Donald Trump Is Completely Corrupt

Let’s clear up two things first before I deal with this guy.

Number one, Hillary Clinton is single biggest criminal in mainstream politics in my lifetime. That’s a significant claim, considering that includes both Richard Nixon and Dick Cheney. The Lizard Queen, if elected, will likely be one of the most corrupt presidents in US history, along with, or perhaps even surpassing, past presidents like her husband, Bush, Harding, and Grant.

Number two, the fact that Trump won the Republican nomination and may win the presidency is at least a moderately good thing no matter how bad he personally might be. This is because for the first time in perhaps the last 100 years, the elites did not get to choose the two “choices” we Americans have as our next big goverment, corrupt, warmongering, corporatist president. That’s a good thing.

Don’t get me wrong. It won’t turn America around; that ship sailed long ago and the United States as a long-term nation state is doomed along with Europe. Yet, I have to admit that I had a smile on my face when it was clear Trump had won the Republican nomination. Not because Trump will make a good president; he’ll be a terrible president if he wins because he’s a corrupt piece of shit as I’m about to demonstrate, but because it was nice to see the elites punched in the face at least once before the civilization they destroyed finally goes bye-bye. Watching these panic attacks suffered by DC insiders (like Bill Kristol) has been delicious.

With that out of the way, you’ve got to resist the American cultural Societal Programming in your mind that says that if one presidential candidate is bad, the other one is acceptable. Nope. Donald Trump is an utterly corrupt piece of shit who will be a dreadful president and make a huge mess if he wins, following along with our last three dreadful presidents in row (Clinton, G.W. Bush, and Obama).

Over the last two weeks, my opinion of Trump has gone from mildly negative to sharp disgust. My guess was that he was the typically mildly corrupt, opportunist, corporatist billionaire but no more so than most of that type. Now, I’m convinced he is truly corrupt and lying to everyone. Here are the two biggest reasons why:

1. Amazingly, he will not release his tax returns.  That’s pretty much done it for me. He’s pretty much said he will not be releasing his tax returns after saying that he would. Even after insulting Mitt Romney for not releasing his tax returns soon enough, Trump has done a 180 on this, and is now saying that the fact Mitt Romney released his tax returns cost him the election. You can see him saying this at 9:35 in this video here.

If you believe this crap about how he’s not releasing his tax returns because he’s under audit, you are a moron. Every presidential candidate has released their tax returns, including guys like Nixon who were under audit at the time. Trump is not releasing his tax returns because Mr. Badass is being a pussy and is hiding somethingThe theory right now is that he’s hiding that he has debt or investments in Russia. That might be true, but I think the real reason is that Trump isn’t worth nearly as much money as he says he is, which will negatively affect his brand, which is the most valuable business asset he owns and sells. He says he’s worth $8 billion. Bullshit. It’s very possible his actual net worth is $2 billion or even less. If word got out about that, the Trump name, which he sells via licensing for big bucks, would take a huge hit in sellable value. Trump can’t allow that, period.

I will state for the record that if Trump releases his entire recent tax returns before November, then I will rescind my accusation of him being corrupt. I won’t be holding my breath though. I think he’s painted himself into a corner and can’t release his returns at this point. Speaking of that corner…

2. He secretly offered the job of President to John Kasich. For a about a year now, the left-wing rumor/hope going around was that Trump never intended on winning and just ran for President as a business / marketing move. I didn’t believe this, but now I think that’s exactly what’s happened.

As CNN and other news outlets reported about two weeks ago, Trump’s sons were searching for a Vice President, and Don Jr. told John Kasich that if he took the job, he essentially would be running the entire country, both domestic policy and foreign policy. (More info and sources here.)

If  that sounds crazy, you’re right. This would have made Kasich the most powerful Vice President in US History, even more so than the monstrous Dick Cheney, who essentially ran Bush’s foreign policy.

Kasich was confused by the offer to say the least, and when he asked what Trump would be doing, the answer was that he’ll be “making America great again.”

Oh boy.

I’m sorry folks, but Trump is a fucking fraud, and you really shouldn’t be buying any of his bullshit. I always had a feeling he never really wanted the job of President and wanted to focus on his business ventures instead, and it looks like I was right. He is not going to turn this country around and he’s not the savior a lot of you right-wingers think he is, just like Obama was not the savior the left-wingers thought he was in 2008.

Americans keep falling for this “this guy will save us!” crap over and over again, and it’s making us look stupid (probably deserved at this point). Just like Obama was, Trump is a corrupt charlatan and he’s lying to you.

Snap out of it.

Want over 35 hours of how-to podcasts on how to improve your woman life and financial life? Want to be able to coach with me twice a month? Want access to hours of technique-based video and audio? The SMIC Program is a monthly podcast and coaching program where you get access to massive amounts of exclusive, members-only Alpha 2.0 content as soon as you sign up, and you can cancel whenever you want. Click here for the details.

Leave your comment below, but be sure to follow the Five Simple Rules.

  • Shubert
    Posted at 07:13 am, 1st August 2016

    This is disturbing. Reminds me of what Putin did in Russia. Everyone feels like Mother Russia got her funk back, but a quick glance at national stats will spell a different story.

  • Fraser Orr
    Posted at 07:31 am, 1st August 2016

    By no means do I wish to defend Donald Trump. I have said many times that he is a narcissistic blowhard, and some of his ideas are dreadful.

    However, I don’t find either of the two criticisms you have at all compelling.

    First of all, regarding his tax returns… most likely you are right. He probably is hiding something, but here is the deal: why the hell should he (or anyone else) release his tax returns? The IRS is one of the most appalling organizations in the world . They demand an anal probe of your life just to stay in compliance with the law. I have said the only thing worse than the amount of money they demand is the things they waste it on. And the only thing that is worse than that is the oppressive way the collect it.

    If I were running for President I too would not release my tax returns, not because I have anything to hide, but simply because IT IS NONE OF YOUR DAMN BUSINESS.

    Now, I don’t want to impute good motives to Trump on this. Probably his reasoning is more nefarious than that. But it does not bother me one whit, in reality. In fact I kind of like the “fuck you” attitude to the establishment.
    Second, in regards to Kasich, all the evidence seems to be rumors and claims from people who are his sworn enemies. I don’t know that that is a good basis to indict someone, without some sort of concrete evidence. It is perfectly possible that nothing happened, or some benign offer that has been twisted telephone game style. It is also possible that there was some true mendacity too. But I don’t see there is much evidence of this.

    Honestly, I don’t understand why we have to go into all these complex machinations about Trump. His own words indict him, words that he will often double down on. That should be enough. No investigative journalism required.

    But again, in America you don’t get to vote against someone, just for someone, and Hillary Clinton is, as you say, the most corrupt person to ever run for president, and moreover someone who’s plans will greatly accelerate our doom all too much more quickly. Voting for that monster is unconscionable.

  • Caleb Jones
    Posted at 09:24 am, 1st August 2016

    He probably is hiding something, but here is the deal: why the hell should he (or anyone else) release his tax returns? The IRS is one of the most appalling organizations in the world .

    Because if you want to be the most powerful man in the world, you need to be 100% financially transparent to the people voting for you. This has nothing to do with the fact that the IRS is appalling.

    1. The IRS should be abolished.

    2. Anyone running for president should release all financial records audited by an independent third party.

    Those two things have nothing to do with each other.

    in regards to Kasich, all the evidence seems to be rumors and claims from people who are his sworn enemies. I don’t know that that is a good basis to indict someone, without some sort of concrete evidence. It is perfectly possible that nothing happened, or some benign offer that has been twisted telephone game style. It is also possible that there was some true mendacity too

    1. Why would Kasich or anyone else completely make this up out of the blue? It’s such a specific and odd claim.

    2. More importantly, if Kasich was misquoted so horribly and so publicly, why hasn’t he come out to correct the record?

    Preponderance of the evidence tells me this happened.

    Hillary Clinton is, as you say, the most corrupt person to ever run for president, and moreover someone who’s plans will greatly accelerate our doom all too much more quickly.Voting for that monster is unconscionable.

    Voting for either of these people is unconscionable.

    But that’s a hard concept for Americans to grasp.

  • Fraser Orr
    Posted at 10:53 am, 1st August 2016

    @Caleb Jones says
    > Because if you want to be the most powerful man in the world, you need to be 100% financially transparent to the people voting for you.

    Why? Should you also have to publish your medical records? After all, that affects your ability to do the job. How about your browser history? We want to know about any president with an interest in kinky porn, right? Might subject him to blackmail. How about the details of your investment portfolio? How about your brother’s tax return? How about your divorce records? (After all, the only reason we have President Obama in the first place is because the Chicago Tribune forceably unsealed the divorce records of Jack Ryan and his gorgeous ex Seven of Nine, embarrassing him because of his interest in kinky sex clubs.) Should he also have to publish the text of every contract he signed, every deal he made and every agreement he entered into? All these could affect his presidency. What is so special about his tax records?

    > This has nothing to do with the fact that the IRS is appalling.

    Really? If there were no IRS how could these data be published by candidates? People aren’t corporations, and generally don’t run their personal finances according to GAAP, except insofar as the IRS makes them.

    BTW, the Clinton foundation is an entirely different matter. It is a public charity and people have a legitimate right to know how their donations are spent, and how that charity is using it’s tax exempt status. FWIW, it is shocking how little examination the press (not to mention the FBI and IRS) has given to that disgraceful organization.

    > 1. Why would Kasich or anyone else completely make this up out of the blue? It’s such a specific and odd claim.

    Like I said, it sounds to me like a game of telephone. There is probably some grain of truth, which need not necessarily be a bad thing. He might have said “John I want your help as VP, you have such great insight into foreign policy that you’d have great influence on the way the country goes.” That is a perfectly legitimate offer. However, with the retelling colored by intense dislike it could easily morph into something much nastier.

    I’m not saying that is what happened, but there is no real reason to believe the worst possible telling of events here.

    > Preponderance of the evidence tells me this happened.

    There is effectively no evidence except hostile hearsay.

    For example, there is a meme going round about how Hillary represented a child rapist and using very deceptive tactics got him off with no time in jail, and make the most dirty lawyer tricks against the 12 year old victim, saying, effectively, that the violent rape was a fulfillment of her sexual fantasy.

    However, the meme, while having small grains of truth is extremely misleading as to what actually happened (you can check it out on snopes.) Even though I despise the woman the truth in this case is that she fulfilled her rather unpleasant obligation as a lawyer.

    I imagine the Kasich thing is similarly misleading. But of course I could be wrong. I have no significant data on which to base a judgement.

  • Caleb Jones
    Posted at 11:33 am, 1st August 2016


    Why should the most powerful man in the world, in charge of the greatest military in the world, the greatest economy in the world, and in control of nuclear weapons, disclose his financial records before people vote for him? Really? You don’t want to see what biases he has, what history he has, who possibly will have influence over him, etc?

    If you honestly don’t know why that would be important, I can’t explain it to you.

    Should you also have to publish your medical records?

    Absolutely. A man want that kind of power over my life and yours and billions of others? Of course.

    You’re personalizing this. I’m not saying we need to see YOUR financial records or medical history. I’m just talking about someone wanting to rule our vast goverment, and thus you and me. Many of the concepts regarding privacy do not (or at least should not) apply to vastly powerful goverment officials. These are public servants who operate at our pleasure (or at least should).

    If Trump doesn’t want to reveal these things, he should remain a private citizen like you and me and maintain his privacy. Very simple.

    How about your browser history?

    No, I don’t think we need to go that far.

    How about the details of your investment portfolio?


    How about your brother’s tax return?


    How about your divorce records?

    Yes. Or at least the financial parts, unless the divorce was a very long time ago.

    Should he also have to publish the text of every contract he signed, every deal he made and every agreement he entered into? All these could affect his presidency.

    Recent ones, yes, like those in the last 2-5 years or so, based on some criteria.

    If there were no IRS how could these data be published by candidates?

    The candidates would submit their financial records to one of several independent, private accounting firms who have met a certain level of criteria. These firms would then audit the fuck out of them. The IRS isn’t needed at all.

    Like I said, it sounds to me like a game of telephone

    Then answer my question above as to why John Kasich has not come out to refute these claims. If I was a public figure and politician and was being misquoted this severely all over the place, I would certainly come out and set the record straight, and so would you. He has not (as far as I know). What does that indicate?

    I’m not saying that is what happened, but there is no real reason to believe the worst possible telling of events here.

    Incorrect. There are numerous reasons to believe this, mostly Trump’s behavior and statements over the last year, as well as his position as the head of a very complex business empire, as well as Kasich’s silence, etc, etc.

    As I said, this may or may not be true, but I lean in the yes direction based on what I’ve said above.

    (If John Kasich comes out and says this is all bullshit, I will rescind my accusation. But I don’t think he will, because I think this event happened.)

  • Randy
    Posted at 11:40 am, 1st August 2016

    I have to agree with Fraser – I came at the Kasich thing with an open mind and looked into the posted sources, and it looks like it’s nothing but gossip. Is there any actual evidence that this has happened? It’s a very strong claim to make based on the evidence presented.

    Donald Trump certainly hasn’t helped his brand by going into this election -roughly half the world now sees him as the next Hitler. He has to wear a bulletproof vest at every speaking event.

    And what reason would John Kasich have to come out and deny this? Almost no republican nominee has come out to deny any negative information, no matter how untrue, regarding Donald Trump.

  • Fraser Orr
    Posted at 02:01 pm, 1st August 2016

    >You’re personalizing this. I’m not saying we need to see YOUR financial records or medical history.

    No, not really. If that is the way it came across it is just an effect of the channel.

    I’m afraid we will have to disagree on this one. I think people absolutely have the right to privacy even if they are taking on a huge office like the presidency. In fact, I think it is exactly this sort of bullshit that leads to the fact the decent people don’t run, and we are left with the scum of the earth who have spent their whole life preparing for the moment they can lord it over people.

    Decent people all have embarrassing skeletons in their cupboards. Career politicians spend their lives cleaning it up so that they look squeaky clean. Meaning that only professional politicians have a chance against the gauntlet.

    Which is to say, irrespective of the basic right people have to privacy, it has the substantive effect of encouraging exactly the wrong people and discouraging the right people. But as you say, it probably doesn’t matter any more. CEO of a great, well run company is the sort of person we want running the government. The fact that Trump is the worst choice out of those doesn’t change the fact that it is the nature of being a CEO that puts him in this position, nor does it change the fact that he is a terrible pick for president.

    Look, this election tells us one thing for sure — the people who run for President are the worst possible choices. It tells us surely that system is seriously flawed since the many people who would do the job with great capability are apparently excluded. In the present system it is the scum, not the cream, that floats to the top. That is surely an indictment of the system, including this stripping away all privacy.

    > Then answer my question above as to why John Kasich has not come out to refute these claims.

    I think there is one very obvious answer. Because John Kasich hates Trump and sees no benefit from speaking up and eliminating something that will hurt him.

    Your reasons to believe?

    > Trump’s behavior and statements over the last year

    He is a bad guy therefore we should believe every negative story about him? See my earlier comment on Clinton defending a child rapist. She is a horrible person, but I think that particular story is extremely unfair to her.

    >, as well as his position as the head of a very complex business empire,

    Therefore he must have done shady deals?

    > as well as Kasich’s silence, etc, etc.

    See above.

    Again, I don’t know if the Kasich thing is true. I just have no significant evidence to believe it.

  • Caleb Jones
    Posted at 03:31 pm, 1st August 2016

    And what reason would John Kasich have to come out and deny this? Almost no republican nominee has come out to deny any negative information, no matter how untrue, regarding Donald Trump.


    I think there is one very obvious answer. Because John Kasich hates Trump and sees no benefit from speaking up and eliminating something that will hurt him.

    I’ve been watching John Kasich for many years. He just doesn’t seem the type to allow a massive and obvious lie, in his name, about something that happened to him personally, to float around the media world just to sabotage his own party nominee so Hillary can more easily win. I certainly agree it’s possible, but I just don’t buy it.

    Now if we were talking about Ted Cruz, then I would agree 100% that he’d be blatantly lying about this out of personal hatred and vengeance, his party be damned. But Kasich? Possible, but unlikely.

    Regardless, even if this is untrue (and I think it is true), I still consider Trump unfit for the tax returns issue alone. That’s what did it for me.

    I think people absolutely have the right to privacy even if they are taking on a huge office like the presidency.

    I do not. If you want to lord over me, I have every right to know as much as I can about you. Otherwise fuck off and go back to the private sector.

    As you said, we’ll have to agree to disagree.

    In fact, I think it is exactly this sort of bullshit that leads to the fact the decent people don’t run, and we are left with the scum of the earth who have spent their whole life preparing for the moment they can lord it over people.

    Decent people all have embarrassing skeletons in their cupboards. Career politicians spend their lives cleaning it up so that they look squeaky clean. Meaning that only professional politicians have a chance against the gauntlet.

    Embarrassing skeletons in your past are not grounds for me not voting for you. Financial chicanery or mismanagement is.

    In other words, I think we should have 100% transparency with those who run for President, as well as have a more permissive society where if you have been divorced, or are unmarried, or have had skeletons in your past of a personal nature, then people won’t use that as criteria to vote against you. Note I said of a personal nature. If you have skeletons of a criminal or financial nature, I consider that grounds to not vote for you.

    He is a bad guy therefore we should believe every negative story about him?

    That isn’t what I said.

    For example, I don’t believe Trump is a racist (any more than the typical person that is).

  • Jack Outside the Box
    Posted at 04:39 pm, 1st August 2016

    BD, you are so wrong on this one! First let me just begin by saying, TRUMP! TRUMP! TRUMP! TRUMP! BUILD A WALL! BUILD A WALL! BUILD A WALL! BUILD A WALL! BUILD A WALL!

    Okay, now that that’s out of my system: Everyone needs to vote for Trump for the following reasons:

    1. He wants to outsource his job to the VP! Trump wants to run the White House the same way he wants to run a business – outsource all the minute, day to day, nonsense that makes a president’s hair turn grey over to the VP, while he simply exercises the occasional veto over the VP’s actions if he thinks the VP is being a moron. As a libertarian, I believe the most important and least harmful thing a president, or any politician, can do is play golf and sleep. The less they do, the better. AND TRUMP DOING NOTHING IS THE BEST CASE SCENARIO! Now let’s take a look at the worst (him being a hands on president).

    2. As a hands on president, he wants to reject globalism in favor of patriotism and nationalism. This is awesome. Anything which slows and retards the movement towards a totalitarian one world government is something every libertarian should welcome. He might get us out of NATO, the UN (Amerixit), smash these anti-American free trade agreements (read: outsourcing deals which take American jobs away and transplant them to third world shitholes). He may even encourage Texas to secede (Texzit) . Bottom line, he’s NOT a globalist and is firmly against the controlling oligarchy and its plan for a gigantic global superstate!

    3. As a hands on president, he would strictly enforce our immigration laws and at least attempt to throw out the criminal Mexicans who refuse to assimilate, believe that Mexico is wherever they set foot, and wish to reclaim the Southwest for Mexico (believing it was stolen in the Mexican/American war). Kicking out the criminal element and the anti-American trash is, after all, what our immigration laws were meant to do. Now personally, I think a wall is not enough. I’d also put landmines on that border, laser guided semi-automatic weapons which activate upon coming within five feet of the wall, and a horizontal electric fence or net on our side of the border that would act as a net for anyone somehow scaling the wall or tunneling underneath, resulting in swift electrocution upon successfully penetrating the wall. But that’s just me. I’ll take the wall as a first step.

    4. He wants to ban all Muslim immigration to the U.S. And if pushed, he may even institute Muslim control legislation which would make it illegal to be a Muslim without a Muslim permit, just like you need a gun permit before exercising your 2nd Amendment rights. All Muslims would be psychologically screened and tested, proven to have no ties to terrorism or terrorist charities, screened for criminal pasts, dangerous psychological tendencies, and so forth. Only those who pass would receive a Muslim permit. Otherwise, just like with their Constitutional right to have a gun, their Constitutional right to be a Muslim could be rescinded. He’s hinted at doing something like this after Orlando and it’s about time! If anything, he would just make sure that no more of them can get in here!



    4. He will greatly contribute to a culture which will smash political correctness, just by sitting in the White House and doing nothing, other than giving the occasional speech or writing the typical angry tweet! The cultural phenomenon that is Donald Trump is bigger than the literal man! He has become a symbol for cultural libertarianism! And by remaining as a symbol for something that every red piller and cultural libertarian considers truly precious – ABSOLUTE FREE SPEECH – we may actually win this cultural war against the feminists and social justice warriors who want to tell us what we can or cannot say, what we can or cannot think, what games we can or cannot play, what movies or TV shows we can or cannot watch, what clothes we can or cannot wear, how we can or cannot have sex via PC government bedroom checklists, who we can or cannot hang out with, and what we can or cannot express under the threat of doxxing and loss of employment. That’s a tyranny that the cultural/mythical Donald Trump is already dismantling! College kids are standing up against feminists and social justice warriors in the name of Trump! They are pushing back against campus speech codes, safe spaces, trigger warnings, and the concept of micro-aggressions ALL WHILE CHANTING TRUMP’S NAME! The myth of Trump is returning real Free Speech to America with a vengeance as his college supporters are tearing down their campus’s “free speech zones” while chanting THAT ZONE IS CALLED AMERICA!

    This Trump cultural phenomenon MUST CONTINUE if we are going to slash and burn political correctness! The idea of Trump has given red pillers and the NHBs (normal human beings) courage to renew the fight against the SJWs. And just him being in the White House writing mean tweets will ensure that this trend continues until we trigger all these SJW snowflakes into numbness! THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT POINT BY FAR!

    5. If he is impeached or assassinated in order to bring in the pro-establishment Mike Pence, Pence will still be superior to the Angry Dyke!



    1. She indicated that she will, de facto, repeal the First Amendment and effectively end Free Speech. In cahoots with our current Attorney General, she has shown interest in legally prosecuting and imprisoning people like me for “hate speech” against our diaper headed friends from the Middle East. With possibly 4 U.S. Supreme Court Justices that she will be in a position to pick, she indicated that she wants to “liberalize” First Amendment law to make it possible to criminalize so called “hate speech.” This reinterpretation of the First Amendment will effectively repeal it! As anti-blasphemy laws which prohibit insulting the Muzzies or drawing pictures of their founding pedophile will sweep the land, myself and those like me will go to prison for “hate speech,” as we become like Europe and Canada! THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT AND CHILLING POINT!

    2. She wants to be the Angela Merkel of America! She wants to literally ship several million Muslim “rapefugees” from Syria to America and jail anyone who objects under her future “hate speech laws.” Political correctness will reign supreme (enforced by law), our sexually open minded women will be gang raped on the streets (a la Swedistan), and dressing sexy will be considered hate speech against Muslims at worst and a criminal micro-aggression against fat feminists at best! Sex-positivism will take a major hit as the Koran thumping rapefugees pollute our once free nation!

    3. Unlike Trump who may do nothing but play golf and let Pence run the show, the Angry Dyke will expand the welfare state, further bankrupt America, further inflame the sex-negative gender war, slander men, demand a guilty until proven innocent standard in college rape cases (which she already said she’d do in a speech claiming that all women should be believed). Her male running mate is her bitch who will serve as a national example of a male feminist cuckhold! This woman has already declared war against masculinity and will try to stamp it out, both by law and social custom while her hubby chases the interns again!

    4. She will try to de facto repeal the 2nd Amendment and make America a gun free zone (read: murder zone) using her 4 new Supreme Court Justices.

    This is no good BD! Even if Trump is the fraud that you say he is, we MUST put him in the White House, because this Icy Bull Dyke is just not even remotely acceptable!



  • Caleb Jones
    Posted at 04:51 pm, 1st August 2016

    1. Donald Trump is not a libertarian. He’s the opposite. He’s a big government corporatist and authoritarian who supports NSA surveillance and the Patriot Act and utterly hates free speech. (He wants to change libel laws so he can sue any media outlet who says anything negative about him. Scary.) I could go on, but I won’t.

    You can’t call yourself a libertarian if you enthusiastically support Donald Trump.

    2. You’re advocating lesser evilism, and I’ve already made it clear that lesser evilism is what has been slowly destroying this country over the last several decades.

    3. You don’t need a wall if you simply stop invading countries and end the welfare state:

    Building a wall is attacking the symptom, not the the problem.

  • Fraser Orr
    Posted at 05:33 pm, 1st August 2016

    > I still consider Trump unfit for the tax returns issue alone.

    Oh they are both unfit to run. I was originally born in the UK, though I have been a US citizen for a while. I tell my friends I am running for president. They say “Hey you’re not qualified”, and I say “yeah, but nobody else who is running is qualified either.”

    > Embarrassing skeletons in your past are not grounds for me not voting for you. Financial chicanery or mismanagement is.

    Yeah, but you are a rational, thinking person. Most of the electorate are not. Remember, this is a country where you can’t get elected if you are gay, or divorced, or don’t claim you are a Bible believing Christian. This is a country where is is considered a micro-aggression for me, a white guy, to cook General Tso’s Chicken. The right to privacy doesn’t just hide our substantive skeletons but the ones that are perfectly fine, but ridiculous people might be biased against. Brendan Eich, briefly CEO of Mozilla, would be a perfect example of this.

  • Caleb Jones
    Posted at 05:55 pm, 1st August 2016

    Yeah, but you are a rational, thinking person. Most of the electorate are not.

    Correct. That’s why most of the electorate should not be allowed to vote. Democracy is a terrible system.

  • Makeshift
    Posted at 06:03 pm, 1st August 2016

    If your assertion is that the west is fucked anyways, why not vote for Trump? He’s an absolute whirlwind of insanity and entertainment who brings endless joy and sends liberals into convulsions.

  • Jocko
    Posted at 08:46 pm, 1st August 2016

    You might find this interesting. Anecdotal but it wouldn’t surprise me. It’s the comedian Joey Diaz on Trump shutting out small, family run construction companies in the 80s. Also he had illegal workers from Poland doing demolition work for him. Must only hate illegals when they’re not working for him.

    I happened to watch part of a speech Ivanka Trump gave because it was playing while I was waiting for a flight. Pity she isn’t running. She seems highly intelligent and is a fantastic public speaker. Easy on the eyes as well

  • Caleb Jones
    Posted at 11:13 pm, 1st August 2016

    If your assertion is that the west is fucked anyways, why not vote for Trump? He’s an absolute whirlwind of insanity and entertainment who brings endless joy and sends liberals into convulsions.

    Sure, if you’ve completely given up on this country and just want to sow more chaos just for fun, then vote for all the horrible people you like. Just don’t delude yourself into thinking these horrible people aren’t horrible.

    As you can see from Jack’s comment, a lot of people think voting for Trump will be helpful to this country. It won’t.

  • Tyler Cheng
    Posted at 11:45 am, 2nd August 2016

    Hey BD,

    I’m curious…

    According to your in depth research of American history and politics, has there ever been an American president that was a good politician? I mean in terms of either moral character, political competence or both? Please excuse the oxymoron “good politician.”

    I’m not American and I have little knowledge beyond the basics of American history.

  • Caleb Jones
    Posted at 12:17 pm, 2nd August 2016

    According to your in depth research of American history and politics

    I’m not sure how “in depth” my “research” is. I just read a lot.

    has there ever been an American president that was a good politician? I mean in terms of either moral character, political competence or both?

    Of course.

    Moral character and political competence are two different things though. Bill Clinton was (and still is) a fantastically skilled politician, perhaps one of the greatest in US history. He’s also an evil, sociopathic piece of shit who likely has some deep psychological issues.

    Teddy Roosevelt is a good example of a skilled politician who was also a (comparatively) moral guy. He was a truly amazing man even though I disagree with his politics. If you ever want a lesson on what it is to be Alpha, read a biography on Teddy Roosevelt. You won’t believe what a badass this guy was.

    My personal favorite US president from modern history is Calvin Coolidge.

  • Zoe
    Posted at 05:39 pm, 2nd August 2016

    @Jack Outside the Box:

    Reading the first lines of your comment above, I thought you were being sarcastic. As I continued reading, I thought perhaps someone hijacked your email account. Et tu, JOTB?!

    Your thoughts on the following would be appreciated:

    1. During the RNC, Ivanka said her father would fight for equal pay while using the 77-cents-to-the-dollar argument. She also mentioned something about a federal mandate for childcare. All of this should set my liberal heart aflutter (it doesn’t), but I imagine this has to make your skin crawl.

    2. Trump has foolish ideas for how to manage the national debt, including selling off federal lands (!) and renegotiating federal debt with dangerous consequences.

    3. He’s a Democrat in a cheap disguise.

    Your assumption that he will sit on his Trump Rump in the Oval Office and not take any action on any of his stellar ideas is really putting a lot of faith in this man. You’re assuming that, once in office, he’ll be able to put aside his ‘tremendous’ ego. If he wins, I’ll be praying (atheistically) that you’re right.

  • Jack Outside the Box
    Posted at 01:34 am, 3rd August 2016


    No, I’m not being sarcastic, nor was my account hijacked, lol. I just want to stay out of prison. And the Bull Dyke threatening to enact “hate speech laws” and have them be sustained by the U.S Supreme Court after she picks the next 4 Justices will make my life long dream of not getting raped up the ass in a jail cell a somewhat more difficult vision to attain. I’m perfectly willing to burn this country to the ground before I give it to the Bull Dyke!

    1. If you listen to Ivanka’s speech carefully, she stated that gender is no longer the determining factor for getting paid less. Motherhood is. It is true that mothers get paid less than men, but that’s because they make different choices than fathers. Whereas fathers get paid more than men who aren’t fathers as well as childless women or mothers because they get promoted, due to our despicable gold digging culture dictating that the father should be the breadwinner instead of the mother. I think what she meant about childcare was that corporations should provide an avenue for women to professionally advance while raising children at the same time (which may include things like government mandated paid maternity leave and so forth).

    I’m slightly torn here because I’ve stated before that my libertarianism ends where children begin. I do not believe it is realistic or rational to expect private companies to ignore their own bottom line, their fiduciary responsibility to their stockholders, or create a fictional world for women in which their choices do not have consequences, or a world in which they should be spared the adult reality of prioritizing.

    At the same time, however, I hate gold diggers, prostitutes, or anyone who has sex for money or some other kind of non-sexual or gender neutral reason. The thought of men financially supporting women disgusts me. So if some type of fair way can be established which will allow women to raise their children while at the same time continuing to be financially independent from men and from the government, I’m open to having that conversation.

    I also wish to change the culture to make it more acceptable for mothers to be the primary breadwinners while fathers take a more active role at home raising the children. This doesn’t mean I support women financially taking care of men, but it does mean that if our culture would no longer take for granted that men will be more reliable to the company if they have kids because they need to support them (or that women will withhold sex from men due to a man’s lack of money) and women will be less reliable when they become mothers, then this new cultural shift would force the corporations to reprioritize their own interests as mothers would be thought of as breadwinners also, which might prompt these companies to promote them precisely because they had a baby (just like they’re promoting fathers now).

    2. I’m nor sure if this would impact the national debt, but I am all in favor of selling off federal (and state) lands. Speaking as a libertarian, the government has no business owning parks, forests, or any land really other than the basic necessities for law enforcement and a functioning legislative, executive, and judicial branch. Owning parks, forests, streets, sidewalks, bridges, highways, and the like isn’t compatible with a government’s mission in a libertarian society. The private sector should own the land and we should own the government. The government should “own” nothing, least of all land.

    I’m not sure how he wants to renegotiate federal debt, but he will have lots of economic advisors on that front. Harry Browne (RIP) – a two time Libertarian candidate for president – wanted to bulldoze the IRS building and sell the chunks and bits and pieces to average Americans who always wanted a piece of the IRS to pay down the debt. Great idea! And Trump has shown a willingness to work towards abolishing all outsourcing deals (free trade agreements) and return to a more protectionist economy. Another great idea! I may be a libertarian, but I’m certainly not a globalist free trader.

    3. He’s is not a Democrat. Democrats are globalists who are infested with politically correct and language policing SJWs. He’s not a true Republican either. Republicans are also globalists who want socialism for the rich (corporate welfare) and capitalism for the poor. This is called fascism, or corporatism, which is anti-capitalist!.I do believe that Trump is a true capitalist.

    I never assumed that he will sit on his ass and do nothing. BD assumes that because he believes those rumors about Kasich. I was just proceeding under that assumption for the purposes of my comment, saying that if he is a liar and does nothing at all, that will be so much better than the heinous plans unleashed upon us by the Bull Dyke!


    P.S. My OLTR girlfriend – a hippie Wiccan – is a staunch supporter of Bernie Sanders. Her and I would have been diametrically opposed in this election if he would have been nominated instead of the Bull Dyke. But because the Bull Dyke is now the nominee, my girlfriend is reluctantly voting for Trump because, like me, she understands that we must, in her words, “keep that political whore out of the White House.” She’s so hot when she talks like that! . .

  • Jack Outside the Box
    Posted at 02:19 am, 3rd August 2016


    1. Yes, I am a libertarian. My ideal candidate is John McAfee – a true alpha 2.0. He is the best of the best! In a perfect world, I would vote for him over Trump any day and three times on Sunday! But – as you have so often lectured me when it comes to my sex life – we live in a fallen world where perfection is not attainable. As such, we must deal with practical realities – like not talking about our political preferences on a date before we have fucked a woman twice on two separate occasions. This may require us to water down who we really are temporarily, but it’s either some compromise or nothing. I choose the former.

    2. Trump doesn’t hate free speech. If you listen carefully to what he said about journalists, he simply wants to strengthen civil laws against mendacious libel, thus effectively making it harder for journalists to lie about people as it pertains to objective facts. I have no problem with this, as I too believe our defamation civil laws should be strengthened! This has nothing to do with the First Amendment, as lying has never been protected by it.

    And yes, I realize he sued the Onion and Bill Maher for making jokes about him, but that’s only because he can’t see himself objectively and has a very thin skin. I’ve understood for a while now that he has a small penis, and I’ve forgiven him this one weakness! He will never successfully sue anyone for jokes and in the end his hatred of political correctness makes him the best defender of free speech that we have (or at least better than the Bull Dyke).

    3. As I said to Zoe, the Bull Dyke wants to enact European and Canadian style hate speech laws in this country and get the Supreme Court to sustain them (since she’ll be in a position to appoint 3 or 4 new Justices). Donald Trump won’t put me in prison for having politically incorrect opinions. The Bull Dyke, on the other hand, wants to. Free speech is too sacred for me to sit this one out, BD. I’d still prefer McAfee or Gary Johnson (because I really am a Libertarian), but Trump will have to do because he’s the only realistic option. So yes, I am enthusiastic about the one man who can whip the dominatrix!

    4. I completely agree with you about ending the welfare state and no longer invading countries (although I do believe in CIA funded Muslim dating sites aimed at turning Muslim daughters into sexually liberated women, thus convincing the terrorists that they could get their virgins now without blowing themselves up). Still, I think the wall is a better than nothing short term solution, while we dismantle our socialist government in the meantime..

  • Zoe
    Posted at 04:50 am, 3rd August 2016

    @Jack Outside the Box

    As is usually the case, your ideas force me to question my own political and social views. Your case for a Trump presidency is the first cogent argument I’ve come across, and from a Libertarian no less.

    It just goes to show that I don’t know Jack.

    I’ll admit I wasn’t aware of Clinton’s threat to free speech. At a time when we need more voices like you and Sam Harris to point out the dangers of Islamic doctrine, I find it hard to deny that Clinton is, sadly, a…..what your girlfriend said 😉

    I’m looking forward to Johnson’s town hall tonight, but at the same time feel disheartened because I know that a Johnson presidency is near impossible.

  • Caleb Jones
    Posted at 10:40 am, 3rd August 2016

    we must deal with practical realities

    You support lesser evilsim then. I do not. Just remember that all the problems America now has are because of people like you (voting for very bad candidates to avoid less bad candidates).

    he simply wants to strengthen civil laws against mendacious libel, thus effectively making it harder for journalists to lie about people as it pertains to objective facts. I have no problem with this, as I too believe our defamation civil laws should be strengthened! This has nothing to do with the First Amendment, as lying has never been protected by it.

    That is so incorrect I don’t even know where to begin. It’s amazing to hear you say this crap. Lying is indeed covered by the First Amendment, but you’re still able to sue for slander / libel if you can prove such lies objectively damaged you in some way.

    You are not a libertarian. You can call yourself one all you like. You aren’t.

    I think the wall is a better than nothing short term solution

    Again, you are not a libertarian.

  • Jack Outside the Box
    Posted at 01:27 pm, 3rd August 2016

    BD, I’m not going to give up the First Amendment issue with you because you are objectively wrong. It’s not just slander/libel. We have laws in this country against many types of lying (including criminal laws). Examples:

    1. Yelling “fire” in a crowded theater when there is no fire (crime).

    2. Misrepresentation – claiming to be a doctor/lawyer/engineer when you’re not and then giving advice “with intent to harm,” usually involving presenting forged credentials (crime).

    3. Impersonation – claiming to be another individual who actually exists (identity fraud).

    4. Breach of contract (contract fraud) = lawsuit.

    5. Extracting even one penny from another person under malicious and false pretenses (lawsuit).

    6. Any type of lying to law enforcement officials in the commission of their duties (obstruction of justice)

    7. Lying under oath (perjury)

    8. Falsely accusing someone of a crime (criminal and civil).

    9. Typical slander/libel (defamation).

    10. Any type of lying that causes physical or financial injury as a result of the lie ( yelling “fire” in crowded theater).

    11. Forgery of paintings and other property

    12. Counterfeit money.

    Our society – for the last 250 years – has criminalized or made a violation of civil law many, many types of lying!

    No dude, lying is NOT protected under the First Amendment. It never was. Sure, I supposed so called “white lies” are and certain lies which pertain to one’s personal life, or lies which don’t cause physical or financial injury to others, but there are sooooooo many types of lying that are civil violations, or even crimes!

    I know my First Amendment man!

    So, you say I’m not a libertarian? Okay, then what am I in your eyes?

    P.S. Can you please set this blog up like you did the BD one – where we can make block quotes and edit our comments? I’d really appreciate it. 🙂

  • Jack Outside the Box
    Posted at 02:21 pm, 3rd August 2016

    Plagiarism! I forgot plagiarism. That’s a civil violation as well! The only type of lying actually protected under the First Amendment is lying which (1) doesn’t cause physical injury (2) doesn’t cause financial injury and (3) doesn’t damage the public reputation and good social standing of the victim of the lie.

    Also, I do believe that 7 states have laws against “sexual fraud” or extracting sexual favors from others through malicious deception or identity misrepresentation. Example: You allow a man to give you oral sex because you thought he was a woman. Or, a man puts on a mask and has sex with a woman, but she only consented because she thought you were her boyfriend (impersonation). Such laws against sexual fraud piss feminists off because they don’t rise to the level of rape under the law and because this would mean that a woman could potentially be prosecuted for getting a man to consent to sex by lying about being on birth control! As usual, feminists want to exempt women from sexual fraud laws.

    No man, lying is not protected speech (exceptions aside).

  • Caleb Jones
    Posted at 02:38 pm, 3rd August 2016

    Words like “defamation,” “perjury,” “impersonation,” etc, do not appear anywhere in the First Amendment, nor anywhere in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. But I’m not going to argue legal minutia. If you support a man who wants to build a wall, further reduce freedom of speech, supports the Patriot Act and NSA surveillance over private citizens, supports federal government-provided heathcare for the poor, wants to expand the wars in the middle east, and on and on, then you are not a libertarian. At best you are a libertarian-leaning conservative.

  • Jack Outside the Box
    Posted at 02:58 pm, 3rd August 2016


    Yeah, what horrifies me the most about her (next to her repugnant stance on Free Speech) is her demand that we take in 65,000 Syrian rapefugees! If Eurabia is any indication (and especially Swedistan), this will effectively put an end to Free Speech on a cultural level (even if she fails to destroy it legally). Sexual freedom will also be severely curtailed as sex-positive women will, just like in Swedistan, be gang raped in the streets, including pre-pubescent little girls who aren’t dressed according to Muslim standards.

    As a woman yourself (presumably a sexually enlightened one), you do not want the Bull Dyke bringing in 65,000 rapefugees from Syria “in the name of compassion” while they go about the business of doing what they are already doing in Britistan, Swedistan, Belgiumstan, Germanstan, and other parts of Eurabia.

    I don’t want Chicago, New York City, Los Angeles, Orlando, and parts of other American cities to become European style “no go zones” for Muslim trash to congregate in just because we elected a Bull Dyke following the orders of globalist totalitarians!

    I posted these two videos on BD’s other blog, but please watch them AS A WOMAN!

    Here is what’s going on in London, or Londonistan, thanks to policies which the Bull Dyke wants here:

    Now with this second video SKIP TO 4:30 AND WATCH ONLY TILL 7:10:

  • Jack Outside the Box
    Posted at 04:25 pm, 3rd August 2016


    Of course words like “perjury,” “plagiarism,” “impersonation,” and “misrepresentation” do not appear in the Constitution. That’s beside the point. The point is that all of these acts of deception and deliberate lying are NOT protected under the First Amendment – ACCORDING TO THE U.S. SUPREME COURT AND EVERY SINGLE OTHER FEDERAL AND STATE COURT IN THIS COUNTRY SINCE ITS INCEPTION! It’s not “legal minutia.” These are legal facts which make all the difference in the world between what I’m saying and what you’re saying.

    I do not believe that Trump wants to reduce Free Speech just because he wants to strengthen laws against mendacious libel. Telling objective falsehoods about someone in order to maliciously smear their reputation (something which the press does daily) should be subjected to legal action.

    As for the Patriot Act and NSA surveillance, I think he wants to make it more laser guided so that it focuses exclusively on Muslims in America. I support the Fourth Amendment and don’t condone the Patriot Act or NSA surveillance of American citizens, but as a Republican he must give them something in order to get elected, and if that means he can at least reduce the scope of the surveillance to target mostly only Muslim citizens, I’ll hold my nose and vote for him until reduce the Muslim population, preferably with mass deportation and Muslim Control Permits for Muslim citizens.

    I didn’t hear him wanting government healthcare for the poor. He said he wants to repeal Obamacare (thank goodness) and no longer order private citizens to spend money against their will under the penalty of IRS theft. He said he wants “something better” than Obamacare, but I think that’s just him blowing smoke.

    Expanding the wars in the middle east? Only those countries which are directly responsible for sending terrorists over here. But he’s mostly an isolationist/nationalist, who precisely wants to get us out of the world, international organizations which violate our Declaration of Independence, outsourcing deals, etc…

    In any case, no candidate is perfect (except John McAfee). But allowing the Bull Dyke to lead is so mindboggling and chilling that I can’t bring myself to even contemplate it. She must be stopped. Period! Failure is not an option this time!

  • Zoe
    Posted at 07:02 pm, 3rd August 2016


    Pew Research cites a 2011 survey of Muslims in the United States: 86% of those surveyed said that “suicide bombings and other forms of violence against civilians in the name of Islam are rarely or never justified.” I’m sorry, but that number is too low and is alarming to me. Especially when the 86% include those who believe it is “rarely” justified.

    Up until 10 years ago, Muslim Americans were mostly assimilated and moderate with respect to their religious views (Pew Research). But that’s changing, as reflected in the 2011 survey above and by the attacks in Fort Hood, Chattanooga, Boston, San Bernardino, and Orlando.

    So is the answer to ban all Syrian refugees and other immigrants from predominantly Muslim countries, even a temporary ban? I feel uncomfortable agreeing to this. I mean, we have Paul Ryan and other lawmakers questioning Trump’s proposal to ban Muslims, and I think they have valid concerns. One is whether a Muslim ban can further incite hate towards Americans and lead to more attacks planned by terrorists outside of our country and from within.

    And then there are the refugees who are Christian and fleeing the unimaginable at the hands of ISIS.

    But that still leaves us with the heinous crimes occurring in Europe due to a rise in radical Islamism (whether through conversion or from refugees streaming in who weren’t vetted) and what that may portend for the United States if we were to take in more refugees. It’s one thing to hear about the alarmingly high percentage of British Muslims who want to instigate Sharia law, but it’s another to see it in action in the video you linked to. Unbelievable and grotesque.

    With regards to the other video, Creeping Sharia: assuming that the data and trends are accurate (they seem to coincide with other information I’ve come across), it makes a compelling argument, and it’s information that can’t be ignored.

    Given what you’ve shared, I can see why you support Trump and want to ensure that Clinton loses.

    But I’m still not there. I don’t think I’ll ever be. There’s just too much that worries me about a Trump presidency. At this point, the best I can hope for is a one-term Clinton presidency with a Republican-controlled congress. Once in office, Clinton’s plan to increase the number of refugees (at a cost of $400+ billion if implemented during her first four years in office) must be blocked by congress. I know it’s a gamble, but it’s one I’m willing to take.

  • Gil Galad
    Posted at 08:14 pm, 3rd August 2016

    I think that better surveilance *inside* the US would be a more effective measure against muslim terrorism than trying to prevent muslims from entering. There are two reasons:
    1° banning muslims from the US would be a bit like Yes Means Yes “to prevent rape”: it is no deterrent against the real rapists who don’t care whether there is or isn’t a law, it’s just an insane law that makes it easier for mentally disturbed women to charge innocent men of rape over minutiiae while actual rapists run free.
    2° Many so-called muslim countries have a growing atheist/agnostic/deist communitty (to which I belong) for whom it can be deadly to come out of the closet, and since it is the easiest thing for a muslim terrorist to pretend to be a non-muslim, effectively banning muslims from the US would require banning all Arabs, Indonesians, etc. It would be politically suicidal for the US to do this. The nonreligious minorities in “muslim” countries (along with a percentage of muslims, by the way) have been pointing out how absurd it is to register any non-christian arab as a muslim while he may well be an atheist who isn’t enthusiastic about having his head cut off (or jailed, depending on the country).
    My estimate of how the ideological spectrum in a north african country (Morocco, Tunisia…) looks like is this:
    -Muslims who believe in theocracy, more or less supported Bin Laden, etc: 40%.
    -Muslims who either support a secular state or are on the fence; mostly hate the US but are against ISIS and the like; would not press the button if they could bomb Washington but do believe that “infidels are going to hell” etc: 40%.
    -“Confused” muslims who spend their time wondering about Darwin, the possible inexistence of hell, the possible moral superiority of nonbelievers, etc: 10-15%.
    -Muslim theologians and more profane muslims who read them, believe in an entirely secular state and permissive lifestyle; wouldn’t mind much if all religion disapeared: anywhere from 1 in 10000 to 5%, depending on the definition.
    -Unbelievers, who actually think islam is 100% human-made, and mostly a threat to the free world: 0,5 to 10%, very difficult to be more accurate because so many are closeted.

    My point is that pragmatically speaking, Trump might be right to want to ban muslims or tightly control them (since the percentages of muslims who may be persuaded to commit a terrorist act are dangerously high), but the real problem is real-world feasibility.
    I’m under the impression that BD holds the same view as Chomsky, “we created terrorism by invading muslims”, but what I know as an ex-muslim makes me doubt that this is the only factor (and not invading arab countries won’t suddenly make the terrorists forget the US and decide that the ‘infidels’ to attack are another country now). The problem is that even then, it would be very difficult to come up with protective measures that are both effective and not diplomatically suicidal. On the libertarian debate McAfee had mentioned how the US is far behind China and Russia in cybersurveillance, so an “internal” solution might be made by starting to fix that. The “external” solution of banning muslims would just mean that you ban 2 billion inhabitants of so-called muslim countries, many of which are actually closeted unbelievers or muslims of the latter three categories I mentioned, harmless to the West. I’m tempted to make an analogy with the USSR: does anyone here know if there was a ban (pre-1991) on soviet citizens fleeing to the US, or how it was regulated ? Or (alleged) nazi germans pre-1945 for that matter ? If the analogy holds, then it’s a reason to emphasize surveillance rather than a physical ban.

  • Gil Galad
    Posted at 08:42 pm, 3rd August 2016

    To clarify my last point: I was proposing an analogy between the USSR or nazi Germany on the one hand and muslim countries on the other hand, in that in both cases we have a state that explicitly presents itself as based on an ideology that can be considered as a threat to the US. And to use that analogy to shed light on how the US might handle muslims, based on how it handled russians and germans in 1949-1991 and 1939-1945 respectively. Fictitiously this is making me think of Red October (Clancy), and realistically of the German scientists (Von Braun, and those who worked on the Manhatttan project, etc) who were allowed entry to the US in WWII and after even though it wasn’t really possible to distinguish who had nothing to do with nazism and who did and to what degree.

  • Caleb Jones
    Posted at 10:08 pm, 3rd August 2016

    I’m under the impression that BD holds the same view as Chomsky, “we created terrorism by invading muslims”


    It’s not the only reason, but it’s the largest.

    not invading arab countries won’t suddenly make the terrorists forget the US and decide that the ‘infidels’ to attack are another country now

    Correct, but that’s no justification to keep attacking these countries and drone-striking their civilians

    Eventually things will calm down if you stop. And yes, “eventually” might be a while, but eventually is better than never.

  • Gil Galad
    Posted at 12:42 am, 4th August 2016

    CJ said [Correct, but that’s no justification to keep attacking these countries and drone-striking their civilians]
    I agree. I just understand when people like Jack OTB find this highly insufficient and aren’t satisfied with “eventually”, given what can happen in the meantime. But as I was saying, it’s hard to know what to do exactly beyond stopping the foreign strikes. There may be situations where the less libertarian solution is better at protecting long-term libertarian interests than the more libertarian solution (even though, and I explained why, I don’t think the solution is to build a wall or create a ban).
    Besides CJ, regarding Chomsky’s opinion on terrorism, you need to know that a frequent joke among seculars in muslim countries is that muslim terrorists are “offended” that Westerners, by claiming that their terrorist acts are due to US foreign policy, are denying the jihadists the right to fully take credit for their actions. As in “stop saying it’s the US’s fault, we did this in the name of God, we’re the real authors of the attack. You people are denying our worthiness of paradise!”
    That islam stopped trying to invade the West past 1700 up until the late 20th C wasn’t because muslims no longer wanted to and then the US screwed up: it was rather because they no longer could, as the ottoman empire was decaying into irrelevance. The muslim traditionalist still has the same end goal that the British used to have, “Make the world England !” These people believe the end of times and the (muslim version of) the Antichrist are coming soon, and they’re very serious about hastening it by fulfilling the prophecy of a “return of islamic might”. They probably got impatient and decided to get the ball rolling with asymmetric war, hoping that the balance of power would turn more in their favor later.
    Providing political explanations (imperialism…) to terrorism that is really mostly religious is a European tradition: having been choking under postmodernism, relativism, etc for decades, these people are indocrinated into thinking that no religion is “worse” than another (I listened to a french debate about this, it was ridiculous), any violence committed by the weak is necessarily the fault of the strong who had it coming (reminiscent of their views on male-female rapports and “class struggle”, right?), etc.

  • Jack Outside the Box
    Posted at 01:21 am, 4th August 2016


    1. The polls show what I have been saying for a while. It’s not radical Islam or Islamism (there is no such thing). It’s Islam! The liberal, or theologically bankrupt, Muslims are hypocritical pit bulls who, like literal pit bulls, will be okay for a while (even years) and then, out of nowhere, eat your baby!

    There was also a British poll showing that 100 percent of British Muslims believe that homosexuality is an unacceptable lifestyle choice. 52 percent believe that homosexuality should be made illegal under British law. 39 percent say a woman should always obey her “husband.” This isn’t terrorism. This isn’t radical Islam. This isn’t Jihadism. This isn’t Islamism. THIS IS TRUE ISLAM!

    2. Let me be clear on this. I don’t support a temporary ban on Muslim immigrants. I support a PERMANENT ban on Muslim immigrants, both from Muslim countries AND from non-Muslim countries! Just to be safe, I would probably also permanently ban people calling themselves non-Muslims from predominantly Muslim countries!

    3. You say you’re uncomfortable with this because…………it might incite them to hate us??? Boy, this shows me that your priorities are completely backwards here, I’m sorry. There are two things I must say on this concern of yours:

    First, Muslims already hate us more than they could ever conceivably hate anyone! There is no way you can incite further hatred. It’s already at its highest. After 9/11, I should think that would be clear to you. If they could detonate a nuclear weapon in every major American city, they would. There is no greater hatred than that. And your attitude is…..”well we don’t want to upset these people.” LOL! They are told by their god to be upset at you. Their god tells them to cut your throat for not being a virgin. Their god tells them to throw acid in your face for showing it in public. Their god tells them to dominate the world until we have a Muslim one world government (the so called Islamic House of Peace). Mohammed (pig vomit be upon him) is the one who said in the Hadiths that Muslims shouldn’t rest until every human being on the planet proclaims allah as god and Mohammed as his prophet!


    Second, your thinking is exactly backwards. You’re worried about upsetting murderers, rapists, genocidal monsters, and megalomaniacal lunatics? Um…..don’t you think that people like that should be more worried about upsetting you? Don’t you think the endgame here is precisely to make them worried about further inciting hatred from the West? Don’t you think that that’s a superior way of thinking for a civilized people dealing with uncivilized dogs?

    I say, make THEM worry about offending us and inciting us! Make them say, “gee, I hope the western giant isn’t angry today.” But instead, you’re the one who’s saying, “Gee, I hope we don’t make these rapists and murderers even more angry!” No offense, but this is the part where it helps to have testosterone!

    3. You mentioned Christian refugees from Syria. Do we really need more Christians in this country? I know they’re physically harmless, but we do have a right to control our own cultural composition. The First Amendment protecting freedom of religion does not apply to immigrants who aren’t here yet. Therefore, the Constitution doesn’t apply to our immigration laws at all. Even perfectly legal immigrants who aren’t citizens yet are here, according to the law, only “at the pleasure of Congress.” We can pass a law deporting them all tomorrow. It is NOT our job or obligation to help anyone whose injuries or situation we did not cause. Christians, or anyone else, suffering at the hands of Muslims, or anyone else, in foreign lands are not our concern. We need to put Americans first and then MAYBE IF WE’RE IN A GOOD MOOD, help and welcome foreign immigrants and refugees (who aren’t Muslims, of course) These bleeding heart concerns are, for the most part, disastrous for America. Pathological altruism is always performed at the expense of our own people, which is unacceptable to me!

    4. Paul Ryan is a pro-establishment cuckold. Of course he wants more Muslims here because, like mostly all Republicans (and Democrats), he is a puppet of the global elites who want all cultures and societies to exist inside each country at the same time. This way, every country in the world will have every other country in the world inside their own country. That’s when “countries” will become philosophically meaningless, which will leave the people with no psychological or intellectual defense against a one world government – which the elites have been planning for generations. And this one world government will be the most totalitarian superstate in human history. But first, the elites must acclimate the world to the rest of the world, hence mass immigration from radically different cultures who care nothing about democracy or liberal enlightenment values!

    5. If the Bull Dyke is president, a Republican Congress won’t block her from importing Muslim savages because THE REPUBLICANS TAKE MONEY FROM THE SAME BILLIONAIRE DONORS WHO WANT THESE SAVAGES HERE TOO!!! The plan is to destroy the mediating cultural institutions of the West between the individual and the government via multiculturalism so that the government will have an excuse to take over the lives of individuals in order to control the multicultural chaos and institute authoritarianism.

    I believe it was Henry Kissinger who said, “Today the American people would be outraged if UN peacekeepers and NATO troops were sent to LA to keep the peace. Tomorrow, they’ll demand it.”

    Republicans hate Trump for the same reason Democrats do. He’s NOT a globalist puppet. Which is why he’s exercising commonsense towards the Muslim problem, something which neither the Bull Dyke, nor a Republican controlled Congress will want to do.

    This is why I believe Trump may be the last hope for the survival of western civilization. Our entire way of life is at stake and only he is showing even the slightest willingness to defend it!

  • Zoe
    Posted at 08:46 am, 4th August 2016

    @Jack Outside the Box:

    Jack, I think your efforts to raise concerns about the dangers of Islam are laudable. You have courage, much more than I’ll ever have. And I can’t emphasize this enough: I’m glad you’re questioning my ideas, including my concerns that banning Muslims will only increase attacks.

    Our strong desire to protect ourselves from terrorism is understandable. Trump is echoing this sentiment, and I believe he’s trying to offer a solution that appeals to our rational fears about terrorist attacks.

    But I can’t put my trust in his solutions. If national security, foreign policy, and counter terrorism experts were lining up in support of Trump’s ideas, I would then be inclined to pay attention. But over the last year, we’ve heard strong opposition and concerns raised by experts who believe Trump’s foreign policy ideas would put us at a greater risk.

    If our goal as a country is to put Americans first, then we also need to ensure that Americans are as safe as possible. I’m sorry, but I don’t believe that Trump is the man who can do this for us. Can he create short-term fixes that would make it appear that we’re safer? Perhaps. But long-term? I don’t know. This is going way beyond my scope of knowledge, which is why I refer to the experts. Once those individuals with years of counter-terrorism experience start supporting Trump, I’ll re-consider. But I’m not holding my breath.

    Looking forward to your counterarguments. That is, if you haven’t yet tired of trying to make me see reason 😉

  • Jack Outside the Box
    Posted at 05:03 pm, 4th August 2016


    The problem with terrorism “experts” is that their expertise is limited to terrorism, which is only a very small portion of the Muslim problem. They do not see the whole picture of Islam, which is a very dark and unsavory tale. The majority of Muslims wish to take over the legal and political institutions of the West using, in their words, “the Muslim womb.” When their numbers are high enough, they will legally institute Sharia law, as is already being done in Belgium.

    In the meantime, the cultural institutions of the West are being targeted by Muslims. In Germany, Muslims going in for medical treatment are literally spitting in the faces of female doctors and demanding male ones.

    The German government has recently segregated the swimming pools into “man time” and “woman time” in order to avoid women being raped.

    In French and German elementary schools girls are ordered to “dress modestly” in order to avoid getting raped by Muslim boys/teenagers.

    In England, the story “The Three Little Pigs” has been banned from all schools because pork is offensive to Muslims so pigs shouldn’t be heroes. Also, the story of Aladdin and his Genie are being censored as well because Muslims are sincerely afraid of evil “jinns” (fallen angels granting wishes)

    These are not terrorists, and therefore, outside the purview of “terrorism experts.” These are common everyday Muslims. The problem is Islam, not terrorism. Terrorism is just the most extreme symptom of an overall toxic ideology that is steeped in medieval barbarism! Trump is attacking Muslim culture itself (very correctly) and is pointing out that these people – whether terrorists or not – are the threat to everything we stand for in the West.

    With that being said, terrorists are indeed the purest and truest Muslims. I really hate to tax you even more with these videos that I’m constantly linking to, but everything you’re saying keeps compelling me to do so. Here is a video explaining why terrorism is true Islam and peaceful Islam is fake Islam:

    Spoiler: Terrorists interpret the Koran through the lens of the Hadiths (the daily sayings of Mohammed – pig vomit be upon him). Whereas peaceful Muslims interpret the Koran through the lens of human conscience, thus decontextualizing the Koran from its sources and moderating “the word of allah” (which, you would think, is blasphemy):

    Now here is a longer video (watch it at your leisure) of the red pill gay man – Milo Yiannopolous – speaking at the Orlando shooting site the day after the attack, dropping the most amazing red pill truths about Islam, Trump, and terrorism (his speech begins at 12:00):

  • Zoe
    Posted at 07:47 pm, 4th August 2016

    god, what’s happening in Europe, it sounds Orwellian. Let me guess, the campaign to ban the 3 Little Pigs and Aladdin’s story in British schools was led by some liberal SJW. Now there’s a moment of pride for me.

    The video, “Religion Hijacked?”:
    “A British Imam and a leading advocate for the islamization of the UK says, ‘You can’t say that islam is a religion of peace, because islam does not mean peace…..there is a place for violence in islam, there’s a place for jihadism in islam”; His response to the 7/7 bombings in London: “For the people that carried out, it was legitimate” ———— holy shit

    The female Kuwaiti politician seeking information from muslim theologians: “I asked them about the regulations concerning sex-slaves? They explained that the process to acquire slaves, is for a muslim country to attack a Christian country or a non-muslim country, and enslave the prisoners of war.” She then asked if this wasn’t allowed: “he assured me that in islam, it is permitted; and that the only solution to protect muslim believers from adultery is for the believers to buy sex slaves because we cannot tolerate that our men fall in the disgusting traps of adultery; instead we can buy our sex slaves from Chechenya for example. It is something to be proud of!” = from muslim theologians. ———— what the fuck this is beyond disgusting fuck them

    This video was really difficult to watch. I had no idea. I now fully understand your animosity. justified.

  • Zoe
    Posted at 08:01 pm, 4th August 2016

    good to have video of Milo. Watching now. I’m beginning to understand why he supports Trump. Milo = another man with courage.

  • Way_of_Man
    Posted at 10:28 pm, 4th August 2016

    If there is a sliver of sanity or hope left for this country, Gary Johnson and Bill Weld will find their way into the televised debates. Of course that would probably just put a lock on a Clinton presidency, because all of the moderate Republicans who can’t stand Trump would probably split the vote that way.

    But if I had to choose between “the big two” I chose Trump. Hillary is like taking a sugar pill to cure cancer. It will do nothing, and no matter what you’ll die a slow and unfortunate death.

    Trump will at least be fun to watch as he slams the accelerator on destroying this country.

  • Jack Outside the Box
    Posted at 05:22 pm, 5th August 2016


    What’s happening in Europe is the direct result of politically correct policies which the Bull Dyke wants to implement here. It’s pretty straightforward. And yes, the Three Little Pigs was banned by SJWs, claiming it could offend Muslims and Asians due to “cultural differences.” Read all about it here:

    But you should understand that it’s not just my hatred of Islam and the desire to stop Muslims that is driving me to vote for Trump. It’s a whole array of things.

    First of all, Trump is the very first cultural candidate in American history who is riding on a ticket to abolish political correctness. Voting for him is about taking our CULTURAL freedom back from cultural authoritarians – politically correct SJWs. People are just sick of being told:

    1. What Halloween costumes they are or are not allowed to wear (Yale banned dressing up like Pocahontas, claiming it’s “racist cultural appropriation”),

    2. What words we can or cannot use or what thoughts we can or cannot express (SJWs want hate speech laws banning all politically incorrect ideas),

    3. What games we can or cannot play (Anita Sarkeesian wants to ban all video games, commercials, movies, and TV shows she personally finds offensive because she thinks these forms of entertainment cause men to rape women),

    4. What porn we are or are not allowed to watch (feminists want a government agency – the Trust and Safety Council – created which will police and monitor all personal computer activity),

    5. What sex we can or cannot have (feminists want a government approved checklist of required verbal communication which must take place in the bedroom before sex takes place)

    6. What constitutes sexual consent (some feminists want a government mandated 30 minute waiting period after the verbal yes but before sex takes place in order to ensure that her yes was genuine and not the result of passion or social pressure).

    7. What constitutes a date (some feminists want college campuses to officially define what is a date vs. a platonic get together and what the man is allowed to do within each officially defined sphere)

    In short, we are sick of SJW cultural totalitarianism telling us how to lead our personal lives.

    We are sick of being treated like children and told that SJWs know what is safe for us and what isn’t (via the proposed Trust and Safety Council).

    We are sick of the feminist finger wagging, the nagging, the accusations of racism, the mandate of white guilt, the accusations of sexism and misogyny, the mandate of misandry, the accusations of homophobia and transphobia, the mandate of heterophobia and constant rapeochondia, the accusations of Nazism for having a stray thought, the worship of Islam, the accusations of objectifying women via “patriarchal beauty standards” just because we don’t want to fuck fat pigs, the accusations of rape just because we didn’t preface sex with autistic verbal procedures, the accusations of woman hating when we have sex with multiple women (while women who sleep with multiple men are supposedly either empowered or brainwashed by those men), and the belief that it is hate to refuse to treat everyone like 50 percent of the population (hatred of so called heteronormativity).

    BUT MOST OF ALL, we are so sick of the hatred for happiness coming from these SJWs. WE ARE SO SICK OF THE HATRED OF LAUGHTER, THE HATRED OF JOY, THE HATRED OF HIGH SELF ESTEEM, the hatred of hard work, and the belief that every loser is a victim because the world doesn’t give them free shit!


    We want to bring back sex-positivism to our culture. We want to bring back joy to this culture. We want to put an end to the finger wagging and these traumatized millennials visiting their own trauma unto the rest of us, just because they consider words to be violence because they are the most softened, spoiled, coddled, and pampered generation in human history who have learned to manipulate their parents with tears and have received self esteem trophies even when they lost the goddamn game! They are babies in adult bodies who can’t handle the real world because their parents protected them from it!

    We want to undo their damage, bring back masculinity, and with it, bring back freedom, sexual liberation, and cultural libertarianism!

    Hence, the battle lines have been drawn:

    Free speech vs. political correctness.

    Freedom vs. Islam.

    Sexual expression vs. paranoid rape phobia

    Truth vs. Sensitivity

    Capitalism vs. Welfare slavery

    Happiness vs. trauma

    Trump vs. Clinton

    Life vs. Death

    As I told an SJW months ago:

    “The only safe space is your mother’s womb. The only trigger warning is your birth. The only free speech zone is America. And the only micro-aggression……is life!”

  • Zoe
    Posted at 08:52 pm, 5th August 2016

    @Jack Outside the Box

    Yes, I had a sense that it was more than just Islam.

    The authoritarianism reflected in your list of the regressive left’s actions and what they want to implement into law isn’t much different from that of Islam, it seems.

    After watching Milo’s video yesterday, I was hungry for a little more red pill gay guy. One video I found was a short commentary by Dave Rubin, which was partly in response to the SJW protests at Milo’s UCLA event. From the clips Rubin showed of the crazies trying to block people from entering the venue, it looked as if it wasn’t so much protests as fascism in action. Anyways, Rubin said:

    “If the Left won’t deal with issues like immigration and Islamism honestly, they’ll hand voters right over to Donald Trump.”

    Some people who talked to Rubin after the event told him that they were liberals who agreed with Trump on very little but were supporting him for the same reasons you point to: tired of the backwards ideology of the regressive left.

    “The only safe space is your mother’s womb. The only trigger warning is your birth. The only free speech zone is America. And the only micro-aggression……is life!” —— Ha! Love it. I hope you rendered her/him speechless.

  • Kurt
    Posted at 08:34 pm, 6th August 2016

    Wow, some reeeaallll stupid keyboard warrioring going on here.
    Keep the Mexicans out? Are you insane? You really want to pay $10 for an orange and $8/lb. for peas?
    You do realize the criminality rate among first generation immigrants is LESS than the native-born population of our country.

    Start a culture war with muslims? You do realize the Islamic faith comprises 25% of the planet’s population, and the good ol’ USA is, what, 350 million people. If they really did ALL hate us we probably wouldn’t still be here. In fact that is exactly what the extremists doing the bombing are hoping, that if we really do view them all as enemies then their non-activist muslim kin will ‘wake up’ and join the cause. Good job playing right into their hands.

    Wake up dude, stop drinking the Fox ‘news’ koolaid.

  • Zoe
    Posted at 09:46 pm, 6th August 2016


    Undocumented farmworkers face many injustices. The worst is for women working in the fields or in other farming environments who are sexually harassed and raped (mostly by farm managers or other men in position of power), and they feel powerless to report the crime (source:; Source:

    I would argue that we shouldn’t be enjoying cheap fruits and vegetables at the expense of farm laborers facing injustices in the fields. They lack access to worker’s compensation, overpay, the federal minimum wage, and they’re excluded from state health and safety laws (source:

    A better solution is to work on immigration reform rather than to allow undocumented immigrants to continue to suffer. By the way, legalizing undocumented immigrants and the resulting increase in wages for farmworkers would lead to food prices to rise by 2% to 3% (source:, compared to your estimate of an increase of 300-450% (assuming current prices of $2/lb for peas and $1 per orange).

    With regards to your crime statistics: I’m sorry, but I’m not sure that would be much of a consolation to Kathryn Steinle’s father. She was the young woman murdered by an undocumented immigrant in San Francisco. rest in peace.

    Please also consider the amount of drug trafficking (and worse: human trafficking) crossing our southern border as well as the presence of Mexican drug cartels in US border states thanks to our porous border. I don’t have the source on hand, but I believe that was covered in an NPR story I heard about two years ago.

  • Jack Outside the Box
    Posted at 01:50 pm, 7th August 2016


    First of all, you don’t get to say that my opinion is “keyboard warrioring” while your opinion isn’t. That is a completely meaningless phrase in this context. The PUA community invented the term “keyboard jockeying” in order to shame nerds for giving sex advice despite not having had any sexual experience themselves. In that context, it makes sense to call someone a KJ. In this context, it does not. If I’m a “keyboard warrior” than so are you!

    Second of all, I want to keep out only two types of Mexicans:

    1. Illegals. Look, we’re either a country or we are not. If we are, then we have the absolute right to control our borders and make sure everyone comes in only in accordance with our immigration laws. Every country on the planet has this right. Do we even have borders or not? Are we a country? Or are we just a homeless shelter for the rest of the world with no identity of our own? If we’re, in fact, a country, then we can’t allow the Mexicans, or the Cubans, or anyone else disrespect us like this. No one should be coming in or leaving here without us knowing about it. THAT’S WHAT A COUNTRY IS! Did you know that Mexico has its military stationed on its border with Guatemala?

    2. Mexicans (and others) who refuse to assimilate into American culture. According to our current immigration law, even perfectly legal immigrants have no right to be here. Them being here is a privilege and they can stay here, according to the law, only “at the pleasure of Congress.” This means Congress can pass a law tomorrow to deport all the legal ones as well (as long as they haven’t become citizens yet). And I think Congress should deport all legal immigrants who don’t want to become Americans.

    This seems to be a problem only with the Latinos for some reason. All other immigrants to this country (European, African, Asian, etc…) eventually assimilate into American culture and become proud Americans (although it may take a couple generations). Mexicans and Cubans, by contrast, seem to hate America and see themselves as colonizing and Hispanicizing it! Mexicans, in a very hateful way, reproduce mini-Mexicos inside American neighborhoods, tell their children to proudly wave the Mexican flag, severely punish their children for waving the American flag, and treat white people like guests and implicitly demand that we leave! I’m not kidding! Watch the hate in some of these Mexicans’ eyes when they see a white person (especially in an inner city).

    Assimilation begins with language and they refuse to learn it. The Mexican KKK (MECHA) has one of its members running for California governor, saying that he wants bilingual voting ballots and for Mexicans in California to be allowed to vote in elections in Mexico IN CALIFORNIA! So they want California to provide them with ballots for Mexico’s elections! They also demand that their children be taught Mexican history in American public schools AND American history from the Mexican point of view (especially the Mexican/American war)!

    You’re the one who needs to wake up! They hate us, dude! MECHA wants 5 states to be returned to Mexico, claiming they were stolen in the Mexican/American War (California, Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma). These people are telling their children to be proud Mexicans and that they are practicing a “Reconquista” against the “gringos.”

    Do you think Mexico, or any other country with self esteem, would tolerate this??? This isn’t “cultural diversity.” It’s cultural war! I mean shit, a Mexican State Senator from New Mexico proposed in 2001 to change the name of the state to Nuevo Mexico (he lost!) and the Texas city of El-Cenizo made Spanish its official language and cooperation with immigration authorities a firing offense on the part of city employed workers! Seriously man, wake the fuck up!

    Third of all, what do you mean by “start” a culture war with the Muslims? If you leave your basement once in a while, you’ll learn that they already started it (we didn’t). Have you seen what’s happening in Europe lately? Muslims are the Mexicans of Europe, except they are a trillion times more dangerous and Europe is a trillion times more pussified than America! Europe is now Eurabia, Sweden (or Swedistan) is now the rape capital of the world as Muslims gang rape Swedish women on a weekly basis if they leave their homes without a male chaperone or are not properly covered up!

    The culture war between Islam and the West has already begin. Yes, they all hate us, but not in the way that you’re imagining that I’m imagining. Unless they’re terrorists (which is a small minority), they don’t want to kill us. They want to Islamize us. And they’re doing a chillingly effective job in Europe! This culture war will end with Europe becoming a Muslim theocracy and America will be next unless (1) people like you wake up and fight or (2) we let the Mexicans take over and kick some Muslim ass (Mexicans have balls and no white guilt). I prefer option 1!

    Playing right into the hands of terrorists? I wish more Muslims would become terrorists, because it would give even Europe an easy excuse to ban them and deport them. With the exception of Pakistan (which has nuclear weapons), we could reduce every Muslim country to ashes if we REALLY wanted to. They have superior numbers, but we have superior weapons. I’d rather deal with terrorists than these Muslim cultural warriors! Terrorists are easier.

    Fourth of all, were you addressing me with that Fox News comment? I must have watched Fox News only twice in my whole life and each time I felt like a 75 year old man in a nursing home! No thanks! But you should definitely lay off the Young Turks. They’re bad for you!

  • Jack Outside the Box
    Posted at 02:33 pm, 7th August 2016


    I would argue that what SJWs want is worse than Islam. In Islam, a man may have up to 4 wives and the marriages are prearranged by the parents (they usually don’t even meet each other until the wedding day). That’s pretty terrible. But many SJWs believe that all heterosexual intercourse is rape because “power differentials between men and women make women not politically strong enough to consent in a patriarchal civilization.” Some even more extreme SJWs think that heterosexual intercourse is inherently an act of violence against the woman and should be criminalized immediately. But most will simply stick with turning the woman (and the man) off by forcing upon them autistic verbal procedures which must be performed before sex. Then when women complain that this crap doesn’t turn them on, radical feminists will use that as evidence that only rape turns women on, thus claiming that all female heterosexuality is a myth (the result of patriarchal Stockholm Syndrome). That’s their end game.

    And whereas Islam is patriarchal in nature, SJWs are matriarchal. They believe that men should be considered guilty until proven innocent in rape cases (in violation of the 5th Amendment), which means that all a woman has to do is accuse him in order for him to go to prison, since it’s almost impossible to prove a negative. In college, they’re already stripping the man of all his rights and expelling men for rape with zero evidence after a college kangaroo court run by man-hating lesbians finds him guilty.

    Heterosexuality is definitely on their hit list!

    And no, what I said didn’t make the SJW speechless. She simply came back calling me a racist, sexist, homophobic, and patriarchal shit lord. The thing that even started the conversation was her telling me that if a white woman gets raped by a non-white man, it’s not rape, but rather a “temporary suspension of her white privilege.” She is a feminist attorney who was involved with a rape case that I was consulting on. Go figure.

  • Jack Outside the Box
    Posted at 02:44 pm, 7th August 2016


    Hungry for more Milo? I aim to please. Here is a video in which he says everything I said about SJWs, except in a British accent (skip to 0:50)

    And here is one of my favorite Milo videos where he destroys an SJW trying to censor him when talking to Dave Rubin at UCLA:

  • Jack Outside the Box
    Posted at 02:56 pm, 7th August 2016

    @Zoe: I have a comment above this one linking you to my two favorite Milo videos, but it’s “awaiting moderation” because I’ve apparently linked to too many videos and so they were caught by the spam filter. So stay tuned.

    @BD: Any chance you can somehow fix this system so you won’t have to manually approve my comments just because some videos may be linked in them? It would make things a lot easier for you and for me. I’m just wondering.

  • Caleb Jones
    Posted at 03:08 pm, 7th August 2016

    Any chance you can somehow fix this system so you won’t have to manually approve my comments just because some videos may be linked in them? It would make things a lot easier for you and for me. I’m just wondering.

    I’ll look into it when we upgrade the site. Soon.

  • Zoe
    Posted at 06:09 pm, 7th August 2016

    @Jack Outside the Box:

    Haha, the best part of the UCLA video is the audience yelling, “Hate speech! Hate speech!” when the SJW starts yelling at Milo, “I hate you!” Oh, sweet payback.

    I don’t agree with everything Milo says, but I’ll give him credit for having the courage to hold up the mirror to any group whom he thinks can benefit. And that’s the thing about Milo: He’s clearly not holding up the mirror just to anger whatever group he’s calling out. It seems like his intentions are to challenge a group to critically re-assess their views, their actions, their motives, their mission. It’s like getting free life coaching and business advice, lol.

    The other day, I saw a video clip where he was poking fun at atheists. My response can either be, “You’re an asshole, Milo! You’re generalizing, how dare you insult me?!” or laugh and realize that he’s onto something. He has criticized gay couples who he thinks are being mean spirited when they try to force Christian-owned businesses to bake their wedding cake (when a gay-friendly baker is nearby) and then leveraging media coverage to take down the business. Wow. That’s Milo. He’ll call it like he sees it.

    He’s just holding up a mirror. That’s why it’s so fu*king scary for anyone that’s on the receiving end. The truth is hard to swallow. Yea, sometimes the mirror will look a bit distorted, like the funhouse mirrors at the carnival (societal programming?). The challenge is to not get angry or defensive but to get a good listen. It can be difficult to listen rationally because he’s a mischievous rascal who likes to poke the bear, haha.

    I have yet to see him yell back an obscenity or a rude comment at protesters or to an opponent in a debate. I’m guessing that’s not who he is. Good on him.

    All this to say thanks for introducing me to him over on BD’s blog a few months ago! I’m glad he’s on this side of the pond.

  • Kurt
    Posted at 07:15 pm, 7th August 2016

    I can’t out-type you, that’s for sure, but to respond to some of your hyperbole;

    -You can go back a 100 or 150 years in history, find a newspaper op-ed and see people spouting all the same crap about immigrants that you’re saying right now. The irish will ruin our country, the germans will ruin our country, the chinese will ruin our country, the italians, the greeks, all of them were given the same treatment in their time. None of them ruined our country. Unless you’re a white supremacist.
    I’m part native american. In my opinion ALL of you fuckers ruined this country, but it’s too late to do anything about it now and everyone seems to be doing just fine 🙂

    -I agree we should have good border controls and law enforcement, but I also think we have to be pragmatic; it’s easier to solve immigration problems through incentive vs. enforcement (we have a habit of making too many laws in this country without the resources to enforce them to the effect that they are only enforced for those who can pay for enforcement).
    Decriminalizing drugs and helping the mexican economy will be win-win solutions that improve our economies and remove much incentive for illegal border crossing, ‘building a wall’ (real or virtual) is pretty much an economic impossibility and political suicide for anyone who takes responsibility for it. Expending massive effort to enforce total deportation of undocumented immigrants will be far more expensive than benefiting from their contribution to the economy and getting them integrated into society. I know, I know, ‘but they broke the law!!’. So have all of our politicians and major corporations, and in ways that are almost unimaginably heinous and criminal compared to jumping over a political boundary. Get over it.
    At any rate the problem is not getting worse; right now there is a net movement back to Mexico among mexican immigrants.

    -As for the criminality argument, I don’t see how your one example means anything for the sake of the argument at hand. The stats still show that immigrant populations are safer to our society in terms of violent criminality than our own native-born population. One sad story (sad though it is) does not change this.
    I have worked in an agriculture-based industry in California for 20 years that is supported by mexican labor and I currently live in a relatively lower-middle class mexican neighborhood (best deal on real estate!). Apart from some time living on a very small island this is the safest neighborhood I’ve ever lived in. No one locks their doors here and nothing ever gets stolen. In my experience over a lifetime being around mexican immigrants everything you are saying about them rings false. What I see are people with balls who are taking action to improve their lives. They come here with close to nothing, work three jobs (the toughest, lowest paying) at a time and sock away money for years, then buy real estate and invest in businesses and work their way up. They put all the whining ‘why are there no jobs for me’ natives to shame. They have absolutely no time or money for doing dumb shit that might get them locked up and fuck up their whole lives and the lives of those who depend on them.
    MECHA?? How are they significant in any way, what power do they actually wield? (And it is true btw that the Mex-Am war was a land grab, although it was about many political factors in the US, and fears of British expansion as it was about simple manifest destiny.)
    Integration?? Have you been to Chinatown? Little Italy? Any number of other ethnic neighborhoods in our cities that were established over a hundred years ago? You have no argument here.
    Just this week in the news there was a huge mob bust on the east coast. Sicilian Cosa Nostra mobsters. loan sharking, tax evasion, busting kneecaps, doing things the old way. Like they were just off the boat. I don’t think you could prove the mexicans have a proportionally higher level of transplanted nativism than any other immigrant group.

    -Despite what you and the right-wing conservative alarmists on television scream about there is no culture war between the muslim world and the USA. If one quarter of the world truly did want us gone we’d be fucked already. The ‘war’ you perceive right now is just hyped up coverage of a few nutjobs, and sensationalistic coverage of the staunchly religious. Plus some stretched conclusions drawn from polls. Remember, we have Mormons right here who want to Mormonize all of us, Jehovah’s Witnesses who want to jehova-ize (or whatever) all of us, etc.. Just about every monotheistic religion has the same goal of either converting (christian religions) or killing off (judaism, islam) everyone who doesn’t believe the way they believe. Doesn’t mean they will all actively work toward that goal.
    I personally disagree with just about all religion and wouldn’t mind if it all was banned but the chinese and soviets showed us that it’s a really shitty thing to try that 😉
    Are all catholic school girls devout and celibate? How about the televangelist preachers? Are they are pure of mind and spirit or are they fucking ten different women out of wedlock and raping the bank accounts of their faithful flock? The same applies to all of your wild-eyed muslims my friend; they’re just people, not some monolithic block of devout crazies. Give them opportunity to make money, get sex, and live a happy life and most will do just that and screw the religion. There will always be a few crazies, but nowhere near all of them will be that way. Unless whole societies demonize them and make them feel persecuted.
    I have not seen any credible reporting to indicate that your claims of muslims taking over europe or sweden being raped en-masse has anything to do with reality. Please educate me on that one. Mostly what I see is the same ignorant anti-immigrant sentiment in Europe that we have here, just magnified because mass immigration is a relatively new thing to european countries, whereas it’s pretty old-hat around here.
    Also remember that comparing crime stats, especially rape, between countries is problematic at best. See this great explanation wrt Sweden:
    also check –look under “Victim Surveys”.

    To the idea that ‘they started it’ or ‘we started it’ with the islamic world, I would have to side with the ‘we started it’ folks. Look at the history of foreign intervention in middle eastern countries by the west, from Lawrence of Arabia to the creation of Israel, to the overthrow of Mossadegh to the Iraq wars. Yeah, we sort of pissed them off with all that shit. Not hard to see how many of them view us as the Great Satan.
    Even so, most of them don’t want anything more than to be left alone.

  • Kurt
    Posted at 07:21 pm, 7th August 2016

    Oops, I guess part of my previous post (the immigrant criminality part) was also directed at Zoe’s comment regarding the Steinle murder.

  • Kurt
    Posted at 07:34 pm, 7th August 2016

    I fully agree that getting undocumented workers/immigrants under recognition of the law is the best ultimate solution (prior to getting full border control of course) but until then if we just take a radical solution and kick them all out and ‘build a wall’ we will see a dramatic farmworker labor shortage and the food prices will indeed be much higher than in the WSJ scenario. Of course I don’t know the exact amount things would increase, but from my position working in agriculture-related business I can tell you we already have massive labor shortages just due to the changing political climate creating a lot of fear among workers.
    I think a realistic scenario would be that much agriculture that could not be automated would actually cease in the face of sever labor shortages as the supply-demand curve for labor would accelerate faster than the supply-demand curve for produce and food products could match. People would just go without certain foods rather than pay too much for them at some point, or the imported versions would become more competitive.
    In the end, no matter what happens with immigration I see food prices climbing in the near future and I think much of the increases we see will be permanent.

  • Zoe
    Posted at 08:34 pm, 7th August 2016

    Hi Kurt,
    Now I see that you were giving a scenario in which immediate labor shortages (in the face of mass deportations) would lead to a dramatic increase in food prices. I misunderstood your original comment and got defensive there. I apologize for that!

    Yes, I was the one questioning the criminal data. Another bad argument on my part based on little information and a knee-jerk reaction.

    I appreciate your comments!

  • CTV
    Posted at 01:57 pm, 4th September 2016

    Caleb what’s your thoughts on Gary Johnson and Bill Welds ticket for President?

  • Caleb Jones
    Posted at 02:01 pm, 4th September 2016

    Caleb what’s your thoughts on Gary Johnson and Bill Welds ticket for President?

    I think they’re great but they won’t win so it doesn’t matter.

  • Chris
    Posted at 09:58 am, 17th November 2016

    Curious, if you think Hillary is criminal, why has she not been convicted of a single thing given the millions upon millions spent exhaustively investigating her? I think you kinda need to be convicted of a crime in order to be criminal, right?

    I’ve never cared much for her overall and find her completely uninspiring but I’m at loss for explaining the level of visceral rage she attracts from the right. To me, she’s basically a moderate Republican.

  • Caleb Jones
    Posted at 10:50 am, 17th November 2016

    Curious, if you think Hillary is criminal, why has she not been convicted of a single thing given the millions upon millions spent exhaustively investigating her?

    The same reason George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Richard Nixon, etc, were never convicted. Like them, Hillary is a member of the elite, and is thus allowed to break the laws.

    I think you kinda need to be convicted of a crime in order to be criminal, right?

    Really? So if I murder your father but don’t get caught and I’m never convicted of it, I’m not a criminal?

    I’ve never cared much for her overall and find her completely uninspiring but I’m at loss for explaining the level of visceral rage she attracts from the right.

    I’m not on the right. I disagree more with today’s right-wingers than I do with the left. Notice what I said above about Trump.

    To me, she’s basically a moderate Republican.

    You’re correct; she’s a moderate Republican. She’s also a criminal.

Post A Comment