Daniel Rowe picks the wrong interracial combo to go off on.

August 20th, 2016 by Socially Extinct

 

Daniel Rowe, 32, saw an interracial couple kissing outside a restaurant in Olympia, Washington, and literally went ape-shit. He began yelling white supremacist and racial epithets when he saw a Black man kiss a White woman.

 

 

rowe

 

 

 

Daniel Rowe, 32, came up to the African-American man and the white woman and, without a word, started stabbing them, said Olympia police spokeswoman Laura Wohl.
The man, who was stabbed in the hip, was able to tackle the suspect and restrain him on the ground until police arrived. His injuries were minor, as were the woman’s.
The man confessed to stabbing the couple, saying he was a white supremacist, Wohl said.
“The suspect spouted white supremacist sayings and made many many references to racist things,” she said.
Rowe also complained about the Black Lives Matter movement, and had tattoos that said ‘Skinhead’ and ‘White Power,’ Wohl said.

 

 

 

 

As an aside, why does mainstream culture think it’s acceptable to refer to a Black man as “African-American” but to the white person only as “white.” Surely she has a national background regardless of her color, why aren’t we told this? Isn’t it possible the Black guy was from Jamaica or Trinidad, over even Ecuador? Do we know for sure he’s American? The simpering conformity of American culture’s obsequience to language and labels is astounding.

 

I think this Rowe supremacist guy really picked on the wrong combo.

 

A black guy and a white chick duo leads me to believe the black guy was probably pretty Alpha as shit, a bit on the rough side. If Daniel Rowe needed to make an interracial stand, I think finding a nice, vulnerable Jewish man/Asian woman combo should be extremely easy in the Seattle and Puget Sound area.

 

Pick on someone closer to your own color, man.

 

 

 

The Millennial Male Helplessness phenomenon on proud display over at “The Cuck.”

August 19th, 2016 by Socially Extinct

 

I, a full-grown American male…” begins an over-confident and delusional Andy Cush in his piece over at The Cuck titled Thanks to This Laundry Detergent for Men, I Will Finally Be Able to Do Laundry.

 

He writes about “Frey,” which is a new detergent marketed for men.

 

Cush appears to gush over this new detergent like a 13-year-old girl might about over the latest demon-incarnate boy-toy pop “musician” to grace the overpaid stage.

 

Based on Frey’s advertising literature, the detergent provides “an unmistakably masculine oak and musk scent,” something which Cush appears to be drawn due to his oddly zealous affinity for the musk smell of male pheromones. Like all things Gawker and of such hipster idiom, the snark perhaps exceeds its envelope and you must wonder if this is all a put-on.

 

Cush proudly narrates his refusal to help his girlfriend with laundry because of his disdain for flowery scents and thus attempts weakly to portray the image of masculinity, a classic trait that seems ill-fitting for this helpless manchild.

 

 

 

 

Every Sunday, my girlfriend says to me, “Can you please help with the laundry.” Every Sunday, I reply, “I am a gentleman who appreciates quality products designed specifically for my dynamic yet domestic-conscious lifestyle. I am a modern man, conscious of all the major social issues, and I would jump at the chance to assist with this domestic task, which for generations has unfairly burdened the fairer sex. But I haven’t yet found a detergent that speaks to my distinctly masculine sensibility, and therefore I cannot. Sorry, babe.”

 

 

 

And this “full-grown American male” concludes with a sad but unsurprising revelation.

 

 

It is the scent, if I may, of pure hot sex. For some reason, my girlfriend hasn’t been giving me much of that lately, and I can’t figure out why. Maybe it’s the feminine smell of my laundry detergent. I hope FREY helps.

 

 

Uhm. Keep the hope alive, buddy, but I don’t think it’s flowery scents that are repelling your girlfriend.

 

Rather, I think it’s the emblematic modern male’s sense of helpless that is making her gag at your noxious, draining presence.

 

The Millennial Male Helplessness phenomenon, perpetuated by the modern class of empowered motherhood which simultaneously dotes and emotionally demeans their sons, has resulted in a generation of males who believe it is masculine to be helpless, to flail, under the pretense of female sensibilities they have usurped shamelessly because they are lazy and scared.

 

Twenty-first Century man must be self-sufficient in order to be empowered; he must not rely on women to take care of him, especially not these modern women who can barely cook their way out of an instant Ramen hot-water recipe.

 

As women have become more useless and much less domestically adept, men have responded in unison by echoing such sluggishness of tradition with their own sense of anti-vibrancy and emasculation.

 

Just do the fucking laundry and quit whining about it. Your mommy was done away with 30 years ago.

 

**archive**

We are defined by our worries, not our hopes.

August 19th, 2016 by Socially Extinct

 

Here comes the electoral pendulum swinging around, again.

 

The sheen of the conventions has dwindled into a well-deserved archaic haze and Donald Trump has “buckled down” into a more “acceptable” pose of respectability and restraint. The ever-important poll numbers show the Presidential race “tightening.” What was once touted by the MSM as a Clintonian blowout in recent weeks looks to be leveling out, at least for the moment, pending further national display of political or civil turmoil.  Polls generate a momentum all their own and self-perpetuate subsequent polls;  polls  become the story and even the driver behind the unfolding dialogue in today’s survey-fetishizing news cycles.

 

USC Dornslife/LA Times (Clinton, 44.6; Trump, 43.4)

 

Pew (Clinton, 41; Trump, 37)

 

The race has settled into a subdued cacophony of morbid anticipation of the next spectacle of national tribulation, one that will further elicit behavior and commentary on the part of the candidates and thus, another propulsion of public opinion that will stoke the poll numbers into their next stage of entropy.

 

One thing we can be sure of, as always, is that a candidate is defined by what they epitomize of their backers’ greatest worries and pessimisms.

 

It’s not who the voters feel positively affirmed by, but rather, which candidate cements and campaigns on that which the voters hinge the country’s fate upon, as they see it. We are defined by our priorities, by a personalized hierarchical list of worries and frets. If my candidate shares the same list of national priorities, I will probably like that person.

 

We judge candidates by what he or she appeals to in our internalized brew of self-perceived threats to the homeland or cultural integrity.

 

 

Trump and Clinton supporters differ on the major issues they believe are important for the country. Trump supporters believe immigration (66%) and terrorism (65%) are “very big” problems, while Clinton supporters believe the gap between the rich and the poor (70%) and the environment (43%) are major issues facing the country.

 

 

Rachel Maddow, she of the “weird” horse-jaw.

August 17th, 2016 by Socially Extinct

 

It was only a matter of time before MSNBC’s house-dyke started using her public stage to leer at the alt-right’s dissemination of Hillary Clinton’s descent into pathological physical dissolution.

 

 

 

 

 

Rachel, the only “weird” thing I can see is that horrible lesbianized horse-jaw of yours, and we would all be so much better off it was drilled shut.

 

 

Was the Clinton Foundation hacked?

August 17th, 2016 by Socially Extinct

 

Has the Clinton Foundation been hacked?

 

If it has, when did it happen, where is the information currently housed and when will it be released?

 

I won’t even bother with the “who’s” because in hacking parlance, I don’t believe that is vitally important since hacking originations are nebulous, cloaked in deliberate, decoyed disarray, and besides, how many more times do we need to listen to the United States law authorities default to the tired “it was the Russians” trope.

 

No one has admitted there was a hack, per se, only a suspicion on the part of the Clinton Foundation; a suspicion so keen, they’ve hired a large cyber security firm called FireEye to look into this potential “breach.”

 

 

 

Bill and Hillary Clinton’s charitable foundation hired the security firm FireEye to examine its data systems after seeing indications they might have been hacked, according to two sources familiar with the matter.

 

So far, no message or document hacked from the New York-based Clinton Foundation has surfaced in public, the sources said.
One of the sources and two U.S. security officials said that like hackers who targeted the Democratic National Committee, Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign and the Democrats’ congressional fundraising committee, the hackers appear to have used “spear phishing” techniques to gain access to the foundation’s network.

 

 

 

 

 

And of course, the obligatory Russian assertion.

 

 

 

 

Speaking on the condition of anonymity, however, the U.S. officials said the hackers used the same techniques Russian intelligence agencies or their proxies employed against the Democratic Party groups, which suggests that Russians also attacked the foundation.

 

 

 

 

Understandably, no one is very specific or forthcoming about the hack or of its magnitude.

 

 

 

Security question: Q: What is your favorite color? A: Muslim.

Security question:
Q: What is your favorite color?
A: Muslim.

 

 

 

A hack of the Clinton Foundation and its alleged layers of payola and corruption and other more sinister allegations certainly portends many potentially gruesome and voyeuristic windows, including supposed “kill-shots” that could instantly destroy Hillary Clinton’s Presidential aspirations. I’m cynical…I believe we could learn that Hillary herself was guilty of murder, but people would still vote for her.

 

 

 

Neither former White House Counsel Kathryn Ruemmler, the Clinton Foundation’s principal lawyer, nor a spokeswoman for the foundation responded to requests for comment on the hacking and the precautions the organization has taken.
Officials with FireEye said the company could not discuss its clients.
Although no documents have emerged, the attacks have left some Democrats and Clinton campaign officials worried that the hackers might have obtained emails and voice messages that could be used to reinforce Republican charges that donors to the Clinton Foundation were rewarded with access to Clinton and her aides while she was secretary of state or to her husband, former President Bill Clinton.
Another concern: hackers or outlets such as the anti-secrecy WikiLeaks website could release documents and emails damaging to her presidential campaign, several people familiar with the foundation’s activities said.
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee convened a closed-door meeting on Wednesday to discuss best cyber security practices.
The meeting, according to people familiar with it, included a recommendation that staff and lawmakers change their phone numbers and email addresses if that information was published online by hackers believed to be working for or with Russian intelligence agencies.

 

 

 

 

I placed an important paragraph in italics; a DCCC closed-door meeting to discuss “best practices?”  Wow.

 

 

Perhaps something is afoot.

 

 

**archive**