This is hilarious.
Racism includes clothes now.
Never going to a black tie event again. "Black Tie" was probably what democrats called their Klan lynchings and I want no part of it.
Replying to @aproudugandan83
R@csim goes beyond color, it includes clothes I am sure now u know u are one
John Blundell retweeted
This guy embodies one of the most popular archetypes used to bully white men throughout the world. Yet after being attacked, he gets back up, stands his ground, and faces his attackers to defend whatever remains of his store.
His attackers, meanwhile, behave like a pack of hyenas. Whatever bravery they have is only because of their numbers and their de facto anonymity — police wouldn’t arrest them anyway.
So, the guy who looks like the punchline of a thousand jokes actually displays more honor in a single moment than literally the entire recorded history of his attackers.
He has no crowd to hide behind, no numerical advantage, and seemingly very little left to protect. What has happened to him will either be ignored or excused as having been caused by some kind of socio-economic problem which is ultimately his fault anyway. Nevertheless, he stands there.
I would take one thousand Jacques Blacks before taking a single refugee.
John Blundell retweeted
Mutual respect seems to be a male only concept, so let me explain it to you. It is founded on a simple principle: the boundaries we expect others to respect are the same boundaries we are obligated to respect ourselves.
Men generally understand this intuitively. You do not casually shove another man aside or presume that your personal importance entitles you to disregard his dignity. It is generally understood that a violation of this principal is a provocation to violence, precisely because it violates the principle of mutual respect.
Here, a woman shoves a man aside like his his personal boundaries are beneath her consideration. When he responds by shoving her back, the people lose their fucking minds. But what, exactly, is the problem? That he violated her boundaries? She had already violated his! That he failed to show her respect? She did the same thing!
Women do not respect this simple principle of mutual respect, which in a truly egalitarian world should clearly be binding to everyone. Instead whenever a women is involved we are suddenly expected to apply a different standard.
What do you want? Do you want equality between men and women? Because what it seems you really want is the relationship between a medieval aristocrat and a peasant.
We're not talking enough about THIS moment from the #Duke football game immediately after he struck her
She is AFRAID of him after the first hit and is now watching his face and keeping her arm up to attempt to protect herself from another blow from Kimari Robinson
This is what Marxists do: tell abject lies which they know full well are lies, simply for the sake of trying to muddy the waters.
Nobody thinks Macron is right wing, but if they say it enough they think they can trick people into making reality what they wish it were.
John Blundell retweeted
I didn't go to college until I was 30. This gave me a chance to see it with the perspective of an adult.
One lecture in Industrial Psychology, in particular, I will never forget.
The professor spoke about how an effective job description focused on concretely measurable tasks, not vague instructions, or characteristics.
For example, "maintain an 85% or greater average on customer feedback surveys", instead of "be cheerful and upbeat", or even "interact positively with customers".
This means that goals are clear, and performance is measurable. A job is to do something, not be something.
Once some of the students had wrapped their minds around this concept, the professor decided to do a class exercise.
He asked the female students to come up with a job description for "husband". At first, this went fine. The girls noodled around a bit with things they wanted their husbands to be (tall, etc), but he was able to gradually steer them towards describing what they wanted in terms of actions.
But then he asked the male students to define a wife in the same way.
And all the girls became upset. Some of them had full-on meltdowns.
Every single thing that a male student wanted, or expected, from his hypothetical future wife was sexist, oppressive, old-fashioned, misogynistic, patriarchal, etc.
They were literally screaming. Some of them in tears.
And I realized something pretty quickly. It wasn't the actual, concrete responsibilities of the female role that they objected to.
It was the idea of there being a female role at all, with any attached responsibilities.
These women didn't want to be wives. They wanted to be pets.
What's a pet? Well a pet is not a wife, or a friend. A pet is a creature of instinct, which you bring into your home because you like how it naturally behaves.
You get a cat because you want to behave like a cat, and do things a cat naturally does, like play with string, and purr when you pet him. If he's smart, he'll adapt to you somewhat, but he doesn't have responsibilities other than "be a cat".
If you get a wife, you get a wife so she will do things for you, specific things that are the responsibilities of wife, like care for your home, bear and raise your children, cook nutritious meals so you don't have to eat processed slop, look after your emotional well-being, and so on.
These girls didn't want to be held responsible for those things. As married women, they might have anticipated doing some of them, but only some of the time. Only when they felt like it.
The cat chases the string if and when it wants to, not because chasing the string is its job.
These young millenial women didn't realize it, but they wanted to be pets. And that's what they were in their college relationships. They hung out with guys when they wanted to, had sex with them when they wanted to, broke up with them for someone new when they wanted to.
Their relationships had no element of reciprocal responsibilities. They were perfectly at home with the idea of men having responsibilities to them, but they would repay those men if they chose, and how they chose, not how the men actually wanted.
And as I've said twice already, someone you have responsibilities to, but who has none to you, is a pet, or a child.
Since our ancestors, in a moment of foolishness and weakness, allowed women to vote, it is no longer legal to dole out the corrective spankings a great many of them both need and read pornographic novels about.
Therefore, the corrective measure, for any man who finds himself with a pet instead of a wife, is to withdraw from any husbandly duties and start actively searching for alternatives.
This can either result in a correction of the behavior, or the end of a relationship that offers no value. Either is acceptable.
This may strike some of you as dishonorable, but there is no honor in keeping a broken pact, or in serving those who despise you.
Men must have the pride and self-worth to say "I will be honored and respected, or I will depart to a place where I can be, even if I must be alone there."
Men must honor and respect themselves.
John Blundell retweeted
For those saying this never happened, I was nearly groomed into transitioning a few years back. I faced constant pressuring and prodding from people I trusted, telling me I had to be a man because I was more masculine, constantly trying to "crack" my egg.
John Blundell retweeted
This Orwell quote, and the other often paraphrased as "all art is political," is one of the most abused sentences in the English language.
Orwell means it in the relatively narrow sense that all works of art will contain the political presuppositions of the artist.
Art does not have to be actively or consciously political, but its assumptions - say, about what is right and what is wrong - count as political attitudes.
This is true of everything from War & Peace to Treasure Island.
But most of those who parrot the line today use it to excuse active politicking — the very propaganda Orwell warns against.
If all art is political then it is fine that my work is about my politics, and you are a fool if you reject my politics, because all art is political.
In The Frontiers of Art and Propaganda, Orwell takes aim at precisely this sort of sloppy, motivated reasoning:
"If we look back at the English literature of the last ten years not so much at the literature as at the prevailing literary attitude, the thing that strikes us is that it has almost ceased to be aesthetic.
Literature has been swamped by propaganda. I do not mean that all the books written during that period have been bad. But the characteristic writers of the time... have been didactic, political writers, aesthetically conscious, of course, but more interested in subject-matter than in technique.
And the most lively criticism has nearly all of it been the work of Marxist writers... who look on every book virtually as a political pamphlet and are far more interested in digging out its political and social implications than in its literary qualities in the narrow sense."
Orwell thought the first position - an awareness of art's political assumptions - was good and valuable, because it reminds us that art is of our world, and this understanding helps us spot propaganda when it disguises itself as pure aestheticism.
But he deplored the second position - the conscious politicisation of art, and the view that art must be actively political to be good - "...because it caused countless young writers to try to tie their minds to a political discipline which, if they had stuck to it, would have made mental honesty impossible. The only system of thought open to them at that time was official Marxism...".
Honesty is impossible in such circumstances, he said, because making art the slave of contemporary politics makes it dependent, in the end, on grubby temporal scheming.
The bold Marxist writers who devoted their art to that vision of utopia were totally undone by the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. Art cannot pretend at utopian principles while it sources its morality from the real business of politics. When political art comes into conflict with the needs of ideology, the art, not the ideology, gets sacrificed.
"Just as many writers about 1930 had discovered that you cannot really be detached from contemporary events, so many writers about 1939 were discovering that you cannot really sacrifice your intellectual integrity for the sake of a political creed — or at least you cannot do so and remain a writer."
Replying to @mtaibbi
“The opinion that art should have nothing to do with politics is itself a political attitude.” - George Orwell
“All good art is political! There is none that isn’t. And the ones that try hard not to be political are political by saying, ‘We love the status quo.’ We’ve just dirtied the word ‘politics,’ made it sound like it’s unpatriotic or something… My point is that it has to be both: beautiful and political at the same time. I’m not interested in art that is not in the world.” -Toni Morrison
“All art is political. In tense, fractious times—like our current moment—all art is political. But even during those times when politics and the future of our country itself are not the source of constant worry and anxiety, art is still political. Art lives in the world, and we exist in the world, and we cannot create honest work about the world in which we live without reflecting it.”- Lin Manuel Miranda
John Blundell retweeted
For those just joining us here’s a quick recap on the “Cornell 7” Consensus™️
7 men rubbed ketamine on their dicks after drugging a girl so that she’d stay unconscious while they raped her
Okay that didn’t happen but 7 men definitely drugged and gang raped her
Okay so she was never unconscious but she was clearly too intoxicated to consent to anything when she got there
Yes everyone else was intoxicated too to the point of vomiting and passing out but still
They sent a FREE PUSSY text! Clearly they wanted to gang rape her
Okay well yes 3 of the guys never even touched her and one came in and told everyone to get out but uhhh
Why do you even care???
Well she clearly felt coerced by all these men. She only consented to the first ketamine threesome!
She consented to the second threesome? Okay well she didn’t consent to the second participant of the third threesome.
The texts after are clearly just her placating abusers!
She wanted to go to another party with them?? Clearly a trauma response. We are very serious people.
John Blundell retweeted
In the Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy, the creation of Deep Thought - the impossibly powerful sentient computer - outrages the Amalgamated Union of Philosophers, Sages, Luminaries and Other Thinking Persons.
They stage protests and try to shut it down, not because it is wrong, but because it is better at being right than they are.
They demand "rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty," because, being a union, they have no interest in getting work done.
They would happily stop the progress of knowledge if it meant they could continue to collect their cheques.
They are ultimately pacified when Deep Thought points out that the 7.5 million years it will take to answer the question of life, the universe and everything gives them plenty of time to make a killing from speculation and book deals.
Important statement from the Association for Human Mathematics
ahmath.org/statements
John Blundell retweeted
🚨Where is the outrage about this? This black woman gets on TV and cries, and stirs outrage claiming she was attacked by a white man.
Tenaya Stanford held a press conference on 10/2/26 in Louisville, with attorneys and civil rights activists, claiming she was *dragged out of her car by her hair and beaten* at a stop light. There were literal protests in Louisville.
The police do an investigation, and find additional video, and on 10/5/26 the black police chief issues statements:
- The motorcyclist was already stopped in traffic
- Stanford pulled up beside him and swerved toward him.
- He got off the bike, approached her car, and appeared to make contact with it, then started walking away.
- She then got out carrying a steering-wheel lock (which she later told officers was hers) and hit him with it, as well as struck him several times
- He took the lock from her and grabbed her hair and you see the fight on video
- He then pushes her back *into* her car, and shut the door
- She gets out *again* and tries to taze him.
- He gets on his bike and starts to leave and she rams his bike with her car
This woman cries and lies, and stirs up outrage - and where is the accountability? How is SHE not charged with a crime?
John Blundell retweeted
Ultramarines? How utterly predictable. Your father too was exceedingly vanilla. But at least he wasn't enough of a tourist to bring nothing but Primaris. I cast Da Jump and put my 30 boys directly onto your intercessors.
Waaagh, Mr.Potter
John Blundell retweeted
Snape's new lore : it's hard to get quiet days with Miss Malfoy and her antics
John Blundell retweeted
🚨#BREAKING: Outrage is erupting in Houston TX after a White father was SH0T TO DE*TH by a Black man while HANDING OUT FOOD to the homeless...
...and the man charged was already locked up for a ST*BBING, got hit with FOUR MORE FELONIES in jail, and prosecutors DROPPED ALL FOUR!!!
Yes, you read that right.
He was charged with assaulting jailers while waiting to go to prison for a st*bbing, and he never served a single extra day for it.
The father's name was John Donat, he was 58 years old.
He was a former chef, originally from Ohio, who came to Texas about 10 years ago.
He had battled drugs himself, police say he got sober and turned his life around, and John dedicated his life to helping people.
He picked up food from the local food bank on Westheimer, cooked whatever he could, and handed it out outside the motel where he lived.
Especially to people fighting the same demons he once fought.
He was getting ready to move to South Carolina to be closer to family, but he never made it.
On Wednesday, September 30th, at about 2:18 in the morning, John was in his Tahoe on Highway 6, handing food to a woman.
Police say a man walked up to the passenger side and DEMANDED MONEY.
John tried to drive away and he was SH0T in the neck.
His Tahoe crashed through 2 fences and into a field, he passed away right there and then.
Police caught the suspect nearby.
His name is Otis Parks, he's a Black man that's 30 years old.
In 2018, police say Parks ST*BBED a friend REPEATEDLY... after finding out his girlfriend's baby had diaper rash.
He got 7 years in jail... out of a possible 20 years.
While he sat in the Harris County Jail waiting to be shipped to prison, records show he was charged with FOUR MORE FELONIES.
Assaulting jailers. Possessing contraband.
And prosecutors DISMISSED every one of them.
Their reason?
"He was already serving time for the st*bbing."
Zero extra days.
Say his name. John Donat.
WE DO NOT HAVE TO LIVE LIKE THIS!!!!!!!
John Blundell retweeted
Contrary to a popular claim, smallpox blankets did not empty North America. One British attempt in 1763 is documented. The die-off started long before that, and it did not need a plot.
In June 1763, during the war led by Pontiac, an Odawa (oh-DAH-wah) war leader, Delaware and Shawnee fighters were besieging Fort Pitt. William Trent, a trader serving as militia captain, wrote on June 24 that he had given two blankets and a handkerchief from the smallpox hospital to Delaware emissaries. “I hope it will have the desired effect,” he wrote. Captain Simeon Ecuyer, the Swiss officer commanding the fort, approved the gift. Trent later billed the Crown for the items used “to Convey the Smallpox to the Indians.”
That same summer Jeffery Amherst, British commander in chief in North America, wrote Colonel Henry Bouquet, the Swiss-born officer leading the relief column, and asked whether smallpox could be sent among the tribes. Bouquet said he would try.
On July 16 Amherst told him to inoculate them by means of blankets. The letters and the gift are real. A resulting epidemic from those two blankets is not established. Smallpox was already moving through the Ohio country.
The continental collapse had a different clock. After 1492, smallpox, measles, and influenza hit populations with no prior exposure. Those outbreaks ran through the Caribbean and Mexico in the 1500s and repeatedly crossed regions before armies or settlers arrived.
The 1837 epidemic on the Upper Missouri came off the American Fur Company steamboat St. Peter’s. It reached Fort Clark in June. Mandan, Hidatsa (hee-DAHT-sah), and Arikara (ah-RICK-ah-rah) villages were wrecked. Francis Chardon, the company trader at the fort, kept the daily record. No Army blanket order explains it.
Disease did the largest share of the killing. War, removal, and hunger did the rest. A journal entry from a besieged fort is not the mechanism.
Image: Grok.
John Blundell retweeted
This phone call happened November 7, AFTER she was disinvited from the Halloween party and she realized people were finding out what she is.
Here’s the timeline:
• Oct. 19–20, 2024: drug orgy incident at Chi Phi
• Days after: Texts from Jane Doe show the sexual activity was consensual not illegal.
• ~1 week later: She sees online discussion of a “gang rape” at the fraternity and realized people around her were finding out.
• Oct. 30: Fraternity president disinvites her from the Halloween party, and she is upset.
• Nov. 3: She then texts that “90% of what happened that night was not consensual.”
• Nov. 7: Recorded call with Ingalls in which she says it “would be classified as gang rape,” one day before she reports to Cornell police on Nov. 8.
From all available evidence thus far, she revoked “consent” once she realized her reputation was ruined. Even in her sworn statement to police under penalty of perjury, she affirmed that the activity was consensual.
Mainstream media leaves all of these details out in their reporting to deceive people and craft a narrative.





































