Senator Obama can say what he likes and stand aside, but since I'm no Democrat I see no reason not to comment on Governor Palin's impending grandmotherhood. The argument is very simple: Palin has been presented to us since last Friday as an exemplar of family values. Bushies who've been critical toward Senator McCain are reportedly swooning over her, not merely because she'd be the first MILF to stand a heartbeat from power, but because she preaches the conservative doctrine on abortion, intelligent design, etc. She proudly sent her oldest boy to war and just as proudly kept a baby doomed with Down's Syndrome. But by her own standards and those of the movement that's embraced her, she's a lousy mother. She couldn't control her daughter, so shouldn't the reactionaries ask themselves whether she neglected her maternal duties in favor of political ambition? Shouldn't they ask whether, if she can't govern her daughter, she should be trusted with any part of governing the country?
Palin is not entitled to privacy on this issue because she and her ilk do not acknowledge privacy rights for anyone else when it comes to reproductive freedom and sexual morality. Since her kind considers it the business of the state whether anyone else carries an unwanted pregnancy to term, we have every right to ask what went wrong with this family that led to little Palin getting pregnant. Conservatives may be satisfied that Palin is making the girl and her boyfriend do the right thing, but her status as a presumptive moral teacher (you know, "telling us how to live," etc.) should not go unscathed after this episode. On more immediate political issues, we can still withhold judgment, but if Palin was the great right hope on moral issues, she's lost this round.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
19 comments:
I wonder, too, if L. Brent Bozo and the PTC will brand Gov. Palin a hypocrite over this. Now that she's running for VP, her every move will be micro-analyzed like every other candidate, because of our society's conditioned and insatiable appetite for curiosity. The NYC tabloids are already playing the daughter's pregnancy into the ground as if she were Jamie Lyn Spears instead of the daughter of a heretofore unknown politico.
Now we'll see if the PTC and other moral zealot groups can stand the pressure they usually bring themselves.
Anonymous1 says:
I have little interest in Sarah Palin per se but one comment by Mr. Wilson did strike my eye. That was the usual libertarian rhetoric about it being none of the state's business whether an unborn baby is carried to term. So let us jump into the murky waters of the abortion debate. As I intend to demonstrate, the idea that a fetus is not a human being with sovereign rights is basically (Surprise! Surprise!) a Jewish religious doctrine. I reccomend two website essays on this subject. The first is "Jewish religious doctrine on abortion" by David Feldman. The second is "Kosher slaughter of the unborn" by Jayne Gardner. The basic Jewish doctrine on the subject is that a fetus does not become fully human until it emerges into the world. Even after it has been born if it dies before the seventh day it is not accorded a burial. The basic Talmudic principle governing the status of a fetus is that it is a rodef, or agressor, against the mother who has the right to expel it if she does not want it. The avoidance of pain by the mother is primary; the suffering of the fetus as it is torn, limb from limb, is irrelevant. Anyone who takes a look at the abortion industry in the United States knows that it is run by Jews. The doctors who perform it are disproportionately Jewish; the media which espouse it are Jewish controlled; the organizations which advocate it are overwhelmingly Jewish.
I have always found the idea that an unborn life is the private property of its mother to be repellent. It is particularly ironic that Jewish communists, who have never believed in the right of private property anyway, claim that an unborn life is the property of its mother. (It is also ironic that feminists, who deny that women are the property of men, think that unborn babies are the property of women.)The claim that a fetus is part of its mother's body is transparent nonsense. If it were really part of its mother's body it would be present at birth, like all the other genuine body parts. A fetus is the creation of two human beings-and it does not become the property of the mother simply because it resides in the mother's body before birth. The mother is merely the caretaker, not the owner, of the newly created life.
Any claim that a fetus is potential, rather than actual life, is also transparent nonsense. All development is a continuum, and there is no way anyone can select a point on a continuum of development and distinguish it from any other point on a continuum of development. At every stage in the development of a fetus, two conditions obtain. (1) It is more developee than it was at the previous stage; (2) It is less developed than at the next stage. True, a fetus is less developed than a new born baby. But a new born baby is less developed than a one year old baby. The particular stage of development-and whether the development takes place within or without the mother's body, is equally irrelevant. All claims that a fetus is merely an undeveloped mass of tissue also fail the test of the medical evidence. Camera's have been inserted within the womb showing that from very early stages of development that the fetus already has identifiable legs, arms and facial features. Applying the well-known principle that "if it looks like, acts like and appears to be, then it is" we reach an obvious conclusion on the humanity of a fetus. There is no need to delve into still unresolved questions, such as when does a fetus feel pain, etc. The general principle is that a fetus develops much faster than hitherto thought. The in womb cameras display purposive behaviour on the part of the fetus. Recording instruments show a dramatic increase in heartbeat as the fetus recognizes impending death. The camera shows frantic struggling behaviour as the fetus attempts to ward off the pliers about to tear it to pieces. If a saline procedure is used, the tortured movements as the fetus has its lungs scorched are sickeningly and hideously visible to anyone with eyes to see. As the legal expression goes, "it speaks for itself". This is all purposive behavior, not the wriggling of a disconnected mass of cells.
It should be obvious on the face of it that abortion is dysgenic and suicidal for any race which practices it on a large scale. If whites have multiple abortions while Mexicans crank out one white taxpayer supported baby after another, it is obvious which race shall live and which race shall die. An analogy with nature may be useful. Turtles generally lose 98% of their newly hatched eggs to bird predators before 2% can make it to the sea to continue the species. Suppose that mother turtle took the standard feminist position that a turtle egg is merely potential rather than actual. She eats her own eggs rather than allowing them to be hatched. (turtle abortion, if you will.) Turtles would cease to exist. Birds would die off, being deprived of their prey. Nature's cycle would come to an end. Those who think that a human baby is not a baby until it hatches from its mother's body should apply the same logic to the eggs of other species and see if their "reasoning" holds up.
It is obvious that there is a very base motivation lying behind the pro-abortion position. Human beings like to have their logic both ways. Women want to be able to kill off babies they do not want while collecting for babies they decided to keep. Hence, the artificial distinction between a fetus and a baby. That doesn't sound nice, so women prattle about "rights to privacy" and a right "to control one's own body" instead. The role of the disenfranchised father in all this is conveniently ignored. He has no say in whether the unborn baby lives or dies but is expected to pay the bill for someone else's decision. This might be termed "taxation without representation in reproduction", if women could think (a biological impossibility because of their immensely smaller number of gray cells). The feminist position, in essence, is this: "I have the right to murder my own child because I do not want it, but you sir, must pay child support for the next eighteen years because the little bastards welfare comes first-after he is born." It is anusing indeed to listen to feminists prattle about the evils of male violence while simultaneously butchering millions of iunborn babies to solve their own personal problems. In feminist logic: "It is bad to kill your fellow man but is good to kill your own child."
Representative Ron Paul, a died -in-the-wool libertarian if ever their were one, adamantly maintains that abortion is the murder of an unborn life. As a trained obstetrician, he may be presumed to know something on the subject. His position is that anti-abortion statutes are nothing more than the state preventing one group of human beings (women) from murdering another group of human beings. He is quite correct. The Nazis banned abortion for German women but graciously allowed it for Jewish babies. It might make sense, from the standpoint of racial preservation, to follow the same approach in the United States. "Our white babies shall live, your mudface babies shall die." That would take the debate out of the realm of abstraction and make it a matter of racial survival. No politician would dare suggest such a thing, anymore than taking out the Jews by the methods of the Soviet commissars.
Thanks for undermining your own credibility, Anon. People of your beliefs have absolutely no business speaking on this subject.
anonymous1 says:
What exactly is the point? Mr. Wilson does not attempt a rebuttal of a single argument. He simply says that I have no business speaking on the subject. Why? Is Samuel Wilson the only one entitled to opinions and, if so, why?
I am open to any reasoned counterargument on any subject. But to simply ignore every point made and then assert that I have undermined my credibility because of some unspecified reason is hardly convincing. If I am wrong, then kindly either: (1)prove it or (2)provide a reasonable explanation for an alternative point of view. I do not anticipate much of an answer but I can always hope.
Since you ask so nicely, Anon, my view is that a racist misogynist like you should not expect to be taken seriously when you attempt to make some sort of moral argument premised on a notion of human equality. Your commitment to equality is just as selective, if not more so, than that of anyone you denounce on this particular question.
Anonymous1 says:
The response is asinine in the extreme. Mr. Wilson is arguing that since I obviously do not believe in racial equality that therefore I am precluded from arguing in favor of the humanity of a fetus. A man who rejects the notion that all races are equal in ability does not argue that those of other races are not human; he merely argues that they are, on net balance, of lesser quality. Therefore, if the logic is that I argue that inferior races can be killed therefore inferior fetuses can be killed, then the equivalence is absurd because nowhere have I made any such argument. The suggestion about killing off non-white fetuses while preserving white ones was made merely to illustrate the demographic realities facing whites. The point remains a valid one.
It is obvious that Mr. Wilson does not like my views but rather than rebut them with arguments which make sense he resorts to absurd comparisons. I would not like to see more non-white babies be born into the United States for very obvious reasons. That, however, does not change my views on the humanity of a fetus. Would Mr. Wilson kindly try thinking straight?
I'm actually amenable to the question being settled by the will of the people, except that I'd like to see opponents of abortion live up to their sense of justice. When the topic of law comes up, they prefer to talk about punishing doctors, but rarely about punishing mothers. People like that ought to put up or shut up.
Personally I'd more readily acquiesce in an abortion ban if the state were to show equal concern for preserving life outside the womb. "Life is sacred" and "sink or swim," which is the typical conservative combination, doesn't seem consistent to me. While I acknowledge a father's stake in a fetus, under current circumstances I don't concede that the mother owes the baby to the state, much less to God, and much, much less to the "race." But let the people decide.
anonymous1 says:
For once, Mr. Wilson is making a little sense. If I understand the point, he is arguing that if the anti-abortion crowd want the baby to live, they should be willing to provide for it after it emerges into the world. There is someting to be said for that position. But there is nothing to be said for the proposition that one sex should be allowed to kill the baby before it is born while the other sex should be forced to support it after it is born. Some men's rights advocates espouse the "either-or" position. If abortion is legal, child support is illegal. In other words, if women get to kill off the ones they do not want, they do not get to collect for the ones they decided to keep. I think that alternative would present women with the kind of "choice" they would rather not make.
It is interesting how the law holds that lack of money is no excuse for failing to pay child support but that lack of money is an excuse for killing an unborn child. It would appear that one sex is allowed to avail itself of financial distress as an excuse but the other is not.
Finally, Mr. Wilson errs in considering the child as the interest of the mother. The child is the issue, not the wishes of the incubator. It is fascinating how, if it is baby versus daddy, the "welfare of the child" comes first, but if it is the baby versus mommy, then the "welfare of the child" comes last. The transparent double standard and its logical implications seems not to occur to Mr. Wilson.
Finally, as always, Mr. Wilson shows no concern for the realities of race. In his mind, all are individuals, common blood and common destiny are irrelevant. This viewpoint was unknown to those highly race conscious white males who wrote the very Constitution designed to protect the rights of whites, and only whites. I was watching "West Side Story" the other night. I was struck at how the entire magnificent production was nothing other than Zionist miscegenation propaganda dressed up as Romeo and Juliet. The play was written by Arthur Laurents, a homosexual Jewish communist. It was directed and choreographed by Jerome Robbins, another "former" Jewish communist. It sold in 1961 because Natalie Wood in light brown face was "saleable" as a Puerto Rican whereas a real Puerto Rican never would have been. White racial instincts were not totally etiolated in those times.
Getting back to abortion, I frankly acknowledge that it can be a real burden on both men and women to deal with an unwanted pregnancy. But to simply give women a lisence to fuck carelessly secure in the knowledge that they can simply kill off unwanted children if conception occurs seems to me very dubious policy. It is a ghastly murder of an unborn life and is hardly the solution to the problem of bringing children into the world. Any claim that laws prohibiting the murder of unborn children are a state violation of "individual liberty" is sophistry dressed up as intelectuality.
Finally, I note that Mr. Wilson still has not responded to the superabundant factual support for the proposition that abortion is a Jewish religious doctrine camoflauged as a secular legal concept. The silence on that point is deafening.
anonymous1 says:
It is interesting that the German Nazis did have social policies to deal with the pregnancies resulting from liasons with German soldiers and foreign civilians. It was called the "lebensborn" program-and it was specifically designed to provide homes for orphaned children whose fathers were killed in the war. The Germans were not so unrealistic as to think that German troops would not fornicate with the local women or that children would not be born after the troops had moved on. Hence, they planned ahead. The "lebensborn" program was not a kidnapping program as falsely represented but a rational response to a forseeable contingency.
Score one for German planning. Perhaps the same system could be set up for horny teenagers unable to provide for the consequences of their fucking. They could join the "Patrick Buchanan" Youth instead.
You're slipping, Anon: You forgot about Leonard Bernstein. Surely his participation in West Side Story makes it all the more a dire exercise in "homosexual Jewish Communist" propaganda, no?
Anonymous1 says:
Mr. Wilson's sarcasm aside, he obviously knows nothing about communism in the movies or how it works. The idea is not to post a Marxist orator on a soapbox spouting speeches; the idea rather is to insert "socially conscious" themes into the productions in order to break down racial homogeneity and the social structure. And, oh yes. I did not forget about Mr. Bernstein, Mr. Sondheim or all the other orchestrators of this virtually all-Jewish production.
Mr. Wilson, like so many others, would rather not know where so many "ideas" planted into his mind are really coming from. If he will actually take the trouble to read the Communist newspapers of the 1930's through 1950's, he will discover a vast Party literature devoted to promoting the ideas of racial equality and feminism. Hollywood, being a Jewish controlled industry, offers the ideal mechanism for translating communist ideas into theatrical terms. If Mr. Wilson does not know this, that speaks volumes for his ignorance. It says nothing about the provable facts.
Anonymous1 says:
Here is some education for Mr. Wilson.
"Marxist Movie Screen"
Communism, as an intellectual doctrine, is a very turgid thing. Very few people, if any, can comprehend the tortured dialectic, the nitpicking distinctions and the rabbinical sophistries of the Judaic minds which created it. To sell, communism must be reduced to simple terms. Ideas are sold to the masses through images and slogans. Communism has a vast theoretical superstructure but in practice its aims are relatively simple-to tear down the social structure and racial homogeneity of the society it targets. Those who oppose this process must be targeted as "bigots" and "haters". The purpose of the slogans is to implant the idea that there is no legitimate reason to oppose communist "progress". Thus, an Archie Bunker will be portrayed as a mindless jerk, resenting others simply because they are different. "Maria" in "West Side Story" will intone to the gang members "You all killed him. Not with guns and bullets but with 'hate'!" The technique is very simple and, repeated endlessly, it works every time.
German Nazis killed "six million" Jews, the Nazis were racists, therefore all racists are potential mass murderers of Jews and other approved minorities. Men who think that women should marry, bear children and raise families are "sexists" denying women their true calling of CEO. It is merely the proletariat versus the bourgeoise, dressed up as another "oppressed" group struggling for freedom. Communist theory is very effective camoflauge. It makes the average citizen look for the unicorn while ignoring the liar behind the Hollywood lens. Hollywood has done more to sell communism than all the pinko professors in all the universities in the land. The latter are easily identifiable and transparently obvious. But John Q. Simple Mind, sitting in the theatre munching his popcorn, has not the slightest conception of the true nature of the crud he is being fed.
"The Party Line On The West Side"
"West Side Story" is an almost perfect example of communist propaganda in action. There is not a word about Marxism in the entire movie-and yet it is pure communist propaganda from start to finish. The theme of "West Side Story" is racial equality and brotherhood. As anyone who has ever read the communist press knows, that has always been a principal theme of the Communist Party. Whites and Puerto Ricans "hate" each other, and must overcome this "hate" through the catharsis of tragedy and true love. Only when they realize that the dead white Romeo is the only possible result of their turf wars can true proletarian brotherhood and true racial equality be achieved.
It is a classic communist message, dazzlying displayed with frenetic dance sequences and inspired music. It is a Spartacus ballet to New York jazz. It is not surprising that "West Side Story" was lavishly praised by the Soviet press when it came out. The capitalist race mixing musical struck sympathetic chords in the land of "scientific socialism". The worst criticism was that "West Side Story" should not be condemned for the things which were not in it, but praised for the things which were. When Natalie Wood as Maria intones "Te adoro, Anton" over Richard Beymer's lifeless body at the end of the movie, she is actually proclaiming the end of the white race for anyone who buys the implicit message. That is true communism in the movies, stripped of the dialectical materialism no one can understand and stated as a drama which tugs at the heart while drugging the mind.
"The Music Bolsheviks"
In 1957 two smash musicals graced the American stage. One was "The Music Man" by Meredith Wilson, the other was "West Side Story" by Arthur Laurents, Stephen Sondheim and Leonard Benstein. Although the critics raved about "West Side Story", it was "The Music Man" which took the country by storm and swept the Tony awards. "West Side Story" remained confined to New York for four years until the famous movie appeared in 1961. "The Music Man" was genuine Americana, set in River City, Iowa. The people were white, middle class, somewhat gullible and naive but affable and good natured. Professor Harold Hill was not out to overthrow the social structure, he only turned the town inside out by wooing Madame librarian. "West Side Story" was about New York City and its turf wars. Its creators were most definitely not middle class American whites. Indeed, both the playwright and the choreographer/initial director had definite communist connections. "West Side Story" received rave reviews in the Soviet Union but not in Arab Palestine where certain parallels were too blindingly obvious. Marian and Professor Hill sang "Till There Was You" on the bridge. "West Side Story" would have added verismo had Leon Trotsky and Jacob Schiff sung "Right here, right here, it all began right here!" on the fire escape of the Forverts building. (Otherwise known as the bolshevik balcony scene.)
"The Music Man" is now little remembered. That is because the America it represented is rapidly passing. But "West Side Story" is rapidly gaining in popularity. The Sharks no longer reside solely in New York City, they have spread out all over the country. Pravda loved "West Side Story" for the same reason Adolf Hitler would have hated it. Bernstein, Sondheim and Laurents never would have made it in post-Weimar Berln. But their "Cabaret" of miscegenation created a new America in stereophonic mud face.
"West Side By Way Of The Lower East Side"
"West Side Story". It was the brain child of three Jews-Leonard Bernstein who wrote the music, Stephen Sondheim who wrote the lyrics and Arthur Laurents who wrote the play. Who was Arthur Laurents? He was a playwright whose first effort, "Home Of The Brave", was about the evils of anti-semitism in the Army. Laurents was an early promoter of feminist themes attacking the idea that a woman's place was in the home as a mother. Although Laurent's never formally joined the Party he was openly sympathetic to its ideals. (One of which has always been the lie of racial equality.) Many times he sponsored communist meetings and participated in them. When Elia Kazan "named names", Arthur Laurents was outraged at the exposure. This is the Arthur Laurents who wrote the Romeo and Juliet miscegenation masterpiece, "West Side Story".
It is instructive that when Laurents first started toying with his Romeo and Juliet theme the original idea was to have two lovers, one Catholic, one Jewish. That was considered a bit too brazen in the late 1940's; therefore the theme was altered to White and Puerto Rican. Laurents, now ninety years old, is planning a stage recreation of the play, with Spanish dialogue and a Spanish cast for the Sharks. He wishes to bring "West Side Story" up-to-date.
And so we see that the famous musical was never anything other than a calculated attack on the racial integrity of American whites, crafted in New York by a Jewish communist and self-admitted homosexual.
Now that Mr. Wilson has the hard facts on "West Side Story", he may ask: Why do I devote so much space to a movie of forty-seven years ago? The answers are:
(1) The movie was enormously influential in altering public attitudes on race and illustrates the power of the film mediun;
(2) The movie is a classic example of communist propaganda in a Jew controlled industry and serves as a virtual paradigm for many similar efforts, past and present;
(3) The communist background of the makers of the film was successfully covered up, then and now, which shows that most people, including Mr. Wilson, have absolutely no conception of where the ideas implanted into their minds are really coming from.
Anonymous1 says:
Silence from Mr. Wilson. Are the documented facts too much for him?
I'm sorry, Anon, but I find it hard to concentrate when I'm laughing so much. Your analysis of West Side Story puts the comedy back into musical comedy. I'm reminded of the screenwriter who was accused of Communist sympathies because he had a character in one of his films say, "Share and share alike -- that's the American way." You will perhaps have the reference at hand along with the proof of the writer's genuine Communist ties. If so, I await further amusement. And your point is what? That people put messages in movies? I'm shocked! Oughtn't they have taken the advice of Samuel Goldwyn (nee Goldfish), who once said, "If you want to send a message, use Western Union"?
Anonymous1 says:
It would appear that Mr. Wilson was born with his head up his ass. He cannot refute a single thing I have said; instead he quotes the well known example of the line "share-and share alike-it is the American way", as if to rebut my point. In truth, the line was pure communist propaganda, and was admitted to be such by the scriptwriter in his own memoirs.
Mr. Wilson imagines that he is being avant-garde by sneering at my documentation. In reality, he is only proving himself an uninformed fool. The truth is exactly as I lay it out. I will give some more examples of what the professional pontificator, Samuel Wilson, does not know. There was a TV show in the 1950's, "You Are There". It was scripted by three Jewish Communists and Party members, Abraham Polonsky, Walter Bernstein and Walter Manoff. The 60's film, "A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Forum", starred the Jewish Communist comic, Zero Mostel. The '80's TV series "Hart To Hart", starring Robert Wagner and Stefanie Powers, featured a lovable old butler, Lionel Stander, who was a Jewish Marxist from the 1930's and 1940's. Mr. Wison, pompous ignoramus, need not even delve into the research volumes to discover these facts. He can simply look them up on Wikipedia.
Presumably the not-so-erudite Mr. Wilson thinks that Senator Joseph McCarthy slandered innocent men. If so, then Mr. Wilson has not even caught up with Venona transcripts of the Army Signal Corps. Mr. Wilson is like so many people, who would like to impress with their opinions without knowing anything of the facts. Every word that I wrote about "West Side Story" is provably true. The motivations were exactly as I alleged, the communist connections of both Robbins and Laurents are verifiable.
Mr. Wilson has a very common problem. Like most people who have been duped, he refuses to face the facts. It would be too much of a blow to his inflated ego. Therefore, the easier course is to deny the provable facts and to laugh at those who know better. I could refer the omniscient ignoramus, Samuel Wilson, to half a dozen or nore reference works where the undisputed facts on communist propaganda in the movies may be found. But it would make no difference. Mr. Wilson does not wish to know the facts on communism in the movies, anymore than he wishes to know the facts regarding the real fate of Europe's Jews during WW2. Most people prefer perception to reality-and those who do, like Mr. Wilson, prefer perception to reality, may continue pontificating without having done their homework.
anonymous1 says:
The God fearing do not like it when it is pointed out to them that the "Holy Bible" is nothing but a collection of fairy tales borrowed from other religions. More secular idiots, like Samuel Wilson, experience the same reaction when told that the ideas which they take as self-evident truths are really communist in origin. Nor can they deal with the fact that communists in Hollywood have developed some very sophisticated techniques for putting over their ideas in images without ever using the word "Marxism" or making any overt reference to communist ideals.
Secular idiots and religious idiots are no different. Attack their cherished concepts-and they go berserk. Stupidity is an equal opportunity offender.
anonymous1 says:
Not merely is Mr. Wilson confused about communism and the movies, he is also extremely confused about such subjects as patriarchy. He refers, in another posting, to patriarchy as an oppressive system. In fact, it is feminism which is oppressive. First, let us clarify the nonsense called "sex discrimination". Visualize society organized on the following basis. Women work to support men who stay home and raise the childre. (A man's place is in the home, obviously.) Women give it all away in men take all divorce court. Women pay massive child suppport and alimony to automatic custody fathers. Women fight and die for their country in Korea and Vietnam, while men stay home and drink tea with the boys. Women go down with the Titanic, while men and children climb on the lifeboats. Women work themselves into heart attacks at work suppporting their husbands and families, so that men can outlive women by eight years and inherit 80% of the wealth of the nation. Men have it pretty easy, right?
Wrong. In 1963 a revolutionary book appears on the market, "The Male Mystique", by Betty Schmuckstein, a certified Jewish communist. Betty claims that the average male suburban househusband is living in a camoflauged Auschwitz concentration camp. Men should "liberate" themselves from this oppression and pursue careers, in addition to men and babies first.
Women, who have the brains which men (and Mr. Wilson, in particular, so obviously lack), can see that this is all nonsense. All the real discrimination is in favor of men. Men should hardly be given all the high paying jobs too because men have too much already. Women deserve to be paid more than men because:
(1)Women bear the responsibility of supporting the opposite sex;
(2)Women have to give it all away in men-take-all divorce court;
(3)Women must pay child support and alimony to automatic custody fathers.
Men get paid less because they have lesser operating expenses. Men obviously do not deserve the vote because men do not have to fight and die for their country like women do. (Where were men at Valley Forge and Yorktown, for example?) Male feminism is a crock of shit. Men have nothing to complain about and never did.
If men were given all the high paying jobs in addition to all the rest of their men and babies first priveleges and prerogatives, then women would be getting shafted on every level while men were posing as victims of "sex discrimination". And there we have the oppressive nature of "male feminism", illustrated for the benefit of male bimbo brains like Samuel Wilson.
Anonymous1 says:
No further responses from Mr. Wilson. It would appear that the one sided demolition is over.
Anonymous1 says:
Now let's talk about Sarah Palin's family. It turns out that Palin's ancestors were the Schweigam family from Vilnus, Lithuania. Palin is Jewish on both sides of her family. Now we know why she was picked out of nowhere by the very pro-Zionist John McCain. If McCain, who is 72, is elected president, McCain will never live through two terms. "Anna Pauker" Palin, Zionist-Bolshevik Jewess with a Soviet gulag lurking behind the Republican label, will become president of the United States.
This is why the Jew controlled media are jumping up and down with glee over Sarah Palin. They sense the coming Zionist dictatorship with "Anna Pauker" at the helm. Meanwhile, the erudite Mr. Wilson, with not a clue in his head to what is really going on, expounds on whether Palin's family is "fair game". Indeed it is, but not in the way Mr. Wilson thinks.
Post a Comment