Why SJWs Want to Censor Games While Studiously Avoiding Rap Music



One of the more interesting, if seldom asked, question that follows from the intense interest of SJWs in censoring video games is follows:

Why are SJWs and their accomplices focusing their “activism” on certain forms of entertainment such as comic books and video games, while conspicuously ignoring the same issues in other forms such as various subtypes of rap/hip-hop music, popular non-network TV shows and movies?

Some of you might say that SJWs and their accomplices have already tried interfering in those forms- with very limited success. Well.. that is partially true, but there is much more to the story of why they failed to have any significant impact on rap music, movies and non-network TV shows.

Let us try to understand why certain forms of entertainment, such as rap music, have successfully resisted interference from SJWs. As some of you might know, the lyrics and imagery of rap/hip-hop music was considered scandalous throughout the 1980s and early 1990s. At that time, many famous proto-SJWs spent a lot of time and effort on concerted attempts to censor rap music. As many of you also know, these proto-SJWs failed so miserably that much of what (lyrics, language, behavior and dancing moves) was considered scandalous barely 20 years is now nauseatingly mainstream.

So why did SJWs fail to censor rap music in the late 1980s, and what can we learn from that massive failure?

The more cynical of you might say that rap music succeeded because white suburban kids loved transgressive black music- and there is some truth to that. But there is far more to this story than white suburban kids who bough records to look cool and piss off their parents. Start by comparing the behavior and personal lives of famous singers and musicians from various popular genres. Why are white rock stars (even those in certain popular 80s bands) widely, and correctly, perceived as less masculine than similar famous black rappers?

It comes down to how each group tries to achieve social acceptance, respectability and fame.

White musicians, like most other white morons, believe that social acceptance, fame and respectability is achieved by striving, begging and compromising. They also believe in popular scams like meritocracy and hard work. Most black musicians in contrast, understand that popularity in the music industry is some combination of intrinsic talent and plain dumb luck. They have also figured out that all that talk about meritocracy and hard work are lies meant to enrich a few white assholes at the expense of everybody else. Perhaps most importantly, they have figured out something that eludes most white morons- all that talk about social acceptance and respect from people who will abandon you, at the proverbial drop of a hat, is dishonest and meaningless.

The thoughts and actions of most black rappers are therefore not constrained by delusional attempts at gaining worthless social acceptance and respectability. Instead, they want real things like fame and money.

White musicians usually ask, beg and grovel for something that their black equivalents rightly demand. This slavish desire for worthless social acceptance and respectability also makes white musicians far more susceptible to compromise in the face of manufactured media campaigns- such as those run by SJWs. In contrast, most black musicians have little interest in gaining such worthless social respectability and are therefore largely immune from manufactured media campaigns to shame them or make them censor themselves.

Then there is the angle of plausible threats- or more precisely, who is afraid of whom.

Most black musicians, especially rappers, are not afraid of risky physical confrontations- to put it mildly. Nor are they afraid of living in poverty, as most of them grew up in less than affluent households. But perhaps most importantly, they inspire visceral fear in the minds of SJWs. Would those Sarkesian or Quinn critters dare to go up against some black rapper who has been shot and jailed a few times? Would they? and if not, why not?

My point is that leading a manufactured “moral crusade” against socially awkward white guys is far less physically risky than doing that against guys who have injured and killed people for disrespecting them.

In case you were wondering, fear is also the reason SJWs will almost never target big time TV shows and movie producers. Of course, in this case it is the fear of armies of lawyers and being blacklisted by those who have money. And let us be clear about something, those Sarkesian and Quinn critters are in it for attention, money and power- not social justice. They will never bite the hands that might feed or throw a few crumbs at them. SJWs are attacking gamers because they believe that have a chance at winning without any real physical, legal or financial risk. They also believe that gamers, being mostly socially awkward men, can be scammed into defeat via lies about losing social respect and acceptability.

NYC: At least 4 people pushed in front of subways in less than two years



At least four people have been pushed in front of city subways in less than two years — all of them Asian immigrants.

The latest victim was Wai Kuen Kwok, a 61-year-old immigrant from Hong Kong who was fatally thrown in front of a D train Sunday by a mysterious attacker at the East 167th Street station in the Highbridge section of The Bronx.

Last November, retired garment factory worker and Chinese immigrant Shou Kuan Lin, 72, of China, waspushed in front of an A train by a vagrant in Harlem. He is brain-dead and remains on life support, law-enforcement sources said.

In December 2012, a psychotic woman threw Sunando Sen, 36, a Bangladeshi, in front of a No. 7 train in Woodside, Queens, killing him.

That same month, Ki Suk Han, 58, of South Korea, was shoved in front of a Q train at the 49th Street station in Times Square by a deranged homeless drifter after a clash on the platform, and died.

PZ myers exposed as a hypocrite

The Internet where feminism comes to die.




Michael Nugent Irish athiest who was accused by PZ  of allowing rapists to post on his website has new revelations about false accuser PZ Myers.





PZ has told a conference host to do her belly dance, and to get off his stage as he has work to do. He has told an audience volunteer that if she won a poker game, he would have sex with her. He has linked to pornography involving women and octopuses. He has written about a dream in which he turned his students into mermaids. He has publicly joked about rape. He has endorsed a pornographic book that includes rape fantasies. He has prevented an objective investigation into a threatened false allegation of rape against himself.


endorsing a book that have rape fantasies. sounds familiar? feminists have rape fantasies and are obsessed with rape.


lets continue.


PZ has several times written about and linked to pornography involving women and octopuses described as ‘hentai tentacle rape’. In one post, PZ wrote: “I know some people will be aghast at the exposed mammalian flesh and weird exploitation of women… but it’s got tentacles everywhere, and molluscs…” In another post, he wrote: “Although nothing beats a sea slug for that vulval feel, I’m afraid. Mmmm, Aplysia, if you weren’t so cold, I’d… ahem.”

PZ has written about a dream in which he flooded his classroom with saltwater and turned all of his students into mermaids “and we… well, you don’t need to know.”

PZ, in one of his Google Hangouts, publicly joked about rape. The participants were discussing a campaign to get advertisers like Dove to protest to Facebook about sexist content beside their ads. A participant joked: “It’s like ‘Dove – we’re pro-rape’!” and PZ added: “You know, after a rape, you want to wash yourself up, and clean up…”


i can say that false accusing men of rape is part of his rape fantasies


PZ has written three times about how he prevented an investigation into a threatened false allegation of rape against himself. He says that when a student threatened to make the allegation, he asked someone else to sit with her while he (zoom) went straight to the chair of the department to explain the situation before it could get dragged out into an investigation that he said could destroy his career, no matter that she was lying.


so the hypocrite thinks it is wrong to be falsely accused of rape but ok for him to accuse men he don’t like of rape? PZ myers refuse to meet with female students alone. dishing it out but cannot take it is the feminist way. this reminds me of a cunt on twitter joyintorah18 who last week advocated male gendercide but today accuse Paul Elam of spreading hate against women.




go to the link for more. and check out the comments below the article for more revelations of PZ hypocrite!





Puerto Rican Men Know All About Feminist “Verbal Abuse” Laws



In the last few weeks, feminists have been up in arms about a video of a woman walking through New York City and being harassed by men. The harassment the subject faced includes such horrid things as “hello” and “good morning.” Parodies have cropped up across the internet, including my personal favorite which features “Star Wars” heroine Princes Leia being accosted by everyone from the movie including dear old dad.

The group behind the original video, which I won’t give additional publicity to by mentioning their name, are working for legislation to outlaw street harassment. Apparently these strong, independent feminists, who don’t need a man, need the man of government to protect them from words they don’t like.

Curiously, while modern feminists deride men for such offenses as saying “damn” at a passing attractive woman, they have no issue with teaching little girls how to use really foul language to get a point across, as demonstrated in the “potty mouth princesses” video. (If you haven’t seen it, prepare to be offended.)

This is nothing new. The Marxists behind modern feminism have always sought new and creative ways to stifle speech and destroy the family unit.

In Puerto Rico, this started with the controversial Law 54 (1989) against domestic violence. Everyone is against domestic violence right?  Yet within the original law is a section on verbal and psychological abuse. In plain language, that means if a man yells at a woman or tries to insult, control, or shame her, he can be charged with a crime and face years in prison.

Hard to believe right? No one could ever be jailed for calling his spouse a name? After all, don’t women outperform men when it comes to verbal abuse, intimidation, and manipulation? In my experience they do.

A few years ago I wrote a short piece on Puerto Rico’s Law 54, on one of my personal blogs. The article wasn’t even well written in my opinion; yet it has been among my most read posts ever. Despite not having promoted it much, it continues to be read on a frequent basis, and on occasion I still get comments.

One comment this week exposes yet another reason why people, men in particular, are leaving Puerto Rico for good. The anonymous individual shared his story of Law 54, and I have paraphrased it here for your entertainment and/or disgust:

I was accused under Law 54 two years ago for “verbal abuse,” whatever that means. In a phone conversation while my girlfriend was clearly out cheating, I called her a whore and a bitch. I made no threats, just two words.

She went to the police, and I was arrested at my house that night for Law 54 “verbal abuse.” I went to one hell of a dangerous prison and luckily was bailed out by a true friend who had to post US$7,500 cash as bond, since my bail was … ready for this? $75,000.

Yes, this was the first time I had ever been arrested. I didn’t even know calling a girl a dirty name was illegal in Puerto Rico. Perhaps I should make a cake and celebrate her cheating next time?

Well, after being bailed out from a third-world jail, I was ready to face a judge. Yes, it looked worse than those jails on Locked Up Abroad. There were drugs everywhere, no correction officers, 75 guys in one cage with cell phones, weapons, and gangs everywhere.

I went to court for the next four months every few weeks, since they kept postponing or denying motions. The woman who pressed charges never wanted me arrested; she was just doing what Puerto Rican women are trained to do: go to the police and cry.

She wanted the charges dropped, but she couldn’t manage that because it was the state versus me, not the accuser versus me. The prosecutor wanted three years in jail for me — I kid you not — for calling her a bad name. Three years out of my life in a stinky Puerto Rican prison.

Luckily the judge and eventually the prosecutor came to their senses and dropped the case. I left the island two weeks later, never to return.

I can’t explain how hopeless I felt, like I was in an Arab country being persecuted for something. And get this, I got lucky. When asked on trial if she needed a psychologist or was emotionally harmed by my two words, she said no. However, while I was in court I saw other girls cry and say “yes” that they needed counseling, and the men got whisked away for long jail terms.

Imagine if she had said yes. I would be in jail to this day.

It is crazy and corrupt in Puerto Rico. Do not come to visit or mingle with the women. It is a very serious problem, and I do not know of many friends who haven’t had Law 54 used against them. Only one deserved it, because he hit the girl. The other friends I know who faced Law 54 were simply there because their wives or girlfriends shed tears in front of a cop.

So there it is, in black and white. If this were an isolated case, we could brush it off, but both publicly and privately I have received information about this happening again, and again, and again.


This is standard neo-Marxist strategy, just like the street harassment video. Scream bloody murder at a problem that already has a solution, and then pass laws to protect people from imagined threats.

The result is an end to the family and an end to freedom. And don’t believe for a moment this strategy has anything to do with equality.

The solution? Personal responsibility and self-defense. If a man hits a woman, she has the right to protect herself; if a woman hits a man, he also has a right to self-defense.

In addition, the charges should never be the “state against the individual” in a crime between individuals. The crime should be heard as the person versus the person, and if the alleged victim says he doesn’t want to press charges, you should save the taxpayer money and drop the case.




How Racism Created America’s Chinatowns

Last month, a San Francisco tour guide was caught in a racist rant about the city’s Chinatown, berating residents for “eating turtles and frogs” and for not assimilating into American culture.

There’s an irony to these grievances, considering that Chinatowns in the U.S. sprang up in large part because of anti-Chinese racism, and because of legal barriers that prevented assimilation.

At their height, there were dozens of Chinatowns, in big metro areas like Los Angeles and Chicago and in smaller cities like Cleveland and Oklahoma City. You might think of these neighborhoods as places to eat dim sum and buy knickknacks, but the reasons they initially formed are much more complex — and political.

Chinese immigrants congregated together in part because of intense anti-Chinese attacks.

Seeking economic opportunity during the Gold Rush and the building of the transcontinental railroad, the first wave of Chinese immigrants arrived in the U.S. in the mid-1800s. The first Chinatowns sprang up on the West Coast and were, at the start, much like ethnic settlements founded by European immigrant groups.

These immigrants were paid lower wages than white workers, who then blamed Chinese laborers for driving down pay and taking away jobs. After the railroad was completed and white laborers in other industries began to fear for their jobs, anti-Chinese attacks increased, including beatings, arson and murder.

In Rock Springs, Wyoming, 150 armed white miners drove Chinese immigrants out of town in 1885 by setting fire to their homes and businesses and murdering 28 people. No one was charged in the massacre. It was hardly an isolated incident; 153 anti-Chinese riots erupted throughout the American West in the 1870s and 1880s, with some of the worst episodes of violence in Denver, Los Angeles, Seattle and Tacoma, Washington.

Many Chinese immigrants moved east to escape the attacks, explains Beatrice Chen, public programs director for the Museum of Chinese in America, located in New York. “That’s really how Chinatowns on the East Coast got their start,” she tells HuffPost. At the same time, Chinese immigrants who remained on the West Coast sought safety in numbers in the Chinatowns there.

The Exclusion Act of 1882 created significant legal barriers to Chinese immigrants’ assimilation.

Around the turn of the century, politicians played into white workers’ anxieties, pointing the finger at Chinese immigrants for economic hardship and labeling them fundamentally incapable of assimilation into U.S. society.

In 1877, a congressional committee heard testimony that the Chinese “are a perpetual, unchanging, and unchangeable alien element that can never become homogenous; that their civilization is demoralizing and degrading to our people; that they degrade and dishonor labor; and they can never become citizens.”

Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act in 1882, barring Chinese immigrants who were already in the U.S. from becoming citizens and restricting new immigration from China. The law marked the first time that the U.S. restricted immigration explicitly on the basis of race.

Along with the Exclusion Act’s renewal in 1892, Congress required all Chinese-Americans — including U.S.-born citizens — to carry photo ID at all times or risk arrest and deportation.

In response to exclusion, community organizations in Chinatown provided services to immigrants who weren’t protected by the benefits of American citizenship. “I think of them as sort of the first social service agencies for the Chinese,” Chen says. “That’s why you see a lot of informal networks and associations within Chinatowns in the United States.”

In San Francisco’s Chinatown, for example, The Chinese Consolidated Benevolent Association provided legal representation, organized a private watchmen patrol for the neighborhood and offered health services.

Housing and labor discrimination kept Chinese immigrants from being able to live and work outside of Chinatown.

During the exclusion era, it was difficult for Chinese immigrants to find a place to live outside of Chinatown. “In the broadest strokes, Chinatowns were products of extreme forms of racial segregation,” explains Ellen D. Wu, a history professor at Indiana University Bloomington and author of The Color Of Success: Asian Americans And The Origins Of The Model Minority. “Beginning in the late 19th century and really through the 1940s and ’50s, there was what we can call a regime of Asian exclusion: a web of laws and social practices and ideas designed to shut out Asians completely from American life.”

“That’s really how Chinatowns came into being,” Wu adds, “not how we think about them now, as a fun place to get a meal or buy some tchotchkes, but as a way to contain a very threatening population in American life.”

Several Western states passed laws that prohibited Chinese immigrants from owning property. In Manhattan’s Chinatown, Chen says, some Italian immigrants sold buildings to the Chinese, but it was difficult to find white landlords who would sell to them on other parts of the island.

Chinese immigrants also were barred from most industries, aside from the hand-laundry and restaurant businesses. “It strengthened Chinatown that whites basically refused to work with the Chinese,” says Peter Kwong, a professor of Urban Affairs and Planning at Hunter College in New York. “Chinese immigrants had to find work through self-employment.”


more at