Do not stick with Lipstick Alley

Lip Shtick alley is a joke. Ever since it has been sold the soul and essence of the site has changed. It went from a place where cool hip and urban people could meet and share tea to a place overun by race trolls who harass unsuspecting forum members all day. Usually by either claiming some group of black people are non-black or secret arabs.... or dark whites. Members like that include Somaliqueen... a known white supremacist troll who pretends to be somali and turns every thread into a debate about how un-black somalis are. Another one is name I am a worm or lamaworm and he turns every discussion into how un-black north, west and east africans are and how he is a quadroon who is full of black self hatred and is desperate for white acceptance but won't just join stormfront dot com for unknown reasons.

Sadly there were and are alot of good posters over there but they are largely fleeing in droves. Lipshtick alley treats new members like guilty until proven innocent, anyhow because you need 25 post to start a new thread.

But this is more of a minor annoyance than the real drama that goes on in that fool. Firstly it allows and encourages black on black infighting by making threads about topics like feminism and colorism and lightskin vs dark skin. Then it allow members with terrible reputations to stay posting for years while turning around and banning members who actually produce threads of value with useful information.

Another waboon was a member named shego, I got banned for standing up to her harassment and reporting that she called black women burnt chocolate. She ain't even black she is some mexican or something and the admin ban me for it.... please. I got banned for defending the honor of black women on a site that is suppose to be started for and by black women but was bought out by some non-black probably.... many people report it was bought out by a jew. And she can continue to go on and bash black woman. Frankly it is only a matter of time before it becomes a white supremacist site like chimpout dot com or stormfront because all it does is ban good contributors and keep the race baiting ones.

I am in the process of making my own forum and website where men and women of color can come without constant harassment from non-blacks telling blacks what they should and shouldn't believe. You don't see these white supremacist trolls on chinese dot com or indian dot com or mexican dot com or jew dot com telling them what they should believe. Only on the black website are they trolled so prolifically.

I notice that there is a pattern of African American threads questioning racism or unfairness being moved to the NSIS or Not Sure If Serious section of the forum which is dead but white racist post are given prime real estate.

Its no wonder lipstickalley has been sued and was shutdown for 5 months.

"I would love to see Lipstick Alley’s attorney bills. The gossip forum owners are constantly being sued for slander. It seems that Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed is the latest victim of LSA’s resident gossipmongers, who are spilling his most personal intimate bedroom secrets."

http://sandrarose.com/2012/11/atlanta-mayor-sues-lipstick-alley-for-slander/


No surprise there, it just confirms what I said, the site is dominated by the trolls who make up things on the fly. What was once a respectable website has been overrun by race-trolls
gender-trolls and Indian Race Trolls

Then there is a large proportion over there of "black women" who seem to hate black men. One has to wonder if these stans are even black because don't thee women have fathers who are black? They must hate themselves. They go on and whine about how much they dislike black men and put jew and white men on a pedestal, not all, there are some cool fonts over there, I had over 30 people on my friends list and they were all cool fonts, none self haters, some cool to debate with or have discussions with. And talk about low self esteem, there was this jokster of a poster who had a picture of scandal interracial sex in her profile but would go off about how much she hates white women and black men and white women who date black men.

The messed up part was when they showed the thread black men going to brazil all the fonts who hate black men came out and whined that black men are leaving them but they also hate black men. Makes no sense to me. I've never seen a black man appreciation thread over there but I saw jew man, jew woman, white man, white woman, arab man, arab woman, persian man, persian women appreciation thread.


Lip shtick alley I am so done with you bye bye girlfriend... I am through with your ass and you can kiss mine, and if your one of my old friends for LSA and you stumble across my blog leave a comment and say what-sup and check out my sistas blog at
http://worldhistoryandanthropology.blogspot.ca/

Lastly I stand by my racial slur:

How to attract women how to attract men

-Lots of women want to imitate the sexual habits of men but this doesn't work for several reasons:
-women get more attached
-women can feel used for having sex "too soon"
-women can be "raped" by men but vice versa is nearly impossible, or at least unheard of in the western world
-Men who drink too much alcohol and wake up naked next to a chick, who they don't remember consenting to for sex, will never alleged they were raped or taken advantage of

-Men do not get very attached to women, they do get attached to the first 2-3 sexual partners they have but after that they pretty much have an indifference.  Besides, most men never land their ideal dream women, so their level of attachment is moderate at best. That is, most women just want a confident man with decent looks, whereas all men want the bombshell, they may know they won't land one, but their money can land them one.

-Men will never feel used for having sex too soon, if a woman bangs a guy in the first 4 seconds of meeting him, he'd only miss not fucking her more times since that kind of fucking is rather rare for the average man, but otherwise he'd give a ratass if he ever saw her again.  This is not true for women.  Just look at Bristol Palin's comment how Levi "stole" her virginity during consensual sex, because she feels she was too "innocent". Ya, right.  You will never hear a man come up with that kind of bullshit

-I can't recall a single case of a woman raping a man in any english speaking country beyond statutory rape, and I am a news junkie.

-Women who drink too much alcohol often passout and then claim they were raped.  Its really a smourgesboard, because no one knows if they gave a drunken consent and forgot or if they were really raped.  If a man drank too much and was raped by chick who was at not fat or not ugly, he'd probably ask for more.

-For a man game is essentially being able to have Hot Bitch tens in his bed every night, ideally a new 10 every night or at least every weekend, and occassionally calling but one of the finer 10s every now and then when he doesn't feel like going out.
-For a female, game would be finding a funny and confident, hot man or cute guy who can get any girl he wants but sucker him into a relationship, trick him into intimacy, give him sex early in the encounter so that you can lure him into a relationship and then when he thinks he is getting regular sex from you and you have cut him off from all his other girls so that you are the only vagina he is fucking, cut him off from the last cunt.  And then order him around and make him work hard to give you whatever you want only occasionally bowing into giving him sex, to just string him along long enough until marriage and so on or until you find the next sucker.

-Neither a man nor a girl can successfully do the others game.  In fact a woman trying to fulfill man's game is just as silly as a guy trying to fulfill woman's game.  I mean for any man reading, you can understand why it would be unfulfilling to attempt to get a girl in a relationship just for the purpose of not having sex.  Likewise, women who attempt to have sex with lots of men all the time will never be as happy as their male counterparts.  THey can still enjoy sex, but save for a few girls like pornstars who just fuck for the money, and girls who were sexually or otherwise abused, no women would be happy banging a different man every night.  While the idea of it seems like it might, the reality is women could not enjoy it nor handle it like a man could.  If that were the case, then I suspect there entire dating industry (how to guides for women, pua sites for men, dating sites for both) would collapse because then everyone would  just be screweing like chimps and bonobos and there'd be no need for advice.

Gmos cause disease, queen elizabeth dictator

Queen Elizabeth is a dictator, iron fisted unelected  and an autocrat who uses her thugs to crack down on student protestors and lock them up in prison.  Queen Elizabeth wields all the power which is why less than 5% of people watch her, yet she is on every tv channel whenever she blows a fart or has a wedding.  She portrays the idea that she is a nothing with no power, however she is the sovereign of the UK and the british empire.

Even the army is called Her Royal Majesty's Navy/army etc.  She has no passport, and has diplomatic immunity, and is above the law in practice.  She only publicly portrays the idea that she doesn't run things, but this is not the case.

The Queen can dismiss ministers (equivalent of US secretaries unilaterally) including the prime minister (equivalent to US President)

The Monarch can dismiss parliament if they pass a law she dislikes, she can unilaterally appoint a prime minister.  The Queen has the equivalent of executive orders, similar to that of the president of the US, called Royal Prerogative and she meets weekly with the prime minister and she controls the secret service of the UK.

Here are additional powers of the queen under royal prerogative:
-The Royal Prerogative includes the powers to appoint and dismiss ministers, regulate the civil service, issue passports, declare war, make peace, direct the actions of the military, and negotiate and ratify treaties, alliances, and international agreements.
-It is the prerogative of the monarch to summon and prorogue Parliament.(she could chose not to ever summon commons or the equivalent of the US house of representatives and basically it would end democracy and governor through royal prerogatives.  Or she could also prorogue = end a session of parliament indefinetly)
-She can stop any law, by just refusing to sign it as all laws require her signature.
-The common law holds that the Sovereign "can do no wrong"; the monarch cannot be prosecuted for criminal offences. The Crown Proceedings Act 1947 allows civil lawsuits against the Crown in its public capacity (that is, lawsuits against the government), but not lawsuits against the monarch personally.  (the queen could shoot you dead tomorrow and is immune from prosecution)

Further the Queen is the world's largest land holder and has over a trillion dollars from the Crown Estate Treasury which in just 2007 alone produced 200 billion pounds in revenue or about 330 billion in income.  This doesn't account for the dozens of duchy estates that is under he control and power as well.

If you look at any of the above and it was any country from outside the "west" everyone would agree corrupt dictator.  Only because she controls the media is this little old nice queen idea in the head of people who watch too much tv. Yeah sure she helps some kid in Africa, but the media doesn't tell you about the kids who she murders and are found murdered on her property as reported by huffingtonpost.com, foxnews, csmonitor.com.  The Queen was indicted by the Mohawk nation for murdering and raping children, but your media controlled by her will not report that, and that is why she won't step foot in Mohawk terrirtory.

Now you are not going to see the Queen with an Iron Fist on TV, bcause that is overt, she doesn't need to be an overt dictator, its not necessary because there are so many people who already believe she is not.  You think people in North Korea think King Jong Un, or Kim Jong IL were dictators, nope, they think they are just, fair, rulers and have little influence except ceremonial, except of course when they tell them.  That is 1-d thinking.

Still think Queens powers are symbolic despite all the statutes that show otherwise.  Explain this :
http://www.presstv.com/detail/244545.html?honnan=Nemzeti_Hirhalo

"Chris Bambery, from the revolutionary Scottish International Socialist Group, told Press TV that the Queen rarely uses her “immense power” over “the armed forces, the judiciary, the police, the secret services [and] all instruments of government.”

However, he said those powers are “there in case of emergency” as precedence shows including her veto of the Australian Labour Prime Minister in 1975 through her Governor-General Sir John Kerr.

“Well, I'll give you an example, not from Britain, but the Queen has directly dismissed an elected prime minister in Australia in 197[5] a Labor prime minister was dismissed by the Queen's agent the Governor General,” Bambery said in his interview with Press TV. "

That is the Queen dismissed the leader of Australia.  That is like saying the Queen has no power in America except on paper and she were to fire the president in 1975.

"According to Bambery, the incident underlined the fact that the Queen’s massive powers do not remain symbolic when she is not satisfied with the situation.

“And I think you have to say that she has those powers and in extreme situation like if a radical government was elected in this country, committed to taking over the wealth of the country I think you would see her employing those powers. And the military and secret service and so on would say they were acting because they are not responsible to parliament they are responsible to the queen,” Bambery said.

In otherwords, if the government does something she doesn't like she will use her army, secret service, etcetera to put them in their place.  So given that why would any politician attempt to have a spat with her when they know they would lose.  They can be fired by her.  In otherwords they are here employee.

“These are powers, which should be under the democratic control of the people; they should not be in the hands of one woman,” he added."

Queen = not democratic = dictator.  She's no different except she doesn't pound her chest, she is a so called velvet glove dictator.

Well I would point to the above to find what is wrong.  You really need read more than the last sentence of the article.  She is not democratic, not elected, she is a despot dictator, who controls the armies that should be under democratic control.  You would not against the army would you?  I know I wouldn't I'd do what she said, because I don't like being shot.

Now I am not saying Assad is good, but they are the same, they both rule from the barrel of a gun.  They are both dictators, and at least Assad is more valid because he had elections, even if it is  a sham election at least someone voted for him.  No one votes for the Queen and she fires prime ministers in OZ and closed parliament in Canada.

Anyhow, if I took a brainwashed view of Assad as the average Westerner takes of the Queen, it'd be impossible for you to prove any wrong doing of his, not because you couldn't show me dead women found at his palace, or him being indicted for murders and rapes or him dismissing prime ministers in lebanon (or australia ;) but because I'd choose not to believe it.  So if you decide to approach the subject with a closed mind that she cannot be a dictator just because I don't see her rolling money and on TV everyday or acting like Sasha Baren Cohen, then I can't help you.  If the Queen is just a figurehead with no powers, why not remove all her powers.

Not every government is against Assad, really just a handful of Western countries (US, Uk  France and basically the puppet states they control).  Ironically Iraq has not come out against them, Africa is not against them, Asia, South America, Central America, Mexico, India, China, Russia, East Europe.  The relaity is that often the Americans, Brits, and Francos try to portray themself as the entire world.  If those 3 agree on bombing Libya, then the world agrees on bombing Libya. if they say bomb syria, then the world is for boming Syria, even if Russia and China and all of africa and asia disagree.  The reality is that most countries have nothing to gain nor lose, and most countries are slightly pro Assad, but have nothing to gain by publicly supporting him and angering America, France and Britain.

I guess my point on Assad came across in a way I did not intend.  Lets just pretend Assad is a murderer and killed 3 people.  Well Queen Elizabeth and the Western leaders are like mass murdering rapists who've murdered 500 people each and torture their victims and eat their skeletons.  You are right, none of them are good.  My point is latter group is worse, way worse by far but even a murderer of 3 people is a scum bag too.

"I have yet to hear of an instance in the United States where the president ordered a massacre of ordinary American citizens. If the president was doing this on a regular basis, he would not be in power for long. Nixon couldn't even deny that he knew about the Watergate break-ins without losing the presidency. Elections in the West are a sham. Maybe so but if the leader loses the election he is out. No questions. He is out"

So for Assad to be popular people need to be in the streets professing their love of Assad.  Just like everyday I turn on my tv, I saw people throwing parties and professing en masse their love for George Bush and Obama.  In reality I see more anti Bush and anti Obama protest since they took office.  Besides the bought out media dismisses any pro assad rally as people being paid to support him like they claimed for the thousands who came and fought for Gaddafi and supported in the streets by the hundreds of thousands.

If you want to get into the technical and say you want a piece of paper document that says kill all people in this region/area with the president's name signed on it you will not find it, and the president's almost always deny any culpability in any compromising act anyways (and the fact that if such a document did exist it'd be obviously labelled classified which would make mere possession and distribution of it a criminal offence and a felony)  So even if I had it and flew to your house by helicopter, knocked on your door and placed it in your hand, and handed it to you, you could go to jail for it and so could I.  Politicians lie about every little thing, you think they are going to tell you truth on people who they murder and massacre?
Anyways, there is the ruby ridge massacre, there is the branch davidian massacre where the US government burned down a compound and murdered over a dozen innocent children.  There is the my lai massacre in vietnam, numerous massacres of innocent people.  And the countless and endless massacres against native americans from pioneer days right up until the end of the 1900s.
 
The reality is when dealing with a large organization there is a thing called plausible deniability.  There are so many people in the organization it become virtually impossible to pin a crime on any one beyond a reasonable doubt.  Even in the case of Hitler, not a single document exist where he specifically orders for the killing of jews in concentration camps.  And many holocaust deniers use this nugget of truth to attempt to say a ha no holocaust never happened.  But that is misleading.  It is also the reason why or part of the reason why when a very large organization does a crime they get off with fines when they should be in jail.

On the issue of GMOS, its not even disputed, when they start putting human genes in fish.  Let me take a step back here.  When I look back in my statement, I see there may have been a vagueness you misinterpreted.  I must remind myself that you have no knowledge of this topic, and it is probably overwhelming, and seems like bullshit to you.  In all honesty, seemed like bullshit to me when I first heard it, until I researched it myself.  That is why I said "look into", because I know your natural reaction as a person who watches main stream media who tells you that flouride is not poisioning you, that you will assume gmos are not bad either.  Not every single disease, but the majority of the ones we see a major increase in like infertility, cancers, alzhemiers, dementia, high blood pressure, autism, downs, etcetera.  Just google, gmos cause cancer.

In fact just google Monsanto Whistle blower, gmos cause disease
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=SMI20061119&articleId=3912

It is not my opinion, it comes from numerous scholary articles from professors and scientist way smarter than I am, there is even film on monsanto gmos, and gmos are sprayed with chemicals as well, its not just mixing genes.  and gmos damage human dna as well
"A new study published in the journal Archives of Toxicology proves once again that there really is no safe level of exposure to Monsanto's Roundup (glyphosate) herbicide formula for genetically-modified organisms (GMOs). According to the new findings, Roundup, which is applied by the tens of thousands of tons a year all around the world, is still toxic to human DNA even when diluted to a mere 0.02 percent of the dilution amount at which it is currently applied to GM food crops.

Numerous studies have already identified the fact that Roundup causes DNA damage, not to mention endocrine disruption and cancer. But this new study, which originates out of the Medical University of Vienna, is one of the first to illustrate Roundup's toxicity at such drastically diluted levels, which is a direct contradiction of the agri-giant's talking points about the supposed safety of Roundup."

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/035050_Roundup_Monsanto_DNA.html#ixzz21HNvGOuP

You can even google for just scholarly articles, and have hundreds of published peer reviewed articles documenting the increase in diseases gmos cause.  If you choose not to believe then so be it, but then I will at least know for certain that you are not simply uninformed skeptic (which is not necessarily a bad things to ask questions and ask for proof) but simply someone who just doesn't want to accept the truth because it might compel you to do something and your probably lazy so you don't want to take any action so its easier to just deny and demand evidence and then find ways to say why that evidence is not good enough for you.

Why Russia should stop America in Syria.

Little girly man Medevyev, let the Americans walk all over him in Libya, now that a man with a nut sack is in the Kremlin and its time Russia stand up to the American bankster cartel and say no in Syria.  Russians need to understand that America will destroy all of Russia's allies in the region one by one and setup puppet governments and military bases as they are secretly plotting to attack Russia and China as well.  Not because the Russians have done anything against the Americans but simply because the people who control America are a sect of Eugenicist elites.  America is run by a 2 party dictatorship with false elections where to get nominated by a party you have to be related to King Edward III, every single US president has been related including Obama.  English-American, or Americans of English descent make up no more than 13% of america, yet every single president traces their ancestry to 1 single English King, including Romney who is also related to Obama and Bush.  What are the odds in a country of 300 million people that in the last 3 elections all the major party candidates are related.  That is Kerry and Bush, Obama and McCain, and Obama and Romney or Obomney.  Now this might sound crazy, and when I first heard it, I thought it was crazy as well, of course it sounds crazy because the people running America are a set of not insane, but crazy as in not right minded.  I will expand on this later.

This sounds crazy because the people running America are crazy. They are a group of people who will not allow anyone who cannot trace their lineage to British Royalty (which is Romanian aka Transylvanian in origin -which is why Prince Charles now has castles in Romania and visits there frequently and admits that he is of Transylvania descent)

Now imagine if you had unlimited money.  You would do things that you would not normally do, you would think of grand projects and scale and schemes, and some of them would probably be very stupid.  Just like 90% of families who win the lotterry end up broke by pissing away all their money on silly things, the elite globalist eugenicist are no different.

No the globalist Eugenicist are best typified by Hitler.  Basically there was one set of globalist in Europe and they had a major schemism. Hitler and the facist (although they called themselves socialist) including Mussolini and the Japanese planned to implement world government quickly, take over, kill all untermenschen with impure blood lines and dominate the world under a single global government called the 3rd reich.  The other side is the Socialist (USA, UK, China and Russia).

People talk about the collapse of the soviet union, and sometimes the Socialist globalist elites fight amongst themselves, but the gist of the matter is that the Socialist plan to collapse the world slowly into a world government whereas the Fascist wanted to do it quick.

The globalist Eugenicist run the banks, own the federal reserves which are privately owned banks in Western bloc countries that issue currency in unlimited quantities to its owners off the books.  Now they use the banks and the drug running to finance their activities but they ultimately want a global government where they wipe out all but about 100 million people from the face of the earth.  They plan to create fully automated automatons machines that require no humans.  For example, now you have drones instead of a guy in a plane, now you have most factories in America, having machines building cars where people use to do it, and just  a human to maintain the machine.  Well they want full automation, they want to have a machine that maintains the machine and so on, until no humans are required, and eventually people will be rendered redundant by all machines, and they create a large welfare class on which they will then cut you off and you riot in the streets when you can't buy food, which is why they want a police state too.  So they can kill and shoot you in the streets no questions asked, it is why they want to take away your guns and sign UN small arms treatise.

The globalist Eugenicist are a group of people who invented eugenics, Hitler copied these Eugenicist when creating Nazi German, not vice versa.

So to get back on point, if Russia does not stand up on Syria, the American eugenics leaders are going to murder more people in Syria in the range of 100-500k like in Iraq and Afghanistan.  But they will also build nuclear weapons bases in Syria to launch weapons into Russia and China.  We are in  WW3, the allied Eugenicist (US, UK, FRANCE) and its arab allies (QATAR, SAUDIS).  America is slowly conquering all the arab states and setting up puppet governments.  Hitler would invade them all quickly.  But recall the Socialist prefer slow set up of world government.  They are not going to kill people in masse fema camps yet, they are going to slow kill you with slow kill vaccines, slow kill gmo, slow kill diseases, that are designed to activate when you retire as your hormone levels drop.  How else do you explain that in the time of George Washington people who lived passed 18, and did not get any major disease, basically lived longer than people today.  People didn't get cancer, alzeiheimer, dementia, heart conditions, strokes, heart attacks and all kinds of other illnesses that were rather rare.  In fact of the first 5 US presidents the average life expectancy or age was well over 85, and they smoke and drunk alcohol and had stressful lives as they all fought in a reovlutionary war and they all drunk like Russians as back then that was the only available source of clean water was in alcohol because it was distilled.

Ancestral tree

Spaniards not white and Portuguese not white

Have a look at these videos

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WeacA53r5SU&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLiWjKPcAAs

Spaniards are often blacker than arabs and berbers and even many blacks.  There is no way they are 91% white.  Only the elites are whites and they have different origins than.  i WOULD NOT consider brown people of any region to be white.  Sure the Celts were in Spain but they seemed to be replaced by browns

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vmAQAGRz2k&feature=related

When you break down spain’s history it just presents moor problems.

1.       King Taharka of Nubia’s invasion in Spain in 690 BC, documented

2.       Carthagian occupation of Spain in the BC

3.       Rome retakes Spain by hiring Numidian (African) warriors (several times because of punic wars)

4.       Phoenicians conquering Spain

5.       Moorish invasion and occupation of Spain for 700 years

6.       Even if the original indigenous people of Spain are white, despite findings like grimaldi man (black man found in Spain dating back 20k years) which suggest otherwise.  All the invasions by Africans and arabs would mean heavy admixture

7.       Spainish as a whole bare little resemblance to the Celts, the Celts in North Europe do not even recognize Spain as a Celtic nation.

8.       Many white skin spainards have non-white (Asiatic or African) features as in dark black thick hair, brown skin, flat or round nose, slanted eyes.  If Spaniards are truly just tanned skinned whites, why is it that people from Rome and central Italy maintain white skin.  No one is going to argue that people outside of southern Italy (which has bonified African and Arabic descendents) are not white for the mere fact that minus southern Italians who are of different ancestry most Italians look white.  Most Spaniards do not look white, in fact Spain is more like a brown country with a ruling white skinned class.  No different than any country in latin America or the Arab world.

9.       The Spanish royalty has confirmed African ancestry in it.  Queen Charlotte of England who is often drawn with African features had her ancestry traced back by Genelogist who traced her ancestry to Madragana MOOR Afonso a colored mistress to Afonso the 3^rd of Portugal and to Margarita de Castro y Souza of Spain. This is highly relevant because Portugual was PART OF SPAIN until 1179. Madragana was born in 1230.  That is very early in these countries histories, they already had non-whites in their leadership and as elites in society.  This poses a big problem for the white Spaniard idea.  Duarte Nunes de Leão, a Portuguese royal chronicler of the 16th century, stated that Madragana was a Moor.


Check out this link for more info
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/secret/famous/royalfamily.html

American woman are over entitled

No matter what they will never find a man who satisfies them, and even when they do they will find something wrong with him and reasons to abuse and mistreat them.  American woman are only attracted to men with border line psychotic behaviour, a good and decent normal man, simply cannot attract women, she will always find a way to go back to trash.