George Takei likes cock. BFD.

November 10th, 2017 by Socially Extinct

 

Personally, I don’t find the narrative that egregious.  In fact, I don’t find many of them egregious. Men AND women are slimy, vile animals. Men AND women are despicable when surrendering to primal urges, which is just about all the time.

 

And the latest dirge of men-who-act-badly shit to hit the newswaves is rather ho-hum in my book. It doesn’t excuse the behavior, but frankly, the context is lost, the narrative is bombastic, and women and white knights are allowed to run rampant as they spew their sanctimonious loads over the countryside.

 

As if women are so virtuous. Really?

 

Women are as disgusting as men when they draw the blinds of their residual humanity.  Women are foul creatures.  They are more foul because of their uterine curse, it could be argued.   They are bloody beings.  We are human in name, but animal in practice. Harvey and Kevin and Louis, yeah. They all fucked up. Because they could. There are scores of men who have done the same thing because it is what men, and “humans” do.

 

Women’s urges are as unrefined and guttural, but they don’t get called to the carpet because they lack the physical prowess to get into hot water. Except in the field of Education. The singular sphere where women wield power and tyranny over men and women (boys and girls) alike. And it is here they act out on their serpentine urges. I guarantee you that before long, we’ll hear of yet another case of Mrs. X bedding up with her 14-year-old 8th grade hunk. And there will be no outcry from the Equality Hamster peanut gallery. Typically, when women pull a Harvey, no one in the liberal media or the feminatzi-sphere makes much ado about it; they save their vitriol for men, especially White men.There is no communal call for shame and retribution when the mid-life wench decides she likes the young buck in the cafeteria a bit more than is legally defined.

 

Most of all, I hate, despise, the hypocrisy.

 

Behind every barb and insult shank issued from the feminitariat, there is an equally repulsive person hiding a corrupt, soiled agenda behind the self-righteous denouncements of male tyranny. It’s the hypocrisy.  They shame their routine villains while failing to realize such behavior is unforgivably very acceptable.

 

Ask George Takei, the great liberal Japanese POS who takes to Twitter regularly to don his geriatric SJW masquerade. He’s a big ol’ faggot who proly clenches his little ass up in spasms of holier-than-thou fissure-inducing scolding, and now, it turns out, he’s a little horn-dog himself.

 

And he’s been called out.  How the mighty Asian homo has fallen.

 

Most amusingly, I do not feel he has done anything wrong!  He was led on and he copped a feel. Big deal. Now Scott R. Brunton, homo, has joined the chorus of modern-day shamers, and resuscitated old pre-Millenium tales in order to publicly shame Takei.

 

Oh Sulu, the horror, the horror!

 

 

Beam me right into that asshole!

 

 

 

A former model and actor is accusing Star Trek icon George Takei of sexual assault in 1981. The accuser, Scott R. Brunton, who was 23 at the time of the alleged incident, claims that Takei took advantage of him when he was most vulnerable.

 

“This happened a long time ago, but I have never forgotten it,” Brunton tells The Hollywood Reporter in an interview. “It is one of those stories you tell with a group of people when people are recounting bizarre instances in their lives, this always comes up. I have been telling it for years, but I am suddenly very nervous telling it.”

 

Brunton says he was living in Hollywood in 1981, working as a waiter and beginning a career as a commercial actor and model when he met a 43- or 44-year-old Takei one evening at Greg’s Blue Dot bar. The men exchanged numbers and would call one another from time to time as well as run into each other at clubs, Brunton says. When Brunton broke up with his then-boyfriend, he spoke with Takei. “He said, ‘Let me know what your new number is’ and I did. And not long after we broke up and I moved out, George called me,” Brunton recalls.

 

Takei, as Brunton tells it, invited him to dinner and the theater. “He was very good at consoling me and understanding that I was upset and still in love with my boyfriend,” Brunton says. “He was a great ear. He was very good about me spilling my heart on my sleeve.”

 

The two men went back to the actor’s condo for a drink the same night. “We have the drink and he asks if I would like another,” Brunton recalls. “And I said sure. So, I have the second one, and then all of a sudden, I begin feeling very disoriented and dizzy, and I thought I was going to pass out. I said I need to sit down and he said sit over here and he had the giant yellow beanbag chair. So I sat down in that and leaned my head back and I must have passed out.”

 

 

 

 

Now the unspoken question is…did George Takei use roofies in order to subdue his great White hope?

 

Perhaps we will never know.  I don’t doubt the MSM or the feminitariat will do much digging into the matter. But Sulu, the great Twitter castigator, is now facing his own firing squad.

 

How sweet it (and he) is!

 

 

Sally Kohn seeks to pervert our concept of masculinity by exploiting the Weinstein Syndrome.

November 9th, 2017 by Socially Extinct

 

Why do all these feminist/lib/nazi types look as if they were cast from the same dykish mold?

 

 

 

“She”

 

 

They share that incorrigible Jaw, those smirking eyebrows and the manly coiffure that screams at you, “penis, retract immediately!”

 

And there is nothing as annoying as when these creatures of androgyny go that extra unnecessary yard in order to dish out egregious amounts of sanctimonious gender moralizing, such as that witnessed in Sally Kohn’s CNN condemnation of loosely defined concepts of “men.” ‘Tis the Age of Weinstein, and women and male white knights pretty much have executive clearance when it comes to castigation of masculinity, and by extension, men.  Some people, like Kohn, extrapolate abnormal and exaggerated sexual behaviors on the part of high-profile men as blanket condemnations of manhood in general. Condemning male sexuality today is as challenging as shooting fish in a barrel.

 

Kohn proceeds to inform us

 

 

It’s important to understand that the common denominator in the allegations about Louis C.K., Roy Moore, Spacey and Weinstein (who has denied the allegations) and all the other Hollywood and media and political figures accused of sexual assault and sexual harassment isn’t sexuality, or even sex, but toxic masculinity.

 

 

“Toxic masculinity” is a catchy phrase that captures the zeitgeist of our Spacey-ian era but such monikers present a danger in that they offer ambiguous concepts that, eluding clear definition, are left to humans to construe and when a large portion of said group left to construe is guilty of the most intense bouts of solipsism (ahem), the definition broadens horrifically in incremental doses of bloat; eventually the definition becomes amorphous and distended.  Soon many people find themselves swallowed up by the expanding definition even if they do not deserve to be defined thus. “Toxic masculinity” is one such phrase. Appealing as a concept, it has no clear boundaries of conception. In other words, WTF is toxic masculinity anyhow?

 

Don’t worry. “Ms.” Kohn has that covered.

 

 

Writer Amanda Marcotte defines toxic masculinity as “a specific model of manhood, geared toward dominance and control. It’s a manhood that views women and LGBT people as inferior, sees sex as an act not of affection but domination, and which valorizes violence as the way to prove one’s self to the world.” We are talking here about a strain of behavior, found in some men — and, as we’re learning more and more, shockingly too many — but of course not all.

 

 

Essentially, entertaining a clinical delineation of the evolutionary dictates of gender roles makes you a “toxic man.” The kind of toxic masculinity Kohn condemns is found throughout the animal kingdom. I doubt the lion gives much thought to the proper modern role of today’s male, much less the possibility such utilitarian, survival-based behavior subjugates the females of all species. Kohn is telling us that all masculinity is toxic. Every ounce of it. The only masculine behavior she condones is the neutralized, feminized simpering type that beaten down men now display behind their fluttering eyelashes and timid, beating hearts.  To be any other kind of man unashamed of his power is to be toxic.

 

Or, as Kohn self-righteously moos,

 

 

I don’t mean, here, to attack men — or masculinity for that matter. Indeed, men — good men — suffer under toxic masculinity too, from the strict roles and constricting norms they’re expected to fulfill, to the violence in society that toxic masculinity perpetuates and would have them be party to. As actor Justin Baldoni has written, “I believe that men are ready to redefine what it means to be a man today, and that the old ‘toxic’ masculinity isn’t working for anyone.”
 

He is right. And men — men wanting a different way forward — are necessarily part of the solution. Too often men and women have sat silent, or even been complicit in this crisis.

 

 

Kohn praises Baldoni (archetypal pretty boy quasi homo) not for his transparent criticism of what is wrong with “masculinity,” but because he deferred to the broadly oblique use of the term “toxic.”  The greater the term falls into favor and use, the greater its perversion and distortion with the aims of pathologizing all masculinity can happen.

 

 

 

 

 

**archive**

 

November 4 was an inadvertent red herring. The real day of reckoning will be November 8.

November 7th, 2017 by Socially Extinct

 

People love symbolism. We love being able to channel dots and disparate events into one tidy linear stream of consistency. We love symbolic dates. It fits our psyche quite snugly if anniversary dates can be tethered together by the magic web of orderly chronological landmarks.

 

 

 

.

 

 

 

So when there was all the talk about an “Antifa Revolution” scheduled for November 4, it made little sense to me (other than it was a Saturday, a good day for children to play). November 4 has no Trumpian significance and surely would not inspire the glaring emotionalism that has perpetuated an incessant stream of anti-Trump dramatics over the past year.

 

Not November 4.

 

But November 8?  Would be more suitable.

 

November 8, tomorrow, will mark the one-year anniversary a great number of us were handed a tantalizing snippet of hope that we had not possessed in a very long time. And it also marks the one-year anniversary a great number of people also found their infantile voice and began acting like babies, and there has not been a moment of peace since.

 

Beware of November 8. Hellish events usually happen on a whim, not by flyer.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The one time Obama-san made himself useful.

November 6th, 2017 by Socially Extinct

 

It happened.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Who do atheists hate?

November 6th, 2017 by Socially Extinct

 

I’m an atheist.  A life-long atheist.  One of my first political immersions in the online world was through the internet atheist community, but I rapidly fled that “neighborhood.” I could not hang with the mentality of most of the people there, so I bailed as soon as I could.

 

Most atheists, especially the younger ones, are Leftist hacks.  They are self-absorbed whiners who want to blanket the world with their lazy black/white duality.  They imprint their fury and hatred and rebelliousness onto religion rather than approach the discussion in a thoughtful and objective manner.  The atheist community which I discovered on the internet was too liberal and immature;  atheism is a personal belief that I approach academically rather than politically. For most of the online atheists I encountered, it seems atheism is not so much about philosophy as it is about flouting convention and tradition in order to create a smug gap between themselves and the older generations. One senses their inflammatory anti-religious vitriol seeks to destroy church buildings rather than question the dogmatic institution that religion represents for mankind. This is apparent when you witness their utter lack of open-mindedness (or graciousness) any time the subject of religion arises.

 

 


 

 

 

Whatever Devin Kelley’s antifa connections prove to be (or not), I feel very confident in asserting that he was the stereotypical Left-wing harebrained absolutist who was anti-tradition more than anti-dogma. With a deadly twist.

 

And ultimately, the result was our tragedy. This was a terrorist, “hate” crime, if we insist on attaching pat labels to what we don’t understand.