Who is Richard Spencer , pretty much an idiot with inherited money

[Lysistrata]

The Alt-Right respects the natural order unlike the anti-male Lysistrata and the anti-human Frigidweirdo. Equality is a myth. If history has proven anything, its that some cultures are better than others, some people are better than others.

I'm "anti-male"??? Why do you keep insinuating that all males are arrogant fucking morons who worship their penises? There are a lot of guys whom I like, and a few that I would enjoy a good role in the hay with, but none of them fit the above description. It's up to men to decide who they are, just like it is for women. And "the nature order" is whatever we make it, not an excuse to be used by anyone to justify a sense of unearned entitlement.

In any event, who is to decide what or who is "better"?

 

[impuretrash]

The phrases "European culture" and "white culture are absurd. Europe has many cultures, often at odds with each other. The Europeans who settled the colonies strongly opposed each other on the basis of religious differences and squabbled constantly over them, then got into squabbles based on country of origin. Moreover, I don't think that the morons who are using this absurd phrase currently could ever pass a simple test about the culture of each's ancestral "homeland(s)."

Europeans have more in common with one another than they do with the Chinese or with the Middle east. Thats why it's called western civilization. Don't play dumb.

I'm not playing dumb. But it is entirely false to lump us all together. And I bet that those shitheads who marched in Charlottesville could recognize even one thing from the arts and cultures from anywhere in Europe. I doubt that any of them has ever read any great literature by any European author or listened to any work of any classical composer from the European continent. These people, who don't seem to have accomplished much themselves, are trying to construct a fantasy to make themselves feel like they are entitled to power, yet they are the most stupid among us.

You'd probably lose that bet. The Alt-right is a movement based on reigniting racial identity in white America, something that has been denied to us for far too long. Other racial groups are not demonized and ridiculed for celebrating their heritage, quite the contrary. This racist double standard is the main reason the movement came to be.

 

[impuretrash]

The Alt-Right respects the natural order unlike the anti-male Lysistrata and the anti-human Frigidweirdo. Equality is a myth. If history has proven anything, its that some cultures are better than others, some people are better than others.

I'm "anti-male"??? Why do you keep insinuating that all males are arrogant fucking morons who worship their penises? There are a lot of guys whom I like, and a few that I would enjoy a good role in the hay with, but none of them fit the above description. It's up to men to decide who they are, just like it is for women. And "the nature order" is whatever we make it, not an excuse to be used by anyone to justify a sense of unearned entitlement.

In any event, who is to decide what or who is "better"?

I never made any such insinuation, you must have me confused with one of the black supremacists down here who can't stop talking about their dicks.


Were the ancient Romans correct in assuming they were the greatest civilization? How about the ancient Egyptians? Is there some kind of chart I could consult to decide which one is better? I mean, both did some really bad things so maybe we should we tear down their monuments and forget they ever existed. There's people in Africa who think it's the best country in the world. And you know what?

More power to them.

 

[Lysistrata]

The Alt-Right respects the natural order unlike the anti-male Lysistrata and the anti-human Frigidweirdo. Equality is a myth. If history has proven anything, its that some cultures are better than others, some people are better than others.

I'm "anti-male"??? Why do you keep insinuating that all males are arrogant fucking morons who worship their penises? There are a lot of guys whom I like, and a few that I would enjoy a good role in the hay with, but none of them fit the above description. It's up to men to decide who they are, just like it is for women. And "the nature order" is whatever we make it, not an excuse to be used by anyone to justify a sense of unearned entitlement.

In any event, who is to decide what or who is "better"?

I never made any such insinuation, you must have me confused with one of the black supremacists down here who can't stop talking about their dicks.


Were the ancient Romans correct in assuming they were the greatest civilization? How about the ancient Egyptians? Is there some kind of chart I could consult to decide which one is better? I mean, both did some really bad things so maybe we should we tear down their monuments and forget they ever existed. There's people in Africa who think it's the best country in the world. And you know what?

More power to them.

You insinuate that all males are arrogant assholes when you refuse to separate males out based on their behavior and the propensity of some males to use their maleness as an excuse for misconduct and then call me "anti-male" because I do. I've always said that I don't think that all men are assholes and that I like many men. Men know the difference, or should.

We don't tear down American monuments.

We whites have always had a "racial identity," even if this is something that we actually need to have. There is no "racist double standard." I have never been demonized or ridiculed for celebrating my heritage. Anyhow, "celebrating one's heritage" should not include whining about whole other groups of people, which seems to be the central activity of this moronic "white identity" movement. I think that contributions by whites to American life and culture have been widely celebrated without incident or ridicule. Catch a few museums and libraries, attend an upcoming St. Patrick's Day Parade, go to a concert or ballet, read some older history books that pretty much only included the activities of white males.

 

[frigidweirdo]

It wants to stop meddling, like Trump, who then can't help himself.

The US has, actually, been meddling in other people's countries for more than 100 years. But it's convenient to forget about Latin America.

More than 100 years ago it was harder to meddle in other people's countries, but the British did it, it was called Imperialism, and the US had it's views of grandeur.

10 Cases of American Intervention in Latin America - Listverse

Here are ten cases of meddling in Latin America, first is 1901.

Then you have the US in Japan and China. You have the US occupying the Philippines.

We could go back to expansionism in the US. Taking parts of Spain and Mexico and land from the Native Americans.

No, it hasn't changed since the 1960s at all. It's changed, the US has got more and more powerful and able to control further away with more modern technology.

Many nations were founded on the ruins of a less advanced civilization although calling the native Americans a civilization is more than generous. I don't understand why people always use the natives as the ultimate condemnation of the US. Were the explorers supposed to turn around and go back home once they found a few scattered tribesmen?

I've given a long list of the US's dealings in the world.

The US spend planes and troops to protect the Kosovan Albanians from the Serbs in 1999. But the Serbs were only doing what the US had done before them to the Native Americans.

Would you not condemn a country that came into the US, took over the land and planted its own flag on that land, killed or forcibly moved the people who lived there before?

You'd be screaming blue murder, that's what you'd be doing.

But I'll take your ignoring of Latin America, Philippines, China and Japan as you agreeing with me that US foreign policy didn't change in the 1960s and this has been something much longer than that. In fact it's been over the majority of the US's history.

If I'm reading you correctly, you think modern day America and Europe should be condemned for doing what every other nation on earth was doing at the time: competing with rivals and expanding their territory? If we're going down that road then literally nobody is safe from your scorn. What does any of that have to do with preserving European heritage, culture and values? You make it sound as if there's nothing good about it, and that it should all be scrapped and burned.

Every country should be condemned for doing bad things, don't you think?

Yes, why should people be safe from my scorn of doing bad things?

I don't think colonialism was all "bad". The road to hell is paved with good intentions they say.

Were there good intentions there?

Or was it just something rotten?

Take the Conquistadores. They went to the Americas and they were criticized by the Catholic Church for what they were doing.

But one of the reasons of looking back at history with a critical eye is to help you judge whether what is happening today is good or bad.

You look and see what America was doing 100 years ago, and it wasn't any worse than what America is doing today. It was all exploitation then and it's the same now.

If you look back and criticize what happened then, you can see that what is happening now is not acceptable either.

 

[Paul Essien]

Spencer went to the same private academy as President George W Bush. He's being paid handsomely to be the face of Nazism in America. I knew he came from a wealthy background.

He talks forever about race and IQ and how stupid black people supposedly are yet he dropped out of and failed the PhD program at Duke University in modern European intellectual history but of course because he's white he quickly got a job as assistant editor at American Conservative magazine but he was fired for his radical views

I mean fired for being to radical at American Conservative ? You have to do something really fked up to get shown the door there

But he's the self-proclaimed leader of "Alt-Right" yet he was in a stream a few months bk and suddenly a black woman (hidden) combed in his room.

I saw it on twitter lol.

This is a man talks about how races should be separated. So why does he want a black lady in his house? Is this his girlfriend? I wouldn't be surprised. The most staunch racist white man will always seek out a self-hating Black or Asian woman to be their gutter sex thing. She's so far in a sunken place that she's swimming in a quagmire.

Even that white supremacist faggot Milo Yanopolous married a black man

Extreme white supremacists are the hoteps of the blanco world. They'll stay shouting 'White Power' but will keep a black woman on speed dial.

Racism is schizophrenia.

When whites were spitting on us, chasing us with German shepherds and holding picnics at our lynchings. They were still setting us up in their home to cook their food, fold their laundry, allowing us to entertain them as musicians while the same musician couldn't come through the front door.

 

[IM2]

It wants to stop meddling, like Trump, who then can't help himself.

The US has, actually, been meddling in other people's countries for more than 100 years. But it's convenient to forget about Latin America.

More than 100 years ago it was harder to meddle in other people's countries, but the British did it, it was called Imperialism, and the US had it's views of grandeur.

10 Cases of American Intervention in Latin America - Listverse

Here are ten cases of meddling in Latin America, first is 1901.

Then you have the US in Japan and China. You have the US occupying the Philippines.

We could go back to expansionism in the US. Taking parts of Spain and Mexico and land from the Native Americans.

No, it hasn't changed since the 1960s at all. It's changed, the US has got more and more powerful and able to control further away with more modern technology.

Many nations were founded on the ruins of a less advanced civilization although calling the native Americans a civilization is more than generous. I don't understand why people always use the natives as the ultimate condemnation of the US. Were the explorers supposed to turn around and go back home once they found a few scattered tribesmen?

I've given a long list of the US's dealings in the world.

The US spend planes and troops to protect the Kosovan Albanians from the Serbs in 1999. But the Serbs were only doing what the US had done before them to the Native Americans.

Would you not condemn a country that came into the US, took over the land and planted its own flag on that land, killed or forcibly moved the people who lived there before?

You'd be screaming blue murder, that's what you'd be doing.

But I'll take your ignoring of Latin America, Philippines, China and Japan as you agreeing with me that US foreign policy didn't change in the 1960s and this has been something much longer than that. In fact it's been over the majority of the US's history.

If I'm reading you correctly, you think modern day America and Europe should be condemned for doing what every other nation on earth was doing at the time: competing with rivals and expanding their territory? If we're going down that road then literally nobody is safe from your scorn. What does any of that have to do with preserving European heritage, culture and values? You make it sound as if there's nothing good about it, and that it should all be scrapped and burned.

No that wasn't happening as you claim.

 

[IM2]

It wants to stop meddling, like Trump, who then can't help himself.

The US has, actually, been meddling in other people's countries for more than 100 years. But it's convenient to forget about Latin America.

More than 100 years ago it was harder to meddle in other people's countries, but the British did it, it was called Imperialism, and the US had it's views of grandeur.

10 Cases of American Intervention in Latin America - Listverse

Here are ten cases of meddling in Latin America, first is 1901.

Then you have the US in Japan and China. You have the US occupying the Philippines.

We could go back to expansionism in the US. Taking parts of Spain and Mexico and land from the Native Americans.

No, it hasn't changed since the 1960s at all. It's changed, the US has got more and more powerful and able to control further away with more modern technology.

Many nations were founded on the ruins of a less advanced civilization although calling the native Americans a civilization is more than generous. I don't understand why people always use the natives as the ultimate condemnation of the US. Were the explorers supposed to turn around and go back home once they found a few scattered tribesmen?

I've given a long list of the US's dealings in the world.

The US spend planes and troops to protect the Kosovan Albanians from the Serbs in 1999. But the Serbs were only doing what the US had done before them to the Native Americans.

Would you not condemn a country that came into the US, took over the land and planted its own flag on that land, killed or forcibly moved the people who lived there before?

You'd be screaming blue murder, that's what you'd be doing.

But I'll take your ignoring of Latin America, Philippines, China and Japan as you agreeing with me that US foreign policy didn't change in the 1960s and this has been something much longer than that. In fact it's been over the majority of the US's history.

If I'm reading you correctly, you think modern day America and Europe should be condemned for doing what every other nation on earth was doing at the time: competing with rivals and expanding their territory? If we're going down that road then literally nobody is safe from your scorn. What does any of that have to do with preserving European heritage, culture and values? You make it sound as if there's nothing good about it, and that it should all be scrapped and burned.

Every country should be condemned for doing bad things, don't you think?

Yes, why should people be safe from my scorn of doing bad things?

I don't think colonialism was all "bad". The road to hell is paved with good intentions they say.

Ignorance. The road to hell is the road to hell. Think about that. Hell is not the place you want to be on the road to.

 

[hadit]

If it wasn't for liberals' hysterical posts about him, I believe most people would have no idea what Spencer says. Why not just ignore the nutbag?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[IM2]

If it wasn't for liberals' hysterical posts about him, I believe most people would have no idea what Spencer says. Why not just ignore the nutbag?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ignore middle eastern terrorists then.

 

[impuretrash]

Were there good intentions there?

Or was it just something rotten?

Take the Conquistadores. They went to the Americas and they were criticized by the Catholic Church for what they were doing.

But one of the reasons of looking back at history with a critical eye is to help you judge whether what is happening today is good or bad.

You look and see what America was doing 100 years ago, and it wasn't any worse than what America is doing today. It was all exploitation then and it's the same now.

If you look back and criticize what happened then, you can see that what is happening now is not acceptable either.

I've read reports that suggest 100,000 people were ritually sacrificed by the Aztecs in the year prior to the Spanish arriving so some people might say that the Aztec civilization deserved everything that happened to it. I don't necessarily agree, some aspects of their civilization was worth preserving but certainly not the practice of human sacrifice.

Yes it's good to learn from the mistakes of the past but I think it's also important to try and put the actions of people in context of how they perceived the world at the time. On the subject of colonialism, many people sacrificed their health and safety to spread the word of god and the light of civilization to "savages". Some of the missionary work and urban development was beneficial to the host countries and not at all motivated by greed or hate. Sort of like how the media and politicians convinced people that middle eastern invasions were justified to "spread democracy" and make the world safer. Lots of US soldiers enlisted and died with that goal in mind. Let's not forget all the people murdered on 9/11.

Anyway, I'm not sure what any of this has to do with the Alt-right unless you are one of those people who think white people deserve to be replaced and western civilization destroyed because of things that happened in the past. That's a pretty popular sentiment nowadays- they're explicitly teaching white guilt on college campuses and infusing it into public education curriculum, popular entertainment and mainstream news coverage.

 

[IM2]

Were there good intentions there?

Or was it just something rotten?

Take the Conquistadores. They went to the Americas and they were criticized by the Catholic Church for what they were doing.

But one of the reasons of looking back at history with a critical eye is to help you judge whether what is happening today is good or bad.

You look and see what America was doing 100 years ago, and it wasn't any worse than what America is doing today. It was all exploitation then and it's the same now.

If you look back and criticize what happened then, you can see that what is happening now is not acceptable either.

I've read reports that suggest 100,000 people were ritually sacrificed by the Aztecs in the year prior to the Spanish arriving so some people might say that the Aztec civilization deserved everything that happened to it. I don't necessarily agree, some aspects of their civilization was worth preserving but certainly not the practice of human sacrifice.

Yes it's good to learn from the mistakes of the past but I think it's also important to try and put the actions of people in context of how they perceived the world at the time. On the subject of colonialism, many people sacrificed their health and safety to spread the word of god and the light of civilization to "savages". Some of the missionary work and urban development was beneficial to the host countries and not at all motivated by greed or hate. Sort of like how the media and politicians convinced people that middle eastern invasions were justified to "spread democracy" and make the world safer. Lots of US soldiers enlisted and died with that goal in mind. Let's not forget all the people murdered on 9/11.

Anyway, I'm not sure what any of this has to do with the Alt-right unless you are one of those people who think white people deserve to be replaced and western civilization destroyed because of things that happened in the past. That's a pretty popular sentiment nowadays- they're explicitly teaching white guilt on college campuses and infusing it into public education curriculum, popular entertainment and mainstream news coverage.

Nobody is teaching white guilt and the west is still doing what it did in the past.

 

[impuretrash]

Nobody is teaching white guilt and the west is still doing what it did in the past.

The days of western colonialism are long over, and college campuses are a breeding ground for Marxist subversives who hate the west. You need to stop living in denial.

 

[IM2]

Nobody is teaching white guilt and the west is still doing what it did in the past.

The days of western colonialism are long over, and college campuses are a breeding ground for Marxist subversives who hate the west. You need to stop living in denial.

I am not the one here living in denial. That would be you.

 

[Lysistrata]

Women, as mothers and caregivers, are key to the future of our race and civilization. We oppose feminism, deviancy, the futile denial of biological reality, and everything destructive to healthy relations between men and women.

Not only does this quote neglect to recognize that women are first adult human beings, who then may go on to be mothers and caregivers, it appears to suggest that as women "are key to the future of our race and civilization," that women ought to rule as the most important members of society. Perhaps our votes should be counted twice.
But then the writer goes on to oppose "feminism, . . and everything destructive to healthy relations between men and women," despite the fact that the idea that male supremacy and patriarchy are not only appropriate, but required is highly destructive "to healthy relations between men and women." Subservient and subjugation do not make for a healthy relationship. Just the opposite.

Men and women are different on a biological level. There is nothing wrong with female empowerment but feminism has outlived it's usefulness (it if was ever useful to begin with) and now tries to compel women to take on roles that they're not cut out for, like being on the front lines in military conflict, or shame them for not sacrificing their personal lives for career advancement.

I am acutely aware of the "biological differences" between men and women, but they have been extremely exaggerated over time for political reasons. There is nothing to "compel" women "to take on roles that they are not cut for." Who is doing that? What about the cultural/religious cues that seek to compel women to stay home, like some "religious" morons. The female citizens of the Icenai, the Haganah, the Ethiopians, the Eritreans, the Kurds, among so many others, have all fought bravely. In Is Paris Burning, Dominique LaPierre wrote of the young woman of Paris in a red dress who mounted an incoming German tank bearing flowers, right before she throw a molotov cocktail down the turret. I read a horrible story many decades ago in the Sunday Parade magazine written by a husband who killed his wife (they were part of the French Resistance), after they were caught in a firefight with nazis. She was horribly wounded and instructed her husband to make sure that she was dead so that she would not be found alive and then to run. He was able to survive and went on to marry again and have children but never left his first wife's memory behind.

Any person worth his or her salt fights for their communities, countries, and what they believe in. You have to understand this.

Moreover, heterosexuals who truly love each other help their partners to fulfill each's dreams. They assist each other in every way possible, personal ego nothwithstanding.

Great shot of Gabrielle Giffords and husband (ex-astronaut) Mark Kelly:

Gabby Giffords, Mark Kelly: The New Year Is for Hope, Even After Tragedy

Now this is what heterosexuality is all about. Her husband apparently LOVES Gabby Giffords. I hope that she returns that love, and I suspect that she does. We should not allow ego-driven monkeys to ruin heterosexuality.

 

[impuretrash]

I am acutely aware of the "biological differences" between men and women, but they have been extremely exaggerated over time for political reasons. There is nothing to "compel" women "to take on roles that they are not cut for." Who is doing that? What about the cultural/religious cues that seek to compel women to stay home, like some "religious" morons. The female citizens of the Icenai, the Haganah, the Ethiopians, the Eritreans, the Kurds, among so many others, have all fought bravely. In Is Paris Burning, Dominique LaPierre wrote of the young woman of Paris in a red dress who mounted an incoming German tank bearing flowers, right before she throw a molotov cocktail down the turret. I read a horrible story many decades ago in the Sunday Parade magazine written by a husband who killed his wife (they were part of the French Resistance), after they were caught in a firefight with nazis. She was horribly wounded and instructed her husband to make sure that she was dead so that she would not be found alive and then to run. He was able to survive and went on to marry again and have children but never left his first wife's memory behind.

Any person worth his or her salt fights for their communities, countries, and what they believe in. You have to understand this.

Moreover, heterosexuals who truly love each other help their partners to fulfill each's dreams. They assist each other in every way possible, personal ego nothwithstanding.

Great shot of Gabrielle Giffords and husband (ex-astronaut) Mark Kelly:

Gabby Giffords, Mark Kelly: The New Year Is for Hope, Even After Tragedy

Now this is what heterosexuality is all about. Her husband apparently LOVES Gabby Giffords. I hope that she returns that love, and I suspect that she does. We should not allow ego-driven monkeys to ruin heterosexuality.

I sincerely doubt that any of those noble and strong women you mentioned were influenced by modern day feminism. Let's not confuse criticism of feminism with criticism of femininity. It's not hard to see that some women are being led astray, against their own inclinations and against their own desires by today's feminist movement which seems to be more about beating up on men and promoting abortion than empowering women.

You insinuate that all males are arrogant assholes when you refuse to separate males out based on their behavior and the propensity of some males to use their maleness as an excuse for misconduct and then call me "anti-male" because I do. I've always said that I don't think that all men are assholes and that I like many men. Men know the difference, or should.

We don't tear down American monuments.

We whites have always had a "racial identity," even if this is something that we actually need to have. There is no "racist double standard." I have never been demonized or ridiculed for celebrating my heritage. Anyhow, "celebrating one's heritage" should not include whining about whole other groups of people, which seems to be the central activity of this moronic "white identity" movement. I think that contributions by whites to American life and culture have been widely celebrated without incident or ridicule. Catch a few museums and libraries, attend an upcoming St. Patrick's Day Parade, go to a concert or ballet, read some older history books that pretty much only included the activities of white males.

Culture is more than just music and art, it's how we live our lives. I don't know how anyone who stays abreast of current events and reads the news could miss the unsubtle anti-western anti-tradition and yes, anti-white male bias inherent in news media and popular entertainment.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Were there good intentions there?

Or was it just something rotten?

Take the Conquistadores. They went to the Americas and they were criticized by the Catholic Church for what they were doing.

But one of the reasons of looking back at history with a critical eye is to help you judge whether what is happening today is good or bad.

You look and see what America was doing 100 years ago, and it wasn't any worse than what America is doing today. It was all exploitation then and it's the same now.

If you look back and criticize what happened then, you can see that what is happening now is not acceptable either.

I've read reports that suggest 100,000 people were ritually sacrificed by the Aztecs in the year prior to the Spanish arriving so some people might say that the Aztec civilization deserved everything that happened to it. I don't necessarily agree, some aspects of their civilization was worth preserving but certainly not the practice of human sacrifice.

Yes it's good to learn from the mistakes of the past but I think it's also important to try and put the actions of people in context of how they perceived the world at the time. On the subject of colonialism, many people sacrificed their health and safety to spread the word of god and the light of civilization to "savages". Some of the missionary work and urban development was beneficial to the host countries and not at all motivated by greed or hate. Sort of like how the media and politicians convinced people that middle eastern invasions were justified to "spread democracy" and make the world safer. Lots of US soldiers enlisted and died with that goal in mind. Let's not forget all the people murdered on 9/11.

Anyway, I'm not sure what any of this has to do with the Alt-right unless you are one of those people who think white people deserve to be replaced and western civilization destroyed because of things that happened in the past. That's a pretty popular sentiment nowadays- they're explicitly teaching white guilt on college campuses and infusing it into public education curriculum, popular entertainment and mainstream news coverage.

Wait, so your argument that the Spanish did bad things is to say the Aztecs did bad things.

What? That's not talking about what we're talking about.

Yes, we can try and put things into context. Your way is to put the Spanish invasion and brutal massacre of Native Americans into context. I'm putting the modern world into context with the past so we can actually think about it in terms of our own societies.

I am in favor of people talking about things freely. I think one of the biggest problems is that angry stupid people who want to gain a semblance of position within society that isn't right at the bottom come out with some pathetic racist crap, and that this then turns people away from those ideas.

Other people then manage to link those ideas to things like immigration and the like, and then people are afraid of discussing immigration.

This is the far right doing things which are contrary to what they are hoping to achieve.

 

[IM2]

I am acutely aware of the "biological differences" between men and women, but they have been extremely exaggerated over time for political reasons. There is nothing to "compel" women "to take on roles that they are not cut for." Who is doing that? What about the cultural/religious cues that seek to compel women to stay home, like some "religious" morons. The female citizens of the Icenai, the Haganah, the Ethiopians, the Eritreans, the Kurds, among so many others, have all fought bravely. In Is Paris Burning, Dominique LaPierre wrote of the young woman of Paris in a red dress who mounted an incoming German tank bearing flowers, right before she throw a molotov cocktail down the turret. I read a horrible story many decades ago in the Sunday Parade magazine written by a husband who killed his wife (they were part of the French Resistance), after they were caught in a firefight with nazis. She was horribly wounded and instructed her husband to make sure that she was dead so that she would not be found alive and then to run. He was able to survive and went on to marry again and have children but never left his first wife's memory behind.

Any person worth his or her salt fights for their communities, countries, and what they believe in. You have to understand this.

Moreover, heterosexuals who truly love each other help their partners to fulfill each's dreams. They assist each other in every way possible, personal ego nothwithstanding.

Great shot of Gabrielle Giffords and husband (ex-astronaut) Mark Kelly:

Gabby Giffords, Mark Kelly: The New Year Is for Hope, Even After Tragedy

Now this is what heterosexuality is all about. Her husband apparently LOVES Gabby Giffords. I hope that she returns that love, and I suspect that she does. We should not allow ego-driven monkeys to ruin heterosexuality.

I sincerely doubt that any of those noble and strong women you mentioned were influenced by modern day feminism. Let's not confuse criticism of feminism with criticism of femininity. It's not hard to see that some women are being led astray, against their own inclinations and against their own desires by today's feminist movement which seems to be more about beating up on men and promoting abortion than empowering women.

You insinuate that all males are arrogant assholes when you refuse to separate males out based on their behavior and the propensity of some males to use their maleness as an excuse for misconduct and then call me "anti-male" because I do. I've always said that I don't think that all men are assholes and that I like many men. Men know the difference, or should.

We don't tear down American monuments.

We whites have always had a "racial identity," even if this is something that we actually need to have. There is no "racist double standard." I have never been demonized or ridiculed for celebrating my heritage. Anyhow, "celebrating one's heritage" should not include whining about whole other groups of people, which seems to be the central activity of this moronic "white identity" movement. I think that contributions by whites to American life and culture have been widely celebrated without incident or ridicule. Catch a few museums and libraries, attend an upcoming St. Patrick's Day Parade, go to a concert or ballet, read some older history books that pretty much only included the activities of white males.

Culture is more than just music and art, it's how we live our lives. I don't know how anyone who stays abreast of current events and reads the news could miss the unsubtle anti-western anti-tradition and yes, anti-white male bias inherent in news media and popular entertainment.

There is no anti white male bias. There is the holding white males accountable for things they do.

 

[Lysistrata]

It's not hard to see that some women are being led astray, against their own inclinations and against their own desires by today's feminist movement which seems to be more about beating up on men and promoting abortion than empowering women.

Why are you even talking about adult people "being led astray" as if they were sheep of some sort? Any bozo boy in one of these white "militia" gangs most likely as been "led astray" as well. You have no idea of what any person's own inclinations and own desires are. I bet you are getting this from cult fundie males who are stupid enough and arrogant enough to think that they know. Dumb trash like graham and dobson and perkins and the other jackasses from focus on ruining the family just try to push themselves up to the mike and presume to speak for those they know absolutely nothing about.

Nobody is "beating up on men." We are, however, beating up on assholes. Not all men are assholes.

Nobody "promotes" abortion. It is a last resort. However, the above mentioned dumb bitch-boys like graham, perkins, jeffress, etc. are against birth control and try to keep women from using it, even though it greatly reduces the need for abortion. These bitch-boys have an out-right sexual agenda against women for their own sick sexual gratification and lust for controlling women's bodies. They are perverts. Birth control empowers women, but trash like these guys have other sick motives in mind. They are the same trash who refuse to sit down and talk to women about what we actually want, you know: LISTEN rather than speak. They seek to impose their own fantasy in place of the voices of real women.

We will choose our own methods of empowerment.

 

[IM2]

It's not hard to see that some women are being led astray, against their own inclinations and against their own desires by today's feminist movement which seems to be more about beating up on men and promoting abortion than empowering women.

Why are you even talking about adult people "being led astray" as if they were sheep of some sort? Any bozo boy in one of these white "militia" gangs most likely as been "led astray" as well. You have no idea of what any person's own inclinations and own desires are. I bet you are getting this from cult fundie males who are stupid enough and arrogant enough to think that they know. Dumb trash like graham and dobson and perkins and the other jackasses from focus on ruining the family just try to push themselves up to the mike and presume to speak for those they know absolutely nothing about.

Nobody is "beating up on men." We are, however, beating up on assholes. Not all men are assholes.

Nobody "promotes" abortion. It is a last resort. However, the above mentioned dumb bitch-boys like graham, perkins, jeffress, etc. are against birth control and try to keep women from using it, even though it greatly reduces the need for abortion. These bitch-boys have an out-right sexual agenda against women for their own sick sexual gratification and lust for controlling women's bodies. They are perverts. Birth control empowers women, but trash like these guys have other sick motives in mind. They are the same trash who refuse to sit down and talk to women about what we actually want, you know: LISTEN rather than speak. They seek to impose their own fantasy in place of the voices of real women.

We will choose our own methods of empowerment.

Preach!