that it resulted in confirmation bias in accordance with their ideological bias.

The BBC report on the study provides more detail.

Quote:

“Lead researcher Alyssa Bischmann and her team asked the men, the vast majority of whom were heterosexual and white, when they first saw porn and whether it was intentional, accidental or forced.

They were then asked 46 questions which measured how they conformed to one of two behavioural traits – seeking power over women or sexually promiscuous behaviour and living a playboy lifestyle.”

:End Quote

The study was built, by design, from the onset, before signing up volunteers to poll, to categorize all answers into one of only 2 possible outcomes.

Either 1, porn influences men to be dominant over women.

or 2, porn influences men to be sexually promiscuous.

The only 2 possible assessments to the answers to the questions asked: were both sexist/negative outcomes.

No middle ground, no neutral position, no non-sexist or non-negative possibilities. All answers are negative outcome, porn is enjoyed by men therefore porn must be bad and therefore all influences of porn must be bad. This is how feminists in the field of psychology use ideological bias to create false studies to enforce confirmation bias.

They literally design “studies” to have negative outcomes, from the beginning.

-This “study” had only 330 participants.

-This “study” only surveyed men, and did not survey women as a control group in order to study whether or not similar personality traits developed among women.

-This “study” did not have a group of gay men to use as a control group in order to study whether or not similar personality traits developed among gay men.

-This “study”, by design, categorized absolutely all possible answers given into only two possible outcomes – both of which were negative outcomes.

-This “study” did not ask how often these men viewed porn such as to separate habitual porn watchers verse those who rarely view pornography.

-This “study” not ask what kind of porn these men viewed, such as to separate the men who **supposedly** think they should dominate women in spite of the fact that their favorite type of porn is femdom.

-This “study” did not ask what these men’s earliest sexual EXPERIENCES were, in order to determine if viewing pornography had a bigger impact on sexuality than their earliest sexual experiences.

This “study” used a small sample size, with a pre-ordained set of only 2 possible outcomes, both of which were negative, and used neither women nor gay men as a control group to determine if the personality traits exposed by the questions given were unique to straight men or were in fact universal to those personality traits exhibited by women or gay men. Made no attempt to separate habitual from occasional porn viewers. Made no attempt to determine the type and or variety of the porn viewed. Made no attempt to determine if childhood sexual experiences played a bigger role on sexual development than the viewing of pornography.

This “study” like so many other feminist “studies”, was nothing but an exercise in ideologically driven confirmation bias by means of deception and obfuscation. Intentionally assigning and classifying outcomes for the purpose of producing propaganda.

Fighting the Culture War: Not For the Faint of Heart or Weak of Stomach

So I shared the following post across my minds account.

semen_cooking

Now, unfortunately elite daily apparently doesn’t like archive: so archive was unable to archive it. Gee, wonder why. So I went to the wayback machine and provided a shortlink for the search results where the webpage is saved in the wayback machine. More than one way to skin a cat, as they say.

However, I got a comment and it began a discussion which I thought may be of some importance or consequence for others to see.

Commentator:
“Please don’t share this kind of stuff.”

I responded as follows:
“Gotta keep tabs on what the degenerates are up to.

File it away in the back of your mind, save it on your hard drive someplace for future use, then throw it in the face of a leftist who tries to propagandize about how leftists aren’t degenerates.

It’s future ammunition, never throw away good ammunition.

Do you have any idea how many things like this I have to try and stomach collecting in my brain for the purpose of exposing leftists?

This is NOTHING compared to what I’ve had to dig up and deal with previously. So quit squirming and nut up: there’s a culture war to wage.”

Commentator:
“No I’m not filing this any where I’m trying to forget it as quick as possible.”

To which I responded:
“Pft, wuss. You should see the kind of sickening shit I’ve collected on leftists. Look at this info graphic: this includes first hand interviews with feminists, like Germaine Greer who spoke about boys “having semen that runs like tap water”, on a live show, while DEFENDING her book of pedophilia which contained almost nothing other than images of young boys in various states of nudity.”

And shared the image you see here.

10407691_736417513080399_682946391300814631_n

I then added in my next comment:
“If you want to fight the culture war against these fiends: you better straighten your back, harden your skin and galvanize your stomach.

Otherwise you’re not going to be able to deal with these creatures or the unimaginable depravity they’re capable of.”

What followed was a barrage of posts from me in that minds thread with all of the following images.


**WARNING**

The following images may be very disturbing.

Including depravity, degeneracy, vulgarity and violence that even non-snowflakes may find “triggering”, sickening or beyond their ability to view without becoming psychologically effected negatively.

**WARNING**

To better view any image, click on the image itself. It will open up a new tab where that image is posted on imgur in order to be better able to see and read the details of each image.


pedo2

arfeat1

vaginal_caligrphy

feminism_cult

vagurt

blood_muffin2

bucketoshit

king_is_dead

733216394094583825

beastial_feminists

feminism_don't havekids2

manhating2

manhating2-2

manhating


I followed by telling this person:
“Peruse through. These are just a few examples of the ammunition I’d got stored away.

You can join the culture war: or you can allow those inhuman cretins to win, but if you’re gonna fight – be prepared to find out exactly what the nature of the enemy is.

It’s not pleasant, it’s not pretty.”

So there you have boys, girls, attack helicopters and those who sexually identify as mayonnaise. Waging the culture war can be very trying. Especially if you’re going to, as I do, search through all those dark spaces and spend a concerted effort digging for information.

Think it’s pleasant to read radfem’s chit chatting about what kind of crimes against humanity they want to be permitted to commit against male children who are innocent of any crime? No, it is not.

Think it’s pleasant to read and catalog detailed information detailing feminists who advocate in favor of decriminalizing pedophilia or reading the explicit comments they make regarding the sexual recharge time of young boys? No, it is not.

This is my enemy, I must know my enemy in order to defeat my enemy: and my best means of defeating my enemy is by exposing the repugnant, disgusting and often criminal nature of my enemy.

This is the culture war, if you want to take part in it: follow the advice I gave above.

“If you want to fight the culture war against these fiends: you better straighten your back, harden your skin and galvanize your stomach.

Otherwise you’re not going to be able to deal with these creatures or the unimaginable depravity they’re capable of.”

“You like me, you really like me!”

Oh – holy – shit.

So I popped onto my little corner of the net here and was trying like hell to find a way to better organize how my posts are organized over on the left. the recent posts works ok, but having that Month box is annoying. If I want to find a particular post for the purpose of shearing it on social media when a topic comes up which I have written about: I have to search by month then scroll down.

It would be super awesome fantastic if, instead of a thousand and one tutorials about how to organize by category, I could instead just have a simple interface of year – month, click, drop down listing every post that month. You know, like folders and files have worked since…. well since graphical user interfaces were invented….

Low and behold I see …. this:

holy_crap

2,002 FOLLOWERS!?
Who are all you people and where did you come from!?
Kyon-shocked-kyon-the-melancholy-of-haruhi-suzumiya-31549716-500-333

Well shit…  so apparently I now owe people some content on a more regular basis…

Alrighty then, there is one thing I’ve been meaning to get around to, may as well do it now. I may even turn this into a static home page so that people who pop onto ObservingLibertarian.com don’t have their phone suddenly explode as it attempts to load every post I’ve ever made simultaneously. We all know how those Note 7’s are these days, I wouldn’t want to become liable.

Some of this will be posted from other pages, because I’ve already provided some necessary information on myself and my Ideological / Political background. Including providing examples of actual arguments I’ve been in with my opposition across social media. This page will simply serve as an introduction of sorts. This way people who happen stance across my website will see this and decide for themselves if I seem like the type of person they want to follow.

I’m perfectly fine allowing the free market to decide. Each person is free to like, share, subscribe or denounce, ignore and block me as they have will to do so.

I am the Observing Libertarian. I’ve been guest featured by Janet “Judgy Bitch” Bloomfield, have a sizable number of articles posted by the Honey Badger Brigade, I’m on TwitterMinds and YouTube.

Am I an MRA? No, I’m Libertarian.
Am I a white identitarian? No, I’m Libertarian.
Am I AltRight? No, the Alt Right is further to the Left than I am, I’m Libertarian.
Am I a White Supremacist? No, Supremacists are authoritarians, I’m Libertarian.
Am I Liberal? Yes and no depending on the topic because I’m Libertarian.

So what gives with all the pro-white and pro-men’s rights material?

10511367_663626353721888_3895820396673099910_n

On both cases I’m speaking in opposition of political parties, sects and factions which advocate for establishing two tiered legal systems in which some classes of people ascend to being first class citizens and other classes of people descend into being second class citizens.

That’s the end of it.

Why do I oppose group Q and support group P?
Group P isn’t advocating to be given superior rights to group Q, group Q is.

It is that simple. I am only tangentially involved. I am not part of any of these movements or groups, I am an outsider lending my voice to the chorus in favor of or opposition to their actions based upon whether or not they are advocating for being given equal rights to those of others or superior rights to those of others.

If we are to be pedantic on the topic:

  • By supporting men’s rights am I a Men’s Rights Advocate? Yes.
  • By supporting women’s rights am I a Women’s Rights Advocate? Yes.
  • By supporting gay rights am I a Gay Rights Advocate? Yes.
  • By supporting trans rights am I a Trans Rights Advocate? Yes.
  • By the dictionary definition of feminism am I a Feminist? Yes.

In practical reality however: I’m just a Libertarian.

I support the establishment of a Rule of Law which provides completely equality before the law: equal rights, equal protections and equal punishments. That no one person is permitted to be infringed upon by any other person or group there of, which includes infringement by the State. A law in which civil liberties, personal liberties and human rights are sacrosanct.

Here’s the banner which adorns my twitter, minds and youtube pages.

OLtest4

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.

In spite of the above example of my personal classical liberal ideology: when I take a spekr test: I’m almost as far right and south as it is possible to be.

libertarian_4_12_2017_1031hrs

So you see, in spite of being a dyed in the wool classical liberal, a constitutionalist and thereby quantitatively a centrist by definition and nature of the fact that I’m a constitutionalist: I plot on the political landscape as far right wing libertarian. How far right wing? Just look at that spekr result: which is mirrored by a host of other similar tests I’ve taken by the way.

libertarian

That above image was screen capped from a political test I took some 10 years ago or so. I can tell you my political views haven’t changed. In anything: having expanded my library of western philosophers has only further convinced me that the premises upon which I was operating were correct if previously less refined. I have never considered myself left, on the left or a leftist. If the Constitution is held as the center (as it should be), then I’ve always considered myself to be a centrist. yet in the 10 year gap between those two political tests: I think my position relative to the rest of the political landscape has only gone further right.

Here’s the thing…

It’s not that I am moving to the right: it’s that the political landscape under me is moving continually left.

The political landscape has moved under my feet and there’s many many people who always considered themselves to be left leaning yet find themselves agreeing with conservatives in this day and age. Arguing against censorship, against authoritarian rule, against double standard laws. They often remark about how they feel abandoned by the left and begin describing themselves as “classical liberals.” Which, by the way, is exactly how that term came about.

People who didn’t follow suit with the “new left” and the “progressives” on their march ever onward left towards totalitarianism. People like me who adhere to classical liberal principles and philosophical ideas and find that they cannot agree with the left’s constant attempts at enacting illiberal or anti-liberal laws.

narrative

There’s a growing sentiment that conservatism is now the new punk because defending personal freedoms has become the counter culture against the double standard laws being proposed and supported by the identity grievance politics of the new left.

In spite of being in the vaunted “99%” and working full time while earning a lower class income, yes a genuine Poletarian unlike the rich kids on college campuses calling people “bourgeoisie” while wearing $400 shoes and snap-chatting it on their latest generation iPhone: I am thoroughly anti-communist and pro-freedom.

So why do I speak against so many of those movements? I speak against them when they produce propaganda and lobby for superior rights to others. When they stop doing that: I’ll stop speaking against them. They create a lot of rationalizations, fraudulent faux research, biased studies which are easily disproved. This is why I created the logical fallacy “Ad Minus Aequius”.

adminusaequius

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.

supremacist23

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.

2-24

 

“White Crime”…but Who’s “White” ?

infowars_article

I was responding on minds to an article posted by infowars. There’s essentially nothing wrong with the article itself, that I know of. Full disclosure: I didn’t bother to read it. I was already aware from my own research that criminality committed by blacks is as Colin Flaherty puts it “wildly out of proportion.”

I personally conducted a 10 year study using the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports in order to debunk Black Lives Matter’s claims about whites killing blacks. Not only did I find that IN SPITE of the fact whites out number blacks 4.63 to 1: blacks kill whites 2.28 times more often than whites kill blacks: but “imagine my shock“, whites are killed by blacks in America more often than US soldiers, of any race, are killed by enemy combatants in the war in Iraq. Regardless of the fact that the 10 year period included the heaviest years of fighting with the highest casualty rates for the whole war.

blacklivesmatterRACIST

Yet even these numbers are wrong… depending upon who you consider to be “White”. With some cursory level of investigation, you can easily find out that what the FBI records as white crimes: come from people you wouldn’t consider white.

Omar_Mir_Seddique_Mateen

Guess what, that guy? Yeah, his act of Islamic terrorism was also written down and recorded by the FBI as a white hate crime because the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report records crimes committed by middle easterners as “white.”

Pakistanis, Uzbeks, Kazakhs, Iranians, Kuwaitis, Iraqis, Egyptians, Libyans, Georgians, Turks, Saudis, Algerians, Moroccans: you name it. If they’re in the United States and they commit any crime at all, it’ll be recorded as a crime committed by a white person. It goes into the “white” racial category of the Uniform Crime Reports.

Don’t believe me?
That’s too far fetched?
What kind of Alex Jonesian conspiracy am I weaving here?
Tin foil hattery?

tinfoilhat

Oh ye of little faith. Do I ever make claims without backing up what I say? If you’re new to my articles I forgive you, if this isn’t the first one you’ve read then shame on you. You should know me better than that.

Allow me to take you on a tour of the FBI’s website – step by step, no tricks. You can follow the guide in one tab and complete the tasks at will in another.

First we start by going to the FBI’s official Uniform Crime Report webpage.

FBI_UCR

Now, look just down there where it says Documentation.

FBI_UCR2

Click on “User Manuals”.

FBI_UCR3

These are the field manuals which provide instructions on how to use the reporting system which field agencies (police stations, sheriffs offices, and all other federal law enforcement agencies) apply when reporting those crimes to the FBI for documentation in the yearly Uniform Crime Report.

FBI_UCR4

Once here, scroll down to the last manual.

FBI_UCR5

Here it is, SRS User manual. Click on that to bring up the PDF.

FBI_UCR7

Ok, we are now zeroing in on our target. The digital tour is almost complete.

FBI_UCR8

Once you get to the top page of the PD, Scroll down to page 7.

FBI_UCR9

Here we are… now what’s that?

FBI_UCR10

Aha, there it is. That’s what we’re looking for. Racial designations, page 139.

FBI_UCR11

Down we go.

FBI_UCR12

There you have it boys and girls and attack helicopters and mayonnaise. The FBI’s Uniform crime report records crimes committed by Middle Easterners and North Africans as being committed by white people. However – we’re not done quite just yet, kids. There’s still yet more to show.

Let’s take a trip back to the Uniform Crime Report, because I have something else to show you. Here we have the arrests listed by race for the 2016 Uniform Crime report.

At this point you must be thinking “Wait, holy hell tell me there isn’t yet more buffoonery involved? How many extra non-whites are included in the crime numbers of white people?!”

To which I respond…. an unknown number of Latinos, from Mexico or anywhere else in South America, to include illegal immigrants: are also included in the numbers of crimes blames on “white people”.

If your response was “wait, WHAT?!” – allow me to demonstrate, just as I did above.

FBI_UCR13

Scroll down just a short distance and you’ll see the following.

FBI_UCR14

Ok…. Whites are the majority of the country, this all looks normal. What horrible nonsense are you going to show me in this?

See the edge of the graph? It’s not displaying the graph to fit in window: and that edge isn’t where I cropped the image. You have to manually scroll over to see the rest of the graph on the right side.

FBI_UCR15

What the…. wait: what’s this? Why is this listed as “ethnic”? Why isn’t Hispanic listed in Race over with whites, blacks, etc. ? What’s the difference between Hispanic or Non Hispanic? What is going on here?

FBI_UCR16

Calm down, I’ll explain. See that little 2 which looks like it’s telling you to take Total to the power of 2? Yeah – that’s a special indicator for the graph and it’s data.

FBI_UCR17

To find out what that indicator means: we have to scroll to the bottom.

FBI_UCR18

Oh look, there’s the scroll bar so conveniently placed at the very bottom. Great website design, FBI, good enough for government work I suppose.

FBI_UCR19

Now what’s that say next to the #2 designation?

  • The ethnicity totals are representative of those agencies that provided ethnicity breakdowns. Not all agencies provide ethnicity data; therefore, the race and ethnicity totals will not equal.

That’s right kids: an unknown and unspecified number of police agencies, in the 13,049 agencies agencies which report to the FBI – do not record the Ethnicity of Latinos. They simply classify them, for the FBI Uniform Crime Report, as being White.

So white people, what most consider a “white person” to be, meaning White Caucasians of European Descent: are blamed, on paper, for crimes committed by Middle Easterners, North Africans and Latino’s from Mexico or anywhere in South America – including those who are here illegally.

The official tally for crimes committed by white people: include the crimes committed by people who no one would confuse as being white. This is how the crimes of “whites” are artificially inflated.

Want more proof? Back to the FBI we go. To the top 10 most wanted list, Robin.

FBI_UCR20

Now, this is the current top 10 most wanted list, 10-10-2017, I archived it because I have no idea how often the FBI updates this. . We have 3 men of Europeans descent, meaning: whites. Jason, William and Robert. We have 5 Latinos, 2 of whom are confirmed in custody. Santiago, Eduardo, Alexis, Luis and Walter. There are 2 fellows on here who are of middle eastern descent.

The FBI records all 9/10 of these as being “white”…. Still doubt me, after that the virtual tour I took you on?

Left to right here we go.

Santiago, Race: White (Hispanic).
Eduardo. Race: White (Hispanic).
Alexis. Race: White (Hispanic).
Yasser. Race: White.
Bhadreshkumar. No race Listed.
Luis. Race: White (Hispanic).
Walter. Race: White (Hispanic).

So on the current FBI’s top ten most wanted list: there’s 3 actual white people, 1 Egyptian, 5 Latinos and 1 Indian who is recorded without a race. Indians are apparently raceless. The FBI can’t decide if these should be counted as white people for being middle Easterners or Asian.

Regardless, the FBIs top ten list, currently has 9/10 people listed as white.

-When I shove the absolute irrefutable proof directly in your face and say “See this, right here, with the giant red arrows pointing to it?”
-Directly from the FBI on their official website where they present all of the proof.
-Then I give you a detailed step by step digital tour showing you exactly where the information can be found.

Am I still a tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy theorist?

The official tally for crimes committed by white people: include the crimes committed by people who no one would confuse as being white. This is how the crimes of “whites” are artificially inflated.

What’s really a hoot…. Now that you know “white people” include actual whites, Middle Easterners, North Africans and an unknown quantity of Latinos from Mexico and South America, including illegal aliens…. That makes the “White” v Black murders even worse doesn’t it?

blacklivesmatterRACIST

If “Whites” isn’t just what the US CENSUS considers to be white, but a large number of Hispanics, Middle Easterners and North Africans: it means the “white” category of non-negligent manslaughter is actually an even larger volume of people. That means Blacks kill the associated grouping of who is recorded as “white” 2.28 times more over than the reverse: but the cluster of people who are recorded as being “white” out numbers blacks by an even larger sum than 4.63 to 1.

Which means Black criminality / Black violence is even worse than the data I presented.

It means Black people kill Whites, Latinos, Middle Easterners and North Africans 2.28 times more often than anyone from any of these groups kill a Black person.

Remember that the next time some liberal trash is throwing headlines at you like:

Vox White American men are a bigger domestic terrorist threat than Muslim foreigners
CNN How America has silently accepted the rage of white men
Salon America’s white man problem: After Las Vegas, a familiar script unfolds
Newsweek WHITE MEN HAVE COMMITTED MORE MASS SHOOTINGS THAN ANY OTHER GROUP
The Intercept The White Privilege of the “Lone Wolf” Shooter

Whenever you see any of these headlines, I want you to keep one thing in mind….

In spite of the fact that the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report includes Whites, Latinos, Middle Easterners and North Africans as all being “white”, in 2016 this conglomerate group who are recorded as being “white” were responsible for 4,192 Murders and cases of nonnegligent manslaughter. Blacks were responsible for 4,935 Murders and cases of nonnegligent manslaughter.

So with all the hyperbole, the vacuous statements, the false equivocations, the manipulated information and the manufactured propaganda made by feminists, SJWs and Neoliberals about “white man” this and “white men” that…

US CENSUS Population Estimates July 1st, 2016
census

13.3% of the population is responsible for more murders and nonnegligent manslaughter than 76.9% of the population, and that 13.3% of the population…. isn’t white men, it’s not even white people.

A difference of 743. It would take “whites” (the conglomerate group) to perform over a dozen Las Vegas style massacres to accumulate the body count created by blacks, who are just 13.3 of the population.

In fact, if you take a harsh look at the FBI 2017 Uniform Crime Report, and add up the numbers… Blacks in America, per year, commit more murders and nonnegligent manslaughter than Whites, North Africans, Middle Easterners, Asians, American Indians, Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians and Other Pacific Islanders COMBINED. That’s not per capita: that’s total volume.

Provided for you here with this handy dandy meme. Share it as you will if you would care to do so.

OLO_Murder

Tell the liberals to print out this article, wrap it around a dildo, stick it up their ass and spin on it.

fuckyou

The Truth About Anti-Brexit Former High Court Judge

Only days ago I was invited by Your Brexit to write for them. The idea of someone who happens to be half Irish, writing for a publication dedicated to freeing Britain from ruler ship by foreign powers… bring forth an interesting question…. do you think it’s possible to die of Irony Poisoning? Far be it from me to turn down the opportunity to participate in such a uniquely glorious paradox.

So while searching about for subject matter I came across various reporting upon the Fawcet Society and it’s lead investigator on a study into whether or not Brexit would weaken the anti-discrimination laws. Now, being an America: I can assure you, I am profoundly accustom to propagndic scare mongering of the highest order.

The red threat, the satanic panic, mad cow disease, west nile virus, swine flu, avian flu, killer bees, zika virus, sars virus, super super gonorrhea and the piece de resistance: cunnilingus is now linked to throat cancer. Take my advice lads, do not even attempt that excuse: not only will it not work but you will find yourself exiled from the marital chamber for a protracted period of time.

Scare mongering aside, I decided to look into this lead investigator, find out what her history is and anything of interest in her background. Is she a partisan wolf in sheep’s clothing or does this report reflect genuine unbiased investigation? If the later, rather than the former, are there any gaps or legislation which could easily assuage the Fawcet Society’s findings?

Low and behold, ladies and gentlemen: I cannot be certain as to whether I’ve tumbled down a rabbit hole or stumbled through the looking glass. What I found was the single largest and most egregious example of criminal conspiracy and judicial misconduct in the entire history of the English judicial system. I warn you, do not entertain even the faintest glimmer of a hope that these statements have been hyperbolic. As you will see, very shortly, I only just barely escaped the realm of understatement.

While researching the good Dame Laura Cox, I found she was in fact the lead author of the “Equal Treatment Bench Book” published by the Judicial Studies Board (JSB). As reported by the Daily Mail and The Telegraph. So why would this be of interest? The Equal Treatment Bench Book was a document issued in September of 2010, which instructed all judges across the entirety of the United Kingdom, to give convicted female criminals lighter sentences than men would receive for the same crimes.

Now if you were read that statement and questioned “Isn’t discrimination based upon sex blatantly illegal?” You would be correct, absolutely unquestionably and unequivocally correct, as the law will show you.

Equality Act of 2010, Chapter 2 Prohibited conduct, Section 13 Direct discrimination, Sub sections 1 and 6.

“(1)A person (A) discriminates against another (B) if, because of a protected characteristic, A treats B less favourably than A treats or would treat others.”

“(6) If the protected characteristic is sex-”

uk_law_1

A glimpse into the Equality act of 2010 renders an important note to follow. The Judicial Studies Board (JSB) published the “Equal Treatment Bench Book” exactly 1 month before the Equality Act of 2010 was instituted. Could be coincidence, however, it seems rather suspicious does it not?

The Equal Treatment Bench Book, which instructed judges across the UK to intentionally give female criminals lighter sentencing, was published in September of 2010. The equality act of 2010 was instituted October 1st of 2010.

The Equality act of 2010 is quite explicit, and directly worded and absolutely prohibits unequal treatment or discrimination based on race, sex, religion or any other factors. The earlier anti-discrimination law for gender disparity would be the Sex Discrimination Act 1975.

In fact, if we search the Equality act of 2010 we find that the law specifically states any activity to occur before October 1st of 2010, would be determined as a breach of law by one of the earlier applicable law or laws.

“If you were subjected to unlawful treatment (eg discrimination, harassment or victimisation) before 1 October 2010, the Equality Act won’t apply. Instead, you’ll be covered by the legislation that was in force at the time.”

anti_equality

Consider, if you will, if the Judicial Studies Board (JSB) had published the “Equal Treatment Bench Book” just two months later: the Equality Act of 2010 would have just been implemented. Everyone and their second cousin twice removed would be well aware that the “Equal Treatment Bench Book” was in direct violation of the law. By publishing the “Equal Treatment Bench Book” 1 month previous to the Equality Act of 2010, they did so while the active legislature in place was The Sex Discrimination Act 1975, a law few people would have been familiar with.

Again I say: “Could be coincidence, however, it seems rather suspicious does it not?”

So let us delve into the applicable law in effect at the time. The Sex Discrimination Act 1975.

Sex Discrimination Act 1975, CHAPTER 65, Section 2. “Sex discrimination against men.” Sub section 1.

“(1)Section 1, and the provisions of Parts II and III relating to sex discrimination against women, are to be read as applying equally to the treatment of men, and for that purpose shall have effect with such modifications as are requisite.”

anti_equality2

Oh my, saving a bit of ink I see, very well. Let us look at Section 1 “Direct and indirect discrimination against women”.

Sex Discrimination Act 1975, CHAPTER 65, Section 1. “Direct and indirect discrimination against women” Sub section 1 and 1A.

“(1)In any circumstances relevant for the purposes of any provision of this Act, other than a provision to which subsection (2) applies, a person discriminates against a woman if—
(a)on the ground of her sex he treats her less favourably than he treats or would treat a man, or”

anti_equality3

In Section 2 of Sex Discrimination Act 1975 we find that all rules applying to women, also apply to men and in the section on sexual discrimination against women it specifically states and I quote “on the ground of her sex he treats her less favourably than he treats or would treat a man”.

According to the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, “Section 1, and the provisions of Parts II and III relating to sex discrimination against women, are to be read as applying equally to the treatment of men, and for that purpose shall have effect with such modifications as are requisite.”

So let us apply the women’s section to men as it is applied to women, as the law specifically states we are supposed to. I shall here in present both laws “with such modifications as are requisite”.

Women.
“(1)In any circumstances relevant for the purposes of any provision of this Act, other than a provision to which subsection (2) applies, a person discriminates against a woman if—
(a)on the ground of her sex he treats her less favourably than he treats or would treat a man, or”

Men.
“(1)In any circumstances relevant for the purposes of any provision of this Act, other than a provision to which subsection (2) applies, a person discriminates against a men if—
(a)on the ground of his sex he treats him less favourably than he treats or would treat a woman, or”

As you can see, the Equal Treatment Bench Book issued by the Judicial Studies Board (JSB) indefatigably instructs Judges throughout the UK to violate the sex specific anti-discrimination law, the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, in providing women lighter sentencing than men.

Every judge to comply with the orders set forth by the Equal Treatment Bench Book constitutes not only conspiracy to commit a crime, but squarely, by the letter of the law, condemns every aforementioned compliant judge as joint principals in that crime.

Crown Prosecution Service “Conspiracy
The essential element of the crime of conspiracy is the agreement by two or more people to carry out a criminal act. Even if nothing is done in furtherance of the agreement, the offence of conspiracy is complete.

The actus reus is the agreement. This cannot be a mere mental operation; it must involve spoken or written words or other overt acts. If the defendant repents and withdraws immediately after the agreement has been concluded, s/he is still guilty of the offence.

There must be an agreement to commit the criminal offence, but the motives of the conspirators are irrelevant. For example, in Yip Chiu-Cheung v The Queen (1994) 2 All E.R. 924, the fact that one conspirator was an undercover police officer who only entered the conspiracy to catch drug dealers did not prevent the offence of conspiracy from being committed.

For the ingredients of conspiracy, see Archbold 33-1 to 33-20. ”

uk_law_2

Crown Prosecution Service “The parties to an offence
Where two or more persons are involved in an offence, the parties to the offence may be principals (D1) or secondary parties (accessories / accomplices) (D2).

A principal is one who carries out the substantive offence i.e. performs the actus reus of the offence with the required mens rea. If two or more persons do so, they are joint principals.”

anti_equality4

There after – every single man who was denied this lighter sentencing was, by law, admittedly discriminated against in that court. By official order, the court treated him “less favourably” than the court “would treat a woman.”

Not only is the entire Judicial Studies Board (JSB) which issued the Equal Treatment Bench Book guilty of violating the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, but there after upon the institution of the Equality Act of 2010, until the present day: every judge to apply this lighter sentencing of women has been a complicit and active participating principals in a criminal violation of federal law. As such, every man denied this new lighter sentencing has, under the law, been discriminated against by the court which sentenced him – and has a case against the judge which sentenced him: on the grounds of discrimination.

Equality Act of 2010, Chapter 2 Prohibited conduct, Section 13 Direct discrimination, Sub sections 1 and 6.

“(1)A person (A) discriminates against another (B) if, because of a protected characteristic, A treats B less favourably than A treats or would treat others.”

“(6) If the protected characteristic is sex-”

uk_law_1

Not only is it Dame Laura Cox who led the charge to commit an untold and unfathomable number of federal violations to the law: lets not forget it is also Dame Laura Cox who led the Fawcett Society in “investigating” whether or not Brexit will reduce the effectiveness of anti-discrimination laws. The very woman who authored the Equal Treatment Bench Book instructing judges to violate anti-discrimination law has also been responsible for producing propaganda that Brexit will harm anti-discrimination laws.

Oh yes, my Dame, we have seen how much stock you put into anti-discrimination laws being followed. We know precisely how much you value the rule of law. You who so flagrantly violate the anti-discrimination laws in favor of your ideology and issue forth orders that others must violate anti-discrimination laws as well.

Dame Laura Cox, you are finished, madam, excuse yourself from speaking on matters of the rule of law. Your word carries no weight upon the topic: for you are in fact a criminal who has to her record an untold tens of thousands of violations of the law. The only things which should be remembered of you: is your despicable lawlessness, your repugnant hypocrisy and your embarrassing disgrace.

Here your sins laid bare, for all the world to see. The dirty secrets and the criminal activities you committed hoping would never be realized or come to be known: at last, are thrust into the light of day.

You, Dame Laura Cox, a former high court judge: have more violation of the law to your credit than perhaps any human being to set foot or breath air upon your Island Nation since the gilded age in which Roman centurions referred to it as Britannia.

radicalfeministarticle-2383275-1B1DE4F5000005DC-148_306x423