Today’s stronk, empowered, heroic single mom is Rachel Henry, age 22. Skank-ho Rachel was the mother of three little babies, age 3, 1, and 0.5. She is now in the Maricopa County (Arizona) jailhouse, after the father of one of her kids phoned police and asked for help.
Details are fuzzy, and the feminist mass media isn’t helping, but here’s what I think happened.
Background: Bitch flees Oklahoma after authorities get tired of jailing her for her chronic use of illegal drugs. She goes to Arizona, and is helped by the father of one of her oldest kids. She sets up house on the property of his landscaping business. A few months go by, bitch gets bored, and decides to ice all of her children for giggles.
Last night: Bitch kills her 1-year old daughter first, by clapping her hands over mouth and nose, and suffocating the poor child.
Bitch then encountered resistance from her 3-year old son, who (for some reason) objected to mommy murdering his sister. Son phoned his father, who lived nearby, who came over with another one of his relatives.
Bitch explains that she was merely putting the little girl to sleep. Bitch then takes son into another room to “put him to sleep,” as his own dad is in the next room.
Bitch then brings out her infant child (who may or may not be the child of Arizona daddy) and kills the baby right in front of her in-laws.
This morning: Bitch laughs as she confesses all to cops.
While all the gory details have yet to be publicized, the moral of this story is clear. Allowing a meth addled slut to bear your children is a very bad idea. Read more at:
POSTSCRIPT: Scooped by Daily Stormer
I must really be getting soft in the misogyny game, given that the neo-nazi site Daily Stormer, run by Weev and Andrew Anglin, actually had a write-up on this crazy slut before I even heard of her.
While I’m sure I disagree with them on many important matters, I will compliment the rogues over at our rival publication, who have (unlike most race fetishists) recognized the danger posed by single mothers. Remember that if you decide to go comment at DS, to be a good neighbor and obey their rules. Tell ’em Boxer sent you.
For the love of god, bring back public capital punishment. SWIFT, PUBLIC capital punishment.
I had a family member who once asked “Who keeps knocking up these women?”
Violence in women is nearly always dysfunctional. Men have legitimate reasons to hurt and kill–hunting and protecting, for instance–but when women are physically violent, it’s generally toward those weaker than we are, and for no good reason. We are supposed to be trying to make and preserve life.
BTW, looks like Dalrock’s packing it in. A good decision. I think some of his older posts are true classics and I hope they’ll remain available, but I think he’d run out of useful things to say.
sigh .. SMH .. sigh ..
WHY didn’t the Dad snuff’er when he witnessed the murders!
This goes right along with the 70% of single-partner abuse coming from the female (see here). Our feminist enemies applaud this too:
To the feminists “he was totally asking for it” is a-okay, but “she was totally asking for it” is not. Not a double standardat all….
What SnapperTrx said.
If this wimminz were a man, she’d very likely be snuffed –violently so– in prison for this crime (child molesters and murderers in all-male prisons are the scum of the earth, the lowest of the low, and are marked and targeted accordingly).
I doubt this is true of women and the prisons in which they are incarcerated. Just one example that comes to mind is Susan Smith, who is still alive and whole after a quarter of a century in prison for the cold-blooded slaughter of her two little boys. To my knowledge she’s never faced any retribution from other inmates. Indeed, it wouldn’t surprise me to learn that they look up to her as some kind of role model or heroine.
Logic and morality are often at odds with each other.
Given the sh*tty world that we inhabit, it is logical to not subject children to it by leaving them unborn. (I think a large number of men who have had their hearts torn out by their wives blowing up the family have wished they were never born, at least wished that at some point).
But, given that the children were born, it is still logical to take them out as she did, thereby sparing at least the males the probability of the pain and suffering that we see described by so many men in the manosphere.
She was being logical. And that is one definition of insanity: being logical when being logical conflicts with social norms. That statement stands by itself, but I do understand the obvious: we cannot have a society if we allow all to violate social norms everywhere and all the time. I do understand why boundaries are necessary in civilization.
If you wish to invoke morality, then first grapple with how moral it is to give birth to a male who will grow up to have his life, and the life of his children, destroyed by the wives and mothers in the ways that have been so dramatically described in the manosphere. Is it more moral to enable such an outcome by giving birth to a male (or female, who will grow up to cause such havoc), or to prevent such an outcome by making sure such a male (or female) is either not born, is is dispatched soon after s/he is born?
If you think these are not legitimate questions for consideration, then I suggest you have not thought about what “being moral” actually means in enough depth.