Uncategorized

Women don’t deserve to vote.

We have a basic problem on our hands in the western world. The egalitarian, emotional, and illogical ways of the wo-man are infringing our culture’s ability to preserve itself.

They vote in self-hating, all-inclusive, feel-good sycophants like Justin ‘Castro‘ Trudeau or Angela Merkel. Hillary Clinton almost won and women were voting for her for the sheer fact that she is a woman (or at least some demonic hybrid of a woman.)

Can women really be trusted to make rational decisions about the future of a nation? They buy into emotionally-fueled drivel like they buy face-paint, perfume, magazines, high heels, and the idea that they can survive without men.

If their feelings fuel an all-out race war, then It’ll be men who have to fix the mess. Women shouldn’t have a right to vote by virtue of this fact alone. If you can’t be responisble for your actions, then your actions must not be permitted.

The ‘right’ to vote is a myth, anyway. If it can be granted by the government, it’s not a Right: It’s a privelege.

Men were bound by civil conscription and that was the price they had to pay for being able to vote. Women were never expected to go to war or help firefighters and police, so why should they reap the benefits of such a prievelege without bearing the burden that is coupled with it? They were given the ‘right’ to vote shortly after asking for it, while men were getting shell-shocked, mutilated, maimed, and murdered, all for the protection of women. Where’s the equality in that?

Personally, I wouldn’ trade the above horrors for the ‘right’ to vote. Not that this was ever an option for men.

Oppressive white male basking in privelege

Women, children, illegal immigrants, low-iq people, criminals, and retards are all people who should not have an equal vote to a man who is a law-abiding citizen of decent intelligence, who pays taxes, and who will be expected to fix the mess caused by democratically induced democide.

You may say that it’s gone a bit too far now. Women now occupy some important position, and have high value in society, and many are more rational. To that I say, fine. Women can vote, but it should only count for around half of a man’s vote. Until they can fill in the most dangerous and important vacancies, that is, then we can bump it up to 3/4ths.

Advertisements

People who look alike.

roothhower

Here are two American men. Dwight Eisenhower (left) served as Supreme Commander during WW2. He later became U.S. President. On the right is David Lee Roth of Van Halen. He wrote ‘Hot for teacher.’

chrits

Here is Roth again (right) next to a picture of William Lane Craig, who often debates the philosophical basis of Christianity. Both men are Christians.

levis

Here is an old portrait of a young Karl Marx on the left. Incidentally, Marx is believed to have changed his name from ‘Karl ha-*levi*.’ On the right is actor Joseph Gordon-*Levi*tt.

docs

This is a picture of two famous doctors.

cohens

Above is a picture of three men who look very similar, but are not related. Leonard Cohen (songwriter,) Adam Sandler and Sasha Baran Cohen (both comedy actors.) Two of these men have the surname ‘Cohen.’

ents

Here is a picture of Tiny Tim and Bob Dylan. Both men happen to be entertainers. What are the odds?

suits

Alan Greenspan and Alan Dershowitz. Both men are called Alan, wear suits, and have glasses.

 

I find it interesting that many of these people who look similar, indeed, also have other things in common.

Career day!

 

455468275

Alright, class. Settle down, settle down.

As you all know, today is Career day. Let’s begin by asking some of you what you would like to be when you grow up. How about you, Nathan?

“I wanna be a firetruck!” *Classroom laughs.*

Okay, Nathan. Good effort. And you, Nicole?

“I wanna be an actress!” Nicole confidently says.

Interesting answer. It’s nice to dream. Johnny, how about you?

“I wanna be like James Bond!” Johnny yells.

Oh, how exciting that sounds. After you’ve mastered the alphabet maybe you can pursue that a bit more.

Anyway, class, onto the main part of our day.

Last time I asked you all if any of your parents would like to come in and talk to us about what they do, and I’m very excited to say that we are lucky enough to have some of your Dads here with us now, to do just that. Now, class: Be respectful.

Our first special guest is Michael’s Dad. Now be friendly!

images_service_responsive_servicerepair

Michael’s Dad builds and repairs computers. He is an I.T. maintenance technician. When your computer has a problem with its hardware, if there is an issue with the Operating System, or if you want to upgrade any part of your computer, Michael’s Dad is the man who can do it.

Okay, class. Let’s move on to Kyle’s Dad to talk about his career:

1

Kyle’s Dad is a grocer. He’s one of the people who works in your local supermarket and helps you with your shopping. Kyle’s Dad often helps elderly people read the labels on products and gives them some company as they often are alone. He is the one who stocks the shelves and makes it easier for us to shop.

Okay, moving on.

Young plumber doing sink repararion in kitchen.

This is John’s Dad. He works as a plumber. When one of your pipes under the sink is leaking, or one of the drains is blocked, he is the man that comes to your house and fixes it for you. He also installs new pipes and other parts that you use in your kitchen sinks or bathrooms.

“Loser!” Johnny rudely cuts in.

Now, class, remember to be courteous for our guests today. They’ve taken time out of their schedules to talk with us today.

Now our next guest couldn’t be with us today, but he was kind enough to leave us a letter telling us about his career.

mann-mit-headset-am-pcj

Due to the classified nature of his work, Steve’s Dad is unable to disclose any exact details about his work. He is unable to give us any facts as he doesn’t want to compromise National Security but has agreed (due to his utmost allegiance to this country’s public institutions) to share some details about what he may do.

*Classroom collectively gawks at teacher.*

Steve’s Dad may sit for hours upon hours listening to your private and intimate phone calls. Some of these phone calls may be categorised as “Phone sex.”

He may or may not have been to Russia, China, The middle east, or any other region that this nation may have an interest in gathering intelligence about. Steve’s Dad may have gone to extensive linguist training school or he may show no interest in learning the language of the country at all.

Steve’s Dad may work at another job in the area in order to not blow his cover. He may be very bad or negligent in this job which may blow his cover anyway. He may also just cry poverty and beg for donations and he may innapropriately ask people he barely knows to borrow money.

Government budget for certain intelligence agencies may be low, and so Steve’s Dad may be low on cash. If Steve’s Dad does get money, he may not be allowed to spend a whole lot since that may arouse suspicion.

He may lie to absolutely everyone he comes into contact with, and yet he may still be unconvincing. Steve’s Dad may lie to even those closest to him. He may be lying to Steve, or his wife, or his entire family.

Steve’s Dad may appear nervous when asked about why he was in certain countries for certain periods of time.

teens-high-school-bored-960x540

Steve’s Dad may be dragged all over the place by his handler(s), and may be told to mine for information. Steve’s Dad may make this obvious by consistently asking an endless list of questions, each one irrelevant to the last, and never engaging in natural conversation.

Steve’s Dad may not be getting paid at all. He may be getting blackmailed, or bribed in some way, which may effectively mean he is a puppet on string, dancing to the mighty whim of his handler(s).

Steve’s Dad may be addicted to drugs. He may have multiple personalities, each one unaware of the other due to trauma-based mind control and hypnotism.

He may end up being used as a Patsy and then being killed by one of them.

Steve’s Dad may have no clue just how expendable he may be.

He may have thought he was going to be like James Bond. Jumping out of airplanes, having beautiful Russian spies fall in love with him, holding a black pistol while wearing a tuxedo and pouting whilst walking away from an explosion, the whole nine yards (he may say.)

GoldenEye (1995) Directed by Martin Campbell Shown: Pierce Brosnan (as James Bond)

It ain’t like in the movies, he may bitterly remark.

*A pin is heard dropping.*

Okay, class, that concludes our talk with the guests. We are very grateful to them for taking the time to share that with us. Any final questions, class?

*Johnny raises hand*

Yes, Johnny?

“Where do I apply to be a Plumber?”

So, what is ‘fake news’?

It’s become a cliche these days to call something ‘Orwellian.’ Cliches, however, tend to be things that we all know to be true (and are sick of hearing.) Despite that, I’m going to preface this article with a very relevant quote from 1984:

“The Ministry of Peace concerns itself with war, the Ministry of Truth with lies, the Ministry of Love with torture and the Ministry of Plenty with starvation. These contradictions are not accidental, nor do they result from ordinary hypocrisy: they are deliberate exercises in doublethink”

For a long time now, people have become increasingly skeptical of the mainstream media. In fact, it’s common knowledge that mainstream news networks are designed to misinform, mislead, and outright derail public thought. They are funded by special interests that have their own agendas and own ideas about what you should know. One recent example would be news-media giving endless coverage to the so-called ‘Women’s’ march in Washington D.C., while practically ignoring the March for life -also in Washington D.C.- which drew comparable numbers

The idle, unthinking viewer is left with the impression that the Soros-funded, pro-abortion, feminist marches are representative of women’s views and interests as a whole. Regardless, the fact is that more white women (largest demographic) voted for Trump than for Hillary

"You're fake news!"

“You’re fake news!”

Not that anyone who thinks for themselves needs any convincing here. It’s very clear to see the daily examples and most of us look the other way. What I want to stress here is that considering  Doublethink is a real concept employed by the ruling elite, it becomes obvious that whatever they try to dissuade you from believing; whatever they try to brand as ‘fake,’ is actually ‘true.’

Just as the anti-defamation league’s entire existence is predicated on the act of defaming others, the controlled News/media, that purports to inform and tell the truth, is, in fact, doing the complete opposite.

It appears the UK’s “Conservative” ZOG is cracking down on ‘fake news’ and right wing ‘extremists.’

Who’s funding this? Only the international advertising agency M&C Saatchi.

I wonder why an advertising agency would invest money to stamp out fake news…

Hmm, not sure why that would be.

Hmm, not sure why that would be.

“There was truth and there was untruth, and if you clung to the truth even against the whole world, you were not mad.”

OM Brothers.

Tim Buckley, Jeff Buckley, and Ancestral memory.

2265579-tim-buckley-jeff-buckley-music-dads-617-409

Tim Buckley (left) burst onto the North American music scene from practically nowhere in the late 60’s. In the mire of Psychedelic funk and the early stages of Hard rock, Tim was singing in his Irish tenor, played folk music.

‘Folk’ is a synonym for ‘People.’ Each unique People of each nation has their own music.

Tim, who was influenced by Bob Dylan and typical 60’s rock, showed no resemblance to these influences. He was untrained musically, and was playing what seem to come naturally. He was half-Irish, had an Irish name, and although being totally American, began playing the kind of music that the Irish (and Europeans in general) had been playing for Aeons.

Tim died under odd circumstances when his son, Jeff (right,) was very young. The two never met each other. Yet Jeff, by all accounts, was a carbon copy of his father. Jeff, who was also untrained, erupted onto the music scene in the 90’s, admist the cacophonic fog of alternative Rock and Grunge. His acclaimed (and only ever recorded album) Grace, stood apart and was a blend of many influences, yet he still sang in the same classic European style, and exhibited the same startling vocal range as his father. This was not a coincidence, but passed down. Neither Tim nor Jeff ever reached the heights of stardom. (It’s worth mentioning that Jeff also died under questionable circumstances.)

If we can admit that traits passed down from father to son are genetic in nature, is it so unreasonable to consider that the experiences, memories, and traits of an entire People are also inherited? After all, it is only the broader genetic pool of individuals we are talking about.

Allow me to quote Theoretical Biologist Rupert Sheldrake, who provides a basis for Ancestral memory in his theory of ‘Morphic Resonance‘:

” The fields organizing the activity of the nervous system are likewise inherited through morphic resonance, conveying a collective, instinctive memory. Each individual both draws upon and contributes to the collective memory of the species. This means that new patterns of behaviour can spread more rapidly than would otherwise be possible. For example, if rats of a particular breed learn a new trick in Harvard, then rats of that breed should be able to learn the same trick faster all over the world, say in Edinburgh and Melbourne. There is already evidence from laboratory experiments (discussed in A New Science of Life) that this actually happens.

The resonance of a brain with its own past states also helps to explain the memories of individual animals and humans. There is no need for all memories to be “stored” inside the brain.

Social groups are likewise organized by fields, as in schools of fish and flocks of birds. Human societies have memories that are transmitted through the culture of the group, and are most explicitly communicated through the ritual re-enactment of a founding story or myth, as in the Jewish Passover celebration, the Christian Holy Communion and the American thanksgiving dinner, through which the past become present through a kind of resonance with those who have performed the same rituals before.”

“They contain a built-in memory given by self-resonance with a morphic unit’s own past and by morphic resonance with all previous similar systems. This memory is cumulative. The more often particular patterns of activity are repeated, the more habitual they tend to become.”

My tastes and preferences are given a context when I consider that our memories and experiences as a people are passed down from generation to generation. When I listen to Irish folk music (being of Irish ancestry,) for example, it feels somehow transcendental and timeless to me. This is anecdotal, but it is the experience for many others of many distinct cultures. When I spent time with Uncle Jeebers, I had the privilege a few times of seeing him totally at-home singing Italian songs in the town, and seeing how the local people joined in and sang along too. This is only natural given Jeebers’ strong ancestral ties to Italy.

Julian Lee, in his article “In Praise of the White Singing Voice,” says it best:

“But you can’t fool the ear. The sound of the White voice is instinctively more attractive to me. Why shouldn’t it be? The White voice has resonance in my memory and genes, and maybe lifetimes of White mothers singing me lullabies, and fathers giving me advice, and association with other White voices. And the White vocal style somehow resonates with values that are a part of my White DNA.

I note that a White can learn to sound like a Black, as in the case of Britney Spears. Also a Black can learn to sound like a White, as in the case of Nat King Cole. If left to themselves, however, the two races evolve different voices.”

The singing voice is one of the many traits that a People develop over generations. It is a reminder of the precious and unique qualities that each Folk has.

OM brothers.

Three major problems with Anarcho-Capitalism (by an ex-Libertarian)

In my early search for truth, both Philosophical and Political, I was a young person, among many, who stumbled on the Political Philosophy of Libertarianism; in this case, the Molyneux-brand of Libertarianism. In other words, I was an Anarcho-Capitalist (AnCap for short.) Many AnCaps do not like to be defined by the conclusion of ‘Anarchy’ so prefer to be called ‘Voluntarists,’ the idea here being that an Anarcho-Capitalist society is based on purely Voluntary actions. Anarcho-Capitalism is the destination, while Voluntarism is the transportation.

I was compelled by the Philosophy of Voluntarism. I read Murray Rothbard, Von Mises, Ayn Rand, and even Molyneux’s own original works. I felt I had finally found the Philosophy that made sense of the world, and that showed me who the good guys were and who the bad guys were. I could boil everything down to the dialectic of Collectivism Vs. Individualism. I had found the missing link to objective morality in the non-aggression principle (NAP.)

So what is it?

AnCaps believe that the State (the Government) is a mechanism by which tyrants coerce and enslave humanity through the means of taxation, to put it simply. Institutions, such as public schooling and the military-industrial complex, are tools by which this system is propagated. With the help of fiat currency, central banking, and cronyism, the State is an all powerful, omnipresent force pulling the strings and rolling the die in the game of human control.

Minarchists, such as Ayn Rand (Alisa Zinov’yevna Rosenbaum) and Ron Paul, subscribe to the same principles but believe the State should exist on a very minimal level, fulfilling essential roles only (such as National Security and Border Control.) They basically promote the idea that the Government shouldn’t really govern anything, (I believe the English language has a word this.) However, as many AnCaps have outlined, due to the oppressive apparatus of the State which invades all areas of society; with its brain washing in public schools, its dependence-trap of the welfare state, and its curtailment of the machinations of Democracy via endless propaganda from State-funded media: The State is determined to always grow in size. By definition, the State is a self-perpetuating Autocracy owned and run by the ruling elite. An unstoppable Leviathan.

Essentially, AnCaps advocate for the abolition of the State. They deem it as an immoral entity, violating the Non-Aggression-Principle by taxing the public, and stunting (if not completely preventing) economic flourishment through the means of needless regulation and vacuous government programs and institutions.

Without the State (AnCaps claim) the free market would dictate how society is formed, meaning everything would be more efficient. Small businesses could exist and thrive without being burdened by minimum wage laws and excessive permits. Corporations would not be able to form oppressive monopolies because there’d be no Crony-Capitalist state. Private healthcare would become cheap and affordable for everyone as the market would only allow the most cost-effective and competitive system to survive.  The market could provide everything that the government does, except it would be more efficient. Sounds perfect right?

Despite how compelling this ideology is, it has some issues. For example:

1). Property rights are not absolute

The Non-Aggression Principle (NAP) forms the entire basis for morality under Anarcho-Capitalism. What is deemed immoral is the initiation of “force” against someone, or their property. Under this principle, “force” is permissible only when defending yourself against those who initiate this “force.” An example of the initiation of force would be trespassing onto somebody’s property.

With the above in mind, consider the following scenario: Imagine you are walking down the street. It’s night time with nobody around, and through the window of a home you are passing, you see a small child, maybe even a baby, left inside the home and clearly neglected. This child has been left there for days on end, abandoned, and emaciated from starvation. The child does not own the property but is the only one inside. It becomes clear that this child is gradually dying. What will you do?

If you decide to break in and save the child, then you have just violated the property rights of the house owner. You have just initiated force under the NAP, and are now acting immorally under Voluntarism. Despite all this, you would be completely justified in doing so. Yes, this scenario is unlikely, but a million such examples can be used in its place to demonstrate how fallible the NAP is for a foundation of morality. If you try to argue that the property owner is the one who is actually initiating force against the child, then you have to consider my next point very closely.

2). Free market participation isn’t ‘Voluntary.’

When an infant is in the womb, they have no choice whether to be there or not. When the baby is born, and in the child’s formative years, they are completely dependent on their parents or guardians. They don’t voluntarily live where they live, or who they live with, let alone decide what they’re having for dinner or how many toys they can have. In a sense, their parents are coercing their child non-stop, in an uncountable number of ways.

Is it immoral to raise children? Of course not. The children have no means by which they can provide for, and look after, themselves without their parents’ constant care and protection. If we can agree, then, that children don’t have total autonomy in their lives, and that this is a necessary thing, can we consider that absolute autonomy in all instances is not necessarily good?

When the child grows into an adult, they must now look after themselves. They now have to feed themselves, work, pay the bills, etc. The idea that this adult can feasibly just go and live in the wild and exist totally outside of the Capitalist system is absurd as well as utopian nonsense.

There has to be some element of force or coercion in trade. If I’m starving to death and I have to work for a corporation in order to earn money so I can buy food: can my actions be called Voluntary? Yes, I can choose to some extent how I go about getting my money, but ultimately I still have to do it.If you believe, despite all this, that participation in the free market system is a totally voluntary act, free of coercion, then examine my final point.

If you believe, despite all this, that participation in the free market system is a totally voluntary act, free of coercion, then examine my final point.

3). The “tax is theft” thing.

In every facet of life, we have rules. Every club has its etiquette, every company has its code of conduct, and every contract has its terms of agreement. If, as defined by AnCaps, engaging in the free market system is a voluntary act; in other words, if it is something you are totally in control of and have the autonomy to decide to do (or not to do,) then by that very definition you are not forced or coerced into paying any tax.

Taxation cannot be “theft” if you are deciding, voluntarily, to engage in the system that entails taxation. You are simply following the rules by paying your taxes. In fact, if you are the one who chose to engage in such a voluntary system, and you are the one who decides not to pay the fee which is required take part in such a system, then you are the one committing theft. You cannot drive to another state on a road which you don’t own, then deny paying the toll fee for it. You’re the one who decided to use that road. You are the one who decided to engage in the system, and to take advantage of all the other luxuries of commerce.

As a Voluntarist, if you believe that you can decide not to exist in the market system, then you don’t have to. By your very definition it is a privilege, not some unalienable right. Sorry to burst anyone’s self-indulgent bubble.

10942327_10205258210072219_1568221338_o
These are just some of the problematic ideas that exist in Libertarian thought. As with every other proposed system solution, just look at the talking heads.

Just a little snip.

In the U.S. around 60% of the baby boys that are born, are apparently born with a birth-defect. This horrible birth-defect is called a ‘foreskin.’ Nobody knows what it’s for, or why it’s there: They just know that they need to immediately cut it off so the baby boy can be free of this horrible affliction.

Medically, it’s referred to as ‘circumcision,’ and the Jewish call it a ‘Briss.’

These are simply light terms for genital mutilation. The general idea is to make it sound like something other than ripping off a part of a baby’s penis.

circ

It’s frequently referred to as a completely harmless and painless procedure, and one that actually has some benefits!

Benefit 1: Easier to rape.

Benefit 2: Vomit-worthy perverts think that it looks better.

(Note: If you’d consider putting a knife to your son because somebody might sexually prefer it later on, then you probably shouldn’t be having kids.)

Benefit 3: If we cut it off, then it won’t be there, and then nothing bad will happen to it!!!1

People will constantly argue that, “Ooh, if we cut a part of your body off then it won’t get infected.”

If you think this justifies genital mutilation, and you adhere to this type of logic, then you should also consider:

  • Decapitating your baby, (It’s been know to reduce forehead cancer in almost 90% of cases.)
  • Getting your baby’s hair lazer removed, (it’s been consistently found that hair carries fleas, bugs, and diseases.)
  • Kill your baby, (some experts say that the human body is susceptible to all kinds of deadly viruses, infections, and diseases. I’d play it safe and just kill the baby to avoid all this.)

(For a hilarious video parodying the stupidity of the ‘circumcision debate’ click here)

Women: Imagine there was a procedure for baby girls, where part of their genitals were permanently altered. The main advocates of this procedure were either men who sexually prefer women with it, or people who just do it because of their religion. Now also imagine that there were many women who hated the fact that this was done to them, and it negatively effected their lives, and that there were even communities of women who were trying to find methods of somehow getting back what was taken from them.

All that, coupled with the fact that the arguments for this procedure were often spurious and unconvincing, postulated by people who were simply trying to give a reason for their barbaric madness; then I think you’d have a genuine issue that feminists could discuss.

(For another hilarious video parodying the double standard of female attitudes to circumcision: See here)

The clean cut killers.

I’m going off topic here, but I thought it was kinda odd how all the main serial-killer-rapists are always so clean cut. I mean, you’d never expect these guys to do all the unspeakable evil things they do, when they just look so gosh darn clean cut.

Image

In an attempt to find out what makes these guys tick, I wanted to look into their personal lives, to see if there was some kind of common denominator… The psychoanalyst, Freud, would often say that early childhood experiences of great trauma would lead to big implications for that person’s personality, and could perhaps lead to strange, or unorthodox fetishes (Freud would’ve known about this more than anybody). So I looked to see if there was anything in their early life that might make sense of their weird pairing of sex and violence, of making their victim bleed and scream, of inflicting great pain.

My efforts were however in vain. There seemed to be nothing that paired these odd people together, nothing that they all had in common that might explain their behavior. There was nothing that officially could be called child abuse. Perhaps these people just did these things for no apparent reason.

Some of the most notorious sexual violence criminals: Jack the ripper, Son of Sam, Doctor death, Michael Fourniret, The Craig’s list killer, etc. They all seemed to just act randomly, and were all so different.

They would often use items of bondage, clamping their victims down and forcing them to suffer, making them bleed, and even cutting the genitals and deriving sexual gratification from it. Their victims had no idea why this was happening. They did nothing for this to happen. There was no reason for any of it. They would just get strapped down and tortured. I don’t know why.

Image

I don’t know why.

The last victim of Phillip Markoff, (the Craig’s list killer,) was called Julia Brissman… hmm.. I think that sounds familiar… Briss… I’m not sure though.

It’s so strange. What could possibly make people have such little empathy for others? It’s like they had no emotions. What sociopaths, right?

 

Special thanks to: Jano Klark and the KBH

For an educational article on the effects of circumcision, read this

For a more comprehensive list of ‘clean cut’ serial killers, see here

Pedo-Rockstar in Wales gets 35 years (Not long enough)

I’m not going to describe in great detail exactly what he did or all the things he planned on doing, all that’s been thoroughly gone over in the news already and to repeat it would be counter productive. I will say, though, that Ian Watkins is not in for a good time when he gets to prison. Being famous and being a pedophile means some extra special treatment (if you know what I mean.)

He was the lead vocalist for a band called Lost Prophets, quite a famous pop-punk (oxymoron) band in Wales. Being from Wales, we’ve heard about this endlessly for months but now the whole world seems to care. I may as well capitalize on that while I can.

Lost Prophets has been a teen sensation for years, and recently it came to light that Watkins had been boasting about all the 14 year old girls he’s slept with whilst on tour. It makes you wonder, how many other celebrities are going around doing the same thing for years on end without getting caught. Regardless, I’m hoping all the statutory rape piles up his sentence (he may end up getting 60+ years if so.)

Watkins has allegedly been collaborating with several women who have been letting him abuse their children. This also makes you question how sick and unfit some people are to be parents. The mother of one of the children who Watkins molested came out with it to the police, which led to a huge investigation and his subsequent arrest.

The DCI (equivalent to police commissioner) of South Wales said that this was the worst case of pedophilia he’s ever dealt with.

“Detective Super Inspector Peter Doyle, who led the investigation, said: ‘Watkins’ data storage size was 27 terabytes – which is five times the size of South Wales Police systems in storage capacity.

‘Not all of it was illegal material – but if you need 27 terabytes then you’re clearly into that kind of world.'”

Apparently, the main password for his computer was “I eff kids.” Talk about adding insult to injury.

I had the (dis)pleasure of stumbling upon Watkins’ profile on a website called ‘motherless’ (hardcore porn site) a few months ago. Turns out Watkins was into: Wearing high heels, putting various objects (including fists) into himself, and what appears to be him attempting to contract oral cancer from having stumps in his mouth. I can also confirm that he is circumcised, which is unusual in the UK. It appears to be voluntary.

Image

Literally the only image on his profile that isn’t explicit.. and it still makes me cringe.

Wouldn’t momma (or mummy in Wales) be proud? Well, the answer is apparently no.

“John Davies, 53, and his wife Elaine, 60, were too distressed to go to court to see their son sentenced yesterday and have instead focused their sympathy on his victims.

‘I could cheerfully spend an hour knocking him around a cell,’ Mr Davies, a Baptist minister, told the Mail”

Unlike Ted Bundy and Jeffrey Dahmer, Watkins gets no sympathy from his parents. If I didn’t think his mutilation was self-inflicted, I would see him as eligible to join the infamous Circ Karma page on the KBH.

It’s interesting to note that he decided to cover up the fact that he was a raving homosexual, (made evident by his motherless profile.) It’s almost as if he felt ashamed of it and hid it away just like being a pedo. But nah, there couldn’t be any connection whatsoever. It’s not like normalising Pedophilia is the last frontier of the sexual revolution, or anything.

The real tragedy behind all this is not that Watkins wanted to do these things in the first place, it is in the face that he was able to do them. Two mothers completely betrayed their own children by allowing Watkins to fulfill his diabolical wishes. How pitiful it is to capitulate to this insanity and corrupt your humanity for mere acknowledgment from a celebrity

Watkins later described his actions as ‘MEGA LOLZ.”

Image

STANDIN’ IN THE SYNOGOGS EVERYONE CRIMP YOUR BAY-BIEEESS!

There was some initial debate about whether he actually did any of the above and if he was indeed guilty. The debate quickly ended was people saw the way he smiled. It just ain’t normal.

Unfortunately, there is another Ian Watkins, who was also a singer, who also lives in the UK, and is the exact same age as the Pedo-Watkins. He is ‘H’ from ‘STEPS’ (a legendary British pop group)

Image

“Tragedy! when people think you’re a pedophile, it’s hard to bear! Now your career is going nowhere! DUN DUN DUN DUN DUN!”

He’s now threatening to sue google because people have mistaken him for Pedo-Watkins (it’s not googles fault he’s incredibly unlcuky.) Let’s hope ‘H’ stays indoors until this all blows over.

7,000 feminazi’s savagely objectify themselves. You go girls!

I got sent this video.

This is feminism in a nutshell: Stupid sluts with a victim complex, getting angry about nothing, fighting an invisible patriarchy that was created in their minds and generally just achieving nothing and wasting oxygen.

Image

From the video; one feminist sucking on the breast of another feminist. Way to break the stereotype that feminists are just closet dykes.

You may think that this image is a bit… disgusting, vile, perverse, unnecessary, horrible, moronic, idiotic, cancerous, etc No really it is, because if you objectify yourself then you won’t need a non-existent

It does make me think that Feminism may have a point, though. There must be some kind of gender inequality, otherwise how would you get so many women out of the kitchen for one day? (I kid, I kid.)

These kinds of insane scenes, along with Slut-Walks, make me think that the only objectification of women is by women themselves. I suppose that way they don’t need a non-existent Patriarchy to do it for them.

Though claiming you’re against something that you’re causing seems sorta like you’re not getting along with yourself, does it not? Just constructive criticism, ladies.

In the video, they’re trying to desecrate a cathedral, which makes sense. Marxist-Feminism is just a part of the wider scheme of Cultural Marxism to totally destroy all Western culture and values.

It seems like Latin America has the craziest feminazis. Though it’s incredibly admirable of the men in this video, (who were getting spat on, sprayed with aerosol, eye raped, verbally abused, and occasionally attacked,) to just keep their cool. It would have been hilarious if they stooped down to the feminazis level and did something like this, but then again that would be an equal response. We all know feminists can’t actually handle equality.

I suppose, though the video is disgusting and hard to watch, it serves as a good resource as to the true colours of feminism.

Image

“U mad ho?”