Endorsing Laura Loomer

Lowbrow Performance Art – We Love It!

In an earlier article, I wrote about dissident political candidates who made free speech a part of their campaigns. Laura Loomer is one such candidate. She was previously featured on this blog after she chained herself to the front door at Jack Dorsey’s corporate office.

Loomer is facing a fundraising deadline. Political parties often judge the viability of candidates by the number of individual donations, and I’m hoping the republicans give her matching funds. As I am committed to doing my part, I gave her a some money and put my name on her list.

Unfortunately, Jack Dorsey won’t let me tweet my support.

I find some of what Loomer espouses to be tasteless and disturbing. I’m also a registered democrat, who doesn’t live in her district. That aside, her effort toward becoming Jack Dorsey’s own personal nightmare are just too important (and too hilarious) to go unrewarded.

I gave her five hundred dollars, because I’m a bachelor who can afford this. I realize that we’re all in different places, but I would love it if a few people kicked her something. The party bosses judge candidates by the number of individual donors, so even if you give her one dollar, you’ll be sending a strong message to the humorless wannabe censors at Twatter, Fuckbook and Cuckazon that you’re sick of their shit.

Wimminz and Their Demands

We’ve recently been exploring the instinctive disgust that arises in a wimminz for her man’s pre-existing children. I thought it would be instructive to contrast this phenomenon with the inherent generosity of men.

In the following video, we can hear some wimminz complain about her boyfriend, who is currently caring for her children (sired by some other man). Wimminz indignantly demands that her boyfriend “man up.”

Tommy softballs this wimminz to keep her on the line. Listen to the insane levels of entitlement that the typical skank-ho single mom carries between her ears.

Do you blame this man for not quitting his job, moving in with this bitch, and signing the marriage certificate? Sound off in the comments.

What Lies Behind The Behavior

While I hate social media for its censorship, I simultaneously love it for the humor. Tonight we are going to be treated to a bit of realtalk from an anonymous married mother, posting on a facebook forum. Bitch is known only as “T.”

I’ve been keeping this bottled up for so long. My husband has a son from a previous relationship and he is so spoilt and bratty and much more and I don’t want him around.

As a man who hates children, I can sympathize.

Of course, unlike this bitch, I don’t beg to marry people who already have kids attached.

Me and hubby get into such awkward conversations about it so now I try to not talk to him about it. I tried to get along with my skid (step kid) and it was fun at first, but then his behavior just got worse and worse with tantrums and stuff and even though I did know he had a kid when we started dating, I didn’t know he would get like this!!!! the skid lives with his mother full time and we moved far away which I felt was best for us and I feel good about that, but i can tell my husband misses him which is fine with me, but when he expects me to be everywhere that they are its so damn annoying… I tell him to go and do their own thing together and im not being spiteful about it I just think that it would do them some good…but its just so annoying cause I feel that I shouldn’t be putting him in an awkward spot with this and then im the one left feeling uncomfortable.

Just a couple of days ago we read the sad story of Richard Davis and his unfortunate daughter Janiyah. As we saw then, Mr. Davis made the tragic mistake of leaving little Janiyah in care of the skank ho bitch he was fucking, and now baby Janiyah is dead as dirt.

What do you want to bet that murderous slag had some name like ‘skid’ that she (at least mentally) attached to her man’s little girl…

If we cook dinner and skid doesn’t like what’s for dinner he gets a takeaway. If he’s involved in making food or deciding what’s going to be for dinner then he will decide that he doesn’t want it and if he’s told he has to, goes on a ‘hunger strike’. He wanted a PS4 at his Mum’s and at his Dad’s, he threw a tantrum and got it, there’s so many other things. His Mum and Dad both spoilt him, he gets away with being like that at his Mums. He’s with us EVERY single half term and some of the Xmas break😩😩. Every time half term gets close and it’s time for my skid to stay with us I become cold and quiet to everyone.

He’s not a bad kid but I can’t stand him in my house, he’s spoilt as hell.

She admits there is nothing wrong with him, she just hates him to hate him…

I don’t want him to have anything to do with my 2year old daughter who is my husbands. I keep him away from my daughter and I only speak to him when I have to. I’m guessing he can feel it since he is now 12. My biggest hope is that he will be so uncomfortable he will stop coming to visit.

Let’s intuit what actually went down with this whore, shall we?

  1. Bitch is desperate for money/respect/dick.
  2. Bitch finds a poor sap who has just been through a divorce.
  3. Wallet-seeking mode initialized.
  4. Bitch sucks this poor sap off, says all the right stuff…
  5. Sap marries bitch.
  6. Sap impregnates bitch.
  7. Bitch suddenly drops the nice girl persona.
  8. Sap is now stuck paying for two horrible cunts…

It’s hard to hide from my husband and I don’t want to discuss it anymore with him. He will ask me to buy the train tickets for the visit and I wait until the last min so it costs more hoping my husband will say push the date out further to save money.

For a split second, I thought that bitch was actually funding the home visits. Then I realized that she wasn’t. My bad!

I feel bad because it causes tension at times but I just can’t get over the knot in my stomach when he’s around. I work so hard to make sure he doesn’t play with my daughter or spend any time with her. I find myself trying to figure out a way to discourage her from calling him her brother without making it obvious I did it. I just don’t want him around us. Whenever he leaves I put in extra effort to show how lovely and peaceful it is without skid.

It was Jennifer Love Hewitt versus The Wall

If we weren’t so settled with work and things since we moved a few years ago, I’d consider encouraging hubby to move even further away, our daughter hasn’t started school yet so it’s still a thought in my mind. Hubby yesterday discussed having skid for all of Xmas holidays this year, he wanted to raise it with me before he contacted skid’s Mum. He also wants him to come on our first family holiday abroad in the summer. This is putting pressure on my marriage and I really feel uncomfortable that he wants to do this.

I just need advice from other females about how to try and talk to my husband about this. I actually feel better writing about this, I might get stick for stating how I feel but this is just how I feel. I find myself getting happy each year skid gets closer to being 18, no child support will be paid and skid should be more mature and less bratty. How am I supposed to deal with this?

There is little doubt that the “advice from other females” is heavily skewed into yougogrrl territory, with other whores encouraging bitch to continue this destructive game.  Inadvertently, bitch gave us all a candid look into what really goes on in the female mind, and for that we thank her.

The Cunt Pass, Explained

Regular readers of this blog will be familiar with Boxer’s regular use of the intentionally inflammatory slur cunt pass.[1] This term reflects the tendency of society in general and the legal system specifically to give women a pass when they commit various felonies and other anti-societal behaviors.

Examples of the cunt pass are varied. They exist in and overlap legal and social realms. They include lighter (or no) criminal sanctions for infanticide, ignoring negative evidence against women in family courts, and excusing sexual crimes of adult females with male children. The cunt pass is in evidence in society when pastors refuse to condemn women who break up families through frivolous divorce, utilize the divorce threat point, or refuse to have sex with their spouses.

But what is the cunt pass? It can be defined as follows:

Women are independent and powerful. They have the right and ability to make any choice. When they misbehave, it is because they are weak or mentally ill—victims not to be held responsible. Men are ultimately to blame and must excuse their misbehavior.[2]

Just as feminism—upon which the cunt pass is based—is logically incoherent, so to is this rationale. Women cannot be completely empowered and independent with their own choices while simultaneously not at fault for their misdeeds.

Oddly enough, there are many persons who deny that this bias exists, let alone that it is intentional. Many act like it is difficult to find the hard evidence to support it. The Department of Justice report “Homicides of Children and Youth” (October 2001) illustrates one critical application of the cunt pass.

The DoJ reports that women as a gender are disproportionately likely to kill children,[3] especially those under the age of 6.[4] What we find is that women tend to murder most vulnerable, those least likely to be able to resist. When the only meaningful difference between murdering young children, toddlers, infants, or the unborn (early, mid, or late stage) is the age of the child, then there is no in principle reason that a woman’s wanton death worship would end when a child pops out of the womb. The data confirms this. If abortion was outlawed, we would expect the subsequent murder rate of the unborn to be similar to the rates that women kill their birthed children now.

The report notes this critical point:

“Women who kill children are more likely to be labeled mentally ill than men who kill children and are somewhat more likely to commit suicide.” (DoJ, p9)

This is the cunt pass, front and center. For at least two decades we have known that women are much more likely than men to get an explicit or implicit “mental illness” pass for abusing or murdering their children. It is quite unusual for a government report to admit this in writing. The fact that the publication was done in the early days of the internet probably explains why it was allowed to stand. Yet even this admission by the DoJ is somewhat cagey. However, the report contains two more critical pieces of evidence:

“Homicides of young children may be seriously undercounted.” (DoJ, p2)


“Homicide is the only major cause of childhood death that has increased in incidence during the past 30 years” (DoJ, p2)

Think about this for a second. Women murder their children significantly more frequently than men. When they are accused of murdering their children, even the DoJ admits that they are excused much more frequently than men.[5] Statistically, those murders become accidents. The result? A serious undercounting of the real homicide rate of children.

Yet, even giving women the cunt pass for murdering children is still not enough to hide the fact that since the end of the 1960’s—the sexual revolution when feminism took power—women killing children is the only major cause of childhood death that has increased in incidence. Over that time almost every nation on earth has been experiencing a secular period of quality of life improvements and an almost universal drop in all crimes.

It should be noted that the cunt pass is given to nearly every woman who has a pregnancy and a subsequent abortion. It is alleged that a woman should not be held accountable in any way for having sex and getting pregnant. Not only must she not be held responsible for her choices and that unwanted pregnancy, but it is the man’s fault for ejaculating. Every. Single. Time.

The Department of Justice has merely provided yet another data point that shows that feminism worships death. It has highlighted that the cunt pass is not only real, but an essential feature of feminism.

[1] Though I’ve never used the term before and am unlikely to ever again, I will use it in here because it is considerably less inflammatory than the excused behavior. If the term is somewhat upsetting, then excusing the behavior should induce white-hot blind rage.

[2] Dalrock’s Law of Feminism“Feminism is the assertion that men are evil and naturally want to harm women, followed by pleas to men to solve all of women’s problems.”

[3] “Although victims include approximately equal numbers of boys and girls, offenders include a disproportionate number of women.” (DoJ p9)

[4] “In general, women kill much less frequently than men. However, one-quarter of the victims in killings by women are juveniles [..] Women overwhelmingly kill very young children (75 percent of their juvenile victims are under age 6) and members of their family (79 percent). Thus, women who kill are heavily concentrated in child maltreatment homicides and infanticides. ” (DoJ p9)

[5] We have not even considered the cunt pass implicit in lighter sentencing for women.

A Haloween Story

Richard Davis, at right, fought a heroic battle with the divorce courts.

Some stories I run across are so utterly horrifying that I can scarcely interpret the evil behind them. This is one of those tales.

Up above we see Richard Davis, smiling with his daughter, Janiyah. This happy looking photo conceals the fact that Janiyah had a very difficult life. She was born to an irresponsible dope-addled bitch. At birth, baby Janiyah was removed from the care of her mother, but she was never allowed to see or visit her father or any of her paternal relatives. Instead, some black robed faggot in the fake family court sent her into a foster home. This is, of course, all by design. The “best interest of the child,” to be sure.

Rather than wander off dejected, our man Richard raised some money and took the fight to the enemy. Years of court battles ensued, until he finally got custody of his little kid. This is, in itself, an incredible accomplishment. I wish I could stop here. Unfortunately, this is the point where the story gets truly ugly.

Murdering Cunt Shevhuan Miller

At some point in the past, Richard met a skank-ho bitch named Shevhuan Miller. I am unclear on the details, but it is established that they were together while Richard was fighting the costly and tedious battle for custody of his own little kid.

Let’s see what the lying pseudojournalists in the scroungy media can tell us about what happened next…

Leaving your child in the care of a ho’ is a very, very foolish thing to do. If I had a little child, I’d consider it about as sensible to leave the kid in the care of my latest tinder slut, as to let her toddle around in the tiger’s cage at the zoo.

We can judge brother Richard (and perhaps we should) but we should also remember the awesome power that these skanks wield over a man’s emotional state. A wimminz is a master liar and manipulator from birth, and most men are very easily controlled.

So, this murdering slag with the unpronounceable name is arrested. Let’s see what bitch has to say for herself.

I can’t fault Richard for not being there. I’d also like to see some video of the hearing. I’d be surprised if this bitch wasn’t laughing and goofing off.

And now for the turn in the article… we shall see the rehabilitation of this murderous whore, right before our eyes, with the help of none other than Richard’s auntie!

Watch closely and see the magic of slanted journalism and female solidarity…

Bitch has just murdered a little kid, but she’s a real nice girl… She ‘dindu nuffin’… Time for the judge to plea bargain her down to jaywalking, and cunt pass her right out of the jailhouse, so she can go beat some more babies to death.

This kid deserved to grow up in a safe, normal, two-parent family. Sadly, she was born into a nation filled with single moms and rootless sluts. All her father’s heroic efforts weren’t enough to save her.

Read the whole depressing article at R-J

The First Amendment Candidates

America is the country where Facebook, Google and Amazon will cite “free speech” when questioned about marketing violent child-porn to tedious old catladies, and where those same companies will also cite “free expression” to silence anyone who disagrees with their own agenda.

Tulsi Gabbard is a democratic candidate for president. Right after she kicked the shit out of the establishment toadies, Google decided to unperson her. She did the right thing and immediately filed a lawsuit.

She’s also raising awareness of these criminal scum on the campaign trail.

Imagine if we had a president who said something like this.

And on the other side of the aisle, Laura Loomer is running for congress in Florida.

Laura Loomer is certainly a goon, and I don’t agree with everything she’s ever espoused, but she is doing very important work lately, which protects each of us.

It’s also humorous to note that Loomer is described as a dangerous terrorist, by the same facebook admins who profit off the sales of a sick old feminist’s rape fantasies.

Without making too much of an issue of it, I have donated to each to these campaigns, and plan on donating in the future (not exceeding the federal limits). This is a way for me to put some “skin in the game” while expressing my appreciation for the people who fight in my interests.

The Definition of Feminism

There are many definitions of feminism. Those who despise feminism define it according to the hell that it is. Those who love feminism prefer fluffy, sweet-sounding definitions. Down below, new commenter Karen has generously provided her preferred definition of feminism:

The definition of equality as far as feminism goes is really simple: equal opportunity for all; not being stopped from trying because of gender. Treating everyone the same.

At first glance this appears to be a pretty tame definition. It is quite a bit less honest than Webster’s definition of feminism, but many feminists would probably agree with it.

Note that this definition is vague and contradictory. Equal opportunity for all is not the same as treating everyone the same. This is simple to demonstrate. If we were to treat everyone the same, then we would all be like Chinese culture: refusing to give up our seats to pregnant women. The reason I might yield my seat to another is because different people get treated differently. So let’s interpret treating everyone the same as a simple summary of giving everyone equal opportunity irrespective of their gender.

There are many reasons that this is wrong.

#1: Equal opportunity is incoherent

The definition given is vague, especially not clearly defining ‘equal’. This is by design, because no specific, objective criterion can be established that leads to a coherent definition.

There are feminists called by the slur TERF: trans-exclusionary radical feminists. These oppose transgender rights, especially transwomen taking any rights afforded to women. They refuse to accept that transwomen are women. They argue that women cannot have equal opportunities if men are allowed to take their opportunities.

When a transwoman competes in a women-only sporting event, they have an unfair advantage because they are men competing against women. The opportunity is undeniably unequal. But by excluding transwomen you are not giving equal opportunities irrespective of gender. Thus, by the definition of feminism given above, excluding transwomen is also undeniably unequal. Both positions are undeniably unequal.

It’s a hopeless contradiction because men and women are not equal. Trying to equal that which is not equal leads to absurdities like feminists fighting feminists over which equality must be more equal. The concept of equality in feminism is self-refuting because it denies reality.

#2: Feminists seek equality of outcome

Having established that it is impossible to have equality of opportunity, we realize why feminists focus almost all of their efforts on equality of outcome.

Studies time and again show that the wage gap is real and that is predominately caused by choices made by women. The great irony was that when women achieved equality of opportunity, they used that opportunity to not close the wage gap. God forbid that we tell women what to do, so the only thing left to do is to try to force equality of outcome.

The Australian government attempted to help give women equal outcomes (that is, equal wages). They tried putting male names on female candidates’ resume. The result? Fewer interviews. It turns out that Australians are biased in favor of women, giving them unequal opportunities over men. In response to this, the Australian government insisted on new policies to increase the hiring chances of men over women. Wait, what’s that? They actually abandoned the practice because it didn’t lead to equal outcomes for women. They were perfectly fine with the anti-male unequal opportunity.

The feminist push for equality of outcome is not limited to women. As Karen noted, feminism was about ‘treating everyone the same’. Embracing this philosophy, the School Diversity Advisory Group in New York City found that minority children were underrepresented in the city’s gifted schools. The suggested solution? End equal opportunity admissions standards to force equality of outcome.

#3: Feminists seek inequality—of opportunity and outcome—favoring women

Feminists don’t stop with seeking equality of outcome. No, they have to be sure that women have greater opportunities and greater outcomes than men.

Last month, Hasbro embarrassed itself by announcing Ms. Monopoly, a board game that gives unequal opportunities to women.

The NYT article entitled “Where Boys Outperform Girls in Math: Rich, White and Suburban Districts” noted that girls academically outperform boys in almost every area.

When faced with this inequality, the NYT suggested that schools in America need to focus greater attention on creating more opportunities for boys to try to catch up or exceed girls’ outcomes. Wait, what’s that? They actually said that this was a problem that could be solved by raising girls scores, further increasing the gender disparity.

Feminists love abortion because their death worship favors women. Dave Chappelle pointed out their hypocrisy: if they can murder his child, he should be allowed to abandon it and not have to pay child support if the mother chooses to keep it. It’s logically consistent. Feminists despise it when anyone points out that women have unfair, unequal reproductive power and parental rights.

Another way feminists favor women is in divorce proceedings. By giving unequal rights to women, they can and do use divorce and custody of children as threat points in marriage. This feminist view of marriage is thus an antagonistic competition where power is given to the wife over her husband.

Feminists love #MeToo and Title IX enforcement, because it allows women to create post-hoc rationalized rape accusations to further control men and destroy their lives as punishment for being men. #BelieveAllwomen is yet another way to support this and give women unequal social rights and punitive powers.

#4: Feminists see opportunity as a zero-sum game

In theory, there are two ways to achieve equal opportunity: reduce the opportunity of men or increase the opportunity of women. In a zero-sum game these two are equivalent, so feminists would have to decrease the opportunities of men to increase the opportunities of women. However, feminists don’t actually care if opportunity isn’t a zero-sum game: they will reduce a man’s opportunity whether or not there is a corresponding increase the opportunities available to women in order to achieve relative equality. Many of the examples given above are like this (e.g. girl’s test scores).

This is important because the fluffy sweet-sounding definition ‘equality for all!!!’ is used as an excuse to reduce a man’s opportunity even if it doesn’t benefit women. Equality in this context just means harming men. This is where Dalrock’s Law of Feminism comes into play. Feminists demand that men change to their lives to give women more opportunity and better outcomes while simultaneously working to reduce his opportunities and outcomes. It is for this reason that many men are so hostile towards feminism, and their hostility is completely justified.


It turns out that the tame definition of feminism is actually insidious. Those gentle words are smooth lies. Those of us who hate feminism are often falsely vilified for ‘hating women’. Yet by fighting the irrationality of feminism, we fight the resulting tyranny and inequality. In doing so, we are probably the only people left who actually care about both men and women.

† This interpretation is actually illegitimate. Karen really did contradict herself. The full context is this: “Treating everyone the same. So a heavily pregnant woman would be treated the same as anyone else with a temporary disability or injury that makes them vulnerable in a jerky bus.” She really does think that treating people differently means treating them the same.

The Sad Tale of Abram

In the first place, I scoff at men who have hyphenated surnames. Either Abram has a ball-busting wimminz who won’t take his last name (as she absolutely should) or he was raised by such a wimminz, who insisted on embarrassing her son by cursing him with a feminist moniker. Which of these scenarios is closer to the truth is irrelevant, since he looks equally ridiculous in either scenario.

Brother Abram has a passion in life, and this is making cider. By all accounts, he does it very well. He started experimenting when he was growing up on a farm in rural Oregon. He eventually started his own business: a cider tavern in Portland. Even though cider-making is a tiny, niche market, Abram worked hard and built a loyal following for several years. Abram’s story is sad, because it’s the sort of narrative that would have been inspirational to the young brothers. Unfortunately, Abram scuttled a good thing, and now his business is being liquidated from beneath his feet.

How did this happen?

Like any normal man, brother Abram finds white racial nationalists tedious and depressing. I am in complete sympathy with him in that regard. Whenever they show up here, white nationalists make themselves a complete nuisance and I end up blocking them. Abram could have taken this sort of soft, reasonable approach, but that wasn’t confrontational enough for a liberal hipster with a hyphenated surname.

For some unknown reason, in late 2018, brother Abram invited ANTIFA to use his place of business to host their gatherings. He didn’t just refuse to throw them out, he actively recruited them to set up shop.

Predictably, his guests invited right wing loons to fight them in his business. As any reasonable person might assume, the right wing loons came right over, and everyone had a big squabble.

Boys in this post code don’t get themselves involved in such shenanigans, because around here we realize that the point of a masculine life is to do interesting stuff, and thereby make one’s span on Earth a work of art. Sensible men don’t waste their money on legal procedures after meaningless streetfighting, and no one has time to fight with his neighbors.

Abram’s guests made such a nuisance of themselves, that the police came around and rolled everyone up. All involved were cuffed and photographed, and the cops took them down for booking and a few nights in the clink.

Boys in this post code know about that too. For example, we know that the police pays informants and agents provocateurs to get the weak minded to commit crimes. The subsequent arrests give the inflated law-enforcement budgets increased credibility, and it also shunts the stupid and the clueless into the system, where they’ll be forced to pay the salaries of lawyers and government bureaucrats through fines and fees.

One should not be fooled into thinking that the state is on one side or another in these ANTIFA / White Nationalist brawls. The state is on its own side, and the state pays people in both camps to encourage stupid men to play the jackass, and the state laughs all the way to the courthouse after every violent skirmish.

Inviting lunatics to trash the surrounding neighborhood was a terrible business decision on Abram’s part. Did our brother Abram take a hint, and apologize to the community? No, he didn’t. He got in the media and started doubling down, with lawsuits and public pronouncements.

Brother Abram decided that patting himself on the back, and endlessly crowing about how “progressive” he was in print, was more important than doing what he was clearly born to do. He had the potential to do something really interesting, and now it’s all being flushed down the toilet, because he didn’t keep his eye on the prize.

Amazingly enough, Abram still seems completely clueless.

Brother Abram seems to feel that whoever buys his now failed bar should continue his practice of inviting ANTIFA and white nationalists to trash the neighborhood. Maybe it’s me, but if I were a businessman, I’d have more respect for my customers and my neighbors.

I admire a man who follows his dreams, who becomes the best at something, and who is able to make a living by sharing his talents with the world. Unfortunately, Abram forgot his gifts in order to boost his ego. The customers responded accordingly, and here ends his story.

Good Business

I have a ton of work to do, and I also don’t want to break up the current argument that’s raging downstream. So, I’m just popping in to plug some worthwhile research I found others doing…

In case you didn’t know, men-factor will remind you: Wimminz are such beautiful creatures…

Matt has a fun(ny) and depressing article up illustrating that: Human Resources isn’t.

Jack Donovan wants you to get your priorities straight.

Make sure to follow the respective comment policies if you choose to participate in these other fora.