Some Animals are More Equal, again… again.

Oh for the love of: is this going to become a whole series of something? Would you people stop being such supremacists already?


For fuck sakes, here we go again… I think I may just create a “SAME” (Some Animals are More Equal) series and just label them “SAME: Date – Topic”. I think that’d be the best way to deal with these supremacists in the Labor party. For crying out loud. These party lobbied for the antidiscrimination laws, some of these idiots even WROTE the thing, then voted on it.

Now just a few years later, predictable as leftists tend to be, they’re hard at work every couple of weeks trying to advocate for laws and actions which are ILLEGAL under that very same law. The Torries should just offer to put me on the payroll, so I can sit off to the side in Parliament and repeatedly remind Labor “No! That’s illegal under the law your wrote, you supported, you advocated for, you voted for and was passed.”

maxresdefault (9)

Lets see here we got “Some Animals are More Equal” the original under that title where a pub was charging men more than women. Then we have “Some Animals are Criminally More Equal” where a documentarian attempted to charge men more than women, and a Labor member suggested making all black shortlist of candidates for local elections. On the 30th of September I exposed “The Truth About Anti-Brexit Former High Court Judge“, providing irrefutable evidence that a former high court judge was responsible for tens of thousands of acts of discrimination in criminal sentencing: sentencing men to longer prison sentences than women.

Could you leftist pigs possibly just stop? It’s tiring. Every time I turn around you’re getting up some criminal supremacist high jinks attempting to violate the UK’s anti-discrimination laws. Could you possibly just stop? Okay? It’s tiring.


Okay…. lets trod down this often beaten path, yet again, shall we?

No, labor, you can’t lower the retirement age for women unless you also lower the retirement age for men. You do not get to allow women to kick back and hop on their pensions early while men continue to work themselves to death. Women ALREADY live on average 3.7 years longer than men: you do not get to widen the divide you despicable fiends.

No, labor, you may not violate the law. By the way, even attempting to advocate for the changes they want to make: constitutes a criminal act.

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-”


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. ”


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.”


Now, the question becomes, why would these leftists so often act in flagrant violation of the anti-discrimination and pro-equality laws which they themselves helped pass? The answer is quite simple and multi pronged.

1, they never expected these laws to be used against them.

With all the talk and propagandic rhetoric of “social justice” and “equality”, these laws were only put in place as a truncheon to wield against their ideological opponents. They never expected to have to follow the law, only to have something they could use as a weapon. The inclusion of non-specific identities such as race being any race or gender being any gender: was lip service included only for the purpose of quantifying the laws as being equal.

2, they’re unaccustomed to black letter laws or “hard and fast rules”.

Vox Day in Chapter 6 of his book “SJWs Always Lie: Taking Down the Thought Police” lays this concept out quite clearly when he describes SJW entryist tactics and the establishment of a “Code of Conduct” which is routinely vague, nebulous, even vacuous in many instances. Obfuscated or dissembled terms and generalizations which can twisted to mean anything the SJWs want them to mean.

Which is wholly and completely different from the legalese which comprises most legal codes. Legalese functions on either black letter law, precedent or hard and fast rules. All properly written law does, in fact. For example, just look above at Canadian and English Law.

A may not do to B, any of aforementioned Q except under circumstance N. Hard and fast rules, black letter law. From there you got to precedent, in case # [Person Vs R] the ruling was P by rationale D provided.

Many people complain about legalese: I find it infinitely more accommodating than the fertile muck in which the SJWs prefer to dwell. I’ll provide a clip from Day’s book to give you a good example of the nebulous swamp which my oppositions likes to infest. I doubt Vox will mind, after all I’m plugging his work and this article isn’t pay to view.

“As noted in the previous chapter, the reason SJWs set up nebulous codes of conduct is that they want to be able to selectively impose discipline on those who question the Narrative in a manner they can interpret as “problematic” or “offensive” while avoiding the need to do so when one of their own breaks the rules. That’s why they do their best to avoid clear lines of demarcation and detailed specifications of what is against the rules and what the punishment will be. They will even do their best to avoid committing anything to writing; it is not an accident that Sir Tim Hunt’s wife received a telephone call from an individual at University College London who still remains publicly unidentified. Like insects scurrying about their business underneath a rock, SJWs prefer to operate in the dark and leave everyone else confused about what really happened.”

Day, Vox. SJWs Always Lie: Taking Down the Thought Police (Kindle Locations 1678-1683). Castalia House. Kindle Edition.

The following taken directly from my website’s home page…

This is why I created the logical fallacy “Ad Minus Aequius”.


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.


No, Not All Women Are Like That

“because you will be stripped of everything that you have”, “the female has been manifested in their life as only the negative archetype” – no professor. This is a falsification. It’s not that all women will or that all women are that negative archetype. It’s that all women can and have the opportunity to be that negative archetype due to the laws written in their favor.

According to the US CENSUS, 97% of all alimony recipients are female and one cannot be the alimony recipient unless one is also the divorce settlement recipient. The divorce rate is just over 50% and women initiate divorce in over 70% of cases.

It’s not that all women will or that all women are that negative archetype. It’s that all women can and have the opportunity to be that negative archetype due to the laws written in their favor.

I will re-state the preceding quote, repeatedly: and hopefully these hyperbolic claims about MGTOW will thereby be put in a clearer context as being a gross miss-characterization about us. It is nothing more than slander to assert that MGTOWs simply out of the malevolence of their black hearts hate women. That is not the case: what we hate is the way in which the legal system has been corrupted by ideological dogma and now enforces legally sanctioned double standards in direct opposition to and violation of the 14th amendment.

We are abstaining from placing ourselves in danger until we have equal representation and protection under the law thank you very much.


What MGTOW points out, and can be objectively verified: is that relationships present the inherent danger to men that if they last long enough; common law marriage becomes available. Prenuptial agreements can be violated by a court order, and even when not, they often have limitations. Janet Jackson, who already had more money than any reasonable person could spend in a lifetime, just months ago, divorced Wissam Al Mana for $200 million dollars. This she did just 2 months after the 5 year agreement on the prenuptial agreement ended.

It’s not that all women will or that all women are that negative archetype. It’s that all women can and have the opportunity to be that negative archetype due to the laws written in their favor.

Any relationship which becomes a marriage, or simply lasts long enough to become a common law marriage carries with it the over 50% chance that you will lose half your liquid assets, quite possibly your own home, and you may even be burdened further with alimony. Paying forth money to someone whom you are not legally responsible for in any way but to provide for them financially.


Earning money which is then taken from you and given to someone else who will be benefit from the fruits of your labor: a definition of slavery if ever there existed one.

MGTOW are teaching men that relationships are a game of russian roulette, in the best case scenarios: to say nothing of false accusations of abuse or child custody.

It’s not that all women will or that all women are that negative archetype. It’s that all women can and have the opportunity to be that negative archetype due to the laws written in their favor.


Your simplification, Peterson, is a fabrication of the argument put forth. An argument which is easily verified as being a concrete observation and assessment of reality. Women are not necessarily the problem: it is the corrupted laws, which are the problem. Any ability or wiggle room you provide humans to abuse a system: they will. It is a guarantee, it is human nature. This is why legal documents are so long winded, winding, circuitous and verbose: to intentionally make every possible exclamation imaginable in order to avoid as many loopholes and opportunities for abuse as possible. So much so, that it is often referred to by the vernacular “legalese.”


But “all men could be rapists, how is that different?” –

1, it is illegal for a man to rape a woman.

But But 1.A: “Rape is difficult to prove!” – Men have been put in prison for decades on no evidence other than a woman’s accusation, even if that accusation was false. As has been PROVEN time and time again by the Innocence Project’s use of DNA evidence.

But But But 1.B: “False rape accusations are very rare!” – The number of false convictions overturned by being proven innocent, absolutely proven, innocent: by the innocence project, is far greater than the 5-6% statistic quoted by feminists would allow for.

2, It is perfectly legal for a woman to commit extortion against a man, inside a court of law.

Marriage has become legalized extortion.

The Free Dictionary – Legal Dictionary: “Extortion

“The obtaining of property from another induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right.”

Invalidation of prenuptial agreements + no fault divorce = seizure of liquid assets + alimony.

Marriage today, in America, is identical to the legal definition of extortion. It is “The obtaining of property from another induced”—”under color of official right.” The legal system has been manipulated to make marriage the legal definition of extortion. No ands, ifs, or buts about it. It is, by strict legal definition, extortion.

Furthermore, Alimony is a multi-BILLION (with a B, BILLION) dollar EXTORTION SCAM which is almost exclusively reserved for women.

U.S. Treasury Department “TREASURY INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR TAX ADMINISTRATION Significant Discrepancies Exist Between Alimony Deductions Claimed by Payers and Income Reported by Recipients

According to this report by the treasury department, in the year 2010 alone there were $10 BILLION dollars in alimony tax write offs filed. $2.3 billion of this is untraceable, meaning a lot of people were cheating on their taxes by claiming more than what was paid, or claiming they paid that which they did not, and an unknown number of recipients who claimed they didn’t receive something which they -did-.Even, however, if you exclude the $2.3 billion unaccounted for, that still leaves $7.7 BILLION dollars if Alimony payments being claimed on taxes, all with unique individual and verified Taxpayer Identification Numbers (TIN).

According to the last US Census, 97% of alimony recipients are women. So once again I say: Alimony is a multi-BILLION-dollar EXTORTION SCAM which is almost exclusively reserved for women.

“Extortion: The obtaining of property from another induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right.”

You PAY your alimony, or people with guns (law enforcement) will show up at your door, or place of employment, put you in handcuffs and throw you in jail – where anyone without noticeable gang affiliations has a high probability of getting raped.

The obtaining of property from another – Check
induced by wrongful use of:
–actual or threatened force – Check
–violence – Check
–Fear – Check
under color of official right – Check

Marriage is an extortion scam: it is indefensibly identical to the definition of extortion. What’s more: even if the woman is successful and extraordinarily wealthy (I.E. Janet Jackson): if you have more than she has – she will still be permitted to legally commit EXTORTION within a court of law.


3, It is a less legally punishable crime for a woman to rape a man than the reverse.

According to the FBI, and anyone with two brain cells to rub together, this is rape. This is clearly and undeniably, unabashedly RAPE. You threaten someone at gunpoint and force them to perform sex. That is rape by any reasonable, rational, logical definition of the term, that is RAPE. According to the CDC, that is not rape—that is “made to penetrate,” a LESSER sexual assault than rape.

Detecting the Scope of Rape : A Review of Prevalence Research Methods. Author: Mary P. Koss.
Journal of Interpersonal Violence  Volume: 8  Issue: 2  Dated: (June 1993)Page: 206

“Although consideration of male victims is within the scope of the legal statutes, it is important to restrict the term rape to instances where male victims were penetrated by offenders. It is inappropriate to consider as a rape victim a man who engages in unwanted sexual intercourse with a woman.”

Read that again a few times if you need to. Pay attention, “instances where male victims were penetrated by offenders”, so if a woman uses an object or her fingers to penetrate a man’s mouth or anus it is in fact still rape. However: if a woman uses force, threats/coercion (such gunpoint like the Ciera Ross case above) to force a man to put him penis in her or someone else , despite his protestations or forces it in herself such as if he is unconscious from alcohol or date rape drugs… It’s not rape. Why? Simple: “It is inappropriate to consider as a rape victim a man who engages in unwanted sexual intercourse with a woman.” I think most reasonable, rational, logical people would unanimously exclaim from the rooftops that “unwanted sexual intercourse”, when you have said no, is in fact Rape, wouldn’t they?

Thanks to feminist Mary P. Koss’s work with the CDC, “no means no” no longer applies to men. FEMINIST: Mary P. Koss isn’t just a “Rape Apologist”, she’s a full blown, verified, shameless “Victim Blamer“. She quite clearly in the same sentence, of her own written work, in an official document of the Department of Justice: National Criminal Justice Reference Service, absolves Women of raping men by exclaiming males raped by women are not victims of Rape. In the same sentence she, a feminist, exclaims that the victims “unwanted sexual intercourse” are NOT victims of Rape: provided the victim is male and the perpetrator is female. She does more than simply blame the VICTIM, she absolves the PERPETRATOR. I’ll say it again: If there is a rape culture, feminists are creating it.

This was done strictly so that Koss could publish intentionally tampered with and gender-biased research data on the rate at which female victims are raped. You see, having a number of males victimized equal to that of women doesn’t look good when you’re trying to talk about “patriarchy” and the inherent “rape culture” found in it, which has a narrative that all men are potential rapists and all women are potential victims.

If there was a male-dominated rape culture, rape would have been made legal before women could vote. Feminists, however, have gone through some very shady and underhanded tactics to conceal the rate at which men are raped by women—going so far as to reclassify the definition of terms to exclude men as being able to be raped by women. Just so they could publish altered statistics.

Do you see the difference? The system is rigged, the deck is stacked, the game is fixed.

This article, for the sake of brevity didn’t even touch on the issue of child custody and paternity fraud or double standard domestic violence laws. We know very well Not All Women Are Like That (NAWALT): but all women are given the opportunity to be like that and what’s more their actions will be given a legal sanction. All due to how the law has been rewritten in the past 50 years.

MGTOWs simply decide to step away from the table: and not participate in something so thoroughly maligned against men.


Non-Theoretical Conspiracy

For future references: “Cultural Marxism” isn’t much of a conspiracy theory. It’s not as if the Frankfurt school can’t be verified to exist: it can.

-It is not in dispute who started the Frankfurt school:

Antonio Gramsci
Georg Lukács
Felix Weil

-It is not in dispute who the Frankfurt school’s most prominent academics were.

Herbert Marcuse
Theodor Adorno
Max Horkheimer
Walter Benjamin
Erich Fromm
Friedrich Pollock
Leo Löwenthal
Jürgen Habermas
Alfred Schmidt
Axel Honneth
Siegfried Kracauer
Otto Kirchheimer

-It is not in dispute what books were produced and spread by these academics.

Traditional and Critical Theory
Reason and Revolution
The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction
Eclipse of Reason
Escape from Freedom
Minima Moralia
Eros and Civilization
One-Dimensional Man
Negative Dialectics
The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere
The Theory of Communicative Action
Dialectic of Enlightenment

Ordinarily the term “conspiracy theory” refers to something you cannot prove and have no verifiable evidence of. In the case of Cultural Marxism: the facts of the issue are not disputed.

Leftist’s would like to exclaim that “cultural marxism” is a conspiracy theory: but actually it’s a pejorative, which is accurate, and leftists don’t like it. If you examine, for yourself – I invite you to, to examine SJW and Feminist ideologues, the people who write “Feminist theory” – you’ll find the same term come up quite a bit. “Critical Theory”, which was created by Max Horkheimer, one of the previous directors of the Institute for Social Research. Later added to by other academics of the Frankfurt school.

All of these culture warriors follow the doctrines and baseline ideology of the academics of a marxist think tank originally named “Institute for Social Research” which later became known as the “Frankfurt School” when they left germany and settled down in Colombia University. Critical theory, which is the doctrinal ideological background of the social justice warriors and culture warriors today, was quite literally created by marxist academics.

This is where you get the Feminist / SJW world view of society being one giant inter-sectional stack of varying forms of oppression.

When you can pick out a Feminist academic and go to her own course structure, look at her class description and point to the screen “critical theory” – it’s not a “conspiracy theory”. When that feminists own description of her course description specifically stipulates that she teaches a marxist oppression model conceptualization of society: it’s not a “conspiracy theory.” the act of referring to “cultural marxism” is simply an exorcise in asserting “pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.”

Again: I invite you to do your own research. yet, just as an experiment… just for funzies….

Let’s look at the top 10 universities.

Ok, #1 is Princeton…. let’s look at Princeton.

Now looking at “Gender and Sexuality Studies“, we see that “Introduction to Gender and Sexuality Studies”, “Transgender Theory”, “Queer Theory”, and “Contemporary Theories of Gender and Sexuality” are all taught by Professor Gayle Salamon…

And also on Princeton’s official website….

Introduction to Critical Theory” is also taught by…. surprise… Professor Gayle Salamon…

Now…. when I can simply point to real life – verifiable – objective – reality: and point out “Critical Theory” was created by Marxist theorist Max Horkheimer who was director of the Institute for Social Research, and then I can point out that the same professor at the US’s #1 top ranked university, not only teaches “Introduction to Critical Theory” BUT ALSO teaches “Introduction to Gender and Sexuality Studies”, “Transgender Theory”, “Queer Theory”, and “Contemporary Theories of Gender and Sexuality”….

Is this a conspiracy theory: or an unavoidable observation to anyone willing to look?

That’s why leftists like to claim “Cultural Marxism” is a conspiracy theory, they want to discredit the concept in order that people do not bother to look: because the evidence is so easily found if one does.

I just proved “Cultural Marxism” is the driving force behind SJW ideology by simply picking a university, looking at the feminist professor who teaches their gender studies class and pointing out that she also teaches critical theory, which was created and developed by academics of the Frankfurt school.

That’s how easy it is to find the necessary evidence. I simply googled “top 10 universities

Saw that the #1 ranked school was Princeton, looked there, did a google search for “critical theory“.

Bob’s your uncle: looky looky looky – the same professor who teaches introduction to Princeton’s gender studies program, also teaches introduction to critical theory.

[sarcasm mode activate] Yeah that was horribly difficult. It took a lot out of me, I think I had to type a whole 100 individual letters, click my mouse maybe 5 times. truly an exhaustive investigation. I feel winded now, probably dehydrated too, maybe I should grab a gatorade. [sarcasm mode deactivate]

3088753134_30798fdb63_2Yep… “pay no attention to the marxist behind the curtain.”

Riley = Rapist: According to SJWs

According to the Rape / Sexual Assault rules promoted, lobbied for and passed on College Campuses across the US: Riley J. Dennis is unequivocally – a Rapist.

“I don’t think Riley is a bad person, okay? Like I feel like there is, you know, a genuine concern for trans rights, and it’s just being gone about in the wrong way.” Time code 1:061:20

No. Other people have freedom of choice. If R doesn’t want to have sex with Q: it is R’s right not to have sex with Q.

More over: for Q to attempt to guilt or shame R into having sex with Q is abuse.

Psychology Today: “How To Identify A Sexual Manipulator” Published May 19, 2015 by Gregory L. Jantz Ph.D.

“Through all of this behavior, the typical manipulator is smart and eloquent enough to deflect any initial resistance or objection to their overtures. Often, they will create explanations and excuses for their conduct, projecting the blame for any misunderstanding onto their target. The more off-guard they can make the target, and the more confused their target becomes, the better the atmosphere for the sexual manipulation. Exploiting naiveté, inexperience, uncertainty, and confusion is their game. Such responses can actually excite the sexual manipulator. Since most of us are not completely comfortable dealing with the sexual advances of others, sexual manipulators have a built-in advantage which they use to achieve their selfish goals.”

The Blaze: “University declares ’emotional manipulation’ to be rape” Published Dec 1, 2016 by Kaitlyn Schallhorn

“Coercion, as defined by the university, “is considered rape/sexual assault.”

“Coercion is the use of emotional manipulation to persuade someone to something they may not want to do — like being sexual or performing sexual acts,” the college’s website states.

“Being coerced into having sex or performing sexual acts is not consenting to having sex and is considered rape/sexual assault,” it continues.”

Bustle: “Is It Rape If You Say Yes? 5 Types Of Sexual Coercion, Explained” Published Apr 16 2015 by Eden Strong

“Sexual coercion is when tactics like pressure, trickery, or emotional force are used to get someone to agree to sex. It can be as as simple as encouraging someone to have a few too many drinks, or it can hide inside threats like “I’ll leave you if you don’t sleep with me.” But no matter what form it takes, sexual coercion isn’t just “a part of life” — it’s manipulative at best, and at worst, it’s abuse.”

Riley is engaged in emotional manipulation towards the goal of acquiring sexual conquest by means of emotional manipulation using guilt and shame as the active tactics. Riley is not a good person, Riley is an abuser.

More over, according to the rules set forth on many college campuses by Riley’s fellow Social Justice Warriors: Riley is a rapist.

Isn’t it lovely? The easiest way to denounce SJWs is by applying their own rules: to them. In which case they either need capitulate that the ideologically based rules and definitions which they support are wrong: or plead guilty to the very crimes those rules proclaim them to be guilty of.

It’s a beautiful thing. According to the Rape / Sexual Assault rules promoted, lobbied for and passed on College Campuses across the US: Riley J. Dennis is unequivocally – a Rapist.

Narcissism on Display


What’s even worse, Polygon in it’s unquestioningly crooked reporting, exclaimed that Anita “hits back at trolls and haters.” All she did was slander and dehumanize audience members who did and said nothing to here in that situation, but who had criticized and denounced her previous work.

You do not “hit back” at a critic by whining, swearing and name calling. That’s nothing more than throwing a temper tantrum, something we fully expect to witness from Feminists. You “hit back” by addressing a critics claims and refuting them, that is how you “hit back” at someone who has made claims to the efficacy or credibility of your work.

Even worse, you can see in the video footage during Anita’s slandering of Sargon she actually says “we don’t just get to be online.” Again, said while speaker on the panel, behind the microphone, on stage, as a PAID SPEAKER. Meanwhile, the very person and person’s in the audience are the ones who paid forth their own money to attend the event. She was paid to be there, they paid to be there. She does “just get to be”, they do not “just get to be”.

Fiamengo File #22: The Doublethink is Palpable!

If Feminists want to exclaim that there are no physical differences between men and women: they have to stop advocating that women be given lower physical standards than men. In the marines, the Army, fire departments, police departments, etc. etc.

Feminists have yowled in response to low pass rates for women. Those occupations and institutions had low (sometimes 0) pass rates among women because women were expected to pass the SAME physical standards and tests as the men. As a result, Feminist lobbied and protested to create lower physical standards for women, because so few women could actually compete and achieve the same physical standards as men.

Recent examples below.

Police departments lower physical standards for women.

The Marines had to lower physical standards for women, because not one woman was able to pass the exact same physical requirements as the men. Who was forcing the marines to adopt lower standards for women? Feminists.

Feminists forced the Fire Department of New York to drop physical requirements for women: because when held to the SAME physical requirements as men – too few women were becoming fire fighters.

The Army Physical Standards for men and women is point evaluative. Based on age group and number of repetitions done (push ups, sit ups, 2 mile run time). Aside from situps: women have significantly lower standards in order to score 100 points in apt: which effects things like the ability to pass or fail, graduate or be held back and even promotions and pay grade.

Peak performance (highest quantitative measure to reach 100 points in most competitive age group) are as follows.
Male pushups: age 27 – 31. 77 pushups.
Female pushups: age 27 – 31. 50 pushups.
Male situps: age 27 – 31. 82 situps.
Female situps: age 27 – 31. 82 situps.
Male 2 mile run: age 17 – 26. 13 minutes.
Female 2 mile run: age 17 – 26. 15:36 minutes.


The current Olympic (meaning in the entire world) women’s weight lifting champion, in the highest weight division (meaning the athletes are permitted to weigh as much as they like, 75 kg+),

KASHIRINA, Tatiana of Russia lifted 151 kg in the “snatch” event on 05.08.2012 in London.
ZHOU, Lulu of China lifted 187 kg in the “Clean & Jerk” event on 05.08.2012, London
ZHOU, Lulu of China lifted 333 kg in the “total” event on 05.08.2012 in London London

That’s the women’s heaviest weightlifting division – those are Olympic athletes, the winners of the last Olympic games in those events – they’re Olympians, the absolute best athletes the world can produce in a generation. Meaning those two women who won those three events are the strongest women alive.

For male weightlifting athletes – you have to go all the way down in weight classes to the athletes who can’t weight over 69kg.

MARKOV, Georgi of Bulgaria lifted 165 kg in the “snatch” event on 20.09.2000, in Sydney
BOEVSKI, Galabin also of Bulgaria lifted 196 kg in the “Clean & Jerk” event on 20.09.2000 in Sydney
BOEVSKI, Galabin of Bulgaria lifted 357 kg in the “total” event on 20.09.2000, in Sydney

The 3rd smallest, lightest, weakest division of male weight lifters who have to weigh under a specific weight in order to compete – lift more than the women’s biggest, heaviest, strongest athletes who compete in a division which has absolutely no personal weight limit.

Feminism is based on ideology which requires indoctrination, suspension of disbelief, doublethink and irrational denial of reality in order to actively be accepted as being true.

Reality: shows that their ideological beliefs are a preposterously asinine delusion, every – single – time.

To accept as true –

A: If men and women competed together it would show men are not physically more capable.
+B: We have to lobby to lower physical standards for women because they can’t pass the same physical standards as men.

Simultaneously, without experiencing Cognitive Dissonance, or a sudden brain aneurysm: is unequivocal proof of brain washing that one ordinarily only finds present in cults.

The above A+B is a pristine and precise example of “doublethink”.

“Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.” ― George Orwell, 1984

Bullying Should NOT Start at Home

Feminism at it’s finest: ideological hatred bearing fruit.

Abusing one’s own child, for being born wrong.

Making fun of boys totally fair” By Treena Shapiro

“I do want to be able to explain to a 9-year-old boy in terms he will understand why I think it’s OK for girls to wear shirts that revel in their superiority over boys.”

….”revel in their superiority over boys”….


1. a person who promotes or advocates the supremacy of any particular group
2. characterized by belief in the supremacy of any particular group
su’premacism su’prematism n

Moving on….

“The T-shirts became an issue when my son Corwin begged me to buy his dad an “I beat your mom at Mario Kart” shirt as a testament to my poor video game skills.

Ha, ha, ha.

I struck back and suggested we buy his sister a shirt that said “Boys are stupid.”

So because his dad beat his Mom at an actual activity: she condones buying his little sister a shirt which simply insults him as being stupid. One is the accomplishment of an actual task, the other is simply an insult and denouncement of one’s intellect based upon gender. She’s willing to psychologically and emotionally abuse her own child…. because she lost at mario kart?

“That’s so offensive,” Corwin complained. “Why are they so mean? You have to write about it.”

In general, I support a girl’s right to offend any member of the opposite sex who happens to cross her path. In fact, I’d much rather see a little girl wearing a shirt that mocks boys than one that turns them on.”

Oh, but you seemed to not like the idea of his dad wearing a t’shirt saying he beat you at mario kart. So apparently you don’t support a male’s right to wear a t’shirt which is offensive….


For those of you not paying attention….


1. a person who promotes or advocates the supremacy of any particular group
2. characterized by belief in the supremacy of any particular group
su’premacism su’prematism n”

“That’s not a conversation I’m willing to have with a 9-year-old, though, so I used the equality argument instead.”

“Equality”…..Which you just failed….

“The problem is that even smart boys like Corwin sometimes have a hard time seeing the big picture.”

Ah, you mean they have a hard time comprehending your ideological prejudice towards males because he’s only 9 years old and you’re supposed to be HIS MOTHER! Of course he’s not going to comprehend the fact that you’re a bigot who’s manipulative and abusive to him, you’re his mother – he has nothing in his heart towards you except love.

He would never imagine you abusing him, he doesn’t understand, he doesn’t comprehend what he did wrong. He could not possibly contemplate the fact the person he looks to for love, kindness, compassion, affection and protection would be so endowed with prejudice and hate towards him for no greater crime than his having been BORN WRONG.

The fact that you would treat him with abject disregard is paradoxical to his young mind: he cannot begin to comprehend that you despise him for having the wrong combination of chromosomes. If I sat him down and explained this to him for hours on end into the earliest moments of the next dawn: his innocence would still fail to conceptually understand your ideological hatred for him.

“Mother is the word for God on the lips and hearts of all children.” Children whom you madam, do not deserve to have. You repay your child’s unconditional love, with unconditional hate – and I mourn the fact that this child is within your grasp.

“Maybe tomorrow’s women will be propelled further faster if they obliterate the inferiority complex that apparently persists in some girls, especially when it comes to subjects like math and science. This “boys are stupid” thinking could lead to the obvious conclusion: Girls are smart.”

Yes, dehumanize, degrade, insult and tear someone else down so that you can feel big. We have a word for that kind of person… Bully. Bullying Definition

“An unhappy teen boy walks away from bullying girls. Bullying is unwanted, aggressive behavior among school aged children that involves a real or perceived power imbalance. The behavior is repeated, or has the potential to be repeated, over time. Both kids who are bullied and who bully others may have serious, lasting problems.

In order to be considered bullying, the behavior must be aggressive and include:

An Imbalance of Power: Kids who bully use their power—such as physical strength, access to embarrassing information, or popularity—to control or harm others. Power imbalances can change over time and in different situations, even if they involve the same people.

Repetition: Bullying behaviors happen more than once or have the potential to happen more than once.

Bullying includes actions such as making threats, spreading rumors, attacking someone physically or verbally, and excluding someone from a group on purpose.

“Types of Bullying

Verbal bullying is saying or writing mean things. Verbal bullying includes:

Inappropriate sexual comments
Threatening to cause harm

“Boys are dumb”, teasing, name calling, taunting. Treena Shapiro, according to – you’re a bully and your victim is your own child. More over, you actually ENCOURAGE girls to bully boys. No evidence of prejudiced ideological hatred there, nooo, none what-so-ever. Effects of Bullying

A sick teen in the school nurse’s office. Bullying can affect everyone—those who are bullied, those who bully, and those who witness bullying. Bullying is linked to many negative outcomes including impacts on mental health, substance use, and suicide. It is important to talk to kids to determine whether bullying—or something else—is a concern.

Kids Who are Bullied

Kids who are bullied can experience negative physical, school, and mental health issues. Kids who are bullied are more likely to experience:

Depression and anxiety, increased feelings of sadness and loneliness, changes in sleep and eating patterns, and loss of interest in activities they used to enjoy. These issues may persist into adulthood.

Health complaints

Decreased academic achievement—GPA and standardized test scores—and school participation. They are more likely to miss, skip, or drop out of school.

A very small number of bullied children might retaliate through extremely violent measures. In 12 of 15 school shooting cases in the 1990s, the shooters had a history of being bullied.”

You think it’s completely and utterly appropriate to treat your child in this manner? Not just your child – but all boys should be subjected to bullying by girls. You are a child abuser: You are disgusting vermin. You should not be permitted within 500 yards of children.

“Unfortunately, there was no way for me to bring this home to a boy who lives in a world full of bright and successful women, including his teacher, principal, doctors and even the governor.”

Yes, you see – your ideology has conditioned you to completely ignore abject reality. So of course the child would be confused: he hasn’t been brain washed enough. He looks at reality; and accepts it as being reality.

You look at reality and still believe in a victimhood cult fantasy in which a secret group of overlords, called the patriarchy, have intentionally oppressed women for all of eternity. You can see that your child’s teacher, principal, doctors, the governor of your state and the boss to whom you and husband answer to are all women: and still believe in this exact same society that women are oppressed.

“It’s not fair, he says, because everyone knows that boys are smarter than girls.

Uh-huh … And he wonders why I support a girl’s right to put boys in their place.”

Yes, boys need to put in their place – thanks for pointing that out, Masa! Uppity slaves just aren’t very useful are they? Complaining about you instructing his sister to bully him is unfair. He should should learn his place, right?!

I say again: You are a child abuser – You are disgusting, repugnant and detestable vermin who should not be permitted within 500 yards of children!