Saifullah Khan

Khan v. Yale

[Saifullah Khan @Saif__khan]

I am going to break the entire kangaroo "courts" system.

[Elon Musk @elonmusk]

@RichardHanania Good for him and shame on those who condemned an innocent man

[STUNNER @Cr7Godbrand]

Feminism did NOT liberate women.

What liberated women was TECHNOLOGY and BIRTH CONTROL.

Washing machine liberated you more than feminism ever did.

Our mothers spent 15 hours a week washing clothes with their hands.

Washing machine came and freed her.

Fridge freed her. She no longer had to go to market every day.

Gas cooker freed her. No more 3 hours blowing firewood smoke into her eyes.

Electricity freed her.

And BIRTH CONTROL freed her. She could finally choose when to have children, how many to have.

Not feminism. TECHNOLOGY.

Feminism just CAME and took the credit.

Feminism told you "we fought for you so you can work." LIE.

Capitalists wanted you to work. They needed double workers to double their profits.

They needed to crash wages. What better way than to bring all women into the workforce at once?

Before, one man's salary could buy a house and feed a family of 5.

Now, husband and wife both work and they still cannot afford rent. Who won? Not you. The capitalist.

Feminism also told you casual sex is empowerment.

Who benefits from free sex? Is it you that is crying after being used and dumped? Or is it the man who got sex without paying bride price, without commitment, without responsibility?

The orgasm gap will tell you. In casual sex, men cum 90% of the time, women 30%. So who is empowered?

Feminism didn't liberate the average woman. It liberated the rich man.

He got your cheap labor in the office and your free sex in the bedroom.

And you are on Instagram calling it freedom.

[Salty Cracker @SaltyCracker9]

This is why our founding fathers didn’t let women vote.

[⟢ nightmare kitten ⟣ 𓃠 @Walter_Su11ivan]

This is so depressing. All these high paying fake jobs going to sluts, instead of going to men, that would be able to start families.

[STUNNER @Cr7Godbrand]

If marriage only benefits men because he gets “free sex,” “free labor,” and “free childcare,” then stop getting married.

Nobody is forcing you to say “I do.”

Stay in your own house. Charge him for sex like a whore if you believe it’s a service. Charge him for carrying his child ( surrogacy) if you think pregnancy is just surrogacy.

Charge him for cooking and cleaning like a maid if you think you’re his maid. Charge him for watching the kids if you think you’re his nanny.

Send him an invoice for every single thing you do, then go back to your own home when you’re done.

But don’t willingly get married, enjoy the legal protections, financial security, shared expenses, inheritance rights, emotional support, and family life that marriage can provide, then turn around and pretend you were an unpaid employee all along.

You can’t voluntarily enter a partnership and then act shocked that partnerships involve responsibilities from both people.

If everything is a business transaction, then stop calling it marriage. Call it what it is…a contract between two customers buying services from each other.

The irony is that the same wimen who claim marriage is a terrible deal for women still want the wedding, the ring, the title of “wife,” the legal protections,

and all the benefits that come with marriage. If it’s really such a raw deal, walk away from it completely. No one is stopping you.

[Covfefe Anon @CovfefeAnon]

No one admitted it at the time but this type of thing was the last stand of "fact checking"

Memes of "mostly false" verdicts on things that were obviously true burned out everyone on the idea of "fact checking"

[that and the fact that the effort only existed to build towards the creation of a Ministry of Truth staffed by crazy, evil women]

[Swalas @Swalas420]

This is literally matriarchy btw

[Roko 🐉 @RokoMijic]

Strongly agree with this

Rape should have a 1 year statute of limitations for adult victims.

If you didn't go to the police within 1 year, you may still have been wronged but you surrendered your legal option.

There has to be a limit to the phenomenon of long-term blackmail by turning every qct of consensual sex going back to the beginning of time into a rape accusation.

[hoe_math = PsychoMath @ItIsHoeMath]

This is one of the smartest things I've read in a while. It is written the opposite of the way that I write.

I would say:

Most women in law are not able to understand the basics of justice.

Women, even women who are lawyers and judges, usually struggle with the difference between justice and nurture.

Men in law look at two opposing parties and judge the cases they present according to the rules of procedure.

Women in law look at two opposing parties and feel pity for the one they think is at a disadvantage (needs nurture). This makes them feel invested in a good outcome for the weaker party, or the "baby." (DESERVER)

Women also usually fail to see justice as a hostile contest between opposing points of view.

"We are not two separate parties; we are one big family, and we should all want everyone to be happy and safe! :)"

If a woman in law cannot transcend these family instincts, she violates the basic principle of "nemo iudex," meaning that no one should judge a case if they desire a specific outcome in that case. Instead of seeking justice, they will seek personal satisfaction (my baby won!).

She also violates "audi altereram partem," meaning that no one should be judged by someone who refuses to listen to their story (we've heard enough from PRIVILEGED WHITE MEN!).

You may recognize the absence of these principles in what we have been calling "cancel culture."

"Believe all women!" Remember that one?

That means "I want the woman to win" (DESERVER) and "don't listen to the man," all packed up into three neat little words!

Now, replace "woman" with "the party I feel bad for," and "man" with "the party I don't care about."

"I want the [DESERVER] to win! Don't listen to the [PRIVILEGE]!"

It should now be much more clear why the law has become increasingly lenient on criminals in recent years.

This is what I call "kindergarten mommy" consciousness, and it is severely corrosive to criminal justice. The courtroom is not a kindergarten or a family, it is a substitute for violent conflict between parties that absolutely do not consider each other family.

In other words, most women in law end up treating criminal justice proceedings like a fight between their own children.

[A.J.R. Klopp @ThirteenFathers]

My experience with feminized jurisprudence (admittedly I only have two degrees in law) was that most women are unable to separate their evolutionary instinct for moving the goalposts in the name of nebulous fairness, while simultaneously dismissing the adversarial structure of litigation. Both premises of natural Justice are thus voided (nemo iudex and Audi altereram partem)

[Richard “Beebo” Russell @proverbs_14_23]

Not a day goes by that I am not reminded of a famous study where men and women were forced to play a card game against an opponent.

Their opponent then either cheated and stole money from the subjects; or cooperated and played fairly.

Afterwards, the men and women were strapped into an FMRI, and watched as their prior opponent received a painful electric shock.

For men, the brain produced an empathic response when the honest opponent was shocked. But it produced no empathy, and in fact showed signs of a pleasure when the cheater was shocked. Their empathy was conditional on how the opponent behaved.

But for women… The brain produced an empathic response for both types of opponents. It didn’t matter if they had been cheated by them prior, they wanted to alleviate everyone’s suffering regardless.

This is their greatest asset, it is the feminine divine. It is the reason why a mother’s love is unconditional.

It’s also the reason why you will be stabbed to death in a Walmart parking lot by a borderline retarded Haitian with 73 prior convictions.

[Covfefe Anon @CovfefeAnon]

The face your sc justice makes when you ask her to rule against the antifa that threaten her and her family

[Brigadier Ketchup @BrigadierKetch]

Things the libs are threatened by: hot female athletes, hot girls in movies, F1 grid girls, hot flight attendants, etc.

Things the libs are not threatened by: hardcore porn, OnlyFans, etc.

Important to understand this.

[Kangmin Lee | 이강민 @kangminlee]

Clarence Thomas: "I'd rather die than withdraw. If they're gonna kill me, they're gonna kill me."

Amy Coney Barrett: "I'm scared for my life."

Women should not be justices.

[Auron MacIntyre @AuronMacintyre]

Is this bad from Barrett, admitting weakness and the effectiveness of leftist terror?

Yes, but to be honest this is not on her

Women should not be in this role, they should not hold this position for this exact reason, but she didn’t put herself there

The administration did, the conservative movement did, because for all their talk about “knowing what a woman is” they don’t

They embrace feminism, they embrace the lie of egalitarianism, they make DEI appointments to please popular political narratives, andnow the price comes due

The administration should have inflicted absolutely draconian punishments for leftist violence

Grand spectacles of raw authority, mass arrests, comically long sentences, raids in the middle of the night leaving progressives terrified to sleep

Instead they did nothing, watched more leftist violence unfold, and doubled down on nothing while fighting a foreign war for a foreign government

Barret is weak and useless, but she should have never been here in the first place, and conservatives have only themselves to blame

[Bennett's Phylactery @extradeadjcb]

"I never thought that being a political figure would involve violence" is something that no political figure in any period of human history prior to women's suffrage would ever have uttered

[Covfefe Anon @CovfefeAnon]

Women out there speed running getting everyone to understand why the 54th Clause of the Magna Carta was law

[Matt Forney @mattforney]

Young guys looking to effect real change should study the most effective right-wing movement in America by far: the gun rights movement.

As recently as 30 years ago, gun control was the law of the land. The NRA and other gun rights activists successfully changed this via intense lobbying. They got organized, helped elect pro-gun politicians in every state, and in turn those politicians rolled back gun restrictions and got both concealed carry and open carry laws through. The gun rights organizations also got pro-gun, right-wing judges appointed at every level, enabling pro-gun legislation to be upheld on appeal.

In 1986, the overwhelming majority of states either banned concealed carry outright or operated on "may-issue" systems that allowed county officials to arbitrarily deny permits. (I was once refused a pistol permit in a certain blue city because I requested one for self-defense; I later learned that the county DA had an explicit policy of denying permits on this basis.) In 1994, Bill Clinton rammed the federal assault weapons ban through Congress, one of the reasons why the Republican Revolution happened two months later.

Fast forward. In 2004, both President Bush and the Republican Congress refused to reauthorize the federal weapons ban. The majority of states had switched to "shall-issue" concealed carry permitting (i.e. they HAVE to give it to you if you meet clear and constitutional requirements), including strongly blue states like Oregon and Minnesota.

In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court struck down handgun bans in Chicago, D.C., and other blue jurisdictions. The 2008 Heller decision defined the Second Amendment as protecting individual gun ownership (as opposed to the libtard concern trolling that it only applies to "militias") and the 2010 McDonald decision overturned gun control laws on the basis of the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause (aka states can be prosecuted by the federal government for violating individual gun rights).

By 2016, the last two states where concealed carry was banned---Illinois and Wisconsin---had been forced to adopt shall-issue permitting and other states were beginning to abolish permitting entirely in favor of unrestricted concealed carry. By 2022, nearly half of all states had unrestricted concealed carry laws. That was the same year that the Supreme Court struck down New York's may-issue permitting, forcing even blue states to adopt shall-issue laws.

There are still gun control laws that need to be abolished (like "red flag" laws, raising the age one can legally purchase a gun from 18 to 21, and stuff like New York's SAFE Act), but gun rights' activists have made IMMENSE progress since the 80s. Even the Democrats have had to move to the right on gun control in some respects; note that neither Obama or Biden were able to reinstitute the assault weapons ban that expired under Bush. The last major gun control push was in the wake of Sandy Hook; since then, Americans have become immune to libtards' attempts to weaponize mass shootings in order to strip us of our rights.

Imagine if gun owners had behaved like the Retard Right back in the 70s and 80s. "There's no difference between left and right. The uniparty hates the Second Amendment. Even Texas doesn't respect gun rights." We would absolutely have British- or Australian-style gun control laws today. The modern gun control movement evolved out of the libtard feeding frenzy that followed the JFK and RFK assassinations. Their long march through this particular institution was halted and reversed by the tireless work of patriots. Now we have President Trump advocating for national concealed carry; unthinkable even a decade ago.

The gun rights movement succeeds because it is ruthlessly pragmatic. It has the lowest time preference out of all right-wing movements. It engages in the boring-but-necessary work of grassroots activism, legislative lobbying, and legal defense. A decade ago, I attended a conservative activist training seminar hosted by Aaron Dorr, the then-president of Iowa Gun Owners, and was genuinely impressed by his vision, methods, and accomplishments. Dorr later became president of New York Gun Owners and played a critical role in the Bruen Supreme Court decision.

If you want to succeed in politics, don't listen to influencers and podcasters. Listen to the gun lobby. They actually get things done.

Got what I voted for...AGAIN.

[♂️ Guren ⛓️ @GurensKingdom]

I really hate these types of posts because it makes men think that women's misandry is just a cutesy little 'tee hee' quirk rather than a borderline declaration of war and expression of pure hatred and desire for sadism and pain upon men. A woman like this would do it for you now, and then abuse you, divorce you, and put you behind bars when she gets bored and starts to think that you're too much of an annoyance for her.

More broadly, the problem is that for many (if not most) men, they believe one (or a combination) of the following:
a) the misandrist woman is some abstract, distant "other" woman instead of their female friends, partner, mother, sister, grandmother, daughter, aunt, etc; what underlies this feeling is a kind of grandiosity where they believe they're unique enough to not have this attitude apply to them
b) they believe they're the "exception", one of the "good ones" to whom misandry wouldn't be directed because they're le heckin "moral" (i.e. act like a doormat for women) or because they're very "hot" etc.; this bolsters their narcissism and grandiosity by the way, it makes them believe they're "unique" and "special", one of the few "chosen" ones
c) they erroneously believe that women are harmless despite women being able to utter a few words and put you in prison for many years
d) they believe that through what can only be described as "magical powers", they can fundamentally change who the woman is and will make her non-misandrist; this is relevant to the original post and is also a form of grandiosity (the hard truth is that misandry is a fundamental expression of what a woman is and something that deep is essentially unchangeable)

The root of all this is narcissism, cowardice and trying to shy away from reality. The shared feature is grandiosity, the idea that you're somehow an individual "exemption". But no, it's all women, without any exceptions whatsoever, and no you're not special, and no you won't change her.

As always in the West, men are trying to adopt individual "solutions" to a collective problem. A rude awakening is coming upon such men.

[Leonarda Jonie @Leonardaisfunny]

This is the picture we’ll be showing our grand daughters when we explain why women can no longer vote.

[Saifullah Khan @Saif__khan]

@_The_Prophet__ Thank you. The war continues.