Free news

FREE blog







Gun poll








14th Amdt

19th Amdt













 Feminazi kavking


The following exchange on the news group in September 2000 is a great example of why and how the woman voter drove this once-great country into the ground, in every way it can be measured.




Subject: Hey John Knight, high school grad rates equal the "50's
Date: 09/16/2000
Author: kavking <[email protected]>

I heard on CNN that high school graduation rates are back to where they were in the 1950's. 89% of all white 17/18 year old high school kids graduated from high school in 1999. (In Alaska the state average is 95%.)
80% of all black 17/18 year old kids gradutated from high school in 1999.
These are not kids with GED's, these are kids walking up to the podium and getting diplomas.

What a great job these kids are doing.
And a good reflection on mom and dad.
Even the single mommies that John has decided are personnally
responsible for every ill our society has.
Blow it our your ear, John

....we have plenty of youth, what we need is a fountain of smart.....


Now this disinformation from the fountain of smart comes from the typical American woman voter who has unlimited access to the internet on which she could have checked her facts before she made a fool of herself.  First, before assuming that having an 89% graduation rate is an accomplishment, she should have checked what the graduation rate is for other countries, which of course she did not.  Had she dones so, she would have discovered that the percentage of 25-34 year olds who have completed secondary education is 81% in Austria, 84% in Canada, 86% in France, 89% in Germany, 88% in Norway, 88% in Sweden, and 88% in Switzerland

89% isn't all that great, EVEN if we were comparing apples to apples, but we are not.   We are comparing the graduation rate of American children who were IN high school to the gratuation rate of the entire populations of those above countries.  She could have easily discovered, but obviously did not, that the total population of 18 year olds in the US in 1998 was 3,879,900

This might have led her to ask "how many high school graduates were there in the US in 1999", but she obviously did not ask.  If she had, she would have discovered that only 2,653,000 Americans graduated from high school in 1998 which means that only 68.4% of our 18 year olds are graduating from high school today.

Hardly "a great job these kids are doing".  Rather, it means that 1,126,990 of American 18 year olds, or almost ONE THIRD of them, did not even graduate from high school, which is a DISMAL track record.

This is even worse than the 68.4% who WERE in high school scoring dead last in TIMSS at the same time that we had the world's smallest class sizes and highest education expenditures.

Do you wonder why I question the wisdom of women voters who can be so easily misled by a CNN sound byte without the slightest qualm about her passing on disinformation?

In 1972, the number of high school graduates was 3,001,000, which was 76.4% of the number of 18 year olds in 1972.

Why did the percentage of 18 year olds who graduate in the US drop 8%, from 76.4% to 68.4% in only 26 years?

>In article <[email protected]>,

Kavking <[email protected]>   No, actually you brought up how women trump up charges about abuse, and that only a few women really die of abuse.   I happen to think that even if one woman dies of abuse it is too many. However, what I wrote was, "men and women who suffer from abuse".  I wrote this at least twice.  Had you ever bothered to read what I write you might have picked up on it. I also wrote that I would harp about men abusing their wives if men were the only abusers.  Didn't pick up on that one, either, did you? Or do you think that only women can be abused? K

[email protected]   You "forgot" to answer the question about which is more egregious, didn't you?  Do you think 199 or 296 wives being murdered by husbands is more egregious than the 1,170 children who are murdered each year by their mothers, or the 1,337 who are murdered in SMHs?  Do you think we should just ignore the "abuse" [read: murder] of 7 times more children than wives who are murdered?
Relative to wives who were murdered by husbands, mothers murdered 7 times as many children, 17 times as many women were murdered by those other than husbands, 66 times as many men were murdered, 7 times as many men were murdered by women, 29 times as many women comitted suicide, 134 times as many men comitted suicide, non-marriage killed 1,357 as many women, auto accidents claimed 211 times as many total lives and 67 times as many women's lives, the additional lives lost solely to women drivers exceeded it by 32 times, and cancer claimed 2,711 times as many total lives and 1,876 times as many women's
lives.  At a loss to society of $1 million per life for the 199 wives who were murdered, the extra economic cost of imprisoning the children of SMHs exceeded the loss to domestic violence by 1,568 times, the cost of repairing auto accidents exceeded it by 1,005 times, the cost of repairing the accidents due only to women drivers exceeded it by 152 times, and the extra money spent attempting to educate women in just one year exceeded it by 1,281 times.
Altogether, these factors alone cost 4,923 times as many lives and 4,003 times as many dollars as the annual loss to domestic violence.

Kavking <[email protected]> I wasn't going to respond to this at all after your women and  Nobel Prize in Literature fiasco, except for this last question. You are a real asshole when you imply that if somebody abuses  somebody else, but it isn't bad enough to send them to the hospital, or  kill  them, then it isn't "abuse".  Fuck you, John Knight, fuck you for every man and woman out  there who suffers "abuse" that you won't even admit is real. K.

[email protected]  Looks like YOU are the abusive one in your family, doesn't it, K?

Kavking <[email protected]> Only to you John.    Moral indignation for the rights of people who have been abused is usually considered a good thing.  Stomping on people who are already down, like men and women who have been abused is condisered cowardly, and bullying tactics.   But I'm sure you already know that, don't you?   K.
[email protected]  The far greater abuse in this country comes from you indignant,  ungrateful, blind, dumb, stupid feminists who don't appreciate one wit how White American men created for you the highest standard of living the world had ever known by 1965,......

Kavking <[email protected]>  Trying to take credit for other people's actions again, John.  First of all, it wasn't just white American men who created a decent standard of living, and by 1965 any increase in standards they did establish was  created, in part, at the expense of everyone who was not white and male.

[email protected]  Are you going to say that this high standard of living was at the expense of American blacks, whose 900 million cousins in Africa earn a whopping $650 per year?

Kavking <[email protected]> I said in part, John, try reading what I wrote. And yes, it was in part due to white treatment of blacks in the 1940's and 1950's. You may not think of the treatment they received back then as discriminatory, but it was. When you are building an economy on the backs of cheap labor, when you don't pay the true value of that labor, sure, it's really easy to have a high standard of living. Taking advantage of cheap black and hispanic labor back in the 50's was common, and don't even try to tell me that it did not happen.

[email protected] Unfortunately, White men did NOT take "advantage of cheap black and hispanic labor back in the 50's was", because both blacks and hispanics have cost White men far, far more than they have given back to the economy.

Kavking <[email protected]>  Oh, bullshit. Your prejudice is showing.

bulletThe best of the feminazi dimwits
bulletKavking the fountain of smarts on affirmative action
bullet85% of American men and 98% of American women disagree with kavking




Author: Kavking <[email protected]>

>Michael Snyder" [email protected]  wrote:
>Accept responsability for your own actions, Feminist.
And you accept responsibility for your own, Michael.
You used her words without the courtesy of telling her you were doing this.
>>Instead of coming up with original arguments on your site, you just listed
>>bunch of posts that you thought were sexist.
>And how is that illegal?
>How is that NOT protected free speech?
Then how is her email, which should have remained private in the tradition of usenet not free speech?
Your site  may not be illegal, but it's the tactics of a lazy bully.  The tactics of a person who doesn't mind making somebody the unwitting butt of their joke, without even giving them the right to respond.
  That's usurping her right to free speech.  You've denied her the forum you've offered to anyone else by not informing her that you would do this before you posted her words.
  It's taking something that belongs to somebody else without their permission and using it for your own benefit.  That's theft.
>>>You've also FALSELY accused a man of... what were the words?
>>>Oh yes: quote "encourag[ing] others (although not on his site) to
>>>harass  those that he has listed."  end quote.
>So what?  YOU just provided your email address, AGAIN,
>by posting this article!  YOUR EMAIL ADDRESS IS NOT PRIVATE!
>You have published it any number of times, RIGHT HERE.
And right here are the key words.  We basically are an insulated newsgroup, which doesn't interest many people, a small group of posters.  We know each other, we know who will respond, and until now, even the worst of us has abided by the tacit rules of usenet. 
You and John Knight are quite a pair.
>1) I don't believe you, because you have proven yourself a liar, and
>2) Not my responsibility, if true.
yes, it is.  It's your responsibility because you provided a source that would not have been there had you acted responsibly.
(If she wasn't being harassed by posting to this newsgroup before, and she's been here for awhile, and you start your site, and now she is-- add it up, Michael.)
Remember the driver of the getaway car, when the actual robber kills somebody? The driver is just as responsible as the shooter.
In your case, you provided the means to effect the hate mail, just as the driver provided the means to commit the crime.
  My site is perfectly legitimate,
>first-amendment protected free speech.  I didn't even say anything
>defamatory about you, other than to call you a fem-wit.  FAR worse
>has been said about me on this newsgroup.
Legal, and legitimate don't  always mean right, Michael, and you know it. Remember tough respect?




jewn McCain

ASSASSIN of JFK, Patton, many other Whites

killed 264 MILLION Christians in WWII

killed 64 million Christians in Russia

holocaust denier extraordinaire--denying the Armenian holocaust

millions dead in the Middle East

tens of millions of dead Christians

LOST $1.2 TRILLION in Pentagon
spearheaded torture & sodomy of all non-jews
millions dead in Iraq

42 dead, mass murderer Goldman LOVED by jews

serial killer of 13 Christians

the REAL terrorists--not a single one is an Arab

serial killers are all jews

framed Christians for anti-semitism, got caught
left 350 firemen behind to die in WTC

legally insane debarred lawyer CENSORED free speech

mother of all fnazis, certified mentally ill

10,000 Whites DEAD from one jew LIE

moser HATED by jews: he followed the law Jesus--from a "news" person!!

1000 fold the child of perdition


Hit Counter


Modified Saturday, March 11, 2017

Copyright @ 2007 by Fathers' Manifesto & Christian Party