Kiva Bay’s Feminist Deck

Very quick one.

Anyone remember the Feminist Deck/ It was a Kickstarter by a self-promoting talent-poor artist called Kiva Bay, who wanted to pander to SJWs for money to draw some playing cards of her favourite Feminists?

I do. She was approaching the stage where she was going to reach her target. I saw all the usual candidates fawning all over her. It was pretty distasteful. I decided to give them a little poke in the eye.

She at that stage was promoting that she was going to give $150 payment to the people she was drawing pictures of on her cards and most of them were refusing, to which she replied that she would give the money to charity.

I happened to notice the rules on it said:

“Projects can’t fundraise for charity, offer financial incentives, or involve prohibited items.

We’re all in favor of charity and investment, but they’re not permitted on Kickstarter. Projects can’t promise to donate funds raised to a charity or cause, and they can’t offer financial incentives like equity or repayment. We also can’t allow any of these prohibited things.”

Funny stuff so I wrote about it and reported it to Kickstarter. She freaked out. She removed that stipulation.

For me it was no biggie. If NOTHING happened it would have been worth it to try for a reaction. If her Kickstarter Project was removed, that would have been hilarious BUT the next best thing was her being forced to kowtow and go back on her own conditions to do what she was getting paid for. Which is what happened.

Then to spite me, idiot SJWs started giving her more and more money to show me up and that “my plan did not work”. I loved it. She was forced to change things as to my demands and then more people I loathe were wasting their money and throwing money at a stupid project, because of me.

I laughed my arse off.

That was a year ago.

I just found out that she scammed them all. $30 000 GONE!!!

She is naturally like all victim peddlers claiming sickness, harassment, mental illness and whatever she can.

Her supporters? Rather than cave to the rather logical but humiliating conclusion that they were scammed again, are all wishing her well and the brave girl can keep the money .

I am a very happy man. I so hope the SJWs keep throwing good money after bad into unconstructive projects that go nowhere and scam them. I want them to lose all their money at a bare minimum. What do they say about fools and money?





This is why Trump keeps on winning

I am being won over by Trump for a number of reasons.

It has been a reluctant conversion. Mainly because I think he is a bit of a blowhard and promises too much, that I honestly do not think he has a hope of delivering on.

What got me on side was two things his style of trolling crap out of people that try to subdue him and making them freak out, and secondly, his ability to upset the kinds of people I do not like. The perpetually outraged, politically-correct, virtue signalling moral arbiters and social justice warriors. The media was against him and I liked seeing him owning them.

I found myself sticking up for him when people were misrepresenting him. I watched each poll and cheered when he won and sighed when he lost.

But he still had not won me over.

Another thing in his favour is how much better he was to his opposition. It was easier barracking for him without him being the best pick of the three candidates. Him, Hillary or Bernie. A criminal and a social vs a businessman.

But going from best of a bad lot to more of a fan required something a bit more.

In challenging the social justice warriors and media narratives of him (normally edited and misrepresented) I found myself thinking about his policies so much more.

Is there a problem with Mexican illegal immigration in America (and no I am not going to entertain the fact that he either said or meant that all Mexicans – illegal or legal – because it is a dishonest narrative)? Yes. Will build a wall prevent the majority of illegal immigrants? Yes. Will the follow on effects be better for America? Probably. Its certainly a rational and logical conclusion.

Is there some really big problems with open border policies in Europe? Is a lot of the recent issues in Cologne, in Paris, in Brussels as a result of radicalised Muslims and has this been caused through mass and poorly vetted immigration from Muslim dominated countries? I know that feelings can get in the way of logic and reason here but it must be. Was that same ideology behind the San Bernardino attacks or the Orlando attacks? Will Hillary/Obama’s plans to increase Muslim immigration by 500% be better than Donald trump’s plan of stopping Muslim immigration?

Is tough trade deals a good or a bad thing? Are other countries taking advantage of America? I have no idea. IF it is true then Trump is probably making sense again.

None of these things are homophobic, xenophobic, sexist, racist or any of the other bigotries the leftist monkey organ likes to spew.

Now we could rightfully ask the question, does Donald trump have a decent chance to do the things he is wanting to do? Even with the power of the Presidency will he have the ability to make such broad sweeping changes and will it have the impact he is after if he does make them? I honestly do not know but I believe the sincerity of everything he says. He says he is “Gonna build a wall and have Mexico pay for it”. I don’t care if he can or not. I think he believes it and I believe he will do all he can to make it happen. It becomes easy to compare even these things. Would you prefer someone who is trying to pull out stops to reduce the volume of non-citizens illegally entering the country and the various problems associated with this? Or do you want someone who refuses to address it in any way.

Furthermore, I think of the fact that the massacre at Pulse nightclub was on Latin night. I am wondering whether the gay community and the Hispanic gay community and all Americans with gay and Hispanic friends and family could take seriously Hillary Clinton who tries to make this another “gun issue” and has to be pushed into even acknowledging the obvious radical Islamic connection. In some radicalised Islamic countries gays are thrown from rooftops by radical Muslims and so why would a radical Muslim not hold the gay community in such low disregard. She KNOWS what is happening with these radical Islamic immigrant elements in Europe and she is happy to treat the issue as a gun problem (other feminists are trying the “toxic masculinity” trope) and is happy to quintuple the Muslim immigration rates. Only Donald Trump, the man pilloried by the Hispanics and gays alike for being so divisive and sexist and racist and homophobic, is prepared to say “This is bad and its dangerous and we do not want the problems of Europe here in America. We do not want to increase risk by not properly controlling immigration and allowing people like the San Bernardino and Orlando zealots to slip through the cracks”. Reducing Muslim immigration would help in this regard. Placing a freeze on it would be better. increasing Muslim immigration by 500% is not going to do this.

Again it is not racist. Protecting American citizens from future attacks is not a bad thing. “What about the Muslims that are already in America?”. What about them? Him making a decision does not retroactively change the past. It no more changes the status of a Muslim immigrant settled in America than changes the events of these horrible tragedies.

The Judge Curiel case he has got ground to suspect that the Judge MAY (operative word) a little impartial and bias. Unfortunately Trump has done another Trump kind of thing and done himself no favours. The Judge HAS made some terrible decisions. The Judge DID have some questionable associations if one is looking at whether he could possibly be at all biased. Does that mean he IS biased? No. Does that mean IF he WAS biased it was BECAUSE of his ethnicity? Short answer is “Yes”. But it is a bit more involved. I had about half the story from my own looking into it and it certainly seemed reasonable to asked the question on all I could see. Donald Trump knew a lot more than me about it. Did he share it all? Nope. He talks in a collection of soundbytes and doesn’t give the full story or big picture. He mentioned the judge made some “bad decisions”. That means nothing to anyone. (I looked into some of the decision and , DAMN!) He said the Judge could be biased because “he was Mexican”. I mean this is red rag to a bull kind of stuff. He also mentioned the judge had some associations but again did not expand on this and it was after the Mexican statement. Of course it was conveniently dropped and everyone rounded on him for being racist.

Whilst I really could expand on why this there is grounds on the Judge recusing himself, this guy does a better job than I could ever do. What trump said again was completely reasonable.

It is again, a constant theme. He is allowed to be attacked. That is perfectly fine BUT should he fight back he is a bigot. If Rosie O’Donnell or Megan Kelly want to attack him then he can’t fight back because he is sexist if he does.

If he is being hard done by the Judge Curiel then him bringing attention to this is because he is racist.

If he fights hard against his other Republican contenders in the primary race he is a bully.

No. Enough of all of this. His policies are good and his want to fight back is fine. I say he should do more of it. In the press. Against the Liberal and Conservative haters. No matter what they identify with. He should try to implement these policies of his and should push his message of border and economic security for America.

I can put up with his foot in mouth moments because he has more substance than Hillary. Hillary has nothing to offer and will only hurt America. People are waking up. He keeps winning. He will keep winning.


The Ideologically driven social parasites called “The Progressive Left”.

I talked at length about Feminists there I touched on these Social Progressives and mentioned that the line between the two is pretty thin.They are both pretty terrible.

But there is a few things I want to mention about the Progressive Left (“Regressive Left”). I will set the stage to exactly how to look behind the curtain at these ideologically driven social parasites.

You see a black person in the street, you meet a gay person at a party, you work with a female colleague, or you sit next to a Muslim on the bus, what do you know about: them, their hopes, dreams, upbringing, ideologies, taste in music, favourite sports teams, prejudices, fears or…..anything? If you say “Nothing”, congratulations, you have proved you are the majority of us. If you say that race, gender, sexual preference or the like have very little unto themselves to inform us about who someone is or is not, then personally, I believe you do not met the definition of a bigot. So if a person is a person and a blank slate for you until you form some kind of knowledge of them as individuals, then great.

This is NOT the default position of the Regressive Left. To these people everything is sexist and homophobic and everyone is stack on a rigid Progressive Stack. Can anyone see how insidious this mindset is? You see a black person, you are not seeing a person but a black person and as such a category of person with specific designated social baggage that they MUST own, inform their being and identity and NEED you to defend IF you are to considered a decent person. Same goes with a gay person, a Muslim person, transgendered person and so on. IF you are deemed higher on the Progressive Stack, you damn well better be willing to supplicate yourself and not risk upsetting or offending this person.

THIS IS BIGOTRY. Before you blow this off as anything less than bigotry, remember we have all agreed that we know NOTHING about the person. The only thing we have is this one detail. We still don’t know if they are nice or nasty or whether their opinions are good, bad or indifferent, or even whether they share any opinions or experiences with us or not. So in fact at this stage our liking or disliking of this person is going to be based on what our impression is from here. IF you find they are an asshat then why not dislike them and how does that make you a horrible person or a bigot? IF you like them an have a connection with them then that does not make you a moral person, that is simply two people connecting.

So why the confusion? Why do these social parasites called the Progressive Left, think that you must pander and supplicate to all people deemed as less privileged (or is it more oppressed? I have trouble following this ideology)? Are people all equal and all people and can you respect them in people to treat them the same irrespective of things such as their genitals, who they are attracted to, or colour of their skin? IF so, you are NOT a Progressive Leftist (Social Justice Warrior) and not a bigot. If you feel you must, then you are bigoted. Hate someone for their personality or their actions but not their skin colour, religion, age, sexual preference or gender or whatever else.

The Regressives can’t have that. You must be willing to treat all people in a particular way but not only that (and here is the kicker) all positions emulating from this ideological position of social pandering and social activism to cater to their imaginary Progressive Stack, MUST be completely uniform. All people in these categories are to be viewed in the same way and all positions in respect to these people MUST be the same. Conformity and uniformity are the requirements and any deviation will be suppressed.

It is all moral virtue signalling. “I am so moral and intellectual that I know the Progressive Stack and where different people exist on my abstract concept of Oppressive Hierarchy and who has what Privilege and treat people accordingly”

It is neither moral nor intellectual. It also shuts down any sense of examination of issues, if you feel morally obligated to never consider any other facts than what your rigid ideology has prescribed. For example, gay marriage, is a topic that can be more complicated than first impressions. It is not so simple as a moral or intellectual gay people should have the same rights and if non-gay people have the right to marry then so must gay people. That was always my default position. Who gives a damn if gay people get married, how would it affect me one way or another? But I am open to other opinions and I WANT to hear them. I have heard three alternative positions on gay marriage which would be against gay marriage and none of them are homophobic (which is the default position of the Regressive Left “You MUST agree 100% without deviation to the ideological narrative…..or you are a bigot AND therefore I am morally superior and your intellectual better”).

The first position I heard that was anti-gay marriage was “Marriage is a religious ceremony. Religion has been instrumental at condemning gay people. Why seek a religious ceremony as a gay person?”

The second position I heard was “Marriage is a crap institution and no one should get married”.

The third was from Milo “Marriage is the dull, domesticated conformity that is expected of heterosexuals and that being gay allows a present a licence to be non-conformist that heterosexual people do not have. Marriage for gay people would make gay people conform to social mores they do not have at the moment.”

I do not believe ANY of these positions are bigoted nor hateful. I just do not agree with them. That is okay. I want these things to be discussed. I do not care for exclusionary, close-minded totalitarian approach the Regressive Left has in social critique.

Transgenderism I have already discussed here and again it is not so simple.

It is the irony with these Social Activists and “Progressive” people is that they are not intellectual and have not the intellectual rigour to examine alternative positions and see anything more than black or white on issues. Complexities are lost on them.

For all their moral signalling, they lose the high ground here because of their willingness to identify people and treat them according to their race, sex, sexual preference or whatever, rather than treating each person as a human. (Of course to pile hypocrisy on top of hypocrisy, IF you are one of these people on the Progressive Stack that allows you a “greater voice” due to your deemed oppressive non-privileged status, and you choose to actively denounce their positions, you are treated as an apostate.

These people are neither morally nor intellectually superior and I would say that to a person they are the exact opposite. In fact I will go further, scratch below the surface on each of these people (and the louder and more prominent the more likely you will find this) and you will find broken and morally bankrupt people. Alison Rapp? Sarah Nyberg? Hannibal The Victor? Varis77? Nafedude? Hey the truth is out there on each of these people and I do not need to spin anything or make anything up. I could keep going too. But shake the closet and skeletons will tumble. I honestly believe that MOST of them are either psychologically compromised or they are simply bad people looking for atonement of sorts and acceptance as “good people” because they know that they are not.





Some legend posted some GREAT anti-feminist Tidbits

Women are so oppressed…

Unsheltered Homeless (2009)

Women – 12,000 – 4% Men – 240,000 – 96%

Life Expectancy (2006)

Women – 80.8 Years Men – 75.7 Years

Suicides (2008)

Women – 7,585 – 19% Men – 28,450 – 81%

Deaths by Homicide (2004)

Women – 3,856 – 20% Men – 14,717 – 80%

Deaths from Cancer (2004)

Women – 269,819 Men – 290,069

Deaths from HIV/AIDS (2004)

Women – 3,357 Men – 8,756

Federal Funds for Sex Specific Cancer Research Women

Breast Cancer – $631,000,000 – 40,000 Deaths Men – Prostate Cancer – $300,000,000 – 33,000

Deaths Deaths on the Job (2010)

Women – 355 – 7% Men – 4,192 – 93%

Injuries on the Job (2007)

Women – 36% Men – 64%

College Enrollment (2009)

Women – 58% – 11,658,000 Men – 42% – 8,770,000

Affirmative Action Education Programs (Gender Specific)

Women – Yes Men – No

Unemployment Rates (2010)

Women – 8.6% – 6,199,000 Men – 10.5% – 8,626,000

Average Hours Worked Per Week (2010)

Women – 36.1 Men – 40.2

High School Graduation Rates (2005)

Women – 72% Men – 65%

Incarceration Rates (2009)

Women – 114,979 – 7% Men – 1,502,490 – 93%

Child Custody Rates Women

11,268,000 custodial mothers Men – 2,907,000 custodial fathers

US Military Deaths From 1950 – 2010

Women – 139 – 0.001% Men – 100,063 – 99.99%

Federally Funded Battered Shelters Women

2,000+ $300,000,000 per year Men – None – $0

Federally Funded Health Offices and Research 1970 – Present (not including cancer research) Women Only – Office, Projects and Programs 70+ – Funds – $100,000,000,000 Men Only – None – $0

Forced Selective Service Women

No Men – Yes

Drug and Alcohol Addiction and Abuse Rates (2010)

Women – 5.8% Men – 12.2%

Divorce filings

Women – 85% Men – 15%

Doctor Degrees(2010)

Women – 51.6% Men – 48.4%

Master’s Degrees(2010)

Women – 60.3% Men – 39.7%

Receive Alimony

Women:97% Men: 3% (if you’re a male, it’s temporary. Women have it permanently)

Women can sleep with their bosses to go further up the ladder Men cannot (unless they want a harassment charge)

Women serve less prison time

More men than women, meaning more competition for us to find someone.

Murder cases, More men get death sentences than women.

Police protect women more than men.

Men give gifts to Women on Valentines day > A must! To men? > Optional

Women hit men > OK. Men hit Women > Evil

Women looks at men’s crotch > Compliment. Man looks at womens Breast > Pervert

Women doing heavy lifting > Unacceptable. Men doing Heavy lifting > Acceptable

Girl says ”Lets split the Bill” > Independent. Guy says ”lets split the Bill” > He is Cheap.

Marriage in decline > Man’s fault

More single Women nowadays? Is it the Fault of the individual? NOPE > MAN’S FAULT

Woman rejects man’s marriage proposal > That’s okay ”SISTERHOOD!”. Man rejects Woman’s marriage proposal > ”Fucking Asshole”

Women have more opportunities/pay in modelling than men.

Women can use sex to get what they want, Men cannot.

Man rapes woman > Monster! He deserves to be in Hell!! Woman rapes man > Oh dear >_>

Woman cries rape > Police take Man to prison. Man cries rape > Police: LOL

Woman gets rejected at a bar > ”You inconsiderate bastard!!!” Man gets rejected at a bar > shrug Deal with it

Gamergate has survived to the New Year

So what does that mean in real terms?

Well, the hashtag is still being used and there is still a core of people identifying with gamergate.

So as to identify, where we are, it has to be in context of both where we have come from and what we faced.

How long have “Progressives” (Hereon named Social Justice Warrior) been in the Gaming industry? That is a bit of a “How long is a piece of string?” type question. No, idea. Nor could I hope to know. What I can say is that from within the communities around gaming, it became increasingly clear that many people were Social Justice Warriors OR supportive of such people. A few in the gaming press were happy to write a few articles to shore up ideological positions and signal to the SJW populace, then the ideological push was ripe to begin.

It was ready and ripe to push aggressively into the gaming community. A nice little test run was Atheism community. No real cash benefit but a great test run before the push into the multi-billion dollar industry. There are such similarities that are so very blatantly obvious between the gaming and the Atheism push from SJWs. The modus operandi is close enough to identical. (No seriously, the “don’t mind us, we are just here and think that your space should also be about Feminism and feminist and Social Justice Warrior sensibilities. No? Well actually, we now INSIST on you being predominately driven by our ideology and if you do not hold our precise views, you are misogynistic, sexist, racist, homophobes and we will bring in media and look to take whatever means to censor, ban, expose, shame, humiliate and co-opt your space. I think you better join us”. Elevatorgate/Quinnspiracy, PZMeyers/Anita, Rebecca Watson/Zoe Quinn)

Hey they were well prepared an had media megaphones at the ready and with Quinnspiracy went Hell for leather. This was their push and they went hard. They wanted to take a 70 Billion dollar industry for what they could. They wanted to sink the claws in as deep as they could. Then they ran into a brick wall called gamergate.

But the stage was set. One one side was a Social Justice Warrior contingent. A large swathe of Social Justice Warrior gaming outlets (backed by the cousins in mainstream media), The IDGA and various large boards and think tanks and public relation companies and conventions and Indie funding corporations and developers….and on the other a small handful of mainly independent developers and a couple of youtubers and a stack of gamers.

They should have rolled us. They poisoned the well rather well. We were literally overnight all a bunch of misogynist, sexist, homophobic basement dwelling neckbearded cisgendered white males. They in one day had 30+ articles telling us so and in came the Social Justice Warriors to “finish us off”.

But we held them. Gamergate did not move nor buckle. We countered their assault and gave away little. They had only lies and inference and we hit them with gotcha moment after gotcha moment. Not that gotcha moments are necessarily going to sink your opponent. Exposing lies to their side that does not care, and your side that was aligned to you in the first place, does not strengthen your cause BUT it takes away THEIR ability to smear without being checked with the truth.

Throughout this drama the Blockbot queen (Randi), The I hate video games but I’ve been a lifelong fan (Anita), Zoe “Its all about me and always will be about me. Please keep talking about me”Quinn and Brianna “I abuse myself on my steam account and make and screen capture a 1 sec old tweet of a sockpuppet account of my dying dog because…reasons” Wu, have attached themselves like flies on shit to Gamergate. Why? Because by doing so they monetise their oppression. They need only to fall onto their virtual fainting couches and say “I got so much hate tweet and it absolutely came from Gamergate and it is actual violence like a physical assault and therefore I need money. Money they got. Sympathetic Feminist Women trying to bolster these brave women who seemed to poke the bear they supposedly feared whenever attention on them dwindled. In fact for some of them receiving $3000-4000+ per month AND convention circuit fees, this was an actual livelihood. The empowerment of being a victim.

But the push started becoming a little more desperate. The allusions to Social Justice Warrior game success and marketplace acceptance could only be falsified for a short time. The “Social Justice Warrior Indie Cabal”, in the same way they could give a non-gamer and non-industry figure Anita, an Ambassador award, they COULD give awards and great reviews for really bad Indie games. IF the gaming industry could just be tricked into thinking these games had worth and that the  awards meant anything, the gaming public might be tricked into accepting sub-par indie games.

Unfortunately, the Social Justice Warrior games marketplace did not back the allusion. Things started going wrong. Gamergate was pushing back hard enough that by petitioning against the Social Justice Warrior media, they started costing millions of dollars. Worst still, they were able to counter many of the Social Justice Warrior thrusts (such  as the attempt to petition to ban Adam Baldwin from Supernova). Some independents crossed the floor to gamergate. Gamergate meetings being evacuated due to bomb threats did not look good for the narrative. Sunset (an independent Social Justice Warrior game) going bankrupt was an eye-opener as to the lack of marketplace. (In fact many Social Justice Warriors started dropping the pretense that THEY could make Social Justice Warrior commercially successful games and DEMANDED that successful developers make the Social Justice Warrior games for them – at THEIR risk and expense and without any support from the demander).

A year down the track and many battles later, the anti-Gamergate league tried a desperate push. But at this stage they were out of gas. Their force and credibility was restricted, their  nails clipped and the headlines that were so cutting edge a year ago were not newsworthy now. Besides now they had the FTC on their backs in respect to their inability to be ethical. They had poisoned the wells well, but they were unable to sink their claws in and no ability to sustain their push forward.

Gamergate too suffered. There were people bailing quicker than we could replace. Crappy moderate Gamergate allies took great effort to tone police, nanny and PC police their allies whilst looking for compromises and defence of the other side. Some too went very extreme on conspiratorial on anyone in their midst being too SJW for them. More became split between ethics only or SJW invasion only OR Left vs Right. Ally vs Ally.

So where they started is where they are now. So if both sides are, after all of this, stalemate to where they are a year ago, who is the winner in this situation? For all the efforts of thousands on both sides, if neither side made any real ground, who won?

Gamergate did (has). That is right. Gamergate was there to resist the push into their space and they did. Sure they were branded unfairly as misogynists but no biggie, they have been branded before. The co-opting of this juicy, resource rich space, was nullified. The incursions and the industry’s adoption of Social Justice Warrior values and Social Justice Warrior gameplay did not eventuate.

So what of the big names on the other side that I mentioned? Anita has lost stacks of followers and whilst Feminist Frequency earns  good deal of cash, her star is falling and she seems to be re-branding. Zoe is perhaps the big winner. She monopolised her victimisation into a memoir and a possible screenplay (possible in the “unlikely to ever happen” due to the likelihood of being sued), Randi at her peak – two months ago, reach $5200.month on Patreon and has since dropped to $4500/month. Brianna Wu cannot help but shoot herself in the foot to the point of toelessness.

Gamergate itself? I think the days of mass action and mass campaign and cohesiveness are behind us. We are going to be a somewhat activist/watchdog/provocateur mob keeping the other side honest.  We did enough though and we kept them at bay. Their effort after the success at Atheist spaces, proved to be a failure.

This year we can be very proud of what we did and where we came from and why. Long live Gamergate


Turn that mirror

Isn’t it funny when something you know generally to be wrong is so articulated so simply and beautifully? I am no fan of Dinesh D’Souza. But …..damn! He does such a beautiful job here.

The setting is a talk at a university. The antagonists are upper middle class, Progressive, young adults, that are attending a prestigious college. Entitled brats who believe in the superiority of their intellect and morality….as if the Progressives (aka social justice warriors) come any other way.

Their spokesperson, Tommy, is as articulate as he is ideologically driven, and as weaselly as he is hypocritical. All done in the least offensive way as can condescendingly be achieved (and why not, he is morally and intellectually superior and smugly so).

It was beautiful. What was even better is that he saw Dinesh coming and Dinesh did not alter course or disguise his approach. He boxed him in and ran straight over the top of Tommy.

Dinesh’s premise on a superficial level is kind of awesome. IF you advocate against various supposed inequities and that people of a certain class, gender, race, sexual preference or what have you, possess AND YOU possess that, you must be prepared to sacrifice the benefits you gain from such privilege. Otherwise you are a hypocrite and your words are hot air.

That is a sensible result of logic. If you are Tommy and whining about the fact that white people in America benefit from the history of African American slave ownership, and that there is a measurable monetary inequity and a social inequity, AND that HE as a white person gets privilege, then surely he is advocating that he is in possession of illicit benefits. IF he is and he sees this inequity and he advocates against it, then there is NO point him impressing the evil of this retaining of benefits without HIM FIRST giving up HIS benefits.

Tommy can’t see this. Tommy likes to tell others what to do and mitigate for others without risking his own.

But here is the kicker. Isn’t that Social Justice Warriors all over? Think about EVERY Male SJW you have seen? IF they believe they are at the top of the heap and acknowledge that they are more privileged and well off and are recipients of all of this benefit, why do they not make like the hippies, give away the social and material benefits they have? Give it to the blacks, gays, women, transgendered, and disabled? Wouldn’t that make them REAL Progressives? By not, are they simply being hypocrites? Aren’t they JUST like Tommy?

What about the all too common upper middle class, well educated, white Feminist Progressive female? Are they commenting on Poor women? Black Women? Are they no better than their White Male counterparts? I mean they too, surely are part of the same social benefits and by the same rationale, the crimes of their ancestors can be visited on them too. Also their social capital is side effect of their ancestors’ decisions. So are THEY going to give up their money, income, positions of power, influence or place in society?

What about Gay and Non-gay Progressives or Transgender and cisgendered Progressives? Why do the former think they can raise these issues and act like spokespeople without being disadvantaged and on BEHALF OF Gays and of Transgendered?

Hey don’t point fingers at me. I did not make these rules, but IF I have to play by them, I am game.

This is possibly a controversial opinion

I know the Libertarian viewpoint and that our opponents are Authoritarian. I know too that the popular opinion is not to be “as bad” as them.

Here is the thing, I do not think we could be as bad as them. I think too, that self defence is not the same as attacking someone.

They will try to censor, block, ban and control with ABSOLUTE impunity. When they are successful they all pat themselves on the back and it reinforces their belief that they get to dictate what speech or actions or behaviours or rights are allowed. When they are not successful, they are only jeered and mocked. They sulk and brood, and then like the entitled vindictive children they are, they attack on another front.

Fuck that. Shut them down. They picked the battle and the rules of engagement, I say fight them at their own game and drop them on their arses.

I say take their power away. I would love to see their Patreons shrink to negligible levels or disappear completely, their  journalist mouthpieces disempowered or bankrupt, their powerful backers drop them, their voices silenced, their access to social media poleaxed, their whines to have no support.

Now this may be sacrilege and make me as bad as them BUT I say turnabout is fair play. Why should we fight with a hand behind our backs. SO long as we remain truthful and honest and not pre-emptively, I say all is fair game. We saw this recently with Thunderfoot and The Laughing Witch and I say that was textbook as to how we should deal with them. Eron is another case. So is The Honey Badgers and The Mary Sue and Calgary Expo.

I say that Gamergate has slowed down and now we are seeing some substantial long-term effects, that started more than 12 months ago, start to pay off. We do not have the strength of numbers or enthusiasm or cohesiveness we had 14 months ago BUT as long as we give nothing away, fight hard and smart, we can keep pushing. I think a big part of allowing that is going to be a bit less constrained and a bit more ruthless.

Do not be afraid to come down hard on them. All around we see SJWs getting crazier and more zealous. We were at the front of the push back. Perhaps NOW us pushing hard back on them will be seen a little more sympathetically by the public and the SJWs madness in so many spheres will be enough to allow people to see that the crazies are on the other side.

Perhaps we will be also able to show the public how to deal with them. It is not about becoming the things we hate or being Authoritarians. It is simply saying “Okay so you guys have been seeking to censor, ban, smear, and expose us? Okay if that is the game and you refuse to accept our offer for transparency, honesty and fairness, fine, we will play by your game and rules and win. We will ban, censor, and expose you.”

These entitled SJW brats need some consequences.