Until quite recently, I never heard of this woman, an actress, Lena Dunham. Dunham came onto my radar after she began campaigning for Hillary Clinton.
However, using social justice warrior tactics, Dunham has been trying to make a name for herself to ever more Americans.
In her bid to gain greater notoriety, Dunham has come forth to say she doesn't use Twitter personally. Her anti-Twitter protest stems from her belief that every man and boy on Twitter engages in violent harassament of women.
Trying to elicit sympathy to her cause, Dunham has said, “Hey you may think that I have a fancy celebrity life where I’m hidden from this kind of thing but I to am experiencing violent bullying in the internet and it affects me also.”
Here is the reality. Lena Dunham is plain Jane in the looks department. She works in a highly-competitive business driven on looks. So to raise her profile and thus marketability to would-be movie producers, she needs to gather fandom.
Thus, Dunham has come forth with a get-involved-in-politics strategy to up her stock price.
Dunham can't change physical facts. She has a sack-of-potatoes style body that makes it much harder for movie producers to put movie goers into seats. And in her business, that is tough to overcome. Usually women with her physicality get relegated to playing the weird friend or homeless lady.
Otherwise, women like her might fetch roles in indy movies featuring lesbian stories that maybe draw 10 people to an art-house theater during a two-week run.
Today, Obama unleashed an attack on all Americans who rightly stand united against Obama's plan to import Syrian Muslims and their anti-American culture into the USA. This time, Obama has taken to Twitter, firing off a hashtag missile against the minds of the impressionable.
Obama is waging a war of psychology against Americans. When you think about it. That is the stuff of sicko dictators that you would find in movies like V for Vendetta.
Obama is using the latest tactic of cultural Marxists that relies upon deep-seated psychology whereby no one wants to known as a shameful person. Instead of slut-shaming, Obama is trying race-shame you.
Don't let the jerk-in-chief attack your mind with his hashtag missiles. No doubt, as an American, you have compassion. However, unlike Obama, you lack stupidity.
There are four types surrounding the question of importing Muslims into the USA. Three of them are against Age of Enlightenment Idealism:
Appeasers
Collaborators
Denialists
And then there is the fourth type:
Realists
Realists know the end game for Muslimry worldwide is political domination. With that comes imposition of Sharia Law. Sharia law means legalizing and institutionalizing a rape culture one which adjudicates for men against women.
Every realist knows this. Every realist knows that those who strive to live by Islamism do not want to live by the rule-of-law based on Age of Enlightenment ideals.
As I showed you in OBAMA. MR. SETBACK. THE GREAT APPEASER. OBAMA NEEDS TO WIN A NEW NOBEL PRIZE FOR APPEASEMENT, Obama began his presidency with a plan of appeasement to world Muslimry. Now it seems that Obama's appeasement was part of a larger plan of collaboration. Consider that Obama was raised by his Islamic step-dad, Lolo Sotero, it seems so unlikely that Barry Obama lacks any strong sympathetic allegiance to world Muslimry.
Obama entered the White House as an appeaser to worldwide Muslimry. He will leave the White House as a Muslimry collaborator.
Obama's support of terrorists in Syria against a UN-recognized sovereignty has let Obama put a toilet bowl stain on the reputation of Americans. In so doing, Obama has made Americans who pay taxes to Congress unwilling collaborators to terrorism.
All of the anti-Assad Syrians who Obama will import illegally into the USA — no law exists that authorizes Obama to pay to transport them — in effect are terrorists in violation of international law. It matters not if Assad is a bad guy as likely he is.
All Americans must ask themselves to what purpose does it serve to import millions of people who believe in a totalitarian doctrine to govern every moment of their lives, a doctrine — Islamism — that is little different than Mao Communism. Rather than relying on pseudo-science rhetoric though, it relies on pseudo-religious rhetoric, a rhetoric devised from corrupting extra Judaic texts and apocryphal, bogus writings about Jesus.
The next effect is the same. The bogus rhetoric justifies totalitarian political action ranging from stoning to death women who allegedly entice men to rape them to blowing up Westerners who attempt to live by Age of Enlightenment idealism.
Not only is Obama a bad president, perhaps one of the worst ever, but also Barack Obama simply is a horrible human being, a true lowlife. Obama is a horrible little man with deep character flaws, the product of his rather lame parents — a self-loathing mom and and an opportunist, immigration status-seeking dad as well as an opportunist, often-absent step-dad. Later historians will not be kind to him.
Everyday that passes, Obama goes further to reveal himself as a Islamic collaborator. Americans need to step up and demand Obama resign the presidency.
Actress Jennifer Lawrence tried to boost her image through a feminist pandering diatribe back on October 13, 2015, titled Why Do I Make Less Than My Male Co‑Stars? Suggesting herself as a naif, Lawrence wrote,
"When the Sony hack happened and I found out how much less I was being paid than the lucky people with dicks, I didn’t get mad at Sony. I got mad at myself. I failed as a negotiator because I gave up early."
Every movie print distributed is capital. When a movie print gets shown, a movie showing becomes wealth sold for the wealth in cash or other bank credit in such purchases and sales. Where there are more copies of the same movie distributed, there is more capital supporting more showings. Among the world of movie goers, consumer preferences expressed in sales of cash or other bank credit for movie showings reveal some kinds of movies sell better than others. Those movies have more prints distributed (capital) and to the contractors (actors) who produce the work of those movies get higher payouts. Jennifer Lawrence earns substantially more than Steve Buschemi or a James McAvoy precisely because distributors can make and sell more prints (capital) of the same Lawrence movie over a Buschemi or McAvoy movie. Yet, no one seems bothered by that reality. In addition to more prints, those movies that have the highest sales worldwide, typically take more capital (special effects, the work of technicians, specialized cameras) to produce. Hence earnings are higher across the board for contractors (actors) in those movies. Worldwide, owing to biologically-driven culture — codified laws, codes of conduct — the law of averages reveals that male and female movie goers prefer seeing men doing the action of movies. Subsequently, actors get more screen time and dialogue time than actresses. Thus, actors are producing more capital each movie relative to actresses. There is no conspiracy whatsoever why actors earn more than actresses on average. Why Jennifer Lawrence doesn't understand these matters likely is why she works an actress and not an investment banker. Between August 2014 and August 2015, Lawrence, the 25-year-old Hunger Games actress banked $52 million pre-tax over 12 months to be the best paid actress. Lawrence earned $16.5 million more than second-ranked Scarlett Johansson ($35.5 million) precisely because Lawrence's movies had wider distribution (more capital). Likely, Lawrence would never acknowledge she earns much more than most actresses and actors for that matter precisely because she is one of the lucky people with pretty faces and one of the lucky people with relatively fit bodies.
A week or so back, an unknown, Rob Bliss, uploaded to YouTube, a video of a woman prowling the streets of New York, claiming to be proof that women everywhere on earth cannot walk anywhere without a barrage of sexual harassment.
As any documentary maker will tell you, cleverly crafted moving images, edited in the right way can sucker almost everyone. The work above stands as proof to the power of moving images designed to trick.
The video itself is a thinly-veiled advertisement to raise funds by a group of social justice warriors. This video seems to be part of a trend to use YouTube and Vimeo by politically-motivated, fringe groups whose members desperately want to control the behaviors of others.
The execs behind for-profit T-shirt retailer FCKH8.com along with clearly ill-in-mind, complicit parents have created a videomercial exploiting their little girls. In the video (see below), the girls can be watched saying fuck enumerable times along with parroting many false beliefs about work and pay as well as rape.
In 2013, the Bureau of Justice Statistics reported that in 2010, about 2 females per 1,000, ages 12 and over, experienced rape — forced sexual intercourse —attempts at forced sexual intercourse and threats of forced sexual intercourse as well as sexual assault — grabbing and fondling. The 2010 figure of 2 in 1,000, represents a whopping 64% decline from 1995.
Two raped per 1,000 comes to two-tenths of one percent (0.2%) and not 20% or the one-in-five bogus figure reported by feminists everywhere including in the crazy videomercial, which you can watch below.
Of the 2 per 1,000, 35% reported their experiences to police. About 84% of alleged victims stated police came to them after having contacted them. Police investigated 86% of reported rapes and sexual assaults and from those investigated, made arrests in 31% of the cases.
Feminism, like Islamism and Communism, is a horrible political doctrine of totalitarianism, whose cult adherents are easily indoctrinated.
Julie Borowski has produced a series of YouTube videos whereby she reveals various indoctrinated, collectivist beliefs contrasted against individualism.
"It is not fair that a Palestinian child cannot grow up in a state of their own," he told hundreds of Israeli students in a speech. "Palestinians have a right to be free people in their own land." ~ President Obama
On March 21st of this year, the USA Today published the foregoing quote from Obama of something he said during his trip to Israel.
Their is an Old Norse word, þierra, which entered into English about the year 1200. It is the possessive (genitive) form of the third person pronoun they. Their replaced the word hiera.
Their is the THIRD PERSON possessive determining adjective. Most often, a speaker says the word right before saying a noun. So you might hear, their houses or their dogs.
The right use of the word their relies upon a preceding third person subject noun or third person subject pronoun. English speakers ought to recognize the former because of the letter 's', which signals to listeners such. Likewise, English speakers ought to recognize the third person subject pronoun every time they hear it. It's the word they.
Obama should have said: It is not fair that Palestinian children can not grow up in a state of their own. Obama could have said: It is not fair that a Palestinian child can not grow up in a state of his own.
When Obama said the phrase a Palestinian child, he spoke a singular noun of the subordinate clausethat Palestinian children can not grow up in a state of their own.
Various grammarians have different labels to name such clauses. Some name them as complements. Others say declarative content clauses.
However, the subject of what Obama said is the singular pronoun it. The main, independent clause Obama spoke is It is not fair.
For years, feminists have attacked English, wishing to rid it of good, useful words. They hate the word woman because they hear the word man. Yet, man is the English word for person. It does not mean male.
English speakers once had a word for male men. That word was wer. You recognize the word wer in the word werewolf.
What feminists fail to see is that with English, it is males who get shorted. English speakers have reverence for females. That is why they get their own pronouns — she, her, hers. English speakers care little to differentiate between males and sex-irrelevant things.
Obama, feminists and the great swath of middling intellect Americans reveal likely how languages change. Because such suffer from the equivalent of functional illiteracy in speech, they drive out good speech with their popular, bad forms.
You can think of it as Johnson's Grammar Law — bad language use drives out good, much like Gresham's Law — bad money drives out good — as coined by perhaps the greatest economist of all-time, Henry Dunning MacLeod.
Interestingly, Obama gets it right when he says "their own land", tying that to Palestinians as shown in the second sentence of the quote. That Obama can get it wrong in one sentence and then get it right in a sentence right after reveals profound disorder in his mind and reveals the war that goes on in the minds of many during major upheavals in languages. You are witnessing the change of English in action.
On a side note, oddly, Obama seems to be hung up on trying to define fairness everywhere he goes, from taxes in America to territorial borders of Middle Eastern people.
Seriously, why does it take more than eight weeks to decide to murder one's alive, growing baby? Who needs even nine weeks, or 10, or 13, or 15, or 18, or even 19? Who needs more than 20 weeks to getting around to committing murder? Twenty weeks is almost five months! That is almost 40% of a whole year! Have women become so lazy that not only they can't be bothered with pregnancy control like the pill, an IUD, a diaphragm, a ring, a patch, a cervical cap, but also they can't be bothered with birth control like murder as abortion until late-stage pregnancy really becomes a burden, a hassle, keeping them from hooking up? American car buyers spend an average of 18-19 hours online while shopping for a car. American house buyers take about 12 weeks to buy their first house and only ten weeks buying again. The average car price is $30,000. The average house price is $245,100. Women don't need 20 weeks to decide to abort. They shouldn't even get 10. A ten-week baby is a growing human. And then they need more than eight weeks to figure out what is up and what they should do? Who is kidding whom here?
6.7 million pregnancies in the United States each year
3.2 million are unintended (49%).
The proportion of unintended pregnancies remained stable between 2001 (48%) and 2006 (49%).
43% of all unintended pregnancies women happen to women who use contraception inconsistently or incorrectly
52% of all unintended pregnancies happen to women who do not practice contraception at all
43% of unintended pregnancies end in government-sanctioned murder (abortion) (2006)
Here is the bottom line. When females copulate, they run the risk of getting pregnant.
Everyone who has copulated knows how great copulation feels. It is much like any conscious altering drug. That is why people are obsessed with copulating. They're addicted to it. They will do most anything to do it.
In many ways, all of the artificial structures erected by mankind exist to divvy up who gets to copulate with whom and who doesn't have to trade away anything for that copulation.
Yet, in the end, females living within a bounded region, seeking protection by the efforts of males who protect them, mostly, demand to copulate wildly without experiencing any of the consequences of their copulation.
So, they seek permission to murder others, their unborn babies, the most defenseless of all humans, and they elicit all kinds of rhetorical henchmen to justify why they should be allowed to have someone else murder on their behalfs, the most vulnerable among us, unborn babies.
The problem hinges up this: almost all have pathetically weak intellects, which inhibits them from logical consistency in thought and seeing reality at all, much less seeing greater depth of reality.
Thus, most are prone highly to wily ones talented in persuasion. They get swayed easily with lies like "reproductive health" or privileges masquerading as "rights". They get trained by their handlers, the ones with power to parrot sayings like "you are judging me" and "don't judge me."
While using G+, someone shared into my stream, a feminist blog share titled Love is Free (but the sex will cost you). Reading that blog share, I clicked through a link to read Charlie Glickman's pro-feminist article. Like most, Charlie doesn't get what due diligence means. He conflates the word due, an adjective meaning what is owed with the word do, a verb meaning to carry forth, to perform action. Due diligence is what a firm owes potential investors. It's a legal concept in which a firm seeking investors owes potential investors full description of the financial state and business state of the firm without hiding anything from those potential investors according to law. No one does diligence. It's not do diligence. If anyone wants to capture the meaning of due diligence in sexual context, then it is opposite of what those like Charlie think it means. Someone who is going to give sex to another owes that other a case history of sexual activity and to the best of that one's ability, to attest being free of genital herpes, AIDS, hepatitis-C, syphilis, gonorrhea, genital warts, chlamydia. As most don't get English, legal concepts and business, most don't get human nature. The ideas of consent and enthusiastic consent are laughable. Those who posit such silliness must not have had much sex, if any at all.
Action speaks louder than words. You can be sure when two want to get busy when they suck face and grope each other's genitals, both want sex. When their postures move from vertical to horizontal, clearly, its game on. Both want it. As long as feminists continue to see themselves as the keepers of goodies, that sex is something they render in exchange to get something else, they shall suffer from their false beliefs. For a prime example of a feminist thinking, check out the link below. Those not suffering from mind disorder experience living in a natural way. Natural sex arises out of mutual desire to pleasure the other and to be pleasured by the other. It should be clear to any right-minded one, that feminists think of sex the way prostitutes do — a quid pro quo exchange contract, negotiated before goods get delivered, with payment made first. Feminism is a disease of the mind owing to the acceptance of false beliefs likely spurred on by a phobia of opposite sex, sexual interaction. Like most doctrines, it is a doctrine propagated by some seeking to hold sway over many. As it involves establishing a kind of power relationship, those conniving others into feminism engage in metaphorical rape.
Touting her Ph.d in globalization and media as if such is a grand achievement or authorizes her to think, Texan Vivian Norris has urged the women of Texas not to"give in [sex] if your man, boyfriend, husband, toyboy is not voting for your best interests, your reproductive health -- do not sleep with that man!" Norris must not understand human nature nor demographic forces. It makes one wonder how Norris could have earned a Ph.d in globalization and yet be so clueless about demographics. A look at the sex gap between women and men of Texas reveals much. As long as there are more females competing against each other to land a man than there are men to land, always there is incentive for women to defect from any solidarity with women and get involved with a man already who has a wife or girlfriend, whether or not the wifey or girlfriend withholds sex. Where women outstrip men, gladly, on-the-prowl women get involved with married philanderers. These women hope the oh-so easy-to-get sex they pony up is so hot, that such wild sex puts to shame what is on offer from the wives and girlfriends of these philanderers. Further, these women have incentive to let men go bare as they say these days in hopes that such men have gushers while drilling for oil, gushers leading to man-trapping pregnancy. Norris reveals herself to be a naif about men and women, human interaction and all things sex. However, you can enjoy her rambling sexual fantasy by clicking the link below.
Check out the Sex Gap stats for women of Texas ( 25-64, single, widowed, and divorced)
Note: The number on the left is the national rank of the city within its respective category.
Big Cities
1 McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, TX 28.5% more women 2 El Paso, TX 27.3% more women 15 San Antonio, TX 13.7% more women 74 Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, TX 4.9% more women 77 Dallas-Plano-Irving, TX 4.2% more women 92 Fort Worth-Arlington, TX 2.5% more women
Mid-sized Cities
1 Laredo, TX 34.4% more women 2 Brownsville-Harlingen, TX 29.2% more women 6 Tyler, TX 20.5% more women 23 Waco, TX 12.7% more women 26 Amarillo, TX 12.4% more women 31 Longview, TX 11.9% more women 50 Lubbock, TX 9.9% more women 65 College Station-Bryan, TX 7.5% more women 82 Beaumont-Port Arthur, TX 5.4% more women 88 Corpus Christi, TX 4.7% more women
Small Cities 11 Midland, TX 20.2% more women 15 Odessa, TX 17.6% more women 32 San Angelo, TX 13.8% more women 73 Wichita Falls, TX 6.6% more women 104 Sherman-Denison, TX 3.7% more women For more silliness from Viv, read her Huffpo piece.
