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

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.

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.

Conclusion

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.

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.

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.

Vasily Neyasov: Man from the Urals (1959)

Back in the old days, it was customary for men to treat random, unknown females with a certain measure of respect and decorum. Such demands were placed on us by default. These demands were reasonable, in historical context, because the average woman was:

• not allowed to be a “loud and proud” skank-ho bitch
• not allowed to whore around openly
• faithfully married to a man who was busy building civilization
• the mother of such a man’s children

Women grew entitled to such courtesies, and began expecting them as a matter of course, even as they agitated for the right to not marry, refuse motherhood, whore around openly, and shoot their mouths off in public.

Thanks to filthy skank-ho wimminz, we now live in a feminist matriarchy, where all the worst female behavior is explicit everywhere. Despite their “liberation,” wimminz still expect men to keep up their end of the bargain they broke. While many wimminz are too stupid to understand the consequences of their pathetic collective behavior, some wimminz actually have the temerity to whine in the press about the results of their pathetic “revolution,” which any intelligent person could have predicted from the get.

Comes now Lizzy Acker, to lecture us on our duties.

This article has been redacted, with inline responses, to demonstrate a transformative purpose. The link is above, and I encourage all my readers to peruse the original.

In several days, I will be 38 weeks pregnant, and I ride the bus twice a day.

Good for you, Lizzie!

…I’ve noticed an interesting phenomenon on the bus. When it’s full, usually when I stop in the morning for a chocolate croissant or when I am heading home from downtown in the afternoon, the people who give me their seat are almost exclusively women, and usually older women.

That’s nice of them. Sisters doing it for themselves, and all that jazz.

The priority seating area is frequently full of young-ish people, a lot of them men, with headphones on, entranced with their phones. They don’t even glance up to see who might have just walked onto the bus.

The atomized dystopia we live in is a direct result of radical feminists, exactly like yourself. You and your sisters engineered this mess, and now you have the audacity to complain about it.

Not only do they ignore me, the very pregnant lady, I’ve seen them ignore elderly people with canes or heavy bags.

I expect they would. In a world where every polite gesture is used against them, as an excuse to accuse them of sexual harassment, it’s safer just to keep one’s headphones in.

Recently I was on a bus where an older woman gave me her priority seating seat. Then another pregnant woman got on and another older woman gave her her priority seat. The young men occupying the other seats just sat there.

Am I crazy to find this behavior annoying and antisocial?

Radical feminists have created a world in which men are punished for their kindnesses, and where every healthy male instinct toward civilization is used against them. Our behavior may seem annoying and antisocial, but it’s proven to be the path of least resistance when dealing with wimminz, and as such, it is a sensible response to material conditions.

A Simp and his Skank-ho Princess

In what was supposed to be a nice photo, we see the father-and-daughter baseball bat murderers Tom Martens and Molly Corbett. Molly, who is still using her victim’s surname, was a skanky nanny who seduced a poor widower named Jason, after being hired to look after his children.

Jason Corbett: Dead As Dirt

Molly convinced her chump to liquidate all his property, abandon his family in Ireland, and take his two kids to North Carolina, to live with her. Like an idiot, he did so. This was an incredibly bad decision. Jason ended up dead, because he could not say ‘no’ to a ho’.

After only a couple of years in America, Jason soon got sick of his skank-ho wife and her weird relationship with her father. Police say he was planning to divorce the bitch, and take his two kids (from his deceased wife) back to Ireland. That’s when things got ugly. Molly-skank convinced her simp of a father, a former F.B.I. agent, to help her kill her victim, and to assist her in tampering with evidence so that they’d get away with the crime. The rest is history.

The murderers brutally beat Jason to death with a baseball bat, and then staged their horrible crime as though it was a “domestic violence” situation.

911 DISPATCHER: Davidson County 911…

TOM MARTENS: My son in law, uh, got in a fight with my daughter. I intervened and he’s in bad shape. We need help.

911 DISPATCHER: OK. What do you mean he’s in bad shape? He’s hurt?

TOM MARTENS: He’s bleeding all over and I – I may have killed him.

TOM MARTENS: He’s covered in blood

911 DISPATCHER: Alright, listen carefully. I’ll tell you how to do chest compressions. I’ll set a pace for you. … One, two, three, four.

Mug Shot Time for Simp and his Slut Daughter

After giving their false statements to local police, Dad and his slut daughter turned all their attention on eliminating the two heirs to Jason’s estate: his little children. The first thing Dad and his cunt daughter did was to file for an emergency order from the courts to take the kids. In the mean time, they instructed their attorneys to block the children’s biological relatives from having any contact with them. The babies’ auntie describes her feelings during this time:

Tracey Lynch: I was terrified.

Maureen Maher: What were you terrified about?

Tracey Lynch: I was terrified she would kill them.

Maureen Maher: You thought that Molly might kill the children?

Tracey Lynch: Absolutely.

In an unusually wise decision, the family courts in North Carolina found in favor of the children’s family, rather than the murderers of their father, and the kids were finally released.

You can read more about this sad case here.

Simp Tyrone Muhammad arrested

I’d like you boys to watch the original raw video which starts about one minute in. One can also find it on worlstarrrr. It just came out this week, and I find it quite interesting.

One of the most notable aspects is the relationship between this poor chump, Tyrone Muhammad, and the bitch behind the camera, who is ordering him to do her dirty work. I note the following curiosities:

• No (normal, heterosexual) man patronizes a nail salon, so no (normal, heterosexual) man would have any cause to be upset at the proprietors.
• While we might excuse Tyrone’s actions if the nail salon had done physical damage to his wife or sister, Tyrone is unmarried, and he never specifies what the motivations are, other than “disrespect.”
• When is someone going to stand up for Black men, who are largely victimized by Black women, through child-support and domestic violence laws?

Tyrone is the sort of unthinking simp who did not have the presence of mind to laugh at this bitch, and tell her to go get her own dumb self arrested. Now he is facing months in prison, for defending the “honor” of a bunch of bitches in his community who have zero respect for him. Don’t be like Tyrone. Say ‘no’ to the ho’.

Part of the strategy of managing a large, diverse society is siphoning off discontent. This is done in a number of ways. One essential tact is giving the majority of people the idea that they share in a collective responsibility for whatever problem plagues them. Another is corralling potential dissidents in a cycle which promotes shame, silence and inaction.

Dalrock’s blog is a perfect example of the latter, in praxis. Feminism’s victims are attracted to it, with the idea that they will finally get to network with other men who are woke to the problems that face us in our degenerate society. Immediately, the blog’s author sets his readers to work fighting other antifeminists. In one recent example, Derek Ramsey pointed out that Dalrock was mocking and criticizing an antifeminist scouting organization, which was set up to keep young women healthy and safe.

There is a scouting organization which is run by radical feminists, and which overtly encourages our little sisters to explore the exciting lifestyle of the fat, “empowered,” banged-out skank. It’s called the Girl Scouts. Dalrock has never once criticized these people, nor does he seem to encourage the exploration of their organization on his blog. He saves his vitriol for other antifeminists, and in this way, he does his part to keep antifeminists busy fighting among themselves, lest they make any positive impact on the social environment through which we are all, unfortunately, forced to swim.

Chronoblip has begun an excellent analysis of Dalrock’s personal motivations, which dovetails with my own suspicions.

Occasionally, a dissident will see through the collective angst in Dalrock’s comment section. Derek pointed out a comment by “White,” who publicly questioned why the author was attacking an antifeminist organization, which represents all of us in the fight against our enemies. Dalrock has responded in typical passive-aggressive fashion, sending his asslicking attack-poodle, Cane Caldo, to shut down any legitimate questions and keep his audience on feminist-friendly topic.

Cane Caldo does not defend Dalrock’s false premise, that the American Heritage Girls are teaching feminism, because it’s indefensible. Dalrock was lying from the get. Instead, Cane Caldo frantically attempts to rebuild Dalrock’s strawman, by asserting that the American Heritage Girls are focused on:

hiking trails or writing polemics…

As we have already seen, the AHG have a very broad curriculum, which includes Cooking, Cake Decorating, Family Helping, Genealogy, Money Management, and Home Decorating, all things which will help a young sister attract (and keep) a good earner, and which will make her a successful wife and mother. The lie told by Dalrock, and echoed by his fawning sycophant, is not merely libelous to the antifeminist organization in question, it has the express purpose of shutting up any discontent among the antifeminists on Dalrock’s blog. Anyone who questions Dalrock or his idiot stooge Cane Caldo will now be implicitly defending not sincere antifeminists who care about the next generation, but hikers who write hateful feminist theory. Where these feminist hikers actually exist is a question no one will answer, because the audience finds it safer to remain silent than continue to use their masculine brains.

Cane Caldo continues by (surprise, surprise) sexualizing these young girls for Dalrock’s audience, describing them as:

bits of flesh… self-esteem thrusters!

This is not at all surprising, given his perverse history as a writer of thinly veiled fetish pornography.

Not content to quit embarrassing himself, Dalrock’s slurp-boy segues into a superficial analysis of Christian scripture. Let’s see what he can teach us…

Our bitch Cane has quoted the bible in an effort to… prove that the antifeminist AHG organization is unchristian. Does anyone wonder why he doesn’t quote the antifeminist AHG organization to support this contention? It’s not because he’s lazy. It’s because he’s lying. It’s because he can’t find any quotes in the AHG’s materials or in the mass media which suggest that the AHG is the group of hiking radical feminists that he and his master has painted them as.

Dalrock and Cane Caldo continue to channel antifeminist rage into libelous smears of other antifeminists, painting good people as sex-freaks and hateful polemicists. They do this because they do not have the courage to write about actual feminists, and they do this to keep you brothers chasing your tails, and they do this because they get a weird thrill out of styling themselves “thought leaders” in some sort of “movement” which exists only between their degenerate ears. Through their work, they shield our enemies from criticism and ensure that feminism will be spread to the next generation.

[Editor: The following is a guest article, authored by our brother Chronoblip. Visit his site here.]

When survival is the priority, because resources are scarce, human social interactions are driven by necessity.

When survival is not the priority, because resources are abundant, human social interactions are driven by novelty.

Put differently:

Shepherds are concerned with the survival of the flock.
Charlatans are concerned with their status in the flock.

Or as Jesus Christ put it:

“I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd gives His life for the sheep. But a hireling, he who is not the shepherd, one who does not own the sheep, sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and flees; and the wolf catches the sheep and scatters them. The hireling flees because he is a hireling and does not care about the sheep. I am the good shepherd; and I know My sheep, and am known by My own. – John 10:11-14 (NKJV)

Shepherds “police the flock” for the safety of the flock, to ensure there are no “wolves in sheep’s clothing”, and the flock may or may not recognize and appreciate this and may or may not confer a higher status to the shepherd, but he’d be doing the same regardless. Charlatans “pace and lead” for their own status and benefit, because they are goats who want the wolves to eat the sheep first. Hirelings have some level of innocence, they may only be cowards, but charlatans cannot claim ignorance of what they are doing.

Goats think they’re sufficiently smart or cunning enough to avoid being caught, and that their schemes won’t be discovered until it’s “too late” for anyone to do anything about it.

Living in Italy, how much does someone like Vox need to worry about the consequences of people taking him as seriously as he takes himself? But we don’t need to waste our time trying to “expose him” or ensure he “gets his comeuppance”. Why?

Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,” says the Lord. – Romans 12:19 (NASB)

We shouldn’t be distracted by revenge from our work to “make disciples of all nations”.

Folks like him will get what he deserves, or it’ll have been nailed to the cross with Jesus Christ, and we won’t likely know for sure which it’ll be until after this life, so we can instead ignore him as much as his own choices allow us to. If he gets in our way, we can then deal with him, but if he runs away like a hireling at the first sign of danger, or worse ends up feeding people to the very mechanisms he claimed to be working against, then we’ll have been blessed by God to know for sure in this life to then act confidently and decisively with respect to him or folks like him.

Skank-ho Karina, seen above, was allowed to babysit her little brother before this shit happened. I think it’s interesting to compare her booking photo with her facebook pics.

It will surprise no one here to learn that Karina is the spawn of a skank-ho single mother. Karina is currently awaiting trial, in Brazil’s far-west Amazonas province. If this happened in America, we could expect some faggot judge to release her almost immediately because she’s a wimminz. We shall see…