DISCLAIMER 1: What follows is a mixture of facts, speculation & satire therefore the adverb “allegedly” prefaces and applies to the whole article.

DISCLAIMER 2: I am a proud Neo-Troll & I DO NOT represent #GamerGate. Truth with zero protocol will be used; get offended. Feel free to disregard everything I say based on my Troll status. For those who stayed, behold;

(EDITOR’S NOTE: Feel free to checkout Jack’s site)


Look at the image above and examine the expressive eyes of that intelligent and noble result of human-guided evolution. It is not difficult to infer that the noble animal does not like what it is going through. It must be extremely unpleasant for it to be slathered in a substance that must hurt its olfactory system. Look at the thin uncolored areas around the eyes, notice how close the reckless owner gets to chemically burning the corneas of an animal that cannot know the difference. It might even try to lick the pungent poison from its eye. That is the insult upon the injury, since a dog’s sense of smell is so acute that they perceive scents that are imperceptible to us. Just imagine how intense the strong smell of hair dye (which is stout even for humans) must be for a dog.

It may not be news to you, but it bears repeating: Randi Harper likes to routinely expose her dog to toxic chemicals in order to dye its fur. What was news, at least to me, was how long she has been abusing her pet. It’s been at least 4 years. While researching another article, I had to look for a screengrab of Randi Harper’s face. As a result of that endeavor, I  accidentally came across a video recorded in 2011. In the background, I noticed this:


It appears that (at least since 2011) Randi Harper has consistently been using the same hair dye she uses on her radical, retarded, pig-like, godawful-boil-in-the-ass-ugly head to dye her dog’s fur. Let that sink in. Imagine the number of times per year the poor animal is exposed to those chemicals. Let’s also consider this:

Would a commercial feminist like Randi Harper agree with the idea consent is irrelevant”?

No. Most likely her reptilian brain would kick into high gear and immediately look for the implication that lack of consent means “rape.” Well, that’s the problem. Harper is just too retarded to figure out that consent is a far more complex concept than just sexual consent applied to humans.

Technically speaking, Harper herself has never and will never obtain permission from her dog to potentially cause it severe or terminal health problems through the repeated and neglectful use of hair dyes specifically formulated for humans (NOT dogs).

The animal is under her care and animals cannot give consent to anything, (it is even doubtful many smaller dog breeds would survive in the wild without human intervention since bigger ones don’t fare that well against their cousins). It is just reprehensible to routinely expose the animal to toxins with potentially harmful side effects. Why? Because it is unknown if a product intended for humans could cause a dog terminal diseases such as skin cancer. This hypocritical, bipolar, crystal meth-addled, landwhaleish, pig-faced feminist has been abusing one of her 3 dogs for at least 4 years, and guess what? She has faced zero consequences from animal rights groups (makes you wonder if feminists give themselves extra leeway when it comes to reporting or condemning their own SJW “whaleroines”). Look, the video is still up:


Skip to minute 39:40


If Harper could see her toes, she would notice she that has just shot herself in the foot. But, that’s wishful thinking, since she would miss over and over as stray bullets would only hit the floor after going through her thick layers of Dorito-blubber. The reality is that if the video above confirms Randi’s 4 years of animal abuse, it has also provided evidence to:

  1. Her consistent and extended contempt for the law.
  2. Her mental health problems.

If there was doubt before about how long she had been doing this, we now know it has been going on for at least 4 years. What is even more concerning, is how frequently a radfem like her dyes her hair, because it would result in the dog being exposed to hair dyes every time (ostensibly, more than 3 times a year, without even counting “retouching the roots“) Hamburger Harper changes her hair color in a lark. As evidence suggests, she clearly buys more than enough for her and her dog every time:


The second point is far more disturbing than the expected. You see, toddlers have to be taught that animals are not toys. The first time they see a baby rabbit, a guinea pig, a kitten, or a pup, you have to explain to them what they are looking at, then hold their hand so that they touch the animal without pulling, squeezing, or tossing it across the room. A toddler has no prior context and has to be told to treat animals with respect because it is a living creature, because it also experiences pain, because toddlers have to be guided to develop their nascent empathy. If properly supervised, toddlers usually learn the difference between a toy and a living pet in a few weeks.

Randi is at least 30 years late and has not learned what a toddler learns in a few weeks under adult supervision. She is actually treating her dog like a toy, despite the fact she is a woman in her 30’s, she lacks the empathy to treat the animal with respect. This is a regretfully common abomination of deformed human maternal instincts seen more often in elderly women (affected by the empty nest syndrome) who start dressing up their small dogs in baby clothes (far more often than the younger women who display similar behavior). It looks disturbingly benevolent, at best.

But in Randi Harper’s case? She is far more dysfunctional, as she’s treating her pet dog like the disembodied head of a doll while using bleach to play with its tangled and forgotten hair. How long before the animal has to be taken to the vet? Or even worse, left to suffer untreated simply because Randi is expected to follow her nature and avoid accountability and any publicity for harming her dog?

Again, the animal is being tortured and cannot give consent for any of this. But as feminists routinely do, they favor double standards so long as they can benefit from them. In Randi’s case, she endlessly complains about women and children being prevented from giving any consent, but when it comes to a creature that cannot give any consent to anything? She’s OK with it. She even abuses the dog then brags about it on social media. Why not? After all, to herself, she is “untouchable”…

See Harper’s unbearable mendacity?

A pet is far more vulnerable than a human child because they cannot verbally communicate what they go through with abusive owners. But look at Harper, the one who grandstands and claims to be an “anti-bullying” advocate…a bastion for “equality” who paradoxically enjoys abusing both people online and her pets offline. This begs the question, can a woman with this kind of well-documented drug and legal problems, as well as severe mental health issues, be a good mother? And most importantly:

Did Randi Harper’s abusive treatment of her dog extend to comparable forms of abuse against her own children?

See? Even the question above is “reprehensible” for feminists, but if a father had been caught performing the same dyeing experiments on the family dog? Feminists would have lost their menses and they’d be very quick to question the well-being of that fathers’ children and start a trial by social media. But with a mentally ill, drug-addled landwhale radfem like Harper? For some fucked up reason, the same question is just “misogyny”.

In the poisoned garden of feminism, double standards are the fertilizer.

But since I do not give a fuck about feminists and their feelings, I will state the following: Based on Randi Harper’s well-documented erratic behavior and drug use, I doubt she has been a functional mother to her children. I would also question Randi Harper’s present ability to be a functional mother and I would like to invite her children to publicly expose her on social media as soon as they turn 18, if they deem they suffered abuse from Ms. Harper.



Remember, the best revenge against your abusive mother would be telling the truth about her. Everything.

Just reach out, your mother has made plenty of enemies.

They will gladly help you share your story or even help you sue her.




Remember, the best revenge against Randi Harper 

would be telling the truth about her and causing her to lose her income.

Again, plenty of her enemies will be glad to receive tips from you.

We are listening, just send us a tip, even if anonymously.




Randi Harper’s Patreon $5K monthly income? Gone

The UN-like invitations? Gone.

The expensive trips? Gone.

The money to gorge at expensive restaurants? Gone.

Mass sympathy from the left? Silently withdrawn…then. Gone.

Obviously, the hypocrisy of the left would force them to doubt that Harper has perpetrated any abuse against her children. They would first react with incredulity, then disappointment, then anger. But remember, they are hypocrites by nature, so they would not express their discontent publicly. That would be tacit acceptance that they were financially supporting child abuse, so they would quietly and veeeery slowly withdraw their financial support so that Harper would go from $5K a month, to $4.1K, then $3K…until she panicked and started apologizing publicly. Then she would try to do as much damage control as she could, but if her children’s accusations are serious enough, she would eventually have to look for a real job and perhaps even face charges. It would be in Breitbart’s best interest to help spread this story, of course, hypothetically speaking.

See? There is no need to lie about hypocrites like Harper, all that is needed is encouragement for those who have been harmed by her.

Come forward, the truth is salt to a hypocrite’s wounds. And in Randi’s case, she is a giant slug. All we need is a giant plate of salt.

Thank you for reading.



Feel free to circulate the infographic below to PETA and other animal rights groups on both Twitter and Facebook. Perhaps this time, they will take notice.