The Other McCain

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

Faisal Mohammad: Authorities Say Stabbings at UC-Merced Not Terrorism

Posted on | November 6, 2015 | 78 Comments

The knife-wielding student who stabbed four people Wednesday before being shot by police at the University of California-Merced was not acting on a political motive, officials say. Faisal Mohammad, 18, was pursuing a personal vendetta against fellow students who had excluded him from a study group, according to authorities:

The California student who went on a stabbing rampage before being shot dead by police had planned to kill a police officer, steal a gun and shoot the classmates who had kicked him out of a study group.
Faisal Mohammad, 18, a freshman who majored in computer science and engineering at the University of California, Merced, stabbed four people on Wednesday.
But the teenager, of Santa Clara, California, ‘had far greater intentions to do damage’, Merced County Sheriff Vern Warnke said.
According to a two-page manifesto found stuffed in his pocket during an autopsy on Thursday, Mohammad had a detailed plan of revenge for the students who had expelled him from their group.
Mohammad had been carrying two plastic baggies of highly flammable petroleum jelly, ziptie handcuffs, night vision goggles, duct tape and a hammer in his backpack when he was shot in the back by officers.
He had planned to hold students hostage by using the plastic ties to bind their hands to their desks during class on Wednesday morning.
hen, he planned to call police with a fake distress call, ambush the responding officers and take their guns.
He intended to squirt the petroleum jelly on the floor to create a slippery surface for anyone entering the classroom.
But his attack on the class was foiled almost immediately and the four people he stabbed with a hunting knife — two students, a staff member and a building contractor — are all expected to recover.
Sheriff Warnke said the document written by Mohammad discussed his expulsion from the study group and listed the students he sought to harm as well as other violent musings.
Warnke added that although Mohammad made several references to ‘Allah’, he does not believe the attack was connected to religion or terrorism.
Earlier on Thursday, UC Merced Chancellor Dorothy Leland said the attacks were motivated by ‘personal animosities’ and a ‘vendetta’, not a political agenda. . . .
The student, described as ‘anti-social’ by his roommate, was ‘having fun’, one victim said, as he slashed the first student in the throat inside a classroom.
When construction worker Byron Price, 31, heard the commotion and intervened, he was stabbed in his left side by Mohammad as he tried to stop the attack.
‘He had a smile on his face, he was having fun — which is more what bothers me,’ Price told CBSFresno.
Sheriff Vern Warnke said that Price’s entrance into the classroom likely prevented the death of the first victim who was attacked.

Despite official statements that Mohammad’s attack was motivated by personal grievances, several commentators — including Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer — noted the resemblance between the UC-Merced violence and a recent series of knife attacks by Palestinian terrorists against Jews in Israel:

The Twitter account on which the attack was praised appears to be one of thousands that regularly reference ISIS, according to Terrorism Research & Analysis Consortium (TRAC), which translated the message. Veryan Khan, of TRAC, which monitors ISIS and other groups on social media, said ISIS mounted a call for stabbings on Oct. 18, with the release 19 videos, but could not say what motivated Wednesday’s attack.
“Over the past three days, the Islamic State has released nineteen videos encouraging Palestinians stabbing attacks on Israel,” Khan said. “The media campaign coincides with a wave of renewed violence between Israel and Palestine, after a wave of seemingly lone wolf attacks by Palestinians targeting Israelis.”

Determining the motive of a “lone wolf” terrorist could be difficult. Even if Mohammad himself declared his actions to be a matter of personal revenge, it may be that his antisocial attitude — the moody loner fantasizing about violent reprisals against those he felt had wronged him — could reflect the cultural alienation of a young Muslim man unable to adapt to secular Western society. Speculation about such factors, which liberals would condemn as “Islamophobia” when regarding Muslim criminals, is commonplace when violence is committed by persons whose background and choice of targets could be interpreted as suggesting a “right-wing” political motivation. If the UC-Merced attack had been perpetrated by a white Christian male who praised God in his “manifesto,” liberals would be quick to claim that this was right-wing violence inspired by talk radio, Fox News or Republican politicians.

The difference between (a) legitimately trying to understand the motives of attackers, and (b) trying to score political points for partisan advantage, is one we should always keep in mind when we see how the liberal media pick and choose which violent incidents to give saturation coverage, and how that coverage presents the “moral of the story.”

Too many journalists view the news as a series of opportunities to indulge in didacticism, intended to teach the news consumer liberal political lessons. This attitude means that events which don’t fit the liberal narrative are treated as “local news” of no national significance, whereas events that lend themselves to a liberal interpretation are highlighted, given in-depth coverage and made a focus of commentary by “experts” and pundits. Conservative criticism of media bias should be aimed at exposing to public scrutiny the falsehoods and distortions created by the political prejudices that prevail in the news industry.

People must have access to every fact in order to be able to form accurate judgments, and media bias tends to deprive people of facts that would lead people to question the liberal worldview. Once people realize that the media are attempting to deceive them, and that this attempted deception has political motives — e.g., to enhance the electoral success of the Democrat Party — then they begin to view media skeptically, to question the accuracy of what is reported, to seek out facts that are overlooked by the liberal media. There is a difference between skepticism and paranoia, of course, but once we realize that the partisan tilt in America’s newsrooms favors Democrat over Republicans by a factor of at least 4-to-1, there is never thereafter a moment when we can entirely trust the media to tell us the whole truth.

Rush Limbaugh: The Conservative-Media
Revolution Has Forced the Liberal Media
to Abandon Any Pretense of Objectivity

Limbaugh’s point is that in the past 30 years, under pressure from conservative critics, allegedly “objective” journalists have been unable to maintain their pretense of neutrality. The biased reporters, editors and producers at major news organizations like NBC, ABC, the Associated Press and the New York Times are no longer able to imagine that they are doing anything else than performing as cheerleaders for the Democrat Party. They cannot pretend to be anything other than partisan propagandists and, knowing that their readers and viewers are aware of their dishonesty, these journalists must either drop the mask of “objectivity” or else lose whatever self-respect they ever had.





 

Category: Education, Islam, Media Bias, Terrorism

Friday Fiction: 100 Word Story

Posted on | November 6, 2015 | 4 Comments

by Smitty

The sisters spied him and looked discreetly out the window as they sat on the loveseat; young, aristocratic, unapproachable.
We approached. They turned, and I immediately botched it: “I you ladies spoke the fork Ball?”
“What?”
Joe bailed me out: “What Jim was trying to ask before he was overcome with your radiance is whether you ladies had been invited to the Thanksgiving Ball.”
They blushed in stereo and the one closest to the window replied: “No, and maybe.”
We were set, both then, and a year later at the double wedding.
I never lived down the initial fumble, though.

via Darleen

Update: here’s a stomach churner for you.

Category: Friday Fiction

In The Mailbox: 11.05.15

Posted on | November 5, 2015 | 1 Comment

— compiled by Wombat-socho


OVER THE TRANSOM
EBL: Paul Ehrlich Is Freaking Out Again
First Street Journal: Who Knew The KY Speaker Of The House Was As Dumb As Amanda Marcotte?
Da Tech Guy: Carson’s Numbers Scare The Left
Louder With Crowder: The Real CNBC Debate – Trump V. Carson
Doug Powers: Democrats Lose, Progressive Causes Fail In Progressive Cities, NYT Notes Rise Of The Angry (Conservative) Voter
Twitchy: Brad Paisley, Carrie Underwood Criticized For “Transphobic” Joke At Last Night’s CMA


RIPPED FROM THE HEADLINES
American Power: Politics Isn’t Local Any More
American Thinker: Liberals – Not Loyal To Anything
BLACKFIVE: Metrojet Flight 9268, Daesh, And Russia, Oh My!
Conservatives4Palin: Governor Palin Congratulates Kentucky
Don Surber: Meth Heads For Hillary
Jammie Wearing Fools: Michelle Obama Visits Repressive Qatar, Whines About Growing Up In Oppressive Chicago
Joe For America: CAIR To Have Float In Tulsa Veterans Day Parade?
JustOneMinute: A Newly Normal Stroll Down Memory Lane
Pamela Geller: Hamtramck, Michigan Elects America’s First Majority-Muslim City Council
Shot In The Dark: Why We Never Call Gun Grabbers “Gun Safety Activists”
The Gateway Pundit: UC Merced Stabber Named – Faisal Muhammad Was Wearing All Black During His Knife Attack
The Jawa Report: Sandcrawler PSA – Help An Akhi Out?
The Lonely Conservative: Reporter Tossed From Pro-Illegal Immigration Rally After Asking The Wrong Questions
This Ain’t Hell: Poking The Russian Bear
Weasel Zippers: FBI Reportedly Finds Enough Classified Materials In Clinton Email To Charge Her
Megan McArdle: Democrats Lost The War For Staying Power
Mark Steyn: Fly The Blacklist Skies


Shop Amazon – Give the Gift of Amazon Prime

Category: Linkagery

The @Salon Pedophile Click-Bait Magical Internet Outrage Marketing Machine

Posted on | November 5, 2015 | 71 Comments

The liberal blog known as Salon-dot-com has spent the past 20 years losing money at a rate of more than a million dollars a year. Total losses by Salon-dot-com during the course of its existence are, as I said in 2012, “probably somewhere between $20 million and a metric buttload.” A few years ago, the proprietors of Salon-dot-com tried to sell it to another media company but negotiations reportedly broke down because nobody could figure out what Salon was worth, if anything. Exactly what the “investors” at Salon-dot-com aim to achieve — beyond providing employment for liberal writers — is uncertain, but profit is certainly not a goal. Promoting pedophilia on the other hand . . .

“I’m a Pedophile, But Not a Monster” was the headline on a particularly egregious recent example of Salon-dot-com’s habit of making soi-disant “counterintuitive” arguments on behalf of sexual deviance. Over the years, they have done this with every imaginable perversion and fetish. Nothing is too weird or too kinky for Salon-dot-com, whose editors are enthusiastically in favor of every kind of sex except normal sex. Your regular variety of husband-and-wife, penis-and-vagina sexuality — no, Salon-dot-com never has anything to say in praise of the kind of normal sex that normal people have. Instead, they’re always looking for the Confession of Strange Sex story, “How I Worked My Way Through Grad School as a Bisexual BDSM Dominatrix-for-Hire” or something.

The pro-pedophile stance of Salon-dot-com could be seen as just another example of their attempting to get cheap clicks, boosting their traffic by appealing to readers with perverse sexual appetites, i.e., Obama voters.

So when Salon-dot-com provided a platform to self-confessed pedophile Todd Nickerson, the Internet went wild with condemnation. The peasants in the online village wanted to take their digital pitchforks after Nickerson, to burn him at the Internet stake. Announcing himself to the world as a Creepy Dude Who Wants to Have Sex With Kids was not the kind of gesture for which pedophile Todd Nickerson could have expected to be praised, and yet the creepy dude nonetheless pretended to be shocked — shocked! — by the angry reaction:

I’m a pedophile, you’re the monsters: My
week inside the vile right-wing hate machine
My pedophilia essay outraged the right. My attempt to
humanize a real problem brought out their nastiest rage

You see? According to Salon-dot-com, you have nothing to fear from the Creepy Dude Who Wants to Have Sex With Kids. Instead, Salon-dot-com would have you believe, the real danger is “the vile right-wing hate machine.” It is the eagerness of Salon-dot-com’s editors to promote this bizarre worldview, in which Republicans are more dangerous than pedophiles, that makes “investors” willing to lose millions of dollars year after year to keep that crappy web site online.

Breitbart.com’s John Sexton had the distinction of being singled out by Todd Nickerson as an example of “vile right-wing hate,” and you see what that is about: Nothing says “right-wing hate” in the liberal mind more than the name “Breitbart” — you remember him, the guy who exposed a Democrat congressman as a pervert? Democrat politicians are perverts because Democrat voters are perverts who support Democrat policies that promote perversion, which are always praised by the Democrat perverts who write for sites like Salon-dot-com. Mothers are warning their children: “Stay away from that creep — he’s got an Obama sticker on his car. He’s probably a Salon-dot-com reader!”

Democrats are people who will tolerate anything — radical Islam, an illegal immigrant crime wave, transgenderism in public schools, rioters demonizing the police — as long as this “tolerance” is sold to them as “progressive,” and if they can convince themselves that the alternative to tolerating these things is to vote Republican. So if your son is being molested by his middle-school teacher, or your daughter is being “groomed” by a pervert on the Internet, you’re supposed to shrug this off as the necessary cost of “tolerance.” Actually wanting to do something to protect kids would make you part of the “vile right-wing hate machine,” and how can a Democrat voter even imagine doing that?

These “progressive” perverts celebrate the murder of innocent babies in the womb, and want to “humanize” child molesters, and you are guilty of “vile hate” if you disapprove of their agenda. But wait, look, here is yet another writer at Salon-dot-com, lamenting that an “intellectually curious” pedophile was arrested for trying to meet with a 10-year-old girl:

I tell friends, colleagues, and strangers I meet . . . when they fail to understand why I am sympathetic towards pedophiles, “How would you feel if you couldn’t ever have sex with anyone? What if you also couldn’t look at the porn you liked because it was illegal, and couldn’t confide in anyone for support?” By this point, most people begin nodding their heads in agreement.

(Are they nodding in agreement? Or are they thinking to themselves, “How can I keep this fruitcake away from my children?”)

The backlash that Todd Nickerson faced upon publicly writing about his personal struggle with pedophilia is a reminder that we, as a society, have far to go in challenging the way we think about this emotionally charged subject. But our current approach is not working.

So “we, as a society” are to blame for the “personal struggle with pedophila” of Creepy Dudes Who Want to Have Sex With Kids.

The “investors” at Salon-dot-com are willing to lose millions of dollars a year to make sure that message is delivered to the Democrat voters who read Salon-dot-com. Because “our current approach” — banning child pornography and putting child molesters in prison — “is not working,” you see. And for whom are these laws “not working”?

Creepy Dudes Who Want to Have Sex With Kids.

Also, “our current approach” is bad for the Democrat Party, because if pedophiles and child pornographers are serving long sentences in federal prison, they can’t vote for Democrats anymore.





 

Category: Liberals

In The Mailbox: 11.04.15

Posted on | November 4, 2015 | 2 Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho

“So it is not I, nor anyone else in conservatism, who is to blame for the partisanship in Washington. That is on the Democrats and the Left, for trying to destroy the traditions and institutions that have defined this country. We stand in defense of this great nation, and we always will. And we look forward to the Republican party’s someday joining us.” – Rush Limbaugh, from the November 19 National Review


OVER THE TRANSOM
EBL: Spectre Coming Soon
Da Tech Guy: The Kim Davis Factor In Kentucky
Michelle Malkin: The View – You’re Doing It Wrong
Twitchy: Epic Trolling In Progress – NRA Mocks Everytown, Mike Bloomberg Over Failed Gun-Control Push In Virginia
Rush Limbaugh: The Conservative Media Revolution Has Forced The Liberal Media To Abandon Any Pretense Of Objectivity


RIPPED FROM THE HEADLINES
American Power: Houston’s Transsexual Bathroom Ordinance Massively Repudiated At The Ballot Box
American Thinker: The Department Of Education Is Now In The High School Girls’ Shower
BLACKFIVE: Troop/Veteran Hiring In Indianapolis
Conservatives4Palin: Bristol Palin’s Open Letter To Kylie Jenner
Don Surber: Science Degree From Duke? Ha Ha Ha Ha!
Jammie Wearing Fools: Tarantino Hits A New Low By Playing The Victim
Joe For America: Landslide! Mayor Annise Parker’s Bathroom Proposition Goes Down In Flames!
JustOneMinute: People Who Live In Glass Houses
Pamela Geller: German Official Says Merkel’s Open Door Migrant Policy Will Lead To Civil War After Thousands March Against Invaders
Protein Wisdom: Do Not Be Distracted By The Penis In The Minor Girls’ Locker Room
Shot In The Dark: Harbinger?
The Gateway Pundit: Iranians Drag Obama’s Coffin Down The Street In Teheran
The Jawa Report: Intifada Comes To NYC
The Lonely Conservative: Federal Employees Caught Drinking & Sleeping On The Job Still Get Bonuses
This Ain’t Hell: VA’s 2500 Paid Administrative Leave Employees
Weasel Zippers: Man Sent To Prison For Overfishing As 6,000 Drug Convicts Are Freed
Megan McArdle: Cost Of Cheapest Obamacare Plans Is Soaring
Mark Steyn: The Joyful Tortoise vs. The Incredible Hulk


Shop Amazon – Countdown to Black Friday in Office Products

Category: Linkagery

Feminism: How a Privileged Elite Can Claim Permanent Victimhood

Posted on | November 3, 2015 | 69 Comments

To disagree with Jaclyn Friedman is to “trivialize” rape.

“Enthusiastic consent is about making sure those rapes that apologists want to trivialize (which: almost all of them) are taken seriously.”
— Jaclyn Friedman, 2011

No matter how rich her parents are, no matter what the tuition was at her prestigious private prep school or how elite the university she attends, a feminist always believes she is a victim of male supremacy. She’s got a trust fund, a luxury car and spends her holidays at the family vacation home, but she knows she is oppressed by patriarchy, and that guy over there? The poor slob sweating his life away for an hourly wage? He is a beneficiary of male privilege, who oppresses her by his mere existence.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

If you reject these categorical claims — if do not view the world through feminist lenses — you are a misogynist, a sexist, a rape apologist.

Jaclyn Friedman attended elite Williams College (annual tuition $50,070) but she has made a career as a Professional Victim who teaches college girls to accuse male students of rape if, at any time, a girl should decide that her participation in a sexual encounter was less than “enthusiastic.” Did she enthusiastically consent to this particular touch or that particular kiss? Did the guy at any point during their hook-up do anything that she did not entirely enjoy? Well, this wasn’t just bad sex. She’s a victim of assault. If she decides six months later to accuse her ex-boyfriend of rape, we must believe the victim, and her ex-boyfriend must be expelled. This is what “equality” requires in 2015.

Despite her self-proclaimed willingness to get “down and dirty” with any stranger who strikes her fancy, Jaclyn Friedman insists that male college students habitually rape girls. Therefore “affirmative consent” policies must be rigorously enforced, and all students must undergo mandatory training where girls are taught to accuse male students of rape, and boys are taught to fear female students. Every girl he meets on campus is a potential accuser, and the only way a college boy can avoid an accusation of “harassment” or “sexual assault” is to avoid females altogether.

Guys: Never Talk to a College Girl,
Because All College Girls Hate You

That’s my solution to the alleged “campus rape epidemic.” Heterosexual activity at college violates federal Title IX, and the only way a guy can avoid being accused of sexual assault is to walk away every time a female student approaches him. Avoid college girls entirely — problem solved.

 

“John Doe” didn’t heed that warning. He met a girl at a party, started making out with her, and got banned from campus, because it’s sexual assault to make out with a girl at Brown University.

Young man, don’t let this happen to you. Avoid college girls. They hate you, and they will do whatever it takes to get you expelled.

Annual tuition is $49,346 at Brown University. Every girl on campus is a victim — her civil rights have been violated — the minute she decides she’s a victim. The guy must automatically be expelled.

“John Doe” paid $49,346 a year for the privilege of being expelled from Brown University and branded a rapist, even though he never got past second base with the girl whose civil rights he violated.

Some may say that these policies demanded by feminists are unfair, and that it is wrong for “John Doe” to be banned from campus without any of the due-process rights that would be guaranteed to a common criminal in a court of law. Some people might even go so far as to question whether the Brown University student who accused “John Doe” of sexual assault was actually a victim of anything. But anyone who criticizes these policies is a rape apologist, according to Jaclyn Friedman, and any expression of skepticism is trivializing rape.

In September 2010, Ms. Friedman was invited to give a speech at her alma mater, and what she told students was profoundly offensive to Williams College freshman Benjamin Fischberg:

The second talk, by Jaclyn Friedman, had the basic message that all Williams students should have frequent enjoyable sexual experiences. . . .
[She] simply told Williams students to have large amounts of sex as sex makes us happy. Ms. Friedman, the speaker, made it clear she did not value virginity, as it was nothing but a Judeo-Christian value that has no worth and should not constrict our lives. Her attack on Judeo-Christian values was baseless, and while I respect her perspective on sexual activity, she crossed a line when she attacked traditional morals and thought. . . .
Her self-described pro-sex stance was guaranteed to offend people’s sensibilities. Ms. Friedman . . . seemed to rejoice in taking as extreme a position on sex as possible. She refused to listen to students when they questioned her and gave no ground to those of a different mindset, an approach in conflict with the previous day’s talk about understanding those different from you. . . . Ms. Friedman can feel however she wants, but to try to convince college students that the traditional morals they hold are wrong seems irresponsible and rude. She did not accord her audience the level of respect we gave her, and while I disagree with her message on sex, I have a much greater problem with her refusal to consider any other perspective on sex.

Somehow, we hope, Mr. Fischberg managed to graduate from Williams College without being accused of rape. His description of Ms. Friedman’s hateful attack on religious morality, and her disparagement of virginity, however, should raise concerns about her qualifications to dictate sexual assault policy. Is the best way to prevent rape by encouraging students to reject “Judeo-Christian values” and instead to emulate Ms. Friedman’s “pro-sex stance,” as Mr. Fischberg called it?

But no one is permitted to criticize feminism at Williams College, which is why Suzanne Venker was prohibited from speaking there.

All women are oppressed and all men are oppressors. This is what feminism means. Anyone who disagrees is blaming women for their own oppression, as a radical feminist blogger explained:

Something we come across frequently is the idea that some women internalise and then reproduce or reinforce our own oppression. . . .
Whichever group of women we’re looking at, women aren’t the problem, or responsible for the situation we’re in. As the oppressed group we can’t reinforce our own oppression, we can’t have both the agency to maintain this oppression and at the same time, because of this oppression be so stripped of our agency as to be incapable of escaping patriarchy or doing much about it. Only the oppressors are in a position to oppress and maintain this oppression, which they do with the use of force. Their violence is unilateral, and violence in a context of oppression is always unilateral. . . .
The more a group behaves submissively to another, and in ways that appear contradictory to its own interests, the higher the level of occupation and repression this group is subjected to: this is a universal law. . . .
Liberal women are misdirected by the false hopes that not all men are bad and that equality is the solution, because liberal men constantly lure them into these myths and exploit women’s desires by posturing as allies and mimicking feminist discourse. . . .
When we talk about women betraying women, this is something organised politically, beyond ourselves. Men are the only agents of this betrayal, they are the ones organising it, they very literally stand between us and the women that are important to us, attempt to control, limit and sabotage our contact in every possible way. . . . What’s more, men are in fact the ones who betray us constantly, constantly! Quite contrary to women, who mostly act in good faith, who are expected to be transparent and honest at all times — planned deception is how men proceed by default. The contrast between men and women in this respect is so stark that it takes years to even imagine how men can be so calculating. They’re capable of betraying our trust for decades onwards, stealing everything we have, tricking and manipulating us at every turn and opportunity. The backbones of all their institutions, from marriage to capitalism to the democratic state to medicine to religion (etc) are built on lies, myths and reversals.

To disagree with that rant (from the radical feminist blogger at Witchwind) you would first have to understand what it means, which is quite difficult. Clearly, however, she believes all men are bad and equality is not the solution, “because liberal men constantly lure [women] into these myths” by “mimicking feminist discourse” — and at least no one can ever accuse me of that.

Yet as a summary of the feminist belief that all women are oppressed and that all men “maintain this oppression . . . with the use of force,” Witchwind’s rant is valuable, because she makes explicit the premise that is merely implicit in Jaclyn Friedman’s “rape culture” discourse.

After all, why should Ms. Friedman take it for granted that anyone who criticizes her is a “rape apologist” who wishes to “trivialize” sexual assault on college campuses? Why does Ms. Friedman insist that everyone who disagrees with her is dishonest, so that she can dismiss every counter-argument as “bulls**t” and expect that every feminist will support her? Isn’t it because Ms. Friedman presumes that her readers share the implicit feminist belief that all males participate in what Witchwind describes as unilateral violent oppression?

The brilliance of feminist theory — a worldview in which male oppression of women is assumed to be the universal explanation of everything — is that it relieves women of responsibility for their own decisions. However predictable the negative consequences of her choices (e.g., having sex with complete strangers, which Ms. Friedman is proud to say she enjoys), no woman can ever be criticized for her behavior, and if the results are unfortunate, she is never to blame. Jaclyn Friedman is a feminist, which means that she is your moral and intellectual superior. She is always right about everything and anyone who criticizes her is a rape apologist.

Feminists like Jaclyn Friedman have the ultimate privilege — the authority to tell other people what to think and to demand constant praise for exercising the authority of their privilege.

Permanent victimhood is the basis of feminist authority, and nowhere do feminists have more authority than on college campuses. This is why every male college student is now subject to being immediately banned from campus if his ex-girlfriend (or the girl he kissed at a party) decides to accuse him of sexual assault. “John Doe” at Brown University is one of more than 90 male students who have filed lawsuits claiming they were falsely accused and deprived of their rights because of this “campus rape epidemic” hysteria that feminists have incited on college campuses. Under current circumstances, male students must be warned:

  1. Assume every girl hates you. Female college students now fiercely resent the mere presence of males on campus. Feminists have taught girls that all males are violent and dangerous. The male student should expect female students to react with fear and disgust toward him. He must never forget that all women on campus view him as a sexual predator.
  2. Avoid being in the vicinity of female students. When you attend classes, choose a seat as far away as possible from any female classmates. In the dining hall, never share a table with women. Do not go to any parties where women may be present. The safest course of action is never to leave your dorm, except for attending classes and other such necessary excursions. Never be anywhere girls might be. If a girl walks into the room, you should walk out.
  3. Never make eye contact with females. College girls hate being looked at by guys. It’s “objectification.” Learn to avert your eyes or a girl might accuse you of being a “creep” or a “stalker.” Wearing wraparound sunglasses may help.
  4. Never speak to college girls. They consider males stupid, arrogant and obnoxious. Everything you say is obviously wrong. Girls know everything and guys know nothing, therefore she cannot stand the sound of a guy’s voice, talking as if he has anything she needs to hear. If you are talking to a guy and a girl attempts to join your conversation, shut up and walk away. Learn to be completely silent when female students are around.

Of course, it goes without saying that following these rules will preclude any possibility that a guy could ever have any heterosexual relationships at college, which is the goal. “Rape culture” is a feminist synonym for heterosexuality. Feminists are determined to eradicate the scourge of heterosexuality from campus, which is why any male student can be expelled for even attempting to have a relationship with a girl.

Guys may think this advice is too extreme, but there is a name for college guys who ignore my advice: “John Doe,” the expelled rapist.

Don’t be a “John Doe.” Avoid college girls. They hate you.




 

Category: Sex Trouble

Schadenfreude For Greasy Terry

Posted on | November 3, 2015 | 3 Comments

by Smitty

While Virginia wasn’t bright enough to elect Ken Cuccinelli, it was also not quite stupid enough to give His Greasiness control of the Legislature. My godless Commie neighbors here in NOVA haven’t completely sodomized the Dominion. A little shout out to Greasy Terry:


May this state election be a harbinger of Commie tears to come next year. But only if the GOoP extracts its head from the sunless location.

Category: Virginia

In The Mailbox: 11.03.15

Posted on | November 3, 2015 | 4 Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho


OVER THE TRANSOM
EBL: Historical Figures In Popular Culture
Da Tech Guy: Democrats Remain Stubborn As Illinois Enters Fourth Month Without A Budget
The Political Hat: The Great Reagan Kennedy Debate
Doug Powers: Bill Gates – Free Market Won’t Save The World From Ravages Of “Climate Change”
Twitchy: Here’s A Dead Giveaway That Matt Yglesias Doesn’t Know How Tax Cuts Work


RIPPED FROM THE HEADLINES
American Power: Paranoia And The Surveillance State
American Thinker: Ted Cruz – It’s In His Heart
BLACKFIVE: Book Review – The Lost Codex By Alan Jacobson
Conservatives4Palin: Welfare Mom Has 52 Kids & Grandchildren – A Victim Of Leftist Deceptions, Promises And Betrayals
Don Surber: Government Scientist Says Arctic Will Be Ice Free In 2012
Jammie Wearing Fools: Man Who’s Whined About Fox News For Seven Years Accuses Republicans Of Being Thin-Skinned
Joe For America: Muslims Lose This One
JustOneMinute: Potemkin Coalitions
Pamela Geller: Citizens Attempt To Block Arrival Of “Migrant” Trains And Bus Transfers
Shot In The Dark: SITD Saint Paul Voter Guide
STUMP: 80% Funding Myth September/October Roundup
The Gateway Pundit: Obama’s Department Of Education Orders Mixed Sex Showers For High Schools
The Jawa Report: Deso Dogg He’s Dead Jim!
The Lonely Conservative: Exxon Cut Off Funding To Clinton Foundation – Now Clinton Wants Exxon Investigated
This Ain’t Hell: VA Officials Take The Fifth
Weasel Zippers: Shaun King Claims White People Denying White Privilege Exists Is Proof White Privilege Exists
Megan McArdle: What We’re Buying With $1 Trillion In Student Loans
Mark Steyn: Manifest Destiny In The New Wild West


The Centurions
Shop Amazon’s Holiday Toy List – Family Night

Category: Linkagery
« go back — keep looking »