Well, I’m back…late as usual. I’m still going to address the happenings with Matress Girl and the crazy Mustafa chick from the UK. But first, we have to talk about our old friend Anita Sarkeesian. I also have to go mail some shit, but that’s another story. Anyway, let’s get to Anita before the post office closes.

Here she is back in 2011, before she got to be well known. It seems Anita has some interesting views on segregation:49wSPCT

(archive link: https://archive.is/6bQq3)

Is that right? It looks like she would have found a home among some of the notorious racists of the past. Is the type of person Intel wants to do business with? Imagine if they had Milo or me talking like this. They would grab onto it and call us racist for the rest of our days. So why shouldn’t Anita Sarkeesian be held to the same standard?

I know the rad fems will have all kinds of excuses. Anita and her puppet master probably won’t address this. Whenever they have a really bad bit of information come out, they usually ignore it. But we’ll see if the corrupt journos have enough spine to raise this with her themselves. As I always say, I wouldn’t hold my breath on that one.

I’ll be back in a bit. Go ahead and sound off on this craziness down below.

  1. I don’t even have a clever joke for this complete craziness. It seems every day we get more and more evidence that there’s no one more sexist and racist than modern feminists.

  2. Isn’t it fucked up how SJW’s argue for segregation and then make claims how theres still so much racism…
    Well yeah if you take up argueing in favor of positions racists take up…

    1. Hipsters are nothing but racists. It’s much easier just to label and diminish everyone, and then separate everyone so there’s reduced chance of conflict. It also makes it infinitely easier to manipulate and control people. It’s the root disease of bigotry and fascism – it constantly recurs, creeping up from being shattered into slowly convincing people it’s all for the greater good. Kill them with fire so it doesn’t spread.

    1. You probably could study it and learn what signs to look for in other people to see if they will (or try to) become a genocidal dictator or to see how someone like that can actually get a following. Swap “men” with “jews” in a lot of their comments and it already sounds pretty bad. I want to know how close they really are to treading that line.

  3. This is the evil, dark, hateful heart of modern feminism and the authoritarian left.

    First, Anita said feminism isn’t about freedom of choice and now someone dug up this shiny gold nugget.

    And didn’t she also complain about someone making fun of her Armenian (?) heritage? She’d be the first to complain if Armenian kids were segregated from other kids… if, you know, it was profitable for her to act somewhat flustered in front of a green screen for a YouTube video or two.

  4. And they call themselves progressives. So wait after years of women and minorities wanting to be treated equal people like her come along and basically want to destroy everything they fought for. Yeah screw first wave feminism, screw the civil rights movement. Everything was better off when we were separated am I right? Progressive my ass. I consider myself neutral with a toe in the right if you want to get technical but even I’m more progressive than these shit heads.

    1. Wanting to segregate people is a throw back to the early 1900’s Progressives like Woodrow Wilson. They’ve been doing this for over 100 years. The fact they’re so blunt about it is a bit shocking though.

      1. Progressives 100 years ago were both Democrat and Republican. Teddy Roosevelt was a Progressive.

        1. Yeah, and he used slave labor to get the Panama Canal built, and before him the Progressive Impulse gave us concepts like Destiny Manifest and White Man’s Burden.

          Culturally progressive California now uses slave labor in many of their industries. The Prison State begins in that state.

          1. LOL, what crack are you smoking. Manifest Destiny was set by Polk who was ANTI BRITISH. 1812 was still burned into people’s minds. Manifest Destiny was aimed at the British to tell them to fuck off. The British were also funding Mexico to counter us.

            So are you saying Antebellum South are now Progressives? Jefferson and Washington were Progressives? Slavery still exists in the South btw. California has only recently in our history become an Agricultural State. If you are referring to farming these migrant farmers so to speak exist ALL OVER THE COUNTRY. California did not start it.

            California has a huge population and we have more Republicans than many states put together have people. We have had MORE Republican governors btw.

          2. No crack. Just the MJ. However, I can certainly see the pipe in your hands holds an ickier sticky than mine, and that you’re sharing it with friends as you should. So let me help you see through the haze of yours by offering some of mine.

            First off, Manifest Destiny as a basic concept certainly existed back during the time of Andrew Jackson and certainly had its place in the War of 1812, but its name, and its full philosophic implications, didn’t start coming into their own until 1845. It has always married classically liberal concepts such as self governance with racial and religious fervor, chocolate coated with a very pro-humanist mentality, and in this combination came to be a belief whose values were considered axiomatic.

            The Progressive Impulse also finds its roots in that era of time. The defining elements of the impulse are elements which define democrats and liberals of every shade, shape, and variety today. The roots of Progressivism date back to the mid to late 1800s, when angry farmers and small business owners formed the Grange and later the Populist Party to confront unfair practices of big business. Progressivism appealed to middle and lower-class Americans who felt helpless against industrial giants like Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller, whose increasing power influenced politicians and the laws and regulations they sanctioned

            Theodore Roosevelt had nothing to do with the naming or formation of Progressivism. Though he certainly came to be considered one of our earliest Progressives and though his policies were some of the earliest we saw which catered to that mindset (Anti-Trust campaigns), there was a great deal that he despised in it as well.

            The Progressive Impulse was the primordial philosophic movement that made scandal and the coverage of it into a money making big business, as it worked extensively to demonize other big businesses. Many magazines, including McClure’s, Cosmopolitan, and Collier’s,
            instructed their reporters to aggressively uncover scandalous stories. Theodore Roosevelt branded the zealous journalists “muckrakers,” after
            the character in John Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress who was so fixated on raking the muck at his feet that he failed to see the celestial crown.

            So, with that established, here’s an article about the slave labor that built the Panama Canal. It’s most;y a copy/paste from an older Reuters article which covered the situation in full.


            Theodore Roosevelt himself was at the head of a lot of the problems in that project. One of the greatest issues that existed was that he did everything he could to avoid hiring skilled engineers from the American corporate sector, just as has predecessors had decided when it came to the construction of the Trans Continental Railroad. Like them, he waited for two failures before hiring people on during the third, specifically the apprentice of the man who headed the one successful transcontinental railroad project.

            So onto California.

            California’s slave labor has nothing to do with the migrant workers. It’s about the For-Profit Prisons, both private and public, that flourish in that state. We’re not talking population here. We’re talking about prisons with grossly inflated amounts of ethnic minorities, many of whom are there on account of the War on Drugs and The Three Strikes policy.. both of which found the majority of their legal backing by democrats.. being forced to do arduous labor for the profit of businesses, working at 60 cents an hour. Minority men in chains working in any number of industries which rent them to fill positions that the companies do not want to put skilled laborers in. An entire series of industries exist in that state, and others, where in their labor force is pulled almost exclusively from prison populations, which are forced to do this work. The businesses that have partaken of it have profit to cost margins which literally cannot be rivaled in this country, and as such, we continue to see the rise of the practice and its spread through much of the coastal states and many of the southern states.

            This labor is America’s latest and greatest brand of slave labor.

            *Exhales a thick plume and smiles*

            I’m glad to see you two sitting here rubbing each others backs and playing at historian, but I do this for a living. Your grossly simplistic take on the matter, plus your false attributing of Progressiveness to Teddy, betrays an inexperience that I hope you find the time to overcome.

            Good day gentlemen.

          3. LOL, yes you are online claiming you do it for a living but we all know that those who claim it to as well write books about it are not exactly free from bias.

            California is not alone in for profit prisons and republicans support them. Yes I am aware of using prison inmates to answer things such as AT&T customer support lines. I have talked about this years ago. The country over all likes to use cheap ass labor from Chattel Slavery to Indentured Slavery. When the Garment Industry moved to Saipan, a US Territory, not enough labor existed so the sweat shops used INDENTURED slavery for employment. We have Republican Congressional members who went there to give they A OK stamp of approval. When those same industries moved to the Asian mainland they left those people behind. People were selling their organs to get the money to get out of debt so they could go home.

            Manifest Destiny is saying certain land is our land, that it belongs to Americans and for anyone else to keep your fucking hands off our expansion. I mentioned Polk because he gave THE speech on it. He ran on an anti British platform. His contemporaries STILL had on their minds the invasion by the Brits who burned down DC etc. We had dispute over the Oregon Territory. We went to war with Mexico and acquired all that land from them. The Brits were funding Mexico. They were a thorn in our sides for quite some time.

            Roosevelt was regardless of your spinning was still a Progressive President. Disputing what some say does not exclude one from being a part of it so as such you did not dispel Teddy as a progressive himself. He has well had issues with the Republican party and would split from them as well. Not all people who belong to anyone political movement believe everything exactly the same. Just like not all Progressives believed in Prohibition which btw started long before the US Civil war and an example of early Feminism in that it was a Anglo Saxon Protestant movement against all Non Anglo Saxons. It was as well a religious movement from Protestant Agrarian life vs the Non Anglo Saxons who were filling up our cities. The Temperance Movement claimed that Alcohol was the reason for spouse and child abuse. These women even managed to get Temperance curriculum into our schools to turn boys in to dry voters. Any politician who was for alcohol or simply against prohibition was labeled a Wet Politician and had their character assassinated. The US Govt though got most of its taxes from Alcohol. The German Beer Association was the largest lobbying group. Even though they were busting up bars and saloons they could not convince the country over all. Dry counties had been springing up all over the US regardless. The Temperance Movement picked up steam when it joined with the Suffragettes and then the Progressives. As I said early NOT all progressives agreed with Prohibition. By gaining support of Progressives they got more male voters. This is the root of the change to the Federal Income Tax. See the Temperance told the Progressives this was corruption the way it was. So in order to break up this corruption that was seen by local bosses from saloon bases etc was to make the US revenue less on Alcohol to break the hold of the German Lobbyists. None the less Prohibition was a RELIGIOUS movement.

            We btw have slavery right now in the South in agriculture. Are the progressives doing that as well? You apparently have rose colored glasses on. Rockefeller, Carnegie, et al sought to limit govt. WHY? Because the Labor movement was picking up and demanding better treatment. Actual regulation for industry was happening to curb what these men were doing. Those same individuals used the Pinkertons to rough up those who disputed their labor practices and also to rough up competition. They along with Morgan even BOUGHT a US election for that very purpose but ironically even Morgan said their needed to be some kind of rules for Wall Street after the crash and great depression of 1872. None of them gave a shit other than their own needs though. Carnegie simple could not resolve his demons over what he had done and grew a conscience.

            Pinkies up

        2. Absolutely correct. In fact, Progressivism was started by Republican Teddy Roosevelt as you said and I’d argue that Progressivism still exists in the Republican party under the Neo-Conservative branding.

          1. What would the SJWs think if they found out progressivism started with the right?

          2. Make excuses like they always do lol. It still exists on the Right. They’ve just re-branded themselves as “Neo Conservatives”

  5. I’ve seen some studies on gender separation that might work but hasn’t been studied thoroughly enough yet. I haven’t been able to find anything on racial separation, but my gut tells me most of the science doesn’t back this notion up. If such a study exists, I’m going to guess it’s probably not controlling for outside influences. Has anyone else seen any studies backing up racial segregation?

    1. I’m pretty sure (correct me if I’m wrong) that even C.H.Sommers Has advocated trying to get boys and girls to be taught in separate classes, due to them learning in different ways. For example boys get bored easily with topics that girls like.

      1. C.H. Sommers has studied the one whole instance of boys only schools existing in America, and the growing resurgence of such schools in England.

        By all measured accounts, the practice works wonders. Boys who learn in boys only schools, taught by a healthy dose of male teachers at that, excel in literally every fashion when compared to boys coming from the rest of the mix gender system.

      2. Yes, I do not deny this. Saying it hasn’t been studied enough doesn’t negate wither or not it actually is, it just means we haven’t had enough studies to weed out other possibilities yet. It also means we haven’t had enough studies yet to see if the negative influences of gender segregation outweighs the positive.

        Regardless, my understanding of racial and gender segregation is they work very differently. I can’t think of anything in science that would back up the notion that racial segregation is a good thing at all. There is, however, a lot of science to suggest the opposite of racial segregation being a good thing. If anyone has a link to this study, please let me know.

  6. Are we sure that Ian Miles Cheong is the only nazi in SJW ranks?
    If someone reads those quotes to you it sounds like Hitler talking.
    Shouldn’t we live together no matter what tone our skins have instead of separating us?

    Bravo Josh and Anita. Adolf would be proud of you: you are defiantly the heirs of the 3rd Reich. So the 1000 year reich continues in the hands of Joshita. Bravo!

    As Joe Rogan said “They are so left they become right”.

      1. In the 1980s we viewed left/right not on some linear plane but as a clock. Centrist or Moderate was roughly 11 to 1. Extreme Left took you down to 6 as well did Extreme Right.

  7. You’re off base, here.

    She did not say she supported segregation in the classroom. She merely replied by saying that she has read some studies that state this.

    People would learn well to read up on ‘performatives’ and keep a watchful eye and ear out for them in every day use. Politicians use them all the time and so do SJWs.

    In this case, Anita got across the information that a study claimed segregation in the classroom may be beneficial and may even have given the impression that this was her belief as well and lent her weigh to that assertion… but she used a qualifying performative that allows her to respond to any negative criticism of it by simply pointing out that she never asserted this as a point she condoned and was merely a study she was sharing for educational purposes.

    see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performative_utterance

    1. This is a woman that cites other blogs as studies. Not only is it on base, but because of what has been said so far and the complete lack of knowing how proper research is conducted I’m left to believe this tweet to be another statement of personal belief spilling into the open.

    2. If she had wanted to remain neutral on the topic she should have countered with “many studies suggesting the opposite, that segregation aids learning in certain circumstances”. But she didn’t. By not taking due care with her words people will freely interpreted it to mean she sought out such information. Remember this individual has gone to great lengths to explain how long and how much effort they put into composing Twits, and whilst they’re not infallible, they still make critical ‘mistakes’ like this (even though it was from a few years ago).

      1. You’re missing the point. She didn’t want to remain neutral. She employed the use of a performative statement to avoid being held accountable for what one could reasonably infer from it.

        Nobody “caught” her in anything, here. And that is the point of performatives.

  8. The lack of awareness absolutely blows me away. They want to stop racism via segregation? That’s almost as brilliant as stepping on the gas pedal to stop a car. This is the ultimate proof that these assholes don’t know what the fuck they’re talking about.

    1. The lack of self awareness has always killed me. At that ridiculous XOXO fest thing Anita was on stage reading the comments on her twitter and one comment was saying how she avoids criticism and says that she uses her army of lap dogs to attack her opponents. She’s like “oh what army would that be.” The entire crowd cheered. My brain couldn’t handle the amount of stupidity that shot had.

      1. I know, it’s absurd. Personally, I get the feeling she knew exactly what she was doing there, but her followers obviously ate that shit up.

        1. Oh, yeah she is definitely aware. Hell I think she is more aware than McIntosh but her followers would jump off a cliff if she told them to.

      2. I can’t help wondering if the person who edited that video is someone on our side. A person who doesn’t agree with Anita’s logic but somehow had the misfortune of being commissioned by her for editing work. The thought of somebody trolling her and running off with her money like that actually sounds pretty amusing when I think about it.

    2. They care less about parity and understanding than they do about avoiding any kind of icky uncomfortableness. Since these idiots think only in black and white terms (ironic) they can’t possible hold a discussion about dispelling differences and people all being people without venturing into grey territory that would offend some hypersensitive, angry cunt.

  9. The only segregation that actually produce results is based on IQ. Nothing good comes from teaching the dumb and the smart in the same classroom.

    In Denmark we take pride in the fact that we can include everyone, in reality it has been a total disaster. We have students at university level who can’t do basic math, and major companies are now threatening to leave the country.


  10. Alright. So I see everyone here losing their shit over this comment. Of everything I’ve seen Anita say, this is probably one of the only sensible things that has come out of her mouth.

    Consider this. In America there is all of one whole boys only school. Its student population is entirely male, and is staff predominantly male, but not by a wide margin. The youths that learn in this institute out perform males from the rest of the public school system across the country. In England, these sorts of schools are coming back into the public sphere as well, and are producing similar results.

    When we consider the fact that black youths have a number of unique troubles and learning considerations, coupled with the fact that our current education systems tend to be overly harsh and uniquely critical of those same youths when they don’t perform to task, then there is some viability to the concept of giving them their own space.

    If it matters aught (and it usually doesn’t on this subject), I do happen to know quite a few well educated and well to do black men who have been saying this for MUCH longer than Anita.

    1. The issue with US schools is that the focus is on test which determine school budgets and teachers salaries instead of actually teaching kids. On top of that you then have teachers who can see past stereotypes.

      1. Yes too much focus on tests with no awareness in how people learn. In 1977 my 5th grade class was tested as well as the rest of the 5th grade to see where we were all at. They then divided us into three groups. above grade, at grade, and below grade. It was an attempt to stop teaching to one size fits all. It was not perfect but it was meant to allow more teacher student contact for the below grade kids. No one made fun of anybody either. They school eventually stopped doing it because some parents complained about the segregation. Hmmm, which parents were that I wonder.

        1. Because, at best in a perfect world, the separated groups would still receive the same amount of attention and resources. Instead, more than likely because its the real world we’re talking about, the below grades were given less attention. By any logic not involving “survival of the fittest”, the lower grades would receive more attention if only to determine if there was another way to teach them than standard learning.

      2. I remember when that nonsense started creeping into schools when I was young and living in North Carolina. Now we have Common Core Curriculum, and a generation of illiterate, grossly under educated youths are now entering colleges, which are in turn having to waste time, energy, and resources getting these people up to snuff.

        We’ve lost our way on the subject of education, due to a concentrated attack on it by the worst elements of all political parties in the US. It’s one of the many things they actually agree upon.

    2. I think one telling thing with your comment is that you’ve said something that challenges the tone of the article but others have been receptive to what you’re saying.

      A lot different to challenging the dogma of the other crowd, I feel.

      1. I just want people to flourish emotionally, physically and mentally. If it requires a form of segregation to accomplish this, then I believe it is worth it. If cosmopolitanism is what can make us thrive best, then that is where I will throw my hat in.

        To each problem we must find the best tool for the most effective, lasting, and measurable solution. Or at least, that’s what I believe.

        1. Certainly not all people learn in the same way and corraling everyone into classrooms is going to benefit some more than others. Ensuring everyone has every opportunity to reach their potential would have greater broader benefits. I agree with you

    3. Yep. Ralph took this as an opportunity to paint Anita as a racist, and unless he’s got a hell of a lot more evidence to back this up, all he’s doing is shooting his own credibility in the balls.

      1. I get the point of muckraking. It is his appeal, but I also demand the truth and reason be respected. This whole episode by most of the community is a decent into literal SJW style behavior, defended by saying “But they’ve been doing it all along!”

        Ralph gets a free pass BARELY because being a scumbag is generally par for course with the muckraking territory.. how can you not be when your job is literally sifting through human scummery all day in order to find a story.

        The rest though? I thought we were better than this. I thought that we were a force that could give credit where credit is due. This was a fine chance to expose those who follow her as hypocrites, because progressives are the most inclined to demonize this sort of stance, regardless of the information attached to it.

        I suppose we can’t always be on our best behavior.

  11. You know, I’ve been frequently hearing the analogy “even a broken clock is right twice a day” when people talk about Anita. If such is the case, wouldn’t that make McIntosh some asshole who winds the hands around every 12 hours just for kicks?

  12. Like that little comment about the Japanese being bombed to the Middle Ages or whatever AND her partner’s comments against Israel…. Yeah, her non-profit organisation by design or simply by the fact they are both racist, is pushing racism as part of their “Inclusivity” narrative.
    It is hypocritical and immoral…. But they are not alone. All SJWS are like this

  13. I see them both as Televangelists. To make the con that much more real they have to drink their own kool-aid.

  14. Really so inner city schools would do so much better if they were all black? Wait, aren’t they largely already? She should had kept her statement to only gender. But then again with gender studies say we have more than two genders how many classes would we have for the same thing? Sorry you can’t take this class because this semester it is for a black lesbian female trapped in a white males body. Cis white male class of this topic will not be available to the Spring of 2035.

  15. I’ve watched some of her earlier videos in the past & pretty much all of it seems intended to piss people off.

    If I had to guess I think she was simply trolling for the most negative feedback possible.

    She obviously found the response she/McIntosh wanted when they started shitting on vidya games.

  16. The studies exist and the logic holds up. Then again, everyone across the board performs better when they learn outside of the classroom, but that’s another discussion.

    1. It’s like Ralph said, neither he nor Milo would be given a pass here, or be allowed to use the truth as a defense. Hold SJWs to their own rules.

      1. Hmm. It would appear I still have difficulty identifying this thing called “rhetoric.” I’ll have to get better at that.

  17. Sorry Ralph, this has actually been studied and pretty much proven, but the NEA hates admitting that kids learn better without all the distractions of inclusiveness around them.

  18. I’m pretty sure if all of you would have read CHS’s book rather than just post about how awesome she is in forums, you’d know she covers this in the first like 5 chapters. It’s true, catering to everyone’s special backgrounds in a mixed classroom takes away from the learning focus of a bunch of people with the same basic background learning some stuff.

    1. I’m pretty certain it’s the “same with race” part that everyone’s flipping over.

      1. I believe that’s also covered in CHS’s book, but I can’t remember, there are a few schools in particular she talks about, I just can’t remember exactly because I read a lot of shit and can’t be bothered to go back and look.

  19. Well ” Allah Akbar ” Anita and ” Hallelujah “, you are definitely a true representation of the feminist doctrine or theocracy, spoken & twitted like a true SJW & feminist Goddess.

  20. I can understand gender segregated classrooms as boys and girls typically respond to different teaching methods (If you want a more detailed explanation, C.H. Sommer’s book “the war on boys” has some info), but… Racial segregation? Really?

    And even then, do you really want to push segregation as the best possible method? You couldn’t come up with something better than that?

  21. This… is somewhat disingenuous, even for you Ralph. Lines of attack that are this thin and weak make it easier to refute stronger lines in the future. If they can point to something like this – a single tweet simply saying “I’ve seen reports that say the opposite of what you’re saying, for both gender and race.” without any other evidence that she’s actually advocating for segregation. Then making it seem like she’s calling for complete segregation throughout society rather than having it be about education/schooling.

    And while it is a bit distressing to think about, there have been positive effects found surrounding the education of children in segregated settings, by race and by gender. This isn’t support for that idea – it’s a call to study it and find out WHY. Why does it seem like girls learn better without boys around? Why do boys learn better without girls around? Why does it seem like African Americans learn better by themselves? What about mixed race/gender schooling is causing children to be unable to live up to their potential?

    You’d better have a hell of a lot more “evidence” and “proof” that she’s some sort of closet/subtle racist than you’ve shown, or else you’re just going to help keep the problems going so you can take a disingenuous shot at someone you don’t like. If this is all you’ve got, all this is going to do is reflect poorly on you, give her an easier way to dismiss anything that comes from you (and your supporters) and helping to make yourself irrelevant.

    Stop fucking yourself over.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *