Hypocritical Western Victimhood Culture Reacts Positively to Mockumentary, “No Men Beyond This Point”

I originally posted the following video and commentary onto the Facebook wall of an acquaintance, after discovering it being shared from here

My Commentary: Hmmm… How about some similarly-themed, and purportedly “wry-humored” films, like “No Women Beyond This Point,” “No Whites Beyond This Point,” “No Jews Beyond This Point,” “No Disabled Beyond This Point,” or “No Blacks Beyond This Point,” etc. Would such mockumentaries ever even be premiered at the Toronto International Film Festival, like this one was? Would audiences respond by thinking, “what a premise!,” as this trailer suggests? Would those who negative react be considered “oh-so-sensitive” and labelled as having “fragile egos,” like this trailer also suggests?

Social Justice Warriors and feminist, alike, who just so happen to be prominent members of victimhood culture, and appear perpetually “triggered” by anything that can even remotely be seen as “offensive,” including comedy and satire, are, of course… eagerly embracing this film, and it’s premise? Hypocritical much? Doublethink much? *facepalm* Ironically, they fail to realize that this mockumentary is actually critical of the concept that female-dominated society will lead to utopia…

Discussing North Carolina’s So-Called “Bathroom Bill”

The following correspondence originally took place upon the Facebook wall of my friend, Stacie T., after she posted artwork from here

Stacie T.:

"Excuse me! Do you MIND!?!" " Just makin' sure you ain't some kind of PERVERT!"

“Excuse me! Do you MIND!?!”
” Just makin’ sure you ain’t some kind of PERVERT!”

Rayn: LOL. This is what happens when facts take a back seat to emotionally-charged conjecture. Why focus solely on restrooms, which constitute only one quarter of the subject matter at hand, when the bill clearly legislates “restroom[s], locker room[s], changing room[s], or shower room[s]”? Have any of those railing so hard against this bill EVEN READ ITS MERE FIVE PAGES, or is that too much to ask a thinking, reasoning human being to do BEFORE formulating strong opinions, anymore? I still haven’t found even ONE who actually has, yet! *sigh*


Lest our memories remain selectively short for the sake of politically convenient “outrage” and a completely shallow and shortsighted sense of “fighting against discrimination,” this “bill” was a direct response to a Charlotte, NC ordinance which, among other things, contained language that attempted to FORCE schools and public agencies to provide males and females access to ALL FOUR of these facilities, regardless of gender, in the name of “transgender” rights, and that individuals be granted such access with little more than a verbal declaration of being “transgender.”

With this understanding in mind, enforcement of this “bill” is actually pretty simple in three out of four situations. On average, the easiest way to know if a male is in using a locker room, changing room or shower room is that he’ll HAVE A PENIS dangling between his legs! And, a female using a men’s locker room will have a vulva. In other words, regardless of gender titles, or how an Individual looks, it’s a WHOLE DIFFERENT STORY for one to remove their clothes, and have a sex organ that doesn’t correspond with their appearance, nor with the gender-assignment of the bathroom, itself. This is very likely why the mainstream media monopoly is fixating on the bathroom scenario, instead of discussing the entire issue at hand. Not only is it the least enforceable, making it the biggest gray area in the bill, but any discussion of a man or women entering any of the other three spaces would be met with a knee-jerk “I DON’T FUCKING THINK SO” from even the vast majority of the most left-leaning, progressive liberals! This is especially true when taking note of the fact that the first section of this bill is dedicated to SCHOOLS and STUDENTS, along with public agencies!

Meanwhile, this bill actually protects post-operative transsexuals, granting them full access to all four facilities, since they are, indeed legally able to change their gender on their birth certificate in ALL FIFTY STATES of the Union!


To be clear, I’m mostly just laying out the facts, without yet providing my own views. Personally, I think that multi-occupancy bathrooms, alone, are highly unsanitary, very anti-privacy, completely anti-responsibility, anti-safety, anti-parent-and-child, and also typically anti-disability (not too mention anti-menstruation, as well), so I avoid them like the plague. Meanwhile, I have NEVER, and would NEVER, use a multi-occupancy showers, nor would I dare get undressed in a multi-occupancy changing room, nor locker room! And, I hope to see all of these sorts of facilities one day replaced with single-occupancy unisex units – and I honestly believe that ALL of these bills and ordinances will make my desire an actual reality, since it is the simplest solution to all of controversy at hand. 🙂 Even at one of my recent Autistic Self-Advocacy meetings, in Greensboro, NC, ALL THREE transgendered individuals agreed with me on my viewpoint, and when I listed my various grievances in detail, they even chimed in with their own examples, too! Peace and privacy are what we’re ALL looking for, while schools and businesses are looking at their bottom line: prices – without much more than a passing regard for the human factor!

Oh, and for the record, the single-occupancy bathrooms I mention would truly work a lot better if they were segregated by “urination” and “defecation,” rather than gender! LOL! 😉 (Click Here to Continue Reading)

Rats Prefer Freeing Each Other to Food, Much Unlike a Great Deal of Humanity

As I scrolled through my Facebook news feed, I discovered the following artwork, being shared by an acquaintance from here, and promptly shared it to my own wall…

My Commentary: If only human beings had the same preference… Alas, we’re far too busy intellectualizing the existence of the cage…(But… but… Muh Roads! Muh Borders! Muh Troops! Muh Flag! Muh Drug War! Muh War on Terrorism! Muh Police! Muh Courts! Muh Social Programs! Muh Democracy! Muh Elections! Muh Representatives! Muh Safety! Muh Security! Muh Social Contract! Muh Government!!!!! Muh “Necessary Evil”!!!!! NO!!!!!)

Control-Freaks Petition Government to Steal Deceased Child’s Gravestone

I originally posted the following information and commentary onto my Facebook wall…

Because Max Corbett-Gardener's headstone was considered 'not in keeping" with Great Malvern Cemetery, it was removed

Because Max Corbett-Gardener’s headstone was considered ‘not in keeping” with Great Malvern Cemetery, it was removed

4-Year-Old’s Headstone Removed Because One Person was Offended By It:

A mother is devastated after the city council removed her deceased son’s headstone following a complaint from another family who said it wasn’t “in keeping” with their family member’s plot.

Max Corbett-Gardener was only 4 years old when he died from complications related to severe epilepsy. His mother, Jo Corbett-Weeks, scraped and saved for nearly three years to get an almost $5,000 specially-made headstone of a teddy bear holding a star inscribed with a heart touching tribute to her son.

(Read entire article here…)

My Commentary: No right is sacred when it comes to control-freaks, and the governments they use to abuse the peaceful… Complaining about, and petitioning the government to steal, a deceased child’s gravestone is a new low, UK! And, that the State actually did it is even more despicable!

Licenses Are Merely Government Permission Slips for Rights We Already Have!

The following debate took place upon my Facebook wall, after I shared artwork from the page, “The Liberty Principle: No Consent from the Governed“…


"A license is what you get when the government steals your rights away from you and then sells them back." - Mark Edge, Host of 'Free Talk Live'

“A license is what you get when the government steals your rights away from you and then sells them back.” – Mark Edge, Host of ‘Free Talk Live’

Daniel F.: So should one have an unqualified right to operate a motor vehicle despite not knowing how to operate it safely, or having shown a complete disregard for the safety of others while driving it? Should one have the “right” to endanger the safety of others, either through ignorance or complete disregard?

Now there IS way too much bureaucracy in all this – fees for renewing one’s license and registration, overzealous police patrolling the streets looking out for traffic and parking violations so they can issue summonses mainly for the purposes of bringing in revenue – while “fixing” tickets for their own friends and relatives. Meanwhile a fine that can cause significant financial hardship for a poor person will barely be of any inconvenience at all to a rich person despite both committing the same “offense”, which may or may not have any actual justifiable reason for existing at all. (Speed limits for instance – it should not be an offense simply to drive above some arbitrary preset limit; only if they are actually endangering others should there be cause for any sort of action against them.)

Rayn: LOLZ! A license is merely a highly overpriced government permission slip for the right to freely travel. It provides ZERO GUARANTEE that one actually has the ability to safely drive a car, nor that one will continue to maintain the ability to safely drive a car, and it certainly isn’t an indication that one will actually regard the safety of others when driving! You might not have noticed, but the vast majority of accidents that take place in America result from the actions and activity of “licensed” drivers! So, obviously, a “license” means almost nothing, in the scheme of “safety.”

Alternatively, plenty of individuals do have the ability to safely drive a car, while having no valid driver’s “license” to speak of. This is especially true when considering the fact that the government revokes and suspends the driver licenses of so many, year after year, as punishment for non-driver safety offenses – such as non-payment of “tickets,” non-payment of court fees, drug convictions, etc… Also, the mere act of letting a valid driver’s license “expire” (which is simply a euphemism for failure to REPAY for a license that was already adequately secured) will result in the revocation of a driver license, as well! (Interesting enough, such a situation makes a driver’s license an indirect tool of abuse against low-income individuals).

And, speaking of indirect State abuses that come with our current state of affairs, a “driver’s license” (and a “non-driver license” for that matter), are major tools of oppression in the arsenal of the police state, giving courts the ability to strip away the right to freely travel for non-driving related, victimless “crimes,” and giving cops the pretext to harass and warrantlessly search any person walking down the street. The latter especially true for individuals of color, and for the disabled – who are the most likely to be on the receiving end of such State activity.

As for your question, “should one have the ‘right’ to endanger the safety of others, either through ignorance or complete disregard,” the answer is “no.” We have a right to live, to self-ownership, and to peaceful co-existence. No one has the “right” to initiate harm against others, no matter the so-called “motivation.” But, this all has very little to do with a driver’s license, and everything to do with Individual action, ability, and responsibility.

One thing we can agree upon is the unnecessary bureaucracy involved, and the many abuses that come with it. Also, speed limits are also highly problematic, and indicative that the the rules of the road are about the State’s USUAL AGENDA: COMPLIANCE WITH AUTHORITY, and REVENUE COLLECTION – rather than “SAFETY”… (Click Here to Continue Reading)