Shapely, Voluptuous, Bombshell, Stacked – in times past, this week’s selection would have been called by any of those.
However, in these modern times, it is suffice to say that Ms. Vicki Li is thicc.
https://www.instagram.com/p/5n1qVxlNIy
https://www.instagram.com/p/5i0Ll9lNFl
https://www.instagram.com/p/3Fy1ARlNIE
https://www.instagram.com/p/1zfe2-FNCX
https://www.instagram.com/p/BQteRy7B2NK/
Bonus: Police Brutality
After 3 weeks of waiting, it is my pleasure to present to you the first PAWG to grace this site.
In honor of this momentous occasion, I ask that before we get to the topic at hand, you join me in a song of praise that is the tradition of (half) my people:
https://youtu.be/tI-g7un9lEE?t=3m47s
Without further ado, Tifanie Ascherl (aka Snowphat) is thicc.
https://www.instagram.com/p/BD0xvcmA7GV
https://www.instagram.com/p/_5B9Ibg7LR
Instagram model Erykha Ordorica is pretty damn thicc.
https://www.instagram.com/p/5pcZsoqQBE
Last Sunday morning, I went with my wife to brunch at the local churrascaria in belated celebration (due to a case of the flu) of our 12th wedding anniversary.
I mention this only because events like a wedding anniversary cause one to muse on cycles. Due to its proximity to the Sinosphere, 12th (24th, 36th, etc.) anniversaries, be they of birth or marriage, carry a certain significance in Thai culture as part of the duodecennial cycle of the East Asian zodiac and the larger sexagenary cycle of year reckoning. While a full discussion of the relationship between the linear and teleological view of Whig history and an older social cycle view of history is beyond the ambit of this article, it is worth noting that, perhaps, the truth lies in the middle as history might resemble a gyre or corkscrew.
One of the advantages of studying history, philosophy, and literature is that it provides a corrective lens to the intellectual myopia individuals possess due to the limitations of living memory as a result of the ephemeral nature of human life. Case in point, without the knowledge that comes from these disciplines, one might be forgiven for thinking that the contemporary culture war battleground of free speech on campus is somehow a new phenomenon that originates from the nefarious machinations of a shadowy cabal of Globalist-Zionist-Freemason Lizard People. In fact, free speech, higher education, and society have had a contentious relationship ever since Socrates drank that cup of hemlock. (Although, it is quite possible that the Anunnaki forebears of the Illuminati may have had something to do with that incident.)
Indeed, in examining the similarities between the situation on campuses today with those of yesteryear, it is instructive to look at an incident that occurred on the campus of Indiana University during the Spring of 1890. Much like The Onion, which was founded by two students at the University of Wisconsin in 1988, during the 19th and early 20th century, college students would publish their own satirical newspapers and broadsides. These clandestine and anonymous publications were known in the contemporary vernacular as boguses. With one particular bogus, on April 19th, 1890, the frat bros of Beta Theta Pi pulled off an epic trolling of the good people of Bloomington, Indiana that has few rivals even almost 130 years later. On that Saturday morning, the town residents awoke to find a bogus attacking certain students and faculty members of Indiana University plastered to the doors of their homes and businesses. The content of the bogus was so scandalous that several individuals complained to the university. From our perception of those more genteel times, the modern reader might be forgiven in thinking the shocking satire was along the lines of “Prof. Higgsboson is a scoundrel and a rogue who deigns to whistle the tune of “Maggie Murphy’s Home” while peddling his velocipede through the park!” Please allow me to disabuse you of that notion as I have taken the liberty of transcribing the first paragraph of the Beta Theta Pi bogus for your elucidation:
TURDS!!
In the Ass-Hole of America!
Although there are many turds in this dirtiest asshole of creation, we propose to shovel out only those that have been shit from the effects of the first dose of physic. In so much as there has been a long continued stopping of the bowels, it will be necessary to follow this dose by others at intervals of three days, until the entire gut is purged. The giant turd, the plug as it were, and the hardest to pass is a pale-faced, red-headed-son-of-a-bitch from Indianapolis. This low-lifed terrier has played with his pecker until his brains have ran out at the head of his cock. By reason of this this long continued self abuse, he became so enervated that he was not able to walk to the privy, and it was his custom to shit in the “Saline“[?] , and throw it in the stove. The next TURD, although softer in consistency, makes up what he lacks in substance by the loud tone of his stink. Saunderson, a half-assed lawyer who made an ignominious failure in that profession, thinks he is competent to teach oratory and Rhetoric, we want to inform the trustees that if his name isn’t Damnis next year, I. U, will be hissed out of state oratorical.
It goes on for several more paragraphs, which you can read in its entirety here. The reaction of Indiana University when presented with this bogus was to hire the infamous Pinkerton National Detective Agency to track down the authors of the broadside, which would be akin to a university today hiring Blackwater Academi mercenaries to track down violators of its speech code. According to the archives of Indiana University, the result of the investigation was that the bogus was written and distributed by seven members of Beta Theta Pi and that one of them was a son of a university trustee. All of them were expelled from the university; however, within two years, all seven were eventually reinstated as students in good standing and five were awarded their degrees.
The language used by the Pinkerton agent in his report of the incident is evocative of the language used today by modern speech police in that he first appeals to the injurious effect the bogus had upon the greater social order:
This circular attacked some of the faculty and the most popular students of the college at this place, known at the Indiana College, and was couched in language so filthy that, if such a thing were possible, it must have shamed even the depraved author. It seems that several hundred of these circulars were distributed, and in all probability every child in the village has read them.
Second, the agent cast aspersions as to the character of the perpetrators, “To be able to join most of these Fraternities, it is necessary to possess a certain amount of intellectual ability, good standing in college and society and moral worth, but to join the Beta one must have a certain number of good suits of clothes, must dissipate and in short, must be a hail fellow well met.” It is a mindset in which readers of my last article will be familiar with, in which speech that challenges the cherished nostrums of the day is cited as evidence of moral and ethical defect.
From action to reaction, the parallels with past eras loom large. Be it the Trial of Socrates or the Beta Theta Pi bogus, speech that is considered to have the potential to upset the standing social order produces a reaction to suppress it. Those lacking a synoptic view of the human story, might read contemporary accounts of the climate surrounding freedom of speech in academia and think it to be a novel situation. Furthermore, this opinion might be strengthened through the scribblings of venal journalists attempting to fatten their paychecks through fomenting moral panic with use of hyperbolic language like ‘unprecedented crisis.’ Yet, even a cursory glance at history shows that this is actually the status quo. Indeed, it is a sign of a healthy civil institution, for as the fount from which new knowledge and ideas spring, it is to be expected that those ideas which have the potential to radically alter society will be met with such perturbation. While one should support efforts to protect the right of individuals to speak freely on campus and be concerned about efforts to suppress that right, one should not also indulge in the hyperbole that any reaction to speech is evidence that the descendants of those Beta Theta Pi brothers are cowering in the attic of 1100 North Jordan Avenue in hiding from the administrative gestapo of IU’s Academic Affairs. For as history shows, there has never been a time when there isn’t a group of students or scholars who aren’t upset about something; this is a natural side-effect of the dynamism inherent in the institution. Indeed, to point to any sign of discontent on campus, as if any state other than complete harmony is unnatural, is often the tool of tyrants.
In 221 BC, after Qin Shi Huangdi brought all of China under his control to become its first emperor, his prime minister, Li Si, began a campaign to suppress dissent known in Chinese as 焚書坑儒 (fénshū kēngrú), which is rendered into English as “Burning books and burying the [Confucianist] scholars.” Historian Sima Qian recorded in the Annals of Qin Shi Huang that:
Li Si Said: “I, your servant, propose that all historians’ records other than those of Qin’s be burned. With the exception of the academics whose duty includes possessing books, if anyone under heaven has copies of the Shi Jing [Classic of Poetry], the Shujing [Classic of History], or the writings of the hundred schools of philosophy, they shall deliver them (the books) to the governor or the commandant for burning. Anyone who dares to discuss the Shi Jing or the Classic of History shall be publicly executed. Anyone who uses history to criticize the present shall have his family executed. Any official who sees the violations but fails to report them is equally guilty. Anyone who has failed to burn the books after thirty days of this announcement shall be subjected to tattooing and be sent to build the Great Wall. The books that have exemption are those on medicine, divination, agriculture, and forestry. Those who have interest in laws shall instead study from officials.”
When considering the constant squabbling between the campus Lilliputians and Blefuscudians over which end of a soft-boiled egghead is best, until there is the burning of books and the burial of scholars, the proper reaction is to merely shake one’s head, be it egged or not, over the folly of youth. For it is the inherent stupidity of the 18 through 30 year-old that ensures history has its cycles as well as purging the turds in the asshole of America.
Dean Obeidallah is an insufferable prick.
On Monday, CNN published a strident op-ed by the failed lawyer, turned failed stand-up comic, turned C-list media pundit condemning Bill Maher for having Milo Yiannopoulos as a guest on his HBO show. Now, I wholeheartedly agree with libertarian sex goddess Lucy Steigerwald that Milo Yiannopoulous merely is a stupid man’s version of Christopher Hitchens, but the mendaciousness on display when Obeidallah lists the litany of supposed sins committed by Yiannopoulos is breathtaking and warrants comment.
In Obeidallah’s spit-flecked and stentorian denunciation, he charges Maher with failing to “ask [Yiannopoulous] about his anti-Semitic comment that ‘Jews run the media,’ … [ask] why Yiannopoulos wore a Nazi Iron Cross when he was younger … [and inquire about] his demonization of transgender people as, in essence, sexual predators?” Never mind the fact that the first and third charge are merely Obeidallah presenting intentionally provocative statements intended as shock humor out of context, is he not cognizant of the fact that labeling every instance of a symbol that has represented Germany since 1813, (as well as having been appropriated as a fairly innocuous symbol in surfer culture) as “Neo-Nazi” is equivalent to labeling all people wearing fashion keffiyeh as radical Islamist Hamas sympathizers?
Ironically, only a day later, CNN would include the following graphic accompanying its latest attempt to foment a moral panic:
Context is key, indeed!
Obeidallah’s sanctimonious posturing is particularly galling considering the fact that in December of 2013, while a guest on Melissa Harris-Perry’s MSNBC show, he cracked a series of tasteless jokes mocking the fact that Mitt Romeny’s adoptive grandson, Kieran Romney, is ethnically African-American. When challenged over the racially-charged humor, while Harris-Perry delivered what appeared to be a sincere and heartfelt apology, all Obeidallah could muster up was a self-defensive non-apology, in which he managed to portray himself as the victim of false outrage by conservative “wing-nuts” who, in not having the super-secret decoder ring issued to all progressives, failed to realize that humor stemming from an observation that Kieran was essentially and forever different from the rest of his adoptive family due to his race was in fact a wry political statement as to the “lack of racial diversity we see at the Republican National Convention.” Which is why, of course, he referred the child as a “prop” in a mock apology to Kieran for comments made during the broadcast.
As I mentioned earlier, Dean Obeidallah is an insufferable prick.
In further evidence of his martyrdom at the feet of humorless conservative scolds, in his 2013 article for the Daily Beast, Obeidallah wrote:
Here’s the thing: As a comedian, I always try to be funny. It doesn’t always work and I have told jokes that offended people. And I can assure you that in the future I will offend even more people even though that was not my intention. Not only is comedy subjective, but so are sensibilities about when a comedian has “crossed the line.”
In fact, being attacked by right-wing publications for my jokes is nothing new to me. I even wrote an article about that just a few months ago for The Daily Beast titled “The Tea Party’s War on Comedy” about right-wing media outlets lashing out a joke I tweeted. But here’s the reality: We can expect to see even more of this outrage by both the left and the right going forward. Our collective self-righteous anger keeps escalating. Perhaps it’s because of the hyper-partisan times we live in. Or maybe it’s due to social media or the media’s desperate need for content. Perhaps it’s just payback by each side for the last time one of their own was attacked. Regardless of the reason, in time, it will only get worse.
Despite Obeidallah’s 2013 attempt at ‘a pox on both your houses’ appeal to ethos, in 2017, we see no such attempt at nuance, no such reminders of the inherent subjectivity of comedy when Yiannopolous appeared, along with another comedian (Larry Wilmore), on an intentionally comedic political talk-show hosted by a comedian (Maher). Instead, Obeidallah waxed stentorian when he proclaimed:
[S]tunningly, at the end of the interview, Maher seemed to be doing his best to make Yiannopoulos’ hateful views more acceptable. Maher concluded the interview by reading “provocative” jokes the late comedian Joan Rivers had made and saying she was still considered a “national treasure.”
His point appeared to be that if some people gave another comedian a pass, then why shouldn’t we do the same with Yiannopoulos? Well, the reasons are obvious: Rivers was actually a comedian, while Yiannopoulos is a political pundit who writes for Bretitbart.com
Did you get that? Obeidallah and Rivers have permission to be provocative, as they are card-carrying comedians, but humorist and raconteur Yiannopoulos doesn’t as he is a mere “political pundit” for Badthink.com.
Are you fucking kidding me, you insufferable prick?
The amount of cognitive dissonance possessed by Obeidallah to claim that only comedians who meet certain unnamed criteria can make jokes about sensitive topics but Yiannopoulus cannot as he writes op-eds for Brietbart surpasses Graham’s Number in magnitude. One has to marvel that the fact that Obeidallah’s sneer as he wrote the term “political pundit” is so evident that, like the the Greenhouses of Almería, it can be seen from space. When typing out those sentences, did Obeidallah forget that his day job is working the cable TV news circuit as a token progressive Muslim talking-head? Did Obeidallah forget that he was writing an op-ed for CNN? Did Obeidallah forget that he has his own political talk radio show on SiriusXM? The hypocrisy astounds. Yet, there is a simple explanation for it. It is the same reason that Yiannopoulus is currently being castigated for saying the same things that Allen Ginsberg said decades ago:
GINSBERG: Well, then you must excuse me if I don’t adopt the submissive attitude you wish. I got on the air and said that when I was young I was approached by an older man and I don’t think it did me any harm. And that I like younger boys and I think that probably almost everybody has an inclination that is erotic toward younger people, including younger boys.
LOFTON: How young were the boys?
GINSBERG: In my case, I’d say fourteen, fifteen, sixteen, seventeen, eighteen.
LOFTON: That you had sex with?
GINSBERG: No, unfortunately I haven’t had the chance. [laughs] No, I’m talking about my desires. I’m being frank and candid. And I’m also saying that if anyone was frank and candid, you’d probably find that in anybody’s breast. (Harpers, “When Worlds Collide” Jan, 1990)
Four years after this interview, Ginsberg wrote an essay explaining that he became a card-carrying member of the pedophile advocacy group NAMBLA, “in defense of free speech.” An agitator acting and speaking outrageously “in defense of free speech” sounds familiar, doesn’t it? But the simple fact remains that Yiannopoulus was recently forced to fall upon his own sword whereas Ginsberg remains in the American imagination as a Puckish merry trickster whose poems (“I saw the best minds of my generation … who bit detectives in the neck and shrieked with delight in policecars for committing no crime but their own wild cooking pederasty and intoxication”) are treated with reverence by the academy is because Ginsberg was a communist sympathizer cum progressive leftist and Yiannopoulus isn’t. In the minds of individuals like Obeidallah, it’s a very simple calculus: his progressive compatriots are to be forgiven all failings as their intentions are righteous and pure, whereas, conservatives, libertarians, etc. are always assumed to be acting and speaking in bad faith as their intentions are evil and corrupt. One wonders how Obeidallah rationalizes Joan Rivers’ interview of Reza Farahan, full of frank humor about race, religion, and homosexuality, where Melissa Rivers described her mother as a “fiscally conservative, socially liberal Republican.” In what way does Rivers’ status as a comedian allow Obeidallah to forgive her jokes like “[I’m a Republican] because I work very hard for my money and I don’t care if you’ve got 19 children – use condoms! I’ll pay for your first four children, that’s it!”? In Obeidallah’s Manichean worldview, didn’t Rivers play for the same “team” that Yiannopoulus represents? At the end of his 2013 article, despite spilling some token digital ink bemoaning the negative effect these “hyper-partisan times we live in” have upon humor, Obeidallah ended with this utterly obnoxious cri de coeur:
And let me also be clear to the self-appointed right-wing pundits: I will never stop calling out the wrongs and hypocrisy of the right. Be it citing Jesus’ name to justify slashing programs that help the less fortunate, demonizing Muslims or gays for political gain, or trying to disenfranchise minority voters with voter ID laws. And for those jokes and comments, I can assure you, I will never apologize.
Remember, this came only 2 paragraphs after he wrote “We can expect to see even more of this outrage by both the left and the right going forward. Our collective self-righteous anger keeps escalating. Perhaps it’s because of the hyper-partisan times we live in.” How dull one must be to not grasp the conflict between these two sentiments! Indeed, taking into account all of Obeidallah’s self-contradictory statements, one is forced to conclude that either he suffers from early dementia or that he is utterly without any sort of intellectual honesty or moral scruples.
So we are left with the spectacle of Yiannopoulus being pilloried for the same sins of both Ginsburg and Obeidallah. It’s not even the blatant double-standard of how Yiannopoulus has been treated so poorly due to his perceived political views that rankles so much; it’s the complete and all-consuming self-righteousness of progressives like Obeidallah and his ilk as they bemoan their treatment at the hands of “humorless” conservatives, yet still deign to deliver angry philipics when someone who is not a progressive leftist attempts to do as they did. You see, in Obeidallah’s worldview, only people with the proper views can be certified comedians, and thus, given license to poke at sacred cows. Thus, Yiannopoulus is a filthy pedophile, whereas, George Takei merely has wickedly mischevious sense of humor. In Obediallah’s worldview, Felix “PewDiePie” Kjellberg is a vicious anti-Semite, but Trevor Noah merely makes wry observations on “Zionism.” In Obediallah’s worldview, taking style tips from an anti-Semitic mass murderer and pedophile is merely fashion, but wearing a surfer’s necklace is irrefutable evidence that Yiannopoulus hold allegiance to an ideology that would see him placed in a death camp with both a pink and yellow triangle sewn to his blue and white striped prisoner’s pyjamas.
Dean, if you do perchance come across this article, I recommend that after reading it you enter your bathroom. I would ask that you take the time to look at yourself in the mirror. Really look at yourself. After marveling over your close resemblance to Casey Kasem, I want you to look yourself in the eyes and come to the acceptance that you are the reason Donald J. Trump is President of the United States. I want you to know, deep down in your bones, that it is an incontrovertible truth that it was the sublime hypocrisy displayed by you and your fellow progressive hatchet-men in the media that drove this nation to elect an amoral demagogue. I want you to see your face as the realization creeps across it that the current political situation is a result of the utter contempt that you have expressed towards those whom you’ve deemed as evil merely because they do not subscribe to your economic and societal views. I want you to see your eyes mist and your brow furrow in anguish as it dawns upon you that the zealous self-righteousness of you and your fellow progressives, in which you believe it acceptable to slander a perceived ideological enemy through hyperbolic sound-bites disseminated through a compliant, yet mercurial, media, has produced an equal and opposite reaction to which you now find your most beloved shibboleths tossed on the trash-heap. And, finally, when you accept that the state of affairs is over in which one could be excused of even the most vile behavior if they were your ideological kinsmen, while even the most milquetoast of peccadilloes of others were excoriated with a fury that rivaled anything found in Johnathan Edward’s Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God, if you have even a modicum of self-dignity, you will reach for your medicine cabinet, take your DOVO, pause for a moment as the cold steel is pressed against the flesh of your neck, and slide the blade from left to right.
And you’ll have no one to blame but yourself, you insufferable prick.
Instagram model Jessica Tsai’s booty is thicc.
https://www.instagram.com/p/BQei0aIgoT1/?taken-by=jessicababyfat
Colombian fitness model Alejandra Gil is thicc.
https://www.instagram.com/p/BPI-NaDjyME/?taken-by=camilita1207
子路曰、衛君待子而為政、子將奚先。子曰、必也、正名乎。子路曰、有是哉、子之迂也、奚其正。子曰、野哉、由也、君子於其所不知、蓋闕如也。名不正、則言不順、言不順、則事不成。事不成、則禮樂不興、禮樂不興、則刑罰不中、刑罰不中、則民無所措手足。故君子名之必可言也、言之必可行也、君子於其言、無所茍而已矣。
Zi-lu said, “The ruler of Wei has been waiting for you to help him administer the government. What will you consider the first thing to be done?”
Confucius replied, “What is necessary is to rectify names.”
“So, indeed!” said Zi-lu. “You are wide off the mark! Why must there be such rectification?”
Confucius said, “How uncultivated you are, Yu! A superior man, in regard to what he does not know, shows a cautious reserve. If names be not correct, language is not in accordance with the truth of things. If language be not in accordance with the truth of things, affairs cannot be carried on to success. When affairs cannot be carried on to success, proprieties and music will not flourish. When proprieties and music do not flourish, punishments will not be properly awarded. When punishments are not properly awarded, the people do not know how to move hand or foot. Therefore a superior man considers it necessary that the names he uses may be spoken appropriately, and also that what he speaks may be carried out appropriately. What the superior man requires, is just that in his words there may be nothing incorrect.”
— Analects, Book XIII, Chapter 3
As Confucius taught, the rectification of names is the beginning of wisdom. What this means is that in order to effect change, one must have an understanding of the true nature of things; an understanding of the true nature of things comes from using the correct names for things. For example, you are a serf.
Now, at this point, I imagine that you have straightened your shoulders, puffed out your chest and said something to the effect of “Nonsense! I am a sovereign citizen of this republic and a free man. I own me.” If this were true, then why is it required of you to notify your lord’s magistrates when traveling outside the boundaries of his manor? And if you are granted permission to travel outside of your lord’s manor and desire to return with a buxom peasant wench to wife, while we live in such enlightened times that our masters no longer exercise droit de jambage, you still must petition your lord for the privilege of cohabitation within your cottage.
Why do you take umbrage at the employment of such terminology? Does it not adequately describe the state of affairs (de facto)? I suspect that some of you reading this are now protesting “we just can’t have serfs traveling between manors without oversight! How do we know that some don’t mean us harm?” Well, isn’t the entire point of the feudal contract that the serfs work their liege-lord’s land in exchange for his protection from all threats?
Ok, ok! I see that my rectification of names has rankled. The present example hits too close to current fears and anxieties, and this perhaps obscures the point. So let’s turn to another feudal duty, tallage. Imagine that your lord has levied tallage upon your cottage and has sent you a notice for payment. Regardless of how well or not you have rectified names, you are aware of the consequences of not paying the tallage. First, the lord’s magistrates will send more notices for payment, and with each notice the tallage will be higher. If you still refuse to pay the tallage, the shire reeve (i.e., sheriff) will visit your cottage to demand payment. The shire reeve and his men have been deputized by their lord to take you away from your cottage and seize your property if you still refuse to pay the tallage. If you display even a modicum of resistance, the shire reeve is entitled to use as much force as necessary, up to and including deadly force, to subdue you.
Now, you might not see anything wrong with this situation. After all, as a serf, you are well-fed and well-taken care of. All that I ask is that things are called by their true names.
It’s Valentine’s Day! Treat your beloved to a romantic candlelight dinner…
… while the soulful stylings of Yumi Matsutoya play in the background.
