Geert Wilders: “War Has Been Declared against Us”

A Speech in the Netherlands Parliament

Canada: a first world cuntry

January 18th is an important day for Canada. It’s a day that should be flagged in history and remembered annually as a moment that marks a monumental change in the direction of society. It is now the Canadian National Disposable Male Day and Canada is paving the way for a brave new world in which men are, officially, insignificant in the eyes of the law.

On January 18th, one year ago, the Supreme Court of Canada made a decision: They found that Nicole Ryan (now using her maiden name of Nicole Doucet) had been acquitted of her admitted crime due to an error in law. The crime? Trying to hire someone to kill her estranged husband. The Supreme Court of Canada acknowledged that justice had not been served but put a stay on prosecution for a retrial because they felt Nicole had been through an emotional ordeal.

On January 18th, Canada judicially stopped caring about attempted murder when the criminal has a vagina. Because of her feelings. Because Nicole had been through a lot of stress and had lost weight. Because Nicole, a woman, was looking a little peaked.

While Men’s Human Rights Activists (MHRAs) know that women being absolved of responsibility for their crimes against men happens all the time, this case is unique. The Crown prosecutor, along with every legal professional versed in the case, presumably aside from the defence attorney, was shocked with the acquittal. The husband, Michael Ryan, was not called to testify because the prosecutor felt the case was a “slam dunk” and he didn’t need to subject Michael to the trial proceedings. And yet she was acquitted.

Nicole confessed to her undercover RCMP assassin that Michael had never physically abused her. Nicole’s accounts of the threats and fear she harboured were inconsistent. Nicole’s husband lived 180 km away from her at the time and had custody of their child because psychological assessments deemed Nicole less stable as a parent.

Nicole, prior to these events, also tried to kill her sister by running her over with a car. Twice.

But Canadian Justice David Farrar decided that Nicole, despite lacking any corroborating evidence, was telling the truth and acted in the only way any “rational” person would: by contracting the death of another human being.

Congratulations, Canada. Murder is now a rational choice. If you have a vagina.


False Accuser: Emma Sulkowicz (update)



True facts, true story. Just going to put out bullet points.

1) she has had consensual sex with the same man twice before, and were great friends.
2) she invited him to her dorm so they can have sex on the day of the (rape)
3) the “rape” happened when he became overly aggressive and wanted to try anal sex.
4) This happened her sophomore year, and didn’t file a claim or complaint to anyone until senior year, where she heard he “sexually assaulted” two other women.
5) She kept or took no evidence of the rape, anal damage, facial damage, signs of struggle and abuse, etc.
6) She didn’t file a suit with the district attorney “because it takes too long” (WTF??? LOL)
7) She is making this a part of her senior thesis paper.






the man she accused should sue this cunt for slander and defamation




I have read about this particular case and she did go to the police. She chose not to pursue the complaint after it was sent to the DA. She also filed against the school but thought that the investigator asking her the same question over and over again (you know like a good investigator does) was really annoying. The cops were prepared to go after the guy and she called them off. Now who’s fault is that?

Here is an excerpt from an interview conducted by that was published on 9/4/14, with link.

“The last time we spoke you said you had filed a report with the NYPD and they were starting to investigate. What is the status of that?
It got transferred to the district attorney’s office, and I decided I didn’t want to pursue it any further because they told it me it would take nine months to a year to actually go to court, which would be after I graduated and probably wanting to erase all of my memories of Columbia from my brain anyway, so I decided not to pursue it.

Did the police seem to think there was a case there to pursue?
Yeah, they were going to contact the other women who reported against him, and they would have subpoenaed the information from the university files.

You were also hoping to file a complaint with the police regarding how you were treated. What happened with that?
I was contacted by an investigator who was really, really annoying to work with. He would call me randomly, and make me repeat everything that happened. He kept telling me I had to come into the station, and obviously I don’t want to deal with the police any more right now. It’s so disorganized, and it’s really upsetting to work with them at all.”

She also lied in the interview with

“Have you considered pursing a civil suit?
No, I haven’t. I think right now I have a lot on my plate.”

Mrs. Sulkowicz has indeed considered a civil suit since she is part of a Title IX suit that was filed in April, a fact she was well aware of during this interview.

“Sulkowicz is one of 23 students who are part of a federal Title IX complaint filed against Columbia in April for mishandling sexual-assault cases.”

She also claims that she didn’t know that carrying a mattress around campus would draw attention and is saying that all the reporters are “triggering rape memories”.

Now let me be clear, if this guy raped this girl, just give him to me, we can save the Courts time and the Taxpayers money and I promise he will never bother anyone again, just don’t ask about my methods. But something is not right here.

The cops were perfectly willing to go after the guy, the DA was ready to contact his other accusers, who are anonymous, and start building a case then she called them off. Then she filed some other kind of complaint and was apparently annoyed that they needed to ask her questions? So instead of pursuing the proper legal action she decides to draw attention to herself by carrying a mattress around campus. Yea, I am calling a flag on this one, sorry.


Calgary brothers the latest Canadians identified as fighting for ISIS

CALGARY — Two more Calgary men have been identified as having joined the ranks of the Islamic State of Iraq and Al-Sham (ISIS) terrorist group in Syria.

The men — brothers Collin and Gregory Gordon — reportedly lived in the same downtown apartment building that was also once home to Damian Clairmont and Salman Ashrafi, both of whom joined terror groups overseas. Clairmont and Ashrafi, as well as Calgarian Farah Shirdon, have all reportedly been killed in conflict.

The Gordon brothers disappeared in late 2012, which is when they are thought to have travelled to Syria, according to a CBC News report.

Collin Gordon was once an accomplished volleyball player, a sports fanatic and music enthusiast. His Twitter posts painted a picture of a fun-loving but thoughtful young man who loved basketball, electronic music and weekends.


Calgary brothers the latest Canadians identified as fighting for ISIS







Jay Z, Kanye West And Frank Ocean Being Sued For Copyright Infringement

Jay Z can’t catch a break when it comes to lawsuits and this time Kanye West and Frank Ocean are being hit up too.

According to HipHopDX, the three music makers are being sued over a song called “Made In America” from the 2011 album Watch The Throne.

Joel McDonald says that they used his song of the same name in the making of their own.

McDonald, a musician from New York, is seeking $3 million in damages.

But this is nothing new for Hov and Yeez. Back in 2011, they were sued by soul musician Syl Johnson for sampling his song “Different Strokes” without permission for “The Joy.”

Representatives for the rappers denied the allegations, however, they did acknowledge that the song was released prior to Watch the Throne.

It has been reported that Jay Z and Kanye West cited federal copyright law in their defense. They claimed that because the song was made before 1972 (when the law was enacted regarding covers), they were legally able to use it.

In 2011, Jay Z was also hit with a lawsuit regarding his hit “Big Pimpin.”

The lawsuit was filed by Osama Ahmed Fahmy, heir to a 1960s composer named Baligh Hamdy who created the musical composition “Khosara, Khosara.”

In the lawsuit, Fahmy claims he licensed his fathers song and claims Jay Z violated that by sampling it with his 2000 collaboration with UGK.

While Jay Z and his label argue they obtained the proper license and did nothing wrong, the rapper refused a deposition back in July.

Kendrick Lamar Sued — We Got Stiffed By ‘Rigamortis’ … Songwriters Claim

Kendrick Lamar is a musical thief who blatantly ripped off another song to create his hit, “Rigamortis” … at least according to two musicians who are suing him for at least $1 million.

Eric Reed and Willie Jones III claim they came up with a song called “The Thorn” in 2010 that features an infectious rhythm and commanding horns … the very same music heard in Lamar’s “Rigamortis.”

In their lawsuit … they say Lamar took their music, and simply added his own lyrics. They say “The Thorn” isn’t merely part of “Rigamortis” … IT IS “Rigamortis.”

Read more:

DMV to Revoke ‘HAMMAS’ License Plate Spotted in Brooklyn

The DMV says it’s revoking a politically-charged custom license plate that’s been spotted in Brooklyn.

The plate reads HAMMAS, a slight misspelling of Hamas, a group that the U.S. recognizes as a terrorist organization.

It’s on a black Dodge that was parked in Bay Ridge Wednesday and had a Palestinian flag spread across the windshield.

The DMV says the plate should not have been issued.

“We are pulling this plate off the road as patently offensive,” Jackie McGinnis of the state Department of Motor Vehicles said in a statement. “The group represented by the name on the plate is also on the list of entities designated by the U.S. Government as a terrorist organization.”

People NY1 spoke to today were not riled up about it.

“It could be seen as provocative in some parts in Brooklyn if it was parked in certain areas, I guess. It doesn’t really bother me too much,” said one person.

“We are in a country where you’re allowed to do such things,” said another.

“I don’t understand purpose of that plate, I don’t understand purpose of not having that plate, but I want just general peace in the world,” said a third.

DMV regulations say the agency can refuse to issue a license plate it deems obscene, derogatory or offensive.–hammas–license-plate-spotted-in-brooklyn/

Anita Sarkeesians ‘death threats’ and Joss Whedons ‘misogyny’!


When Jack Thompson got ‘death threats’ for claiming that video games caused violence…. NOTHING HAPPENED.
There was no social justice warrior outrage,
There was no outcry that ‘death threats to show that video games dont cause violence, thank you for proving my point’

There was just complete indifference for his dumbass arguments.

Anita Sarkeesian makes EXACTLY the same argument, apart from for her, video games cause sexism, and the ‘gaming press’ and even several in the main stream media lose their minds.



Anita is a fan of Joss whose movies are filled with the crap she complains about in video games.  one of Joss’ movies firefly have a character who rapes women to punish them.


How the law punishes boys who are raped: Column

Helen Smith7:50 p.m. EDT September 3, 2014



Imagine that your 14-year-old daughter engaged in sex with the 20-year-old man down the street. Anger would hardly begin to describe your feelings, but then imagine how you and your daughter would feel if she became pregnant and the man who abused her got custody of the child and your daughter had to pay him child support for the next 18 years.

This would not only be unthinkable in our society but most people would say that it bordered on abuse or worse. Yet, as reported in a recent Arizona Republic news story, this is what happened to Nick Olivas, who happened to be 14 at the time he had sex with a 20-year-old woman. The difference, of course, is he’s not a girl.

At the age of 21, Olivas found out he had a child and that he owed over $15,000 in back child support plus interest. He was rightfully upset, stating: “It was a shock. I was living my life and enjoying being young. To find out you have a 6-year-old? It’s unexplainable. It freaked me out.”

When a state government finds out a 14-year-old girl is a statutory rape victim of a 20-year-old man, the common reaction would be to file criminal charges to put the predator in jail. But for male victims, child support laws turn state governments into the allies of abusers instead of advocates for the victims.

Why the double standard when the victim is male?

The main reason is that the law says so. According to a 2011 article in the Georgia Law Review “much of the law relating to child support is based on the fact that it is typically in a child’s best interest to receive financial support from mothers as well as fathers” even when there is “wrongful conduct by the mother.”

Such laws date back to the 16th century, but today across the United States, state laws are driven by a series of incentives and penalties in federal law to enforce child support laws so strictly that there is little room for such nuances as rape. As a result, courts hold boys responsible for the consequences of being raped. In a case involving a 15-year-old California boy raped by a 34-year-old woman who gave birth in 1995, the courts declared, “Victims have rights. Here, the victim also has responsibilities.”

In Kansas, the courts said the same thing about a 13-year-old boy raped by his 17-year-old babysitter. In Ohio, courts have ordered child support in a case involving a 15-year-old boy and a 19-year-old woman. Sexual abuse of men and boys by women is far from unheard of. In 2010, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that 5 million men and boys have been “forced to penetrate” and that 80% of the perpetrators were women.

Male victims of statutory rape are thought of as culpable for child support because, as males, they are not seen as victims, but always as perpetrators of sex, no matter how young. After all, they were asking for it and should have kept their pants zipped. Isn’t this what we used to say about female victims of sexual abuse?

Helen Smith is a forensic psychologist and author of Men on Strike: Why Men Are Boycotting Marriage, Fatherhood, and the American Dream — and Why It Matters.