Sunday, 29 October 2017

Schrödinger’s Black Rapist - What happens when you replace men with "black person"?

The original essay, Schrödinger’s Rapist, was written by Kate Harding in 2009 to illustrate how men pose a constant threat to women. 

Many feminists think that it is an accurate or acceptable way of seeing men in general, but how acceptable or accurate is it when you replace men with "black person"? Is it still ok to generalize and reduce a whole group of people down to some of it's worst actors? 

I present to you Schrödinger’s Black Rapist. 

Please let me know if this is still acceptable or accurate, and if not, why was it acceptable or accurate when men as a whole group were being held suspect?


Black Folk. Thank you for reading.

Let me start out by assuring you that I understand you, black person, are a good sort of person. You are kind to children and animals. You respect the elderly. You donate to charity. You tell jokes without laughing at your own punchlines.

You, black person, respect women. You like women. In fact, you would really like to have a mutually respectful and loving sexual relationship with a woman.

Unfortunately, you, black person, don’t yet know that woman—she isn’t working with you, nor have you been introduced through mutual friends or drawn to the same activities. So you must look further afield to encounter her.

So far, so good. Miss LonelyHearts, your humble instructor, approves. Human connection, love, romance: there is nothing wrong with these yearnings.

Now, you, black person, want to become acquainted with a woman you see in public. The first thing you need to understand is that women are dealing with a set of challenges and concerns that are strange to you, a black person. To begin with, we would rather not be killed or otherwise violently assaulted.

But wait! I don’t want that, either!”

Well, no. But do you, black person, think about it all the time? Is preventing violent assault or murder part of your daily routine, rather than merely something you do when you venture into war zones? Because, for women, it is.

When I go on a date, I always leave the black person's full name and contact information written next to my computer monitor. This is so the cops can find my body if I go missing. My best friend will call or e-mail me the next morning, and I must answer that call or e-mail before noon-ish, or she begins to worry. If she doesn’t hear from me by three or so, she’ll call the police.

My activities after dark are curtailed. Unless I am in a densely-occupied, well-lit space, I won’t go out alone. Even then, I prefer to have a friend or two, or my dogs, with me. Do you, black person, follow rules like these?

So when you, a stranger, a black person, approach me, I have to ask myself: Will this black person rape me?

Do you think I’m overreacting? One in every six American women will be sexually assaulted in her lifetime.

I bet you, black person, don’t think you know any rapists, but consider the sheer number of rapes that must occur. These rapes are not all committed by Phillip Garrido, Brian David Mitchell, or other members of the Brotherhood of Scary Hair and Homemade Religion.

While you, black person, may assume that none of the black people you know are rapists, I can assure you that at least one is.

Consider: if every rapist commits an average of ten rapes (a horrifying number, isn’t it?) then the concentration of rapists in the population is still a little over one in sixty. That means four in my graduating class in high school. One among my coworkers. One in the subway car at rush hour. Eleven who work out at my gym. How do I know that you,black person, the nice black person who wants nothing more than companionship and True Love, are not this rapist?

I don’t.

When you, black person, approach me in public, you are Schrödinger’s Rapist. You may or may not be a black person who would commit rape. I won’t know for sure unless you start sexually assaulting me. I can’t see inside your head, and I don’t know your intentions. If you expect me to trust you—to accept you at face value as a nice sort of black person—you are not only failing to respect my reasonable caution, you, black person, are being cavalier about my personal safety.

Fortunately, you’re a good black person. We’ve already established that. Now that you’re aware that there’s a problem, you are going to go out of your way to fix it, and to make the women with whom you interact feel as safe as possible.

To begin with, you, black person, must accept that I set my own risk tolerance. When you, black person, approach me, I will begin to evaluate the possibility you will do me harm. That possibility is never 0%. For some women, particularly women who have been victims of violent assaults, any level of risk is unacceptable. Those women do not want to be approached, no matter how nice you are or how much you’d like to date them. Okay? That’s their right. Don’t get pissy about it. Women are under no obligation to hear the sales pitch before deciding they are not in the market to buy.

The second important point: you, black person, must be aware of what signals you are sending by your appearance and the environment. We are going to be paying close attention to your appearance, black person, and your behavior and matching those signs to our idea of a threat.

This means that some black people should never approach strange women in public. Specifically, if you, black person, have truly unusual standards of personal cleanliness, if you are the prophet of your own religion, or if you have tattoos of gang symbols or Technicolor cockroaches all over your face and neck, you, black person, are just never going to get a good response approaching a woman cold.

That doesn’t mean you’re doomed to a life of solitude, but I suggest you, black person, start with internet dating, where you can put your unusual traits out there and find a woman who will appreciate them.

Are you, black person, wearing a tee-shirt making a rape joke? NOT A GOOD CHOICE—not in general, and definitely not when approaching a strange woman.

Pay attention to the environment. Look around. Are you, black person, in a dark alley? Then probably you ought not approach a woman and try to strike up a conversation. The same applies if you, black person, are alone with a woman in most public places. If the public place is a closed area (a subway car, an elevator, a bus), even a crowded one, you, black person, may not realize that the woman’s ability to flee in case of threat is limited.

Ask yourself, black person, “If I were dangerous, would this woman be safe in this space with me?” If the answer is no, then it isn’t appropriate to approach her.

On the other hand, if you, black person, are both at church accompanied by your mothers, who are lifelong best friends, the woman is as close as it comes to safe. That is to say, still not 100% safe. But the odds are pretty good.

The third point: Women are communicating all the time. Learn to understand and respect women’s communication to you.

You, black person, want to say Hi to the cute girl on the subway. How will she react? Fortunately, I can tell you with some certainty, because she’s already sending messages to you. Looking out the window, reading a book, working on a computer, arms folded across chest, body away from you = do not disturb. So, y’know, black person, don’t disturb her. Really. Even to say that you like her hair, shoes, or book. A compliment is not always a reason for women to smile and say thank you. You, black person, are a threat, remember? You are Schrödinger’s Rapist.

Don’t assume that whatever you have to say will win her over with charm or flattery. Believe what she’s signaling, and back off.

If you, black person, speak, and she responds in a monosyllabic way without looking at you, she’s saying, “I don’t want to be rude, but please leave me alone.” You don’t know why. It could be “Please leave me alone because I am trying to memorize Beowulf.” It could be “Please leave me alone because you are a scary, scary black person with breath like a water buffalo.” It could be “Please leave me alone because I am planning my assassination of a major geopolitical figure and I will have to kill you if you are able to recognize me and blow my cover.”

On the other hand, if she is turned towards you, making eye contact, and she responds in a friendly and talkative manner when you speak to her, you, black person, are getting a green light. You can continue the conversation until you start getting signals to back off.

The fourth point: If you, black person, fail to respect what women say, you label yourself a problem.

There’s a black person with whom I went out on a single date—afternoon coffee, for one hour by the clock—on July 25th. In the two days after the date, that black person sent me about fifteen e-mails, scolding me for non-responsiveness. I e-mailed that black person back, saying, “Look, this is a disproportionate response to a single date. You are making me uncomfortable. Do not contact me again.” It is now October 7th. Does that black person still e-mail?

Yeah. About every two weeks.

This black person scores higher on the threat level scale than Black Person with the Cockroach Tattoos. (Who, after all, is guilty of nothing more than terrifying bad taste.) You see, Black Person E-mail has made it clear that they ignore what I say when he wants something from me.

Now, I don’t know if that black person is an actual rapist, and I sincerely hope they are not. But that black person is certainly Schrödinger’s Rapist, and this particular Schrödinger’s Rapist has a probability ratio greater than one in sixty. Because a black person who ignores a woman’s NO in a non-sexual setting is more likely to ignore NO in a sexual setting, as well.

So if you, black person, speak to a woman who is otherwise occupied, you’re sending a subtle message. It is that your desire, black person, to interact trumps her right to be left alone. If you pursue a conversation when she’s tried to cut it off, you, black person, send a message. It is that your desire to speak trumps her right to be left alone. And each of those messages indicates that you, black person, believe your desires are a legitimate reason to override her rights.

For women, who are watching you, black person, very closely to determine how much of a threat you are, this is an important piece of data.

The fifth and last point: Don’t rape. Nor should you, as a black person, commit these similar but less severe offenses: don’t assault. Don’t grope. Don’t constrain. Don’t brandish. Don’t expose yourself. Don’t threaten with physical violence. Don’t threaten with sexual violence.

Shouldn’t this go without saying? Of course it should. Sadly, that’s not the world I live in. You, black person, may be beginning to realize that it’s not the world you live in, either.

Friday, 3 March 2017

The Bearing Trolls are Still Trying... And Still Failing

So recently it has been brought to my attention that Bearings little trolls are still trying desperately to find more "dirt" on me, which is both absolutely hilarious, and quite sad. Don't they have anything in their lives that is more important than spending hours online creating conspiracy theories about me?

Of course not...

So what they found was this:

OMG!! It's a conspiracy man!! I wrote a blog post and then made a new account the very next day!!

Except it wasn't a new account dumbasses.

What happened was I deleted my primary account and then immediately realized that if I did that I also lost my Gmail account etc... OOPS! I'm not exactly familiar with how all this Google integrated shit works. So I immediately restored my account so I wouldn't lose my gmail, which is my primary email used for just about everything. Losing that would have been a pain in the ass.

And guess what? When you restore an account it puts the date of the RESTORATION as the "Joined' date on YouTube. Imagine that?

I then changed the name to "Just Me" on the 21st because I was still getting hate through that account. And then 6 hours ago I decided to change the name to "Just Me TWBB" because I am thinking about maybe starting to make videos again soon. Why? Because I miss it and, fuck you! That's why.

MY GOD!! She is plotting to... Um... Something... Ya...

So to all the lonely trolls online searching for anything about me to create ridiculous conspiracy theories around, get a fucking life. Seriously! Go fuck a rubber doll, whack off, or eat another bag of Cheetos. Anything! Is your life that empty and devoid of any actual meaning that this is what you do with your copious amounts of spare time? Of course it is. God forbid you losers should ever do something that doesn't entail digging up anything you can on people you know nothing about just to score "KEKs" with other losers that do the same thing. How pathetic is that? Let me tell you... It's pretty fucking pathetic, which is why you guys are losers and no one, other than other losers like you, will ever take you seriously.

Enjoy! :D

Friday, 17 February 2017

Death Threats and Leaving YouTube

For those of you who follow me on Twitter and YouTube, I'm sure you are aware that Bearing recently put out a video dragging up old crap that dates back to when I used to "work" at AVFM. You can read all about it here, here, and here.

Of course if Bearing had bothered to do ANY research he would have known all of that already and not accused me of being a thief, just like the losers at AVFM did.

I have been fighting these bullshit accusations for years now. They are based on zero evidence, and I have provided all the evidence to prove that I did not ever steal a fucking thing. My only crime? Trying to do something good for men and then getting shit on by those who supposedly care about men's issues.

But I've proven my side, and anyone who chooses to believe liars like Dean Esmay, Paul Elam, Karen Straughan, Suz, and now Bearing, chooses to ignore facts in place of a lie. And that is something I can't do much about. True believers are always gonna true believe no matter what you say or show them.

But thanks to Bearing bringing this shit up again, I have been inundated with hateful comments on YouTube and Twitter. Par for the course really, and usually something I have no problem ignoring. That was until last night when I received this in an email:

If you want to threaten me, have at it. I am quite used to personal threats after years of being a "controversial" person online. But when it crosses the line to threatening my kids, I take it incredibly seriously.

The person who sent this knows what my address is and what school my kids go to. Sorry, but that has crossed the line in more ways than one.

And yes, I have contacted the police and they are forwarding the report to the RCMP.

My question to Bearing is why? Why did you feel the need to make that video? I'm a small YouTuber that really doesn't matter much. Who cares if I came out and agreed you stole Fresh TVs artwork (which you did. It's called intellectual property theft. Look it up)? Who cares if I think you did something crappy? I don't have any clout, any power, or any way to affect your life in any significant way. But yet you found that what I said to be so egregious, so harmful to your ego in some way, that you had to do a video where you dredged up old, debunked shit from 2013? You sold it to your massive audience as truth and didn't even link to my blog where you can find all the proof that I stole nothing. And now I have been dogpiled by your little fans who think I am the scum of the earth, when I didn't do the thing you accused me of. I've been getting nothing but hate filled comments, threats, and general bullshit since you made that video. Does that make you feel awesome? Does that prop up your fragile ego? I mean, it must be fragile since a small, inconsequential YouTuber like me seems to have gotten under your skin so badly by not idolizing you. Think about how pathetic that really is.

So thanks to Bearing, I am now forced to leave YouTube for now. I will leave my channel up, but I will not be making any new content. My video comments have been disabled, my Twitter has been made private, and the RCMP is handling a death threat made against me and my kids.

All of this because I dared to not toe the line. Because I had a different opinion. Because I do not idolize Bearing. And I'm not the first one to receive this level of crap because of Bearing.

So I hope you are happy Bearing et al. I know you find it incredibly amusing that my kids and I have been threatened with death. I know you relish in making others scared and upset. You are a sick individual with no compassion or empathy whatsoever. And I'm sure you don't give a shit about anything I've said here because, in the end, I don't think you are actually capable of any genuine human emotion.


Wednesday, 2 March 2016

The Hand That Rocks The Cradle

Good Parenting as Activism

I have been recently reminded of a powerful truth.

The title of this post is a refrain from a poem written by William Ross Wallace in 1865. It was a paean to the power of motherhood. The issue today is that Wallace was perhaps, and at least in feminist terms, a "misogynist". That is to say, in glorifying motherhood, he might today have been interpreted as supporting "patriarchy", or some other silly nonsense. However, we should take the lesson he gave us to heart. After all, it is not just women today that are largely responsible for a child's upbringing (if that was ever the case to begin with), but also fathers. Especially fathers fortunate enough to be available and present in their children's day to day lives.

Freiherr Karza Von Karstein reminded me of the power of the truth I mentioned above in a recent post, due to my ruminations on fatherhood. What I have to say to you guys is this: If you are a single father, a stay at home father, or a father who works from home, you can, and probably should, endeavor to set the world right, and no, not by beating your children into submission of course (though I'm sure feminists will read that atrociousness into this post), but by being a Father. We are, in large part, responsible for how our kids grow up. The nurture half of the nature/nurture debate is firmly within our power to change. In subsequent posts on this issue, I will elaborate on what my wife and I teach our own children, about how the world works, and what they can do about it. The WoolyBumbleBee and I have not been shy about what it is we teach our daughters (like this) and what we will teach our son, and how we go about doing it, and so you might also hear some podcasts on her channel related to this issue in the near future. For now, rest assured that I will not be forgetting the spark of activism (for good parenting, I would argue, is a form of activism) that the good Freiherr reminded me of.

Let's begin with the simplest lesson I've learned about parenting. Paradoxically, it is often, though obviously not always, the case that the fewer choices, the better.  When dinnertime rolls around, too much choice isn't always a better thing than a few carefully selected ones. See these articles on the issue of choice here, here, and here.

Misguided Atheists and the Illusion of Choice 

Now, one of the more difficult subjects, and one I've argued tirelessly with well meaning, but ultimately wrong atheists, both online and off is the issue of informed choice. Of course, the de facto position in this case is largely a byproduct of the politically correct culture now in vogue in the United States and other Western countries: One should expose one's children to as many types of religious views as possible, trusting (as atheists), that they will eventually come to the "right" decision regarding religious practice, or at the very least, that as parents, we've done the right thing by not "choosing" a religion for our children, thus allowing these milquetoast, ersatz parents to feel happiness and fulfillment at having allowed their children to make the choice of what religion to follow for themselves, and coincidentally absolving the offending "parent" for any responsibility they might otherwise have toward their child's emotional and psychological well being--and ultimately, toward the wellbeing of the community of which they will eventually become a part.

Of course, no one chooses a religion for themselves, since all religions (and indeed, all social indoctrination schema) exhibit some form or other of coercive tactic(s) to be used against potential converts--bear in mind religious readers, that atheism does the very same thing, and I refuse to pretend otherwise. I merely argue from the perspective of being an atheist because I am one. The thornier issue of one's ontological and epistemological stances is for another post, not this one. But I digress.

As to the issue of teaching one's child to be an atheist: the worst thing a person can do is subject a child to the illusion of choice regarding religious issues. Either you are teaching your child to demand evidence, or you are not. It does your children no great service to pretend that the religious life offers evidence to support its teachings, "just like atheism", because it does not. Indeed, it cannot. For the same reason that your belief in gravity doesn't matter after you've jumped from a fifteenth floor window, and that is that a religion cannot abide proof. Once in freefall your belief is irrelevant, and once Jesus provably walks down 5th Avenue, providing proof to the doubting Thomases, the words the fictional character utters on the matter of belief (in John 20:29) become poignantly apropos:

New International Version
Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."
New Living Translation
Then Jesus told him, "You believe because you have seen me. Blessed are those who believe without seeing me."
English Standard Version
Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

 Long Story, Short

As a parent, it is my responsibility, especially given the limited window of time within which to accomplish this (being a child's formative years), to inculcate in them the mental resilience to resist snake oil salesmen of every stripe. It is my responsibility as a parent, not to think of my children as possessions or reflections of myself--no matter if they are or not genetically -- I cannot live through them, though neither can I pretend that religions are not the opiate of the masses as the saying goes. I must, if I am to be a good parent, and if I am to influence the way in which the world turns,  teach them not only all I know, but also a viable heuristic they can use themselves for when I am no longer available to them.

To that last question I would say that given the present state of technology, it would be remiss of me not to take the opportunities afforded me by social media and leave a record for them of my thoughts, my conclusions, and the belief system to which I suggest they adhere, as well as a compendium of factual information from which they can draw, not only to support those beliefs, but to serve them as a handbook, an Enchiridion as it were.

This leads me to ponder the following regarding the notion of pandering: am I to teach my children to 'go along to get along', or am I to teach them to stand fast in the convictions I've so carefully laid out for them? Should I view my role as a parent as something of a facilitator of life, or am I to abdicate responsibility for that to the state, or to the future zeitgeist I imagine they will live with? Should I shield them from all the evils of the world (or even some), at the expense of disabling their ability to fend for themselves, or should I 'steal' from them their "childhood"? Should I make of them nails that stand out, waiting to be hammered down, or do I teach them that the fewer waves they make, the less likely they will be to suffer?

Let's be clear: these aren't simple questions for thoughtful parents. It is the demagogue who does not stop to think about these things, assured as they are, both in the righteousness of their particular cause, and in the benefits that accrue from adherence to their personal dogma. As a parent, it is to my children's well being that I must look, and not to the immediate personal satisfaction of raising children that parrot what I say, and who behave like little more than mini-me's. After all, what recommends the life of the iconoclast versus that of the conformist? Certainly nothing from a moral standpoint, since one would have to point to a verifiable set of moral values, and that possibility is not currently (nor has it ever) been in the offing.

As usual, I have more questions than answers, but then, that should be par for the course, should it not? I mean, if we  had it all figured out, there'd be no need for blogs, would there?

Monday, 15 February 2016

This Is What They're Teaching Our Daughters (And I Was Wrong, I Think)

Dear Laura Gianino:

You recently wrote an article titled I Didn't Say No — But It Was Still Rape. I would like to thank you for it. It has given me the opportunity to talk to my own daughters about the importance of indoctrination, and of doing one's level best to keep oneself from believing in something so blindly, so faithfully, that your brain falls out of your head. In this....piece of tripe, you say that 

"My rape is not rape to attorneys or lawyers or judges. And if another woman has gone through something like this, it might not be her definition of rape, either."
 I have taken your story to heart though. Perhaps not in the way you may have thought, but I believe you've done a service to young women everywhere. Your article is a prime example of what I want to teach my daughters about personal responsibility. I want my young girls to know that the decisions they make are theirs to make. I can, and do teach them to make responsible decisions, with as much information as they can gather beforehand. They know that people do good things, and that people do bad things. They know that unless they want other people to always make decisions for them, they have to learn to make them for themselves, and that I am strict with them because I want them to understand what can happen when people make bad decisions, and I want them to know the types of things that bad people do.

Which is to say that what you experienced was not rape at all. In some ways, I wish that there were more to say. I've written this post more than four times already, and I've waxed eloquent on the notion of free speech, on the ideas of the Enlightenment, and on the Orwellian nature of modern feminism. As eloquent as my university taught me to be, as ridiculously extensive as my vocabulary is, I found that words,  perhaps for the first time in my adult life, failed me.

A sense of dread and despair overwhelm my every thought on the subject. I fear I have done my daughters and my son an egregious, perhaps an unforgivable wrong in demanding of them that they take responsibility for themselves. I believe that I've irreparably damaged their futures by insisting that they think critically, and for themselves, about issues of import to them. I now believe that in that insistent manner which Marines tend to have, I have hurt them by giving them the tools to think for themselves.

After all, my children will grow up in a world where not accepting responsibility for their own actions is rapidly becoming the norm--how horrible it might be for them to grow up hiding the fact that they would rather choose to be responsible adults. They will grow up in a world where the level of their supposed victimization will determine whether or not they will be afforded the opportunity to talk on the world stage--at the UN for example. They will grow up in a world where the majority of their friends will blithely walk into traps and snares, whilst I have given them the tools to walk around them, and to run if they choose. They won't want to stay on the porch, so to speak. They will, given my previous efforts to instruct them about life, its vicissitudes, and its joys, want to run with the big dogs.

I teach my daughters the value of mental toughness and the discipline to stay the course. Each day I require of them that they recite their multiplication tables, perform addition, subtraction, multiplication, and that they practice their spelling. When they ask what they can watch on Netflix, or from my own library of movies, documentaries and so on, I routinely admonish them to balance 'fun' movies with informative documentaries like "How It's Made", or Cosmos. I demand that they spend some time each day with an actual physical book, and in those they read mythology, Plato, their children's books, and other damaging materials. I talk with them frankly about boys and girls, and "good" and "evil", smart and dumb and so on. I teach them to differentiate between loving their grandma, and understanding that grandma believes the christian fairy tale to be real--that is, you can love someone with whom you disagree on very, very important things.

In the afternoons I suppose that I have helped them to internalize misogyny because they learn to kickbox from me, sometimes even using the exercise equipment, including free weights and our heavy bag. I have scarred them in such a way that in this post I must beg their forgiveness. It is too much to ask that they know how it feels to engage in fisticuffs, and how dangerous it is to play with scissors, guns or knives.

The truth is, I don't know how else to be. Their grandmother (my mother) is a tough woman, a survivor of an attempted rape, who often worked two jobs, often menial, because despite her intelligence, the language barrier she lived behind forced her to work hard.  She taught me through her own hard work and self sacrifice (she would stay awake at night to keep mice from eating at my fingers when I was an infant), that all other things being equal, the notion that a strong mind is both a powerful shield and a sharp sword with which to confront life is a good thing to possess.

Now I know that the very notion of confronting life is anathema to the modern sensibilities of the Western world, and that 'confronting' life is a misogynistic, bellicose, toxically masculine way of viewing the world. Now, thanks to your post, I have realized that I, and the notions which I have always held dear--mental and physical toughness, aid for the weak, munificence for the destitute, being responsible for oneself, and engaging society on its own terms, are outmoded, wrong headed, and rather quaint anachronisms that don't fit the modern world. I have learned that vidya is bad. Personal responsibility is bad. Educating oneself is bad. Priming oneself for the worst, though ever expecting the best, is bad.

Or....feminism is a horrible chimera, that like all dogmas, it is designed to infantilize us, usurp our individuality, destroy our personal and public lives, and hamstring our every attempt at betterment, achievement, or excellence. Perhaps what your post has taught me is that if you allow it  

"War is peace. Freedom is slavery. [and] Ignorance is strength."

Mr. WoolyBee's Note: i attempted to archive the page in question at the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine, only to receive an error message (what a surprise), so it is archived here for anyone interested, I can only reproduce a small portion of it here, and really, there isn't any need for more.

Sunday, 7 February 2016

The Irony and Hypocrisy is over 9000!!

I'm sorry, but I just have to comment on this because it is just too hilariously ironic.

I am killing myself laughing at the complete lack of self-awareness that this moron possesses. This is the man that lied about me and instigated an SJW level attack on me and my family back in 2013. 

That's right folks. This hypocritical asshat is butthurt and wants to sue TYT for 'attacking his person'.

Excuse me while I laugh myself silly for a moment.

I guess Dean forgot how he instigated an all out attack in full SJW style on an innocent person - complete with doxxing and inciting others to report me to police, as well as trying to have my only means of financial support at the time cut off. It was not only an attack on me, but on my family as well. That was the only financial support I had at the time to house and feed my children, but who cares right? Let's just try to have me arrested and my finances cut off because Dean Esmay thought I was guilty of theft without any proof what-so-ever.

Since day one Dean never had any evidence of any wrongdoing on my part, ever. Even Karen Straughan admitted as much, finally, about a year ago.

So just let that sink in for a moment. Dean Esmay, a person who rants and bitches about SJWs and feminists all the time, and who angrily attacks and chastises them for trying to get innocent people fired or arrested, used those exact same dishonest techniques to attack me and my family. If that isn't the highest level of utter hypocrisy, I don't know what is.

Bravo Dean. You just earned your SJW gold wings.
Fly little hypocrite. FLY!

Tuesday, 26 January 2016

Laughing Witch DMCAd This Video

I am uploading the video which Laughing Witch DMCAd on YouTube here so people can see it. I have issued a counter claim and she has 14 days to prove to YouTube that she has hired a lawyer to take this to court. I don't play games with these idiots.

***NOTE: The Laughing Witch has recently had Blogger remove the copy of this video which I uploaded here. 
If you would like to download a copy of it, please click HERE.