Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Feminist Idiocy’ Category

This post is part of a series quoting history’s great men on various topics of interest to Chateau readers. (See previous entries here and here.)

Today’s Great Man quote comes from H. L. Mencken, demonstrating amazing prescience for the evolution of society into a wasteland of ugly feminists yammering incessantly about rape-culture culture.

The woman who is not pursued sets up the doctrine that pursuit is offensive to her sex, and wants to make it a felony. No genuinely attractive woman has any such desire. ― H.L. Mencken, In Defense Of Women

Burn status: crisp! “The woman who is not pursued” = ugly feminist. This is what it comes down to: Ugly women loathing male desire, resenting their exclusion from the sexual market (and that exclusion is much more painful for women, because in the whole women have an easier time getting laid than do men), and making absurd demands to rearrange society so that their romantic rejection is less obvious to others. Misery loves company.

Bonus Mencken:

A Man forbids his wife to drink too much because, deep in his secret archives, he has records of the behavior of other women who drank too much, and is eager to safeguard his wife’s self-respect, and his own dignity, against what he knows to be certain invasion. In brief, it is a commonplace of observation, familiar to all males beyond the age of twenty-one, that once a woman is drunk the rest is a mere matter of time and place: the girl is already there. ― H.L. Mencken, Prejudices

Women who don’t want to be pumped and dumped have a responsibility to stay off the hooch. If they won’t accept that responsibility, then men will have to make their decisions for them. Unrock the vote!

Of course, despite the deluge of feminist idiocy (and the warnings from the Great Men), feminists continue to win social and political battles. UVA, doubtlessly run and operated by a small army of man-haters, responded to the rape hoax on its campus by… punishing the lying women? Defunding feminist circle diddles? No, by instituting new rules and restrictions for the fraternities that were unfairly accused of fueling a crazy woman’s fantasies.

Oh well, the Chateau will remain a respite from the apocalyptic insanity.

Read Full Post »

Recall the CH definition of feminism:

The goal of feminism is to remove all constraints on female sexuality while maximally restricting male sexuality.

The goal doesn’t have to be consciously intended for it to be operative. Most feminists aren’t thinking, “I want to enlarge the sphere of acceptable expressions of female sexuality and shrink the sphere of acceptable expressions of male sexuality.” But conscious awareness isn’t necessary for subconscious desires to percolate up through the prefrontal cortex and get rationalized as a moral crusade for an invisible sex inequality.

Taking their actions and their steady stream of contradictions at face value, it’s evident that feminists loathe male desire. How else to explain the facility with which feminists hold competing and incompatible worldviews in their frazzled hamster brains?

Vanity Fair had a very favorable write-up of Strayed in a recent issue and at one point states that Strayed “is a champion of promiscuity”.

In the very same issue, VF has a profile of Russell Brand, and gives us this gem:

Which brings us to a sticking point: for all his talk of prayerfulness and humility, there persists an image of Brand as a bounder and a cad. Does this compromise his credibility with women? I put this question to Suzanne Moore, a liberal, feminist columnist for The Guardian who is, in many respects, politically sympathetic to Brand. “It’s funny. I have a 13-year-old daughter, and she absolutely adores him—he seems designed for young people who are just getting into politics,” she said. “But he still has this history, no matter how much he cloaks his sexism—and I’ll call it sexism—in this new spiritual talk. He plays this double game, being very self-aware of his past misdeeds, but I don’t know how much respect he has or shows to women.”

Which begs the following: How would VF cover a Strayed-Brand hookup? Champion of Promiscuity Hooks Up with Misogynist Pig, seems about right.

The feminist schizophrenia in terms of liberated promiscuity coupled with our “rape culture” brings to mind that classic scene in Little Shop of Horrors with Steve Martin as the sadistic dentist and Bill Murray as his masochist patient.

Further proof, as if it was needed, that feminists and weak-minded women who chant along monotonically with their idiocy, really only have as their purpose the construction of a world where men are harangued and shamed for their natural male sexual desire and women are exalted for theirs. Thus, we get nonsense like relabeling skanks as “champions of promiscuity”.

Why do feminists want this world? Because most feminists are ugly, sexual marketplace losers who have to give away their putrid pussies for free to get any action, and they take out their resentment on men and on the normal women who love men as men and want to satisfy men in the way that only feminine women can.

Read Full Post »

A compendium of studies from the 1990s found that the Feminist Fantasy Tax is calculated based on faulty inputs.

ABSTRACT: Empirical evidence does not support the widespread belief that women are extremely unlikely to make false accusations of male sexual misconduct.  Rather the research on accusations of rape, sexual harassment, incest, and child sexual abuse indicates that false accusations have become a serious problem.  The motivations involved in making a false report are widely varied and include confusion, outside influence from therapists and others, habitual lying, advantages in custody disputes, financial gain, and the political ideology of radical feminism. […]

Begin with evidence of false accusation of rape, the crime which has become not only the metaphor for all cases of sexual misconduct but for male sexuality itself. Alan Dershowitz (1991), for example, has further harassed his students by telling them that an annual F.B.I. survey of 1600 law enforcement agencies discovered that 8% of rape charges are completely unfounded. That figure, which has held steadily over the past decade, is moreover at least twice as high as for any other felony. Unfounded charges of assault, which like rape is often productive of conflicting testimony, comprise only 1.6% of the total compared to the 8.4% recorded for rape.

Unfounded rape charges are twice as high as any other felony. More women lie about being raped than about any other criminal perpetration upon them. Why is this? One, women gain a lot from passing off a rape lie. Psychologically, they gain “re-virginization” from an awkward welling of regret after, say, a one night stand (or a UVA shattered glass ganglia rape). Socially, they gain an air lifted provision of support — financial and emotional — from family and friends. They also avoid potential social ostracism from dating badboys. Finally, some women are simply malevolent and impulsive, and utilize the expedience of a false rape accusation to slake a thirst for vengeance or to assuage a bitterness brought on by sexual market failure. (Recall from CH tomes of yore that success in the sexual market is defined differently for women than it is for men. If women don’t extract commitment from a worthy man, they have failed.)

And false rape accusations, vile as they are, are undoubtedly encouraged by rooted social and legal incentives. If the jurisprudence, academic, and media industrial complexes are biased to favor women’s accounts of lurid sexual events, then some women at the margins will be tempted to leverage that spontaneous favoritism for their own ends. This is precisely what happened in the catfishing UVA rape hoax story.

Although useful, the F.B.I. and DNA data on sex crimes result from unstructured number gathering.  More informative, therefore, are the results of a focused study of the false allegation question undertaken by a team headed by Charles P McDowell (McDowell & Hibler, 1985) of the U.S. Air Force Special Studies Division.  Its significance derives not only from its scholarly credentials but also its time of origin, 1984/85, a period during which rape had emerged as a major issue, but before its definition included almost any form of non-consensual sex.

The McDowell team studied 556 rape allegations.  Of that total, 256 could not be conclusively verified as rape.  That left 300 authenticated cases of which 220 were judged to be truthful and 80, or 27%, were judged as false.  In his report Charles McDowell stated that extra rigor was applied to the investigation of potentially false allegations.  To be considered false one or more of the following criteria had to be met: the victim unequivocally admitted to false allegation, indicated deception in a polygraph test, and provided a plausible recantation.  Even by these strict standards, slightly more than one out of four rape charges were judged to be false.

It’s easy to lie about rape, there is sometimes incentive to do so, and the numbers back it up. Reminder: Men’s lives are ruined by false accusations of rape. Women who lie about rape know this, but they don’t care.

Needless to say, false rape fabulists also harm real victims of real rape, who must suffer under the pall of incredulity incited by their femme fatale sistren.

The McDowell report has itself generated controversy even though, when rape is a frequent media topic, it is not widely known.  Its calculations are no doubt problematic enough to raise serious questions.  If, out of 556 rape allegations, 256 could not be conclusively verified as rape, then a large number, 46%, entered a gray area within which more than a few, if not all, of the accusations could have been authentic.  If so, the 27% false allegation figure obtained from the remaining 300 cases could be badly skewed.  Moreover, the study itself focused on a possibly non-representative population of military personnel.

The McDowell team did in fact address these questions in follow-up studies.  They recruited independent reviewers who were given 25 criteria derived from the profiles of the women who openly admitted making a false allegation.  If all three reviewers agreed that the rape allegation was false, it was then listed by that description.  The result: 60% of the accusations were identified as false.  McDowell also took his study outside the military by examining police files from a major midwestern and a southwestern city.  He found that the finding of 60% held (Farrell, 1993, pp. 321-329).

Here’s a bet I’m willing to take: There are more false rape accusations than there are false paternity accusations. The big difference? Women aren’t vilified or thrown in jail for cuckolding men.

Finally, the false rape accusation money shot: The prevalence of FRAs on college campuses.

Equally revealing were addenda following Kanin’s basic report.  They reported studies in two large Midwestern state universities which covered a three-year period ending in 1988.  The finding of the combined studies was that among a total of 64 reported rapes exactly 50% were false.  Kanin found these results significant because the women in the main report tended to gather in the lower socioeconomic levels, thus raising questions about correlations of false allegation with income and educational status.  After checking figures gathered from university police departments, he therefore reported that “quite unexpectedly then, we find that these university women, when filing a rape complaint, were as likely to file a false as a valid charge.”  In addition, Kanin cited still another source (Jay, 1991) which supported findings of high frequency false allegations in the universities.  On the basis of these studies, Kanin felt it reasonable to conclude that “false rape accusations are not uncommon” (p.90).

Some women who file false rape allegations are mentally ill. Some women, especially college students, are doctrinaire feminists. Some women push the FRA button to blow up dull relationships or stoke jealousy and white knight-ism in third parties. But most, I’d bet, are women showing acute symptoms of Regret Rape, that condition of emotional duress primarily afflicting women who have made voluntary and consensual, if rash, decisions to sleep with men who didn’t fancy the women as much as they fancied the men. Or, similarly, these Regret Rape women consensually slept with men whom the women later retroactively deemed unworthy of their sex.

It’s time to have a serious national conversation about false rape accusations. NPR… your move.

Read Full Post »

You can’t make it through a day it seems without coming across some inane feminist assertion about women, men, rape, pay gaps, sex, discrimination, or the patriarchy. One of their favorite fake facts is the “1 in 5 women are sexually assaulted on college campuses” incantation.

It’s bullshit on its face, but gets megaphoned through every channel of the Hivemind media because the elite and their propaganda arms are fully invested in the feminist narrative, and in the anti-male policies that feminists advocate. They are tandem malevolent forces. And the Hivemind is, if nothing else, expert in message discipline.

But the Narrative is collapsing, hard and fast. Body blows are raining down upon it. Take this actual fact, for example: The DOJ released new data on sexual assault, and it was not congenial to the feminist or anti-white frat bro religions,

A new report on sexual assault released today by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) officially puts to bed the bogus statistic that one in five women on college campuses are victims of sexual assault. In fact, non-students are 25 percent more likely to be victims of sexual assault than students, according to the data. And the real number of assault victims is several orders of magnitude lower than one-in-five.

The full study, which was published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, a division within DOJ, found that rather than one in five female college students becoming victims of sexual assault, the actual rate is 6.1 per 1,000 students, or 0.61 percent (instead of 1-in-5, the real number is 0.03-in-5). For non-students, the rate of sexual assault is 7.6 per 1,000 people.

Commenter Simon Corso, who forwarded the study, writes,

Not that anyone here needs me to tell them that feminists are full of shit, but rape statistics [are] being exaggerated by over 500% and the lie is so often repeated that it’s commonly believed.

And the 500% feminist fantasy tax may even be too low. As commenter Wrecked ‘Em notes,

When the remedy (e.g. the “affirmative consent” ridiculousity foisted on college students in California recently) is way out of whack relative to the problem (0.61% is still 2x what a lot of other studies have found), what you get is not a reduction in the problem but an increase in the unintended consequences.

The UVA article in Rolling Stone is a good example. Expect to see more collateral damage like that as the feminists double-down on the 1-in-4 theme only to watch the soap go flying out the window as they squeeze harder.

Feminists aren’t interested in reality or hard facts. That stuff is apparently too UGH PENIS for them. But that wouldn’t be a problem (after all, it’s fun to mock deliberate retards) if the elite didn’t give dumbfuck lying feminists platform after platform, day after day, year after year, to drench the public at large with the yeasty grievance pus of their psychological illness.

Hey, in related Feminist Fantasy Tax news, their cherished pay gap is predominately a function of women’s voluntary job market choices, and not discrimination. And you know that “war on women” fake but accurate rallying cry that Hivemind megaphonies like NPR and President Butt Naked ritualistically chant sun-up to sun-down? A minor corrective: If there’s a war against one particular sex, all the data say that war is being waged on men. Latest salvo: More men than ever are shafted out of the job market.

Not that any of these pleas for sanity will make a difference. The Fundamental Premise remains operative and exploited by a power elite and a battalion of screeching manjawed foot soldiers, all of whom, if judged by their actions, despise men, and non-elite white men in particular. So why do I bother? Because shivving diseased hindbrain meat is fun even as the blob zombie hordes devour the last morsels of civilization.

Read Full Post »

For those of you new to the Chateau, the rationalization hamster (original hamster — O.H. — introduced here) is a descriptive term for the typical woman’s tendency to rationalize her decisions to fulfill herself sexually such that her personal culpability in making the sex happen is removed or reduced. Since that original definition, the rationalization hamster has come to acquire a broader meaning, encapsulating all the odd little mental tricks that women (and sometimes men) do in service to their glowing self-conceptions.

Psychological projection, in its conventionally understood sense, is attributing to others feelings or motives that you yourself possess, but are uncomfortable acknowledging or unable to perceive in yourself. In dating market parlance, projection is a form of rationalization for an opposite sex’s idealized behavior. For instance, women often project onto men their own expectations and attraction triggers, fooling themselves into believing that what they desire in men is what men must desire in them, (or, similarly, that what women dislike in men must be what men dislike in women).

FYI, men, especially inexperienced beta males, project their desires onto women as well, though this particular self-deception is more commonly found in use among women, (for reasons that have been explained in previous posts, namely, the paradox that women have more to gain from their self-deception). A good example of a low N beta male projecting his desires onto women is the man who believes that women will only be intrigued by him for his looks, because that’s what he primarily desires in women.

The reason I bring this up is because I swoon with anticipation in presenting to you, CH celebrated readers, what I consider one of, if not THE, best representations of female psychological projection ever put to print. The article is titled, ‘8 Reasons Why You Should Marry The Complicated Girl’, and, if you check the authoress’s accompanying photo, the listicle was compiled by what appears to be a high testosterone woman with a glare so evil she could make the Grinch recoil in horror.

First, she begins by explaining the basis for her theory,

I am not simple. I am a challenge for any man, I will admit. As hard as I try to be the simple girl, it is just not in my nature to be one. I demand more from everyone because I see great potential.

I only want the best for myself and for my partner, so I will never just go along with some semblance of a mediocre, passionless relationship.

An unevolved man or a boy will always want the simple girl. He doesn’t want to have to work hard for anything, especially not a relationship. He doesn’t want to be challenged or confronted.

But, a real man knows that by being with a complicated girl, he will be better for it.

So, essentially, slander is the basis for her grand theory of male-female relationship dynamics. “Unevolved” men want simple (i.e., kindhearted) girls; “real” men want complicated (i.e., drama-prone) girls.

Her eight points are a gold mine of accidentally revealed preference… that is, her own revealed preference for what SHE wants in men, not what men want in women.

Marry the girl who tells you exactly what she expects and follows through.

Men who aren’t named John Scalzi despise domineering women. Women, in contrast, have shown a noted proclivity for enjoying the company of decisive men with leadership qualities.

Marry the girl who demands your respect.

Girls are respected when they earn that respect, not when they demand it. However, men who make inordinate demands on women do tend to get rewarded sexually for their impertinence.

Marry the girl who can talk politics, even if her opinions are different from yours.

Again, pure female projection. Nothing, other than obesity or a secret penis, kills a man’s incipient boner faster than a girl who is jabbering about politics on a date and is making a point of defying the man’s opinion. Women, otoh, do feel delicious yearnings for men who have strong opinions and stand their ground in the face of opposition.

Marry the girl whose eyes flicker with passion about a number of different subjects.

Translation: “Please marry me for the same reasons I want to marry you, oh passionate and learned man whose eyes flicker with life about a number of different subjects.”

Marry the girl who won’t let you get away with slacking on your talents.

Nag. Even a died-and-uncool male feminist will weary of a nag in time. But women do love a man who qualifies them as worthy partners.

Marry the girl who pushes you to be better every day.

Demanding potentate. But women do love a man who keeps them on their toes and away from the pints of ice cream. What she’s really admitting is that she wants to craft a man to be more like the type of alpha male who turns her on. This doesn’t translate into what men desire in women, though.

Marry the girl with whom you sometimes fight.

Drama queen. These kinds of girls love the pre-sex fight as much as they love the post-fight sex. Men just love the post-fight sex. Most men would be glad to jump straight to the post-fight sex without actually having the fight.

Marry the girl who is your equal or greater.

And here it is. Distilled female rationalization hamster projection. Pure femergy. Men don’t want women who are their “equal or greater”. Men want sexy, pretty, young(er) women with a feminine, more or less submissive disposition. It’s women who strongly desire an “equal or greater” lover, because women are viscerally attracted to mentally, physically, and emotionally strong men.

Post-list, the funny keeps on giving:

My dad always says the thing that attracted him most to my mom was the fact that she was smarter than him.

Gullible, thy name is desperately ego-assuaging woman.

Only a real man can say that and know it’s good for him.

Or a smart man who knows that empty flattery works on aging wives.

Don’t get me wrong; a complicated girl who is not yet mature will be a pain in the ass.

Define “mature”. (Answer: It never arrives.)

She will pick fights with you about everything, and you will always feel like a failure in her presence because you won’t know how to make her happy. But, with a little experience and wisdom, this is the girl who will become wife material.

Maybe the reason why men don’t want to commit to attention whores like herself is because they can see the writing on the wall. Just a thought?

And, once she’s at that point, you better never let her get away, or you’ll risk losing the best thing you ever had.

High blood pressure?

In some respects, this is one of the saddest, and most textbook, feminist limbic blurts I’ve read. Pained by men who have rejected her need for screed, she, like many women, refuses to look at herself squarely and instead puts all the onus on men to accept that they are really attracted to girls like her, and only men’s unevolved immaturity is holding them back from realizing this about themselves.

Yet again, a sterling display of a woman avoiding the consequences for her actions. The best thing she could do for herself — deep examination of her off-putting drama whore behavior and steps to correct it — she won’t do. Those eyes say it all:

“I am woman, hear me roar for validation.”

Read Full Post »

A University president was fired by the school board for talking sense about personal responsibility and advising women on the effective means available to reduce their chances of sexual assault or romantic disappointment.

Jennings, who to no avail apologized for his comments before his firing,

Never apologize. It only incites the barbarians to pick through your bones.

still insists that his critics are taking the YouTube video out of context. But even the truncated version casts doubt on why he has been ridden out of town on a rail. The video excerpt begins with Jennings saying he’s going to let the women in on “a little secret”: “Men treat you, treat women the way women allow us to treat them. . . . We will use you up, if you allow us to use you up,” he said. “Well, guess what? When it comes time for us to make that final decision, we’re going to go down the hall and marry that girl with the long dress on. That’s one we’re going to take home to Mama. There is something about the way you carry yourself and respect yourself that commands and demands respect from us.” At this point, the video shows the female crowd clapping in agreement.

Slutty women get used like sluts. This was conventional, even trite, wisdom not that long ago, but today is apparently crimethink that can get you fired.

Then came the statement that clearly sank Jennings’s presidency (he may still have tenure as a professor): “I’m saying this because, first and foremost, don’t put yourself in a situation that would cause you to be trying to explain something that really needs no explanation, had you not put yourself in that situation.”

When the speech excerpt appeared on YouTube, it created an uproar. Marybeth Gasman, a University of Pennsylvania education professor, said it showed that “the president blames young women for being raped by saying that when they have sex with someone and regret the act, they then create a story [of rape] to explain it.”

Some women do this. Regret Rape is a real social phenomenon. But feminists and their enablers would rather light the torches and brandish the pitchforks against anyone who dares practice the sorcery of noticing the bad behavior of women.

Read Full Post »

As most CH readers know by now, a gaudy account of alleged gang rape at a University of Virginia fraternity (Rapegate) was exposed as a hoax, or, more charitably, as a freakin’ lie. Many feminists and lapdog betaboys were left shell-shocked by the sudden undermining of their religious belief.

This isn’t the first rape hoax. The Duke lacrosse stripper rape never happened. And more recently, Lena Dunham, SWPL heroine, was outed as a fabulist for concocting a story about a “Republican conservative” who raped her in college. In Dunham’s case, she named a man. Hopefully he will sue her to kingdom come.

What makes the current false rape accusation (FRA) craze so dissonant is that it’s happening in a social climate where actual reported rapes are in decline and at a 40-year low, at least among whites. It’s almost as if feminists WANT to gin up a rape culture because the current rape-less society they live in is unsatisfactory to them.

The Jane Jones hysteria demands explanation. What is motivating all these rape hoaxes? I have some theories.

1. “Rape-culture culture”, driven by white females, and particularly by academic white females of a highly ethnocentric minority tribe (Erdely, Merlan), and targeted primarily against the white fraternity brother archetype, is revealed hatred of a certain majority group’s men for being, well, what they are: The tribal bogeyman. Sexual desire for these men and warped shame for feeling that desire must underlie some of that irrational hatred.

2. Rapegate is the proxy mechanism by which underattractive white females get to express their true resentment of the sexual aggression of black men and the asexual indifference of white men. As iSteve commenter countenance writes,

Because “rape culture” is how white men in frat houses get the blame for black men raping white women.

White women do get real raped (and sometimes killed)… disproportionately by black men who look like this guy:

But of course, because race is the ultimate totem of intra-white status whoring, academic white females can’t come out and say “Hey, a lot of black guys are raping us.” So they release that anger through a convenient proxy: white frat bros. And why are white frat bros, mostly harmless even when drunk, the preferred alternative rape culture oppressor? Because they don’t give unattractive feminists the time of day. Thus, their expediency as punching bags for feminists is rooted in the latter’s resentment at being overlooked as sex objects by high mate value white men.

3. The sex ratio on college campuses — 60%+ women and rising — favors men in the dating market. Female students are thus put into a position, by virtue of their natural hypergamous instincts, of being one of the shared side dishes of a popular male student, of dating less desirable nerd betas, or of getting shut out of the dating market altogether. At the margins, this lopsided sex ratio and its consequences will cause some mentally unbalanced women (feminists) to act out like lunatics.

4. This is the darkest theory, and the one therefore favored by CH priests. Rape fantasy is a staple of subliterary erotica, aka female porn. A fair number of women are sexually and romantically aroused by violent men. Death rows are filled with the clutter of love letters and even marriage proposals from swooning women. Lurid rape hysteria really may be psychological projection of lurid sex fantasy in a world full of sexless betaboy drones. It’s a parsimonious explanation for Lena Dunham’s obsessing over a “Republican conservative” man having sex with her many years ago, and her current transmogrification of that consensual event into a latter day Regret Rape political stance. Five minutes of right-wing alpha. She just cannot get enough of that memory of real man cock. Manlet SJWs, limp-wristed male feminists, and slobbering white knights will never get this about rock-ribbed feminists: Most of them despise the company of the weak men they feel forced to endure. These feminist rape-mongers dream of being assertively taken by a strong man torqued with unstoppable lust. (Related: I have a theory that women secretly desire men of opposite political persuasion, and that the reason most couples align politically is largely a result of convenience sorting and arid subconscious calculations of child characteristics.)

***

Some sadistic thinkers dismiss feminism as a relevant social force. I disagree with them. For example, look at this latest feminist flop; will the rancid ideology finally pay a price? UVA is Peak Feminism, right? No wait, that was Duke lacrosse. No, it was Lena Dunham. Seems Peak Feminism has yet to arrive. Lesson: Feminists benefit from power elite shielding. Individual feminists may be mentally unhinged and emotionally scorched, but their insipid politics finds its way into government and private policies. Women in the military, Title IX, affirmative consent laws, and bans on paternity testing, to name a few. Feminist propaganda matters. It has real world consequences that victimize real men, in ways direct and indirect. The Hivemind masters — the Lords of Lies — protect feminists from their own malignancy and prevent them from suffering due punishment for their slander and caustic beliefs.

Everything rotten about 2014 America is exposed by rape and race hoaxes: Leftoid duplicity, media boosterism, anti-white male animus. CH is doing its part to help bring balance to the force, which has tilted for too long in the direction of the Snark Side. But we can only do so much. Others must step up. You can start here: A website devoted to exposing corruption among our journalistic, political, and academic elite. Call them out on their lies, record it for posterity, ruin their reputations, and hope that the righteous backlash has only begun to start.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,194 other followers

%d bloggers like this: