Jan Matthys, more r than Marx

https://mises.org/library/messianic-communism-protestant-reformation

This is so r-selected it’s staggering.


A guy shows up and says property should be abolished, he should be treated like a King though, and women should be forced into marriage with violent adulterers (bigamists) who wanted a ‘legal’ form of Red Army rape because something something ‘love’.

The cage the monstrous leaders’ corpses were kept in is still up in Munster, good riddance.

“Soon Jan Matthys himself arrived, a tall, gaunt man with a long black beard. Matthys, aided by Bockelson, quickly became the virtual dictator of the town. The coercive Anabaptists had at last seized a city. The Great Communist Experiment could now begin.”

Anti-white mob.

“Matthys called therefore for the execution of all remaining Catholics and Lutherans, but Knipperdollinck’s cooler head prevailed, since he warned Matthys that slaughtering all other Christians than themselves might cause the rest of the world to become edgy, and they might all come and crush the New Jerusalem in its cradle.

Cowards.

It was therefore decided to do the next best thing, and on February 27 the Catholic and Lutherans were driven out of the city, in the midst of a horrendous snowstorm.

Ah! The Russian method.

In a deed prefiguring communist Cambodia, all non-Anabaptists, including old people, invalids, babies and pregnant women were driven into the snowstorm,

Socialists do care – about themselves.
The grasshopper should’ve been left to starve in the story.

and all were forced to leave behind all their money, property, food and clothing. The remaining Lutherans and Catholics were compulsorily rebaptized, and all refusing this ministration were put to death.”

I think we’ll have to bring this back, the cage method.
You can see they deserved it.

“With every person drafted for siege work, Jan Matthys launched his totalitarian communist social revolution.
The first step was to confiscate the property of the expelled. All their worldly goods were placed in central depots, and the poor were encouraged to take “according to their needs,” the “needs” to be interpreted by seven appointed “deacons” chosen by Matthys.”

Bloody Communists.

“When a blacksmith protested at these measures imposed by Dutch foreigners, Matthys arrested the courageous smithy. Summoning the entire population of the town, Matthys personally stabbed, shot, and killed the “godless” blacksmith”

Foreigners with a sense of entitlement.

Thank god we learned our lesson.

Multiculturalism is just a slow invasion.

“A key part of the Anabaptist reign of terror in Münster was now unveiled. Unerringly, just as in the case of the Cambodian communists four-and-a-half centuries later, the new ruling elite realized that the abolition of the private ownership of money would reduce the population to total slavish dependence on the men of power. And so Matthys, Rothmann and others launched a propaganda campaign that it was unchristian to own money privately; that all money should be held in “common,” which in practice meant that all money whatsoever must be handed over to Matthys and his ruling clique.”

Banks, we call them banks.

Strangely, they are run by a religion. Must be a coincidence.

Food was confiscated from private homes, and rationed according to the will of the government deacons. Also, to accommodate the immigrants, all private homes were effectively communized, with everyone permitted to quarter themselves anywhere; it was now illegal to close, let alone lock, doors.

No such thing as burglary.

Communal dining-halls were established, where people ate together to readings from the Old Testament.
This compulsory communism and reign of terror was carried out in the name of community and Christian “love.””

White Sharia has already happened. For similar, low IQ reasons, it also failed.

There’s a reason nobody trusts missionaries.
They’re invaders holding a book, that isn’t better.

As you can see, it’s often much worse.

“All this communization was considered the first giant steps toward total egalitarian communism, where, as Rothmann put it, “all things were to be in common, there was to be no private property and nobody was to do any more work, but simply trust in God.” The workless part, of course, somehow never arrived.”

(((Wow))) imagine my shock. And iPhones would rain from the Heavens!

Even they opposed usury, though. Con artists recognize con artists.

1534:
“everything which offends against love – all such things are abolished amongst us by the power of love and community.”

Anyone who tries to sell you on giving them power over you for weasel words like ‘love’ and ‘community’ is a dictator waiting to happen.
Tolerance is a sin, the Bible never tells you to tolerate evil, quite the opposite.
Outlawing “working for money” is intended to increase dependence.


https://biblehub.com/2_thessalonians/3-10.htm
Like unpaid internships and universal basic income today (and the welfare cliff).
Contrary to the God helps those who help themselves logic of the Bible, which didn’t see money as evil, merely love of it and greed at the expense of rights. Making tax-collectors and bankers Satan?

“For the Anabaptists boasted of their lack of education, and claimed that it was the unlearned and the unwashed who would be the elect of the world.”
“Early in May, Bockelson caught the attention of the town by running naked through the streets in a frenzy, falling then into a silent three-day ecstasy.”

Oh, to see that amygdala. Then the other immigrant friend takes over after Jan.
The first sexual revolution / religious rape / free love fest:

The elders were now given total authority over the life and death, the property and the spirit, of every inhabitant of Münster. A strict system of forced labour was imposed, with all artisans not drafted into the military now public employees, working for the community for no monetary reward. This meant, of course, that the guilds were now abolished.

No work > Forced labour.

The totalitarianism in Münster was now complete. Death was now the punishment for virtually every independent act, good or bad. Capital punishment was decreed for the high crimes of murder, theft, lying, avarice, and quarreling!

Notable exception: rape.

That’s how you spot the rabbit.

Also death was decreed for every conceivable kind of insubordination: the young against their parents, wives against their husbands and, of course, anyone at all against the chosen representatives of God on earth, the totalitarian government of Münster. Bernt Knipperdollinck was appointed high executioner to enforce the decrees.

Interfering with family life? Doesn’t sound like the socialist teachers we know.

The only aspect of life previously left untouched was sex, and this now came under the hammer of Bockelson’s total despotism. The only sexual relation permitted was marriage between two Anabaptists. Sex in any other form, including marriage with one of the “godless,” was a capital crime. But soon Bockelson went beyond this rather old-fashioned credo, and decided to establish compulsory polygamy in Münster.

City-wide Communist immigrant-led gang rape. And it didn’t just happen one New Year’s Eve.
Which the Red Army would also replicate in Germany, centuries later. Except you get creepy guys idolizing Russia to this day and never mentioning that literal rape of Europe.

I’m sure they rationalized polygamy (really rape and adultery) as Christian duty (as if their bodies were property of the state) despite how the Bible expressly tells us not to marry.

Since many of the expellees had left their wives and daughters behind,

For shame!

Münster now had three times as many marriageable women as men, so that polygamy had become technologically feasible.

Rabbits wait until most good men are war-dead (The Sexual Revolution happened after World Wars) or poor and desperate to make ends meet then make their move to take the women. By force. How omega.

R-types are just rapists waiting for an opening, a weakness in the native Ks. First they say “don’t defend your women” then it’s “your women?” They fail as husbands and fathers (they can’t even satisfy one wife and are permissive parents). Don’t trust so-called polygamists, usually they don’t believe in an age of consent – or, when given power, consent itself…

Bockelson converted the other rather startled preachers by citing polygamy among the patriarchs of Israel, as well as by threatening dissenters with death.

Won’t let us rape your daughter? Guess we’ll have to make her an orphan. 

Basic principle of tribal war. All war being tribal.

Compulsory polygamy was a bit too much for many of the Münsterites, who launched a rebellion in protest. The rebellion, however, was quickly crushed and most of the rebels put to death.

Along with their conscience.

Execution was also the fate of any further dissenters. And so by August 1534, polygamy was coercively established in Münster.

He raped the city itself, ironic.

As one might expect, young Bockelson took an instant liking to the new regime, and before long he had a harem of 15 wives, including Divara, the beautiful young widow of Jan Matthys.

Bros before what now?

Typical r loyalty.

Anyone who wants a “harem” is basically announcing to the world they’re a rapist.
If all those women wanted to sleep with them, they already would be, by consent, and they wouldn’t want a harem, that kills their ‘lovers’ for leaving.

Remember, Genghis Khan was a very successful rapist.
So-called “conquerors” are the most anti-male icons going, that was some other man’s daughter, sister, wife, mother. Sex traitors.

The rest of the male population also began to take to the new decree as ducks to water. Many of the women did not take as kindly to the new dispensation, and so the elders passed a law ordering compulsory marriage for every women under (and presumably also over) a certain age, which usually meant being a compulsory third or fourth wife.

Rape gangs writing the law.

Thank god we know better now.

Moreover, since marriage among the godless was not only invalid but also illegal, the wives of the expellees now became fair game, and were forced to “marry” good Anabaptists.

This is why you shoot deserters. If they’d betray their country and flee, what right do they have to come back to this?

Refusal to comply with the new law was punishable, of course, by death, and a number of women were actually executed as a result. Those “old” wives who resented the new wives coming into their household were also suppressed, and their quarreling was made a capital crime. Many women were executed for quarreling.

Anyone trying to shut up women is going to censor men too.

But the long arm of the state could reach only just so far and, in their first internal setback, Bockelson and his men had to relent, and permit divorce.

Polygamists are always for easy divorce and multiple re-marriage.
Actually re-marriage is the way they’re hoping to lube society up for it.

Because it isn’t a meaningful, loving commitment unless you can get out of it. And into it. And out. And shake it all about.

Indeed, the ceremony of marriage was now outlawed totally,

Satanists.

and divorce made very easy. As a result, Münster now fell under a regime of what amounted to compulsory free love. And so, within the space of only a few months, a rigid puritanism had been transmuted into a regime of compulsory promiscuity.”

This is what happens if you leave r-selected men in charge.
Chaos. Degenerate chaos. Learn from this lesson of history.

When the SJWs complain about male rule being violent, unfair and incompetent, they refer to r-men. The narcissism of small differences.

“Jan Bockelson seized this opportunity to carry his “egalitarian” communist revolution one step further: he had himself named king and Messiah of the Last Days.”

The Old and New Testaments were specifically written so we’d know to kill these little-dicked despots.

“It often happens with “egalitarians” that a hole, a special escape hatch from the drab uniformity of life, is created – for themselves.”

Communism for all! Except Party members – luxuries for them.
Rule by rapists.

“As soon as he proclaimed the monarchy, the prophet Dusentschur announced a new divine revelation: all who persisted in disagreeing with or disobeying King Bockelson would be put to death, and their very memory blotted out. They would be extirpated forever. Some of the main victims to be executed were women: women who were killed for denying their husbands their marital rights,

rapists, not husbands

for insulting a preacher, or for daring to practice bigamy – polygamy, of course, being solely a male privilege.”

Ah, the insecure double standards of the r-male. You can tell a polygamist is bad in bed when he won’t let his wife sleep with anyone else. But monogamy cannot exist one-way, morons, it’s a single bond between two. There’s no such thing as half loyal to your military either.

Male privilege, huh? The real thing, finally!

As we can see, some males belong on the bottom of the ladder, with no heirs, they’d destroy civilization otherwise.

We are not like bonobos, trust no one who says we were, more like a biological cross between gorilla and chimp.

“So that the king and his nobles might live in high luxury, rigorous austerity was imposed on everyone else in Münster. The subject population had already been robbed of their houses and much of their food; now all superfluous luxury among the masses was outlawed. Clothing and bedding were severely rationed, and all “surplus” turned over to King Bockelson under pain of death. Every house was searched thoroughly and 83 wagonloads of “surplus” clothing collected.

Sugar tax.

Anytime they tax actual food, you’re entering dystopia.

It is not surprising that the deluded masses of Münster began to grumble at being forced to live in abject poverty while the king and his courtiers lived in extreme luxury on the proceeds of their confiscated belongings. And so Bockelson had to beam them some propaganda to explain the new system. The explanation was this: it was all right for Bockelson to live in pomp and luxury because he was already completely dead to the world and the flesh. Since he was dead to the world, in a deep sense his luxury didn’t count. In the style of every guru who has ever lived in luxury among his credulous followers, he explained that for him material objects had no value. How such “logic” can ever fool anyone passes understanding.

Celebrities claiming they’re just like you but shouldn’t be taxed like you (nor their films).
Claiming diversity is good and making expensive efforts to avoid it.
I can see how the pseudologic would work.

More important, Bockelson assured his subjects that he and his court were only the advance guard of the new order; soon, they too would be living in the same millennial luxury.

All talk, like Elon “I’m gonna move to Mars” Musk.
Who happens to be a socialist, coincidentally.

And promises the journey to his new kingdom will be “fun” (creep code for orgies). Don’t get on the ship, folks, if you value your holes.
Logically, the greatest good for all would be letting his staff form a union…

Under their new order, the people of Münster would forge outward, armed with God’s will, and conquer the entire world, exterminating the unrighteous, after which Jesus would return and they would all live in luxury and perfection. Equal communism with great luxury for all would then be achieved.”

I’m reminded of Richard Spencer.
Anyone else?

Magically prosperous (but anti-merit) ethnostate.

Or Mars. Space Eden. For people too smart to believe in a Savior.

The stars are a nice touch.

“Despite his continual preaching about marching forth to conquer the world, King Bockelson was not crazy enough to attempt that feat, especially since the bishop’s army was again besieging the town.”

Ah, the cowardice! Predictable as a Tottenham match.

“Finally, Bockelson, long fascinated with the theatre, ordered his starving subjects to engage in three days of dancing and athletics. Dramatic performances were held, as well as a Black Mass. Starvation, however, was now becoming all-pervasive.”

The narcissism!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Mass#Medieval_Roman_Catholic_parodies_and_additions_to_the_Mass

“To guard against such a threat, Bockelson stepped up his reign of terror still further. In early May, he divided the town into 12 sections, and placed a “duke” over each one with an armed force of 24 men. The dukes were foreigners like himself; as Dutch immigrants they were likely to be loyal to Bockelson.”

This is why your ancestors never trusted foreigners with promises.

Reminds me of EU “member states” and the region planning.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regions_of_England
Why do they want a full army?

“Bockelson would undoubtedly have let the entire population starve to death rather than surrender”

Typical r.

Anyone who has to tell you they’re caring, isn’t.

“As for ex-King Bockelson, he was led about on a chain, and the following January, along with Knipperdollinck, was publicly tortured to death, and their bodies suspended in cages from a church tower.”

They’re still there, the cages.
If only they were women, they’d have instantly been clocked as witches. The vices gave them away as Satanic.

This is why men should distrust other men, especially socialists.

Their luxury comes from your labour.

Today it’s called the Labour party.

What does Marx have to do with China?

Thought experiment: What would Marx say?

Vague shitpost of the obvious incoming.


In an all-white society, he was right to fixate on class because race wasn’t a factor.
Still, race has become too burdensome as a factor, people forget class. The Left aren’t wrong to bring it up, merely to blame it for everything. Class isn’t even blank slate, that’s just the way economists lie about it to deny historic responsibility from their field. Bubbles aren’t natural, unless you mean the soap kind. They are man-made – by crooks.
Marx was right that the middle class have to die. What he missed is that middle-class ideas have to die. That would swiftly solve the problem of the chattering class.
There’s no middle-class without a separate identity to carve, an axe to grind, an other to oppress or uplift, in an appeasement display to prevent their own demise or consolidate their position against same-race competition.
The superpower is in the production. During the British Empire, the factories were here, since the Industrial Revolution. Then America, and they had two profitable wars for the right people. Now, China runs the world. The Chinese aren’t being told to learn English, the West is being told to learn Mandarin. The Chinese have enslaved their own people to spread by immigration, to reach by financial influence and to conquer the West in the long-run. Outbreeding us also outweighs in terms of war. They can afford to lose a billion, we can’t lose a fifth of that without going extinct. The West ought to await Malthus with glee.
Mother Russia will always come up smelling of roses, you never mess with Mother Russia. The Chinese under-estimate the Russian, they don’t understand the psychology. It’s passive, it isn’t aggressive, and it settles very well.
Where are the factories? Where are the workers? Where are the means of production? You might say, They never won a war! But they won. They won something and something real. Further, the US never beat the British, not in real terms. Always one step forward, three back.
The USA has never won a war. Look how independence is going. Do you really think the mass immigration from Africa would’ve happened back then under British rule? Neither of those world wars were necessary.
China won the spoils of all that bloodshed with patience and cheap toys. I think it might be Christmas that killed the Christian. Perhaps the Puritans were right.
However, the consent of the Western worker is a fickle thing. The parasite load of the global economy is reaching tipping point thanks to demographic shifts. Really, it’s a tidal wave and you need to keep a weather eye on the horizon to know when to move. The gene pool is full of mud and antibiotic resistant disease.
Nations have been sold out for less short-term gain.
The financial systems rely on worker consent. Marx correctly pointed out that when they realize the game is up, there are no more gibs and no retirement…. what else is left but rebellion? Slaves rebel.
Statist reward incentives are parasitic on the very people who produce them. I won’t sit here grinding on an old wheel. Gen Y and Z will be fascinating to watch as this plays out. Brainwashed from nursery.
I wanted to point out these basic, salient arrangements.
It’s everybody’s problem.
This isn’t a white issue, but whites do appear to be the golden goose – at least in terms of charity ‘aid’.
I’ve said before, you can’t have white levels of prosperity with fewer white people in society.
Resources are contracting because population is expanding past the elastic.
It’s going to snap.
The sustainable nutjobs lose traction because they never discuss the eugenic need for population control. They do on any other species. By comparison, the UN pretends this will happen magically. Humans are a locust swarm on this planet, but not all humans. #NotAllHumans
The common sense necessity to acknowledge this is missing thanks to vice and corruption, the outcome. The academics expect gold-plated pensions. The politicians want to be voted back in. The economists want grants. The capitalists want fatter margins. The same finite resources divided between a sustainable, reduced population (commonly est. 1 billion, possibly up to 2) will result in instant prosperity. Marx believed that reducing the working-class was impossible, since the rich would suffer but- what if the poor don’t work? Marx is ridiculous for many reasons, but not so much as his followers who believe nothing has changed in almost a century and a half. When practically everything has changed and they also brag about this ‘progress’… cognitive dissonance is a brain cancer, kids.
For the poor to be better off, most of the population has to go. The majority isn’t Rich.
Squeezing the rich would only work a few years… they’d stop producing.
Demographics. Economics is an application, either correct or incorrect. Beyond demographics, there isn’t much to say. Economists are not social scientists*. They don’t care about people. They will screw people to get numbers. Economists would be run out of any medieval town, a saner time. They usually sell Get Rich(er) Quick – this is afforded by a broken currency system and fractional reserve leprechaun money.


There isn’t One solution. There are many. Like a jigsaw. Many problems.
Maybe something like 75% have a similar cause, but they don’t all have the same solution.
People don’t want to look because not only does it 1. suck to live through something you don’t deserve, but 2. the Problem is huge and 3. there are too many details to discuss solutions at this stage of decline. Where’s the will?

*Could we also stop asking engineers and physicists about social science problems? Their opinions are crap. Ask a 5yo.

Also, social scientists are not preachers. Their word isn’t gospel. Neither is a preachers, come to think.

What does Bill Nye, a children’s show presenter, know about how to bring down national debt?
What does Token Black Tyson know about humanities education?
What does ..actually, there aren’t any celebrity female scientists, are there?

We need SOLUTIONS.

A ‘final solution’ won’t fix the social system or the hegemonic cultural paradigm. Yes, you’re very edgy, please move and let the grown-ups talk.

Look at the food security of Asia if you want a blackpill LOL, especially the much-vaunted SE and China (our economic superior). It hasn’t occurred to a lot of  these ‘redpills’ that Asia has only been historically strong because the West is all-time weak. Superpowers are on a see-saw kind of setup.

I think Africa will invade Asia, personally, based on land bridges and farmland.

Aid workers are not saints, they are the devil in a halo.
History will view them as scum, vermin, who encouraged Mass rape, disease and famine.
All for the glory of their pride.

They knew this was coming. They simply don’t care. Look up the disaster of Millennium villages. They wanted their bribe money, free 4x4s, 5* hotels and plenty of brown children to rape.

Google ‘UN rape scandal’ sometime.

Would you know an r-type meme if you saw one?

commiememe

Follow the rainbow.

h/t Sassy Socialist Memes

Maths: The MoP is a net loss if you aren’t a worker.
Maths hates fags.

If the workers become business owners, don’t they become the new bourgeoisie? Manager is a job in its own right, there isn’t time to man the floor too. Who orders the stock? Who sells the product? Who negotiates wages? Who files taxes? Work in this century is specialized by necessity.

Note: a fag is not necessarily gay. The new meaning is like a weak type of douchebag. You know the type. Wimps. Fagging is a boarding school behaviour exploiting the smaller, weaker and more annoying, therefore most fags are in fact hetero.

A refutation of Marxist-Feminism

http://www.anglobitch.com/Marx.htm

All evidence seems to refute the notion that the working class are becoming more aware of their situation and thus more prone to revolution. Large proportions of the lower class have taken mass psychic leave of reality, explaining all phenomena in terms of extra-terrestrials and other media-shaped fantasies (25% of Americans think their country is run by extra-terrestrials, for example). This mass delusion is quite distinct from simple false consciousness and relates to the new social paradigm of post-processor society.

By now, everyone should know Marxism is full of it. 100m dead, at least.
Way more than the Nazis, however you count it.

that's enough stop please karen will and grace

Video: Champagne socialist Owen Jones fawning over Marx + Marx quotes + Frankfurt school

If Karl, instead of writing a lot about Capital, had made a lot of Capital, it would have been much better. ~ Henriette Marx, his mother.

If Owen Jones says something is fact, you can be fairly confident it is false. Example: 1. Men veer conservative, women veer liberal. 2. Marx condones forcing revolution on those who do not desire it and in general was a terrible human being. 3. You will never see a poor man in politics.

“I understand that it may not be considered good form to suggest that class issues are as important as issues of race, gender or sexuality, despite the fact that from my own perspective they seem perhaps even more fundamental and crucially relevant. After all, while in the West after many years of arduous struggle we are now allowed to elect women, non-white people and even, surely at least in theory, people of openly alternative sexualities, I am relatively certain that we will never be allowed to elect a man or woman of any race or persuasion who is poor.” ~ Alan Moore

The representation of private interests … abolishes all natural and spiritual distinctions by enthroning in their stead the immoral, irrational and soulless abstraction of a particular material object and a particular consciousness which is slavishly subordinated to this object. ~ Marx, shutting down individuality

Our mutual value is for us the value of our mutual objects.Hence for us man himself is mutually of no value. ~ Marx.

The slave frees himself when, of all the relations of private property, he abolishes only the relation of slavery and thereby becomes a proletarian; the proletarian can free himself only by abolishing private property in general. ~ Engels, when is Owen Jones becoming poor and moving to Tower Hamlets?

The worst thing that can befall a leader of an extreme party is to be compelled to take over a government in an epoch when the movement is not yet ripe for the domination of the class which he represents and for the realisation of the measures which that domination would imply … ~ Engels

The democratic petty bourgeois, far from wanting to transform the whole society in the interests of the revolutionary proletarians, only aspire to make the existing society as tolerable for themselves as possible. ~ Marx and Engels, fairly good summary of champagne socialism

Labour is, in the first place, a process in which both man and Nature participate, and in which man of his own accord starts, regulates, and controls the material re-actions between himself and Nature. He opposes himself to Nature as one of her own forces, …. ~ Marx, who didn’t work.

On the level plain, simple mounds look like hills; and the imbecile flatness of the present bourgeoisie is to be measured by the altitude of its great intellects.. ~ Marx

Everyone who knows anything of history also knows that great social revolutions are impossible without the feminine ferment. Social progress may be measured precisely by the social position of the fair sex (plain ones included). ~ Marx on feminism.

“Today, the Marxist left tries to conceal these ugly facts, even while making political alliances with totalitarians overseas, in the hard-communist and Islamic nations. The hard-left also is today the major carrier of the virus of Jew-hatred, even if black racism has been fairly well eradicated in most of the USA and Europe.” source;

“What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money.. Money is the jealous god of Israel, in face of which no other god may exist. Money degrades all the gods of man — and turns them into commodities. The bill of exchange is the real god of the Jew. His god is only an illusory bill of exchange. The chimerical nationality of the Jew is the nationality of the merchant, of the man of money in general.” Marx, The Jewish Question

“…the very cannibalism of the counterrevolution will convince the nations that there is only one way in which the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated, and that way is revolutionary terrorism.” Marx again

“We have no compassion and we ask no compassion from you. When our turn comes, we shall not make excuses for the terror.”  Marx and Engels

“Well, then, to carry out the principles of socialism do its believers advocate assassination and bloodshed? ‘No great movement,’ Karl [Marx] answered, ‘has ever been inaugurated Without Bloodshed.’” – interview with the Chicago Tribune, 1879.

I could go on but it’s all there.

The revolution never happened of course.

source: “What came to be informally known as “The Frankfurt School” of Critical Social Theory was originally established in Germany in 1923 as the Frankfurt Institute for Social Research…. The thinking of the Frankfurt School was heavily shaped by three key historical events: (1) the failure of the working-class revolution that Marx had predicted in Western Europe,… The theories of the Frankfurt School continue to inspire people both within and outside of academia.”

source: ” The term “Frankfurt school” is an informal term used to designate the thinkers affiliated with the Institute for Social Research or influenced by them; it is not the title of any institution, and the main thinkers of the Frankfurt school did not use the term to describe themselves….The nature of Marxism itself formed the second focus of the institute, and in this context the concept of critical theory originated…. [critiques] Although Frankfurt theorists delivered a number of criticisms against the theories and practices of their days, they did not present any positive alternatives.” That is the hallmark of critical theory, only to destroy. “Another criticism, originating from the left, is that critical theory is a form of bourgeois idealism that has no inherent relation to political practice and is totally isolated from any ongoing revolutionary movement.” Because it produces nothing.

Emma Watson thinks she’s an economist now. Here’s why I wouldn’t trust her to run a lemonade stand. #Davos #10x10x10

It’s almost as if she is slowly changing into Hermione, whom no one really liked for her politics <SPEW joke>, because her career is panning and she’s approaching the Hollywood leading lady Wall. It’s no coincidence they cut that irritating interlude to a passing mention in the films. I didn’t cover HeforShe first time round because I knew it would be a bust (as she hilariously admits in the speech at Davos) but it seems her inane #firstworldproblems are becoming a quarterly feature so my hand is forced. Side note: did she take a private jet like the other suffering millionaires?

 first world problems priorities

Let’s go to the press release first, the official line, predictably called UNWomen because women are the centre of everything don’tchaknow.

http://www.unwomen.org/en/news/stories/2015/01/emma-watson-launches-10-by-10-by-10

What do you want?

unveiled the HeForShe IMPACT 10X10X10 pilot initiative to galvanize momentum in advancing gender equality and women’s empowerment. The HeForShe campaign’s IMPACT 10X10X10 initiative is a one-year pilot effort that aims to engage governments, corporations and universities as instruments of change positioned within some of the communities that most need to address deficiencies in women’s empowerment and gender equality and that have the greatest capacity to make and influence those changes. Each sector will identify approaches for addressing gender inequality, and pilot test the effectiveness of these interventions for scalability.
Translation: Holding democratic institutions (governments) to ransom, alongside private bodies owned by private citizens (shareholders, MDs/CEOs) and Universities who already favour girls too much with intake ratios. One year deadline or else. As if this ask is new. Who voted for her? Ah. Nobody. She can deliver a speech, but as we’ll see, there is little point of delivering a speech where the primary indicator that she wrote it herself was unoriginality. These claims have already been addressed. Perhaps if Mz Watson were less self-absorbed, she would have bothered to take the time to fucking Google it. The truth is out there.
Still don’t see what the number ten has to do with any of this.
The report highlights a large current gap between men and women in terms of political engagement and opportunity and little improvement in equality for women in the workplace since 2006.
The economic downturn? Then called the Credit Crunch? Are women alone in suffering since then? Is that what you’re trying to argue? Have you looked at the labor force participation rates for men? Unemployment?
As for political engagement, we don’t put ourself up as much as men do. We don’t want to. Politics is called showbiz for ugly people so I find it deeply amusing that Mz Watson is giving the speech when women put themselves up for film/TV/theatre camerawork without a problem.
“Ultimately we need everyone to get involved if we are to turn the tide.”
You aren’t making this sound like a free choice, more of a mandate with a pretty smile.
I still have no idea why it’s called 10x10x10 and I read the whole page about it. I’m surprised IMPACT isn’t in huge letters in the Impact font and zooming into a Powerpoint presentation like a rocket.
It links to this tweet

https://twitter.com/HeforShe/status/558522851373105153

Here, have some groupthink! It goes lovely with that delusion that everyone agrees with you and knows your opinion is the only good one. This is why people rightfully call social justice a cult, but strangely, the term isn’t used. PR hiccup? Even when that’s the entire point of the move. It’s redistribution of wealth to the people who, by definition, do not create it. Irony bounds we need one of the most privileged women in the world asking for the average man’s money as if she is oppressed by her sex when HR departments already hire according to SJ diktat and she made the bulk of her fortune off being a comely woman by modelling (professional objectification).

social justice definition

sjrobot

google search men can't beThat last image was a sardonic reference to the last feminist UNWomen campaign, which used Google autocomplete as if it were totally serious.

Serious scientific data you guys.

Serious scientific data you guys.

n.b. “Male feminists” are anecdotally more verbally abusive to women such as myself (non-feminist) than any female feminist I’ve encountered. They seem to think they’re justified behind that non-sequitur shield of “I’m a feminist, I can’t be a cyberbully” (a masked man fallacy). I have frequently been told to kill myself, always by a male feminist. One notable example was actually a campaigner against cyberbullying which he didn’t like when I pointed out such hypocrisy. If anything, you should be telling them to calm the fuck down. Rather than target other women on behalf of a minority of cultists who clearly cannot logically defend themselves against their own sex. Or don’t these normal, non-feminist women know what’s good for them?

Yet this eloquent, illustrious man in the tweet, also a spearhead for the move ahead of a whole list of experienced men, is barely covered in the media. It’s almost as if sex sells, or to be more precise, Mz Watson’s sex.

jessica stam wink sexy

I found another press release, although believe me it took some digging.

http://www.noodls.com/view/B3AB8791692C77A82FCDA610905B702D96DFCE1C?3394xxx1422000694

IMPACT 10X10X10 prioritizes legislative bodies and corporations in view of the gender inequality that exists in these areas, confirmed by findings from the World Economic Forum’s Global Gender Gap Report 2014.
There are quotes from about half a dozen men who support it. Champions of industry with decades under their belt, weirdly not covered by the MSM. I’m sure going round the backdoor of democracy is totally legitimate and their report is in no way biased to support their personal ends at all.
toasting raising glass cheers leonardo da vinci congrats well done demons
Why would the UN lie to us?
Before we begin on her speech (procrastination what?), may I remind you I sadly live in the same country as this narcissistic shrew. Our government has a dedicated Centre for Social Justice. We don’t need her. They tackle the same old poverty issues which will never disappear, because poverty is relative and it has diddly squat to do with sex, unless she’s arguing physical sex differences impede women. We have an heiress covering poverty issues. Jump-shark-much? Search women in that poverty document: ~5 hits in 73 pages. It isn’t a problem for women. The data from her own country proves it. All but one stat by comparison confirm that poverty hits men harder than women. Almost as if there’s a lack of sympathy for male suffering, we should outlaw whichever bigoted ideology caused that injustice!
I will add in one more SJ definition, the one they officially use which never ever happens in practice (that would be meritocracy, a blind, non-identitarian process). Justice is blind?

Mutual obligation? At no point does HeforShe accomplish anything for men, except some vague promises that, trust us, patriarchy is bad for men too! Even though it’s run by men for men (a male safe space?) and their exclusive benefit according to …feminist theory.
From their own mouths: ”

“The patriarchy hurts men too” is a set of silencing or derailing tactics in feminist discussions…. Men are, as a class, the group advantaged by the patriarchy…..men who want to discuss male identity, masculinity and the patriarchy need to create new discussions in spaces that aren’t marked as women-centred. [DS: like a manosphere? mens’ rights groups?] This tactic is sufficiently well known that the acronym is sometimes used to identify it: PHMT.

Ignore the cognitive dissonance behind the curtain.

We have equal opportunities. We do not have equal outcomes because women are free agents who make personal choices and reap the consequences, both positive and negative.

I invite anyone to prove that above bolded incorrect on a factual level. Truly.
There is a performance differential on any metric you care to measure. Men and women (if you choose that sex binary as the independent variable) differ in their colour perception, for example. Something as basic as saying red or orange. As this Cell link states in passing, it’s such old news, the perception differential is biological. Innate. Immutable. “Furthermore, despite abundant evidence for sex differences in other visual domains, and specifically in other tasks of color perception-”

I’m sure Mz Watson knows better than biology. I’m sure there’s some rock-hard science, unless she’s calling Newton’s Principia a “rape manual” like some other feminists. She can’t be coasting on personal attention-whoring, emotional appeals and political philosophy. I can’t put it off any longer.

and here we go joker come on

1st thing I noticed: No like/dislike ratio data. No comments. Yes, what a welcoming invitation from HeforShe. I want to be a part of this “discussion.”

11 million views. How many unique? No, that’s asking too much. I watched it about 10 times to pick apart all the subtle jibes at supposed male dominance. And for laughs with free-thinking friends over drinks.
“Response” is great n’ all, but she isn’t really selling the real-world changes implemented as a result of her September edition [Vogue reference]. Were there any? Any at all? Surely she would point them out unless this is five minutes of self-congratulation that a few million men probably masturbated to her in a tight-fitting suit on mute.

1.2 billion social media conversations. I would wager at least 1 billion of those were arguments. Attention isn’t always positive deary. And going by the statistic you pulled a moment before, that means most people discussing your speech, didn’t watch it.
howmanypeoplewatchedemmawatsoninseptember

That’s right. Less than 0.01% of people talking about you actually listened to what you had to say.

They're so stupid it's a laughriot

She name drops. Keep it classy.

Marathons. Don’t people run those anyway? Merchandise? No sales data? None? You’re leaving it up to our imagination? That single 15 year old boy who wrote into his newspaper did it on a whim. I’ve seen more people write into papers about Bigfoot and UFOs.

Young girls collecting hundreds of signatures.

How many? How many girls and how many did each collect? If it were thousands of girls and that’s all they got, it wouldn’t seem as impressive, so I’m not surprised you missed out half the data. And only hundreds? At least two hundred then. Where is the link Emma to check for ourselves? Let’s see another petition in the ranks of 15k.

From their own website, out of billions of men worldwide: 208,003.
From this count, 3,665,665,350 men in the world at the time of checking (rounded a dozen or so down to 50) divided by 208,000 (rounded down by three).
Average 17,623 men per country. Is that it?
Average population of a country: 34,020,600.

averagemenwhosignedHeforSheaccountingforpopulationoftheircountry

That isn’t a “stunning” response Emma. That’s a rounding error.
Less than 0.001% of men in the average country. That’s a level of (in)significance a biomedical study could be proud of!
In your own country, where support should be sky-high: 26,942 men signed. 1 in 7 daily Guardian readers signed your petition. [192881/26942= 7.1]

Back to her first two stats. 11 million views/208,003. I’ll give you the three. 52.88. For every (non-unique) view of your speech, you persauded 1 in 52 men (rounding up for you because I feel pity) to sign your bloody petition.
Of the 1,200,000,000 social media conversations, bearing in mind you double that number of participants because you need at least two people to have a conversation (unless on tumblr);
Conversations on HeforShe by the number of men they induced to actually sign the fucking petition, expressed as percentage.

conversationsonHeforShebymalesignaturesonpetition

0.0002%, kindly rounded up. I can see those social media conversations were very fruitful.

laughing rdj crack up

Go on Emma. Tell us what a success this effort was. Try to sell us this again. Try to justify more money poured into it. How much did September cost? How much for each individual male signature? Four whole months?

“I couldn’t have dreamed it, but it’s happened. Thank you so much.”

Yeah. Sounds more like a nightmare. As you are speaking at an ECONOMIC CONFERENCE.

“Thank you so much for watching-“

see above stats

“-and thank you so much for your support.”

Is that sarcasm? She can’t be that deluded to be serious, could she? And such eloquence, she comes across as SO educated. Like wow. so educated.

Reading off a speech card what the 10^3 campaign is. Isn’t her entire job in that role to memorize? Isn’t her acting non-career also based on her memory? It’s five minutes of monologue. *sigh*

“but I want to hear from the human beings that are behind these organisations.”

You already can. They send out these things called press releases and do interviews and sometimes even documentaries, so you don’t have to worry your pretty little head about more reading.

“I spoke about some of my story in September.”

#eloquence
If I were her editor I’d change it to: I shared my experience-. That’s all she wants to do. Talk about herself. Now she’s trying to justify her childish entitlements by asking for other people’s anecdotes too. Other people in power. No room for poor people in this warfare. A war of the sexes long outpaced Marxist class warfare in focus: “Class struggle is the women’s struggle! Women’s struggle is class struggle!” Two+ instances of logical fallacies don’t make for logic. Let’s all empathize with the poor rich people who need your help, poor people. Have a care for those in need. In Parliament. The C-suite. Ivory Towers.

“What are your stories? Girls, who have been your mentors? [implied boys cannot have mentors because masculinity is toxic to boys but masculine behaviour isn’t for girls] Parents, did you make sure you treated your children equally? [instead of fairly] If so, how have you done it? [ignoring their biology and sex-specific needs, I imagine; girls need to be taught about periods, for example] Husbands, have you been supporting your female partner [DS: I think the word you refuse to use is wife] privately so that she can fulfill her dreams too? [ignore the male NEETs, 73% male homelessness and how female NEETs chose to have children young, have more mental health problems or don’t even look for work] Young men, [poor men] have you spoken up in a conversation when a woman was casually degraded or dismissed? [there are so many things wrong with that I shan’t bother] How did this affect you? [as a man, even if 97% feminist-leaning you will be casually degraded by feminists and your opinion is dismissed as mansplaining, trick question] How did this affect the woman you stepped up for? [the part where she was spoken over and for like a paternal figure would or the implication that she cannot defend herself and requires a White Knight to protect her?] Businessmen, [only men? What Sisterhood?] have you mentored, supported or engaged women in leadership positions?”

“18% of SMEs are female led, and 22% of FTSE100 board members are female.” ~ A report written by your Government – why don’t you read?

“Using these data we can estimate that 32.9% of TEA was accounted for by women in 2011. In the US, 40.2% of TEA was accounted for be women.” Seems rather fair to me. They’ve had equal opportunity and ample incentives. In fact, excluding men would be the most unfair, sexist things you could do-

2015targetwomenonboards

are you kidding me rn seriously wtf da vincis demons

Hidden away in another report by your own Government freely available online if you bother to look, it reads: ” In the FTSE 250 – the 250 next largest companies after those in the FTSE 100 – 13% of company directors were women. This figure has doubled in the last seven years.”

FTSE250: 26% female MDs. Above the target of 25%.
YOU HAVE WHAT YOU WANTED ALREADY. THE DATA IS RIGHT THERE.

Worst of all, this is terrible news for the UK economy. Measured in Tobin’s Q, more women on the board, even on the lowest rung, makes the quantifiable company profits drop in reduced performance.  Don’t worry your head about it Mz Watson, I’m sure your political ideology is more important than the economy. You’re rich, it hardly matters to you on a personal level.

She goes on (and on and on);

Writers,

Daily Mail I presume, with among the highest levels of female journalists employed? [n.b. The Guardian doesn’t report its own figures]

have you challenged the language and imagery used to portray women in the media?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_%28Marxism%29

CEOs, have you implemented the women’s empowerment principles in your own company?

And why would they do that?
Note how she doesn’t claim it will make them better off. Interesting omission. They hushed up on that false claim as they began to study it and they didn’t like the real-world results going against their dream. [see above Tobin’s Q]

What change have you seen?

Less money. More lawsuits.
They’ll call you.

Are you someone that has persauded men to become HeforShes?

Sounds like a transsexual thing. By someone, do you mean feminist or the hardcore SJWs? Weasel words.

-and collecting their signatures for our website.

We’ve seen. What a bang-up job they did of that.

Most media nowadays has a real brevity to bullshit issue

How many have you got?

You don’t want to ask that question. Wait… you don’t know. You really don’t know. Are you telling me you haven’t bothered to pull out a calculator once? You had the numbers before me. Nobody told you. Oh my God. Awkward.

Let them glory in their vices, we'll have the last laugh at the hags

We want to know.

They do. The UN already must. They didn’t tell you.

We want to hear from you.

*crickets*

One of the biggest pieces of feedback I’ve had … is that men and women want to help but they aren’t sure how best to do it. Men say they’ve signed the petition [over muffled laughter] – what now?

Here we go. This is it. This is the bold decisive action from a woman in your position of power and leadership. You may not be the feminist we deserve but… Be the feminist we need, Emma!

The truth is, the What Now? is down to you.

…………………………..wait, what’s your job again? ….Why are you even here?

Of all the anti-climaxes. You do the stereotypical female verbal defence mechanism of throwing the need for a logical answer back onto the persons asking the question, in a monologue speech in support of female assertiveness. I didn’t even know that was possible. You deflected with a tag question. To yourself, because the audience can’t talk back and give you that feedback, making the question rhetorical (and online there are no video comments, like/dislikes etc). You’re asking a rhetorical question about the need for and function of the very movement you’re meant to be promoting.

Ask Brown University for your money back.

What your HeforShe commitment will be is personal.

If we know one thing about human nature, men love commitment.

And there is no best way.

Is there a worse tactic than this? Give us a way. One single way to extrapolate from. Use your brain and come up with something. One thing. Is the best you can do to say: figure it out yourselves? Underwhelming.

Everything is valid.

Can I order this on a t-shirt.
It’s such a mindless, empty platitude it would sell like hotcakes.

Decide what your commitment is, make it public, and then please report back to us on your progress.

Like good little tin soldiers. Those are your marching orders.

-so that we can share your story.

Hang on, so the justification of this campaign is to gain information to justify this campaign?

I describe you, you hate me. Really, you hate yourself and everyone knows it.

We want to support, guide and reinforce your efforts. IMPACT 10^3 [lazy] is about concrete commitments to change, the visibility of these commitments and the measurability of them too.

We don’t care what you do for us, just do something for us, and then tell us what you did, and make sure whatever you do is really obvious and annoying to your friends and you measure it somehow for us, even in feels, to use it for some reason for this campaign that really needs you to do stuff for us because stuff needs to be done for us.

What.

This is bringing back hard flashbacks of that classic study on automaticity. If you give people an order, whatever it is, if you give a non-reason as a reason, most of the time, they’ll still do it. Why? They don’t process the reason. There is no higher brain function and use of logic involved. They’re just following orders.

How has the campaign impacted me so far?

Well you’ve been getting paid, you’ve got more publicity than the last few years of your acting ‘career’ combined and numerous photoshoots.

I’ve had my breath taken away-

SOMEONE hire this girl a speech editor. CHRIST.
A domestic abuse case story …ended by the victim. The victim had the power to make the abuse stop? Bad example Emma. *makes cut motion rapidly*
Men in your life use a sudden excuse to talk to you and be your shoulder to cry on. Didn’t you stop to consider why?

Terrible attempt at “I have a dream”. “Economic and political parity?” Ah, when are you redistributing some of your wealth to me, from one woman to another? When can I expect the transfer? A tenner? How about some third world shithole, they could do great things with your millions? Oh, you want to keep all of your own money but lecture average people who are by definition poorer than you to give away theirs. That isn’t parity, it’s hypocrisy.

-This campaign and the result of it are a result of my incredible speechwriting skills. I know that it is not.

First instance of self-awareness. 4/5 in.

It is because the ground is fertile.

Sweeping statement. Evidence? No, I give up expecting any.

It is my belief that there is a greater understanding than ever that women need to be equal participants.

Let’s hope your understanding of that belief is better than your grasp of statistics.
How about the understanding in the past two centuries? In fact the first person to call for female suffrage was a man in 1818. When “Only 58% of the adult male population was eligible to vote before 1918.” Government source again: “In 1918 the Representation of the People Act was passed which allowed women over the age of 30 who met a property qualification to vote. …The same act abolished property and other restrictions for men, and extended the vote to all men over the age of 21. Additionally, men in the armed forces could vote from the age of 19.” Votes here with names listed: 385 Ayes to 55 Noes. Or how about when “the Equal Franchise Act of 1928 [stated] that women over 21 were able to vote and women finally achieved the same voting rights as men.”As wikipedia admits: The act was passed by the Conservative Party without much opposition from other parties.

Ever, Emma? Ever?
There’s your ‘political parity’, you don’t want to see it.

 In our homes, in our societies, in our governments, and in our workplaces.

NOWHERE IS SAFE FROM US.
Weasel use of the collective pronouns. Like the patronizing ‘We’.

And they KNOW, that the world is being held back in EVERY way [name one], because they are not.

Again, prove my opportunities statement false in the First World societies aka civilizations. You can’t. You don’t even bother pretending to prove that claim which dismisses the entirety of feminism up until now, you just say: You know. Oh, you KNOW. Vaguely paranoid assertion. Generic You. Switching to they is an us v. them confrontational paradigm assuming the audience agree, when you just said you want peace, harmony and men working with for women, did you mean as servants instead? Is that your idea of equality for women? If women=men doesn’t that go both ways? And it’s a black/white fallacy to throw one group up against another like the only options (they/we). If they did hold you back, how are you able to make this speech at all? You speak nonsense. There is no sense in it. You can’t be consistent for five fucking minutes??? [4:35]

Right side of history‘ myth tied to Marxism’s ripoff of misread Hegel. History isn’t teleological [1][2][3]. If you’re so sure you’re going to get your own way eventually, you wouldn’t be pushing so hard because it’d be like gravity, effortless. Your very actions betray insecurity in your ideology.
Ten Tell-Tale signs of Deception:
http://www.fraud-magazine.com/article.aspx?id=4294971184
I won’t bother to apply that to this. Check most of them, inc. #3 “Answering questions with questions

Women share this planet 50:50.

Ah. Oh. Uh. Um. No.
I see what you did there. Women like to claim minority status when it’s a mathematical status.
Women are the global majority.

Lots of pink, very little green. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sex_ratio

Why?

“In a study around 2002, the natural sex ratio at birth was estimated to be close to 1.06 males/female.[5] In most populations, adult males tend to have higher death rates than adult females of the same age (even after allowing for causes specific to females such as death in childbirth), both due to natural causes such as heart attacks and strokes, which account for by far the majority of deaths and also to violent causes, such as homicide and warfare 6] resulting in higher life expectancy of females.”

I guess that information wouldn’t sound as good in your speech, would it love? No, say the populations are equal mathematically, without support from the actual maths.

 And they are under-represented.

You believe. It’s an ever-moving goalpost.
You want more women to make a different choice. One you haven’t actually made yourself e.g. to board a company, go into STEM. You wanna force them? Forcing women to do what you want? That’s the only way it can happen. And you wonder why the term feminazi exists. Comments on #womenagainstfeminism?

Their potential astonishingly untapped.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2014/02/24/childless-women-in-their-twenties-out-earn-men-so/
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/apr/09/genevieve-wood/what-pay-gap-young-women-out-earn-men-cities-gop-p/
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/business/economics/article4272918.ece
Stats from your own Goverment yet again: http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/ashe/annual-survey-of-hours-and-earnings/2013-provisional-results/stb-ashe-statistical-bulletin-2013.html Whereas in full-time, men earn more but in part-time, women earn more in £/hr. [chart] Why? More women are in part-time work. [chart] Men work more overtime so their full-time pay is bound to be higher for literally more hours of productive work. [chart] What equality, you say? This equality. [chart] And this equality: “At the same time (2013 Quarter 2), the Labour Force Survey (LFS) indicates that the UK workforce consisted of approximately 12.8 million men (51% of the employee workforce) and 12.5 million women (49% of the workforce).” If anything, women earn more than men for contributing fewer productive hours. In that sense, they are untapped.

ONSmaleearningsfulltimelesscomptowomen

See where the % change in earnings for full-time women was higher than men and the ‘All’ average of both sexes combined? Let’s look at the inequalities in part-time.

Part-time women earn more per hour than part-time men. [8.4 to 7.95] Women in part-time work earned more per hour than the sexless average of 8.29 would suggest they should.
ONShourly2013mfpartfullcomparison

“The mean weekly paid hours of work for full-time men were 40.1 hours compared with 37.4 for women. For part-time employees the mean weekly paid hours worked were 17.5 hours for men and 18.3 for women.”

Where men earn more: 556.0 median gross weekly earnings for full-time men in 2013 for 40.1 hours of work.
Where women earn more: 164.3 median gross weekly earnings for part-time women in 2013 for 18.3 hours of work.

a) Men earned 13.86 per hour weekly. b) Women earned 8.978 per hour weekly. Where each in their category earned more than the opposite sex under the same conditions. Simple explanation? Male overtime for (a) [chart above]. The female earnings exceeded men in part-time work because they worked longer hours than their sex competition, behaving like men in a! It comes down (result – amount paid) to N hours that are chosen to work, irrespective of the sex of the worker (proven in b) or the type of work employed (ft/pt).

Untapped = lazy. Women are 49% of that workforce.

To bring HeforShe into its next phase.

What phase?
What was the phase before?
What are you doing aside from passing the buck for feminist failures?
She does the question thing again. MLK didn’t say “What’s your dream?” Why make a huge mistake once when you can make it twice?

We want to know and we want to hear from you.

That can’t have been it.
What a gigantic waste of time covering this has been.

Taken to its logical extreme, a serial killer could daub HeforShe on the walls of his victims in blood and they’d wanna know about it. That’s how silly this entire thing is.