Think of the Children! Well, maybe nobody cares.

Once again our “Liberal” betters exhibit extraordinary hypocrisy.

“In the U.S. and other democracies, innocent children are routinely torn away from legally innocent parents in enormous numbers and for reasons that have nothing to do with their wishes, safety, health, or welfare. This is the routine practice of family courts, which—it is no exaggeration to say—hardly exist for any other purpose. In family court, a parent can file for divorce or separation and, without any evidence of any legal wrongdoing by the other parent, the courts will summarily force the other parent to stay away from his children on pain of incarceration. Any unauthorized contact with his or her own children is from that point a crime (for that parent, but not for anyone else on the planet). Recovering full access to one’s children is impossible, and many children never see their parents again. All of this is the product of the “no-fault” divorce revolution—a system of blatant injustice that was legislated as part of the radical feminist agenda in the 1970s.”



A Good Rhetorical Lesson

I had linked to Brian Niemeier favorably on this blog a couple times but that was before it turned out that he’s an idiot. On my personal blog, I made, what I thought to be, an innocuous comment about something stupid he said. He responded by attacking… a bizarro world version of me.

Read the whole thing and when everyone who knows me stops laughing lets look at this.

A blogger named for the president who normalized relations with the ChiComs…

Puts the idea in people’s head from the get go that this Nixon fellow he’s a communist sympathizer.

The addict lashes out at friends trying to cure him of the vice that’s destroying him.

Nixon = addict. Brian = nice person who just tries to help people!

Nixon’s clumsy effort … sounds more like the squealing of Disney paypigs wallowing in the muck, shivering for their next fix of poz slop.

Wait, wait, I’ve got to wipe away a tear with my Kylo Ren t-shirt.

…a shopworn rhetorical jab of the Left…

Who uses leftist rhetoric? Leftists.

…Nixon is clearly proceeding in bad faith…

Easy way to discount something that’s said without actually addressing it.

It’s not on me if being confronted with the true moral character of your entertainment choices triggers your amygdalae.

Projection. I wrote a post which was less than 200 words on a blog which nobody reads and he does this. Somebody’s amygdala was spun up, but it wasn’t mine.

As an aside, that sentence is also an example of why it’s very annoying that English doesn’t have a distinct plural second person pronoun.  On first glance it might look like he’s referring to a single “you” but amygdala is plural so it can’t be.

…this guy’s pearl-clutching…

From the image of a genteel woman clutching her pearl necklace in shock… (idiomatic, derogatory) Prim, prudish, or easily offended.”

…that shit test…

Shit tests are things that women do. He just called me a girl.

Niemeier went on to continue in this vein on Google+ especially with the accusations of being girlish, the best being where he orders me to “Grow up, talk to me like an adult male instead of a cat lady with PMS”.

His post is an excellent illustration of rhetorical attack. The point is to trigger the target and make them cry (metaphorically or not). This is the sort of rhetoric you’d expect to see used on an SJW because, not being able to reason with them, people kick them instead.

What happens if the target isn’t an SJW? What happens if the target is someone who’s been studying rhetoric and trying to teach himself how to spot and use it? Well, not what it’s supposed to do that’s for sure. This is another reason why studying rhetoric is so important. It gives you the tools to be able to spot attacks like this, see what the aggressor is doing, and if you’re inclined to be hurt by silly insults, understanding where they’re coming from and why should certainly help to avoid being hurt. Knowing rhetoric also allows you to hit back and to analyze what you might have done wrong in responding to the other person.

It’s a tool like a hammer. You use a hammer with nails. You don’t use a hammer with screws. So in order to use rhetoric, you need to make sure first that you’ve got a nail. If the person shows up and starts calling you a cowardly piece of shit instead of addressing points, as seen here previously, then it’s a pretty safe better they’re a nail. But in that case, I googled every one of them. I also didn’t go far enough because my response one in particular would have be different if I had taken the time to read more of her blog and see that she was bipolar.

You won’t be able to research everyone who attacks you, but you also don’t have to respond to everyone who does. I know this is hard for internet egos to understand but when someone talks about you on the internet when you’ve set yourself up as public figure, they’re not actually talking to you. Sure, there’s some “notice me, sempai!” types but some people just want to have discussions and make comments without wannabe e-celebs butting in.

Learn rhetoric.  Learn how to use it.  Learn when to use it.  It’s good for you.

Somebody’s STALKING ME

I’m LITERALLY SHAKING.  Do you have any idea how creepy and sickening it is when some weird, unknown person on the internet is going around talking about you to other people and sharing links to things you said publicly on the internet.

You know, like this:

SJWs share a link to AG and say it's creepy

Who is this “Brenda”, who is her anonymous “friend”, and how dare she read my public blog posts?!?!

I’m kind of “amused” too– that she thinks blue haired feminist was supposed to be an insult.

Now I have to go back to cyberstalking Shia LaBeouf because He Will Not Divide Us IS BACK but he isn’t there like the dancing monkey he’s supposed to be. 😡  Come back, Shia, Pepe is waiting for you!


Literally Hitler Meets Literally Hitler

Trump’s a bad person for trying to bully North Korea and start World War 3 but he’s a worse person because he met with Kim Jong-un and talked to him.

On Monday evening, President Trump met with North Korean dictator Kim Jung Un, the tyrannical overlord of a slave state with 25 million prisoners and a gulag system containing hundreds of thousands of human beings, a radical threat to world peace who has tested nuclear weapons and long-range missiles. Trump gave Kim the thumbs up; the American flag, the symbol of freedom in the world, was placed alongside the flag of North Korea, the closest thing to the Nazi swastika in the world today. Then President Trump praised Kim fulsomely, using verbiage to describe him that he would never use about our G-7 allies.

And the right celebrated.

Ah, but not everyone, Littlest Chickenhawk, have no fear.

Kim Jong Un Criticized For Meeting With Nation That Has Killed 60 Million Babies

WORLD—North Korean President Kim Jong Un came under intense scrutiny this week after meeting with a barbaric nation that has killed over 60 million of its young since legalizing abortion in 1973.

Political commentators agreed that by meeting with the nation of savages that abort hundreds of thousands of their young each and every year, Kim Jong Un appeared to be legitimizing the backwards, depraved nation of America.

“Just picture Kim Jong Un up there shaking hands with Hitler,” one pundit said. “That’s basically what this amounts to, when you consider that he’s meeting with a country that has killed over 60 million babies since Roe v. Wade. I’m just not sure this kind of a meeting represents good optics for the North Koreans.”

Chuck Norris Endorses Christendom College

No joke.  Chuck Norris for Christendom College!

Well, I guess all that clamor about Christendom being a rotten rape-tolerating school hasn’t gotten around to Chuck Norris.  Or maybe that no one’s taking it seriously.

Norris, a New York Times best-selling author, warned students and parents about the progressive transformation of colleges in America, calling many of them “one-sided” in their educational offerings. Rather than blindly assuming that any college will do, Norris recommended that parents and graduates look at private and Christian universities instead.

“I’m asked just about every year to give a commencement speech somewhere. I couldn’t accept any invitations this year due to being outside the country, so I’ll state here what I want to say to every student who is graduating and their parents. It’s a warning and a call for wisdom. … And there’s more you can do…. To counter so much progressive indoctrination in American culture, you can also have your graduates consider attending a private, conservative or Christian college or university, such as Liberty University, Biola University, Hillsdale College, Christendom College, Westmont College or Grove City College,” wrote Norris.

Read more here

Only the Best of Socialized Healthcare

As if there weren’t already enough evidence that the British medical establishment didn’t care about actually keeping anyone alive, especially not if it’s a baby.

Tribunal rules decapitated baby doctor can return to work

Dr Vishnavy Laxman was a consultant gynaecologist at Ninewells Hospital in March 2014 when the tragedy occurred.

She wrongly chose a natural delivery over a caesarean section for the pregnant mother.

The Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service said there had not been an impairment of her fitness to practise.

It also decided it was not necessary to impose a warning on the doctor and it has revoked the current restrictions which had been put in place on her registration.

In its ruling on the facts of the case, given on Monday, the panel found that Dr Laxman’s decision “set in train a course of events” which resulted in the decapitation of the premature baby “and to this extent contributed to that decapitation.”

The tribunal noted: “But for Dr Vilvanathan Laxman’s error of judgement in this regard, the decapitation would not have occurred.”


The tribunal said the facts found proved “did not amount to impairment of the doctor’s fitness to practise”.

It said her decision to proceed with a vaginal delivery “was negligent and fell below the standards ordinarily to be expected”, however it did not amount to “serious misconduct”.

The panel found this to be an isolated incident where the unusual circumstances, emergency situation and the doctor’s genuine belief meant that the outcome “was not reasonably foreseeable”.

The tribunal said it was satisfied that “even good doctors can make mistakes and that it is sometimes a consequence of the field in which they are practising that the results of their mistakes can be significant”.

This woman DECAPITATED A BABY and it’s not “serious misconduct.”  It’s rather suspicious that a doctor who’s supposedly been practicing medicine since 2004 with an “unblemished” record suddenly manages to make a mistake so horrendous that she kills a baby.  What are the odds that there’s actually been a string of malpractice which has been overlooked or swept under the rug because it wasn’t so unmistakably horrifying and because she’s a woman and an immigrant and brown?