February 23, 2020

Francisco Franco

Francisco Franco

Source: Wikimedia Commons

The Week’s Most Fascistic, Autistic, and Sadistic Headlines

Francisco Franco was the glorious leader of Spain from 1939 until he died in 1975. At press time, he remains chronically dead.

Sailing on wings of glory, he gloriously led Spain from the end of its bloody Civil War until his Creator summoned him to the ultimate glory.

Even after a 700-year Islamic occupation, the Spaniards didn’t learn that it’s dumb to be nice to Muslims. And even after communism killed 100+ million people under some of the most oppressive conditions in human history, Spaniards still haven’t learned that socialism is dumb. Last summer the nation shifted toward a predominantly socialist government, vainly trying to resurrect an issue everyone assumed was settled in 1939.

Socialists believe in equality and that all disparities in performance are due to hatred and greed rather than disparities in ability, which is supremely dumb. And since they always prove incapable of defending their positions against anyone who’s remotely rational and sane, they are always calling for restrictions on any form of speech that challenges their mentally handicapped beliefs.

In November the socialist government disinterred Franco’s remains from a state mausoleum and transferred them to a regular cemetery, which seems highly rude at the very best.

Now they are seeking to criminalize the mere act of “glorifying” Franco.

According to parliamentary spokeswoman Adriana Lastra—who would be wise to go a little easier on the paella con queso—“In a democracy you don’t pay tribute to dictators or tyrants.”

Weird—we thought that in a democracy, you don’t jail people simply for admiring other people.

The government is also planning to exhume victims of Franco who’d been buried in mass graves. They also say they intend to entirely erase all vestiges of Franco’s memory from the public square.

There has been no effort made to specify exactly what is meant by “glorifying” Franco, and critics suspect that socialists would use such a law to jail anyone critical of the socialist government.

Francisco—do you mind if we call you Frisco?—you must have been quite a glorious leader for them to still hate you.

England is a strange country that does oddball things such as referring to soccer as “football” and misspelling normal words such as “realize.” People will also stab you in the eyeballs if you cheer for a different soccer team than they do.

The Tottenham Spurs are a soccer team who lovingly refer to their players as “yids” and “yiddos.” Their fans refer to themselves collectively as the “Yid Army.” According to a fan named Gerald Jacobs:

In the mouths of Spurs fans, it is all positive. Once the crowd greets a player with the cry of “yiddo”, he knows he has made the grade and/or had hero status conferred upon him. (In the past, young supporters have been known to issue similar greetings to Strictly Orthodox Jews encountered in Tottenham streets.)

The phrase forever linked to one of Tottenham’s most brilliant strikers — Jermain Defoe/He’s a yiddo — is deeply imprinted in the collective Spurs consciousness.

In a recent online update, the Oxford English Dictionary added the words “yid” and “yiddo” to a group of “anti-Semitic slurs” and linked them directly to the Spurs. Other new slurs include “Jew Town,” which is used to indicate predominantly Jewish cities; “Jew York,” which should be self-explanatory; and “Jewish penicillin,” which is a euphemism for chicken soup.

“Yid” is nothing more and nothing less than a shortened form of “Yiddish,” just as “negro” is nothing more than the Spanish word for “black,” so we don’t see the big deal.

If people get any touchier, their limbs are going to start falling off.

It is currently legal in 17 states for high-school boys who pretend they’re high-school girls to bully and dominate girls in athletic events.

In almost every case, the fake girls beat the real girls, and anyone who says this scenario is unfair to women is accused of hating the fake girls and not the fakery itself.

“Regarding speech, the only ‘line’ that should ever be drawn is the one between true and false. Everything else is moral hysteria.”

A small bright spot in this sea of darkness occurred recently when a Connecticut girl named Chelsea Mitchell won a 55-meter dash against Terry Miller, a black male who pretends he’s a female. The victory occurred only two days after Mitchell and two other biologically female plaintiffs filed a lawsuit to block Miller from competing due to an “unfair advantage”—namely, not being a girl.

The plaintiffs stated that they had repeatedly lost to Miller in the past. And despite her narrow victory—only two-hundredths of a second—Mitchell says she thinks she’ll win her case because there are “still tons of girls that lose on a daily basis.”

We want to save those tons of girls—assuming there are at least 15 girls per ton—from unnecessary battering by delusional male perverts, and if you aren’t with us, we have no choice but to call you a sexist.

The religion of Sikhism was founded in the Punjab state of India, which seems scenic, so we have no idea why some of them uprooted themselves in order to move to places such as Cleveland and Delaware.

But since appearing to be Sikh—with the wacky beards and turbans—is obviously more important than assimilating into American culture, they have made the US Air Force bend to their will and allow them to keep the beards and wear turbans. New guidelines will also allow Muslims to wear hijabs.

Last March, the Air Force allowed an Odinist to grow a beard. Funny how they let the white guy do it before they let the brownies do it. It only goes to show that the US Armed Forces are still deep-fried in white supremacy and racial hatred. Whites are still over-represented in the military, which only proves our point.

Either that, or it only proves that minorities hate America.

Alabama Democratic State Representative Rolanda Hollis is an obese black woman who wears blonde wigs and is facing domestic battery charges for allegedly shoving her husband in public last September.

She will likely not be convicted, no matter how guilty she might be. And if she is convicted, it’s almost impossible that she will be sentenced to anything harsher than 10 hours of placidly planting flowers outside municipal buildings. If her husband had done the same thing, he’d be forever shamed, likely incarcerated, and possibly even medically castrated.

Most females who’ve reached puberty are aware that unprotected sex with a man can cause pregnancy. And only 1% of abortions come as a result of being raped. Therefore, when a woman of breeding age makes the choice to spread open her legs wishbone-style and allow a man to dump his seminal fluid into her Love Channel, a sensible person would conclude that whatever subsequently happens is her responsibility.

Legally, the man may have been responsible for heading into enemy territory without wearing a rubber poncho, but the only “choice” he has in this “pro-choice” scenario is to pay child support for 18 years or go to jail.

Still, in her Precambrian-era brain, Hollis seems to think that Alabama’s 2019 near-total ban on abortion fails to hold men responsible.

To combat this, the obese, wig-wearing, alleged husband-shover has proposed a law that would make it mandatory for all men aged 50 and over to undergo a vasectomy at their own expense.

According to the bill:

Under existing law, there are no restrictions on the reproductive rights of men.

As already implied, that’s a lie. Men do not have any “reproductive rights” concerning the fate of a fetus they helped create.

The proposed law’s text continues:

This bill would require a man to undergo a vasectomy within one month of his 50th birthday or the birth of his third biological child, whichever comes first.

“The vasectomy bill is to help with the reproductive system, and yes, it is to neutralize the abortion ban bill,” Hollis told a reporter. “It always takes two to tango. We can’t put all the responsibility on women. Men need to be responsible also.”

This woman is so mentally challenged that she doesn’t see the inherent flaw in comparing a law that would sterilize men with a law that essentially forces women to bear children. Hollis got it 180° wrong on this one.

If you insist on voting for black female lawmakers, it might be wise to choose someone who realizes there is far more to politics than being black and female.

With a net worth of around $70 billion and enough social-media clout to crush almost every human alive like a cockroach, it’s heartwarming to hear Mark Zuckerberg come in and beg the government to help him crack down on free speech rather having some crazy and powerful “authoritarian” conduct the crackdown.

At a speech in Munich—Nazis used to live there and did OODLES of bad things—Zuck drew a distinction between government-enforced “regulations” on “what discourse should be allowed” and a more “authoritarian” approach, possibly hoping that no one would notice there is absolutely no distinction between the two, because if you combine Mark Zuckerberg with the government, you’ve effectively reached the buck-stops-here zone of authority:

There should be more guidance and regulation from the states on basically — take political advertising as an example — what discourse should be allowed? Or, on the balance of free expression and some things that people call harmful expression, where do you draw the line?

There are a lot of decisions in these areas that are really just balances between different social values. It’s about coming up with an answer that society feels is legitimate and that they can get behind and understand that you drew the line here on the balance of free expression and safety. It’s not just that there’s one right answer. People need to feel like, ‘OK, enough people weighed in, and that’s why the answer should be this, and we can get behind that.’

We need to make sure that the internet can continue to be a place where everyone can share their views openly and where the legal framework around this is one that encodes democratic values. I do think that as part of that, we’ve got to move forward on regulation. Hopefully, we move forward quickly before a more authoritarian model gets adopted in a lot of places first.

Regarding speech, the only “line” that should ever be drawn is the one between true and false. Everything else is moral hysteria.

Oregon Democrat Ron Wyden has been in Congress since 1981. He shares more things with Mark Zuckerberg than either one would readily admit until you pressed them, at which point they’d call for you to be silenced.

In a recent OpEd for the Washington Post, Wyden accused “corporations” of working in collusion with Donald Trump “to control online speech,” almost as if the mega-tech corporations have been anything less than 100% hostile to Donald Trump and anyone who supports him ever since he declared his candidacy for president.

In 1996, Wyden coauthored part of the Communications Decency Act that protected corporations from being sued when commenters post actionable material on their forums. According to Wyden:

It lets companies remove posts from white supremacists or trolls without being sued for bias or for limiting individuals’ First Amendment rights. If a website wants to cater to the right wing, it can. If it wants to ban Trump supporters, it can do that, too.

Note the conflation of “white supremacists” and “trolls.” Why, it’s almost as if no one could possibly hold those opinions honestly and only voice them in order to upset you.

According to Wyden, Trump and “corporations” want to remove this protection, which would allow people to sue social-media companies who host libelous material instead of the person who posted them. Wyden states that if this protection was removed, “oppressed communities” would be gagged:

Movements such as Black Lives Matter or #MeToo, whose advocates post controversial accusations against powerful figures on social media, would have remained whispers, not megaphones for oppressed communities.

In other words, Jussie Smollett and Asia Argento would have to find another hustle.

Defying all known reality, Wyden continues:

I’m certain this administration would use power to regulate speech to punish its enemies and protect its allies. It would threaten Facebook or YouTube for taking down white supremacist content. It would label Black Lives Matter activists as purveyors of hate.

That doesn’t explain why Black Lives Matter and #MeToo have flourished online during the Trump Administration, while anyone who even dares to say they’re not ashamed of being white is routinely silenced and sometimes even jailed.

Last year, gay black actor Jussie Smollett became famous for staging a hate-crime hoax that a lot of white people believed and almost no black people believed.

Last March he was slapped with a 16-count felony indictment that was abruptly dropped within a month by Cook County State’s Attorney Kim Foxx with no explanation and not even a hint that they’d seen any evidence suggesting that it wasn’t a hoax.

In August, an Illinois judge named Michael Toobin appointed a former US attorney to review the case. Toobin was allegedly incensed that Kim Foxx had shared text messages with Smollett’s family about the case but didn’t recuse herself.

Smollett was indicted last Tuesday on six new counts of disorderly conduct and lying to the police. The two Nigerian bodybuilders that Smollett allegedly hired to conduct the hoax say they hope he tells the truth this time.

So do we.


Sign Up to Receive Our Latest Updates!