Now that I’ve briefly introduced postmodernism, I thought I’d go a bit deeper into Derrida’s method, if only because it’s constantly cited by people who seem to have never read his work. The details of deconstruction are laid out in a series of essays, which have been compiled in English as Writing and Difference. The entire book is available free on the internet here. What I am outlining here is Derrida’s most famous paper, entitled “Structure, Sign and Play in The Discourse of The Human Sciences.” This essay was originally penned in French, in the mid 1960s. It begins on page 351.

The work opens with a quote from Montaigne about hermeneutics, and that’s useful, because deconstruction can simultaneously claim to be a method or science of interpretation, and also the negation of the possibility of interpretation itself.

Derrida does two interesting things at the outset. In the first place, he immediately moves into an allusion to event ontology, which is meaningful. I first became familiar with event ontology by reading Alfred North Whitehead’s Process and Reality and Bertrand Russell’s Introduction to Logical Atomism. What philosophers and scientists mean by event ontology is the reduction of all metaphysical claims into temporal slices of reality. We don’t usually think of events as things, but at the basic level of the universe, there is a case to be made that events are the foundational atoms that construct everything we sense and experience.

The second interesting thing Derrida does at the outset is announce his attack on structuralists. By structuralists I mean guys like Claude Lévi-Strauss, and Michel Foucault. These were thinkers who were trying to get at the hidden meaning behind everyday reality, and as we’ll see in this essay, postmodernists hold that even if there is some hidden meaning behind our phenomenological filter, we are hopelessly incapable of divining it.

Derrida declares that there is no longer a central ontological repository through which human beings can interpret the world uniformly. What does this mean? As near as I can tell, he is looking back at a linguistic golden age, in which human beings learned a single word to describe a single state-of-affairs. If such a golden age existed, it doesn’t exist now. Sloterdijk’s recent work takes off on this quite well, and in some places he alludes to colonization as a factor. In a short period of time, Europeans started to be exposed to all sorts of strange, unimaginable objects: feathery Indian headdresses, digeridoos, Amazon parrots… The language couldn’t keep up, and people were confused not only about naming all these new things, but classifying them generally. Derrida doesn’t take the historical position Sloterdijk does, but he alludes to the loss of the concept of God as an ontological center, and in doing so, he’s touching on the same process. God was once the ultimate underwriter of all systems of interpretation, but God has quit that job, at this point. After God, the modernists abstracted away theology and fixed meaning with Cartesian ideas like objectivity and deductive logic. That passed away too. The signifiers and signifieds became, in that event, no longer fixed. Signifiers are free, to some extent, to point toward an infinitude of meanings.

The absence of fixed meaning allows for the analysis of a fault-line within the text. What Derrida wants to analyze, beginning on 357, is Lévi-Strauss’ work The Raw and The Cooked, which is one of the greatest works on structuralism.

The posit of a difference between nature and culture is, for Lévi-Strauss, evidence of a structural fault-line, and Derrida proceeds to analyze the incest taboo within that text to see exactly what the differentiation might be. “There is no scandal,” writes Derrida, “except within a system of concepts which accredits the difference between nature and culture. By commencing his work with the factum of the incest prohibition, Lévi-Strauss thus places himself at the point at which this difference, which has always been assumed to be self-evident, finds itself erased or questioned” (358).

With this example, Derrida sets up a methodology which will soon be generalized and used on all manner of discursive events –and not strictly texts– including sculpture, mathematical proofs, and

Finally, Derrida criticizes Lévi-Strauss as remaining “faithful to this double intention: to preserve as an instrument something whose truth-value he criticizes” (359). One might apply this to deconstructionism itself, which preserves the text as an instrument even as the deconstructionist attempts to prove it undefinable in the process.

It is impossible for me to write about this topic without disclosing my own biases. My philosophical interests in school centered on the analytics, and when I studied history I delved pretty deeply into Marx and his ideological descendants. It’s thus fair to say that I have only a surface appreciation of postmodernism, inasmuch as it comes out of the continental tradition, which I’m really not qualified to talk about. Sadly enough, despite the fact that I recognize this lacuna, I’m probably the most qualified to talk about it in the manosphere. One reason that this is unfortunate is the fact that critics like Dalrock seem to be instinctively aware of the dangers of falling into the postmodern trap, without really knowing enough about it to effectively negate its appeal.

Beginning some five years ago, I began being accused of postmodernist tendencies myself. This is one example:

It is fair to say that I’m a fan of (many of) the Frankfurters: Marcuse, Adorno, Benjamin and the like. It is not accurate to posit the existence of “Frankfurter Deconstructionists,” because deconstructionism is a tool of postmodernism, and the Frankfurters are, to the last, the most vicious critics of postmodernism available. Frankfurters mock the notion of deconstruction, they don’t use it to prove their points. Derrida was not a member of the Frankfurt School. In fact, all his favorite ideas were cut to pieces for sport by a Franfurter named Jürgen Habermas. The fact that GBFM doesn’t know this is both funny and sad, but that sort of ignorance is not at all uncommon in the androsphere.

I take postmodernism as a reaction to enlightenment theses, generally. What does this mean? We start with Kant’s work on enlightenment: Was ist Aufklärung? This essay begins by describing enlightenment as “the emergence of the human being from his own self-imposed tutelage.” Historically, the individual has seen his standard-of-living rise, and he has thus seen a corresponding increase in the proportion of leisure time. What this has led to is an increase in real freedom: intellectual, political, academic and scientific, as history progressed. Enlightenment, for Kant, was at least partly a function of economic prosperity. The fear of starvation and exposure often kept people timid and pliable. Once enough surplus wealth began circulating, people became less insecure, which led to individuals being able to make more decisions for themselves.

Fast forward a bit, and we find that the results of enlightenment freedoms have led to some truly bizarre scientific theories. We can revisit Frege and look at the difference between sense and reference. We can then get technical and look at quantum field theory. In both cases, there seems to be a surface level of reality, mediated by our senses, which gives us a picture of objects in the everyday world. This surface level is deceptively difficult to reconcile with the deep structures that seem to make up what actually happens in reality. Bertrand Russell talked about this general notion in the first chapter of his Problems of Philosophy.

The difference between phenomenology and metaphysics has grown much more significant with the advent of enlightenment thinking. The postmodernist universalizes the difference, and generalizes the study of deep structure, to the detriment of everything else. Derrida’s famous line: “everything is text,” is an example of the sort of broad paintbrushing that postmodernists love to take to any edifice which has yet to be sufficiently tagged. By this token, the postmodernists have upended enlightenment thinking, and have used its own fruits in an attempt to negate or minimize its successes. Here is the primary postmodernist thesis, as I understand it:

There are two basic levels of reality.

The first level of reality is the phenomenological, corresponding to the data we get from our senses. This is an illusion.

The second level of reality is metaphysical, corresponding to things we will never be able to understand. The best we can hope for is to work out mathematically what happens in reality; but even then, the best we can do is predict isolated incidents. We really don’t know what is going on.

There is no single postmodernist answer to the postmetaphysical thesis they defend. Derrida attempts to formulate a philosophical method which is called deconstructionism. Vattimo (who would angrily decry his place in the postmodernist canon) sets up a competing method based on Gadamer’s hermeneutics.

Here is one of the more enticing and dangerous logical entailments of the postmodernist thesis:

At the surface level, we think our actions are rational, but at the deep level, they are not.

It’s important to disambiguate here, because lots of non-postmodernists will say similar things. Marcuse, for example, was a Frankfurter, and he made what seemed to be similar statements in Eros and Civilization and One-Dimensional Man. In fact, examining the difference between a post-Marxist like Marcuse, and a postmodernist like Derrida, can give us a clearer view of what postmodernism actually is. Marcuse’s argument hinged upon psychological and economic devices to lull us to sleep. Derrida’s argument is founded upon the idea that it is impossible to really understand what motivates us to do anything. For a post-Marxist, human beings are redeemable by their evacuation to a more authentic, non-ideological environment. For a postmodernist, all is for naught.

There are a number of important ethical questions that spring from an acceptance of the postmodernist thesis. For example, if we are not, and can never be, free, then we can never be responsible for our own virtues or our cruelties. Secondly, if the enlightenment ideal of objectivity is impossible, then it is also impossible for us to obtain any epistemic credence in things like justice, fairness or right. Postmodernists generally conclude that we have no epistemic confidence in anything, even in the Cartesian notion that we, ourselves, exist.

The appeal of postmodernism is obvious: It promises a reversion to infantile excuses for our bad behavior, and allows for the cultivation of an unexamined life. After all, if knowledge, decency and understanding is impossible, then we can’t be blamed for not trying.

Nkechi a/k/a Dolezal, first became a race huckster after being accepted to study at Howard University. Howard is a predominantly and historically black university, which has particularly high standards. (Imagine something on the order of Stanford or Cornell – only started and run by Black intellectuals.)

Dolezal, a totally unqualified White slut, was given an affirmative action scholarship, lavished with all sorts of help (unavailable to her more intelligent Black colleagues), and showered with free money for rent and books. Despite all these advantages, she failed, time and again, to achieve anything noteworthy. To repay this generosity, she filed a series of frivolous lawsuits against her alma mater. One of the things she accused the university of was “racial discrimination.” My understanding is that most of these were dismissed, and the one that eventually went to trial was easily won by Howard.

So, what’s an aspiring race huckster to do? She had a race-change operation… Not serious plastic surgery, the likes of which Michael Jackson accomplished. I mean something closer to getting out the shoe polish, Al Jolson style. She moved back to her home – Cascadia, where there are almost no actual Black people to compare, and became the head of the Spokane NAACP. In a series of embarrassing public interviews, it was established in mid 2015 that Dolezal was actually the White ho’ who had sued Howard, maintaining that the school had discriminated against her for being a White bitch.

A number of unconfirmed reports began to circulate all those years ago. It was alleged that in her classroom, at Eastern Washington University’s black studies department, she referred (at least once) to a student she disliked as “that nigger.” Another student came forward alleging that Dolezal had (at least once) gone on looney, shouting tirades in class, berating light-skinned black kids for their “light skin privilege.” (Fuck’n lol – I guess she wanted everyone else to join her in picking up the spray tan.) True or not, EWU dismissed her immediately.

Another story alleged that she would abuse her husband (an actual black dude) because she felt he “did not act black enough…” The caricature of blackness is much more important to this White cunt than, ya know, actually being an African-American. In any case, it is confirmed that she ran at least one man through the anti-male divorce courts, before settling on her career as a racial grievance hustler.

Fast forward to today, the bitch has book and movie deals, and has gone on extensive world speaking tours. Despite pulling in six-figures, she continued to milk America’s social welfare system.

Dolezal is truly a sad case of what’s wrong with this society. She is a complete embarrassment to her family, her people, her colleagues, and herself. Until we check these corrosive wimminz, we’ll surely have more of this sort of destruction.

Much more at: NYT

found this video particularly amusing.

WAAAAAHHHH!

Starting that magic countdown until Harry hit with frivolous criminal accusation of rape or sexual harassment.

Eagerly awaiting the new merit badges for fisting and anal sex.

BTW: For those who don’t believe this, you aren’t alone. I had to go get the source. It’s legit. It has also been policy for two years, so I’m not sure why it is only now getting airplay.

Someone calling himself Jeff Strand has recently been trolling Dalrock’s comment section. His schtick is old, though he is a bit better at it than most of those who have come before. The argument goes something like:

1. There are divorced men on Dalrock.
2. I married well, and I am not divorced.
3. Therefore, the divorced men on Dalrock did not marry well.

Strand continues by insisting that had these idiot men merely done what he had done, they would be having no problems. When asked pointed questions, however, his testimony collapses. At one point, Strand breaks down and admits:

[My slut wife] was not a virgin [when I met her]. However, she was pretty sexually inexperienced. I met her right as she was turning 25, and I believe she lost her V card at around age 21…which is pretty darn good for today (or even 20 years ago) when most girls lose it in high school. It’s tough to make it to 25 still a virgin. Also, she never had a serious, long-term boyfriend before me…so it was nice for me not having to deal within the shadow of an ex-bf.

(source)

Point no. 1: Any man using the feminist term “V-card” is confirmed as a faggot.

Point no. 2: It doesn’t matter whether I’m right, in assuming that Mrs. Strand was turned out as a teenager, and had spent a full decade worshipping cock of many colors, before finally settling on this chump. It may be that I’m wrong, and that Strand is right in assuming that his whore only serviced a few dicks in adulthood, belonging to steady eddies and a couple of hookups when she was drunk and drugged. If you’re into fetishizing virginity, then who cares? The only salient point is that she failed this weird test.

In any case, Strand doesn’t deviate from his basic point. Wimminz choosing to betray their families is always the fault of the men involved. If the losers on Dalrock were as manly as Strand, then their wimminz would be nice and obedient, like the reformed slut Mrs. Strand supposedly is.

It is hardly surprising that one of the people Strand hates most is Scott, a qualified psychoanalyst, who did marry a single mom, and was quite open about raising her son. He has done a good job by anyone’s standards. Scott writes, about meeting his wife Mychael:

Still basically like that when I met Mychael, I have, through much trial and error reverted back to much of my former high school jock behaviors within the context of marriage as well as simply reading around here. And I am on much more stable ground in my marriage. I don’t pretend she is NAWALT. Or that either one of us are made up of some material that rest of you losers are. I move forward with knowledge I did not have before and I am basically happy with married life.

(source)

It is as though we must approach wimminz as we approach the Dao: He who claims to understand NAWALT does not understand NAWALT, but he who claims he can not understand NAWALT is approaching an understanding.

Scott claims his wife is not NAWALT because she is, in fact, NAWALT. Anyone who has read their posts, seen their photos, and interacted with them honestly will attest to this. Unlike Strand, Scott has given mountains of good advice to all the other men who took the “man up and marry a slut” advice to heart. It is possible to reform a ho’, because he has done it. Now, I don’t think it’s worth the time, effort and headache to do this; but, if you’re already deep in that hole, you might find it easier to follow Scott’s advice than to divorce your bitch wife, pay through the nose, and start all over in my lifestyle. Strand’s wife is not NAWALT because, in the first place, he has admitted that she was a skank-ho slut when he met her. In the second, and most importantly, she is not NAWALT because he claims she is NAWALT.

Ask yourself if an honest-to-god NAWALT would settle for being with a dope who spends all his life trolling internet comment sections that almost nobody reads.

Now ask yourself why Strand has so much traction, while Scott has next to none…

NAWALT is a ready-made scam, because so many men want it to be true. In that regard, it falls neatly into a wider set of scams, that start out with “nine out of ten doctors recommend…” rhetoric.

Men will believe the NAWALT scam for precisely similar reasons they will believe that buying a certain brand of toothpaste will cure their dental problems, and that buying a new sports car will cure their wimminz problems, and that fat girls make better wives, and that single moms make better lovers. Specifically, they believe these scams because they want to believe them. These scams contain artifacts that appeal to certain inborn, abstract, moods in the male primate: justice, fairness, right. Feminists like Strand peddle them to men on Dalrock, and the men on Dalrock lap them up, because it’s easier to believe that there are easy answers to their problems than to take advice from men like Scott, who will tell them the truth: namely, that you have to work hard and exercise discipline if you want a functional relationship.

I was bored today, so I took a half-hour and made some Robert Mugabe memes. Spread some of these around, if you think they’re poignant or amusing. Just don’t tell anyone where they came from.

Bad women? Bob hasn’t got the memo. There are no such things, just bad husbands, fathers and other rapists.

Whatever else you might say about the man, he enjoyed tweaking the tails of the feminists.

My brother, don’t kill yourself…

Down below, Earl tipped me off to the fact that Meghan Markle’s brother wrote Prince Harry a letter, urging him to reconsider his insane proposal to marry a self-described feminist.

Rather than heeding the good advice this man gave him, Harry leaked the letter to the slimeball media, which immediately began harassing the writer.

As of today, Harry has been joined in legal wedlock with this skank-ho divorcée and troublemaking Hollywood D-lister. His fate is sealed, and his punishment for this insult has just begun.

As for the writer: after being harangued by scumbag journalists and biographers, he has apologized for telling the truth about his sister’s character. While Thomas Markle has recanted the following testimony, I am posting it here, simply for posterity’s sake. I’m sure it won’t be too long before we have another update on our favorite skank-ho princess and the chaos she vomits up on anyone in her proximity. Minor spelling corrections have been made, but the content is intact.

4-26-2018

Dear Prince Harry,

It’s not too late. Meghan Markle is obviously not the right woman for you.

As more time passes to your royal wedding, it becomes very clear that this is the biggest mistake in royal wedding history.

I’m confused why you don’t see the real Meghan that the whole world now sees. Meghan’s attempt to act the part of a princess, like a below “C” average Hollywood actress, is getting old.

What kind of person starts out by using her own father until he’s bankrupt, then forgets about him in Mexico, leaving him broke, over mostly all her debt, and when it’s time to pay him back, she forgets her own father like she never knew him?

My father will never recover financially from paying Meghan’s way, nor emotionally from [her] disavowing him. Meg is showing her true colors.

It’s very apparent that her tiny bit of Hollywood fame has gone to her head, changing her into a jaded, shallow, conceited woman, that will make a joke of you and the royal family heritage.

Not to mention, to top it all off, she doesn’t invite her own family, and instead invites complete strangers to the wedding. Who does that? You and the royal family should put an end to this fake fairytale wedding before it [is] too late.

Her own father didn’t get an invite, who should be walking her down the aisle. She easily forgets [that] if it weren’t for my father, she would be bussing tables and babysitting to pay her old debt off.  The whole world is watching Meg make bad decisions and choices. It’s not too late, Harry.

Meghan is still my sister. She is family. So, whatever happens is up to her. Whether she wants to forget knowing me or the rest of her family, family comes first.

Also, you would think that a royal wedding would bring a torn family closer together, but I guess we’re all distant family to Meg.

Sincerely,

Tom Markle Jr.

Unlike many on the alt-right, I do not LARP as a monarchist, and I make no secret of my apathy toward the royal family. I think Canadians should have dumped this dysfunctional crew of layabouts long ago. And so, it is with subdued glee that I welcome my new skank-ho overlord, Meghan Markle, into the scroungy bunch who signs off on my travel documents. The chaos she will bring to our masters will be a great source of personal amusement to me.

Meghan Markle is already a divorcée. She was, unknown to many, married to a man named Trevor Engelson. They tied the knot in a traditional Jewish wedding in Jamaica, in 2011. Less than two years later, young Meghan ran her husband face-first through the divorce courts. I guess all those religious vows and promises went out the window, when the skank realized she could get a big payday.

A Portrait of The Con-Artist as A Young Prostitute

Meghan Markle in 2010, with her first husband, Trevor Engelson.

Skank-ho Meghan in traditional religious “chair dance” at her first wedding.

To recap: Markle promised, in a traditional Jewish wedding, to love, respect, honor and obey her husband, Trevor Engelson. She divorced him two years later, getting an undisclosed payout as reward for breaking her most important promises. Scumbag biographer of the rich and idle, Andrew Morton, describes skank-ho filing the divorce papers as a shocking surprise to Engelson, who said it came “out of the blue.” Markle sent back her wedding and engagement rings to her husband through the mail, from Canada, in the same week she filed the papers. I can only assume that she had already started making eyes at another series of men.

Fast forward to the present: Harry, a man who volunteered to serve in Afghanistan (where he further fought in the field – which he didn’t have to do) somehow sees skanky Meghan as wife material. Harry has now married Meghan in another traditional religious wedding, where Meghan made a big to-do about refusing to promise to obey her husband.

Harry, of course, has the money to send Meghan packing, and he almost certainly will. At best we can hope that he doesn’t let this dysfunctional feminist have any of his children to hold hostage. If we condemn him, it is for inflating the egos of skank-ho wimminz everywhere, who will now see the normalization of slutty divorcées trading up to a bona-fide prince, after demonstrating the inability to keep their most important promises.

Read more about this trashy ho at The Sun and NY Times.

The trick ho’ at right is one Jacqueline Ades, age 31. On 8 April, police in Paradise Valley AZ were summoned to fetch her. When the cops arrived at her victim’s house, she was completely nude, bathing in her victim’s tub, with a very large butcher’s knife nearby.

Her victim is an anonymous wealthy man, who alerted the cops remotely, after seeing Ades break in to his house on a series of remote cameras. Jackie-slut was taken in hand without too much trouble, and transported to the Maricopa County Jail. A subsequent investigation suggested that Jackie-skank was far more unhinged than anyone could have possibly anticipated.

This is an illustrative story, which we can all learn from. We’ll call our victim Abe, and briefly go through what Abe did, right and wrong, in gaming this whore.

Jackie-slut met Abe after she set up an internet dating profile on a site called Luxy. At some point, in the late spring or early summer of 2017, Abe met Jackie-skank, took her back to his impressive home, fucked her, and then ghosted out on her. Jackie-ho subsequently made herself a persistent nuisance, up until the day she got the bracelets clapped on her, for breaking into Abe’s house.

Let’s do a bit of deconstruction, shall we?

Luxy bills itself this way:

Abe’s first major mistake is immediately apparent to any playa with common sense. Luxy apparently encourages its prospective suckers gentlemen playaz to fill out a verification of deposit form, allowing the administrators of the dating site to dig around in his confidential financial records.

There are legitimate reasons to allow third-parties a verification of deposit. If one is purchasing an expensive home, for example, he will regularly give this sort of access to the mortgage company, to support his application. A look at balances and history in his savings and investment accounts will offset a shaky job history or a mediocre credit rating.

What we must wonder is why Abe was so desperate for the loving attention of skanks like Jackie-ho, that he allowed this sort of digging merely in anticipation of the chance of meeting her. At first glance, many men will simply assume that Abe was desperate for cunt. This is not really credible, only because Abe probably has access to professional escorts (as the rest of us do). There are two obvious scenarios that present themselves as equally credible, in my mind.

1. Abe is into kink so vile that professional prostitutes won’t indulge it.
2. Abe was, despite his financial success, a simp who wanted to find a wife.

Scenario No. 1 was my first assumption. I imagine that there are things that professional hookers simply have too much self-respect to do for their johns.

a. “I want to shit in your mouth and watch you eat it…”

b. “I want to choke you until you lose consciousness and then fuck your gasping, brain-damaged body…”

The decadence of rich guys should not be discounted. Even so, there is some evidence that this was not the case. For all his faults, Abe seems to have followed ya boy Boxer’s advice, and backed up all his conversations with the skanks he met. The recorded conversations not only seem to exonerate Abe of any serious moral wrongdoing, they paint his stalker as a particularly unhinged character, and now constitute a large body of evidence against her.

Jackie-slut is currently being laughed at for threatening Abe, as he calmly ignored her looney tirades. As wimminz will tend to do, her text-outbursts became more and more extreme, even as he proceeded to ghost her, culminating in beautiful expressions of love like:

“I am the new Hitler… I hope you die, you rotten, filthy Jew.”

and:

“I want to bathe in your blood.”

Aside from being tasteless, Jackie-ho is also sadly uncreative, blatantly plagiarizing Bret Easton Ellis in both of these examples.

When asked why she would send an uninterested man a year’s worth of looney threats, Jackie replied:

“When you’re in love, not everything is perfect. This was a journey.”

So, this cunt is nuts. Quelle surprise. I always try not to indulge in victim-blaming, but in this case, Abe does get some shaming from me. He clearly did not perform due diligence in keeping such a mental patient away from him.

“But Boxer,” I hear you squawking, “how was this poor chump to know that his ho’ was crazy?”

I knew she was crazy, two minutes after I plugged her name into the search bar. From her open and public instagram feed, we find this gem:

Who wants to know the location of Atlantis!?!
The coordinates of Atlantis are 33,33
Atlantis is INSIDE THE EARTH. it is the SOUL of the earth. The earth is ALIVE IT HAS A SOUL, THIS IS WHERE ALL CREATION IS BORN! The Dead Sea is actually the battery to Atlantis. And Atlantis is the battery to the earth. The earths water is supposed to be the battery of the universe. Every planet is supposed to be alive!!! But because we are under a death frequency, everythingg is DYING… the universe is ALIVE TOO.
THE FREQUENCY OF WATER IS OFF
THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE IS ESSENTIALLY OFF! WE ARE IN THE APOCALYPSE RIGHT NOW!!! WE ARE THE LAST ONES LEFT AND WE HAVE BEEN ENSLAVED BY MONEY AND FREQUENCY!!! WE ARE ALL SUPPOSED TO BE GOD’S THERES NO SEPARATE ENTITY AS GOD. WE ARE ALL THE UNIVERSE HAS! CHOOSE LIFE!

Would you want this lunatic knowing the location, layout and contents of your home? I didn’t think so. The easiest possible thing one can do is to plug a bitch’ name and phone number into a search engine, and see what comes up. Ironically, Jackie-slut herself advised this to wimminz, in April 2017 (only weeks before she met her victim).

Every slit you meet on the dating site is doing exactly this to you, and if you don’t respond in kind, it’s hard for me to be completely sympathetic when a weirdo attaches her parasitic tentacles into you, and starts draining you of time, money and energy.

Oh, and in case you didn’t realize, Jackie-skank is a proud feminist wimminz, and advertises as much to anyone who bothers to look…

When she’s not harassing, annoying, and exploiting clueless, wealthy chumps like Abe, she’s searching for the dick she really wants, in the general population of the state prisons:

All of this material, and much, much more, was available to Abe, before he decided to invite her around for a fuck.

What have we learned today? Let’s review…

1. Always keep screenshots of your sms and email conversations with a bitch. Back these screenshots up to google.
2. Do not allow any bitch, nor her pimp (this includes the dating site), access to your confidential financial information.
3. Do your due diligence. Do not waste time on any bitch who is demonstrably nuts.
4. If you have a large portfolio, then proactively hide it. Take the bitch to the Super-8, or just buy a modest condo for romps. Don’t show up in your S-Class, and don’t bring the bitch back to the mansion. Are you stupid, or what?

Much more at:

CBS NEWS | USA TODAY | WFSB | NY POST | KNXV | AZ FAMILY

Yeah, she’s a real keeper. For fuck’s sake.