u/ProphetGenX

Who would have guessed the transgender gay porn star was right all along?

Of course, it wasn’t just the rabid fans, but, most importantly, the feminists who propelled “#freebritney” in a vacuum of actual information about what her medical circumstances might have been.

The narrative was that she was being held captive by the patriarchy that had driven her mad with their exploitation of her. That she was being denied her agency.

And thus, she became the feminists’ Great Symbol, St. Britney, Martyr, crucified on the cross of sexism and capitalism to lay bare the patriarchy’s sins.

Britney was the victim. Sold by her father. Psychically gang raped by the music industry. Justin Timberlake’s baby ripped from her womb by Timberlake himself, on her family’s kitchen table. He was overserved in the Hamptons. We’ll rip his career from his womb. An eye for an eye.

It didn’t matter that she said she was proud of her artistic choices. The narrative depends on those choices having been forced on her by the patriarchy. She just thinks she’s proud. The feminists know better.

And thus, the feminists denied Britney her agency.

It didn’t matter that the freedom and self-expression the feminists demanded for Britney turned into a live feed of mental instability on social media.

It didn’t matter that Britney crumbled under a spotlight from which she had escaped in order to prove she had the agency the feminists wanted her to have.

The feminists had saved her from exploitation by the patriarchy.

Even if they had to destroy her to do it.

The feminists didn’t mind exploiting her at all.

Hail, St. Marilyn. Hail, St. Judy.

We deliver unto you:

St. Britney.

She died so you could all know better.

Recently, The Grey Lady trumpeted a headline: “I’m Unhappily Single: Do I Have to Attend My Friend’s Wedding?” In this Age of Entitlement, a question such as this could hardly be a surprise. What followed, however, was appalling.

“Of course not. You should call up your friend and tell her that your unhappiness is more important to you than her happiness, and so she should politely excuse you from participating in her happiness because her happiness makes you sad, and that’s what friends are for.”

I kept reading only because I was waiting for the sarcasm to kick in.

It did not.

This was the “ethicist’s” actual advice.

Unless the groom was the victim’s ex, or the victim herself was expressing regrets from her bed in the Intensive Care Unit, there was only one appropriate response to this. Therefore, I am offering my own headline:

“My Friend Called Me to Tell Me That She Can’t Come to My Wedding Because She’s Single and My Wedding Hurts Her Feelings. How Should I Respond?”

Here’s the answer:

You should wait until she has told you her whole sad story about not being involved with anyone, let alone engaged, let alone married, and when she’s done, simply say..

“And now you know why.”

Then hang up.

It’s not the WORST thing in the world for the President of the United States to want a better facility for entertaining international dignitaries than an 18th century banquet hall…

And it’s certainly not the WORST thing for the President of the United States to want to put up some kind of monument to celebrate 250 years of the country… I guess… I mean… are we gonna do this every fifty years? But still…

But I’m reminded of that story about the music executive who visited the home of Ike and Tina Turner, which had just been extensively and meticulously redecorated… to IKE’S specifications, including a wall-sized mural of lovers necking in the ocean for the kitchen. When others asked him to describe the house afterwards, the executive said…

“Who knew you could spend $20,000 at Woolworth’s?”

The Constitution trumps a statute.

The First Amendment of the Construction prevents the government from interfering with religious practice.

A statute that violates the Constitution is unconstitutional.

A religious law that violates constitutional rights is unconstitutional.

A law that prohibits religious practice is unconstitutional.

The question must be: is it unconstitutional for the Constitution to violate the Constitution?

It is.

I’ll bet you can’t wait to hear the rest of this.