GIRL HIT BY DAMIGO AT BERKELEY BATTLE INTO SELF-PORN


The most famous moment in the Battle of Berkeley was the incident where Alt-Right stalwart and "White Sharia" practitioner Nathan Damigo punched an antifam girl who was herself engaged in violence. 

Now it turns out that this violent enemy of free speech is very much in favour of free expression, but only if it involves posting pictures and videos online of her hairy snatch and rusty bullet hole, in other words she is heavily into "self porn," typifying the kind of suicidal degeneracy that the Alt-Right opposes.

But since the demonstration at Berkeley was all about free expression, we would be remiss if we did not help her to get her "message" out, especially as it is a perfect example of what Leftist mind rot can do to a person. Accordingly, you can see her in all her "glory" at the following two sites:



The first site is mainly "artsty" stuff, pictures of her getting her kit off in the woods and going back to nature, etc., or striking dancey poses or covering herself in paint. The message seems to be "I'm a jazz dancing, back-to-nature Jackson Pollack."



The second site is more hardcore, and shows signs of the increasing moral degeneracy and depravity that associating too closely with Leftism brings. 

Under the obviously fake name Venus Rosales (LARPing as a Latina?) and giving her age as nineteen, she presents more obviously porno-style shots, where she spreads her cheeks like a piece of soulless fuck meat, as well as some vids. This site is all about "the bush," specializing in "hairy snatch" porn.

As all this info came out almost instantly, this is probably only the tip of the iceberg, but a clear if slightly hirsute picture emerges of a young girl being morally corrupted and losing all sense of feminine decency. This is literally feminism in action -- pure degradation under the guise of "You go, girl!" Give it a few more months and who knows what sort of degrading fuck-bucket she will have become... 

Although, who knows? That one punch to the head from Nathan Damigo might just be the shock therapy she needs to jolt her out of the degrading downward spiral that Leftist brainwashing has set her on.
White Sharia in action.
Update: She now has her own page at Everipedia, with some more information on her. 


 
Share on Google Plus

16 Replies so far - Add your comment

  1. I don't think you understand this young woman. She is beautiful, unlike the trailer park trash you have spent your life chasing down. Turns you on seeing a woman you will never be with punched in the face.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No it saddens me that such a beautiful girl could be warped into such an ugly hippie sank by professors really shows what college does to people.

      Delete
  2. Oh look the old gay adage. If you don't like us it is because you're jealous...
    Uh yeah I hate pedophiles too and brain mewt and female genital mutilation but that does not mean I secretly like it...
    Twerps.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, that's a pretty shitty argument all things considered.

      The argument in the post is also pretty shitty in that it doesn't actually make any actual argument. It states that it's immoral and evil and wrong and gross, but doesn't give any actual basis for these claims, they're merely assertions with the assumption that "this bothers me personally, therefore it must be wrong and degenerate."

      In the same line of argument, I fucking hate potatoes, but it doesn't make potatoes or people who eat potatoes degenerates.

      Here's the thing - morality is flexible. It's malleable. It doesn't have a solid position. This's because morality is not the same thing as ethics. Ethics have a logical basis for their consistent application. Morals, however, are cultural in nature. That doesn't make morals inherently bad, or dismissive, and in fact you require a cultural moral landscape for people within that culture to get along by agreeing upon certain values.

      Delete
    2. (4096 character limit, ugh.)



      The issue though, is that morals are not ethics. It's unethical to inflict harm upon someone else for your personal pleasure if they don't desire such to be inflicted upon them. This is immutable, is has no real argument that can be made against it. It can be seen reinforced in many different forms of logic, from the most simple like the golden rule of treat others as you would desire to be treated (with a caveat that it doesn't apply if you're a masochist =P ), to more complex breakdowns such as digging into the idea of the universality of principles.

      The moral argument is different from the ethical argument. The moral argument can be made for killing someone being a good thing - self defense, for instance, or while at war and under orders to kill someone else. Every single moral has an opposing one somewhere in history. Cannibalism is wrong in most cultures, some however, consider it to be a mark of respect for one's enemies, showcasing that a worthy enemy had great strength, and to devour the part of their body that said strength is believed to be contained within (such as the heart for courage or bravery or whatever), then it's respectful to eat your enemy to show you valued them as a person.

      The problem with morals is that they have no real solid ground to stand upon. It's all based off the values of those who make the morals. If we look at the dichotomy of the "pro choice" versus the "pro life" side of things, both have valid arguments, yet due to the nature of such, someone's rights absolutely must be violated. So which rights do you value more? Freedom or life? One side may argue a life of slavery isn't worth living, the other might claim that so long as you're alive, you have the opportunity to become free. So what's more important to you? A woman's right to choose? Or the life of the child? No matter what you do, someone's rights are going to be infringed upon, so our moral stance of what is "moral" in this situation will be derived from what we value more - freedom or life.

      Delete


    3. The point behind all this, is that morals don't have the solid, logical foundation that ethics do. The assertions made in this article all stem solely from a point of morality. Your morality, however, is meaningless outside of your personal group. Everyone with the same values can maintain the same morality and work together just fine - it's what forms cohesive bonds in a community beyond the 150-200 max limit of family ties.

      The thing is, once you start getting beyond a certain size again, you start developing multiple cultures within the same space with different values. Enough people are present in one spot to develop a new culture, and therefore new moral systems. Therein we have the conflict taking place - the alt-right with highly conservative values are battling against the regressive left with their highly authoritarian values, and then there are, of course, those who have other values, such as the libertarians with values centered around personal freedom.

      The issue here, is that your moral judgement means fuck all to anyone outside of your collective community. What you consider moral, is considered depraved by someone else, and what they consider moral is considered depraved by you in turn. Your morality has no solid foundation to stand upon as it's not ethical in nature. Any logic you feed into it is how you get from your values being logically represented as a moral judgment; you've already started with values which make sense from your perspective, but they aren't rooted firmly in logic from the start. They began as a means to an end, and then you built up a wall of bullshit excuses to justify them.

      Delete


    4. The problem with morals is that they have no real solid ground to stand upon. It's all based off the values of those who make the morals. If we look at the dichotomy of the "pro choice" versus the "pro life" side of things, both have valid arguments, yet due to the nature of such, someone's rights absolutely must be violated. So which rights do you value more? Freedom or life? One side may argue a life of slavery isn't worth living, the other might claim that so long as you're alive, you have the opportunity to become free. So what's more important to you? A woman's right to choose? Or the life of the child? No matter what you do, someone's rights are going to be infringed upon, so our moral stance of what is "moral" in this situation will be derived from what we value more - freedom or life.

      The point behind all this, is that morals don't have the solid, logical foundation that ethics do. The assertions made in this article all stem solely from a point of morality. Your morality, however, is meaningless outside of your personal group. Everyone with the same values can maintain the same morality and work together just fine - it's what forms cohesive bonds in a community beyond the 150-200 max limit of family ties.

      The thing is, once you start getting beyond a certain size again, you start developing multiple cultures within the same space with different values. Enough people are present in one spot to develop a new culture, and therefore new moral systems. Therein we have the conflict taking place - the alt-right with highly conservative values are battling against the regressive left with their highly authoritarian values, and then there are, of course, those who have other values, such as the libertarians with values centered around personal freedom.

      The issue here, is that your moral judgement means fuck all to anyone outside of your collective community. What you consider moral, is considered depraved by someone else, and what they consider moral is considered depraved by you in turn. Your morality has no solid foundation to stand upon as it's not ethical in nature. Any logic you feed into it is how you get from your values being logically represented as a moral judgment; you've already started with values which make sense from your perspective, but they aren't rooted firmly in logic from the start. They began as a means to an end, and then you built up a wall of bullshit excuses to justify them.

      Delete


    5. She likes to do porn shots of herself. Alright, from her moral perspective we can probably assume that she values her body, her expression of herself and that she feels it's wrong to suppress one's value of their own body. In kind, we can look at the arguments above and probably accurately assume that the basic belief is not even rooted in that nudity itself is wrong, but that sexuality for means outside of procreation, and sharing one's sexuality with multiple partners instead of a single lifemate is wrong. There's a lot more nuance to be had, and we could discuss the specific details both both sides for ages, but the point is that both sides, again, have valid arguments, but that they can't coexist within the mindset of a single person without some severe problems due to the values dissonance.

      Or, to put it more bluntly, both sides have merit in this case, and you're stuck looking at things only from your limited, tiny perspective, and are treating your beliefs as the absolute truth, when the assertions made aren't based in logical truth. So you're both right, and you're both wrong, because these are only moral judgments, and much as I'm loathe to give post-modern discourse even the slightest nod of approval, lest it's collective ego grow so fucking huge we'd need resort to weapons of mass destruction to make a dent in it again, the fact of the matter is that it's not entirely wrong - when it comes to morality, morals are pretty much all of equal value to those who hold their morals, because it's based off of subjective values.

      Ethics, however, which are derived from principles of logic, are not the same thing. The ethical concerns that can be raised about this issue do have some real merit to them, and it's not subjective but quite objective in nature. Things like "fucking everyone in sight is a good way to spread STDs" is an ethical concern and one which persists regardless of your personal values on the matter, or whatever morals you may be deriving from those personal values.

      There are, in fact, ethical issues with what she's doing. I'm not going to make your arguments for you on this one though. You're going to have to figure it out on your own or you're never going to learn fuck all beyond "I feel it's wrong so therefore it's wrong!"

      The sad part is, I actually agree with the article to a reasonable extent, but it's missing the point and making weak ass arguments from a position of personal morality. As such, it's pretty much garbage and there's no stronger case made than from the regressive left's side. The assertions of depravity and such flow both ways, and unless you can back up your shit, you're going to look like idiots. Primarily because you're acting like idiots.

      So yeah. Anyway, this's less directed at you personal anon, and more at the article's author. To that end, focus upon a logical starting point from a basis of objective truth, rather than using logic to follow a subjective starting point which is inherently flawed. Even if your logic holds true, the flawed input still leads to an incorrect output. It's like saying "I have one apple in either hand, how many apples do I have?" and you write down 3+4=7. Yes, yes it does, but that's not the correct answer because you answered the wrong fucking question because you didn't verify the validity of your base assertions. The logic was correct, but the output is wrong because the input was wrong.

      So yeah, there is an actual ethical argument to be made here. It wasn't even touched on. Ditch your moral grandstanding for a moment and try to figure out what the actual answer is.

      kthnxbai.

      Delete
    6. This is a news site so calm ur fuckin tits. Everybody knows what the author is talking about we don't need a dissertation explanation for a news clip.

      Delete
  3. So, the alt-right advocates Sharia and punching women in the face now? We Muslims now?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Disgusting degenerate into porn thinks she can beat up decent Americans and then cries when they fight back.

    ReplyDelete
  5. THIS BITCH CLAIMED SHE WOULD BRING HOME 100 NAZI SCALPS. FUCK HER. LEFTISTS HAVE BEEN DOXXING RIGHT WINGERS FOR YEARS. HOW DO THEY LIKE US NOW? IN REGARD TO "DON'T HIT A WOMAN"? THAT'S DON'T HIT A LADY. LADIES DON'T GO TO FREE SPEECH RALLIES TO CAUSE VIOLENCE. THE TIDE IS TURNING AGAINST THE COMMIE RETARDS. HAIL VICTORY!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It claims It's gender is "queer", not female. So, why is ""It, or anyone claiming that Nathan Damigo "punched a "woman"?

      Delete
  6. Commies aren't people, ovens for them all.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Soviet GRU took your advice, and took it to the next level: They filmed the execution of Oleg Penkovski and subsequently used the film as an initiation document.

      Delete
  7. Somebody needs to tell this chick that it's not 1986 anymore and that the "Hairy Snatch" went out of style a long time ago and like Jesus it ain't coming back. I also want to point out those nasty hairy underarms! I'm sure this girl is familiar with the concept of soap & water now unless this little tart is feral & was raised by a pack of Wolves �� someone introduce this nasty skank to a razor.... One might wear their Bush proudly but no woman of any common sense or adequate etiquette & cleanliness grows underarm hair permanently. This young lady is a product of Post-Modern American for which I must say we are the worse off for it because she might possibly breed & pass on her incorrigible values & lack of common sense and dignity to another generation of females.

    ReplyDelete