December 14th, 2017

Spurlock denounces himself

I suspect we’ll be seeing more of this sort of thing—a guy publicly confessing his sexual offenses and vowing things will be different.

Morgan Spurlock—whom I’ve never heard of before—is a 47-year-old “documentary filmmaker, humorist, television producer, screenwriter, playwright and political activist, best known for the documentary film ‘Super Size Me.'” In his essay he confesses to having sex that was ambiguous as to the woman’s desires but later labeled by the woman as rape, and jokingly calling a female assistant “hot pants” or “sex pants.”

Here’s his self-denunciation:

You see, I’ve come to understand after months of these revelations [of sexual acting-out by men], that I am not some innocent bystander, I am also a part of the problem.

I’m sure I’m not alone in this thought, but I can’t blindly act as though I didn’t somehow play a part in this, and if I’m going truly represent myself as someone who has built a career on finding the truth, then it’s time for me to be truthful as well.

I am part of the problem.

He repeats several times that he’s part of the problem. I’m not sure what this public confession is supposed to accomplish other than getting it off his chest before he’s the next person accused, but what caught my eye was that, despite the fact that he seems to indicate he’s only just realized that he’s done wrong, he also says this (quite a bit later in his essay):

I have been unfaithful to every wife and girlfriend I have ever had. Over the years, I would look each of them in the eye and proclaim my love and then have sex with other people behind their backs.

This stopped me in my tracks. Now, that’s not the least bit ambiguous and that’s not just a tasteless office joke. And that’s the sort of thing we’re meant to understand this man has just realized is wrong, as a result of Weinstein and the others? What sort of amoral wasteland has he previously inhabited? (That’s a somewhat rhetorical question, by the way, but not even to have previously realized his compulsive infidelity was wrong seems rather odd.)

This is of a completely different order of magnitude than calling an assistant “hot pants.” This is being an equivocal scumbag, liar, and sexual betrayer.

He goes on:

But why? What caused me to act this way? Is it all ego? Or was it the sexual abuse I suffered as a boy and as a young man in my teens? Abuse that I only ever told to my first wife, for fear of being seen as weak or less than a man?

Is it because my father left my mother when I was child? Or that she believed he never respected her, so that disrespect carried over into their son?

Or is it because I’ve consistently been drinking since the age of 13? I haven’t been sober for more than a week in 30 years, something our society doesn’t shun or condemn but which only served to fill the emotional hole inside me and the daily depression I coped with. Depression we can’t talk about, because its wrong and makes you less of a person.

And the sexual daliances? Were they meaningful? Or did they only serve to try to make a weak man feel stronger.

I don’t know. None of these things matter when you chip away at someone and consistently make them feel like less of a person.

I am part of the problem. We all are.

We all are? Does Spurlock mean to lump all of his behavior together, the minor with the major? Does he really think every single person (or every single man, or whoever he’s referring to when he says “we”) acts like him? I beg to differ.

He offers his sad childhood and his drinking as excuses/explanations and then says they don’t matter. So why bring them up in the first place?

As I said, expect more of this sort of thing. I think most of Spurlock’s confession should be between him and his therapist. But since he’s put it out there, I’m reacting to it.

[NOTE: And whatever his guilt or innocence, this suicide is just sad:

On Tuesday, Johnson held a press conference at his church on Bardstown Road, where he denied the molestation allegations. According to court documents obtained by the Kentucky Center for Investigative Reporting, the alleged molestation took place on New Year’s Eve in 2012. The alleged victim, who was 17 at the time, told authorities that she was staying in a living area of the Heart of Fire City Church where Johnson was pastor, when Johnson, who had been drinking a lot, approached her, kissed her and fondled her under her clothes.

Johnson (who was a state representative in Kentucky) killed himself, leaving a note protesting his innocence.]

55 Responses to “Spurlock denounces himself”

  1. Griffin Says:

    This dude has every tired cliché of this ridiculous hysteria covered.

    1.Abuse as a child
    2. Substance abuse
    3. Inappropriate touching
    4. inappropriate language
    5. adultery

    Am I missing anything?

    The pre scandal inoculation attempt is a new strategy though.

  2. ed in texas Says:

    In the words of the old, politically incorrect, Lone Ranger and Tonto joke:
    “What do mean “we”, white eyes?

  3. arfldgrs Says:

    Neo: whom I’ve never heard of before…


    what planet where you on when he decided to eat nothing but mcdonalds to show how bad it is for you and so on..

    thats like missing the paris hilton burger ad

  4. Brian Swisher Says:

    His main claim to fame is making a documentary that shows if you eat lots and lots of french fries and drink lots and lots of corn syrup sweetened soft drinks…you’ll gain weight. Color me surprised.

  5. vanderleun Says:

    This beta boy’s mom used to run a shop near me in Queen Anne. Nothing but preening from her all day and a hard core marxist hippie chick.

  6. vanderleun Says:

    And now it is the Paris Review’s turn…

  7. arfldgrs Says:

    The pre scandal inoculation attempt is a new strategy though.

    no, its the post scandal confessions of a communist..
    ie. they come forward and confess their crimes against the state as part of the recovery and so on for others.

    these are famous.

    heck… it goes all the way back to engels
    you know, the its socialism not communist
    and so on

    Works of Frederick Engels 1847
    Draft of a Communist Confession of Faith

    Question 1: Are you a Communist?

    Answer: Yes.

    Question 2: What is the aim of the Communists?

    Answer: To organise society in such a way that every member of it can develop and use all his capabilities and powers in complete freedom and without thereby infringing the basic conditions of this society.

    they used to call them “Struggle Sessions”

    Struggle session

    A struggle session was a form of public humiliation and torture used by the Communist Party of China in the Mao Zedong era, particularly during the Cultural Revolution, to shape public opinion and to humiliate, persecute, or execute political rivals and class enemies

    In general, the victim of a struggle session was forced to admit to various crimes before a crowd of people who would verbally and physically abuse the victim until he or she confessed. Struggle sessions were often held at the workplace of the accused, but were sometimes conducted in sports stadiums where large crowds would gather if the target was famous enough

    this became almost a tradition at one point like a person renouncing their sins…

    “i denounce my past middle class ways” and so on…

    truggle sessions developed from similar ideas of criticism and self-criticism in the Soviet Union from the 1920s. The term refers to class struggle; the session is held to benefit the target, by eliminating all traces of counterrevolutionary, reactionary thinking. Chinese Communists resisted this at first, because struggle sessions conflicted with the Chinese concept of saving face, but struggle sessions became commonplace at Communist Party meetings during the 1930s due to public popularity

    you guys are doing their work!!!
    becuse you dont know this and cant identify it correctly
    you naturally make up something that hides it from everyone else

    ie. not learning and musing as to why something is provides the cover to erase and replace the idea which remains unknown due to lack of learning it

    everyone who doesnt learn the history and does not recall this, erases it and replaces it and the young dont know or believe its a key part of the revolution

    its like hiding the thermometer the frog uses to know when to leave the frying pan.

  8. n.n Says:

    For a viable repentance, he needs to flog himself, then purchase an indulgence from Planned Parenthood.

  9. Chester Draws Says:

    I am part of the problem. We all are.

    Well, I’m not, and I strongly doubt I ever will be. I resent being called part of the problem based on my collective guilt for being male and white.

    The progressives have dug themselves a bit of a hole here. It was not conservative whites and asians who advocated a loosening of sexual morals. In their championing of #MeToo the progressives risk returning sexual behaviour to what the conservatives wanted all along.

    The current McCarthyite purge is going to take down a lot of people. Mostly men sure, but I suspect mostly not conservatives. They’ll struggle to bring down Mike Pence, for example. Taking down Moore to win Alabama won’t be a victory if dozens of Democrats fall in the process.

    Who is going to want to be endorsed by a Hollywood celebrity now?

  10. n.n Says:

    Most men are gentlemen; most women are ladies; self-moderating and responsible. The epiphany, if there is one, is of an unholy collusion between female and male chauvinist pigs to exploit and even sacrifice women, men, girls, boys, and babies, too, for financial, social, and political progress, and narcissistic indulgence.

  11. vanderleun Says:

    Paul Joseph Watson on Twitter: "Hey, who still cares about the accusations against Roy Moore being investigated?"

    Hey, who still cares about the accusations against Roy Moore being investigated?— Paul Joseph Watson (@PrisonPlanet) December 14, 2017

    “The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn’t exist. And like that – poof – he’s gone!”

  12. arfldgrs Says:

    oh, we do a lot of things now that even the communists dont do.. why? cause we are in the stage around 1920.. not the modern stage post faux collapse (reorganization/peristroika), and so on

    which was to deny the other so that we would become that, without opposition that defined us to push back on

    Struggle sessions were disowned in China after 1978, when the reformers led by Deng Xiaoping took power. Deng Xiaoping prohibited struggle sessions and other kinds of Mao-era violent political campaigns.

    The Anti-Bolshevik League (league used to be one of thos code words, but neo doesnt believe that which is the point of it) incident, Futian incident, and Campaign to Suppress Counterrevolutionaries

    the person confessing does not want to be seen as a man who did not say the deer was a horse!!!! (i told this tale three times and no one got it)


    Under some systems of communism, party members who had fallen out of favor with the nomenklatura were sometimes forced to undergo “self-criticism” sessions, producing either written or verbal statements detailing their ideological errors and affirming their renewed belief in the Party line. Self-criticism, however, did not guarantee political rehabilitation, and often offenders were still expelled from the Party, or in some cases even executed

    your just seeing how comunism works in front of you and cant call it that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! because not knowing, you replace what it is with a new definition, a new label…

    In the Soviet Union, “criticism and self-criticism” were known as kritika i samokritika (Russian: критика и самокритика).

    yes, obama dad met mom in a russian language class, he spoke fluent russian and fluent arabic… bet you didnt know that… so did valery jarret and some others (like condoleeza rice)..

    Samokritika as a political slogan and campaign first appeared in 1928 and meant “the purge of the party from below,” which allowed young radicals to criticize authorities and do away with NEP.34 By 1935 the ritual had changed its name to kritika i samokritika and was playing an important role in the party purges

    this is a purge by the womens section of the international getting rid of those who served and are not useful any more with the knowlege that they failed and maybe their replacements can do better


    In the People’s Republic of China, self-criticism—called ziwo pipan (自我批判) or jiǎntǎo (检讨)—is an important part of Maoist practice. Mandatory self-criticism as a part of political rehabilitation or prior to execution


    Such sessions could be elaborate, public and frequent, and included denunciations. Under the Khmer Rouge, self-criticism sessions were known as rien sot, meaning “religious education”.

    scarey to us who know
    but most who know, know whats going on..
    and they dont bother to let you know
    come time to confess, you may remember them

    Several evenings a week—every evening it didn’t rain—the guards gathered for a collective confession. Douch (Kang Kek Iew) did not take part. I was a privileged witness to these circles, where they would sit on the ground under the direction of an elder. Military homilies alternated with simple, repetitive songs. “Comrades,” began the eldest, “let us appraise the day that has passed, in order to correct our faults. We must cleanse ourselves of the repeated sins that accumulate and slow down our beloved revolution. Do not be surprised at this!”

  13. arfldgrs Says:

    last note and its done!
    Political rehabilitation

    Political rehabilitation is the process by which a member of a political organization or government who has fallen into disgrace is restored to public life.

    The term is usually applied to leaders or other prominent individuals who regain their prominence after a period in which they have no influence or standing. Historically, the concept is usually associated with Communist states and parties where, as a result of shifting political lines often as part of a power struggle, leading members of the Communist Party find themselves on the losing side of a political conflict and out of favour, often to the point of being denounced or even imprisoned.

    These individuals may be rehabilitated either as a result of capitulating to the dominant political line and renouncing their former beliefs or allegiances to disgraced leaders, or they may be rehabilitated as a result of a change in the political leadership of the party, either a change in personnel or a change in political line, so that the views or associations which caused the individual, or group of individuals, to fall into disgrace are viewed more sympathetically

    we admitted and came clean, its YOUR turn
    why wont you come clean like we did
    what are you hiding?
    Dont you want to be washed of that?

  14. Dave Says:

    I liked Morgan Spurlock’s show on CNN, in one episode he moved in with his grandma and lived with her for a few weeks, I believe that message of that episode was about medical cost for the elders, how one can outlive her pension and challenges they face living alone. Her grandma died at the end of the episode and it ended with her funeral

  15. Dave Says:

    suicide is now the standards conservatives have set, so if Morgan Spurlock truly want to atone himself, go ahead and kill himself like Johnson.

  16. steve walsh Says:

    A prophylactic confession designed to prevent an attack of The Reckoning.

    I too wonder who is part of the we of which he speaks, and accuses – certainly not me or any of the other men I know.

  17. Gordon Says:

    This is virtue-signalling to the feminists. “I have sinned against you, Lord!” Now love me, and get me a sammich….

  18. neo-neocon Says:


    Oh, I actually had heard of the “Downsize This” movie, although I never saw it.

    But I never paid a particle of attention to the guy who made it.

    Maybe because he never called me “hot pants.” 🙂

    Also, the title of this post is meant to be a reference to the Soviets.

  19. OldTexan Says:

    Me Too, I remember vaguely some idiot eating at MacDonald’s for a month three times each day and getting fat but I never cared to learn his name. So now the idiot tells us how messed up he is and gets national attention once more and in a day or so I will no longer remember his name.

    The world is not short of both men and women who live nasty messed up lives and this confession of this goober fits a pattern of other people I have know and would just as soon not know over the years. I also don’t see much of an indication that he wants to live a better life, he just wants recognition for being an a**hole.

  20. Cap'n Rusty Says:

    He’s bragging about how contrite he is, for the sole purpose of getting attention from feminazis.

  21. M J R Says:

    neo quotes and reacts,

    “‘I am part of the problem. We all are.’
    * We all are? * ”

    I’m reminded of one time during the first half of the Clinton administration when a fellow worker was griping about something or another political. He was a liberal and he was assuming I was, too. (Happens a lot. Maybe because I don’t have horns growing out of my forehead.)

    He sighed, “we’re all responsible.” But I came back with, “*I*’m not; *I* didn’t vote for these people.”


  22. parker Says:

    Punishment for Spurlock: Put him in a dark room for a few days and play Warren Zevon’s Poor, Poor, Pitiful Me at maximum volume over and over again. Disgusting, criminal behavior is not excused by things, real or imagined, in your past. Hilter’s failure as a painter in Vienna does not excuse Auschwitz

  23. MHollywood Says:

    Pre-scandal inoculation: a “metoo” for boys?

    Forgive me if this is too off-thread, but the who topic is so mired in generalities that it all blends together. From reading about the NBC intern who had an affair with Matt Lauer I have a Question: I’m supposed to feel sorry for a 24 y.o. woman who willingly had an affair with a 42 y.o. married man? Why? Because he had power? Didn’t that have something to do with her willingness? Or at 24 are we still too young to figure out things (which are as plain as this) because we are still too complicated by our youth? When does responsibility begin? 25?

  24. Kyndyll G Says:

    He feels the need to apologize for calling someone “hot pants”?

    If someone had called me “hot pants” when I was a 20-something, I would have laughed uproariously. It sounds idiotic, like something out what I as a teen of the 80s thought of as way-back-when TV shows, when TV characters weren’t allowed to say what people in real life say.

    Then I would’ve been flattered that someone noticed. After all, pretty much everything a teen or 20-something human female does is intended to get men to notice her. I speak as a former teen and 20-something human female when I say this, and I don’t know a single fellow female of my era who, if forced to be honest, would say otherwise. (Though a few have since decided that they prefer women.)

  25. neo-neocon Says:


    What did Spurlock do that was criminal?

    He’s not describing something that is legally defined as rape, as far as I can see. “Hot pants” isn’t criminal either, nor is cheating on your wife or girlfriend.

  26. Dennis Says:

    Sorry. My shock meter is pegged.

    No more interest in the perversions of the rich and famous. People for a long time have been vaguely aware of something along this line among the rich and powerful.

    Now that it’s out, I find it’s much worse than I have imagined; that it’s a whole ‘nother culture from the rest of us.

    I’m done

  27. neo-neocon Says:


    Well, I’m interested in the “I denounce myself” phenomenon and the whole movement. As I said, my opinion is that Spurlock should have kept it between him and his therapist—or perhaps the particular women he may have wronged.

    However, there is nothing in his behavior that’s limited to the rich and famous. You can find plenty of it (infidelity, for example) among rich and poor and in-between.

  28. Tatterdemalian Says:

    He’s an attractive, tall guy photogenic enough to be a movie star. Basically a member of the 20% of the male population attractive enough to be allowed to hit on women without fear of being accused of harassment.

    The problem with modern dating, where 100% of the women compete for only 20% of the men, is that every man must inevitably be shared among at least five women. And many women live in a state of denial, just to deal with the mathematical necessity of their own feminism, and the “real men” encourage this, as they do their duty satisfying the women that throw themselves at them.

  29. neo-neocon Says:


    I assume that your assertion that “100% of the women compete for only 20% of the men” is some sort of hyperbole, because it makes no sense.

    And what percent of men compete for what percent of women?

    And how is it that so many people manage to marry?

  30. parker Says:

    Ah neo, it must be criminal becaue the ‘progressives’ tell us it is criminal if a conservative tells a female “You look beautiful in that dress.”

  31. neo-neocon Says:


    Ah, I get it.

  32. Amadeus 48 Says:

    Also posted at Althouse:
    Religious conversions are always interesting for the convert; they are merely entertaining for the congregation. It is nice to see Brother Spurlock get off the Anxious Bench and come forward to be saved.

    America is a great country. You can become anything.

  33. AesopFan Says:

    Amadeus 48 Says:
    December 15th, 2017 at 12:10 am
    Also posted at Althouse:
    Religious conversions are always interesting for the convert; they are merely entertaining for the congregation. It is nice to see Brother Spurlock get off the Anxious Bench and come forward to be saved.

    America is a great country. You can become anything.
    * *
    An interesting look at What Got Us To This Point.

    “As this profusion of literary and historical analyses goes to show, to be Christian today is to be a sailor in search of an astrolabe. And no wonder: We are in open, roiling, uncharted waters, so looking up to fixed points would help. One other way to orient ourselves is to peer down beneath the currents and focus on what’s done most to shape the “post-Christian” or “ex-Christian” world: the sexual revolution.

    That the revolution is what’s catapulted us to this place is a fact that more and more analysts now affirm. What may be less obvious, though just as important, is what the widespread Western embrace of the revolution has wrought not only in individual lives, but macrocosmically: It has given rise to an increasingly systematic, zealous, secularist faith. We cannot understand either the perils or opportunities of Christianity today without first understanding this developing, rival body of beliefs with which it contends.”

  34. Peter George Stewart Says:

    The thing is, having a troubled childhood, being sexually molested when young, etc., is precisely the sort of thing that you’d expect would lead to a troubled relationship with sex later on in life.

    But the really twisted thing here is that he’s denying the relevance of those things to his own case, in order to shore up the Feminist dogma that men are intrinsically “slugs and snails and puppy dogs’ tails”, while women are intrinsically “sugar and spice and all things nice.”

  35. tmitsss Says:

    This suggests he would not hesitate to lie to us in the films he called documentaries

  36. The Other Chuck Says:

    Sad isn’t how I’d describe the suicide of Congressman Johnson. Anger, hatred, and unleashed vengeance are the adjectives that come to mind.

  37. The Other Chuck Says:

    A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
    A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
    Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
    Wind shadows of the indignant desert birds.

  38. Micha Elyi Says:

    The problem with modern dating, where 100% of the women compete for only 20% of the men…

    In my observation it’s more like 80% of females who are at the peak of their Beauty Power are trying for the same 10% of the men. All the other men are sexually invisible to these females. This sets up the circumstances in which these females conclude such errors as “all men are pigs”. Eventually most females drop out of the competition but they retain their ugly view of men.

  39. Tatterdemalian Says:

    “I assume that your assertion that “100% of the women compete for only 20% of the men” is some sort of hyperbole, because it makes no sense.”

    Why doesn’t it? You do know people are capable of doing suicidally stupid things, even en masse, right?

    “And what percent of men compete for what percent of women?”

    80% of the women are sought after, according to experimental results. Usually by men that the women would never lower themselves to associate with.

    “And how is it that so many people manage to marry?”

    Now that marriage is a joke, the men simply cheat, and the women do the same. It’s expected of them, and many highly positioned feminists will ruin the lives of any man that *won’t* cheat on their wives with them. Maybe you didn’t notice all the panic articles about how Millenials are no longer getting married? Or all the articles by feminists declaring Mike Pence is a weirdo for not letting himself be caught alone with the women he interacts with?

  40. Shawn R Says:

    What you mean by “WE” Kemosabe? While none of us is without sin, Some of us do learn from our small mistakes.

  41. Tatterdemalian Says:

    “In my observation it’s more like 80% of females who are at the peak of their Beauty Power are trying for the same 10% of the men.”

    I suppose the 100% part was hyperbole, because I am limiting the sample to “women seeking men,” without including “women seeking women” and all the other cases that have a 0% chance of resulting in a monogamous relationship that produces naturally born children.

    Still, social experiments are confirming that women that do want husbands will often prefer to kill themselves, whether accidentally or intentionally, to having a relationship with any man less beautiful than the proverbial Ugliest Man In Hollywood.

  42. Michael Says:

    Spurlock…what a wanker.

  43. neo-neocon Says:


    I don’t think you’ve looked around lately. Pick your head up from your computer and take a good, long look.

    Most people are married. Most people are not beautiful (except, of course, to their loved ones). Most people realize they’re not snag-a-movie-star material, and they manage to love someone who’s less-than-perfect.

  44. Tatterdemalian Says:

    There are over fifty men in my RL social circle. Only one is married, and he’s married to a “child free by choice” feminist.

    If we went by my personal anecdotes, only 2% of men are sought after. But I don’t consider personal anecdotes to be evidence of anything, and really nobody should.

  45. Ymar Sakar Says:

    We once had chaperones for a reason and the Japanese still split the sexes in high school dorms, with a mother dorm monitor guard and a father dorm monitor guard.

    Pence’s rule is correct, and Joseph running out of the chambers when the mistress of his master tried to seduce him, was also wise.

    If you walk into a room and there’s a naked woman on the bed that you don’t know, you had better get out of range of the secret cameras.

  46. Ymar Sakar Says:

    To contrast Tatter’s data stats, which he must have gathered himself, I’ll outline some data stats others have gathered.

    The Latter Day Saint community and the Amish have some of the most stable marriages and families for Western 1st world civilizations. Jehovah’s Witnesses, not sure where they rank, but they all share something in common.

    They don’t marry outside the faith. To be accurate, a Clinton follower doesn’t worship a Bush follower due to ideological contamination.

    Well, stable marriages are a dime a dozen right, it is nothing strange if you have a institution like religion over you…. well that might make sense, except both the Mexican Catholics and the LDS active members have an average of over 3.5 children per couple. Often exceeding 4 or 5 or 6. Religion can’t make you love children or force you to cooperate in human breeding experiments. We would have to introduce Planned Profit for that.

    So these communities exist parallel or independent of Tatter’s data, which shows a huge enlargening gap between the West, sub cultures in the West, and Islam.

  47. Ymar Sakar Says:

    From ancient history, the Pharoahs in order to keep the divine blood within their family, had parent child marriages, sibling marriages, etc. Cleopatra, for example, was having some kind of relationship with her brothers, before she met Julius Caesar. It is how she obtained her seduction arts and understanding of men.

    Abraham and even his son, would go down to Egypt, and say that their wife was their sister, because they feared the ruling elites just killing them off and taking the now widow as the prize. Abraham wasn’t even lying, since Sarah was his half sister by his mother, but not his father if I recall. Bloodlines were much tighter and more easily defined, due to the descent from one man (not Adam but Noah).

    Jacob, the son of Isaac, son of Abraham, had 12 sons eventually, and each of his wives/concubines produced 1-3 heirs. The Sons of Israel, the 12 tribes of Israel, were part of a polygamous marriage system. One set up by the women more or less.

    One might think that this patriarchal system is so archaic and restrictive that there is no way modern Westerners could ever reproduce it in a humane fashion… well, actually Utah under Brigham Young did reproduce it and upgraded it even. They had women suffrage way before the feds had it. First wave feminists came to Utah and were amazed at these independent autonomous plural wives running their own households. They expected some kind of dark age, Islamic harem instead but found women that were equal to Susan B Anthony in the words of one Elizabeth Kane and her journal.

    But marriage is sacred, it has to be between a man and a woman, so we should wage a holy war against anyone that has different religious ideas… like who, Abraham, the father of both the religion of Judah and the religion of the Christ? Well, they tried to wipe people out due to religious differences between. It worked against the Cathars and witches at Salem.

    Now a days marriage is between Gaystapo partners and soon to be animals and child sex slaves. Not sure what people are idiotically claiming the high horse of moral superiority now… it is ironic that the enemy humans fight often rotate and soon becomes their new ally.

    Everything humanity was ever told about history was wrong. That includes Islam. That includes American history. CW1. The future CW2. Everything.

  48. Ymar Sakar Says:

    I forgot to add that Lott, the one saved from Soddom/G, had two daughters that survived the DEW (Directed Energy Weapon) that vaporized one city and sunk another one underneath the Dead Sea, had an interesting conclusion to his story. His daughters, having now run out of viable suitors and loyal to the covenant Noah and others made with their guardian god, decided to get their father Lot drunk, have sex with him, in order to produce the next generation. This was the shameless incident that gave birth to the Moabites and the Ammonites.

    Moab for “from my father”, can’t remember what Ammon was.

    In the modern West, people don’t fight over bloodlines so much as ideological, religious, and social status symbols. In Moore’s days, so long as you were a woman and virgin, you could rise up in social status by marrying up. Which is, of course, a feudal or aristocratic tradition. If your family can’t buy a noble title, just marry into a noble family instead. Same result.

    Now that women have the highest social status and symbols, they are finding it hard to marry “up”. At best, they can marry another product of the indoctrination slavery system that is education credentials, but no in way or fashion are they conditioned to marry down. From a college degree to a high school degree.

    Given access to the world, this hasn’t actually hurt marriage rates, since people can always go find a bride or husband in another country. I know one associate that is now in Mexico, after graduating from a US high school, and she is the mother of 3-5+ children now. So it isn’t just sex crazed Pick Up Artists going to Ukraine to get some Russian bride…

    Due to immigration, the reverse effect would compensate as well, since many men are going into the US that own or will own small businesses. Many women will also settle for that.

    The issue is that marriage doesn’t mean anything, when society and higher authorities just don’t care. Or view you as a tax serf or livestock farm for money. Society used to reinforce marriage institution due to the breeding of children, the next generation, which was critical for both society, the nation, and expanding their own civilization.

    Marriage is now more like a permanent hook up, based on the hook up culture. The tax incentives are not enough, since the partners are barely mature enough to think about having children, let alone wanting them. Why want children in this kind of world?

    The Amish, Mexican Catholics, and LDS all have a “reason” to want children. A theological, spiritual, or social one.

  49. Ymar Sakar Says:

    I also will publicly applaud the strategic genius of the Powers that Be. This is way more effective and brutal than the zombies at the Leftist SJW strategic war table.

    Divide and conquer humanity. Race war. Make them hate blacks, make them hate whites, make them hate men, women, children, cisgenders, all religions against all other religions. It is perfect for the Divide and Conquer strategy of getting your enemy to kill themselves before invading.

    First break down the Clan and Tribe, so that a daughter and son has no help from his or her relatives. He has to go to the state to ask for loans and help and welfare. He is beholden to the State, the State is now his sugar daddy, his Authority, his God, and his Vater.

    Then break the chains that bind husband and wife, so that they will spy on each other, betray each other, and rely on the State for abitration in divorce. The State is now the ally and protector of the wife. The State is now the ally and protector of the husband’s assets. Break them. Shatter them. Make them Betray Each other and hate each other so that they Will Never Combine Together against us.

    Brilliant execution, if too orthodox a tactic to consider genius.

    The Ruling Classes of humanity truly are a step above the masses and the average IQ cannonfodder. They have some claim to the title and fame, even if they are evil sado masochistic child rapists and serial killers. People keep voting in their puppets, however.

    The next step is quite subversive. Teach and indoctrinate the children to betray their siblings and their parents. Spy on the parents on pain of ideological death. Betray your family, and the son and daughter becomes alone. Reliant only on sucking up to Weinstein and Clintons. They have no one. No one cares about them or will protect them. Their bodies are merely fodder for the elite games and amusements.

    Use Planned Profit and welfare to create more of these children, breed more human livestock for taxation and experimentation.

    And so America became the abomination under the Obamanation: Babylon.

  50. Stephen Ippolito Says:

    I’ve never understood the appeal of this Spurlock character but I think I know his motivation for the public self-flagellation.

    I saw his big breakthrough film “Supersize Me” by chance because it happened to be screening when I was at the cinemas searching for diversion one day but didn’t see the point to the film.

    He ate McDonalds for every meal each day for a while and when he got fat seemed to believe that he was proving something we didn’t already know before. Ho hum.

    You only have to observe the line at a fast food store to understand that when fast food becomes more than an occasional treat it results in obesity.

    I don’t think even McDonalds themselves have ever asserted, at least in writing, that their food is healthy when eaten at every meal.

    I can’t recall where I read it but someone wise once observed that there is always a cohort of men who do most things just to get women.

    Hence the phenomenon of those fellows who made a big thing of protesting the draft during the Vietnam War when it happened to be trendy and tres cool to be anti-war, but who now are masquerading as veterans of that same war because they find that it elicits sympathy from women.

    I think Spurlock is the same. An opportunist who is just virtue-signalling his being “down with the cause” of lamenting his own evil male impulses.

  51. The Other Chuck Says:

    Dan Johnson, a high-tech lynching. This is how Helen Smith who is known as the inst-wife of Glenn Reynolds summed it up:

    We are in a bad place; a man accused by a woman of sexual abuse is now seen as 100% guilty with no trial, no jury and no lawyer. Add into the mix that this man was a Republican and the amount of hate coming at him probably felt insurmountable. It sickens me that he took his own life for this; the people accusing him were not worthy of that satisfaction.

    It more than sickens me. Any suicide is such a waste, as I know from having lost a young family member to it. But this is a criminal waste.

  52. Dave Says:

    How do they do it? seriously, spreading hate while maintain the admirable image of being the side of righteousness. everywhere on social media liberals are celebrating the suicide of this republican congressman, anytime a conservative pedophile bite the dust is worth celebrating.

    To liberals no crime is greater than the crime of racism, homophobia and sexism, and only conservative white males can commit those crimes. saying the n word is far worse than murdering committed by a black gangster, a group of working class white men whistling in the presence of a beautiful woman is far worse than her being gangraped by a group of refugees, and refusing to bake a cake for a gay couple in their wedding is far far graver crime a muslim taking a machine gun to massacre a group of gay men in a gay club.

  53. Ymar Sakar Says:

    Dave Says:
    December 16th, 2017 at 1:33 am
    How do they do it? seriously, spreading hate while maintain the admirable image of being the side of righteousness.

    Look in a mirror. They do it by convincing Demoncrats and other average normals that entities like the Tea Party are racist X, Y, and Z. People buy it up. They slurp that sewage up and thus the MSM will keep feeding it to you.

    Not so surprising or new. COINTELPRO isn’t new either.

  54. Ymar Sakar Says:

    Mind control was far more serious than the clowns and jokers online ridiculing those talking about it, ever imagined.

    Guess who the joke is on now.

  55. AesopFan Says:

    Dave Says:
    December 16th, 2017 at 1:33 am
    How do they do it? seriously, spreading hate while maintain the admirable image of being the side of righteousness.

    * *
    Been practicing for a long time.

    “…Readers could have concluded that liberals are never satisfied because they get up every morning thinking, “What can I do today to make government a little bigger, and the patch of ground where people live their lives completely unaffected by government power and benevolence a little smaller?” And maybe some liberals do that.
    …If we make that effort—an effort to understand committed liberals as they understand themselves—then we have to understand them as people who, by their own account, get up every morning asking, “What can I do today so that there’s a little less suffering in the world?” To wrestle with that question, the question of liberal compassion, is the purpose of my latest book, The Pity Party.
    …Well, if liberalism is the politics of kindness, it follows that its adversary, conservatism, is the politics of cruelty, greed, and callousness. Liberals have never been reluctant to connect those dots. In 1936 Franklin Roosevelt said, “Divine justice weighs the sins of the cold-blooded and the sins of the warm-hearted in different scales. Better the occasional faults of a government that lives in a spirit of charity than the consistent omissions of a government frozen in the ice of its own indifference.” In 1984 the Democratic Speaker of the House of Representatives, “Tip” O’Neill, called President Reagan an “evil” man “who has no care and no concern for the working class of America and the future generations . . . . He’s cold. He’s mean. He’s got ice water for blood.” A 2013 Paul Krugman column accused conservatives of taking “positive glee in inflicting further suffering on the already miserable.” They were, he wrote, “infected by an almost pathological meanspiritedness . . . . If you’re an American, and you’re down on your luck, these people don’t want to help; they want to give you an extra kick.”
    …Skinflint conservatives want government to be thrifty for obvious reasons, but Daniels maintained that liberals’ motivations should be even stronger. “I argue to my most liberal friends: ‘You ought to be the most offended of anybody if a dollar that could help a poor person is being squandered in some way.’ And,” the governor added slyly, “some of them actually agree.”

    The clear implication—that many liberals are not especially troubled if government dollars that could help poor people are squandered—strikes me as true, interesting, and important.
    But my assessment of how the liberal project has been justified in words, and rendered in deeds, leads me to a different explanation for why, under the auspices of liberal government, things have a way of turning out so badly. I conclude that the machinery created by the politics of kindness doesn’t work very well—in the sense of being economical, adaptable, and above all effective—because the liberals who build, operate, defend, and seek to expand this machine don’t really care whether it works very well and are, on balance, happier when it fails than when it succeeds. ”

About Me

Previously a lifelong Democrat, born in New York and living in New England, surrounded by liberals on all sides, I've found myself slowly but surely leaving the fold and becoming that dread thing: a neocon.

Monthly Archives


Ace (bold)
AmericanDigest (writer’s digest)
AmericanThinker (thought full)
Anchoress (first things first)
AnnAlthouse (more than law)
AtlasShrugs (fearless)
AugeanStables (historian’s task)
Baldilocks (outspoken)
Barcepundit (theBrainInSpain)
Beldar (Texas lawman)
BelmontClub (deep thoughts)
Betsy’sPage (teach)
Bookworm (writingReader)
Breitbart (big)
ChicagoBoyz (boyz will be)
Contentions (CommentaryBlog)
DanielInVenezuela (against tyranny)
DeanEsmay (conservative liberal)
Donklephant (political chimera)
Dr.Helen (rights of man)
Dr.Sanity (thinking shrink)
DreamsToLightening (Asher)
EdDriscoll (market liberal)
Fausta’sBlog (opinionated)
GayPatriot (self-explanatory)
HadEnoughTherapy? (yep)
HotAir (a roomful)
InFromTheCold (once a spook)
InstaPundit (the hub)
JawaReport (the doctor is Rusty)
LegalInsurrection (law prof)
RedState (conservative)
Maggie’sFarm (centrist commune)
MelaniePhillips (formidable)
MerylYourish (centrist)
MichaelTotten (globetrotter)
MichaelYon (War Zones)
Michelle Malkin (clarion pen)
Michelle Obama's Mirror (reflections)
MudvilleGazette (milblog central)
NoPasaran! (behind French facade)
NormanGeras (principled leftist)
OneCosmos (Gagdad Bob’s blog)
PJMedia (comprehensive)
PointOfNoReturn (Jewish refugees)
Powerline (foursight)
ProteinWisdom (wiseguy)
QandO (neolibertarian)
RachelLucas (in Italy)
RogerL.Simon (PJ guy)
SecondDraft (be the judge)
SeekerBlog (inquiring minds)
SisterToldjah (she said)
Sisu (commentary plus cats)
Spengler (Goldman)
TheDoctorIsIn (indeed)
Tigerhawk (eclectic talk)
VictorDavisHanson (prof)
Vodkapundit (drinker-thinker)
Volokh (lawblog)
Zombie (alive)

Regent Badge