Cenk Uygur Backstabbed by Regressive-Feminist “Justice Democrats” Group over Allegedly Sexist Jokes He Made Two Decades Ago

Cenk Uygur has been unceremoniously fired from the vaginas-only club that he helped create

As a former fan and paid subscriber of The Young Turks network, I know my way around Cenk Uygur’s sense of humor. He’s a funny guy, no doubt, even for a liberal. Like myself, he also has a taste for saying things that will outrage people (even if they’re just true, boring statements.) While he mostly tortures traditionalist Conservatives by picking apart almost all of their beliefs whilst laughing about it, Cenk has also annoyed Socialists and Libertarians with his unjustified support for Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election over Jill Stein, even in the solid-blue state of California.

My decision to end my support for The Young Turks was actually at a very specific moment. Listening to their premium podcast on a roadtrip, Cenk was giving a rundown of the stories he’d be covering in that hour. He said there was one story that blew his mind, because “white people have no idea how good they have it in this country.” (Unfortunately this was stated in a premium podcast episode that I no longer can link to.) Although an obnoxious statement on its own, this claim was the centerpiece for a revelation I’d had growing in my head for a long time: Cenk Uygur is a racist.

Constantly covering white-on-black crime, the shootings of unarmed black civilians by white police officers, but never covering the very frequent shootings unarmed white civilians, and proudly repeating the nonsense claim that Black Lives Matter is a progressive social movement while All Lives Matter is absolutely racist, Cenk Uygur has been biased in one way or another for his entire career. I don’t mean political bias, which is to be expected of political commentators. I mean racially, sexually, religiously, culturally, and ethnically biased. Cenk has respect for groups he views as “oppressed,” be it women or minority communities, but when it comes to groups he views as “in power,” (white men, in his fantasy world) he regards them with suspicion and disregard.

Now, however, Cenk’s virtue-signaling has hit quite the road-bump, as he has been ousted from a group which he helped create, Justice Democrats, for some jokes he made just about two decades ago. Here is an excerpt from one of these ancient blogposts, also one of the least hard-hitting things I’ve ever read:

“Rules of Dating

There are some hard and fast rules of dating. Women, ignore these at your peril.

Rule 1: There must be some serious making out by the third date.

If I haven’t felt your tits by then, things are not about to last much longer. In fact, if you don’t get back on track by the fourth date, you’re done.

Rule 2: There must be orgasm by the fifth date.

No, ands, ifs, or buts. If I haven’t unloaded by this time, things are intolerably slow. There will be no sixth date to give you a second chance. If you haven’t delivered by now, you’re done.

Rule 3: There must be sex by the second month of dating.

There are a lot of allowable exceptions to this rule, but they all involve orgasms. I’ll let you slide if for unseen circumstances we haven’t gotten to see each other much, and you have been providing me with some excellent orgasms in the meanwhile.”

While the choice of language here by Uygur is rather unappetizing and distasteful (to my eyes, at least,) he’s simply stating his dating preferences. The irony is that the Justice Democrat feminazis and Cenk’s older self are actually advocating for telling people who to date and how to date them, despite a central message of feminism being personal choice. The blogpost is younger Cenk’s set of rules and requirements for dating him. Since dating someone is opt-in, women are (and most likely were) free to read his blog post and decide not to date him. Should young Cenk be forced to date a “prude” if he doesn’t want to, or should Cenk have the freedom to do what he wants with his own body?

The Justice Democrats group, which I have (regrettably) previously donated to, focuses on electing Democrats to Congress and the Senate who refuse corporate and super-PAC donation money. Conceptually, this allows said elected officials to rule the will of their voters, rather than the will of their donors. A noble cause indeed, shamefully ruined by regressive-feminist internal politics. Originally I halted my reoccurring donations for fear that Justice Democrats was going out of its way to choose female and/or minority candidates for the sake of forced diversity, but this story would have sealed the deal had I still been donating.

At the end of his controversial blogpost, he makes a point that isn’t too far-off:

“I might seem like an asshole for pointing this stuff out, but there is no reason to hate the messenger. These rules are out there whether you like it or not (or whether your particular boyfriend has crystallized them in his mind, every guy has an internal gauge that are roughly within these parameters), so it’s better that you know. I’m trying to help.”

It’s a shame that so many of the same people who support great economic policy like single-payer healthcare or higher taxes on the very wealthy are also miserable, offendable cunts. While Cenk’s essay is quite obnoxiously worded, there is quite a bit of truth to what he said, let alone the fact that it would be an amusing, satirical read of intentionally-provocative literature even if it wasn’t true.

Sadly, Cenk bucked almost all of his politically incorrect humor in exchange for the privilege of begging approval from wealthy feminists and donors. Read his pathetic response to the ousting from Justice Democrats:

“If someone said that today, I would heavily criticize them on the show and rightfully so, and I have. I’ve criticized myself over the years,” he added. “I had not yet matured and I was still a conservative who thought that stuff was politically incorrect and edgy. When you read it now, it looks really, honestly, ugly. And it’s very uncomfortable to read.”

Funny, I wasn’t uncomfortable reading it all, even though I didn’t quite agree with his demands. If a woman ever wrote such things about her dating preferences, I wouldn’t be offended either. This is basic dating culture: people have preferences and desires. To criticize his former writing is to criticize reality, which he hypocritically (but accurately) accuses Conservatives of doing in regards to climate change.

Poor Cenk. I do hope things work out well for him. He’s only wrong half the time, anyways.



Apple Has a Creepy Fetish for Black Men Dating White Women

Is this their not-so-subtle way of trying to sell iPhones to the Android dominated minority communities?


Apple makes great stuff. They really do. I’m writing this on a MacBook Pro, with an iPhone nearby. My iPad Pro will be here in two weeks. I have an Apple Watch and AirPods. Connected to my TV is an Apple TV.  Apple’s hardware and software teams are absolutely incredible, and despite a reputation for it, I don’t think that their products are overpriced. They far outlast the competition and have much higher resale values down the road when you decide you want to upgrade.

Apple’s marketing team is far less incredible. (Unless we’re taking about their lighting techniques, which are second to none.)

We all know that Silicone Vally and California are a toxic hell stew of feminism, liberalism, and fake “progressive” politics. Misgendering someone is worse than murdering them, especially if it’s intentionally. Judging people based on their immutable characteristics such as ethnicity or sex is wrong, unless they’re Caucasian or male (or worse, both.) While some old-school liberals are fighting for better healthcare, higher wages, or a better economy, the new liberal “progressives” don’t care about any of that. What gets them off is an unending slew of Apple ads featuring black men dating white women. Never any other combination. No white men with black women, and hardly any black women at all, in fact, unless they have really short hair and are the extremely athletic type. You can totally forget about Indian or Asian men in any capacity. Apple is all black men, all the time in their ads. I’d love to see what their marketing team looks like. Probably a swimmingly diverse group of people, including a small pocket of scrawny white guys who pay black guys to fuck their white girlfriends while they watch and film it- on their iPhones.

Screen Shot 2017-11-06 at 12.44.35 PM

Because of constant “alt-right Nazi” smears by the left, I have to reiterate the obvious: Apple should include a very diverse variety of people in their ads. Not just white people use Apple products. I want to see white couples, black couples, hispanic couples, some black men dating asian women, maybe an asian man dating two Dominican women, using strong iMessage encryption (better yet: Telegram) to keep them from finding out about each other. Whatever. But when about 60+% of Apple’s marketing is black males with white women, it makes you wonder if there isn’t some very deliberate psychological trickery going on. The only theory that I can think of is that really, black people mostly do use Android, and black men also find the concept of dating white women very amusing, so Apple positions those ads to tickle black men into spending their money in Cupertino. Hey, if it works, I’m really not that upset about it. It’s more the combination of that silly marketing strategy with the fact that California liberals really do hate white males, unless they’re gay like Tim Cook.

Screen Shot 2017-11-06 at 12.46.47 PM
Look black people! You can wear our fancy stuff too, not just Fit-bits!

Apple has also carefully banned Gab (a free-speech Twitter competitor) from their App Store on iOS, which means it must be great. Sign up for Gab and follow Mad Indies!


Enjoy the following screenshots, taken mostly from apple.com/mac and apple.com/iphone-8

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Wearing a Hijab in the United States Is Just as Ridiculous as Flying the Confederate Flag

The hijab has always been a way to control women.

Most proponents of the Confederate Flag will tell you that it symbolizes “state’s rights.” To some degree, they’re correct. The biggest reason (among many reasons) that the United States Civil War began was the secession of the southern states from the Union. There was a lot of northern propaganda floating around about how much good ol’ Honest Abe ‘Incoln hated slavery, but these claims are entirely false as Lincoln himself was a racist (a real one, not the new definition of racist: “disagrees with Black Lives Matter.”) It’s disputed whether or not he owned slaves himself, but it is certain that many services provided to him and his cabinet in the White House were done by slaves. There’s also this little gem of a quote:

“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races.” -Abraham Lincoln

If we dig a little farther into the “state’s rights” claim, we can infer that the Confederacy certainly did want to protect state’s rights… to own slaves. Now, if you’ve read the Mad Indies before, you know that I’m no fan of identity politics or liberal outrage. Back in the day when racism was a real issue, mostly only blacks and various other minorities were slaves. Because of this, the defense of American slavery is specifically racist. If the main purpose of the Confederacy was to protect the state’s rights to own slaves, then absent any serious mental gymnastics, the Confederacy and its flag are racist. This doesn’t mean that everyone sporting Confederate flag gear are vile racists; just that the flag itself largely represents a defense of slavery and racism.

How very progressive

Some of the more recent aggressors against women in the modern world are the Taliban and Islamic State. These vile hoards of indoctrinated mythology lovers have imposed a number of inequalities on women, including a mandate to wear a burqa in public at all times.

From a Wikipedia entry about the Taliban treatment of women:

“The stated aim of the Taliban, in respect to their contentious and non-contentious treatment of women, was to create a “secure environment where the chastity and dignity of women may once again be sacrosanct””

“Afghan women were forced to wear the burqa at all times in public, because, according to one Taliban spokesman, “the face of a woman is a source of corruption” for men not related to them.”

“In a systematic segregation sometimes referred to as gender apartheid, women were not allowed to work, they were not allowed to be educated after the age of eight, and until then were permitted only to study the Qur’an.”


Just as many Americans have made non-racist cases for flying the Confederate flag, many Muslims and feminists have made non-sexist cases for a woman wearing a hijab. The most reasonable argument is that hijabs can actually be quite fashionable.

A slight display of hair makes this headscarf about fashion rather than oppression.

Really, there’s probably a better case for the hijab than there is for the Confederate flag, as long as the hijab is being worn for secular reasons. The problem is that the conversation is usually surrounding women’s rights or Muslims’ rights or some other virtue-signaling nonsense. Firstly, to say that respecting the hijab is about “religious freedom” or feminism or some other claim is to argue a complete straw-man fallacyAll real libertarian Americans will support a person’s right to wear whatever they want. I passionately believe that Muslims should have the right to attend their mosques and wear whatever they want, in the exact same way that I believe Americans should have the right to fly the Confederate flag. In terms of freedom and liberty, whether I find those people to be ridiculous is besides the point- they have the right to wear what they want, fly whatever flag they want, and attend any religious organizations that they want without fear of prosecution. That’s America.

But- The men who invented the Confederacy in order to control slaves are no worse than the pedophiles and rapists who invented Islam to control women. To sport any representation of these vile beliefs is to support oppression and control over the powerless- whether intentionally or not. As for those who may believe I am being racist or insensitive by criticizing Islam and women who wear its adornments, feel free to read my article about how Islam is a religion, not a race, and should be criticized until it is dead.


Wear Whatever You Want This Halloween

Liberals getting offended by otherwise fairly uncreative costumes is part of the treat


From Wikipedia:

Cultural appropriation is the adoption of the elements of one culture by members of another culture. Cultural appropriation, often framed as cultural misappropriation, is sometimes portrayed as harmful and is claimed to be a violation of the collective intellectual property rights of the originating culture.

Isn’t it funny how the same people who hate capitalism and private ownership believe that sharing cultural ideas is offensive and unacceptable? 

For the past few halloweens, liberals and feminists have been complaining about the halloween costumes that people choose to wear for fun one day of the year. Whether it’s a secular girl sporting a head scarf, a boy wearing fake gold chains, or even a white guy with a banjo, it’s terribly offensive and you should have gone as a gender studies major, or something.

At some point, we all start to have trouble believing that the type of social justice present in 2017 is a natural progression from ending slavery or the civil rights era. Is stopping white girls from wearing burqas on Halloween really the next step in liberty and justice for all?

In reality, much of the Left suffers from the same dogmatic fallacies that the religious right does. Just as one may be blindly Christian or patriotic and support any and all actions taken by our military and police, many millennial Americans blindly obey and follow the arbitrary list of offensive things invented by expert media distractors like CNN or the Washington Post. This is to divert attention from a cohesive and united effort against the oligarchy and replace it with identity politics and division.

Never before has something as mundane as a Native American Halloween costume been considered offensive, even by Native Americans. Only recently were costumes mimicking the traditions of various cultures capriciously determined to be unacceptable. Seriously, there will be feminist protests against Halloween on college campuses around the nation this 31st. If it wasn’t so disastrous to have the only political side that cares about the environment making idiots of themselves, it would almost be hilarious.

I bet he’s not terribly offended by the situation.

Isn’t it funny how the same people who are out to destroy “privilege” want white Americans to know that only non-whites have the privilege to wear certain cultural costumes?

Kudos to the above posters for including a PSA not to dress up as a white hillbilly. Albeit in reality, mostly just white males will be reprimanded for wearing cultural costumes. Enemy No1 of the authoritarian Left are white men, seconded only by white women. If you had the audacity to be born with light skin, be careful this Halloween. The feminists are out to shame you and call your employers with photos of your Mexican fiesta mariachi poncho outfit as hard evidence of your undying support for Hitler and slavery.

Nazi dog

Those who call for the unnecessary harassment of trick-or-treaters are doing something far more offensive than what they claim to be fighting against. Just remember that “women should be able to wear whatever they want” without being shamed or called out- unless feminists deem it unacceptable.

Trick or treat, y’all.

Kneeling for the Anthem Doesn’t Make You a Traitor; It Just Makes You Look Stupid

Seriously, all you’re doing is pissing off patriots and making your side look immature

Look, minorities face certain problems more frequently than whites in the United States. This is statistically true, and assumably true. The concept that there are zero racist cops, zero racist business owners, or zero racist whatevers is completely false and a fabrication designed to advance some ideal worldview held by the non-racist right. The fact of the matter is that as an African American, Mexican American, or any American with non-white characteristics, one will find themselves at the receiving end of discomfort and discrimination from time to time. This reportedly ranges anywhere from pedestrians crossing the street to avoid walking by a minority all the way up to police shootings disproportionately involving non-whites.

We’ve recently seen the trend of kneeling during the national anthem popularized by NFL player Colin Kaepernick.

“I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color.”

Now, aside from the equally childish kicking and screaming coming from Trump and most conservatives, there are some very valid issues with Kaepernick’s statement.

  • “…a country that oppresses black people and people of color.”

I’m white and automatically ignorant to everything, but I really thought that referring to non-whites as “colored” was supposed to be offensive or something. Is this like how they can say the N word and we can’t? Anyways. There isn’t any ascertainable legislation that specifically targets black people. In fact, it’s quite the opposite. Due to universities and corporate America increasingly favoring artificially installed diversity over merit and ideological diversity, there’s never been a better time in the history of the United States to be non-white. In just about every professional facet of life, Affirmative Action gives an unfair boost to Americans who identify as minority status, while giving a more impactful unfair handicap to Americans who identify as white or Asian. Not to mention that the entire political left has joined hands in praising all minorities and their cultures while simultaneously criticizing white culture and naming anyone who disagrees with them as literal Nazis.

  • “I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag…”

What? You might dislike or even hate some things about your country. I have lists for miles of things that I dislike about the United States. I don’t like that we lack universal healthcare. I don’t like that most of our Presidents are self-enriching corporate sellouts. I don’t like that our EPA isn’t nearly powerful or determined enough to save the planet. What I do like is that we have a long-standing form of government that is based on Democracy and patriotism. I like that we inhabit some of the best land in the world, with natural waterways and oceans of defense against hostile countries. I like that we have a population that has repeatedly fought for the rights and wellbeing of civil rights. Most of all, I like that we the people have always found a way to come together, even in the face of tremendous ideological differences. Hell, I even like that we have ideological differences in the first place. The problem is that by showing disrespect for the anthem and our flag, you’re showing disrespect for the very concept of the country, not just the parts that you disagree with.

All of this looks terrible for the Left. While police reform and social equality are noble causes, so-called “social justice warriors” like Colin Kaepernick and the rest of the screeching feminists have found just about every destructive way to bring themselves attention. As usual, the perception of Kaepernick’s actions falls largely along party lines, with Liberals being awe-struck and Conservatives calling him an anti-American traitor. In reality, also as usual, the proper conclusion can be taken from somewhere in the middle. Kneeling for our anthem, burning our flag, and calling everyone who disagrees with you a racist actually doesn’t make you a traitor. It just makes you look very, very stupid. And you’re doing your side a major disservice.


Fight for Equal Rights without Being a Feminist

We can win, but we must embrace tolerance and equal rights with fierce persistence.

asserting, resulting from, or characterized by belief in the equality of all people, especially in political, economic, or social life.

There was a simpler time in society where phrases like “all lives matter” and “men’s rights” weren’t trigger phrases for short-haired gender-fluid feminist whales. I’m an ex-feminist, current egalitarian for several years now. Belonging fairly solidly to the progressive movement myself, I was quick to slap labels on myself if it meant advancing the things that are important to me, like (in no particular order) animal rights, women’s rights, men’s rights, racial equality, LGB rights, etc.

Now is not a simpler time. At the complete convenience of feminists, word definitions either matter or don’t matter. The definition of the word “feminism” (it modernly means “women’s rights”) is extremely important and overrules any and all man-hating done by feminists, but the definition of “all lives matter” (it modernly means “all lives matter”) is extremely unimportant and if you use it you’re a racist white nationalist sexist pig. Logic.

So if I’m not a feminist, and the definition of feminism is “women’s rights,” does that mean I’m not for women’s rights? Nope.

Here we have to explore a very important concept: Just because I oppose a movement doesn’t mean that I oppose all of what they’re fighting for. The most shocking part for feminists while I’m debating them is that I completely support a woman’s right to choose, taxpayer-funded birth control as part of a medicare-for-all system, and voted for Jill fucking Stein in the 2016 presidential election. I also want to see sterilization become free and widely available for young men and women who want a happy and financially stable future without children.

Just because I oppose a movement doesn’t mean that I oppose all of what they’re fighting for.

Any notion that women have a gender-specific role in society is outdated and disgusting. If a young woman wants to be a mother, okay. Have at it. If a young woman wants to become the next billionaire CEO of a tech company, she should have an equally-footed chance to do so alongside her coworkers, with equal pay for the climb.

Any notion that women have a gender-specific role in society is outdated and disgusting.

So if I’m strongly in favor of much of that which feminism claims to fight for, why not just label myself “feminist”? For one: I’ve got a better label, egalitarian, with a clearer definition. But secondly, I believe in several things which are in stark contrast to typical liberal/feminist/progressive ideology, with my intent being to advance equality rather than blanket tolerate every asinine claim of oppression.

100% of my values are aimed at making society a safer and more equal place for people of both sexes and all ethnicities. In order to be an effective egalitarian, you have to beat feminists at their own game. You must embrace equality, tolerance, sympathy, and love for all beings.

When you see a feminist chowing down on a piece of meat which was once part of an innocent beingthat person is not for equal rights.

When you see a feminist supporting programs that give certain ethnicities advantages over other ethnicities, that person is not for equal rights.

When you see a feminist encouraging women be fat and to increase their risks of cancer and heart disease, that person is not for equal rights.

What you absolutely cannot do is confuse feminists for women. Men can be feminists, and women can be anti-feminists. As I wrote about earlier this week, most women hate feminism. In a survey of 1,000 American adults, ~820 said they “believe that men and women should be social, political and economic equals,” but only ~210 identified as feminist.

We have the numbers on our side. What we lack is organization and tolerance.

Scientifically speaking, a fetus is absolutely not a human life and could not exist outside of a womb. The surgical process of aborting a pregnancy is not any less ethical than getting a haircut. To be an effect egalitarian, you should be pro-choice.

The days when women lacked the same Constitutional rights as men are thankfully over. Women have proven to be extremely effective in the workplace and in society, and are increasingly the breadwinners in households. To be an effect egalitarian, you should embrace the success of women in our economy.

The notion than any land on this Earth belongs to a certain skin color or group of people is medieval. Europeans were not the first on American soil, Native Americans were. All of us have to share this planet. We must not only treat our land with respect, we must treat each other with respect. To be an effective egalitarian, you must share the planet.

I created Mad Indies because I’m a mad independent. I’m not a liberal, a Republican, a conservative, or a Democrat. I look at each issue on an issue-by-issue basis, weight the facts, and come to a conclusion. I’m also happy to change my mind on something if I’m proven wrong. I want to be effective in leaving society better than I found it.

You should too.

Poll Shows Americans Reject Feminism; Believe in Gender Equality Instead

Remember when it used to be a good thing?

Disclaimer: All usage of the word “feminism” in this article refers to third-wave feminism.

If something is wrong, blame it on privileged white males. Well, the writer of this article just so happens to fall under about two-thirds of that demographic, that is, white and male. Privileged? Not so much. It’s a new saying invented by people with nothing better to do and no real problems in life. We like to call these people feminists.

The word “feminism” has taken a lot of turns in recent history. As noted by Dictionary.com, the word originally admitted to its true definition:

When the term feminism first entered English toward the mid-19th century, it meant “feminine qualities or character,” a sense no longer in use.


What we’ve seen now, however, is an inelegant attempt to rebrand the word to mean “equality.” You can’t teach an old dog new tricks, however, and we’ve seen countless examples of feminism promoting child mutilation and body negativity in young boys, flat out racism, and the abolition of free speech.

Thankfully, feminists remain a disliked 20% of the American population.

I’m not a math surgeon, but it looks like 66% (!) of respondents view feminism either neutrally or negatively, with only 26% of people viewing it positively. Amusingly, this is 6% more than the percentage of Americans who even identify as feminist (20%), meaning 6% of people secretly like feminism but won’t admit it because they know the sane majority of society will dislike them!

Let’s get real, though: feminists are not bad people… by default. They notice problems that women have that men do not, and conclude that women need some work done in a lot of areas. And they’re right. Every category of people has unique issues for those people. Women have certain problems that men do not, and men have certain problems that women do not. We face the issue that half of the equation is often ignored, leaving only women’s issues to be recognized. Call me crazy, but I think we should recognize all injustices.

If we ignored all the assholes belonging to the movements, we’d be left with healthy men’s and women’s rights movements, and everybody would belong to both instead of one. All too often, we get feminists who shit in their hands and throw it at the men’s rights guys, and then the meninists piss all over the women’s rights gals. Generally speaking, a battle of words is stronger than a battle of issues. We should start by getting rid of stupid words. “Feminism” is a stupid and misleading word. The definition states something that the word doesn’t imply.

  • Christian implies that you find Christianity to be the best religion.
  • Feminist implies that you find femininity to be the best culture.

I’m not a feminist, but I believe that abortion should be safe, legal, and free. I believe that birth control, tampons, and pads should be free (because men don’t have to pay for these things.) I believe that women and men should be paid equally for equal work. I believe that rape is bad, and that “sluts” and “whores” are just women with more sexual freedom than the grumpy old closeted gay men would prefer.

I’m not a meninist, but I believe that war drafts that send only men to their deaths across seas should be unconstitutional. I believe that insurance companies shouldn’t be allowed to charge men more for insurance. I believe that the porn and modeling industries shouldn’t be allowed to hire more women than men. I believe that men should not automatically be assumed guilty on rape charges, which are often fabricated.


Asserting, resulting from, or characterized by belief in the equality of all people, especially in political, economic, or social life.


If you’ve read my rejection of popular labels and found yourself angry that I won’t call myself what you think I should call myself, then you’re focusing on all the wrong issues. I like egalitarian, and I like the idea that we should care about everyone. You probably do too.

Or maybe you’re just an asshole.

Check out my newer article on how anti-feminists can beat sexism and racism.