The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

‘The Wounded Antelope of the Herd’

Posted on | June 6, 2016 | 107 Comments

Her blood-alcohol content was three times the legal driving limit, except she wasn’t driving. She had attended a fraternity party:

I had nothing better to do, so why not, there’s a dumb party ten minutes from my house, I would go, dance like a fool, and embarrass my younger sister. On the way there, I joked that undergrad guys would have braces. My sister teased me for wearing a beige cardigan to a frat party like a librarian. I called myself “big mama”, because I knew I’d be the oldest one there. I made silly faces, let my guard down, and drank liquor too fast not factoring in that my tolerance had significantly lowered since college.
The next thing I remember I was in a gurney in a hallway.

The 22-year-old, a recent graduate of the University of California at Santa Barbara, had been unconscious when she was sexually assaulted in an alley by a Stanford University freshman named Brock Turner:

The two bikers skidded to a stop on “Scary Path.” True to its nickname among Stanford students, the dirt trail on the edge of campus was home to something sinister in the early hours of Jan. 18, 2015.
The bikers were on their way to a frat party. They halted, however, at the sight of a man lying on top of a half-naked woman.
Normally, the bikers might have been amused to catch sight of fellow students having sex. But this was different.
The man, tall and slim and athletic, was thrusting atop the woman.
The woman wasn’t moving. At all.
“Is everything okay?” Lars Peter Jonsson, a Swedish graduate student, shouted.
When the man turned around, Jonsson could see the woman’s genitals were exposed.
“She didn’t react to my call,” Jonsson testified [March 25] in a Palo Alto, Calif., courtroom, according to the San Jose Mercury News. “I said, ‘What the f— are you doing? She’s unconscious.’”
The man tried to run away, but Jonsson and his friend caught him and pinned him to the ground until police came and made an arrest.

Last week, Brock Turner — a three-time All-American champion swimmer in high school who was once touted as a future Olympian — was sentenced to six months in county jail and three years’ probation:

Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Aaron Persky said he weighed Turner’s character, lack of criminal history and remorsefulness in determining to bypass the heavier penalty of six years in state prison requested by prosecutors.
With good behavior, Turner, 20, is expected to serve three months in county jail. He will have to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life and complete a sex offender management program. . . .
After Thursday’s hearing, District Attorney Jeff Rosen said Turner should have been sent to prison for sexual assault. “The punishment does not fit the crime,” he said.
In sentencing memos, prosecutors called Turner a “continued threat to the community” and asked the judge to sentence him to six years in state prison.

The leniency of Turner’s sentence has outraged feminists, and it would be the better part of valor not to further arouse their indignation. However, it is worth pointing out that (a) Turner was an 18-year-old freshman, (b) his blood-alcohol level was twice the legal limit, and (c) why does Stanford University allow fraternities to serve alcohol to teenagers?

This is the dirty little secret of so-called “rape culture” on our nation’s college campuses. The legal drinking age is 21, but teenagers want to get drunk, and so university administrations — and police in college towns — simply refuse to enforce the law. Are we supposed to believe that Stanford officials and the police in Palo Alto have no inkling that 18-year-olds are getting drunk at frat parties?

Under California law, “every person who sells, furnishes, gives, or causes to be sold, furnished, or given away any alcoholic beverage to any person under 21 years of age is guilty of a misdemeanor,” and “any person under 21 years of age who purchases any alcoholic beverage, or any person under 21 years of age who consumes any alcoholic beverage in any on-sale premises, is guilty of a misdemeanor.” So the fraternity which served alcohol to Brock Turner was engaged in a criminal enterprise, and furthermore, if furnishing alcohol to someone under 21 “proximately causes great bodily injury” — and, yeah, I think that would include rape — the provider can be sentenced to as much as a year in jail.

If drunk teenagers are committing rape at Stanford, doesn’t the university have an obligation to prevent its teenage students from getting drunk? There are limits to how far the administration can go in supervising its students’ extracurricular activities, but certainly if a fraternity is serving booze to 18-year-old freshmen — who then proceed to rape women who get drunk at these parties — the university is not powerless to act, nor are fraternities exempt from the authority of local law enforcement.

“No More Fun of Any Kind!”

Dean Vernon Wormer would know how to handle this problem, but Stanford University (annual tuition $46,320) spectacularly failed in its duty to protect Brock Turner from the known evils of Demon Rum:

Turner attended a party at the Kappa Alpha fraternity on the southwestern edge of Stanford’s Palo Alto campus . . .
At the party, he met a pair of sisters.
The older one had been reluctant to come out. The 22-year-old had recently graduated from the University of California at Santa Barbara and moved back in with her parents. She had a serious boyfriend in Philadelphia and planned to stay home.
But she changed her mind when her younger sister and her friends began to drink whiskey and champagne, she told the jury, according to the Mercury News.
After having four whiskey drinks at home, the woman and her sister were driven to Stanford to meet female friends. From there, the young women went to the party. . . .
According to Turner’s testimony, he and the woman danced and kissed at the party. Sometime around midnight, he asked her whether she would like to go back to his dorm and she said yes, Turner testified.
They held hands as they left the party, but then she slipped and they both fell, he said. Once on the ground, they started kissing near a trash bin, and when he asked whether he could touch her genitals, she once again agreed, he testified, according to the Mercury News.
When he asked her whether she liked it, she replied “uh huh” and then they started “dry humping,” he claimed in court.

This is not your typical “he-said/she-said” incident, because the woman has no memory at all of what happened that night. Her friends disputed Turner’s testimony, but evidently all of them were so drunk they didn’t even notice her leaving the party, and what can we conclude?

Here was a teenage boy, with a .16 blood-alcohol level — seriously drunk, but conscious and ambulatory — who sexually assaulted a passed-out woman with a .24 blood-alcohol level who has no memory of meeting Brock Turner, much less leaving the party with him or being sexually assaulted by him. “He may not look like a rapist,” the prosecutor told the jury at Turner’s trial, “but he is the . . . face of campus sexual assault.”


OK, if you say so — this is the face of campus sexual assault: Brock Turner, All-American swimmer, a teenage boy who got drunk at a frat party at an elite university where the administration tolerates underage drinking. We have the court statement of Turner’s victim:

My boyfriend did not know what happened, but called that day and said, “I was really worried about you last night, you scared me, did you make it home okay?” I was horrified. That’s when I learned I had called him that night in my blackout, left an incomprehensible voicemail, that we had also spoken on the phone, but I was slurring so heavily he was scared for me, that he repeatedly told me to go find [my sister]. . . .
When the detective asked [Turner] if he had planned on taking me back to his dorm, he said no. When the detective asked how we ended up behind the dumpster, he said he didn’t know. He admitted to kissing other girls at that party, one of whom was my own sister who pushed him away. He admitted to wanting to hook up with someone. I was the wounded antelope of the herd, completely alone and vulnerable, physically unable to fend for myself, and he chose me. Sometimes I think, if I hadn’t gone, then this never would’ve happened. But then I realized, it would have happened, just to somebody else. You were about to enter four years of access to drunk girls and parties, and if this is the foot you started off on, then it is right you did not continue. . . .
Alcohol is not an excuse. Is it a factor? Yes. But alcohol was not the one who stripped me, fingered me, had my head dragging against the ground, with me almost fully naked. Having too much to drink was an amateur mistake that I admit to, but it is not criminal. Everyone in this room has had a night where they have regretted drinking too much, or knows someone close to them who has had a night where they have regretted drinking too much. Regretting drinking is not the same as regretting sexual assault. We were both drunk, the difference is I did not take off your pants and underwear, touch you inappropriately, and run away. That’s the difference.

Parents must warn their teenage sons about this: Whatever happens in any sexual situation, only he can be held legally responsible.

In the 21st century, no woman is ever responsible for anything.

As for my daughters, I warn them never to get drunk, and certainly to avoid elite universities like Stanford, where all the boys are rapists.


Is There Hope for Feminists?

Posted on | June 6, 2016 | 46 Comments


Why does God permit boastful fornicators to prosper? Why doesn’t the Lord visit swift destruction upon the wicked and godless?

My friend Pete Da Tech Guy is a devout Catholic who thinks we should pray for God to save feminists from their satanic folly, but I have difficulty imagining that someone as far gone as Laurie Penny could ever repent. My attitude toward genuinely wicked people — and Laurie Penny is pure evil — is that we should pray their folly soon destroys them. We know that all feminists are eternally doomed to Hell. What we need is for these fools to suffer such catastrophic earthly consequences of their own hatefulness that they can no longer lead others to destruction.

That’s just my opinion, of course, and I’m not sure it’s theologically sound. Maybe it’s even sinful to think that way. However, there may be hope to redeem those lost souls inside the feminist death cult:

Kathleen Taylor, a neurologist at Oxford University, said that recent developments suggest that we will soon be able to treat religious fundamentalism and other forms of ideological beliefs potentially harmful to society as a form of mental illness. . . .
She said that radicalizing ideologies may soon be viewed not as being of personal choice or free will but as a category of mental disorder. She said new developments in neuroscience could make it possible to consider extremists as people with mental illness rather than criminals.
She told The Times of London: “One of the surprises may be to see people with certain beliefs as people who can be treated. Someone who has for example become radicalized to a cult ideology — we might stop seeing that as a personal choice that they have chosen as a result of pure free will and may start treating it as some kind of mental disturbance.” . . .
In 2006, she wrote a book about mind control titled “Brainwashing: The Science of Thought Control,” in which she examined the techniques that cultic groups use to influence victims. . . .
She notes correctly that “brainwashing” which embraces all the subtle and not-so-subtle ways “we make people think things that might not be good for them, that they might not otherwise have chosen to think,” is a much more pervasive social phenomenon than we are willing to recognize.

(Hat-tip: Instapundit.) Indeed, most victims of brainwashing — Gender Studies majors, for example — seldom realize they have joined a cult. Some people become so brainwashed they take Laurie Penny seriously.

“Especially important is the warning to avoid conversations with the demon. . . . He is a liar. The demon is a liar. He will lie to confuse us. But he will also mix lies with the truth to attack us. The attack is psychological, Damien, and powerful. So don’t listen to him. Remember that — do not listen.”
The Exorcist (1973)

Of course, we should take Laurie Penny seriously as a manifestation of demonic influence, but otherwise, she’s just a pathetic joke.


‘The Personal Is Political’: Feminism and the Problem With Keeping Score

Posted on | June 5, 2016 | 45 Comments


One of the basic problems with feminism is that, by making equality the measure of human happiness, the feminist purchases an infinite supply of resentment. If you convince yourself that everything in the world should be divvied up equally, and that any observable instance of inequality is proof of oppression — social injustice! — you will become permanently angry, and perfectly miserable. Ronald Reagan once mocked the fundamental error of the egalitarian worldview: “We have so many people who can’t see a fat man standing beside a thin one without coming to the conclusion the fat man got that way by taking advantage of the thin one.”

If you believe inequality is a synonym for injustice, then you must see injustice everywhere, because in order for everyone to be “equal,” we would all have to be identical. This is exactly what feminists have in mind, of course, when they speak of achieving equality by abolishing “gender.”

“Gender is a hierarchical system which maintains the subordination of females as a class to males through force. Gender is a material system of power which uses violence and psychological coercion to exploit female labor, sex, reproduction, emotional support, etc., for the benefit of males. Gender is not natural or voluntary, since a person is not naturally subordinate and no one chooses to be subordinated.”
Rachel Ivey, 2013

Only if you view the world through the warped lenses of a crypto-Marxist ideology is it possible to see male-female differences as a “system of power” characterized by “violence and psychological coercion.” Yet this bizarre worldview is what inspires the feminist T-shirt slogan “Raise Boys and Girls the Same Way,” which presumes that a gender-free androgynous childhood will eliminate inequality (“the subordination of women as a class”) by eliminating differences between men and women.

Actually, what gender-free childhood will produce is failure.

Common sense plays no part in feminist discourse, or else the problem with their egalitarian androgynous idealism would be obvious to them.

Normal women like masculine men and normal men like feminine women. Why are my teenage sons hitting the gym and drinking protein shakes? Enhancing their muscularity is a way to gain an advantage in the grand Darwinian competition against other young males, and if your teenage sons aren’t doing their reps on the bench press and the squat rack, guess what? They’re going to lose that competition.

“Women are attracted to successful men, and the competitive drive for success is therefore intrinsic to men’s ‘sex role.’ Every attempt to escape this logic is doomed. . . . Winners win and losers lose and, ultimately, no political agenda can change this.”
Robert Stacy McCain, 2015

Boys compete with boys and girls compete with girls. This is the natural order, which produces a natural hierarchy and, whatever our own situation might be in terms of this hierarchy, no one with common sense would think the way to “fix” it is to have girls compete against boys.

Feminism is based on a zero-sum game mentality which conceives of every interaction between men and women as a manifestation of unjust “male privilege” whereby women are exploited and oppressed. From the feminist perspective, whatever any man has — in terms of career achievement, financial resources or social prestige — he has gained by oppressing women. The more success a man achieves, the more “male privilege” he possesses, according to feminism, and so the most successful man must also be the most oppressive man. Therefore, to bring about “equality,” the goal of feminism must be to prevent male success.

This is insanity, of course, but this is where the logic of feminism leads.

“Women are an oppressed class. Our oppression is total, affecting every facet of our lives. . . .
“We identify the agents of our oppression as men. . . . All men receive economic, sexual, and psychological benefits from male supremacy. All men have oppressed women.”

Redstockings, “Manifesto,” 1969

“Feminist consciousness is consciousness of victimization . . . to come to see oneself as a victim.”
Sandra Lee Bartky, Femininity and Domination: Studies in the Phenomenology of Oppression (1990)

“Feminism involves the implicit claim that the prevailing conditions under which women live are unjust and must be changed.”
Carol R. McCann and Seung-Kyung Kim, Feminist Theory Reader: Local and Global Perspectives (2003)

“All women are prisoners and hostages to men’s world. Men’s world is like a vast prison or concentration camp for women. This isn’t a metaphor, it’s reality. Each man is a threat. We can’t escape men.”
Radical Wind, Aug. 8, 2013

“Radical Feminism is, and has always been a political movement focused on liberating girls and women, those who are born into the sex caste female, from the unnatural, yet universal roles patriarchy has assigned.”
“Radical Feminism,”, July 26, 2014

Viewing life as a quasi-Marxist “class struggle” between men and women, as collective groups with mutually antagonistic interests, feminist ideology makes cooperation between men and women impossible. Cooperation in the sense of teamwork assumes that each member of the team has some individual ability to contribute to the overall effort, and in terms of male-female cooperation in marriage and parenthood (which is the fundamental basis of human society) such cooperation inevitably requires role differentiation. This does not mean that the definition of male and female roles must be “rigid” or “polar” (the kind of pejorative language feminists use to disparage “gender roles”), but still we see that certain general patterns of male-female roles persist in family life, despite decades of feminist efforts to eradicate these differences. From the perspective of economics, these patterns can be viewed in terms of division of labor, specialization and efficiencies of scale, but there is no need to do a complete analysis of “gender” in search of an ideal system of male-female cooperation. At the level of individual behavior, each couple works out their relationship and family life as suits them best, within the constraints of the available resources and in consideration of their own abilities. Each of us does the best we can, for ourselves, our spouses and our children — but this is never good enough for feminists.

“The personal is political,” a slogan coined by Carol Hanisch in 1969, was essentially a denial of individual agency in private relationships, an argument derived from feminist “consciousness-raising” groups:

One of the first things we discover in these groups is that personal problems are political problems. There are no personal solutions at this time. There is only collective action for a collective solution.

By intruding the politics of “collective action” into personal relationships, feminism thereby annihilates privacy. This is a totalitarian principle, very similar to the ideas of Mao’s “Cultural Revolution.” There can be no individual freedom — “no personal solutions” — because this might permit people to behave in ways contrary to the egalitarian goals that “collective action” is aimed to achieve. Insofar as everything in society is not perfectly equal between men and women, feminism requires that every private action and personal relationship be subjected to political scrutiny, to determine how it reflects the “prevailing conditions” of oppression from which women must be liberated. Read more

WaPo (& By Extension, Beltway) Ideas Mired In 19th Cent. Regarding Tea Party

Posted on | June 5, 2016 | 6 Comments

by Smitty

Among the laundry list of problems with Progress is that freezing the size of the House since 1910 has given us an inert Deep State and a crypto-aristocracy on top. We’re supposed to locate people with the fortitude to survive the campaigns and then send them back to the trough again and again to make sure that a “fair share” of the future being mortgaged trickles down to the States, and hopefully makes it beyond the borders of the State capitol.

When she ran six years ago, Ellmers joined the bus tour hosted by the Koch-backed Americans for Prosperity that traveled the country railing against President Obama’s health care law. She later spoke at rallies hosted or co-sponsored by the group and promoted AFP events. In 2010, she even nabbed an endorsement from Sarah Palin.

Now, AFP is one of the main players in the costly crusade to oust Ellmers in the group’s premier foray to defeat an incumbent in a Republican race. Others taking on the congresswoman include the Club for Growth and the antiabortion National Right to Life and Susan B. Anthony List.

And why shouldn’t AFP? What is so flipping magical inside that Beltway that anybody gets re-elected At. All.

No. Expanding on Mark Twain, Capitol Hill, like any compost heap, merits frequent turning, and for the same reason. This is a trend that I expect will continue as we crawl out of the Obama/[YourGuessHere] era: voters continuing to do to the public sector what’s been done to the private. I’ve proven the anti-prophet at every turn since commencing blogging, so I won’t hazard a guess just how much desert we have to wander through to get to The Glorious Future, but fuggedabodit–I’m an optimist.

Let’s get Stacy’s cousin safely out to pasture, please, Arizona.

Rule 5 Sunday: D is for Debbie

Posted on | June 5, 2016 | 11 Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho

Generally speaking, I don’t care much for blondes, but I’ve always made an exception for Debbie Harry, lead singer of Blondie. I’ve always liked the band since its origins in punk, and the fact that the lead singer was a hot ex-Playboy Bunny was just icing on the cake. And so, this week’s appetizer, commemorating “Atomic”, one of the singles off Eat to the Beat. For the benefit of anyone reading Rule 5 Sunday for the first time, many of the following links are to pics generally considered NSFW, and if you insist on clicking with a complete lack of discretion, the management is not responsible for the ugly consequences.

“Your hair is beautiful…”

Leading off this week is 90 Miles from Tyranny, with Hot Pick of the Late Night, Morning Mistress, and Girls with Guns, followed by Goodstuff with Bernadette Peters, Animal Magnetism with Rule 5 Inequality Friday and the Saturday Gingermageddon,  The Last Tradition with Gigi Hadid and Amber Rose, and First Street Journal with Basic Combat Training.

EBL’s herd of (occasionally mutant) heifers this week includes Quakers, Jessica Valenti, Amber Heard, Gilly from Game of Thrones, Gals and Gorillas, Alexandria Vera, and Bobbie Gentry.

A View from the Beach offers Belgian Waffle – Rose BertramNarcissistic Actress Celebrates UCLA Shooting With Selfie“Leather and Lace”It’s Always Nice to Have an EndowmentTurkish Model Gets Suspended Sentence for Bad PoetryAmber Heard Granted TRO against Johnny DeppPrepare for Sharknado 2016!, and A Reporter Really Dives into Her Work.

Proof Positive’s Friday Night Babe is Christen Harper, his vintage babe is Suzan Ball, and there’s a bonus link to Flowing Curves of Beauty. At Dustbury, it’s Shirley Manson and Bobbie Gentry.

Thanks to everyone for their linkagery! Deadline to submit links to the Rule 5 Wombat mailbox for next week’s Rule 5 Sunday is midnight on Saturday, June 11; deadline to submit links to the Wombat-socho mailbox for the FMJRA is noon on Saturday.

Eat To The Beat
Visit Amazon’s Intimate Apparel Shop

FMJRA 2.0: D-Day

Posted on | June 4, 2016 | 4 Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho

Rule 5 Sunday: O Girls!
Animal Magnetism
Batshit Crazy News
Proof Positive
A View from the Beach
90 Miles from Tyranny

New York City Is a Wretched Hive of Scum and Villainy — Just Ask @JessicaValenti!
Brother Andrew’s Muses
First Street Journal
Living In Anglo-America
Batshit Crazy News

FMJRA 2.0: Live From Baltimore
The Pirate’s Cove
Batshit Crazy News
A View from the Beach

Feminism and ‘Strong Delusion’
Batshit Crazy News

Johnny Depp, Chump?
Dark Brightness
Batshit Crazy News
A View from the Beach

Surrender Without a Fight?
Batshit Crazy News

Feminism: Hatred as ‘Social Justice’ (or Why @MostlyPregnant Won’t Apologize)
Animal Magnetism
Batshit Crazy News

In The Mailbox, 05.31.16
Batshit Crazy News
Proof Positive
A View from the Beach

Why Do College Girls Lie About Rape?
Batshit Crazy News

Student Offers to Debate Feminists About the ‘Rape Epidemic’ and Guess What?
Batshit Crazy News

In The Mailbox, 06.01.16
Batshit Crazy News
Proof Positive
A View from the Beach

Julie Bindel Is Right: Marriage Can Never Be Feminist (So Don’t Marry a Feminist)
Batshit Crazy News

‘An Alphabet Squad of Weird Genders’
The Pirate’s Cove

In The Mailbox: 06.02.16
Batshit Crazy News
Proof Positive
A View from the Beach

Oberlin College Is Decadent and Depraved
Inoperable Terran
Batshit Crazy News

Stereotypes Are Accurate (and Feminists at DePaul Are Man-Hating Witches)
Living In Anglo-America
Batshit Crazy News

Is Amber Heard ‘Duplicitous, Untrustworthy, and Indecisive’?
Batshit Crazy News

In The Mailbox: 06.03.16
Da Tech Guy
Batshit Crazy News
Proof Positive

Top linkers this week:

  1.  Batshit Crazy News (17)
  2.  A View from the Beach (6)
  3.  Proof Positive (5)

‘Social Justice’ and the End of Fun

Posted on | June 4, 2016 | 22 Comments

Today I was scrolling around feminist sites when I saw another angry young Tumblrina ranting about the patriarchy (because a guy was rude on the subway) and it hit me why this bothers me so much: When I was a teenager, life was fun because America was a free country.

Don’t get me wrong. There was plenty of misery and loneliness in the world during the 1970s, but people didn’t have to tiptoe around in fear they might say something “offensive” to somebody. In fact, America in the 1970s was arguably a Golden Age of free expression. The great convulsive upheaval of the 1960s — stuff that happened while I was in elementary school — had the effect of undoing many of the constraints on art, music, literature, movies and TV that had previously imposed limits on what you could say or write. So when I was a teenager, my buddies and I could listen to comedy albums by George Carlin, Richard Pryor and Cheech and Chong saying stuff that was hilarious in part because it was stuff you weren’t supposed to say. We went to the movies and saw Blazing Saddles, Kentucky Fried Movie and Animal House — movies that were a deliberate poke in the eye of “good taste.” National Lampoon was full of wicked satire, “Doctor Demento” was on the radio every week, Saturday Night Live was in its glory days and, for anyone with a sense of humor, the 1970s was a great decade to be alive, because there were no rules.


What about freedom, huh? When did we turn into a nation of busybodies and tattletales, constantly pointing the finger of blame at each other? Everybody’s yelling accusations — racism! sexism! homophobia! — and trying to silence anybody who says anything they don’t like.

Long before my @rsmccain Twitter account got shut down by these feminist totalitarians, I was conscious of how the #GamerGate controversy had exposed the busybody/tattletale third-grade hall-monitor mentality of the 21st-century “progressive” movement. Allum Bokhari coined the term “cultural libertarianism” to describe the emerging opposition to the rigid political correctness that so-called “Social Justice Warriors” (SJWs) seek to impose on public discourse.


This is what Milo Yiannopoulos and the “Dangerous Faggot” tour is all about. Milo doesn’t even have to say anything to spark a left-wing riot on university campuses. His mere existence offends progressives so much that you could shut down any college in America for a day, merely by announcing that Milo would be there. If he missed his flight and didn’t even show up for the speech, you’d still have a bunch of angry fat girls with bad hair stomping around campus chanting stupid slogans, claiming to be “traumatized” by the thought that someone who disagreed with them had been invited to speak. So if Milo missed a connecting flight in Atlanta or Chicago, he’d still be trying to get a new ticket and meanwhile, outside the university auditorium 800 miles away, protesters would be screaming themselves hoarse in paroxysms of rage for no reason at all.

How did we get here? Who is to blame for the fact that so many “educated” young people have no sense of humor and are unable even to understand how ludicrous their aggrieved mau-mau pose is?

Also, why do mobs of crazy people show up to protest Trump rallies? We’re five months away from Election Day, and all the “experts” keep telling us there’s no way Trump can win, so why bother? If you live in California — a state that hasn’t gone Republican in a presidential election in more than 20 years — why get so worked up about it?

California is a gigantic lunatic asylum, full of psychotics, perverts and Communists. It’s almost as bad as New York City, except the weather is better in California and the women aren’t as ugly as New York women.

Look, I don’t claim to have any solutions to all the world’s problems, but if feminism was the solution to women’s oppression, don’t you think maybe after all this time it would have solved the problem? Are creeps on the subway in New York less creepy than they were in 1968? Are there more creeps on the subway, or less? Is there more rape on college campuses or less? Please, tell me what you expect me to do about these problems. I don’t live in New York and I’m not a college student, but as far as I can tell from reading feminist blogs, both New York City and college campuses are terrible places where evil violent men constantly terrorize helpless women, and yet women nevertheless continue (a) going to college and (b) moving to New York after they graduate. You want a solution to this problem? You want “social justice”? OK, we should abolish college education and, as for New York City . . .

Drastic, you say? Well, sure, but if you want to solve the problem, it’s obvious that drastic measures will necessary. Once we’ve wiped New York City off the map with a thermonuclear blast, then maybe those Commie a–holes in California will understand we mean business.


In The Mailbox: 06.03.16

Posted on | June 3, 2016 | 1 Comment

— compiled by Wombat-socho

EBL: Democrat Thuggery – Disgraceful Dem Sam Liccardo And the Promotion Of Violence Against Trump Supporters
Michelle Malkin: Sanctuary City San Jose’s Climate Of Hate And Violence
Twitchy: #PPSellsBabyParts Scandal Gets Even More Disgusting

American Power: Open-Borders Activist Ireri Carrasco Sues Obama Administration Over Deferred Deportation
American Thinker: “Roots” Remake – Snoop Dogg Got It Right
Da Tech Guy: Fausta – David Frum And The Seven Guardrails
Don Surber: None Dare Call It Fascism
Jammie Wearing Fools: High School Principal Praised By DiBlasio Covered Up Gang Rape
Joe For America: Joe The Plumber Endorses Trump, Cracks Up Stuart Varney
JustOneMinute: The Brownshirts Are Coming, But Whose Side Are They On?
Pamela Geller: Qatar Gives Texas School $100K To Push Arabic, Islam
Shark Tank: Debbie Wassermann Schultz Has A Weed Problem
Shot In The Dark: A Rhetorical Question, Sort Of, For The Rev. Nancy Nord Bence
STUMP: Rahm’s “Win” Means Pensions Lose, or, You Can’t Tell Us We Can’t Kick The Can, Rauner!
The Jawa Report: TRIGGER WARNING – Feminist Rage Compilation
The Lonely Conservative: Director Of Georgia ACLU Quits After Daughters Scared By Men In Womens’ Room
The Political Hat: Lady Gaga Praises Her Dear Leader
This Ain’t Hell: The Political Opinions At VFW Halls
Weasel Zippers: Minneapolis Police Union Leader Says “Black Lives Matter Is A Terrorist Organization”
Megan McArdle: A Sad Fact From Today’s Bag Of Hate Mail

Shop Amazon Fashion – Take 20% Off Women’s Swimwear & Cover-Ups
Shop Amazon – Now 100+ Dash Buttons

« go backkeep looking »