Not the movie star James Dean, mind you. He canât rape anyone â his dick rotted off decades ago. No, this is a porn star and Zionist supremacist called James Deen who, according to another obscure porn star called Bolli, or Stoli, or is it Stoya? Pravda? Some such thing. Anyway, according to this girl, Deen raped her. And how do we know he raped her? Because she said so. Duh.
Now, while we have yet to hear from what appears to be the Jewish equivalent of Mel Gibson, there are several red flags on Stoyaâs story.
First, as is so common nowadays, the so-called victim is so under-whelmed by her traumatic experience that, rather than go to the police, she instead takes to Twitter to make her accusations. I am no expert on rape victims, but I find it hard to believe that most of them wouldnât want the bastard locked up, as opposed to just vilified by the hysterical harpies and hormonal teenagers that dominate social media.
The second red flag is that this woman is pretty obscure. I have only ever read her name once before, so itâs not like sheâs the Marilyn Chambers or Jenna Jameson of her generation, is it? But now? Well, now we all know who she is, donât we? And that probably means sheâll be getting paid a lot more moolah the next time she jumps on some gigantic dong in front of a camera.
The third flag is the accuserâs admission that she is a feminist. This is a lot like a white woman who has accused a black man of stomping on her roses admitting to being a member of the KKK! Surely, only the most naĂŻve would fail to see a possible political motivation behind such an accusation!
Admittedly, these are only red flags and not proof positive that Deen went nowhere near the womanâs roses, but on the weight of the evidence it wonât surprise me if this turns out to be yet another unconfirmed attack on a well-known manâs character. Only time will tell for certain, but my view is that Little Ms. Cumstain is probably full of it, and by âitâ I donât mean that white, gooey stuff!
Story here. And donât read the comments unless you want to go into a rage. One guy actually has the sense to say we should wait for evidence and is called âdisgusting,â and the insult receives 223 likes. Makes me wish SJWs would all catch syphilis and die. Now that I think of it, given their inability to reason clearly, most of them probably already have syphilis! Now, if only they would hurry up and die!
Ainât it just grand when the feminists turn on one another over the most minor of things? Emma Watson, the disgusting little dwarf who gave that shameful âHeForSheâ speech at the UN, has just made the mistake of saying that some of the best feminists are men! While I see that as yet another gross insult to the male sex, the pinheads and reprobates who litter Twitter saw it as some sort of attack on feminism. Or it had something to do with race. Or something.
Amongst the more coherent tweets are such pearls of wisdom asâŚ
âEmma Watson is a problematic fav. I love her but she needs to educate herself and stop trying to get male approval with her white feminism.â
Puzzling, as in the piece there is no mention of race. My guess is that âwhite feminismâ is just another nonsensical SJW term that has nothing to do with what is actually happening.
âWHY DOES EMMA WATSON ALWAYS MORE CONCERNED ABOUT MEN, SHE SPENDS ALL HER TIME CATERING TO MALE FEMINISTSâ
Love the all-caps, madam. Combined with your atrocious mangling of the English language it truly makes you look like someone who should be taken seriously.
âEmma Watson’s views shouldn’t be considered feminism, anything that questions black women and seeks male approval is NOT feminismâ
What? Which black women did she question? Itâs almost as if Twitter feminists live in a completely different reality to the rest of usâŚ
As for Watson herself, she claims to have âexperiencedâ sexism because most of the directors she has worked with have been male. Yeah, and most of the nurses and school teachers I have encountered have been female, so I guess that I also have âexperienced sexism.â What a schmuck.
Thereâs also some crap caption under the video in which it is claimed that she said âIt was seven men and meâ! That doesnât seem to be in either the video or the print, but it makes you wonder what the hell young Emma is getting up to in her spare time. Emma Watson â actress, feminist twat, human bowling ball.
Unfortunately, what she is digging is a grave for her tiny brain. Recently, the lukewarm actress complained of being sworn at after expressing some opinion or other about one of those things where a bunch of men throw their balls at one another.
Now, sheâs gone all the way to writing an article for some site or other in which she expands on one set of unproven claims with a second set of unproven claims and throws in a lot of feminist tripe just for the hell of it.
While a reasonable person knows that the internet is full of these things called trolls, who like to make people unhappy just for the lolls, Judd claims itâs all because sheâs a wiminz. Her being an actress and all, I give her the benefit of the doubt and assume sheâs dumb rather than dishonest when she claims itâs all some sort of patriarchal thing rather than a bunch of jerks going after a soft target. But what really gets me about this whole thing is her insistence that what she experienced is âgender-based violence.â
This latter is a fine example of both Hollywood idiocy and of the dangerous and stealthy way in which feminism redefines terms to suit its own aims. If the idea takes hold that calling someone a nasty name is a type of violence, why would it not eventually become something that can land you in jail? After all, itâs violence and we all know violent people belong in jail. This is dangerous and contemptible even if one does not look further â if one does, then it gets even scarier. If calling Judd a whore is violence, why shouldnât it be violence to call Obama or Cheney scumbags? Assuming sheâs a Democrat (as safe an assumption as one can make, I would wager) she has probably referred to many Republican politicians by all sorts of colorful names. This means, by her own standards, that she has committed acts of violence and should therefore be the subject of police reports the same way her trolls are. She is also claiming that she was threatened with rape, but as she gives no evidence of that I am not taking it seriously. Funny, huh? The most serious charge she has to make and no evidence provided. She has caps of people being mean to her, but does not bother to give us caps of the so-called rape threats. And even if such threats were made, they are not violence, either â just the kind of meaningless threat one sees on the internet all the time. Being a rabid feminist weasel, Judd uses the article to go on about all sorts of claptrap, such as the âwhat was the rape victim wearingâ thing, something which I have only ever seen happen in the minds of deranged feminist weasels. Iâm sure it does occasionally happen, but it is so uncommon that I have never actually been witness to that particular bit of stupidity â and god knows iâve seen plenty of stupidity. Which brings us back to the knuckle-dragging halfwit who wrote the piece, a piece in which she, ironically, complains of being called dumb while also doling out howlers such as these…
âin which my genitals, vaginal and anal, shouldâŚâ
âan attempted oral rape by yet another adult man.â
Thatâs right, folks, Ashley Judd, a woman who objects to being called stupid and who thinks her opinions matter, thinks her asshole is part of her genitals! Good thing she never had children. As for âadult man,â what other kind is there? Is the definition of âmanâ not âan adult, male humanâ? It is in my world. Letâs face it, anyone this hilariously stupid should not be allowed to write on anything of substance. Indeed, it pretty much makes me wish that sport was the only thing she blabbed about.
Being forever in search of something to be offended by, some Guardian writer has decided to attack the custom of actors who arenât disabled playing characters who are disabled and has even gone so far as to compare it to wearing blackface!
In a waste of pixels called, âWe wouldnât accept actors blacking up, so why applaud âcripping upâ? Some escaped lunatic called Frances Ryan complains thatâŚ
âWhile âblacking upâ is rightly now greeted with outrage, âcripping upâ is still greeted with awards. Is there actually much difference between the two? In both cases, actors use prosthetics or props to alter their appearance in order to look like someone from a minority group. In both cases they often manipulate their voice or body to mimic them. They take a job from an actor who genuinely has that characteristic, and, in doing so, perpetuate that groupâs under-representation in the industry. They do it for the entertainment of crowds who, by and large, are part of the majority group.â
Well, yes, the two are different, though one shouldnât expect someone who writes for the Guardian to be able to makes such razor thin distinctions. First, blacks are not handicapped, which means they are capable of getting themselves to the studio and learning their lines, which is more than can be said for the kind of character Hoffman played in Rain Man! Where the fuck are you going to find someone that mentally disabled who can learn all those lines and hit all those marks while at the same time delivering an adequate performance? How about someone who can do all of the above while being so disabled that all he can control is his left foot? Come one, Little Ms PC, find me an actor who has both cerebral palsy and the talent of Daniel Day Lewis. You canât.( Maybe in ten or fifteen years RJ Mitte, the kid from Breaking Bad, will be that good, but that remains to be seen.) Amazingly, the writer comes close to acknowledging her argumentâs flaws but somehow manages to sail away into la-la land all over againâŚ
âThe explanations for âcripping upâ are obviousâŚOn a practical level too, perhaps hiring a non-disabled actor is easier. The ability to walk allows Redmayne to portray Hawking before being diagnosed with motor neurone disease. But I canât get away from the fact that, if these arguments were made for white actors âplaying blackâ, our outrage would be so great that the scenes would be left on the cutting room floor.â
Not only does this show a disconnect with reality, it is also deeply racist. This is the second time she has equated blackness, which does not confer any intrinsic disadvantage, with disability, which is something that by necessity must involve intrinsic disadvantage. Thatâs why itâs called disability, because it makes you less able! Is the writer, on some level, saying black people are less able than whites? I suspect so â after all, if you donât think apples and pears have certain things in common why lump them both under the category of âfruitâ?
Perhaps starting to slowly realize that sheâs spouting crap, the writer then moves on to more rational, albeit still flawed groundâŚ
âAfter all, disabled characters create powerful images and sentiments for audiences. They can symbolise the triumph of the human spirit over so-called âadversityâ. They can represent what it is to be âdifferentâ in some way, an outsider or an underdog who ultimately becomes inspirational. These are universal feelings every audience member can identify with. And there is something a little comforting in knowing, as we watch the star jump around the red carpet, that none of it â the pain or negativity we still associate with disability â was real.â
Why is âadversityâ in quotation marks? Is she saying that being disabled isnât really something that involves adversity? Same thing for âdifferent.â What, being disabled doesnât actually make you different? I guess the disabled just seem different because of, you know, all the differences! Itâs almost as if, in some quasi-psychotic way, she is trying to deny the very existence of disability while at the same time writing about it! The one area in which she may have somehow stumbled onto a half-truth is that it is comforting to know that at the end of the dayâs shoot Daniel Day Lewis was able to walk to his car and drive to his hotel room without crashing into a crowd of pedestrians! But that theory, at best, explains only partly why the non-disabled are so often cast as the disabled. I have yet to hear of someone who stopped watching Breaking Bad because the guy who played Waltâs son couldnât leave his illness at the studio gates when he went home at night! No, to a sensible person â a category of creatures that these days seems to exclude just about everyone who writes opinion pieces for The Guardian â the truth is as plain as Lena Dunham late on a Sunday morning. Disabled people are a smallish minority, and within the subsets of disability they are a tiny, tiny minority. Take cerebral palsy. The bloody thing is so rare that only one in 500 people actually have it! In the US, on the other hand, around one in seven people are black! That is why blacking up is not acceptable, because there are a shitload of black actors out there, and with so many of them on tap the chances are good that you can find someone to do a great job without having to resort to a masquerade. With rare conditions such as cerebral palsy and Stephen Hawkingâs illness (Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, which apparently afflicts only 1 in 50 thousand people) your chances of finding someone who has the requisite ability combined with the, according to this writer, requisite disability are about as good as the chances of someone at The Guardian writing something sensible!
The whole article is a joke — the half-witted caperings of an idiot looking for an excuse to be offended, a clown looking for a reason to yell âoppression!â into the echo chambers of the internet. It is the kind of thing that the right points to when they want to convince Joe Mouthbreather that the left is full of loons — it is the kind of thing we really donât need to be associated with.
And Iâm actually being nice there â itâs quite possible she isnât dumb, just the kind of pathological liar one expects to see spruiking this bullshit.
As everyone knows by now, that girl from the Harry Potter movies has given a lame little speech about the wiminz at the UN and, of course, the internet is just gushing about how wonderful she and the speech were. The first thing I have to ask is, what the fuck is Watson doing blabbing about this subject? Is she an intellectual now? Is she at least a feminist blogger? No, sheâs a kewpie doll who makes movies, and about as qualified to give a speech about gender as I am to give one about acting, but as long as you parrot the establishmentâs views, qualifications are not needed.
The primary subject of the speech is the suspiciously named HeForShe initiative, something that Watson tries as mightily as she can to portray as some sort of gender equality thing. But alas of her, even before she opens her mouth it becomes clear that this is not about true equality when CNN host Sheep Blitzer tells us straight out that the initiative is about the âinequalities faced by women and girls.â Whoops.
The first thing that strikes me about this video is how scared she looks standing at the podium â all trembly, yet ironically also stiff, poor Emma looks like sheâs about to shit herself! Then, summoning up all the courage she can, Watson clenches her tiny bowels and proceeds to complain that feminism is seen as anti-male and that this perception has to change. Well, I have to agree with her on both those points â but not quite in the way she would like. Yes, feminism is seen as anti-male, but for the same reason the Klan is seen as anti-black â because they want to be treated better than those who are of a different and, supposedly, less human group. As an example, only a couple of years ago NOW called for all crimes of violence against women to be considered hate crimes, hence ensuring that they would carry a greater penalty than violent crimes committed against males. If wanting greater protection before the law isnât bigotry then what the fuck is? As for the way feminism is seen, I too would like to see the perception change, but I would like to see that come about due to an actual change in the truth behind the perception. As Watson makes no mention of changing feminism itself I can only assume that the perception is all she wants to alter, which is why she is up there putting, quite literally, a pretty face on a very ugly movement.
Watson also tells us that âMy recent research has shown me that feminism has become an unpopular word.â Claiming to have done research to establish such an obvious fact seems to me both a deliberate attempt to appear intellectual and an unintentional declaration of her own idiocy. She might as well have added, âAlso, recent research has shown me that if you donât plug the toaster in, your bread will stay mysteriously white. Why this is so I have yet to figure out, but it, also, is probably the fault of men.â Our little mouse then claims that people see her as âtoo aggressiveâ due to her feminist views and goes on to timorously point out that there is not a single country in the world in which women have gender equality, conveniently leaving out that the reason for this is that women are treated as inferior in the third world and as superior in the developed world, hence there is, indeed, no country in the world in which women have actual gender equality!
And what can Little Miss Bowl Of Jelly offer as evidence of sexism in her own life? Well, after much thought, she came up with that time back in elementary school when she was called âbossyâ! Now we know what Kurtz was thinking when he uttered his famous last words, “The horror! The horror!” â he was thinking what an awful world it is in which little girls some times get called bossy! Watson gives no context for the anecdote, so for all we know she actually was a bossy little thing and the adults responsible (probably female themselves) realized that a mini-Hitler shouldnât be put in charge of the school play. She also complains about being âsexualizedâ at 14, and that her female friends dropped out of sport lest they be seen as muscly â âEeew! I donât want to look like some filthy boy!â is as likely an explanation as any for that strange phenomenon. And then she throws out a sop to the male sex, a soft little nothing meant to make it look as if the menz matter, by mentioning that her male friends are less likely to express their feelz! But even this bit of lip service is somewhat self-serving in that her male friendsâ emotional reticence impacts her personal life as well as theirs. Later on, she throws out sop number two by pointing out that society sees daddy as a lesser parent than mommy, but that can be seen as being about her rather than daddy and, much more importantly, child-rearing is an area in which change would benefit women as much as men. After all, if stay-at-home dads become more acceptable it will be easier for women to pursue their career ambitions.
Probably the only truly positive spot comes when she points out that there are young men out there suffering from mental illness who are afraid to seek help lest they be seen as âless of a men.â Realizing that âa menâ is something you say in church, Watson nervously throws in âOr less of a man.â See, now Iâm actually starting to feel sorry for her⌠And sure, she goes on to make a good point about male suicide, but you have to throw the dog a real bone once in a while. And given her apparent admiration of Hillary Clinton, she may even be thinking that women are actually the primary victims of male suicide because they lose their husbands and sons! Indeed, this possibility is supported when she follows up with the valid claim that men are imprisoned by gender stereotypes then immediately points out that freeing men from those restrictions would have huge benefits for women!
Towards the end she goes into some kumbaya crap about everyone being free yet finishes off with â you guessed it â yet another call for men to help women out with their problems! She also distorts history by attributing to Edmund Burke something he never said, but itâs not as if she went to a fancy University like Brown. Oh, wait, she did go to Brown! Perhaps she missed the lecture in which someone pointed out that the famous words âAll that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothingâ are, at best, a paraphrasing of some of Burkeâs ideas and, at worst, a fabrication. Note also the total absence of the word âwomenâ in the original quote. Itâs almost as if her intention is to state that âEdmund Burke was a great man (he must have been or I wouldnât be quoting him) and by including women he was being a feminist, hence you should emulate the great man.â
And while Iâm on the subject of misrepresentation, I really must make quick mention of the visual aspects of the thing. The tactic of putting a pretty face on a bunch of ugly ideas has already been pointed out, but notice also the broad shoulders on the suit and the pulled-back hair which makes her head look smaller. The combined effect of this is to make her look more adult, less like the frightened baby rabbit that she is and more like the strong, confident woman that she is not. Hell, I could even go so far as to claim the white suit was chosen as a way of signifying the inherent purity and peacefulness of women, but they wouldnât go that far. Or would they?
For those who canât be bothered watching the thing, it all adds up to Watson making claims that feminism is about equality of the sexes then proceeding to call for men to help women, though admittedly she does balance this out by calling for men to help women. Watson may as well have said, âWelcome to HeForShe, boys, a solidarity movement where you do a shitload for me and I do nothing for you!â She even complains that men donât feel welcome in the conversation about gender, which is a bit like Fred Phelps complaining that gays donât feel welcome at his church. Want us to feel welcome, Ms Watson? Go off and set up SheForHe, an initiative asking women to help men and boys with the many inequities they face in the western world â until you do, youâre just farting through the wrong hole.
