War on White Men: Miss America Execs Resign Over Honest but Politically Incorrect Emails


The conspiracy to disempower white men took a big step forward today as three leaders of the Miss America pageant resigned.

Their crime was talking about women in a normal, manly way. The women who were talked about were former Miss America winners. Does anybody remember who any of them are anymore? I sure don’t. I doubt very many people care about Miss America today.

Anyway, the email scandal revolves around men talking about women’s appearance, intelligence, and sex lives. As if women don’t talk about men’s appearances, smarts, and sexuality.

The attack on masculinity is disgusting. This particular episode of political correctness run amok also ensnared some women. The left is willing to sacrifice some women so long as men can be smeared and have their careers ruined.

Excerpt from CNN

Three leaders of the Miss America Organization resigned Saturday, two days after a report revealed purported emails from them and other employees disparaging pageant contestants.

Continue reading

Paul Joseph Watson Video: The New Sexual Puritans

While we should all enjoy the spectacle of Hollywood being destroyed, at the same time, there is an agenda at work that I’ve warned about, which is to destroy masculinity and deny men the right to woo women.

Showing sexual interest in a woman is normal and natural. So is rejection by women. When a woman is given the power to ruin a man (even to the point of suicide) because she wasn’t interested in dating him, you have a recipe for the total depopulating of the West. If men are not allowed to show interest in a woman, they’ll either become fags or become the male version of the cat lady.

PJW does a good job with this idea. I would argue it’s one of his best videos, if not the best.

Ten minutes.

Published on Nov 12, 2017

How the sex abuse scandal is being hijacked to demonize all men.

Heroic Michigan mom jailed over vaccine refusal: Don’t give my son more shots


Big pharma is seeking to make an example of Rebecca Bredow, the heroic mom who has resisted having her child vaccinated.

Whatever you think about the dangers to children of vaccinations, the idea that government can force people to violate their conscience this way should be anethema to all freedom loving people.

Complicating matters is that the boy’s father wants him vaccinated. Fathers have rights too.

So what’s a judge to do when the father wants one thing and the mother another?

Pray for wisdom.

USA Today

DETROIT — A Michigan mother who served five days in jail for violating a court order to vaccinate her son is heading back to court hoping to prevent any future shots.

Rebecca Bredow, 40, must convince Oakland County Circuit Judge Karen McDonald that avoiding future shots is “in the best interests of the child,” her lawyer, Clarence Dass, said.

Bredow opposes vaccines while the boy’s father, Bredow’s ex-husband James Horne, wants the boy vaccinated.

“We plan on bringing in an expert,” Dass said, adding that he had not confirmed yet who it will be.

Bredow likely faces a skeptical judge. McDonald’s patience with Bredow seemed to wane earlier this month when she found Bredow in contempt of court for ignoring a Sept. 27 order to vaccinate the child.

McDonald said that Bredow had agreed in November to follow a pediatrician’s advice on immunizations. But Dass disputes that, saying Bredow never agreed to that provision, which was included in court filings by a lawyer who no long represents Bredow.

“That was never placed on the record. It was done by the lawyers in chambers,” Dass said. “She didn’t know that was part of the order.”

McDonald sent Bredow to the Oakland County Jail on the contempt charge, where she stayed just over five days before being released. When Bredow appeared in court after her release, she learned that her son had been given two vaccinations while in his father’s custody.

O’Reilly Sues Critic for $5 Million Over “malicious” Facebook Post


Anyone can file a lawsuit against anyone else at anytime. I recall I went to the federal courthouse in San Antonio, wrote a check for a $300 to $400 filing fee, filled in a form by hand, and I had a lawsuit going. That was without a lawyer at the time.

Most lawyers recommend that you leave the amount of damages open rather than specifying an amount. I was told that judges don’t like to be told how much you want early in a lawsuit.

Filing a lawsuit is easy. Winning is more difficult.

O’Reilly’s Facebook critic, Michael Panter, will need to come up with at least $200,000 to defend himself. There will probably be 60 to 100 pretrial motions that his lawyer will need to respond to. At $300 an hour the lawyer’s fees will add up.

If his critic told the truth about O’Reilly or if what he wrote is OPINION, then he should win. As a public figure O’Reilly can be criticized. In order for him to win his case, he will have to prove that Panter acted with malice.

You may recall that Sarah Palin sued the New York Times earlier this year for defamation. Her case was quickly dismissed.


With more revelations about multimillion-dollar sexual harassment settlements becoming public, ex-Fox News Channel host Bill O’Reilly threw some muscle around in the courts today to the tune of $5 million.

“The relief includes, but is not limited to, reputational damages, monetary damages, special damages, punitive damages, costs, fees, injunctive relief, and such other relief as is just and proper, in an amount not less than $5 million,” said the two-page summons of notice filing (read it here) in New York Supreme Court against Michael Panter over a social media posting that didn’t exactly paint O’Reilly in the best of lights.

As a potential deal with Sinclair Broadcasting and return to the small screen looms for the former Factor frontman, the self-described “not a litigious guy” this morning followed up on his promise of yesterday to go after anyone who uttered what he considered untruths about him. A category into which former New Jersey state assemblymen Panter now falls, in O’Reilly’s view.

“This action seeks redress for Defendant Panter’s intentional, malicious, and bad faith actions in making defamatory and false statements in a publicly-available social media post,” says O’Reilly attorney Fredric Newman on Friday, designating Nassau County as the specific jurisdiction for the matter.

As damage spread from the news earlier this week of a $32 million sexual harassment settlement by O’Reilly just before Fox reupped his contract to $25 million annually, Panter went on Facebook claiming that an FNC-employed ex-girlfriend of his had once settled a harassment case with O’Reilly. He then asserted the NDA-bound ex was later contacted directly by O’Reilly looking for “anything you have” on another woman accusing the then-FNC host of sexual harassment.

“Plaintiff seeks damages for the public hatred, ridicule, disgrace, and permanent harm to his professional and personal reputations as a result of Defendant Panter’s publication of knowingly false defamatory statements about Plaintiff, which were made with actual malice, as well as Defendant Panter’s intentional infliction of emotional distress upon Plaintiff,” the summons adds without taking a breath.

While not actually a lawsuit — nothing like that has been filed, it seems — O’Reilly is clearly taking a page from ex-colleague Eric Bolling’s legal book and going after those he thinks are going after him.

Like the $50 million action this summer by the then-suspended and later pink-slipped Bolling against Huffington Post freelancer Yashar Ali over suggestive texts from the former Five co-host to female co-workers, this is not an actual lawsuit. O’Reilly, who was canned from FNC in April as more than $13 million in sexual harassment settlements by him and the company were revealed, may be trying to intimidate more than litigate.

Variety adds this information about Panter’s scribblings:

Panter is a one-time New Jersey politician who took to Facebook on Tuesday to write about how the one-time Fox News Channel star treated a former girlfriend of his after she had accused O’Reilly of sexual harassment. The summons says O’Reilly believes he has been defamed.

In the Facebook post, Panter offered details of how O’Reilly purportedly called his ex-girlfriend and solicited information from her about another woman who had also made harassment allegations against the former Fox News star.

Talent and Literary Agencies Drop O’Reilly in Wake of Sexual Harassment Accusations

In comments boards discussing Bill O, I’m seeing too many males acting like p*ssy-whipped feminists in their words of hatred directed at the former Fox News personality.

I will defend the right of every unmarried man of any age to flirt, woo, ask for a date, ask for sex, and otherwise pursue ANY female of his choice.

I will not defend sexual assault. No “grab ’em by the p*ssy” without a signal from the lady first. I said SIGNAL, not a signed legal document.

The libertarian in me leaves me in a quandary regarding voluntary agreements between men and women to exchange sex for pay raises, promotions, etc. Notice the qualifying word VOLUNTARY in the statement. The freedom to reach voluntary agreements without interference by the state is an important right that shouldn’t be impaired by political correctness.

My principles exclude married men from having these rights. Via marriage, a man voluntarily gives up certain rights, including the right to pursue women.

Sorry guys, but those are my principles.

The turd p*ssified males commenting on O’Reilly seem to think that NO MAN has a right to woo a woman. These running dogs of feminism are sex traitors, betraying natural human behavior in favor of feminist political correctness.

Some men seem to be happy that their masculinity is being stripped away via the demonization of Bill O.

Today he lost his literary agent, on top of losing his talent agent earlier.


In the wake of sexual harassment allegations, Bill O’Reilly has been dropped by his literary agency, WME. This news comes on the heels of the ending of his relationship with his talent agency, UTA, earlier this week.

In a statement to Variety, WME said, “We no longer represent Bill O’Reilly for future deals. It is our fiduciary responsibility to service the existing deals we have under contract, but we will not be working with him moving forward.”

O’Reilly is the author of seven books in his “Killing” series, including the most recent “Killing England: The Brutal Struggle for American Independence.”

The former Fox News anchor has recently come under renewed criticism after news broke that 21st Century Fox had renewed his contract right after paying a $32 million settlement.

He was fired by Fox News in April following a New York Times report that he had been involved in settlements of harassment and sexual harassment claims with five women totaling $13 million, dating back to 2002. On Saturday, the Times reported that O’Reilly personally reached a settlement in January with former Fox News legal analyst, Lis Wiehl, for $32 million, a fee far larger than previously disclosed settlements. In February, Fox News set a long-term contract with O’Reilly that included a huge salary boost, to $25 million a year from around $20 million under his previous deal.

Talent agency UTA had informed O’Reilly that it would not be renewing his contract when his deal expires at the end of 2017, according to a person familiar with the matter. “Bill has already lined up alternative representation,” said Mark Fabiani, a spokesman for O’Reilly.

Fabiani had no comment on the WME decision.

A lot of sexual interaction takes place via nonverbal communication by women. A gesture, a smile, a head toss, a look–all of these come into play. Women, sober women anyway, are not programmed to walk up to a man and say, “F*** me. Now.” Only in porn …

Anyway, the feminist rules for male-female interaction are intended to apply to whites only. Thus, they are anti-white as well as anti-male.

My final observation is that O’Reilly’s sex habits or behavior toward women have nothing to do with his ability to write books (which were ghostwritten anyway). I hope he finds another agent and writes a memoir telling his side of the sexual harassment story.

FAIL! Dumb Professor Explains Why Men Don’t Get Married

Zowie! I never knew that men have just learned to masturbate and that’s a good substitute for marriage. But I don’t read academic papers written by professors anymore, so I’m in the stupid zone, I guess.

Or maybe the feminist libtard professor has it wrong. Maybe there’s more to it that the professor doesn’t want to talk about.

Karl Denninger’s Market-Ticker

This is truly laugh-worthy, and late — because frankly, it didn’t deserve any digital ink at the time.

But when one gets bored….

Thanks to cheap sex, marriage may be doomed.

The share of Americans ages 25-34 who are married dropped 13 percentage points from 2000 to 2014. A new book by sociologist Mark Regnerus blames this declining rate on how easy it is for men to get off.

Regnerus calls it “cheap sex,” an economic term meant to describe sex that has very little cost in terms of time or emotional investment, giving it little value.

He goes on to “credit”….. masturbation, as if that’s some new thing.

I think he’s got a few screws missing — never mind a few timelines.

What this clownface refuses to acknowledge is the changes in legal environment for marriage. Previous to the so-called sexual revolution once you said “yes” to marriage you were mostly stuck. Oh sure, you could walk off, but you couldn’t get a divorce without showing fault, which was mostly defined as terrible cruelty, alcoholism, abuse and similar offenses. “I don’t love you anymore” didn’t cut it, and more to the point if you took off and ran as a woman you didn’t get either the kids or the money.

Now there were certainly severe problems with this arrangement, not the least of which was that men could run off with the money, but not the kids — and they sometimes did. That left both the woman and children in terrible circumstances. But those cads couldn’t get an actual divorce without fault either, so remarriage was out of the question (on pain of a bigamy charge, which was and still is a real thing.) This kept the serial cads mostly at bay simply because you could only play the game once.

The problem today is that while there has been plenty done to allegedly address the issue of a man running off and abandoning his children (at least financially) statistically speaking what it has led to is an enormous number of women who run off without any cruelty or evil involved in their marriage and take both the kids and the money. So we went from an injustice a modest part of the time with an inhibiting factor remaining for serial abusers to the opposite injustice a great majority of the time and removed the inhibiting factor as well so those of both sex who wish to serially abuse the other sex — and the kids — can now do so!

Men have figured risk out and have been left with exactly zero options available to them to mitigate it Many have simply decided not to go down that road because the outcome is completely out of their control. Add to it the so-called “gender studies” crowd that likes to proclaim that all sex is rape and has managed to get the view that men can consent to sex when drunk, but women cannot ensconced in extra-judicial career and life-destroying punishments meted out in colleges (which would never pass muster in an actual court of law) and it’s not hard to figure out why a larger and larger percentage of men have said “**** that” and refused to entertain the option.

“In the domain of sex and relationships, men will act as nobly as women collectively demand,” he writes.


No demand will carry any weight when lefty and righty are available and “good enough.”

See, that’s the problem when you get down to it, which this clown doesn’t want to deal with: For interpersonal sex to “win”, especially on a “bonded” basis, it has to offer more to both parties.

Remember that lefty never complains about a headache, it can’t claim******the next morning if you had a couple of drinks and it has a zero set of odds of destroying you both mentally and financially.

Maybe, just maybe, a bit of a more-honest look at the situation is called for, and perhaps one should consider that the “total package” has to be more attractive on balance than the alternatives — which of course include no partner at all.

Click on the link to Market-Ticker to read quite a few good comments written by men telling their tales of woe. They are as informative as the article.

Australian Military Bans MEN: “PC gone mad”

Aussie men will just have to become trannies if they want to serve in an all-female military.

The government apparently doesn’t want men with military training to be able to physically resist the government’s tyrannical ways.

Women are less rebellious

Yahoo Australia

The federal government is rejecting claims that the Australian Army is looking to close its gender gap by banning male recruits from taking up new roles.

Defence Industry Minister Christopher Pyne said there’s “no banning of men being recruited in the army”.

“We don’t have enough women in the armed forces and we are trying to encourage more to be a part of that society, but there is no banning of men being recruited,” he said.

News Corp reported earlier that Australian Defence Force staff have been told to recruit only women, including in frontline combat roles, under threat of being reassigned if they ignore the directive in an attempt to increase the number of female soldiers in its ranks.

The move had reportedly been described as ‘political correctness gone mad’ by defence insiders.

This week’s list of Army jobs on offer includes 50 roles, 35 of which are only available to women, the report said.

The navy and air force are said to be facing similar quotas.

Bernie Gaynor, a former Army officer and Australian Conservatives party member, says the ADF’s “politically correct policies have gone beyond bonkers”.

“It is now openly discriminating against males for its combat roles in the Army,” he told News Corp.