MGTOW U: Critical Thinking

Critical thinking the objective analysis and evaluation of an issue in order to form a judgment.

Playlist (27 lectures)


“The Dumbing Down of Democracy” or “The Continuing Death Spiral of the Corporate Media”

(Note in advance: I do not vote. I am not a member of any political party. I don’t care whether your favorite party, candidate, or policy takes a flying leap off of a bridge tomorrow while whistling Dixie.)

I don’t post in this category often. The longer I live, the more convinced I am that unless you have the power to make policy, arguing over politics is just masturbation with more headaches and fewer rewards.

With that in mind, I present to you “The Dumbing Down of Democracy”, written by Timothy Egan of the New York Times. Like any good niche masturbation aid, it satisfies its fetishists and baffles the hell out of people with different tastes. In this case, it gives TEAM Blue some more mental lubricant with which to pleasure themselves to the notion that they are more intellectually rigorous than any given TEAM Red member in general and Trump supporters in particular. Mostly, it’s just a lot of effete snobbery aimed at people who actually work for a living and don’t have the time or the interest to keep with the latest nonsense from the Versailles on the Potomac, Washington D.C.

Are you smarter than an immigrant?

Smarter than some, dumber than others.

Can you name, say, all three branches of government or a single Supreme Court justice?

Legislature, Executive, and Judiciary. And do you mean the United States Supreme Court? One of the Supreme Courts of the states?

I’ll go ahead and name the current eight, just for shits and giggles: Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Breyer, Kennedy, Ginsberg, Sotomayor, Kagan. (R.I.P. Antonin Scalia)

Most Americans, those born here, those about to make the most momentous decision in civic life this November, cannot. And most cannot pass the simple test aced by 90 percent of new citizens.

I imagine most couldn’t ace a simple high school geometry test either and for the same two reasons: First, the 90% who aced the test studied diligently to retain the information and were motivated to know it in order to obtain citizenship. Second, political trivia is not relevant to most people’s daily lives.

Well, then: Who controlled the Senate during the 2014 election, when control of the upper chamber was at stake?

The Democrat Party, specifically Harry Reid.

If you answered Dunno at the time, you were with a majority of Americans in the clueless category.

Is this screed actually going somewhere? Or will we just continue to thumb our noses at the filthy, unwashed peasants?

But surely now, when election news saturation is thicker than the humidity around Lady Liberty’s lip, we’ve become a bit more clue-full. I give you Texas. A recent survey of Donald Trump supporters there found that 40 percent of them believe that Acorn will steal the upcoming election.

Acorn? News flash: That community-organizing group has been out of existence for six years. Acorn is gone, disbanded, dead. It can no more steal an election than Donald Trump can pole vault over his Mexican wall.

Dead in the same way the zombies from the Walking Dead. An exerpt from an article published in Winter 2014 issue of Non-Profit Quarterly entitled “Death or Reincarnation? The Story of ACORN”:

What does one do when an organization is getting ready to close yet the issues it addressed in the community are still unresolved? This is the question many ACORN chapters began asking in 2010, when the organization readied to close its doors. Two of ACORN’s largest chapters, in New York and California, were the first to separate from the umbrella organization, with many others following suit shortly thereafter.

ACORN’s California chapter, which represented about an eighth of ACORN’s national membership, changed its name to Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment (ACCE) in January 2010. The newly founded group supported a comparable mission, was staffed by many of the same employees who had worked for ACORN, and was mostly funded by the same donors. The former head organizer for the California chapter, Amy Schur, was named executive director of ACCE.10

Suspicions abound that ACORN is still alive and well, hiding behind alternative names of the “new” organizations. Darrell Issa, California Republican representative on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, issued a written statement to Fox News likening these metamorphoses to a “criminal” who changes his or her name but continues to operate much as before. Issa described the new entities as remaining, when it came down to it, the same corporation with the same board, staff, and people—in other words, with having changed in name only.11

Issa was not alone in declaring his concern. The Capital Research Center reported that ACORN is still being led by Wade Rathke at ACORN International (under the name Communities Organized International [COI]) since 2005.12 Additionally, Cause of Action, a nonprofit that focuses on government accountability, keeps a list of rebranded former ACORN entities, still-active ACORN entities, and ACORN allies on its website. As of August 2012, the website listed 174 active organizations.13 (The list has not been updated since that time.) Two of the active organizations, Affordable Housing Centers of Pennsylvania (AHCOPA) and ACTION United, are currently housed where the former ACORN chapter of Pennsylvania called home. While AHCOPA’s executive director Kenneth Bigos says that the organization does not have direct ties to ACORN, AHCOPA’s website states that the organization has been operating since 1985, which is the same year that ACORN’s housing branch started operations.14 In contrast, ACTION United’s website puts its establishment date as 2010.15 AHCOPA’s website lacks any information linking it to ACORN, while ACTION United’s website clearly acknowledges the link: “ACTION United was formed in April 2010 by staff and former leaders of Pennsylvania ACORN, which was destroyed by right wing forces angry at the 1 Million voters registered by ACORN nationally in 2008 and the results of that voter engagement. Seeing a strong need to continue the work done by PA ACORN for over 30 years, ACTION United has continued to employ much the same organizing model as ACORN.”16

Dead in name perhaps, but its dubious work is apparently being carried out by a host of successor organizations.

We know that at least 30 million American adults cannot read. But the current presidential election may yet prove that an even bigger part of the citizenry is politically illiterate — and functional. Which is to say, they will vote despite being unable to accept basic facts needed to process this American life.

Interesting point. Let’s look a little closer at that 30 million figure. The number comes from some statistics done in April 2014 by the Department of Indoctrination…excuse me, EDUCATION in conjunction with the National Institute for Literacy. According to the numbers, it’s actually 32 million (14% of the adult population).

Here’s where it gets fun.

Of that 32 million 41% are Hispanic, 24% are Black, 9% are White, and 13% are “Other.”

Shame on you, Timothy. Picking on likely Hillary voters like that. Because that is the narrative, right? TEAM Blue loves the brown people, which is why the brown people owe TEAM Blue all their votes. But TEAM Blue doesn’t love them enough to teach them how to read.

Shame, shame, shame.

“There’s got to be a reckoning on all this,” said Charlie Sykes, the influential conservative radio host, in a soul-searching interview with Business Insider. “We’ve created this monster.”

Way to cut a quote out of context, Timothy. Charlie Sykes, another jilted Cruz lover from Wisconsin and one of the founding fathers of the mercifully short-lived #NEVERTRUMP hashtag-cum-movement among business-as-usual TEAM Red, clarified and elaborated on his actual point after the interview:

This is, of course, only part of the story: the media itself has contributed mightily to the destruction of its own credibility by its bias and often curdling contempt for conservative ideas and conservatives themselves. They have spent years crying wolf, and now should not be surprised that a large portion of the electorate simply no longer pays attention, even when the wolf turns out to be real. My point was that rather than simply attacking the instances of bias in the media, we have succeeded in de-legitimizing the media altogether. Unfortunately, this means that there are few, if any trusted referees at a moment when we most need independent, credible arbiters of truth.

I agree with Sykes only partially: The wounds on the credibility of the Corporate Media (ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, FOX, etc.) have almost been entirely self-inflicted. Talk radio, the internet, social media, and independent/guerrilla journalism were just the instruments of their self-inflicted wounds. The corporate media propagandists, drunk on self-importance and delusions of Government by Journalism, have expended more blood and ink in defense of the Statist-Progressive narrative than their own credibility. When caught, they issue terse non-apologies or, as Dan Rather famously declared before his shaming and ouster from CBS, that their propaganda was “fake but accurate.”

Trump, who says he doesn’t read much at all, is both a product of the epidemic of ignorance and a main producer of it. He can litter the campaign trail with hundreds of easily debunked falsehoods because conservative media has spent more than two decades tearing down the idea of objective fact.

If Trump supporters knew that illegal immigration peaked in 2007, or that violent crime has been on a steady downward spiral nationwide for more than 20 years, they would scoff when Trump says Mexican rapists are surging across the border and crime is out of control.

That’s right. Illegal immigration did peak in 2007 at 12 million. The current number is estimated at approximately 11.3 million, even with Obama taking a victory lap on the grounds that he has deported more illegal immigrants than any other President in history.

And I do scoff because it is somewhat dishonest to state that violent crime across the board has decreased for the last 20 years (which it has), without offering the caveat that the decline is less pronounced depending on geography (Usually urban areas in which Democrats hold policymaking power).

If more than 16 percent of Americans could locate Ukraine on a map, it would have been a Really Big Deal when Trump said that Russia was not going to invade it — two years after they had, in fact, invaded it.

One man’s invasion is another man’s annexation (of Crimea).

If basic civics was still taught, and required, for high school graduation, Trump could not claim that judges “sign bills.”

Wow, Trump said “bill” instead of “ruling,” or “opinion.” Somebody stop the freaking presses. This layman’s misunderstanding makes him makes him a thousand times worse than a trained attorney who has spent the last 24 years actively undermining the Constitution and the rule of law to her own profit (looking at you, Hillary).

The dumbing down of this democracy has been gradual, and then — this year — all at once. The Princeton Review found that the Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858 were engaged at roughly a high school senior level. A century later, the presidential debate of 1960 was a notch below, at a 10th grade level. By the year 2000, the two contenders were speaking like sixth graders. And in the upcoming debates — “Crooked Hillary” against “Don the Con” — we’ll be lucky to get beyond preschool potty talk.

And Timothy Egan and the rest of the eunuchs of the political chattering classes will dutifully lap it up, dissect it, analyze it, psychoanalyze it, then issue solemn pronouncements about the length and depth of this potty talk.

I plan to do something productive: Make myself a pizza and watch a movie.

How did this happen, when the populace was so less educated in the days when most families didn’t even have an indoor potty to talk about? You can look at one calculated loop of misinformation over the last two weeks to find some of the answer.

A big political lie often starts on the Drudge Report, home of Obama-as-Muslim stories.


Oh, I’m sorry. Are we only jumping on misstatements/gaffes when TEAM Red does it? Do I need to refer you back to that Charlie Sykes statement about media “credibility”?

He jump-started a recent smear with pictures of Hillary Clinton losing her balance — proof that something was very wrong with her. Fox News then went big with it, using the Trump adviser and free-media enabler Sean Hannity as the village gossip. Then Rudy Giuliani, the internet diagnostician, urged people to Google “Hillary Clinton illness” for evidence of her malady. This forced Clinton to prove her stamina, in an appearance on Jimmy Kimmel, by opening a jar of pickles.

Grip strength is not stamina. When I was an innocent, naive young schoolboy, anyone of us could have beaten the old nuns in a foot-race easily. But if one of those old brides of Christ got a good hold on you, it was like trying to free your arm from an alligator’s jaws.

Just saying.

The only good thing to come out of this is that now, when you Google “Hillary Clinton illness” what pops up are scathing stories about a skeletal-faced rumormonger named Rudy Giuliani, and a terrific Stephen Colbert takedown of this awful man.

The awful man who contributed to that declining rate of violent crime you were just babbling about. Compare that to all of the lives saved by Clown Nose Colbert and his equally putrid forebearer in non-comedy, Clown Nose Stewart.

Please, continue.

But what you don’t know really can hurt you. Last year was the hottest on record. And the July just passed was earth’s warmest month in the modern era. Still, Gallup found that 45 percent of Republicans don’t believe the temperature. We’re not talking about doubt over whether the latest spike was human-caused — they don’t accept the numbers, from all those lying meteorologists.

Blessed be Mother Gaia and all Her works.

Of late, almost half of Floridians have done something to protect themselves from the Zika virus, heeding government warnings. But the other half cannot wish it away, as the anti-vaccine crowd on the far left does for serious and preventable illnesses.

Wasn’t the Zika virus vaccine just approved for human trials two months ago? I didn’t know that I was part of the anti-vaccine crowd on the far left, but I’m not inclined to put experimental genetically modified inactive virii in my body until someone can wave some papers in my face that reasonably assure me that I won’t die from it or my balls won’t turn black and fall off in the toilet bowl.

I’m sorry that my once-surging Seattle Mariners dropped two out of three games to the Yankees this week. I just prefer not to believe it. And look — now my guys are in first place, no matter what the skewed “standings” show. In my own universe, surrounded by junk fact and junk conclusions, I feel better already.

Pretty weak closing. I wasn’t expecting a whole lot of persuasive, thoughtful rhetoric from the Old Grey Whore. It serves its purpose, which is to give an emotional booster shot to TEAM Blue that they are so much smarter and better than those EVIL TEAM Red types voting for that EVIL Donald Trump. This op-ed met me at the level of my expectations.

What’s exasperating is that the author indulges in no introspection, especially with respect to the meatiest topic of this op-ed: the lack of credibility of the corporate media. He does a nice head-fake with the Charlie Sykes quote, which serves to indict him and the rest of the corporate media in the rise and prospering of alternative news media. Timothy Egan, like others who make their living churning out hit-pieces and propaganda for pay, failed to acknowledge, or even address, that the producers and consumers of alternative news media have a legitimate grievance when the criticize the corporate media distorting facts and misrepresenting people, going back to 1964.

Barry Goldwater wasn’t a racist. That didn’t stop the corporate media from doing everything in its collective power to paint him as such for the crime of suggesting that maybe, just MAYBE, there are some things outside of the scope of the federal government’s power. Crazy, I know. The New York Times, the Old Gray Whore, the paper of record has taken numerous shots to chin, based on slipshod reporting, misquotations, failure to fact-check, and the paper’s response has not been to reflect and say, “maybe we need to bring some ideological balance into our newsroom and editorial board, or at the very least, put some more procedures into place so that we can appear objective”; their answer has largely been “fuck you for catching us while we were trying to manipulate you.” And it’s not limited to the New York Times. Just recently, CNN was caught editing video of Sherrell Smith, sister of recently killed Sylville Smith and claiming that she was “calling for peace.” The entire video showed that she told the howling mob to go burn down the suburbs (and how much black women need weave).

The point (and thankfully, the conclusion) is that if the electorate is having trouble accepting your “facts,” it’s not because they are dumber. They have just gotten more skeptical and wary of the stories they are being told because experience has taught them that the media rarely, if ever, tells them the entire truth, or gives them the facts and let’s them decide for themselves.

Media credibility died on the altar of the Progressive narrative. If the people don’t trust you and don’t believe what you tell them, maybe the problem is you, not them.

Archived Source

“Hoes Gon Be Hoes featuring Annaliese Nielsen” Or “How To Not Engage Stupid People In Real Life”

Lauren Southern of Rebel Media, blonde Becky news-chick and professional IRL troll of social justice types, published a Youtube video today. The video is mostly dark, but one of the parties recorded is alleged Annaliese Nielsen.

Who is Annaliese Nielsen? More importantly, why do I care?

Two great questions that should routinely be asked. Annaliese Nielsen is an entrepreneur and pornographer, occupations which would ordinarily put her in favorable standing, except her niche, rather than being something respectable like lesbian double-anal fisting is tattooed, pierced, smug hipsters (Suicide Girls with more self-importance). Nielsen is also one of the founders of a small social networking site called “Crushee.” Nielsen also runs a (sort of) secret Facebook group called “Girls Night In,” centered around Los Angeles. An online Tupperware party, if you will.

Long story short, Nielsen is a “GRRL POWER!” social-media butterfly with a head full of “Wymyn’s Studies,” “Patriarchy,” “Rape Culture,” etc.

So Annaliese gets into a Lyft rideshare, clearly inebriated and with what little filter between her lizard brain and her oversized mouth left in the bottom of a liquor bottle. She sees that the driver has one of those goofy Hula girl things on his dashboard and proceeds to freak out.

Note: Nielsen actually recorded this video as though it would make her look good.

Nielsen: You thought that was adorable, you didn’t think about the pillaging of, like, the continent of Hawaii?
Driver: I didn’t even know there was pillaging.

Nielsen: Oh, you didn’t?

Driver: No.

Hawaii isn’t a “continent” as is commonly understood (the seven large continuous landmasses on Earth). I guess they need less gender theory and more geography in “Wymyn’s Studies.” Seven continents. Five oceans.

Nielsen: Okay. So you won’t get rid of the doll then? Because that was like “a really cute pick that you found at Goodwill.”

Driver: No. I’m not going to get rid of it because of that. I just didn’t realize that it was offensive to anybody.

He made a mistake right here. He should have never framed his reply around “offensiveness,” because you are stuck in arguing over…a Progressive/SJW’s FEELINGS! Never argue with another person over their subjective emotional reactions.

The correct answer to this would have been “yes, I found it at the Goodwill. I liked it, bought it, and put it in my car. That is the correct answer. Good job.”

Nielsen: But, so obviously, like, you as, like, a white male, you are, like, the least, like…

Driver: But now you’re judging me, you’re assuming where I’m from.

Remember the bolded part. It’s going to be important in the second act.

Nielsen: No, I’m not, I’m not judging you. I’m just saying, like the, perhaps like you might be the person who is least hurt in the situation.

Nielsen: I’m a passenger in your car, like, that doll is offensive to me, but you don’t want to take it down because you, like, “found it at Goodwill and it was a good find.”

Driver: Uh, I don’t know where to go from here; you want me to take down something I just put on because…

Nielsen: Yeah, no I do want you to, because it’s actually deeply offensive and I do want you to take it down.

She’s inviting him to argue with her about her emotions. His first instinct is the correct one: don’t take the bait. His instincts as a man are telling him “don’t argue with this dummy! DON’T DO IT!” But, he kept on going.

Driver: Alright, well obviously you’re going to give me a one star, but I’m not taking it down, so I’m sorry about that.

Mistake. From the way the driver talks, he’s probably partially indoctrinated in Progressivism and passive-aggressive Newspeak, based on this boilerplate non-apology that Proggies are really good at giving (I’m sorry you feel that way).

The correct answer is, never apologize. Not even once. Progressives don’t have the capacity to show mercy or the grace to show forgiveness.

Nielsen: I’m gonna do worse than give you a one star.

See what I mean? Instead of taking the phony-baloney apology, she’s motivated to cause this man pain and suffering and harm.

Driver: Do whatever you like, I’m not trying to offend you, if you want me to drop you off over here or at the next exit I can do that.

Nielsen: No, I would like you to take me to my destination.

Driver: I will do that, but…

Nielsen: Thank you.

Driver: But I don’t know why my beautiful Lady Lola is offending you.

Oh for fuck’s sake! You had the end of the conversation right there. As soon as she said thank you, turn up the radio, watch the road, and pretend that bitch isn’t in the backseat of your car. Instead, he practically asked her “please, whisper more of your drunken irrational bullshit in my ear. I’m so interested.”

Nielsen: What’s your name? You’re going to be on Gawker.

Driver: I’m not on Gawker.

Nielsen: No, on, you will be published on Gawker. And you’ll be like the next Internet meme, and it’s going to be super funny.

Nielsen: Yeah, I mean, like God forbid anyone take your special Hawaiian doll away from you.

Notice how easy it is for the feminist woman to offer to subject her targets to social shaming and ridicule. “I’ll put you on Gawker”/”Write your name on the bathroom stall and say that you eat boogers!” Gawker has thankfully breathed its last desperate gasp thanks to Hulk Hogan running wild on that pitiful scandal rag with his 24 inch pythons of civil litigation.

Way to keep up with the plot, Annaliese.

Driver: I mean, what’s more comedic is how offended you’re getting by that…

Nielsen: Um, because it’s a thing that actually affects my life, and a thing that doesn’t affect your life.

Seeing as how he expended time and money to find, acquire, and affix the doll to his dashboard, yes, it does actually affect his life, Annaliese.

Driver: No, I’m Asian as well, so…

Ohhh. Remember when I told keep it in mind that Annaliese called the driver a white male?

Welcome to the second act.

Nielsen: Okay, so what is your Asian heritage?

Driver: It’s irrelevant.

Nielsen: No, it’s not irrelevant, it’s actually super relevant.

Driver: Really?

Nielsen: Yeah, so which part of it is not relevant?

Now, if the driver had the proper frame of mind, he would have, at this point, hammered her into silence by reminding her that she called him a white man not more than a few minutes earlier. He could have told her it’s irrelevant because she’s such a racist that she can’t tell the difference between Asian men and white men, and that any further discussion with such an evil, racist, thoughtcriminal like her was “triggering” him, and then watch her brain explode.

Passenger: This whole conversation is irrelevant. The fact that you care that much about something that’s on his dashboard…

The voice of reason cries out from the heavens.

Nielsen: Yes, I do, actually care a lot.

Passenger: That’s sad.

Nielsen: It’s not sad. It’s important.

Passenger: Pretty pathetic.

Isn’t it fun to listen to two females in conflict argue with each other? “You’re sad!” “No! You’re sad!” “You’re pathetic!” “No I’m not! You’re pathetic!”

Nielsen: Did you say it was pathetic? Can I have your name, please?

Passenger: Yeah. Jade.

Nielsen: And your last name?

Passenger: [Redacted]

Nielsen: Thank you.

What is this thing with Progressives/SJWs demanding to know people’s full names? Do they think they are the world’s hall monitors and they can write people up for cutting class or smoking in the bathroom? That dumb chick Zarna Joshi was doing it in Seattle. Now this dumb chick is doing it.

Must be a Wymyn’s Studies thing.

Driver: And now the passengers are fighting, I’m so excited.

Driver: Wow, you’re the first bad experience I’ve ever had with Lyft, and some portion of it has to be like that.

Dude, why? you were free of this conversation. Just let those two argue in the backseat and drive.

Nielsen: And I’m excited.

Of course she’s excited to be an inconvenience to someone else.

Driver: I’m a very respectful person, and the fact that you’re taking offense to that, like, I’ll take a picture of it…

Nielsen: That’s a disrespectful object that you have in your car, and whether you’re Asian or not you should be considerate to the fact that you have passengers that don’t find that thing to be…

Wait a minute. Didn’t she just say that his Asian-ness was “super relevant” to…whatever point it was she believed she was trying to make? Now she’s pivoted to, “whether you’re Asian or not, your Hula doll offends me.” Nielsen is contradicting herself. Again!

Driver: Considering the fact that you want me to rip it off of my dashboard when it’s superglued…

Nielsen: No, I just said you can set it down for a second, it might not be amusing to all passengers, you’re going to experience this again, by the way.

Driver: Okay.

How’s he going to set it down when it’s superglued, smart guy?

Nielsen: And so I hope that from this lesson, like, today…

Driver: What’s the lesson? Like, you’re being rude, actually.

Nielsen: No, I’m not being rude.

It must really be nice to have the confidence and security of a vagina in the United States, to have the confidence that you can just wag your finger at complete strangers and not worry about any repercussions, not even that you might be told to fuck off.

Driver: There’s one way to tell somebody something, and then there’s another way. You’re doing it in…you’re not being pleasant.

Nielsen: Oh, because I wasn’t “nice enough” to you?

Driver: I’ve been pleasant to you this whole time…

Nielsen: I wasn’t “nice enough” to you for this thing? That’s fine. I’ve been video recording the entire time. I’m excited.

Driver: That’s cool, and I’m being respectful to you…

Nielsen: No you’re not. You have been actually very rude and extremely entitled…

I’m confused, is the driver “White male” entitled? Or “Asian male” entitled?

Driver: Oh, I’m sorry that my Hawaiian lady has offended you.

Nielsen: Yeah, I’m sorry that you have no consideration for actual Hawaiian people who don’t want to be a bobblehead item in your car while you’re driving for Lyft.

Nielsen: You fucking selfish dumbass idiot.

Verbal abuse. What a charming lady.

Driver: I’m being rude?

Nielsen: You are being rude. You have no connection to this culture.

Nielsen: You know, that is a cute little bobble item that you have in your car, that you don’t know anything about, and you’re an idiot.

Driver: Thank you very much for your opinion.

Nielsen: Yeah. You’re welcome. Maybe you will think about it, tomorrow when you wake up in the morning.

Driver: I very much will. This is going to be awesome. Thank you so much. I’m ending this ride right now so if you’d like to call another Lyft, you can go ahead and…

Praise baby Jesus! His sack dropped and he told this bitch to hit the bricks. I understand why cabbies generally don’t talk to fares.

Nielsen: You can take me all the way to my house.

Driver: I actually don’t have to, it’s not…

Nielsen: No, yes you do.

Driver: It’s my car. I’m confirming a dropoff. Here’s a sidewalk. Have a wonderful night.

Nielsen: Thank you. I’m so excited. Can I have your name again?

Driver: Nope. Have a great night.

Excellent. Excellent. But again with the “what’s your name?” Does this bitch think she’s Lynyrd Skynyrd?

Nielsen: Yes, I can. Can I have your name again? Well, I’ll just stay here, then.

Driver: Well then. Oh my God. This is my car, can you please get out of it?

Nielsen: No, I won’t. Call the police. Call 911.

Driver: Okay.

Nielsen: About how I won’t leave your car.

Passenger: I wish you would.

Driver: Can you please exit the vehicle?

Nielsen: No, I can’t but you can give me your first and last name.

Nielsen: Here’s what I’ll do instead.

[Nielsen exits the vehicle.]

[Driver drives away.]

Nielsen: Holy shit.

Nielsen: The weirdest night of my entire life. And he could not get away fast enough, so that I couldn’t get his license plate number. How cute.

Christ almighty, that was like having an argument with a three-year-old.

To tie this up nice and neat, consider the following:

Ridesharing people (LYFT, UBER, etc.) seriously consider buying a dashcam of some kind with audio and video and nightvision. I believe they are $20 at Walmart. You never know what kind of childish degenerate might get in the backseat of your car and you might need this for your own protection later.

Engaging stupid people in an argument. Thanks to the internet, extricating yourself from dealing with idiots has never been easier. The block function on forums and networking sites is proof Aqua Buddha loves his children and wants what’s best for us. Unfortunately, there is no block function for the idiots wandering around IRL disguised as human beings, desperately seeking to draw you into a meaningless conflict with them so as to feed their hunger for emotional energy and feedback. So, what to do?

With respect to the video above, Nielsen didn’t actually want the bobblehead down. It was never about the bobblehead. Notice how Nielsen kept saying how “excited” she was. Idiots feed on conflict and drama. They don’t want to reach a productive or satisfactory conclusion to anything. She wanted to force this man to engage with her on her own level (which he did partially) and comply with her demands (yield to her, which he did not do).

Recognize the goals and recognize the tactics. I can’t give you are definitive list because I don’t have one. The goals are almost universal (engagement and compliance). The tactics vary from person to person and situation to situation. You saw a good offering of tactics Progressive/SJW idiots use both IRL and online (shaming, outrage, mockery, name-calling). A good way to foreclose engagement with stupid people who claim to be offended is to assume the following posture:

“I acknowledge that you might be offended by X. But I don’t care whether or not you are actually offended. Fuck your feelings. We’re done here.”

The driver finally adopted this posture when he told her to get out of his car and what happened? After some last ditch attempts to keep the conflict going, she got out of the car and he drove off, extricating her from his life.

Long story short, when a stupid person attempts to engage with you, indicate, verbally and non-verbally, that you do not give a damn what this person has to say and that you will not give them the gift of expending your time and energy to treat their stupidity as though it has merit.

Hoes Gon Be Hoes featuring Nathaniel Haas

I’m really having to pick the bottom of the barrel for this one, but I was entertained by it, which is all that counts around here.

Here’s the troubling bottom line that explains why rape and sexual assault are an epidemic, especially on college campuses, with no end in sight: We don’t treat, talk about or think about sexual assault and rape like we do many other crimes.

Of course not. Other crimes simply happen when a person intends to do an act that the state has deemed unlawful. Rape, on the other hand, has been declared a crime against humanity thanks to the shrieking feminist harridans and globalist nannies.

In reality, the crime rape is most analogous to is battery.

Austin James Wilkerson was given a cakewalk sentence by Boulder District Judge Patrick Butler after being convicted of sexually assaulting a helpless victim and unlawful sexual conduct. This is the latest example of the strange, detached-from-reality manner in which rape and sexual assault are discussed and adjudicated in this country.

While the sentence is strange, the judge, according to Colorado law, was within his powers to impose such a sentence.

According to the FBI and the Justice Department, rape and sexual assault have false-accusation rates similar to other felonies. But for every 100 rapes, 32 will be reported to police, seven of those will lead to an arrest, three of those will be prosecuted, and two will put the perpetrator behind bars.

The problem with Nathaniel’s argument (cribbed shamelessly from RAINN) is that rape is a legal term of art, not something for feminists to use for shock value on a skewed and manipulated self-reporting survey. From RAINN’s own phony baloney “statistics” they start off by saying that of 1000 rapes, which assumes, without evidence (Nathaniel should pay attention. I’m sure they teach a class on Evidence at SoCal Law) that 1,000 acts of rape took place. They drop down to 344 “rapes” are reported to the police. Again, this statement assumes that the 344 claims, like the 1000 before it, had merit and could be supported by sufficient evidence to overcome the defendant’s presumption of innocence. And then they go down to 63 claims which lead to arrest, again assuming that all of those claims before them were meritorious (without evidence) but at least at this point, we have 63 which, after police investigation were determined to have at least probable cause to arrest a suspect. At this stage, RAINN et al. would like you assume (without evidence) that the police are such stumbling idiots that they just let 281 cases of rape slide because PATRIARCHY, not because they couldn’t make a case or after thorough investigation, the claim was bogus.

You should have the plot at this point. Bad statistics make for bad arguments.

Wilkerson is part of that 2 percent. While he faced a prison term between four years and the rest of his life, he was sentenced to just two years of work release and 20 years’ probation.

I’d like to pick Mr. Wilkerson’s lawyer’s brain has to how he pulled off jail time (though 20 years probation is probably something that could be contested on appeal).

According to Families Against Mandatory Minimums, the average sentence for a federal marijuana crime is three years. Bribing a federal meat inspector carries a mandatory minimum sentence of one year in prison. Stalking in violation of a restraining order also carries a mandatory one-year prison sentence. Under Colorado law, the most lenient grand theft auto charge is usually punishable by six to 18 months in jail.


Wilkerson could have bribed a meat inspector, sold weed to the young woman who he assaulted, followed her around in violation of a restraining order, or stolen her car, and he likely would have landed in prison for a longer term than he was sentenced in this case.

Yeah, Nathaniel lost the plot here. Federal court and state court are separate jurisdictions. And, like rape, you still have to present sufficient evidence of bribing a meat inspector, or selling marijuana sufficient for a federal prosecutor to take the case (not taking into account the present tension between Colorado law and federal law concerning the possession and sale of marijuana), or stalking, or even stealing a car.

What you “know” doesn’t matter in court. Only what you can “prove.” You’ve got to past that before you can schedule the hanging.

A lot of what you need to know about why sexual assault and rape are such an outrageous problem is reflected in that disgraceful inconsistency. And imagine if the defense in any of those hypothetical cases had proceeded like it did over the days Wilkerson was in trial:

“Ms. Doe, what were you wearing when Mr. Wilkerson stole your car? Did your gray cardigan suggest to him that you might be OK with him driving it away? Are you sure you weren’t behaving in a manner that was ‘asking for’ your car to be taken?”

“And are you absolutely sure you don’t remember consenting to having your car stolen?”

Nathaniel, people have stolen cars and then argued that the victim of the theft told the accused they could borrow it. Or they took the car to satisfy some oral contract or debt. Or that the accusing witness filed the claim against the defendant maliciously.

It is neither outrageous nor disgraceful that a defendant attempt to raise reasonable doubt on the state’s claims against him.

Defenders of Wilkerson will point the finger at college binge drinking as the real bogeyman to blame for incidents like this. It’s a cop-out: Binge drinking also amplifies the risk of DUIs, suicide, homicide, domestic violence, and a host of other crimes, but our society has come to believe that those who commit those crimes under the influence are just as culpable as those who break the law sober. Why not for sexual assault?

Because there is no law that allows you to be drunk and drive on public roads. Or be drunk and beat someone up. Or be drunk and kill someone.

But it is legal to be drunk and have sex. Trust me on this.

Moreover, despite good evidence that the vast majority of rapes are committed by serial offenders who will commit multiple rapes unless stopped, we still pretend that without intervention, Thursday-night benders will turn average college students into sex-crazed demons whose lives and reputations depend on their liver’s ability to process alcohol.

Huh? This sentence is kind of a clusterfuck.

The bottom line is this: We wouldn’t tolerate the abysmal percentage of committed rapes that lead to conviction and punishment of the perpetrator if it were the same for murders or kidnappings. But we do treat rape and sexual assault victims with a scrutiny that has no basis in reality, given the crime is just as falsely reported as any other. And we’re obsessed with quick fixes like alcohol consumption that obfuscate society’s fixation with treating rape and sexual assault much more casually when it comes to punishing perpetrators.

Okay, even the bottom line here is confusing. Is Nathaniel arguing that defendants in sex crimes cases should be barred from questioning or undermining the accusing witness’ credibility? (BELIEVE-HERism) That Americans just kind of go LOL RAPE? (which is inaccurate in light of the fact that several states punished rape by death [See Louisiana v. Kennedy 2008]). That people are blaming it on T-Pain and the a-a-a-a-alcohol?

So how should “perpetrators” be punished? The Supreme Court has barred killing men convicted of rape as disproportionate to the offense (much to the chagrin of feminists and the Cult of the Holy Vagina). Exile? 99 years on the chain gang? 10-30 years imprisonment? Castration (chemical or surgical)?

The Wilkerson case has shone the light on precisely that problem. We absolutely shouldn’t lose the chance to use that spotlight to have a serious conversation about changing societal attitudes towards rape and sexual assault.

Never let a crisis go to waste, even if you have to fabricate it out of phony statistics and empty sophistry. The feminist war against due process continues unabated.

You’ll make a great lawyer, Nathaniel. You just stick with it, lil’ buddy.

Archived Source

The Modern Feminist Rejection of Constitutional Government by Dr. Christina Villegas

Dr. Christina Villegas of the University of California, San Bernardino published a report entitled “The Modern Feminist Rejection of Constitutional Government” for the Heritage Foundation. It’s a long read, but persuasive in its entirety. I’ve cut out certain parts below for comment and linked to the original document at the end.

Modern feminism, however, has strayed from this narrow mission, embracing instead a far more radical agenda. In the name of promoting “equality,” it has become a movement that seeks to promote women’s full autonomy by eliminating gender distinctions and forcing gender parity (statistical proportionality of males and females) in every area of academic, economic, social, and political life. Achieving these ends requires the vast expansion of centralized government, the redefinition of freedom, and the preferential application of the law to women based on their identity as a specially protected class.

There is no such thing as “full autonomy,” unless you live on an island or mountain, away from everyone else, with no connection to anyone else. If you live somewhere there are other people, you have an inherent duty to not interfere with them, just as they have an inherent duty to not interfere with you, which necessarily limits “full autonomy” (ex: “Kill my neighbor and take his stuff.”).

Feminists often accuse those who defend the U.S. Constitution and limited government of being hostile to the well-being and interests of women.[1] These charges have been so thoroughly imbedded in the public mind that many Americans who do not necessarily support feminist policy prescriptions still presume that the Constitution itself has been an historic impediment to the rights of women.

You mean…the feminists don’t actually deal in history? They’re peddling mythology and metanarrative? (ex.: “#YesAllWomen are the victims of all men since time immemorial because Patriarchy.”)

I need to sit down after taking this truth bomb.

Contemporary feminism, an ideological outgrowth of the second wave, has largely adopted the belief that constitutional forms, which pledge an objective application of the law without regard to sex and limit government power with a view to protecting individual rights, are patriarchal in nature and stunt women’s ability to develop into full and equal citizens. Thus, many prominent contemporary feminists oppose the notion that there are legitimate limits to political authority and that government action should primarily involve restraining individuals from trampling the equal rights of others while otherwise leaving them free to determine the course of their lives.

To oppose limitations on political authority is to oppose constitutional government itself. Until recently in human history, governments did not concern themselves with Constitutions or written limitations on state action.

A constitutional system based on the protection of equal opportunity and individual rights in which males and females alike are able to develop their natural talents and abilities free from artificial legal barriers is problematic for contemporary feminists. They assert that such a system fails to account for the way women are hindered by external discrimination and the internal restrictions that they unknowingly have been socialized to impose on themselves. As Jessica Neuwirth, founder and director of the Equal Rights Amendment Coalition, maintains, “The entrenched historical inequality between the sexes cannot be erased by the creation of a level playing field because the players themselves are at two different levels.

Did this goofy feminist (Newirth) just imply that men are inherently better than women, but that’s bad, so tear down the Constitution and give us freebies and preferential treatment?”


Several prominent women have written well-researched accounts demonstrating that the feminist vision of what women should want from their lives (financial autonomy and career success) often conflicts with the goals and desires of many real women.[27] Contemporary feminists usually respond to such dissidents by arguing that women who desire to make their career a secondary or partial priority have been socialized by the cultural glorification of femininity and motherhood to participate in their own subordination. In other words, as Betty Friedan lamented, women adopt the values of the system that oppresses them, and because “the chains that bind [women] are often in [their] own mind.”

“Socialization” being the latest repackaging of the old Marxist ad hominem “false consciousness,” in that the opponent of the Feminism/Marxist doesn’t really believe what they are saying, therefore disposing of their argument without actually refuting it.

Modern feminists have further expanded their critique of limited constitutional government by arguing that the Constitution not only fails to grant women the positive rights necessary for self-actualization, but also exacerbates women’s subordination by insulating civil society—including religious and civic organizations, private associations, businesses, and the family—from state involvement or interference. For example, Sally Goldfarb, former NOW senior staff attorney and founder of the National Task Force on the Violence Against Women Act, contends that “[b]y sealing off civil society in general, and the home in particular, as a private sphere where the law may not intrude, the Constitution protects the stronghold of patriarchy.”

This critique of constitutional government has led politically connected feminist groups to support a common agenda of larger and more intrusive government that is more concerned with redistributing wealth and resources and regulating individual liberty than it is with protecting individual freedom, opportunity, and choice. Believing that group achievement for women as a class is more important than the protection of individual rights, feminist organizations rally in support of policies that severely restrict the liberty and property rights of individuals—men and women alike.

Further proving that feminists in general either don’t comprehend or don’t accept the concept of natural rights. They view “rights” as not rights at all, but licenses, to be granted or revoked by Mommy and Daddy Government.

Ultimately, an unfettered state that favors certain individuals based on their membership in a particular class threatens the equality and rights of all men and women. Such a system not only devalues those who are not part of the favored class du jour—whether it be women, racial minorities, homosexuals, transgender individuals, or others—but also deprives those in the protected class of their claim to rights outside of their identity in that class and subjects them to the arbitrary whim of those in power. Only in a regime that limits the scope and character of the law with a view to protecting individuals in the free use of their faculties, regardless of whether their choices lead to different outcomes, can men and women ever come close to enjoying true social, political, and legal equality and freedom.

And we come to the rub: Feminists aren’t interested in freedom; they want privilege. They want an all-powerful state to say “Women may have X, but men may not have X, until at least Y number of women have X.” They want to live in adult kindergarten where a bigger, stronger teacher distributes the juice boxes and toys based on an arbitrary notion of “fairness.”

Feminists are truly the handmaidens of tyranny.