Category Archives: American

Kevin Hannan Wrote for This Site

Wikipedia entry here.

Interesting. This man was quite famous, and incredibly enough, he wrote for my blog for some time. But he did so under a pseudonym, so I never had any idea of who he was. He used to write me from time to time to send me his new stuff. He said he was an academic who had left the US and fled to Eastern Europe.

From Wikipedia:

After resuming his research near the end of the 20th century, Hannan widely travelled in Ukraine, Poland, Russia, and the Balkans. He came to the conclusion that civic cosmopolitanism, divorced from localized ethnic values as embodied in long-lasting ethnic groups (often imagined as nations), failed people, leaving them to the anonymous and dehumanizing economic forces of supply and demand. An epitome of such a situation he saw in his native United States, which, according to him, explained a constant increase in genealogical research in the country, observed since the 1970s. In this line of thinking, a person can find one’s identity only in one’s ethnolinguistic ancestry, not in the technical rationalism of law and economy. Hence, the United States or any other settler state could never become a ‘real ethnic country’. Hannan blovated on this in Why I Left America: Reflections on History, Culture and Religion / Dlaczego wyjechałem z Ameryki, which he published under a pseudonym in 2003, fearful of possible backlash that would bar him permanently from obtaining a position at a Western university.

As a positive alternative to the de-ethnicized United States he posed the ethnic values of Poland in his My Poland: Essays on Polish Identity / Moja Polska. Eseje o polskości from 2005. He did, on occasion, make note of the failings of Polish nationalism and national statehood such as the long-lasting preservation of serfdom and the never-ending quest for ethnolinguistic purity, which led to vast ethnic cleansing in the communist period (1944–1989). He was especially critical of the relentless Polonization of Belarusians, Rusyns (Lemkos), and Ukrainians, who, in his eyes, preserved ‘real Slavic spirituality,’ as encapsulated in Greek Catholicism, Orthodox Christianity, and the liturgical language of Church Slavonic.[1]

Hannan chose Poland as his adopted homeland in preference to the Czech Republic, which he perceived as an example of an overexclusive ethnic nationalism, which led to the 1993 breakup of Czechoslovakia, producing this nation-state and another, Slovakia. He qualified any strong-Polonist sentiments by saying that ‘his Poland’ was the southern half of the country skirted by the multilingual, multiethnic, and multiconfessional Carpathians.

Hannan was a character. He absolutely hated Communism and didn’t think much of Jews either. I had a hard time publishing him because, honestly, Hannan was an anti-Semite, though not a particularly virulent one. He opposed the Jews of Poland because during and after the Communist era, Polish Jews had gone on the warpath against the Polish people and the Polish nation.

What I found fascinating was that after 1989, there were perhaps 10,000 Polish Jews left in the whole country, yet one of them owned one of Poland’s largest newspapers. Hannan absolutely hated this man, and indeed this Polish Jewish media magnate spent much of his time dragging the Polish people and their nation and identity through the mud. Hannan felt that since 1945, the Polish Jews had been waging a campaign that could be summed up as “Poles are evil.” Note the similarities to the Jewish War on Whites in the US.

Hannan was very much a traditionalist, and in his favor, I will say that he told me that he was a socialist, but he was not a Communist. I suppose his position could best be summed as a socialist nationalist. He felt that the globalized McWorld had destroyed everything of value that humans had created, and he thought that the only antidote to corporate globalized atomization was local cultures, traditions, religions and strong ethnic identities.

Hannan should not be considered a Polish nationalist. In fact, he opposed mainstream Polish nationalism which seeks to obliterate all other ethnicities and languages in Poland, saying they are all Poles speaking dialects of Polish.

The wars the Poles have waged on the Lemkos, Silesians and Kashubians have a tragic history. Most Polish linguists have been overtly politicized for a very long time. Polish textbook, in particular history books, are some of the most wildly politicized and propagandized in all of Europe. Your average Pole gets a pitiful brainwashed version of an education. Polish nationalists are ferocious, and like all ethnic nationalists, they are stupid, belligerent, ignorant and opposed to facts, science and knowledge.

Hannan opposed Polonization efforts of Belarussians, Ukrainians and Lemkos in Poland.

Hannan told me on numerous occasions that he had to write his political pieces under a pseudonym, as he felt that if he wrote under his real name, he would never be able to get a job at a US university. He hinted that he was mainly afraid that Jewish influence would keep him from getting a job due to his Jewish-critical writings.

He died in 2008. I was informed of this by a friend of his sometime after the fact. I actually liked this fellow. He was a very interesting man. I will see if I can find any of his old essays so I can republish them.


Filed under American, Anti-Semitism, Culture, Czechoslovakia, Economics, Ethnic Nationalism, Europe, European, Europeans, History, Jews, Left, Marxism, Nationalism, Poland, Poles, Political Science, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Regional, Socialism, USA, Vanity

Hunter Wallace on the Charleston Shooting


Yes, Mr. Wallace is a White nationalist, with all of the problems that that entails. On the other hand, he doesn’t want to kill all the Jews. He was horrified that a colleague with a radio show was actually advocating such a thing and he broke off all contact with him. For Wallace, mass murder or genocide was a bridge too far.

He comes from Alabama, with the mindset prevalent among Whites in that area. In fact, he comes from an interesting part of central Alabama called the Cotton Belt. If you follow the Cotton Belt through the South, you will notice that a large number of the Blacks in the South are congregated in this somewhat narrow swath through the heart of the South. This was the heart of the cotton-growing region of the South. Of course, huge numbers of Black slaves were used to work on this crop. After slavery ended, many of the Blacks never moved away, and even today, the Cotton Belt remains the heart of the Black community in the Southern United States.

As far as White nationalists go, Wallace is rather tame. One thing I always did like about him is that he is a fine writer. He is one of the best writers to ever come out of that movement. I dare say he is a better writer than I am. I know there are people who write better than I do. It is a bit painful to talk about them, but it’s always nice to have people to look up to, our betters whose skills we can aim to approach or meet.

This article is absolutely excellent. Of course he does not support the mass shooting in any way. Actually he condemns all of the White nationalist terrorist attacks that have taken place in recent years, along with mass murders of Whites by Blacks (yes there have been a few) and other assassination attempts and mass shootings. He tries to find that the ties that bind all of these disparate shootings together, and I think he got somewhere.

He also throws in Bruce or Caitlin Jenner and Rachel Dolezal, the woman who is breaking the frontier for the newest insanity that I assume the Cultural Left will now be promoting – transracialism. I am serious – I fully expect the Cultural Left Freakshow to start promoting this fairly soon. After all, if you can choose which gender you are – today I am a man, tomorrow I am a woman, then gender is as fluid as your choice of socks.

If this is Wednesday we must be in Paris and I am agender, if this is Sunday, it must be Vienna and now I am a bigender, if this is Friday, it must be Madrid and I am now pangender. Deciding what gender to be is becoming like drawing straws – short straw gets to joyously change his gender today, long straw has to stay their birth gender and suffer alone.

Well if we can choose our gender, why can’t we choose our race too? Why not be transracial? Why can’t a Black man identify as White? Why can’t I be Black anyway? I’ve always wanted to be Black. Why can’t a Polynesian choose to be a Pygmy? Why can’t an Aborigine say he is an Eskimo?

Surely if gender is as fluid and changeable as the Lunatic Left says it is, then race should be a choice too, no?

What could possibly tie all of this together? Fantasy ideology, Wallace says, quoting from another work. I think he is onto something here. Good thinking.


Filed under American, Blacks, Crime, Cultural Marxists, Culture, Gender Studies, Homegrown Terrorism, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Regional, South, Terrorism, USA, White Nationalism, Whites

Good Looks Alone Will Not Get You Women

Most people are certain that money is necessary to get women. Surely it helps. This is what you need to get women past your early 20’s:

  1. Status
  2. Money
  3. Fame
  4. Power
  5. Looks
  6. Game

Number 5, looks, without any of the others is utterly worthless.

In the last town I lived in there was a man who may well have been the handsomest man in town. I am not sure if he actually as the handsomest, but you get the picture. He also had some sort of anxiety disorder going on, and he had a rather social phobic attitude towards the world and women. I do not know if he had Social Phobia, but he was quite afraid to talk to women and even other people all that much. When he did talk to women, he often got nervous, and of course the women would just shoot him down immediately which is what they do to nervous or anxious men.

Nothing will kill you worse with women than nervousness or anxiety. They truly hate it worse than anything at all. Also due to the anxiety stuff, a lot of people were just stupid and thought he was weird and dangerous. The guy was as dangerous as a fly. No wait, flies are way more dangerous than this guy, but people are idiots.

Humans truly cannot tell who is dangerous and who is not. Sure they can often spot out truly dangerous people, but the problem is that there is massive amount of false positives. In other words, humans massively over-predict dangerousness and say that many of the most harmless people on Earth are actually the most dangerous people on Earth. Now perhaps that is adaptive. Perhaps you will live longer being paranoid and cautious and over-predicting dangerousness. But on the other hand you will accuse a lot of innocent people of false crimes. And you will be wrong a lot. Indeed, you will be convincingly wrong, which is even worse than just being wrong.

The guy’s problem was he was weird. People think weird = dangerous in a man. People also think anxiety = dangerous and nerd = dangerous in a man. The last two are completely false, but this is how people think. The men accused most of being dangerous creeps are utterly harmless. Women simply label them dangerous and creepy because they are unattractive, anxious and nerdy. This is a completely false way of thinking. In fact, the more nervous/anxious, introverted, nerdy, or awkward a man is, the less dangerous he is. I can’t prove this but I know this is true.

Introverts in general are not very dangerous but Americans think they are because in the US, introversion is seen as weird. And weird = violent and dangerous. In truth, probably 95% of the male violent crime in the US is committed by extroverted men but people will never see it that way as in the US, extroversion is valued and seen as normal, calm, safe, and sane. The more extroverted a man is, the less dangerous and crazy he is. The truth is actually the opposite, but Americans can’t seem to get it through their heads.

The truth is that there are two types of weird people. There people who are dangerous weird and there are people who are harmless weird. I can pretty much tell the difference, and anyway, the dangerous weird ones are quite rare, but most people can’t figure out, so they just do the shorthand, weird = dangerous.

I can pretty much tell harmlessness from dangerousness too. It’s not that hard.

Anyway, I lived in this town for about 20 years, and I think he had one date in 20 years. And he was the best looking guy in town.



Filed under American, Culture, Gender Studies, Man World, Personality, Psychology, Romantic Relationships

Robert Stark Interviews Charles Lincoln about Las Vegas, New Orleans & Vice

I listened to quite a bit of this interview, and I did enjoy it. Charles is a friend of mine.


Topics include:

Contrasting the histories of Las Vegas and New Orleans

The ecological impacts of building cities in the desert

How both cities serve a function as a destination for escape, hedonism, and vice

How bread and circuses distract the masses.

How without the law, there would be no vice.

How when vice becomes suppressed, it becomes more cruel.

How New Orleans has gentrified since Hurricane Katrina.

How the culture of New Orleans is one that enjoys life because it accepts death.

How in New Orleans there’s no pressure to be either moral or immoral.

The European cultural influence in New Orleans.

The cult of youth.


Filed under American, Culture, Environmentalism, Europe, Hurricane Katrina, Law, Louisiana, Nevada, Political Science, Regional, Sociology, South, Urban Studies, USA, West

Does Capitalist Economics Inevitably Lead to Ayn Randism?

Yeah, but right wing people could easily call socialists and economic failures pussies, fags, and wimps, and they do.

Why should the business world pity the small guy? Why not just mock him and shove a pile of shit in his face?

Hypermascuinity runs capitalism. It’s a place where crybabies aren’t allowed, and no empathy exists period. Hasn’t anyone seen the Oliver Stone movie “Wall Street”? Gordon Gecko (Michael Douglas) practically says that quote.

That’s American capitalism. Most countries of the world are heavily collectivist, and this sort of mindset does not run society like it does in America. And most of these same nations have capitalist economies. Capitalist economics does not inevitably lead to Ayn Randism everywhere it infests.

I do not believe that most cultures on Earth mirror the American capitalist culture of radical individualism, rampant sociopathy, hyper-competition, and utter lack of empathy.

And I do not believe that the business sectors of most nations attack the little guy like the capitalist culture here in the US does. US business culture, reflected in American culture itself, is somewhat unique in that regard.

There is no such thing as a human who is an “economic failure.” That such humans even exist at all is a huge lie perpetrated by American culture and believed by the overwhelming majority of Americans.


Filed under American, Capitalism, Capitalists, Culture, Economics, Regional, Scum, USA

Happy May Day!

Happy May Day comrades!

Did you know why the US Labor Day was put in? It was anti-Communism during the Cold War. May Day was the international holiday of the working classes all over the world for many years. However, it was strongly associated with the Left and socialist and Communist parties in every country where it was celebrated. May Day celebrations in places like the Soviet Union were vast, expensive affairs.

Putting Labor Day way off in September was a way to kill support for May Day and the Left, Socialism, Communism and all of those other evil things.

You will note that May Day is hardly celebrated here in the US and anyone celebrating May Day is viewed with suspicion as a Communist.

1 Comment

Filed under American, Cold War, Culture, History, Left, Marxism, Modern, Regional, US, USA

What Is a Patriotard?

I love this word. From the Urban Dictionary. I agree with most of this definition, but sadly I would say that most liberals I know are also patriotards just like this. You simply cannot oppose US foreign policy in the United States. If you oppose our foreign policy, that means “you hate America.”

And most liberals will tell you that too, just like conservatives. Most liberals I know support US foreign policy 100%. They seem to support it more when a Democratic President is in power, but they support most foreign policy under Republicans too. And when they oppose foreign policy, they are often quiet about it, as if they are frightened and ashamed. My father was an ADA liberal, but he backed US foreign policy 100%, in all of its most crazy and reactionary forms. He hated the Sandinistas in Nicaragua and he supported the US armed coup that removed Aristide from power in Haiti. He even supported that Bush’s insane Iraq War and he tried to start a fistfight with me over it, calling me a traitor.

I will say that he turned against the Vietnam War, but he waited until 1968 to do so like most antiwar types. My father was what you call a “Cold War Democrat.” They are and were much more common than you think.

The common line that Republicans say that liberals hate America and especially that they hate US foreign policy does not appear to be true.

Most liberals support the Democratic Party, and their foreign policy is about as horrible as the Republicans’. This is something called “the bipartisan foreign policy consensus” that was put in after World War 2, mostly by Harry Truman and one of the worst Americans of the last century, a Republican who served under Eisenhower named John Foster Dulles, who singlehandedly launched and maintained the Cold War.

Under Truman, US policy was bad enough. This was when the containment doctrine was set into place, Greece was destroyed and 50,000 Leftists were murdered by reactionary Monarchists supported by the US, the Korean War was engaged, China was threatened with nuclear weapons, and the wartime spy service was turned into the CIA.It was Truman who is more responsible than any other man for the birth of the National Security State.

Dulles thought Containment was too wimpy. He wanted war, or rollback, or liberation. Liberation meant the placement of a Far Rightwing Monarchist, authoritarian or fascist state, preferably a dictatorship, to make sure the country did not go Communist. It was Dulles who set in stone the crazy US policy that if you were not with the US, by default, you were with the USSR. You’re with us or against us. This ended up labeling much or all of the Nonaligned Movement as Soviet supporters and fellow travelers. Dulles was a monster and set off 45 years of diabolical US foreign policy, which by the way did not change even 1% with the fall of the USSR.

The standard US liberal argument was that the US did a lot of bad things during the Cold War, but we had to because if we did not, the Soviets would have taken over that country. This implied that with the fall of the USSR, we would finally be forced to stop acting so bad and could go back to being the World Nice Guy that liberals think we are.

However, when the Wall came down, US foreign policy was exactly the same as it was during the Cold War which implies that all of our wickedness came not from a realpolitik Cold War with the USSR but instead derived directly from US imperialism acting on behalf of US capitalism in the form of the US corporations and the elite rich.

By the way, most US liberals that I have met defend US imperialism. They tell me that “a lot of US investment dollars are at stake” in various countries, and that is apparently why we have to be so reactionary and vicious when we stage coups, launch revolutions or assassinate foreign leaders, usually for doing something like raising the minimum wage.

Yes that is correct. The US staged coups in Haiti and Honduras in the past 20 years. The reason for the coups? Aristide and the Honduran President both raised the minimum wage. Apparently according to US bipartisan foreign policy, raising the minimum wage means you are a Communist. I swear to God this country is nuts.

The only people who qualify as “America-haters” are Leftists like me who truly do oppose the Elite/Corporate Fake Managed Democracy and its imperial, reactionary foreign policy. If opposing such things makes me an America-hater, then I guess I am an America-hater. If that’s the definition of the word, I would say that a lot more Americans ought to sign up to be America-haters.

Urban Dictionary patriotard:

An American who is easily manipulated by appeals to superficial pro-American sentiment. Is often a jingoist and rarely if ever opposes any US military action; dismisses all who oppose such military action as liberals or Un-American.

Typically rejects out of hand any criticism of his country’s foreign policy, no matter how justified, unless the criticism is that America isn’t being ‘tough’ enough in some way. Confuses support for the people and/or the founding values of his country with support for his country’s government, especially if his political party of choice (almost always the Republican Party) is in power.

Uncritically swallows propaganda and slogans representing the above mindset – for example: America is ‘Hated For Our Freedoms’ and the troops are ‘Fighting For Our Freedoms’.

Tends to place far greater importance on the trappings of patriotism (American flags, etc.) than on protecting the Constitution or upholding America’s founding values.

Worships the US military. Often a Fox News fan.


Filed under American, Americas, Caribbean, Central America, Cold War, Conservatism, Culture, Democrats, Economics, Government, Haiti, History, Honduras, Imperialism, Latin America, Left, Liberalism, Political Science, Politics, Regional, Republicans, US Politics, USA, USSR

Childhood IQ Tests Are Good for Life

antanarchy writes:

I believe that one of the main reasons that people with IQ’s around the 115 bracket often present themselves as smarter is because, as you say, they tend to have more mental health problems – which do often affect IQ scores. When I was 12, I scored 133 and 136 on two separate tests (I can’t remember which ones) – but six years later, after experiencing a bout of crippling depression, my IQ had decreased – rather dramatically – to 112.

I just didn’t feel smart at the time, and it felt as though my brain was functioning at only 50% of its actual capacity. Deep down I knew the smarts weren’t all lost, but they emerged a lot less frequently than they used to. I made the mistake of (and to a certain extent, still am) equating my overall value as a person with my IQ, which comes with its own set of problems. My academic performance suffered, the belief in my ability to solve complex puzzles (IQ tests) had been compromised and even posting on forums had become a challenge.

So I’d argue that there’s quite a good reason for believing that people around 115 are smarter – it just might be that they are. With age, there sometimes comes doubt. It was only when I tried to eliminate it, did I notice an upward shift in my overall intellectual functioning. I also have ADHD, so I don’t think any IQ test score (low or high) is going to accurately represent my general intelligence – my concentration varies too much for that to be possible!

Still, interesting post. Thanks for sharing your insights – most of which I wholeheartedly agree with.

P.S. I haven’t read enough of your blog yet to know if you’ve touched on giftedness? A friend of a friend, who works with gifted people suggested that I might be twice exceptional. If not, then it’d be interesting to hear your thoughts on the concept of giftedness, and how gifted people may differ from those who simply have high IQ’s.

Quit taking IQ tests. Your IQ is ~134.5. Call it 134 or 135, whichever you wish. Those two scores taken around age 12 are good for life.

There are a lot of morons on the Internet who insist that a child IQ score is not relevant to an adult IQ score, but they are wrong as they are about most everything.

There are two types of these dolts.

One type are HBD racist, sexist reactionary spergs who are IQ-obsessed. These types typically say that IQ declines with age and therefore a childhood score is no good and you have to take it again as an adult. No it doesn’t. Tests are normed for every age level, so you are always being compared to your age peers.

Another type are PC Cultural Left pinheads who despise the very idea of IQ tests and IQ scores and this is just another way they pour cold water on the issue. These types will also say that a childhood score is no good and you have to take it again. They do this because they hate the whole idea of IQ and this is a way of dismissing someone’s score. The truth is that most Cultural Left PC types are imbeciles who now nothing about IQ whatsoever. They always act like they know all about it, but once you start talking to them, it is clear that they don’t know what they are talking about.

I am acquainted with some of the top IQ researchers on the whole planet, and we talk by email sometimes, so I know this subject well.

IQ is quite stable from age 7 on. An IQ at age 12 should plot very well with your IQ for the rest of your life. Your IQ doesn’t rise or fall with age. Childhood IQ scores are not artificially elevated. People on the Net are morons.

Don’t base your self-esteem on your IQ score. Bragging about IQ is like bragging about being poor. It’s worthless. It’s a joke. Really almost nobody values IQ, so hardly anyone is going to impressed or like you better if you have a high score. Most people think IQ tests and IQ scores and stupid and they hate any talk about them. The probable reason for this is that most people’s scores are not very high so as a psychological defense, they say intelligence is not important or has negative value.

America is a fiercely anti-intellectual culture, and it always has been. Europe we are not. You hardly ever meet anyone here who envies or even respects high IQ people. In fact, high IQ has a negative value as most folks will just think you are a brain or a geeky nerd. If society puts no value on something, then it’s not possible to brag about it. You can only brag about things that others are impressed by.

I think most people with 115 IQ’s actually have an IQ that high. The argument that they have more mental illness that lowers their scores doesn’t make sense because as IQ goes up, people tend to get stranger, odder and weirder, and quite a few high IQ types have anxiety disorders at the very least. Many are psychologically crippled. Minor mental illness doesn’t seem to effect very high IQ types, so I don’t see why it should effect 115 IQ types.

Just keep your 135 IQ score, take it to the bank and quit taking tests. It’s been confirmed on two different tests already. If some moron tells you that childhood IQ means nothing and as an adult, you need to take the test again, tell him to go to Hell. People on the Net, leftwing and rightwing, are simpletons.

You already are gifted. 132+ is gifted. Congratulations! You are smart enough to do anything you want to do, even get a PhD.

I do not know what twice gifted means.

Yes, I write about giftedness a lot on here. I am in the gifted range myself; in fact, I am above gifted into the genius range, which is 140+.

The problem that there are hater Special Ed types all over the Net who bash me constantly every time I write about high IQ’s in the gifted and genius level. They think I am bragging. I am not, mostly because there is nothing to brag about as no one values IQ and most put a negative value on it.

I honestly do not know what their damn problem is, except maybe they are mentally retarded.


Filed under American, Culture, Intelligence, Left, Mental Illness, Psychology, Psychopathology, Racism, Useless Western Left

What Was So Bad about the 1950’s?

Was the West pre-1960`s not fucked up?

From the stories I have heard from older people. They were even more fucked up then the PC culture we have right now.

Don`t work on sundays, you will suffer in hell forever. Because God loves you.

Well up to a point agree with you. Because these idiots ruled the world.
It`s only a matter of time and not having a climate/oil/nuclear apocalypse
before the rationalist Chinese will take over.

I lived in the 1950’s.

I cannot think of one family who believed in not working on Sundays. I grew up in a White suburb and any sort of store was always open on Sunday. That was not a very religious city. Nobody talked much about religion when I was growing up. Hell was rarely mentioned if at all. Yes, we went to Sunday School, but it was a very secular affair. No one talked much about God either. You didn’t hear “God loves you,” very often. In fact, in my city, people who went on like that were called “Jesus freaks” and “religious nuts/kooks.” Nobody much liked them.

There was no Black slavery. Nobody knew anything about religious oppression, though there was quite a stir when Kennedy ran for President. A lot of people thought a Catholic could not be elected President, but he won. People were not very wild at all then. It was a very conforming era. You would never see a female stranger going off on a male stranger in public. It just never happened. Women deferred to men. Of course women were as bitchy and insane as they have ever been, but even that was toned down a lot because it was considered dishonorable to be a “crazy woman,” so even in the home, women did not act out very much. You never saw a woman going off in public, ever. And women did not attack men. Never.

Let me give you an example. I constantly hear from men about how their gf’s and wives assault them. Yes they physically attack them. I have had gf’s attack me too. Back then, before the 1950’s, this hardly ever happened. For the women in my Mom’s social circle, it would be considered deeply shameful to strike your husband. It was just not done. That was what trashy, low class and non-White women did. A proper middle class White woman never did such a thing.

Look around you at the women you know. Notice how many of them are insane and exhibit symptoms that resemble Borderline Personality Disorder? Notice how many are suicidal or attempting suicide? Although of course women have always had a tendency to be crazy, back in that era, it was considered very shameful to be a crazy woman so women mostly kept their nuttiness to themselves. For instance, there was one woman in my Mom’s circle who was a well-known nutcase, Borderline Personality Disorder. Nowadays she would not even be abnormal. She would be considered a perfectly normal woman. This woman was utterly despised by all the women in her circle as a “crazy woman” who “attacked and belittled men,” and “could not control herself.” The man she belittled was her husband. My Mom’s circle thought is was disgusting and sickening for a woman to beat up on and pussy whip her husband like that. That was the mark of a deplorable woman.

So you see, all of these things are now completely normal and nobody bats an eye. What would be consider batshit nuts and grounds for scandal and shunning 55 years ago is now known as “normal female behavior.” In other words, feminism has decided that is not normal and healthy for women to act insane, violent and evil.


Filed under American, Borderline, Culture, Feminism, Gender Studies, Mental Illness, Mental Patients, Personality Disorders, Psychology, Psychopathology, Race/Ethnicity, USA, Whites, Women

The Brainwashing of America Is Complete

Resolved: Americans are truly hopeless.

Fox News the most honest and trusted news station on TV?

LOL! I know that sounds like the punch line of a joke, but actually it is not. The truth is even more terrifying. 29% of Americans actually believe that that statement is true.

I did have a problem with the poll, as it asks which news station out of this list is the most honest and trustworthy:

1. Fox
2. CNN
3. NBC News
4. MicrosoftNBC Yes that is what MSNBC really stands for!
5. CBS News

Um, how about none of the above?

That is like showing me a lineup of pathological liars and asking me which one is the most honest and trustworthy. After I pick myself up from the laughing spasm on the floor, you tell me that a better way to think of it is to decide which one of these lying skunks lies less than the other lying skunks.

And that, my friends, is a difficult question!

But I might just pick BillGatesNBC, and for sure Fox Lies gets last.


Filed under American, Culture, Journalism