Monthly Archives: May 2016

Why The Feminist Ghostbusters 2016 are Trying Too Hard to be Men

TROLLYACCOUNTABILITY_3.png

DISCLAIMER 1: What follows is a mixture of facts, speculation & satire therefore the adverb “allegedly” prefaces and applies to the whole article.

DISCLAIMER 2: I am a proud Neo-Troll & I DO NOT represent anybody but myself. Truth with zero protocol will be used; get offended. Feel free to disregard everything I say based on my Troll status.

For those who stayed, read on;

(EDITOR’S NOTE: Feel free to checkout Jack’s site)

Why The Feminist Ghostbusters 2016 are Trying Too Hard to be Men

headerhey mom

The above line is not as bad as the mother actually forcing the girl to grow up fat, become a lesbian and embrace feminism. If the girl in question was born neurologically lesbian and predisposed to be obese, well, her life would at least suck a little less without feminist indoctrination.

Problem is, feminist fiascos like the feminist Ghostbusters are an extension of feminism: The lowest bar possible for your female children. Feminism is fashionable mediocrity while forcing girls to imitate men.

LOOK AS MALE AS POSSIBLE MY DAUGHTER

 

 

the dike busters FINAL

Does it surprise you that only by swapping the heads of the actresses with male heads their “femininity” is almost entirely removed?

The reason is simple: It wasn’t there to begin with.

Look,

the dike ghostbusters

Just the heads and the logo. Nothing else was touched, there was no femininity to remove. The director of this fiasco; Paul Feig, took care of that.

The subtext from the poses the actresses were instructed to adopt is not difficult to understand, the retarded mangina director, Paul Feig, wanted to make them look “powerful” yet all he managed to do was to remove their femininity and turn them into fat ugly lesbians.

Most feminists should have found that photo “offensive” because it states that women need to be more like men, to imitate them, so that they can be BETTER than men.

As usual, feminists do not think things through:

If you have to be like a man to distance yourself from men, you are doing it wrong.

If you do not want to look like a man, do not act like one.

The picture above was planned by marketing purposes, it was not taken just by “accident”, someone sat down with the director and carefully (yet stupidly) planned how to present these “weak” women as something that looked “powerful”.

Let that sink in, if you sit down and from the get go you consider femininity a liability, it only makes sense they decided to remove it by instructing the actresses to strike the pose above. They shot themselves and feminism in the foot.

But reasoning itself does not count because according to the religion of feminism, being girly and feminine is not enough to compete AGAINST men, it has to be removed.

That is the purpose of feminism in the metaphor of the feminist Ghostbusters, women are supposed to COMPETE against men not “collaborate” or “work alongside” or “partner” with men. Not at all, feminism wants women to compete AGAINST men. Period.

Why? Because being a lady is “boring” and women want to be men. That is the subtext feminists do not tell you about this picture. Put two and two together, if you liked the many, many, astoundingly beautiful expressions of femininity, why would you want to leave it?
Simple, feminists tend to have much higher levels of testosterone and being as godawful-boil-in-the-ass-ugly does not help their case. For example, this unshaven wild boar is supposed to be a “lady” according to modern feminism:

Dino-Ursa-terriblis

If you looked like a fat manly and ugly lesbian in any dress, you would also reject femininity. Being a lady is an art and a discipline that takes many years to master hence why it is rare to see a true lady in the western world nowadays, but when you see one, she is like authentic art; incredibly pleasant to look at.

Compare:

3-kinds

I get it, Helen Mirren is a raging feminist but despite her feminist Alzheimer, the woman knows how to dress with class and be a lady. But if you want a real adult lady, someone who needs no help from feminism, Margaret is the role model. Granted, her politics were flawed but she truly worked hard and achieved what most feminists can’t even dream of.  All without playing the victim or leaving the art of femininity behind. Did I mention Margaret Thatcher despised feminists?

Thatcher

Feminists on the other hand are too lazy and too mediocre to grasp the artistry of femininity or even imagine the absolute reach of passive female power. A well trained, very feminine woman can completely outsmart and dominate a very powerful man. She can even make his decisions and have none of the accountability. Look at some of the first ladies married to some of the most powerful men on earth. Sometimes those male heads of state are mere instruments controlled by a female puppeteer.

But being a real lady is too much of a tall order for most feminists simply because it requires genetic beauty and discipline. A true lady is a unicorn and the feminists are mere fat rhinos. It does not matter how much it tries, a rhino stays a rhino. Granted, unicorns do not exist so dames are more like a beautiful bonsai tree and feminists more like hairy wild boars. They are both alive but that is as far their similarities go.

Feminists see themselves as “liberated unicorns” but most of the time they are glorified godawful-boil-in-the-ass-ugly fat lesbians crying “sour grapes” over what they will never be able to achieve due to their chronic genetic ugliness: The art of being a lady.

Problem is, if the Ghostbusters need to tell people they are “ladies”, they aren’t. Being a lady is just like being powerful, to quote Thatcher again,

thatcher effect2

 

 

 

BE AS MEDIOCRE AS POSSIBLE MY DAUGHTER

role models

The second thing you can see in the picture is the lack of fitness in two of the actresses which roughly translates as the following commercial feminist mantra,

“Fat lesbian women are the OK because America needs more mediocrity”

What does a fat lesbian feminist eat? Exactly, the same junk a fat 8-year-old child eats.

There is very little difference between the trashy diet a neglected child has and what a fat and ugly feminist eats. Why? Because feminists are not real adults. They are children living in the bodies of adult women.

If you doubt this assertion, just browse the photos of most fat feminists on social media and you will soon realize they tend to “collect” pictures of their unhealthy diets almost as if they were trophies on their road to chronic and terminal disease:

“Look! These are the cakes that gave me diabetes type 2!

And I have no insurance! Weee! Porky GirlPower!”

The more the food pictures, the less likely you will be to see that many selfies, but you may come across fat feminists hating their scales instead of their own lack of discipline.

scale smashing

Therefore choosing 2 fat actresses for the Ghostbusters role made some sense because the physically fat and mediocre female audience would relate to the physical mediocrity and compulsive eating habits of those actresses.

Eating excessively is something children may do if neglected by the parents, they gain weight often to cope with the stress of being ignored and to replace the pleasure they do not get from life. Fat feminists mirror this and overeat to falsely cope with the stress of being ignored by men and women and eat to replace the pleasure they do not get from orgasms.
Granted, the other two actresses are not fat but those characters cater to the other half of the American feminist demographic: the bulimic-anorexic-anorgasmic and bipolar feminists.

4TH WAVE DISASTER

GYMS ARE LIES BY THE PARTRIARCHY
In a way, the female Ghostbusters offers the worst women as a whole have to offer to humankind: mediocrity and childishness at all costs while force-feeding these lies to a new generation of little girls.

But be careful, because if you ever tell something like this to a feminist mother they will do something “unexpected” from an adult: Throw a tantrum.

Even if the feminist is a middle-aged woman, it is very hard to tell the difference between their tantrums and a child’s.

What kind of example is it for a child to see her mother embrace feminism, eat compulsively and throw tantrums if ever criticized? It is a recipe for mediocrity and unhappiness for those children.

You doubt it? Well it has already happened and the result of single mothers confusing and making their children as broken as possible with feminism is called: Tumblr. Those are mostly 3rd wave feminists.

 

tmbr

Yes, the above could be satire but often they believe these things.

The little girls taken to the movies by their feminists mothers are prone to emulate the mediocrity and stupidity of those characters on the screen. Fat, insecure unattractive women trying to use false humor to downplay their intense feminist mediocrity.
Feminism is the false art of childish mediocrity disguised as achievement.

Those post-feminist Ghostbusters little girls will grow up to be even more confused and frustrated than their Tumblr counterparts and will become the 4th wave feminists, many of them morbidly obese and likely to be outlived by their elders.
The reality is that your children should outlive you not the opposite way around. You want both your male and female children to thrive, to grow ambitious and achieve a percentage of those ambitions, the greater those ambitions the greater the potential crash and the learning from failure. High ambitions are better than no ambitions.

Feminists are a group of social failures teaching the newer generation of girls to get as fat & as mediocre as possible to blame men for their own failures just like their  feminist mothers do.

Those feminist mothers are teaching their female children how not to have ambition.

Besides, those godawful-boil-in-the-ass-ugly feminist mothers complaining about the art of femininity are like 2-foot midgets hating both basketball and the tall players.

Thank you for reading.


 

THE IMAGINARY INTELLIGENCE OF FEMINISTS

TROLLYACCOUNTABILITY_3.png

DISCLAIMER 1: What follows is a mixture of facts, speculation & satire therefore the adverb “allegedly” prefaces and applies to the whole article.

DISCLAIMER 2: I am a proud Neo-Troll & I DO NOT represent anybody but myself. Truth with zero protocol will be used; get offended. Feel free to disregard everything I say based on my Troll status.

For those who stayed, read on;

(EDITOR’S NOTE: Feel free to checkout Jack’s site)

the imaginary intelligence

THE IMAGINARY INTELLIGENCE OF FEMINISTS

 

 

 

 

Fat-misanthropy

 

Yesterday, a fat, broken, hateful and misanthropic gay man told me all women are animals. I believe him.
He had a broken childhood just like me and he says we, men, should unite and hate all women, no exceptions made. I believe him.
I want to follow his example because he knows what is good for us united men against women. 
I believe him because our hate is justified. I am proud to hate all women.

Now let’s compare:

Yesterday, a fat, broken, hateful and misanthropic lesbian feminist told me all men are animals. I believe her.
She had a broken childhood just like me and she says we, women, should unite and hate all men, no exceptions made. I believe her.
I want to follow her example because she knows what is good for us united women against men. 
I believe her because our hate is justified. I am proud to hate all men.

Surprised? In the first paragraph I pretended to have let a broken misanthropic person decide my future and as a result, most of you filthy readers immediately assumed I lacked intelligence. Plain and simple.

The same applies to feminists. Fundamentally, they lack authentic intelligence because they let hateful people direct their actions.

The fact that the first paragraph looks so “offensive” and the second so “acceptable” is the tacit admission of both the disconnection of feminists with reality and the empathy gap.

If you let broken dysfunctional people dictate your thoughts, sexuality and life you are either like them or lack all the intelligence required to be aware of it. Let me clarify:

The intelligence of feminists is a lie.

This is not hyperbole, I seriously take the intelligence of any given woman as a complete lie as soon as she mentions/admits to her feminism (yes, including Christina Hoff Sommers*)

Their intelligence is imaginary and religiously-narrow at best since they make too many exceptions where to apply it based on their emotions. Because of this, feminists actively neglect what makes us human:

Reasoning.

You cannot rely on a person whose intelligence depends on their feelings, that is unprofessional at work and blatantly religious in everyday life.

Our species is here today because people throughout history put their emotions aside and let their reasoning do the problem solving. Emotions are very useful but ineffective for problem solving.

Equations don’t solve themselves even if you feel “triggered” and their complexity causes you to stomp your feet and cry like a toddler.

It doesn’t matter how much you emote and yell at equations, they ain’t gonna solve themselves. (hence why feminists are too retarded for STEM and instead go for gender studies hoax-degrees).

Emotions are great when you are growing up because they let you relate to your family members but emotions don’t put food on the tables of grown-ups. Adults put food on the table by solving problems with dispassionate reasoning, not impulsive childish emotions.

The equations life presents to us daily require dispassionate reasoning not dogmatic emotion-driven lies like feminism and religions.

Authentic reasoning is not finding what your feelings often falsely tell you about objective reality. Objective reality stays whether you like it or not, whether you believe in it or not, whether we live or die. It just stays.

Author Philip K. Dick put it best:

PHILLIP K DICK
Yes, that jewel of human reasoning comes from a man who struggled with mental illness for a good part of his life. Maybe he was crazy enough for you to disregard him at face value or for you to consider the possibility he may have been close to the mark.

Let that sink in, a mentally ill man like managed to try to ascertain reality as a whole while feminists still struggle with their child-like emotions on a daily basis.

It does not matter how crazy Dick may have been, he still managed to reason that quote about the nature of reality better than what feminists can ever hope to achieve in their whole emotionally radical lives.

The credibility of imaginary things like religions and feminism needs to be “defended” but real things do not need any defense, nobody is defending gravity on Twitter.

Glorified fairy tales like religions and feminism need to be “defended” against satire while objective reality welcomes it. We can joke all day about the earth being “flat”, but feminism being for retarded women? Oh! That is sooooo offensive!

Authentic reasoning is finding the truth about objective reality based on evidence whether or not your feelings are hurt, wounded or obliterated by it. What matters is not what you want objective reality to be, what matters is what IS.

You reason based on evidence then you share your ideas, sometimes others correct you, sometimes you correct them but you do not close the door to reasoning and learning because of “feelz”.

Reasoning through intellectual humility means you always leave the possibility of being wrong on the table, whether you like it or not.

However, what you often find with feminists is the opposite of reasoning: They get “offended” then they burst into a fistful of intense and impulsive emotions that won’t take a no for an answer.

You have to believe in what they believe or else you are a “misogynist” which is code word for “blasphemer”. To them, doubting feminism is “doubting and offending all women”. Getting offended is their universal get out jail free card, just like religions do.
But would you like to know what both religions and feminism really want?

Exactly. Intellectual immunity.

 

And when it comes to the biggest comfiest “safe space” there is, you cannot top the intellectual immunity feminists and religions fervently seek. Let that sink in, immunity instead of humility. Yes, intellectually, there is zero humility in their sweet sought-after immunity.

You can see the undeniable traces of this narcissistic feminist need for intellectual immunity whenever comments or ratings are closed by default on any YouTube or Tumblr blogs or on social media products in general used by feminists. A perfect example is Anita Sarkeesian’s videos:
disabled
What this “comments closed by default because of my feelz” feminist policy implies is their overall refusal to admit the possibility of being wrong.

Feminists obey one master and it is not reason, it is their emotions.

 

Have you noticed? To feminists, what their emotions falsely tell them about reality “cannot” be wrong. To them, it is an absolute truth.

Closing the comments sections does not help their case at all because when they do, they remove the possibility of someone (much better than a filthy troll like trolly yours) persuasive enough telling them they may be wrong thus they remove the possibility of learning.

Feminists can’t even entertain the thought of being wrong or as master Aristotle put it,

 

Aristotle the mark of an educated mind

 

The mind of a feminist is not educated and is too often predisposed to aggregate neural atrophy. Just read and compare a teenager feminist vs a elderly one. Teenage feminists sound exactly as retarded as elderly feminists in their 70’s.

Just like a religion, feminism is the refusal to learn and belief is the death of intelligence. Again, a life without learning is pointless and I for one, want my ideas and “feelings” to be questioned debated or torn to pieces because as a troll that is what I do and I certainly do not want any special accommodations because I give none.

Whether I like it or not, on the Internet, we all wear metaphoric sandpaper condoms and it is our intellectual duty to be ready give or to bend over and take all manners of corrections in all of their grits, girths and calibers.

But feminists? Oh those get hurt, molested and/or raped even by mere text so much they even close the comments sections in fear of one of those words being “phallic”….oh…see? somewhere on the Internet there is a feminist crying and taking a shower for that word I just typed.

But more seriously, this feminist refusal to even entertain the thought of being wrong is what propels filthy trolls like me or well showered and decent people like the many libertarians “e-celebs” to do what we do: we oppose the imposition of feelings over facts in all of its forms and the religion of feminism is one of them.

Because, just like Creationism, feminism opposes objective reality.

Feminism wants you to listen and believe NOT to ask questions. Thus feminism is, in and of itself, the anti-thesis of human reasoning because their understanding of reality is shaped by emotion which is precisely the same flawed model religions follow: Feelings over facts

Anita listen and believe

 

Is is because of all this that I encourage you to be judgmental and offensive about any given woman and her likely narrow intelligence as soon as she admits to her feminism online or IRL.

Be judgemental, be disrespectful, be harsh towards her feminism and herself because if there is one thing her narrow intelligence will not touch is her pink belief system.

If you are unnecessarily “PC” and only disrespect her feminism but not herself, she will still not know the difference and will automatically take the same personal offense.

The reason for this is simple: in her mind, She IS feminism thus she has no real personality of her own. Without feminism she is like a Christian without Jesus. Without feminism, she has no identity left.

The same happens with religious people, they take offense on behalf of their religion because without it, they would have no identity. Hence why feminists and believers avoid questioning their belief system at all costs, because doing so means emotional self-harm.

This is the way Feminists avoid critical thinking and automatically mimic the behavior of religious people. Questioning their own religion? That is off-limits.

A feminist will shine zero light of reasoning on that dark object of ignorance that dictates her thoughts based on emotion: Her feminism.

This feminist refusal to question and reason their own belief system mimics what creationists do with their religion: Feminism is Creationism and it deserves no intellectual respect.

Thank you for reading.

PS: Challenge me on the comments section, I invite you.


 

*”If it’s any consolation for those wounded CH Sommers fans, I also consider the intelligence of any given person as a complete lie as soon as they admit to their religious faith. Feminism is just another religion after all. BTW, CH Sommers must have been an extremely shaggable lady in her young years, too bad sex must have been terribly boring, back then, she was a hardcore feminist.

Why The Regressive Left Wants Trump Assassinated

TROLLYACCOUNTABILITY_3.png

DISCLAIMER 1: What follows is a mixture of facts, speculation & satire therefore the adverb “allegedly” prefaces and applies to the whole article.

DISCLAIMER 2: I am a proud Neo-Troll & I DO NOT represent anybody but myself. Truth with zero protocol will be used; get offended. Feel free to disregard everything I say based on my Troll status.

For those who stayed, read on;

(EDITOR’S NOTE: Feel free to checkout Jack’s site)

 

Imagine the following hypothetical case scenario:

During a rally, Hillary Clinton is interrupted in mid-speech by an anti-Hillary supporter who tries to climb the stage but fortunately he is stopped by security. The result in the leftist media? There is an outpour of sheer outrage and the leftist media immediately calls the rusher a “would-be-assassin” Hillary supporters are outraged and want the rusher in jail or dead. The the amount of air time dedicated to this single event just dwarfs any other news for several weeks.

Let’s go back to reality, do you recognize this guy?

 

dimassimo-bubble

 

No?

Let me clarify then:

dimassimo-rusher

Let’s compare the hypothetical Hillary case above vs what happened in reality:

During a rally, Donald Trump was interrupted in mid-speech by anti-Trump activist Thomas DiMassimo who tried to climb the stage but fortunately was is stopped by security. The result in the leftist media? CNN blatantly excuses and downplays Dimassimo’s actions to the point of giving him air time to falsely claim Trump was the “bully” but not himself despite being the opposite. Dimassimo was the offender yet he DARVO-flipped the guilt to instead accuse Trump of being a “bully”. (skip to 1:40)

 

Notice how Thomas DiMassimo blatantly flipped the roles and accused Trump of being a “bully” despite the fact DiMassimo himself was the aggressor. This hypocritical political trick is called DARVO (Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender roles) or just DARVO-flip for short.

 

DARVO

See where this is going? If a mentally imbalanced leftist wants to assassinate Trump, he would only be more motivated to commit the crime if he sees how DiMassimo was promoted and nearly congratulated by CNN.

This is not an accident, it is by design.

The leftist news outlets are perfectly aware of the powerful influence they have on the public. A case in point is the fact that whenever sensational coverage of a violent crime takes place, it increases the chances of other mentally imbalanced individuals trying to emulate the crime. It is called the copycat effect.

 

blue diffusion

BLUE DIFFUSION

So the old leftist media/CNN gave the floor to Thomas DiMassimo (who happens to be a trained actor from a wealthy family, no less) However, whether he was acting or not, it would still stand to reason Dimassimo’s actions were intentionally amplified by CNN to provide fertile ground for potential copycat crimes. Or, in plain English, CNN made Dimassimo a role model for future would-be Trump assassins.

Can it get worse? Of course, but it would require a news corporation with an audience much larger than CNN harbouring people who blatantly state they want to assassinate Donald Trump.

Well, the bad news is Facebook has done just that not once but several times. Facebook has allowed pages that display blatant calls to action to assassinate Donald Trump over and over . Not only have said pages been left untouched by Facebook for weeks at times, but Facebook has gone as far as claiming a page with calls to action for Trump’s assassination “did not appear to violate Facebook guidelines”.

Look…

 

facebook refusal

 

It was so blatant, the only thing missing was this,

like this-assass

Just for the sake of argument, how long do you think a Facebook page with calls to action to assassinate Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders would have stayed up? Not even an hour.

The actions by the Facebook corporation are unlikely to be an accident, just like CNN’s, their actions are by design. In psychology this effect is called “diffusion of responsibility” and what it means in plain English is that people in lynch mobs feel much less guilt than when they commit the crimes alone.

You have to give credit to Facebook, they are throwing their own brand of blue diffusion of responsibility mixed in with the copycat effect (brought to you by CNN) all of that without really getting their hands dirty. They are just conveniently slow to take down the pages to allow the assassination message to “inspire” the right kind of copy-cat psycho.

Think about it, if you owned a massive corporation such as Facebook and you leaned hard into the left, wouldn’t it be in your best interest to do as little as possible to take down those pages?

Guess what? Twitter is no better:

screenshot4 screenshot5 screenshot6 screenshot7 screenshot8 screenshot9

 

See? Indirectly advocating for the assassination of another human being is “progressive” by both CNN and Facebook standards. But if you ever bring up these facts and implications to leftists, they may snap at you, then do a DARVO-flip and accuse you of wanting to kill Hillary/Bernie while foaming at the mouth like a progressive chihuahua with rabies. For some odd reason, things tend to escalate very quickly into violence with “peaceful” progressive-regressive leftists.

THE RELIGIOUS LEFT

Based on the video evidence, the behavior of the regressive left is analogous to that of radical religious groups.

You doubt it? Look at this video depicting that radical Muslim-like behavior perpetrated by leftists:

For example, if someone criticizes the prophet Mohammed, the most common radical Muslim reaction boils down to something like this:

“HE OFFENDED MY PROPHET! NOW I AM JUSTIFIED TO KILL!!!”

Let’s compare it with the anti-Trump transexual activist’s spitting behavior:

“HE OFFENDED ME! NOW I AM JUSTIFIED TO SPIT ON HIS FACE!!!”

A few notes on the video: Notice the well rehearsed taunting by the man with the red mask:

“TOUCH A WOMAN!”

Then the perfectly timed question by the bald man on the right:

“Did you touch a woman or what?”

Too bad their blatant DARVO-flip provocation failed, otherwise it would have resulted on the radical left claiming to be the victim or mobbing the Trump supporters. You have to admire the balls of steel it takes not to punch someone who spits in your face bronze age style.

See where this is going? Radicals of all religions (including all feminism and all political parties) will behave like hyenas if offended enough. Verbal offence justifies violence and murder, just like in the bronze age and let me tell you, nobody has offended them more than Trump.

Remember the “Assassinate Donald Trump” Facebook pages? Possibly this was their radical reasoning before setting them up:

DONALD TRUMP OFFENDED MUSLIMS/BLACKS/LATINOS/WOMEN/MY CANDIDATE HILLARY!!! I AM JUSTIFIED TO KILL HIM!!!

Hard to tell radical Muslims from regressive leftists apart from the line above. Right?

Possibly, the reason why regressives behave so similarly is because they are using their reptilian brains to act and falsely think with their emotions.

They paint their violent actions with a thin veneer of political justification, just to feel less shame later. All you need is a large enough number of radicals (in this case leftists) for their mob hyena-like behavior to become predictable.

ESCALATION IS FOR “PROGRESS”

 

escalation is for progress.png

The rule of thumb with the human animal is that verbal aggression escalates into physical aggression.
Usually, human beings will go through the following stages before escalating into full-blown violence:

  1. Verbal accusation is made to an intruder AKA “You are from another tribe and you want to predate our tribe”.
  2. Verbal accusation is made louder, then other members of the tribe loudly voice their support then circle the intruder.
  3. Verbal accusations multiply then someone takes a “test-bite” at the intruder/prey and often the circle becomes a lynch mob.

But before the mob jumps from verbal to physical there need to be a “test bite” which is a kin to the behavior of Hyenas, wolves or sharks. If the intruder/prey does not react to the “test bite,” then the whole pack usually understand that as a green light to mob the intruder. With the human animal the “test bite” can be as simple as a shove or a blow with the hand or an object, for other member of the human pack to emulate the test bite.

Let me show you how leftists follow these stages in their “progressive” escalation, look:

Here is a few things you may have missed from the video:

1) Verbal accusation is made to an intruder

“Don’t you video me!!!”

“She is with Shapiro’s ah..media, we don’t want you video taping us! “

Which roughly translates into “you are from another tribe and you want to predate our tribe”.

2) Verbal accusation is made louder, then other members of the tribe loudly voice their support. Then HE SHOVES his voice cone against the reporter which qualifies as assault AKA he took the “test bite.” (which covers stage 3)

Interestingly, the “test bite” was done first by the balding black girl (“don’t you video me!”) then confirmed by the man with the voice cone. Then something fascinating happened.

The man with voice cone says:

“I can put it in front of your camera and speak to you like this as much as I want”

Then he reiterates the above 6 times, each time louder THEN says this at his loudest twice:

“You are here to incite violence against black and brown bodies!”

“YOU ARE HERE TO INCITE VIOLENCE AGAINST BROWN BODIES AND BLACK BODIES!!!”

For those who missed it, he said the following around ~6-7 times:

“I can put it in front of your camera and speak to you like this as much as I want”

Yes, 6-7 times. Why? Because he was stalling and thinking how to reverse the physical assault accusation against the Breitbart reporter.

Then he does a perfect DARVO-flip on her by saying:

“YOU ARE HERE TO INCITE VIOLENCE AGAINST

BROWN BODIES AND BLACK BODIES!!!”

Then his tribe starts to cheer louder every time preparing to escalate.

You have to give some credit with the guy with the cone: He is an extremely competent hypocrite doing DARVO-flips. The reason why he had to do the flip is because he could not physically assault a woman as easily and he was trying to rile up women of his tribe to take more test bites at the intruder from the “Shapiro Tribe”.

Now let’s watch an actual “progressive” “test-bite”:

 

Yes the “test bite” shove, failed because:
1) The intruder was too muscular AKA “too alpha”
2) The aggressor was too beta.

Once again, the escalation process failed simply because the “shover” was too much of a weak bitch (and being beta as fuck did not help his coward-raised-by-a-single-mother-chronically-pussified case).

But the shove was an undeniable invitation to mob the intruder that would have resulted in almost certain escalation into a lynch mob.

Here is the thing about lynch mobs, since everybody takes a bite, nobody feels too guilty about it. See? There you have it again: diffusion of resposibility for “hyena-like progressive mob justice”.

desperation

THE LEFT ON FULL DESPERATION MODE

CNN, Facebook, Twitter, BlackLivesMatter radicals, and the regressive left as a whole are starting to show signs of being in high desperation mode. The more desperate they get, the worse their impulsiveness. Desperate and impulsive people tend to do incredibly idiotic things.

Judging by the “progressive” increase of violent incidents perpetrated by the left the closer we get to the election day, it would stand to reason events like the ones in the videos above will only multiply. More and more Facebook/Twitter pages will likely be created with calls to action to assassinate Trump.

Granted, Trump’s victory is not certain but it’s far from unlikely, either. The prospect of losing the election truly angers the leftists. But would you like to know what would anger them the most?

Trump winning by a landslide.

How could that happen? Simple, if a terrorist attack takes place right before election day, a lot of people on the fence would vote for Trump instead of Hillary/Bernie.

Never underestimate the power of paranoia.

Even people who dislike Trump would consider voting for him should a terrorist attack take place before the elections. The closer to election day, the higher the chances of him getting a landslide victory.

Another Belgium-like attack 1 or 2 weeks before election day would make Trump’s victory likely. A terrorist attack on American soil? It would make Trump’s victory nearly certain.

Unfortunately, this landslide victory would also increase the chances of his assassination not by terrorists but by the regressive left.

Here is the “Trump 2016 Landslide Win” Hypothesis:

The closer to election day the terrorist attack(s) takes place, the higher the chance of Trump winning due to paranoia WHICH would lead to a much higher likelihood of an assassination attempt perpetrated by the radical left. One would lead to another.

 

Logically, the leftist media would play a major role in fanning the fires to prevent Trump from winning or actively inciting copycats to try to assassinate Trump. Murdering someone just because they are “offensive” is carbon-copy radical Muslim behavior perpetrated by the regressive left and is indefensible.

Please report all Facebook pages containing calls to action to assassinate Trump.

Let’s be civilized and not behave like radical Muslims.

Thank you for reading.


 

PS

I really hope I am the one being paranoid and nothing happens but history says otherwise. Another major terrorist attack on American soil is not a matter of “if” but a matter of “when”. After all, 9-11 was 1.5 decades ago.

Seems there are more people seeing these patterns…

Why The Feminist Ghostbusters 2016 is a lie and Paul Feig is the Patriarchy

TROLLYACCOUNTABILITY_3.png

DISCLAIMER 1: What follows is a mixture of facts, speculation & satire therefore the adverb “allegedly” prefaces and applies to the whole article.

DISCLAIMER 2: I am a proud Neo-Troll & I DO NOT represent anybody but myself. Truth with zero protocol will be used; get offended. Feel free to disregard everything I say based on my Troll status.

For those who stayed, read on;

(EDITOR’S NOTE: Feel free to checkout Jack’s site)

Female_GB_wallpaper.png

FINAL.jpg

Let’s address the elephant in the room: The 2016 Feminist Girlpower Ghostbusters movie is a feminist lie because a patriarchal man is directing it, not a woman.

This is fact is conveniently ignored by most feminist outlets, because frankly, feminists feel intense shame for this humiliation to their noble ideals.

How could they not? Sony had one job and got it wrong: Sony failed to live up to the feminist ideal of women being fully independent by chaining the whole production to the decisions of a patriarchal white male.

Sony pictures could not give the most important role in the movie to a female director which only confirms that, contrary to their claims, Sony executives did not trust the project and their money to women.

Instead, we have a white patriarchal male director by the name Paul Feig using and abusing women as his highly glorified puppets to obey his every patriarchal whim. How objectifying patriarchal and humiliating to all feminists on earth.

Paul Feig is the embodiment of the patriarchy controlling and objectifying all the women in the Girlpower Ghostbusters production. He decides what is done with the professional lives of all the women he commands. He controls them just like the patriarchy does.

*Did you like my impersonation of an outraged radfem Jezebel writer?

Me too but at this point I am done imitating Jezebel.

Let’s get real.

See, the reality of a project like the Girlpower Ghostbusters is that it is a fabrication, the women working for it have been merely “empowered”.

Their false “power” is ornamental. It is a fabrication to give their bird-brained female audience something to cheer for. This ornamental power is like feminism itself: False power given to women by men.

In this case, Paul Feig is the one giving false power to feminist toddlers living in the body of adult women. The partial adults working for Feig are so gullible, many do not even notice a man is directing their professional lives and the rest pretend not to.

This movie is an exercise on the contradiction of the one thing feminists want to liberate themselves from:

Men.

Now, these women are submitting to exactly what they are supposed to reject: Male control. But why do the women in the audience cheer for a feminist lie like the Girlpower Ghostbusters?

In other words, why do feminist lies like this work?

The answer is very simple, feminism is a religion and like most religions it sells imaginary facts for real money.

Think about it, the imaginary fact sold by the Girlpower Ghostbusters is that women can make their own successful movies AND Sony expected real money from this feminist lie.

 

The reality is that Sony knows WOMEN CANNOT RELIABLY MAKE SUCCESSFUL MOVIES AND BECAUSE OF THAT THEY HIRED A MAN TO DIRECT IT: PAUL FEIG.

Problem is, Sony is far less crafty than most religions and failed to understand the basic concept of marketing and demographics: The vast majority of the Ghostbusters fans are within the fans of sci-fi demographic and at least 66% of them would be males in their 30’s and NOT feminist millennials.

Furthermore, the female fans of the original Ghostbusters list themselves as conservative and republican-leaning, so a leftist feminist fiasco like this is unlikely to appeal to them.

By polarizing and alienating this giant size of their potential market, the producers of this feminist fiasco reduced their chances of making their money back to possibly less than half. To top it off, the producers and the director even secretly bragged their target market for this film would be the same as for movies like Bridesmaids, not males.

However, this major oversight could have been temporarily camouflaged by using another convincing lie AKA a superficially good-looking trailer.

Guess what? Sony failed to even do that and instead spectacularly succeeded at creating the most disliked trailer in youtube history to date:

trailer 1

For those keeping track, if the demographics of men in their 30’s was imaginary, wouldn’t the feminist millennials have changed the tide and instead have made the trailer the most liked one in history? Correlation is not causation but in this case, it seems Sony executives screwed themselves with sand instead of lube.

 

Now, it would make financial sense that Sony would try to save their already invested money and either create a better lie in the form of a much better trailer, or do some re-shoots, right? Well, trailer number two seems to be headed in the same derided and fecal direction. Behold its excremental glory:

 

 

In case you were wondering, this is the like-dislike ratio for the second trailer, it seems it is doing even worse than the first one.

trailer 2

Why would Sony release it via Comicbook. com? Hard to say. Maybe it was either shame or just a bleak attempt at “testing the waters”, almost as if they did not already know they are charting the same old sewage waters of their own making.

See, here is the problem with polishing this Girlpower Ghostbusters TURD. It does not matter how much they try to make it shine, it will stay fecal.

This is simply because the source material appears to be a giant unfunny TURD itself and the different agencies in charge of making these trailers are failing miserably at crafting a convincing lie by creating the illusion of quality and humor where there is likely very little or none.

 

But why would the producer Amy Pascal and the director Paul Feig make a movie against their own profit?

Simple: feminists favor narrative over facts and, as it has been pointed out before, the people behind this film are supremely arrogant.

Hang on…Feminists making idiotic financial decisions based on ideology and not money? Does that sound familiar?

Let me illustrate:

leigh and sony2

 

FEMINIST NARRATIVE:“Male gamers don’t have to be your audience”

OBJECTIVE REALITY FACT: Yes they do, take their money.

FEMINIST NARRATIVE:“Male Ghostbusters fans don’t have to be your audience”

OBJECTIVE REALITY FACT: Yes they do, take their money.

Neither Amy Pascal, nor the feminist fans nor the feminist media will accept their failure when the Girlpower Ghostbuster’s fiasco bombs. They will instead start blaming anything that looks or sounds male for their own idiotic feminist driven decisions.

That lack of accountability is the mark of feminism; it makes women who embrace it perpetual toddlers in the body of adults. Feminism, in and of itself, mimics a perpetual form of childhood. When you do not let children learn from their mistakes, they are doomed to never grow up and forever blame others for their flaws. Feminism is a prison with invisible walls.

To make matters worse, the leftist media does exactly that with feminist toddlers every time they publicly blame someone else for their failures. The same happens with the failure of projects like the Girlpower Ghostbusters, which the press blames on “sexism”, “misogyny”, or their own version of Satan: “the patriarchy”.

The leftist media and feminists themselves also have the bad habit of flinging feminist excrement at people who openly and frankly say the feminist Ghostbusters project is so excremental that it does not even deserve a review (as we have previously seen here at TheRalphRetort.com)

 

There is a small chance the movie will not bomb but that would require it making 700 million or more at the box office so that it can break even or turn a small profit.

Chances are, it will bomb spectacularly and the patriarchy will be hilariously blamed for it.

 

Moral of the story: When feminism shoots itself in the foot, it uses a shotgun and runs out of toes in one single shot.

 

Thank you for reading.


NOTE: Make sure you circulate this offensive overweight and sexist pink logo of the Girlpower Ghostbusters on social media. (Or click here for the much worse version with very, very offensive ghostly neon nipples)

Feminists may or may not have some metaphorically adverse rectal reactions to it.

 

 

 

Female_GB_wallpaper.png

HILLARY CLINTON: THE FEMINIST CULT OF ORNAMENTAL ACCOUNTABILITY

DISCLAIMER 1

What follows is a mixture of facts, speculation & satire therefore the adverb “allegedly” prefaces and applies to the whole article.

DISCLAIMER 2

I am a proud Neo-Troll & I DO NOT represent anybody but myself. Truth with zero protocol will be used; get offended. Feel free to disregard everything I say based on my Troll status.

For those who stayed, read on;

(EDITOR’S NOTE: Feel free to checkout Jack’s site)

 

HILLARY CLINTON: THE FEMINIST CULT OF ORNAMENTAL ACCOUNTABILITY

Hillary

Despite the scandals, most politicians at Hillary Clinton’s level are already extremely wealthy. If they mismanage their country, they normally face minimal consequences and they nearly always get to retain their wealth

In the corporate world, this safety net against mismanagement and accountability is called “the golden parachute”. However in the political world that parachute is more of a “fortress” where politicians can easily retreat to avoid any accountability for their often downplayed gross negligence.

Let’s call a spade a spade. Donald Trump would have as much as a “golden fortress” as Hillary in case either of them got elected. In the case the economy crashed while either of them was in command, neither would face direct consequences. (not impossible but very very unlikely for them to end up in jail or destitute)

However, there is remarkable difference. Unlike Trump, Hillary has, by virtue of her gender, many, many more avenues to avoid accountability.

Let’s not forget that the “patriarchy is against all women”, and she can always invoke that feminist mantra and say she failed because of the patriarchal system made by men. Perfect plausible deniability of any responsibility for feminists. Or in plain English feminist can always say

“it wasn’t Hillary, it was the patriarchy”

 

When the patriarchy is to blame for Hillary’s bad decisions, you have a recipe to bankrupt a country. Despite all this, her followers are incredibly eager to exculpate and downplay all of Hillary’s flaws.

Look at what is happening right now. Despite the mail server scandal, the ongoing email probe and the mounting evidence on her blatant disregard of  laws, Hillary’s supporters STILL bend over backwards to defend her in full stubborn mode.

The leftist media is also guilty. After Romanian hacker ,Marcel Lehel Lazar AKA “Guccifer, easily hacked into then exposed Hillary’s laughably vulnerable email server , NBC delayed reporting on it for more than a month.

Just put two and two together: Why would NBC delay such a profitable story and forego all that advertising money? Most likely, they intentionally sat on the evidence to avoid damaging Hillary’s chances of winning the election.

Wealthy politicians are often shielded from repercussions from their actions, because their followers often lie on their behalf and make excuses for their behavior. This abdication of responsibility only worsens when it comes to female feminists in power.

But it could get much worse (in orders of magnitude worse) if the American people elect a woman or a member of a minority. Why? Because those de facto victim status automatically take away accountability from that woman/minority member.

Hence why with politicians, the last thing you want is to give them even more avenues to avoid accountability. Gender or race are some of the widest avenues to achieve plausible deniability.

This de facto plausible deniability makes it incredibly easy for supporters of the woman/minority member to dismiss valid criticism as mere “discrimination”. Just the way Muslims disregard valid criticisms as “Islamophobia”

That false “discrimination” blanket statement is almost always absent with white straight men, because almost always, the first thing that comes to mind when criticizing a white male is:

“Yeah, he fucked up”

As opposed to what comes to mind when criticizing a woman/minority members:

“Yeah, that woman/minority member fucked up but I’d better don’t say anything because don’t want to be accused of discrimination…”


 

Thank you for reading

 

HILLARY CLINTON: THAT OBSCURE ADDICTION TO POWER

DISCLAIMER 1

What follows is a mixture of facts, speculation & satire therefore the adverb “allegedly” prefaces and applies to the whole article.

DISCLAIMER 2

I am a proud Neo-Troll & I DO NOT represent anybody but myself. Truth with zero protocol will be used; get offended. Feel free to disregard everything I say based on my Troll status.

For those who stayed, read on;

(EDITOR’S NOTE: Feel free to checkout Jack’s site)

 

HILLARY CLINTON:

THAT OBSCURE ADDICTION TO POWER

 

7_CLINTON-AKBAR_.png

 

You have to wonder the genuine reasons Hillary Clinton wants to become the next president.

It can not be about the money, she is already extremely wealthy. It is also unlikely she is perusing it because she wants to “make America great again”. First, because that slogan is already taken and second because her “democratic” socialism is unlikely to help the ailing American economy.

The country is already up to it’s neck in debt, and expecting companies to pay more taxes to feed their socialist beast is shamefully absurd. Companies are far more likely to flee to foreign countries, with much lower tax rates, before Hillary tries to exponentially increase them. Expecting companies to foot the bill for feminist socialism is just as delusional as feminism itself.

So no, Hillary is unlikely to have America’s best interest in mind. By Occam’s razor it would make much more sense that she is doing it because she wants power to compensate for her intense and fossilized inferiority complex (like most feminists in their 70’s do).

Most women who embrace feminism do so to cope with past sexual assault trauma and/or overcompensate for an intense inferiority complex.

Think about it; most women who embrace feminism do so to cope with past sexual assault trauma and/or overcompensate for an intense inferiority complex.  That should tell you what you need to know about Hillary.

Do not mistake her for a noble person. Hillary is a feminist and therefore a hypocrite. She wants power: plain and simple.

What most likely motivates her is a need for recognition. A need for status. Just put two and two together. She needs this much validation and prestige, because deep down she knows she is just a tiny inhabitant of the giant shadow her husband (that still to this day) casts over her.

Just look at her last name, she is even a parasite at that level. How do most people remember her?

Exactly, “Bill Clinton’s wife”.

She is a glorified appendage that never earned recognition of her own. Her husband’s last name “empowered” her. Why did she change her last name all those years ago? Why would she serve the patriarchy by becoming Bill Clinton’s property?

Simple, she was “empowered” by her parasitical nature. She is a hypocrite, she adopted and kept that last name because it gave her the recognition and power she could never earn on her own. She is a feminist parasite.

Make no mistake, Hillary Clinton is a careless a parasite on so many levels that she doesn’t even try to be a competent liar or care about covering her tracks. Giving near absolute power to an ardent corrupt feminist like Hillary would be suicide for the American economy.

Here is the thing about power, you either claim it yourself or someone gives it to you out of guilt or pity. The inconvenient truth is that Feminists were “empowered” by men. Power was given to them out of guilt/pity but they never earned it.

That in and of itself is the summation of feminism and Hillary’s life. She has been given possibly countless concessions and opportunities because of collective pity towards feminists. Feminists have the bad habit of painting the word “PARASITISM” in a bright euphemistic shade of feminist pink to make it look like their imaginary “empowerment” word.

If success is given to you, it is not success. It is a lie.

Same applies to intellectual respect and success in life through hard work. Both have to be earned.

That is why most feminists are a public refutation of intellectual honesty. They lie to themselves and then to everybody else about their true intellectual capabilities. They even go as far to publicly perform the following most spectacular form intellectual dishonesty and DARVO (Deny, Attack, and Reverse Victim and Offender):

White feminists are the authentic product of privilege YET they have the gall to accuse all white men of “privilege”.

4_CLINTON-AKBAR

Last time I checked, intelligence was not a penis but if it were, feminists would also have that chronic form of penis envy.

Judging by her actions, Hillary Clinton believes laws do not apply to her and her pigheaded democratic followers are a public demonstration of true ignorance, just like Islam.

5_CLINTON-AKBAR_

Thank you for reading.


HILLARY CLINTON IS THE NEW MOHAMMED (abridged)

1_CLINTON-AKBAR_1

DISCLAIMER 1

What follows is a mixture of facts, speculation & satire therefore the adverb “allegedly” prefaces and applies to the whole article.

DISCLAIMER 2

I am a proud Neo-Troll & I DO NOT represent anybody but myself. Truth with zero protocol will be used; get offended. Feel free to disregard everything I say based on my Troll status.

For those who stayed, read on;

(EDITOR’S NOTE: Feel free to checkout Jack’s site)

A “VIRTUOUS” MAN

A powerful man in his 50’s had a wet dream that involved a 6 year old girl. He knew the girl’s father and as appalling as it sounds, he convinced the father to allow him to marry the 6 year old girl. 3 years later, the man in his 50’s sexually molested the 9 year old girl with the intention of getting her pregnant. Despite all this, he faced zero consequences for his acts of pedophilia. Quite the opposite, that pedophile is actively revered and celebrated around the world.

Would you like to know his name? That pedophile’s name is the “prophet” Mohammed and the victim of his pedophilia was Aisha.

Allow me to clarify: the Islamic prophet Mohammed was a blatant pedophile who molested a girl by the name Aisha when she was only 6-9 years old.

How can a pedophile be revered instead of reviled? Simple, most Muslims refuse consider Mohammed accountable for his criminal acts because they believe Mohammed did so many good things for the Islamic world that molesting Aisha at 9 years of age, “simply should not” count.

In plain English a pedo like Mohammed gets a pass because he was “too virtuous”.

But wait, it gets worse, once you start talking to Muslims in civilized, non controversial ways (disclaimer: you manipulate them into trusting you) you then preface your upcoming question with a direct criticism of the crimes depicted in the bible (of course that they love agreeing with you when you harshly criticize the bible, as a result they often assume you are on their side) then, when their guard is down, you very smoothly ask them something along these lines:

“OK, you clearly know much more about Islam than me, please tell me the truth of what happened between Muhammad and Aisha because plenty of people like to hate on Islam and claim Mohammed had sex with her when she was only 6 or 9, is that really true?”

Usually 3 things will happen:
1) They avoid the question
2) They try to change Aisha’s age to 12
3) They say Mohammed cannot be questioned. End of the story.

Point 3 is especially interesting, because if you are skilled enough, you feign innocence then bring up the verses where Aisha’s age is clearly stated when she was molested by Mohamed  immediately after you bring up the fact that Mohammed himself decrees that having sex with girls who have not yet menstruated is “acceptable” (Qur’an 65:4) .

Then you state that pedophilia is a horrible crime and should be punished, then they are forced to agree with you but then…they go back to giving Mohammed a pass.

Why? Because he was ” too virtuous”.

See where this is going?

It does not matter how much evidence you bring up, most Muslims cannot be persuaded about Mohammed being a pedophile. They may agree with you that modern pedophiles must be punished but their pedo-Prophet Mohammed? He gets a pass.

You could spend hours speaking in the most tactful of terms and show them the best of evidence but they inescapably go into FULL UNPERSUADABLE mode after going through the “triple R” stages which go like this:

  1. Refuse the validity of evidence of their chosen leader’s crimes
  2. Refuse to assign any accountability to their chosen leader
  3. Refuse to be persuaded

As a result of adopting the triple R , Muslims usually go into full UNPERSUADABLE MODE.

2_CLINTON-AKBAR_

See, the inconvenient truth is that for “unpersuadables” what counts is belief not reason. They have already made up their mind and they may entertain perfunctory discussion with you for ornamental reasons. They just pretend to think to avoid looking entirely dumb in conversations. Make no mistake some are very dumb but some even hold Phd’s and doctorates.

In the case of the ones with higher education, it is just fascinating to notice how, deep down, they are aware their belief makes no sense yet they just consistently decide not touch that dark object of faith in their otherwise bright minds. Theirs is an act of willful, selective ignorance.

It is a fascinating contradiction because many of them have higher than average IQ’s but choose to be selectively dumb when it comes to their faith. Thus they willfully choose to make their  intellect ornamental. Theirs is a matter of faith not reason and evidence.

Many of these examples of otherwise (almost mentally sane) people who actively choose to refuse all evidence and become unpersuadable are depicted in Will Storr’s Book “The unpersuadables: Adventures with the enemies of science”

7_CLINTON-AKBAR_

 

One needs to be careful when dealing with unpersuadable Muslims who went through the triple R stages. See, after prodding them with questions they get secretly angry and as a result they usually go into full DARVO against you (Deny, Attack, and Reverse Victim and Offender) or in plain English they will spin anything you say as “discrimination” or “Islamophobia”
4_CLINTON-AKBAR

A “VIRTUOUS” WOMAN

 

Religions like Islam are not alone in their unpersuadable behavior, quite the opposite, those who closely resemble Islam are feminists themselves. It only suffices to swap Mohammed’s pedophilia with Hillary’s private server scandal then you get comparable (if not equal) levels of unpersuadable behavior.

Just for the sake of argument let’s do some brief word swapping:

A powerful woman in her 60’s had a wet dream that involved being above the law and deleting confidential and classified emails at will by illegally using her own email server, she knew the right IT experts and as appalling as it sounds, convinced one to install the little server in her basement.

A few years later, the woman in her 60’s had illegally deleted over 32K private emails and nearly 2.1K Classified State Department emails all with the intention of being above the law but faced zero consequences for her acts of corruption.

Despite all this, she faced zero consequences for her acts of corruption. Quite the opposite, that corrupt feminist is actively revered and celebrated around the world.

Would you like to know her name? That woman’s name is the “Democratic US President Candidate” Hillary Clinton.

But wait, it gets worse, once you start talking to Democrats in civilized, non controversial ways (disclaimer: you manipulate them into trusting you) you then preface your upcoming question with a criticism of the flaws & crimes on the Republican side (of course they love to agree with you when you harshly criticize the other side, after this they assume you are on their side) then you very smoothly ask them something along these lines:

“OK you clearly know much more about the democratic party than me, please tell me the truth of what happened between Hillary Clinton and the email server because plenty of people like to hate on feminist democrats and claim Hillary illegally deleted over 32K private emails and nearly 2.1K Classified State Department emails, is that really true?”

Usually 3 things will happen:
1) They avoid the question
2) They try to change the server’s location.
3) They say Hillary cannot be questioned. End of the story.

Point 3 is especially interesting, because if you are skilled enough, you feign innocence then bring up the laws on federal government record keeping where it is clearly illegal to delete classified emails without authorization and how the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) expressed concerns about Hillary Clinton’s violations of those federal laws. Then you state that corruption is a crime and should be punished, then they agree with you but then…they go back to giving Hillary a pass. Why? Because she is “too talented”.

See where this is going?

It does not matter how much evidence you bring up, most democrats cannot be persuaded about Hillary Clinton being a corrupt politician.
They may agree with you that corrupt politicians must be punished but their crooked-Feminist Hillary? She gets a pass.

You could spend hours speaking in the most tactful of terms and the best of evidence but they will inescapably go into FULL UNPERSUADABLE MODE  after going through the “triple R” stages which go like this:
Refuse the validity of evidence of their chosen leader’s crimes
Refuse to assign any accountability to their chosen leader
Refuse to be persuaded

As a result of adopting the triple R , democrats usually stay into full UNPERSUADABLE MODE.

 

 

3_CLINTON-AKBAR_

It is impressive how fervent both Muslims and Democrats get when you openly criticize their respective chosen leader, they just cover their ears and no evidence will suffice. That is when you realize you are not dealing with rational adults.

First they expect you to agree with them or else they label you as “hateful” because disagreeing means you either are an “Islamophobe” or just a “misogynist”. But what truly is fascinating is how both Muslims and Democrats DARVO you like clockwork.

Why do these fervent democrats mimic their radical Muslim counterparts?

Do they even realize how religious it is to demand lack for accountability for Hillary?

To the democrats, the email scandal or the Benghazi attack controversy or any amount of evidence against Hillary Clinton is refused and falsely labelled as “blasphemous-misogyny”

All of the above regarding Islam and the Democratic party boils down to the following two parallels between Muslims and democrats:

*Regardless of evidence, if you accuse Mohammed of pedophiia you are DARVO’ed and they accuse you of blasphemy/islamophobia.

*Regardless of evidence, if you accuse Hillary of any crime you are DARVO’ed and they accuse you of hate/misogyny.

When your chosen leader cannot be held accountable for his or her flaws you have a perfect dictatorship with DARVO as a side dish.

4_CLINTON-AKBAR

Thank you for reading


 

*PS:

SOME OF YOU MAY COMPLAIN COMPARING HILLARY CLINTON TO A PEDOPHILE IS “OFFENSIVE” BUT WHAT IS BEING COMPARED HERE IS HER UNPERSUADABLE FOLLOWERS REFUSE ALL EVIDENCE AGAINST HER JUST THE WAY ISLAMIC UNPERSUADABLES DO WITH EVIDENCE AGAINST MOHAMMED.

IN ANY GIVEN CASE, REST ASSURED THAT I DO NOT GIVE ANY PARTICULAR FUCK IF YOU GOT OFFENDED.

 

JACK OUTIS: CONFESSIONS OF A NEO-TROLL

TROLLYACCOUNTABILITY_3.png

DISCLAIMER 1: What follows is a mixture of facts, speculation & satire therefore the adverb “allegedly” prefaces and applies to the whole article.

DISCLAIMER 2: I am a proud Neo-Troll & I DO NOT represent anybody but myself. Truth with zero protocol will be used; get offended. Feel free to disregard everything I say based on my Troll status.

For those who stayed, read on;

(EDITOR’S NOTE: Feel free to checkout Jack’s site)

RCONFESSIONS 720X340

Dear feminists & SJWs,

It has come  to my attention most of you fervently believe that offensive speech is hate speech.

You are mistaken.

In most of the western world, hate speech is illegal but both subjective forms of free speech (offensive and non offensive) are 100% legal.

Objectively and legally speaking, hate speech is entirely separate from “offensive” free speech.

This fact upsets you because it takes away your ability to lie when you falsely claim to be “offended”.

Dishonest people like you are an imitation of the past and like them, and you will fail.

Why? Because you imitate religion.

You will repeat history because you are willfully ignorant of it. Organized religions have a long track record of finding atheists “offensive and hateful” and saying things like this caused atheists to die,

God is not great because it is a lie for profit.

Ideas like the one above got millions of people killed (and to this day still does) because their “offensive” ideas “offended” someone religious just the way you feminists & SJWs get offended. Just like religious people, deep down, you too desire to murder “offensive” people.

See, religions worship glorified fairy tales for money. You are not different, you are not even original because you worship your glorified emotions for attention and money.

Your emotions are another glorified fairy tale.

Unfortunately for you, I am an atheist to your religion of emotions as well as all the other religions. Thing is, I am not alone and there’s plenty of trolls worse than me.

I am your “Satan”, I am  your enemy and it would be in your best interest to dox me and hopefully get me permanently put in jail or killed due to my “offensive” ideas.

 

Oh, I am such a mongrel, please allow me to introduce myself.

My online nom de plume/guerre is Jack Outis.

I am a proud online Neo-Troll & writer formerly for avoiceformen.com and from time to time for theralphretort.com. Please allow me state beyond reasonable doubt the following:

  • I am proud of targeting hypocritical psychologically fragile adults of the feminist/SJW variety.
  • I am proud of asking them about their past mental break downs.
  • I am proud of asking them about their past sexual abuse/molestation.
  • I am also proud of telling them I do not care about their suffering after they have confessed their past struggles.

Let me clarify, I am especially proud of “harassing” them until they suspend my disposable Twitter accounts (40+ suspension victories so far and many, many more to come).

Why do I do this? Because each suspension represents a victory to me. Because I want you to know your censorship is ineffective. Because the internet is not a place for thin-skinned princesses. Because the web is the place where religions, including feminism and your glorified emotions come to die.

Here is the rotten cherry on top: I do all of the above “abuse” with mere text and images and by using Socratic questioning, none of them illegal.

What I do works because my targets are too narcissistic to stop reading thus they willingly increase their pre-existing psychological damage. I just provide the offensive content and they do the rest of the work. In a way, I only give them emotional barbwire as rope for them to hang themselves, metaphorically speaking of course.

See? Cynicism is more offensive than lies because by your belief system, I should not be proud of what I do, yet I am. I am truly proud of trolling adults and following my rules. (hence why the use of “neo-troll” term, granted, sounds a little pretentious but it is not as if trolls were supposed to be that virtuous to begin with…)

It is very unlikely to shame someone for what they are proud of, isn’t it?

Worst part is, I do derive both physical and intellectual pleasure from trolling.

This is not a turn of phrase nor hyperbole, I do get noticeable dopamine surges from planning then writing offensive comments and prose like the one you are reading. Then the dopamine release only increases when the text and images elicit a raw and visceral response from the target of my harassment or, when I witness the random collateral idiots getting offended by my content. Be it on social media or in the comment section, I take great pleasure in getting a rise out of unsuspecting, impulsive people.

When I experience this satisfaction from offending people, my heart rate increases, my pupils dilate, my attention span increases as well as my overall alertness. At first I thought it was just the placebo effect or the combination of writing and caffeine but I have run some tests and purposefully eliminated all caffeine for a week before crafting then releasing previous provocation pieces to rule out other factors. Same results. My observations appear to be near conclusive: I consistently get dopamine/adrenaline surges out of offending people online and I derive great satisfaction from it.

Please tell me dear feminists & SJWs,

Do you find my observable behavior “pathological”?

How about “hateful”?

How about “predatory”?

Do you think I am worse than a rapist, a pedophile or Hitler?

Oh, I too have enjoyed being called all of those endearing nicknames.

See, when my target resorts to calling me those colorful adjectives, they reduce themselves to the equivalent of a raging anthropoid flinging their own excrement at me. This visceral reaction is the tacit confirmation my provocation worked and just puts a big grin on my face. Think about it, using adjectives is often an unmistakably expression of raw emotion. The more extreme the adjectives, the more upset they are likely to be and the bigger my grin*

Disturbing isn’t it?

But wait, it gets worse, every time I choose an adult target, I always plan to make them suffer the curse of their own emotions and publicly ask for help to manage them. I want them to be subject to their own lack of emotional discipline and suffer intense self-inflicted despair. Again, I enjoy witnessing how they use all the emotional barbwire I freely provide, some swallow it whole, some hang themselves with it, some swallow it again once the tip has come out (human centipede style, if you will).

But take heart, I am an equal opportunity troll, I target men, women and transpeople. Rest assured all of you are my potential targets dear SJWs/Feminists. Let me show you how much I care about “equality”.

I AM YOUR PRIME TARGET

the jack.png

If you are my target, it would only be fair I would be yours. Right? See, I came to terms with my eventual unmasking either by people like you or acquaintances of mine. It is not a matter of “if”, it is a matter of “when”.

I am sure you will eventually find out my other personas and make me pay for my persistent offensive behavior be it in jail or by killing me.

But this begs the question, what do you do if jail fails? What if I get a few years of mandatory ban on the use of any communications technology other than a landline?

What if I adopt another anon persona after I am allowed to access the web?

What if you catch me and we start the process again?

What do you do with other  “recidivistic” trolls like me?

What do you do with the troll who stays a troll even after you have taken away his/her income and possessions and instead goes public?  

What do you do with public trolls?

Look at my online track record , look at my writing, at the images I produce and you may eventually entertain the idea that most of it is possibly deliberate. If you ever reach such conclusion (provided you emotions allowed you to think) you may have the following , much worse epiphany:

My trolling is an act of will.

Why would anybody in their sane mind, dedicate the time and effort to such pointless “offensive” and “hateful” endeavour?

See what I did there? Keep reading and I’ll let you conclude whether I am compos mentis or not.

The first thing you may notice is that I follow some rules. Why? Because it would defeat the purpose of emotionally manipulating others if mine were at the helm. Don’t you think? My bad, I meant to say:

“Don’t you feel ?”

As you can tell dear feminists & SJWs, I am a prime target for your brand of social justice and it would be in your best interest to disclose my private information so that I dearly pay the consequences of my online behavior. I should lose my job, savings and possessions so that I stop trolling. Right?

 

But…what if it doesn’t work?

 

See? Everything terrible and problematic. 

Or, is it?

Do emotions dictate your reality?

See? Dear SJWs and feminists. How do you explain you get offended so often and other men and women do not?

Are you wrong? 

Are they wrong?

Are they worse than insensitive?

Are they “defective”?

Are you “defective”?

Emotional people like you live in a comfortable delusion because If everything is “terrible and problematic” then nothing is. Let me explain, because this distinction is a different matter altogether.

 

A MATTER OF MAGNITUDE

 

magnitude.png

Rape victims often become feminists. They use feminism as a false coping mechanism against hurtful past memories. Hence why on social media, I have the good habit of “cutting to the chase” and I just ask them point-blank who raped or molested them in the past. I then assure them I do not care about their suffering because they are not children anymore.

I am serious, I truly do not care about an adult’s past sexual abuse be it male, female or trans.

Would you like to know why dear SJW /Feminist readers?

Exactly. Magnitude.

An adult feminist with intense rape memories and PTSD (medically diagnosed or more often self-diagnosed) does not even rank when compared with the suffering children with cancer endure.

Oh I know, after reading the above you really want to yell this:

“BUT, BUT YOU CAN’T COMPARE!!!”

Well, too bad because I just did.

See, the magnitude of the suffering a tiny human being with no experience, no context, no ill will and no past offenses has to endure in a losing battle against cancer must be respected.

Because of that a child with cancer has all of my respect because neither you nor I or any other adult will ever suffer as much as them because we, as adults have the advantage of many years of context and experience, but children with cancer do not.

Hence why I blatantly tell “depressed” feminists like Cara Santa Maria things like this every time I have the opportunity:

 

cara.png

 

See, deep down, most of you are painfully aware that adult feminists & SJWs cannot even compete with the suffering of children with cancer, because they deserve all the compassion and you do not.

This loss of your entitlement to compassion angers you because when compared to them, your suffering just does not count. It doesn’t even rank.

To you, that is one of the biggest “disadvantages” of being an adult because you fear facing the fact that in objective reality, human suffering has a very clear magnitude.

In short, I do not care about your suffering. But allow me to illustrate the point thusly:

Were you raped or molested in the past?

If so, was it a family member?

The world does not owe you an apology and neither do I.

I assure you, I do not care about your suffering.

 

See? Intense emotions are an obstacle for reasoning. Your emotions aren’t real or else, I would not be able to write this because I would “feel” for you.

To you, what I do is immoral. To me it is merely amoral. To you, my actions describe my thoughts. To me, my thoughts dictate my actions. To you, I am a time-bomb. To me, I am mere text. To you, I am “defective”. To me, I just think you lie like all the other “offended” religions do.

Your emotions belong only to you, I do not feel them, I do not relate to them and by all intents and purposes, they an elaborate lie you use for guilt tripping people to steal compassion from those who truly deserve it.

In short, your emotions are a delusion.

How am I doing?

Do you already hate me?

But wait, it gets worse, because emotional people like you are so willfully ignorant that you only see the surface of the horror the internet truly is. Do you feel I am the worst the internet has to offer? Well, then, you are mistaken again. Very superficially so. Allow me to elucidate why.

 

 

 

 

 

THE SURFACE OF YOUR HYPOCRISY

deep web.png

Western commercial feminists tend to blatantly appropriate the suffering of the women in the 3rd world as bargaining chip via advertising to get free money and keep it for themselves instead of giving it to those 3rd world women.

Western commercial feminists show us the surface of the problem via advertising, then claim women in the west suffer exactly as much as women in the 3rd world. Yes, western feminism is an elaborate commercial lie (just like religions that pocket the money to themselves) because they do not show how much women in the 3rd world truly suffer. Why? Because it would be bad for business.

How could you extort money from people by showing that someone has it much worse than you?

People would give the money to 3rd world women not western feminists. Their feminist view of the world is conveniently superficial. The superficial world cannot be “sanitized” because the world as a whole cannot be “sanitized” either. By the same token, the internet mimics the world itself.

The internet has a surface that cannot be “sanitized” because the cores of the deep web, the darkest ones, the ones you and most people do not know about, cannot be cleansed. The deep web is where true crimes against humanity regularly take place. Here is a subset of that reality for you to easily digest dear hypocrites.

The deep web should be your main concern dear feminists & SJWs, not the surface of it. But that would be too much work for you.

Wouldn’t it?

Furthermore, have you considered that the social decay western countries like the USA experience regularly may have to do with the “anger” trolls express?

How would your “offended feelings” and online demands for censorship stop the average unemployed teen with anger issues and access to a smart phone from ever trolling again?

Would your grievances give that teen a job?

Would it give that teen better parents?

Therapy?

A better past?

Better memories?

Add to that the inconvenient truth the problem with the surface internet is not the trolls, the problem is people themselves and their minds. Hypocrites create cynics and a cynical mindset is the soul of the troll mindset.

Hypocritical people like you create trolls like me.  The moment you sanitize the internet, trolls like me will either smear it further or move to the much worse deep web.

See? Don’t be surprised your emotions only let you see the surface, that is the price religions like yours pay: Willful ignorance camouflaged as imaginary intelligence.

You hypocrites tell yourselves that your bad habit of “getting offended”, your censorship and “social justice” is for “a good cause” almost as if you truly believed your actions are always “altruistic”, right?

Well you are mistaken again. Your willful ignorance leads you into repeating history.

THE POWER OF ABSOLUTE ALTRUISM

absolute.png

If have made it this far, many of you must have by now thought about a way to “altruistically” make me pay for my “hate”. Right? I am sure some of you may have even entertained the thought of inflicting all kinds of physical punishment, included but not limited to:

  • Assault
  • Blunt force trauma
  • Torture
  • Maiming
  • Or even the “right” kind of “altruistic” murder. Right?

Why not? Let’s take your potential altruism to its ultimate pathological consequences. Let’s show the world your true sense of justice, the one that leads to unlimited righteous retribution.

Look at the image above, it’s not like lynch mobs ever get their targets wrong. But why stop there? Let’s pretend you are given full unlimited power to regulate the internet dear SJWs and feminists. Here is how it might play out:

  • First, you would disclose all identities of trolls like me.
  • Then you would attempt to cleanse Facebook Twitter and the like.
  • Logically, you would struggle to come to terms with the suicides of those random teenagers falsely accused of being trolls by real trolls.
  • For each suicide you would become accustomed to telling yourself the following mantras:

“That suicide was not my fault. I do this for a good cause. It’s for the children”

“That other suicide was not my fault. I do this for a good cause. It’s for the children”

“Last week’s suicides were not my fault. I do this for a good cause. It’s for the children”

  • Lastly, you would struggle to pass laws to prevent the thousands of now public trolls from becoming even more offensive than past public trolls like Milo Yiannopoulos.
  • After passing a few laws, you would realize the problem constantly multiplies itself but much worse not on the surface web but in the deep web.
  • In short, all of the above would fail over and over and over again while getting worse on the deep web end.

Make no mistake dear SJWs and feminists, I have given a fair amount of thought to the eradication of problems like me and I keep coming back to square one:

 

The problem is not anonymity, the problem is not the trolls themselves, the problems is the human mind.

See, trolling is a form of honesty.

Just like people, trolls are an amplification of what people truly think in the privacy of their own heads: Hate, racism, envy, greed, viciousness, misogyny, misandry, misanthropy, crime, you name it.

They are all forms of honesty facilitated by the amplification of anonymity.

Your online grievances cannot prevent people from entertaining hateful thoughts in the privacy of their own minds and people like you only motivate trolls like me to express such thoughts in writing. The more you try to suppress it, the worse it gets. Would you like to know why this is so hard to understand to your feelings?

Because only human actions should be limited by laws, the human mind should be limited by nothing.

Freedom of thought is a concept short-sighted hypocrites like you tend to struggle with simply because you are afraid of your own “hateful and offensive” thoughts.

You don’t get to choose what freedom of thought happens in people’s heads because both good and “bad” freedom of thought come from the human mind. Freedom of thought has zero boundaries.

Freedom of thought cannot be suppressed or contained because people would have to be eradicated.

 

In other words, even if all forms of online anonymity were eradicated, the problem would persist by virtue of the troll mindset because we are all hateful, greedy and offensive in the privacy of our own heads.

You are like me and I am like you dear SJWs/Feminists, the only difference is that I am cynical but anonymous about it.

 

See where this is going?

We could keep shutting down sites, networks or even complete areas of the web and the problem would keep happening. The problem is not the sites or the web, the problem is the people.

People generate hate, people generate the “mean” side of the web and as long as you have people, you will have “abuse”. For each head you cut off from the hydra 3 new ones will regrow just like it happens with online piracy.

But wait, you are also part of the problem dear SJWs/Feminists, because by sheltering people you only create an endless list of fresher ever more vulnerable targets for trolls like me. You quite literally are serving them on a silver plate for us to consume. See? You are not that noble.

No, banning trolls like me is an idea destined to fail because it is too superficial to see the real source of the problem. You could take trolls like me down but for each one like me there will be 1,000 worse ready to go public and take my place and unlike me, they usually have zero rules to follow.

There is even the potential risk that being a public troll becomes a reason for pride just like in cases like Andrew “weev” Auernheimer. or even public trolls like Milo Yiannopoulos.

So what do we  do with trolls like me?

Even more importantly, what do you do with public trolls?

What if the troll stays troll even after unmasking them?

What if they take pride in going public?

See, the problem is not the anonymity, the problem is offensive troll minds like mine.

Aren’t minds like mine the reasons for all of your concerns?

What do you do to suppress the minds of trolls like me?

What can we do to prevent minds like mine to ever happen again, to eradicate them from the genome?

Remember dear feminists and SJWs: As long as you do not eradicate the source, “cleansing” the internet from trolls is an idea doomed to fail. However, there is chance you could be successful.

Would you like to know how?

Simple. We both know some truly violent things have to be done for the greater good of the world because absolute altruism should always be taken to its ultimate consequences.

Why? Because it feels right.

Right?
But take heart dear feminists & SJWs, you may not be alone in your journey…

 

closing.png

 

Thank you for reading.


*Granted, on occasion offending people also gives me an erection but I blame Mercedes Carrera for it. Besides, the inescapable oxygen the internet breathes/smells as salty as porn itself.


 

HILLARY CLINTON IS THE NEW MOHAMMED

1_CLINTON-AKBAR_1

DISCLAIMER 1

What follows is a mixture of facts, speculation & satire therefore the adverb “allegedly” prefaces and applies to the whole article.

DISCLAIMER 2

I am a proud Neo-Troll & I DO NOT represent anybody but myself. Truth with zero protocol will be used; get offended. Feel free to disregard everything I say based on my Troll status.

For those who stayed, read on;

(EDITOR’S NOTE: Feel free to checkout Jack’s site)

A “VIRTUOUS” MAN

A powerful man in his 50’s had a wet dream that involved a 6 year old girl. He knew the girl’s father and as appalling as it sounds, he convinced the father to allow him to marry the 6 year old girl. 3 years later, the man in his 50’s sexually molested the 9 year old girl with the intention of getting her pregnant. Despite all this, he faced zero consequences for his acts of pedophilia. Quite the opposite, that pedophile is actively revered and celebrated around the world.

Would you like to know his name? That pedophile’s name is the “prophet” Mohammed and the victim of his pedophilia was Aisha.

Allow me to clarify: the Islamic prophet Mohammed was a blatant pedophile who molested a girl by the name Aisha when she was only 6-9 years old.

How can a pedophile be revered instead of reviled? Simple, most Muslims refuse consider Mohammed accountable for his criminal acts because they believe Mohammed did so many good things for the Islamic world that molesting Aisha at 9 years of age, “simply should not” count.

In plain English a pedo like Mohammed gets a pass because he was “too virtuous”.

But wait, it gets worse, once you start talking to Muslims in civilized, non controversial ways (disclaimer: you manipulate them into trusting you) you then preface your upcoming question with a direct criticism of the crimes depicted in the bible (of course that they love agreeing with you when you harshly criticize the bible, as a result they often assume you are on their side) then, when their guard is down, you very smoothly ask them something along these lines:

“OK, you clearly know much more about Islam than me, please tell me the truth of what happened between Muhammad and Aisha because plenty of people like to hate on Islam and claim Mohammed had sex with her when she was only 6 or 9, is that really true?”

Usually 3 things will happen:
1) They avoid the question
2) They try to change Aisha’s age to 12
3) They say Mohammed cannot be questioned. End of the story.

Point 3 is especially interesting, because if you are skilled enough, you feign innocence then bring up the verses where Aisha’s age is clearly stated when she was molested by Mohamed  immediately after you bring up the fact that Mohammed himself decrees that having sex with girls who have not yet menstruated is “acceptable” (Qur’an 65:4) .

Then you state that pedophilia is a horrible crime and should be punished, then they are forced to agree with you but then…they go back to giving Mohammed a pass.

Why? Because he was ” too virtuous”.

See where this is going?

It does not matter how much evidence you bring up, most Muslims cannot be persuaded about Mohammed being a pedophile. They may agree with you that modern pedophiles must be punished but their pedo-Prophet Mohammed? He gets a pass.

You could spend hours speaking in the most tactful of terms and show them the best of evidence but they inescapably go into FULL UNPERSUADABLE mode after going through the “triple R” stages which go like this:

  1. Refuse the validity of evidence of their chosen leader’s crimes
  2. Refuse to assign any accountability to their chosen leader
  3. Refuse to be persuaded

As a result of adopting the triple R , Muslims usually go into full UNPERSUADABLE MODE.

2_CLINTON-AKBAR_

See, the inconvenient truth is that for “unpersuadables” what counts is belief not reason. They have already made up their mind and they may entertain perfunctory discussion with you for ornamental reasons. They just pretend to think to avoid looking entirely dumb in conversations. Make no mistake some are very dumb but some even hold Phd’s and doctorates.

In the case of the ones with higher education, it is just fascinating to notice how, deep down, they are aware their belief makes no sense yet they just consistently decide not touch that dark object of faith in their otherwise bright minds. Theirs is an act of willful, selective ignorance.

It is a fascinating contradiction because many of them have higher than average IQ’s but choose to be selectively dumb when it comes to their faith. Thus they willfully choose to make their  intellect ornamental. Theirs is a matter of faith not reason and evidence.

Many of these examples of otherwise (almost mentally sane) people who actively choose to refuse all evidence and become unpersuadable are depicted in Will Storr’s Book “The unpersuadables: Adventures with the enemies of science”

7_CLINTON-AKBAR_

 

One needs to be careful when dealing with unpersuadable Muslims who went through the triple R stages. See, after prodding them with questions they get secretly angry and as a result they usually go into full DARVO against you (Deny, Attack, and Reverse Victim and Offender) or in plain English they will spin anything you say as “discrimination” or “Islamophobia”
4_CLINTON-AKBAR

A “VIRTUOUS” WOMAN

Hillary

Religions like Islam are not alone in their unpersuadable behavior, quite the opposite, those who closely resemble Islam are feminists themselves. It only suffices to swap Mohammed’s pedophilia with Hillary’s private server scandal then you get comparable (if not equal) levels of unpersuadable behavior.

Just for the sake of argument let’s do some brief word swapping:

A powerful woman in her 60’s had a wet dream that involved being above the law and deleting confidential and classified emails at will by illegally using her own email server, she knew the right IT experts and as appalling as it sounds, convinced one to install the little server in her basement.

A few years later, the woman in her 60’s had illegally deleted over 32K private emails and nearly 2.1K Classified State Department emails all with the intention of being above the law but faced zero consequences for her acts of corruption.

Despite all this, she faced zero consequences for her acts of corruption. Quite the opposite, that corrupt feminist is actively revered and celebrated around the world.

Would you like to know her name? That woman’s name is the “Democratic US President Candidate” Hillary Clinton.

But wait, it gets worse, once you start talking to Democrats in civilized, non controversial ways (disclaimer: you manipulate them into trusting you) you then preface your upcoming question with a criticism of the flaws & crimes on the Republican side (of course they love to agree with you when you harshly criticize the other side, after this they assume you are on their side) then you very smoothly ask them something along these lines:

“OK you clearly know much more about the democratic party than me, please tell me the truth of what happened between Hillary Clinton and the email server because plenty of people like to hate on feminist democrats and claim Hillary illegally deleted over 32K private emails and nearly 2.1K Classified State Department emails, is that really true?”

Usually 3 things will happen:
1) They avoid the question
2) They try to change the server’s location.
3) They say Hillary cannot be questioned. End of the story.

Point 3 is especially interesting, because if you are skilled enough, you feign innocence then bring up the laws on federal government record keeping where it is clearly illegal to delete classified emails without authorization and how the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) expressed concerns about Hillary Clinton’s violations of those federal laws. Then you state that corruption is a crime and should be punished, then they agree with you but then…they go back to giving Hillary a pass. Why? Because she is “too talented”.

See where this is going?

It does not matter how much evidence you bring up, most democrats cannot be persuaded about Hillary Clinton being a corrupt politician.
They may agree with you that corrupt politicians must be punished but their crooked-Feminist Hillary? She gets a pass.

You could spend hours speaking in the most tactful of terms and the best of evidence but they will inescapably go into FULL UNPERSUADABLE MODE  after going through the “triple R” stages which go like this:
Refuse the validity of evidence of their chosen leader’s crimes
Refuse to assign any accountability to their chosen leader
Refuse to be persuaded

As a result of adopting the triple R , democrats usually stay into full UNPERSUADABLE MODE.

 

 

3_CLINTON-AKBAR_

It is impressive how fervent both Muslims and Democrats get when you openly criticize their respective chosen leader, they just cover their ears and no evidence will suffice. That is when you realize you are not dealing with rational adults.

First they expect you to agree with them or else they label you as “hateful” because disagreeing means you either are an “Islamophobe” or just a “misogynist”. But what truly is fascinating is how both Muslims and Democrats DARVO you like clockwork.

Why do these fervent democrats mimic their radical Muslim counterparts?

Do they even realize how religious it is to demand lack for accountability for Hillary?

To the democrats, the email scandal or the Benghazi attack controversy or any amount of evidence against Hillary Clinton is refused and falsely labelled as “blasphemous-misogyny”

All of the above regarding Islam and the Democratic party boils down to the following two parallels between Muslims and democrats:

*Regardless of evidence, if you accuse Mohammed of pedophiia you are DARVO’ed and they accuse you of blasphemy/islamophobia.

*Regardless of evidence, if you accuse Hillary of any crime you are DARVO’ed and they accuse you of hate/misogyny.

When your chosen leader cannot be held accountable for his or her flaws you have a perfect dictatorship with DARVO as a side dish.

4_CLINTON-AKBAR

FEMINIST ORNAMENTAL ACCOUNTABILITY

Despite the scandals, most politicians at Hillary Clinton’s level already are extremely wealthy and if they mismanage the country, they would face minimal consequences because they nearly always get to retain their wealth.

In the corporate world, this safety net against mismanagement and accountability is called “the golden parachute” but in the political world is more of a “golden fortress” where politicians can easily retreat to avoid any accountability for their often downplayed gross negligence.

But let’s call a spade a spade, Donald Trump would have as much as a “golden fortress” as Hillary and in case the economy crashed while either of them was in command, neither would face direct consequences. (not impossible but unlikely for them to end up in jail or destitute)

However, there is remarkable difference, unlike Trump, Hillary has, by virtue of her gender, many, many more avenues to avoid accountability. Let’s not forget that the “patriarchy is against all women” and she can always say she failed because of the patriarchal system made by men. Perfect plausible deniability of any responsibility for feminists. or in plain English feminist can always say

“it wasn’t her, it was the patriarchy”

 

When the patriarchy is to blame for Hillary’s bad decisions, you have a recipe to bankrupt a country. Despite all this, her followers are incredibly eager to exculpate and downplay all of Hillary’s flaws, just like Muslims do with their pedo-prophet.
Look at what is happening right now, despite the mail server scandal, the ongoing email probe and the mounting evidence on her blatant disregard of  laws Hillary’s supporters STILL bend over backwards to defend her in full unpersuadable mode.

The leftist media is also guilty, after Romanian hacker Marcel Lehel Lazar AKA “Guccifer easily hacked into then exposed Hillary’s laughably vulnerable email server , NBC delayed reporting on it for more than a month.

Just put two and two together, why would NBC delay such a profitable story and forego all that advertising money? Most likely they intentionally sat on the evidence to avoid damaging Hillary’s chances of winning the election. Despite the evidence, NBC management remained as unpersuadable as Muslims defending & downplaying Mohammed’s crimes. NBC management worships their own criminal prophet: Hillary Clinton

As you can tell, wealthy politicians are often shielded from real repercussions for their actions because their followers often lie on their behalf to take as much accountability from them. This reduction of accountability only worsens when it comes to female feminists in power.

But it could get much worse (in orders of magnitude worse) because as long as the American people elect a woman or a member of a minority. Why? Because those de facto victim status automatically take away accountability from that woman/minority member.

Hence why with politicians, the last thing you want is to give them even more avenues to avoid accountability. Gender or race are some of the widest avenues to achieve plausible deniability.

This de facto plausible deniability makes it incredibly easy for supporters of the woman/minority member to dismiss valid criticism as mere “discrimination”. Just the way Muslims disregard valid criticisms as “Islamophobia”

That false “discrimination” blanket statement is almost always absent with white straight men, because almost always, the first thing that comes to mind when criticizing a white male is:

“Yeah, he fucked up”

As opposed to what comes to mind when criticizing a woman/minority members:

“Yeah, that woman/minority member fucked up but I don’t want to be accused of discrimination…”

 

 

 

THAT OBSCURE NEED FOR POWER

 

7_CLINTON-AKBAR_.png

 

You have to wonder the authentic reasons why Hillary Clinton wants to become the next president.

It is not about the money, she already is extremely wealthy. It is also unlikely she is doing this because she wants to “make America great again”. First, because that slogan is already taken and second because her “democratic” socialism is unlikely to help the ailing American economy.

The country already is to the knees in debt and expecting companies to pay even more taxes to feed their socialist beast is shamefully absurd. In reality, companies are far more likely to flee to foreign countries with much lower tax rates before Hillary tries to increase taxes to bleed them. Expecting companies to foot the bill of feminist socialism is just as delusional as feminism itself.

No, Hillary is unlikely to have America’s best interest in mind. By Occam’s razor it would make much more sense that she is doing it because she wants power to compensate for her intense and fossilized inferiority complex (like most feminists in their 70’s do).

Most women who embrace feminism do so to cope with past sexual assault trauma and/or overcompensate for an intense inferiority complex.

Think about it, most women who embrace feminism do so to cope with past sexual assault trauma and/or overcompensate for an intense inferiority complex.  Hillary is an ardent feminist, so it would stand to reason she was sexually abused in her youth and/or wants to overcompensate for her closeted and fossilized inferiority complex.

Make no mistake, Hillary is a feminist therefore a hypocrite, not a noble person. She wants power: plain and simple.

Most likely what moves her is her need for recognition, her need for status. Just put two and two together, if she needs that much validation and prestige is because deep down, she knows she is just a tiny inhabitant of that giant shadow her husband (still to this day) casts over her.

Look at her last name, she is even a parasite at that level. How do most people remember her?

Exactly, “Bill Clinton’s wife”.

She is a glorified appendage that never earned that recognition on her own. The husband’s last name “empowered” her. How come she did not change her last name many years ago? Why would she serve the patriarchy by becoming Bill Clinton’s property?

Simple, she was “empowered” by her parasitical nature. She is a hypocrite, she adopted and kept that last name because it gave her the recognition and power she could never earn on her own. She is a feminist parasite.

Make no mistake, Hillary Clinton is too careless a parasite at too many levels to even aspire to be a competent liar or even care about covering her tracks. Giving near absolute power to an ardent corrupt feminist like Hillary would be suicide for the American economy.

See, here is the thing about power, you either claim it yourself or someone gives it to you out of guilt or pity. The inconvenient truth is that Feminists were “empowered” by men. Power was given to them out of guilt/pity but they never earned it.

That in and of itself is the summation of feminism and Hillary’s life. She has been given possibly countless concessions and opportunities because of collective pity towards feminists. Feminists have the bad habit of painting the word “PARASITISM” in a bright euphemistic shade of feminist pink to make it look like their imaginary “empowerment” word.

If success is given to you, it is not success, it is a lie.

Same applies to intellectual respect and success in life through hard work. Both have to be earned, never “given”.

That is why most feminists are a public refutation of intellectual honesty. They lie to themselves then to everybody else about their true intellectual capabilities. They even go as far to publicly perform the following most spectacular form intellectual dishonesty and DARVO:

White feminists are the authentic product of privilege YET they have the gall to accuse all white men of “privilege”.

Last time I checked, intelligence was not a penis but if it were, feminist would also have that chronic form of penis envy.

Judging by her actions, Hillary Clinton, believes laws do not apply to her and her unpersuadable democratic followers are a public demonstration of true ignorance, just like Islam.

Thank you for reading.

5_CLINTON-AKBAR_

PS:

SOME OF YOU MAY COMPLAIN COMPARING HILLARY CLINTON TO A PEDOPHILE IS “OFFENSIVE” BUT WHAT IS BEING COMPARED HERE IS HER UNPERSUADABLE FOLLOWERS REFUSE ALL EVIDENCE AGAINST HER THE WAY ISLAMIC UNPERSUADABLES DO WITH EVIDENCE AGAINST MOHAMMED.

IN ANY GIVEN CASE, REST ASSURED THAT I DO NOT GIVE ANY PARTICULAR FUCK IF YOU GOT OFFENDED.

 

KNEEL BEFORE NORA THE BUTTER SEAL #FUCKCANADA BTW

NORA WASTED 1.png

 

I seldom post videos but I made this in an afternoon just to roast a couple of friends: Nora and Ralph.

There isn’t much to it, it is just satire. Nora and Ralph liked it, as outrageous as it sounds.

But since humor is a form of intelligence, I’d expect retards to get offended….

 

 

OPEN LETTER TO CANDACE OWENS

DISCLAIMER 1

What follows is a mixture of facts, speculation & satire therefore the adverb “allegedly” prefaces and applies to the whole article.

DISCLAIMER 2

I am a proud Neo-Troll & I DO NOT represent #GamerGate. Truth with zero protocol will be used; get offended. Feel free to disregard everything I say based on my Troll status.

For those who stayed, read on;

(EDITOR’S NOTE: Feel free to checkout Jack’s site)

TROLL_ACCOUNTABILITY_2

 

storkTop2.png

 

 

Dear Candace Owens,

It has come to my attention that your Social Autopsy project aims to remove anonymity from online trolls like me by exposing their real personal data and I am convinced you should expose me.

Allow me to introduce myself. My online nom de plume/guerre is Jack Outis.

I am a proud online Neo-Troll & writer formerly for avoiceformen.com and from time to time for theralphretort.com. Please allow me state beyond reasonable doubt the following:

  • I am proud of targeting hypocritical psychologically fragile adults of the feminist/SJW variety.
  • I am proud of asking them about their past mental break downs.
  • I am proud of asking them about their past sexual abuse/molestation.
  • I am also proud of telling them I do not care about their suffering after they have confessed their past struggles.

Let me clarify, I am especially proud of harassing them until they suspend my disposable Twitter accounts (40+ suspension victories so far).

Why do I do this? Because each suspension represents a victory to me. Because I want them to know their censorship is ineffective. Because the internet is not a place for thin-skinned princesses. Because the web is the place where religions, including feminism, come to die.

Here is the rotten cherry on top: I do all of the above “abuse” with mere text and images and by using socratic questioning, none of them illegal.

What I do works because my targets are too narcissistic to stop reading thus they willingly increase their pre-existing psychological damage. I just provide the offensive content and they do the rest of the work. See? Cynicism is more offensive than lies because by your belief system, I should not be proud of what I do, yet I am.

I am truly proud of trolling adults and following my rules.

It is very unlikely to shame someone for what they are proud of, isn’t it Candace? Worst part is, I do derive both physical and intellectual pleasure from trolling.

This is not a turn of phrase nor hyperbole, I do get noticeable dopamine surges from planning then writing offensive comments and prose like the one you are reading. Then the dopamine release only increases when the text and images elicit a raw & visceral response from the target of my harassment or, when I witness the random collateral idiots getting offended by my content. Be it on social media or in the comment section, I take great pleasure in getting a rise out of unsuspecting, impulsive people.

When I experience this satisfaction from offending people, my heart rate increases, my pupils dilate, my attention span increases as well as my overall alertness. At first I thought it was just the placebo effect or the combination of writing and caffeine but I have run some tests and purposefully eliminated all caffeine for a week before crafting then releasing previous provocation pieces to rule out other factors. Same results. My observations appear to be near conclusive: I consistently get dopamine/adrenaline surges out of offending people online and I derive great satisfaction from it.

Do you find my observable behavior “pathological” Candace? How about “predatory”? How about “hateful”? Do you think I am worse than a rapist a pedophile or Hitler? I too have enjoyed being called all of those endearing nicknames.

See? When my target resorts to calling me those colorful adjectives, they reduce themselves to the equivalent of a raging anthropoid flinging their own excrement at me. This visceral reaction is the tacit confirmation my provocation worked and just puts a big grin on my face. Think about it, using adjectives is often an unmistakably expression of raw emotion. The more extreme the adjectives, the more upset they are likely to be and the bigger my grin*

I AM YOUR PRIME TARGET

the jack.png

I came to terms with my eventual unmasking either by people like you or acquaintances of mine. It is not a matter of “if”, it is a matter of “when”. But the question persists, what do you do with the troll who stays a troll even after you have taken away his/her income and possessions? What do you do with public trolls?

Look at my online track record Candace, look at my writing, at the images I produce and you may eventually entertain the idea that most of it is possibly deliberate. If you ever reach such conclusion (provided you emotions allowed you to think) you may have an even worse epiphany:

My trolling is an act of will.

Why would anybody in their sane mind, dedicate the time and effort to such pointless “hateful” endeavour?

See what I did there? Keep reading and I’ll let you conclude whether I am compos mentis or not.

The first thing you may notice is that I follow some rules. Why? Because it would defeat the purpose of emotionally manipulating others if mine were at the helm. Don’t you think? My bad, I meant to say:

“Don’t you feel Candace?”

As you can tell dear Candace, I am a prime target for projects like yours, and according to your stated goals, it would be in your best interest to disclose my private information so that I dearly pay the consequences of my online behavior. I should lose my job, savings and possessions so that I stop trolling. Right?

At least that is what you implied in this interview you gave to Ethan Ralph, when you were asked this question at minute 0:23:

“What are your thoughts on online anonymity in general?”

To which you replied with this convoluted valley-girl rambling:

I like that question, I guess the way to think about it though is that if everyone wasn’t allowed to be anonymous (just to answer that on the outskirts and not talk about social autopsy) Um…people then wouldn’t harass because there would be a genocide? And then, you would think…you wouldn’t have to worry about the issue? It would it could deplete itself. Is if you can/ if everyone is able to be seen, then you could just imagine that people wouldn’t be openly saying all these awful things. And that people that are saying these disgusting volatile things online that we were talking about were people who were anonymous not the people who were in plain sight.

 


My work as a troll is not to decipher your poorly organized verbose question-sounding quasi-statements resulting from your poorly organized thoughts Candace, (BTW please learn to speak properly, statements should not end with rising intonation) but today I will make an exception:

QUESTION
“What are your thoughts on online anonymity in general?”

SIMPLIFIED ANSWER
“If we remove online anonymity, trolls will stop being mean.”

So let me get this straight Candace, you are saying being public prevents you from committing crimes?

 

Allow me to remind you feminists also say that we should:

“teach men not to rape”.

 

By your “logic” we should then,

“teach trolls not to be offensive”

See? Feminists intentionally make the implication that “all men are rapists” and in your case Candace, it appears you imply “all trolls are criminals”.

Am I a rapist or a pedophile to you Candace?

Maybe both? 

While feminists firmly believe rapists should be “taught not to rape” you, on the other hand, firmly imply trolls should be taught “not to troll”by exposing them.

Does it surprise you I just compared myself to a rapist or a pedo?

Is everything terrible Candace?

Either the world is terrible or you live in a comfortable delusion because If everything the terrible then nothing is.

 

A MATTER OF MAGNITUDE

 

magnitude.png

Rape victims often become feminists. They use feminism as a coping mechanism against hurtful past memories. Hence why I skip everything and just ask them point-blank who raped or molested them in the past then I assure them I do not care about their suffering because they are not children anymore.

I am serious, I truly do not care about an adult’s past sexual abuse be it male, female or trans.

Would you like to know why Candace?

Exactly. Magnitude.

An adult feminist with intense rape memories and PTSD (medically diagnosed or more often self-diagnosed) does not even rank when compared with the suffering children with cancer endure. The magnitude of the suffering a tiny human being with no experience, no context, no ill will and no past offenses has to endure in a losing battle against cancer must be respected.

Because of that a child with cancer has all my respect because neither you nor I or any other adult will ever suffer as much as them because we, as adults have the advantage of many years of context and experience, but children with cancer do not.

Hence why I blatantly tell “depressed” feminists like Cara Santa Maria things like this every time I have the opportunity:

 

cara.png

 

See, deep down, there are parallels between feminists and you Candace. While a feminist was defined by her past sexual trauma, you yourself appear to have been defined by the trauma of “bullying” you have publicly confessed to have experienced.

Did the bullying cause your eating disorder?

Did it cause your anorexia?

If so, here is the thing about anorexic women: They are a frail walking ad that says “help me”. As the disease progresses, the slimmer and more vulnerable they get, the more they turn themselves into the mimicry of a defenseless child. Instead of adult women, they are just walking “guilt-trip” ads. It would stand to reason you have also actively guilt-tripped your boyfriends with your frailty dear possibly anorexic Candace.

By the way, have you seen yourself in the mirror today Candace?

You may look fat. 

See, feminists also have the bad habit of trying to look like adults while behaving like children, anorexia included. Does your boyfriend know this? I get it, it is just too convenient for you to have him as an unpaid stand-by quasi therapist.

After all, legally speaking, he is also your de facto amalgam of a beast of burden/ATM/sperm donor after your future divorce, so it makes perfect sense you use him as a psychological pillow at the time being.

Why? Because you do appear to be damaged goods dear Candace and women like you tend to have very very short marriages, just like feminists do. Like them, nothing will ever be your fault.

But i digress, maybe bulimia is also involved and you are even more broken than the expected. But don’t worry, all that manipulation you do is for a “good cause”.

Furthermore, while a feminist claims to believe her actions are for a greater good, you also might believe your emotions will eventually protect younger people who are as vulnerable as you once were. See, one of the many pitfalls of the emotional solipsism you seem to share with feminists, is to assume your emotions dictate reality.

Correct me if I am wrong dear Candace, but by “reverse engineering” your transparent actions, it would stand to reason that by virtue of trying to prevent the ultimate consequence of bullying AKA suicide, you yourself must have been suicidal at some point.

Is that what happened to you in your darkest hour while under the pressure of bullying Candace?

How many mental breakdowns did you have Candace?

Did the bullying make you suicidal?

Is your eating disorder your fashionable way to “finish the job”?

If that extrapolation is not off, it would seem you want to prevent your past from ever happening to others, in essence, you want to prevent your very personal suicide thoughts from ever happening again in someone else’s head. I get it, it is a highly functional form of thinly veiled narcissism that some feminists also indulge in, some even call themselves “Joan of Arc” for pathologically defending the rights of imaginary IT girls.

adria.png

 

It also seems you have a fixation with defending children you baby sit despite the fact you do not have any of your own. Is this fixation related to your past Candace?

 

In other words, were you molested in your childhood?

If so, was it a family member Candace?

If you have read this far, you may already have intense emotions unrelated to love for me dear Candace. Despite all this, I would still want to ask you the following question:

What would it take for you to accept me as an ally?

Even though we seem to agree with possibly the most important universal moral foundation there is to human kind, you would more than likely make a moral judgement against me based on your emotions not your reasoning.

 

To you, what I do is immoral. To me it is merely amoral.

To you, my actions describe my thoughts. To me, my thoughts dictate my actions.

To you, I am a time-bomb. To me, I am mere text.

 

See? Intense emotions are an obstacle for reasoning. Let me ask you again dear Candace:

What would it take for you to accept me as an ally?

Exactly.

It would never be enough.

 

 

 

 

SHORT SIGHTED STORKS

stork.png

I get it, despite the behavioral parallels, you still claim not to be a “bad” feminist dear Candace, then let me ask you the following question:

What is your drive Candace?

What makes you embrace this illusion of sanitizing the internet?

So far, this is what I see in you, either you are:

A) A mildly shrewd marketer playing a convincing character
B) A woman with the heart of a stork

Let me entertain option B Candace, let me tell you why you may have the heart of a stork. It would stand to reason you are still a fertile woman with a good ~100-200 eggs left and you are doing this sanitizing endeavour with the best intentions regarding your narcissistic ovarian future**

Or in plain English, you want to sanitize the internet before you have your own children. Right?

You may gullible enough to believe that if you start sanitizing now, by the time your still to be born children become teens they might inherit a “better internet”.

Do you want to shelter your imaginary children from what you went through Candace?

Would you like to prevent them from ever entertaining the suicidal thoughts you once had Candace?

Is that it?

See, in that respect you are more of a mix of option

A) As superficial as Anita Sarkeesian but coupled with

B) Your female stork-like heart AND mind that only sees the surface of things.

The internet has a surface that cannot be “sanitized” because the cores of the deep web, the darkest ones, the ones you and most people do not know about, cannot be cleansed. The deep web is where true crimes against humanity regularly take place. Here is a subset for you to easily digest.

The deep web should be your main concern Candace, not the surface of it. But that would be too much work for your bird-brained head. Wouldn’t it?

Furthermore, have you considered that the social decay countries like the USA experience regularly may have to do with the “anger” trolls express?

How would your Social Autopsy project stop the average unemployed teen with anger issues and access to a smart phone from ever trolling again?

Would Social Autopsy give that teen a job?

Would it give that teen better parents?

Therapy?

A better past?

Better memories?

Add to that the fact the problem with the surface internet is not the trolls, the problem is people themselves.

Trolling is a form of honesty, it is an amplification of what people truly think in the privacy of their heads. Hate, racism, misogyny, misandry, misanthropy, crime, you name it.

Projects like Social Autopsy cannot prevent people from entertaining hateful thoughts in the privacy of their own minds and people like you only motivate trolls like me to express such thoughts in writing. The more you try to suppress it, the worse it gets.

Because only human actions should be limited by laws, the human mind should be limited by nothing.

Freedom of thought is a concept short-sighted storks like you tend to struggle with.

People like you create trolls like me Candace. The moment you sanitize the internet, trolls like me will either smear it further or move to the much worse deep web.

See? Don’t be surprised your stork brain had only seen the surface, storks like you aren’t that smart to begin with because all you care about is your eggs dear Candace.

Your intelligence resembles the noble job storks have when they bring the babies from Paris because both your intelligence and their jobs are as fictional.
You are no hero; all you are is a mere glorified ovarian stork with a misplaced metastasized sense of altruism dear Candace Owens.

 

 

THE POWER OF ABSOLUTE ALTRUISM

absolute.png

Let’s take your potential altruism to its ultimate pathological consequences. Let’s pretend you are given full unlimited power to regulate the internet dear Candace. Here is how it might play out:

  • First, you would disclose all identities of trolls like me.
  • Then you would attempt to cleanse Facebook Twitter and the like.
  • Logically, you would struggle to come to terms with the suicides of those random teenagers falsely accused of being trolls by real trolls.
  • For each suicide you would become accustomed to telling yourself the following mantras:

“That suicide was not my fault. I do this for a good cause. It’s for the children”

“That other suicide was not my fault. I do this for a good cause. It’s for the children”

“Last week’s suicides were not my fault. I do this for a good cause. It’s for the children”

  • Lastly, you would struggle to pass laws to prevent the thousands of now public trolls from becoming even more offensive than past public trolls like Milo Yiannopoulos.
  • After passing a few laws, you would realize the problem constantly multiplies itself but much worse in the deep web.
  • In short, all of the above would fail over and over and over again while getting worse on the deep web end.

Make no mistake Candace, I have given a fair amount of thought to the eradication of problems like me and I keep coming back to square one:

 

The problem is not anonymity, the problem is not the trolls themselves, the problems is the human mind.

 

See, just like people, trolls are an amplification of what truly happens inside most people’s heads: Hate, racism, envy, greed, viciousness, you name it. They are all forms of honesty facilitated by the amplification of anonymity.

 

In other words, even if all forms of online anonymity were eradicated, the problem would persist by virtue of the troll mindset because we are all hateful, greedy and offensive in the privacy of our own heads.

You are like me and I am like you Candace, the only difference is that I am cynical but anonymous about it.

 

(And I do it all via mere text & images.)

See where this is going?

We could keep shutting down sites, networks or even complete areas of the web and the problem would keep happening. The problem is not the sites or the web, the problem is the people.

People generate hate, people generate the “mean” side of the web and as long as you have people, you will have “abuse”. For each head you cut off from the hydra 3 new ones will regrow just like it happens with online piracy.

But wait, you are also part of the problem Candace, because by sheltering people you only create an endless list of fresher ever more vulnerable targets for trolls like me. You quite literally are serving them on a silver plate for us to consume. See? You are not that noble.

No, Candace, your stork-idea is destined to fail because it is too superficial to see the real source of the problem. You could take trolls like me down but for each one like me there will be 1,000 worse ready to go public and take my place and unlike me, they usually have zero rules to follow.

There is even the potential risk that being a public troll becomes a reason for pride just like in cases like Andrew “weev” Auernheimer.

So tell me Candace, what do you do with public trolls? What if the troll stays troll even after unmasking them? What if they take pride in going public? The problem is not the anonymity, the problem is their filthy minds.

Think about it Candace.

Aren’t minds like mine the reasons for all of your concerns?

What do you do to suppress the minds of trolls like me?

What can we do to prevent minds like mine to ever happen again, to eradicate them from the genome?

Remember: As long as you do not eradicate the source, proposals like yours will be doomed to fail.

See?

Final solutions must be found dear Candace.

We both know some truly violent things have to be done for the greater good of the world because absolute altruism should always be taken to its ultimate consequences.

Why? Because it feels right.

Right?
But take heart dear Candace, you may not be alone in your journey…

 

closing.png

 

Thank you for reading.


*Granted, on occasion offending people also gives me an erection but I blame Mercedes Carrera for it. Besides, the inescapable oxygen the internet breathes/smells as salty as porn itself.
** 12 ovulations per year and considering you are in your late 20’s/early 30’s which results in approximately ~200 eggs left but only ~100 of them optimal for a healthy baby, give or take if you are around  27-30.