The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

When @RooshV Is Right

Posted on | February 6, 2016 | 36 Comments

Currently 3,000 words into writing a very long article about the denouement of the drama about pickup artist (PUA) Daryush “Roosh V” Valizadeh, I need to take a break and give readers something to chew on in the meantime. As a father, a husband and a Christian, of course I must frown in disapproval at the entirety of PUA discourse. On the other hand, (a) I’m old enough to remember the “swinging singles” scene of the 1970s, and (b) I was a Democrat back then, so it’s not as if I don’t know how The Game is played. Or at least, how The Game used to be played. Exactly what it’s like for a young guy on the scene in the 21st century, I can’t say and, given the toxic aspects of contemporary “hookup culture,” my advice to any young man would be: If you can find a sane woman, marry her, and stay the heck away from the singles scene.

Whether viewed from either a practical or moral perspective, the prevailing insanity of young women’s attitudes and behavior in 2016 is a strong argument against pursuing the kind of hedonistic pleasures that pickup artists seek. It seems that the more a young woman goes through the “pump-and-dump” experience of a carousel rider — a hookup here, a “friends with benefits” arrangement there, cohabiting for a few months at a time with various boyfriends, etc. — the crazier she becomes. A girl who might have been potential wife material at 16 starts bouncing around from boyfriend to boyfriend and, by the time she’s 21 or 22, she has sustained so much emotional damage she is probably doomed to become a Crazy Cat Lady, gobbling antidepressant pills and updating her Tumblr blog between appointments with her therapist.

No father would want his daughter to become a carousel rider, nor would any mother want her son to date that kind of low-self-esteem trash, and yet PUAs are chasing after these “pump-and-dump” girls? Why? Oh, wait a minute — I’m having a flashback to the summer of 1978. However, I was a Democrat then and, also, I have the right to remain silent and to have my attorney present during questioning, Sheriff. But I digress . . .

Obviously, I do know why young guys go to nightclubs in search of easy action, but with the benefit of hindsight, I recognize this as a game for losers. If a guy is really a winner, he’s got a girlfriend, and if your girlfriend is a winner, well, why not get married, settle down and make babies with her? With two parents who are winners, your kids are almost guaranteed to be winners, and the world needs more winners, right?

There are way too many losers in the world already, which explains why these losers are all reading pickup artist stuff on the Internet, trying to figure out how to win. This is not to say, however, that what Roosh V says is always wrong. In fact, a lot of what he says about male/female dynamics is very insightful, despite his bad motives and the deliberately insulting language he uses toward women. And here is one of those cases where he makes an excellent suggestion:

A man at a bar will roll his eyes at feminist talking points, but he will nonetheless persist in his pursuit of the notch. This must end. . . .
Not only must you pass on a feminist, but you must let her know why you are passing on her. It must be clear to her that a man she was considering for sex has rejected her solely for her beliefs. Examples:

Girl: “It’s too bad that men still make more than women.”
You: “Wait, are you a feminist?”
Girl: “Well yeah.”
You: “Too bad, I don’t date feminists. Have a good night.”

Girl: “Birth control should be a human right, like mobile internet access.”
You: “So you’re a feminist?”
Girl: “I think if you believe in true equality, you’re a feminist, too.”
You: “LoL. I don’t talk to feminists.” Backturn

An argument or debate is not on the table. Do not give her the chance to explain her beliefs or demand to know yours. Once she admits to being a feminist, someone who believes in female superiority at the cost of male well-being, she no longer exists in your world.

This is exactly right, or almost so. Roosh V is correct that no man should ever let himself be drawn into an argument or debate with a feminist in a casual conversation. Seriously, guys: Once she identifies herself as a feminist, or exhibits the kind of hostile attitude that is typical of feminists, this is your cue to walk away, even if (a) she looks good, and (b) she’s otherwise giving you green-light signals. What you must realize is this: Feminists consider men their inferiors, and if a feminist signals sexual interest toward you, the question is, why?

Feminism attracts selfish, cruel and dishonest women by offering them a political rationale for their sadistic revenge fantasies. The only reason a feminist is ever interested in any man is because she craves the opportunity to humiliate him, thus to prove her own superiority to him. Jessica Valenti married Andrew Golis in 2009 and has been publicly humiliating him ever since, a shame that Golis (five years younger than his Vindictive Man-Hating Boss Lady wife) is required to endure in his assigned role as The Good Liberal Man, the Ice Queen’s sperm-donor/roommate/babysitter in their loveless sham of a marriage.

Only a masochist with zero self-respect could be interested in a relationship with such a heartless monster as Jessica Valenti, and this is what any pickup artist must consider if he encounters a woman who calls herself a “feminist.” Clearly, Roosh is correct that snubbing her — and making sure she knows why you’re snubbing her — is the smart play.

Do not argue or debate with her. Feminism is always a lecture, never a debate. Feminists have no respect for men. No feminist ever wants to hear anything a man has to say, so what’s the point of saying anything to a feminist except “good-bye”?

Heed my wisdom, young man: Nine times out of 10, the only reason a woman like that ever flirts with a man is to prove to herself that she could get him if she wanted him. Feminism is the political rationalization of neurotic women’s psychological deficits, you see. The feminist has self-esteem issues which she reverses into a grandiose narcissistic projection of herself as a Heroic Crusader for Social Justice. If you find yourself in a situation where such a woman is giving you green-light signals, therefore, this question is always why? And the answer is that she wants you to  make a move (thus validating her sense of herself as sexually desirable), so that she can have the sadistic pleasure of rejecting you, thereby demonstrating her superiority to you.

This is certainly not The Game a smart player would ever play, and so Roosh is right: Walk away. Of course, an unscrupulous cynic could probably think of alternative ways to play that scenario, but this would require (a) a genuinely wicked imagination and (b) master-level skills. Since I hung up the spurs when I married my wife in 1989, there are probably very few young riders in the carousel rodeo with the necessary combination of skills and attitude to execute the old Triple-Burn Play, and I’d be a fool to give away that kind of strategy, even if it eweren’t for my Christian moral objections to sinful fornication. Besides, if I waive my Miranda rights, anything I say can and will be used against me, and therefore I’ll invoke my right to remain silent, Sheriff.

The Game is a bad game, boys. “For the wages of sin is death,” and you can believe what you want to believe, but there is such a thing as justice in this world, and what goes around comes around sooner or later. Sinners usually learn that lesson the hard way, and a wise man would never play The Game rather than to risk becoming an Andrew Golis.

God must really hate that poor fool for some reason.

ADDENDUM: Let me add, while it’s on my mind, a further thought about PUAs. The median age at first marriage in 1959 (the year I was born) was about 20 for women, and 23 for men. It is now about 26 for women and 28 for men. What this trend represents is the decline of marriage, and if you haven’t studied this demographic trend as a historical phenomenon, you should. However, what the would-be pickup artist needs to think about when considering this trend is his exit strategy from The Game. By the time a guy is in his mid-20s, about half the women his age are already married. We may suppose that the woman who marries in her early 20s is more tradition-minded and also probably more attractive than the woman is still single at age 27 or 28. Remember what I said about carousel riders and emotional damage? How many times can a girl get burned in bad relationships before she’s psychologically broken beyond repair?

OK, so you are a college-age nerd who can’t succeed with the ladies, and you turn to the PUA community seeking to improve your chances. The key thing I wish to emphasize here is, don’t let The Game become your Afghanistan war. A young player — the guy who’s 21 or 22 and scoring regularly — may be tempted to believe he can keep playing The Game forever. If you pay attention, though, you’ll notice guys who stay in The Game too long, and it’s a sad sight to see a dude in his 30s hanging around bars trying to hit on girls 10 years younger than him. See, guys, there is ultimately no future in The Game, and the only way to win The Game is to quit The Game. And your chances of getting out of carousel rodeo, to exit The Game as a winner, are best if you find someone to marry before you get to the point that you’re picking through the culls and rejects that other guys didn’t consider keepers.

 

Category: Sex Trouble

Feminism: A Problem, Not a Solution

Posted on | February 5, 2016 | 57 Comments

The Ivy League Is Decadent and Depraved, as I reminded readers a few weeks ago, and you’ll pardon me for quoting myself, but the evidence of elite depravity keeps slapping me in the face. Adriana Miele is a senior at Yale University:

Brunch is the ideal time to do it. Dinner is usually too crowded, and lunch and breakfast are so rushed that I don’t have the time. On any given weekend, I arrive at a dining hall past noon, usually with leggings and a warm, knit sweater. I swipe my card.
Then I count the amount of rapists in the room.
Girls at Columbia and Brown got in trouble for releasing lists with names of known rapists on their campuses. My friends and I have still considered doing the same, but we’re too exhausted to deal with the inevitable backlash.
I can’t speak about other campuses because I know only this one, but Yale has an epidemic. Each day, students fear for their safety as they walk across campus. Whether stepping into the library or taking a seat in a classroom, they’re reminded of some of the most traumatizing moments of their lives.
I think it’s true that you can survive Yale despite an experience of violence, sexual or otherwise. You can do it. I have endured Yale. But you shouldn’t be enduring Yale: you should be attending and enjoying Yale. Women and queer people aren’t thriving at Yale the way we should be. According to the Association of American Universities’ 2015 Campus Climate Survey on Sexual Assault, most of us here at Yale have been physically violated and intimidated. Among straight women, it’s over half; among gender-queer students, it’s over 60 percent. . . .
When over half of your undergraduate female population is being assaulted, you have an epidemic. . . .
Since I started counting, I can’t remember a single weekend without noticing at least one rapist (that I know of) in the room. . . .

Either (a) Yale is the Rape Capital of the World, or (b) Adriana Miele is in the grip of a paranoid delusion. Considering annual tuition at Yale is $47,600, and most of the boys she imagines are “rapists” are mild-mannered brainiac nerds, I rather doubt most women on campus in New Haven “fear for their safety.” Does anyone believe these geeky Yale boys, many of them National Merit Scholar finalists, are committing sexual assault on a regular basis? Is dating a Yale boy like partying with the Hell’s Angels during Bike Week in Daytona? What kind of lunatic would claim such a thing? A quick bit of research turned up an autobiographical essay Adriana Miele published last fall:

I didn’t like Massachusetts because my parents got divorced in Massachusetts, and in Virginia, everything was sunny and perfect and the winters weren’t even that bad. . . . I hated everything about the fact that my parents were no longer together, and I felt like something had died. . . .
One of the few places in New England that didn’t feel heartless and evil was the town of Newton, the place where my brothers, mother, and I all attended school: a private Montessori elementary school for the kids, and Lassell College for our mom, who decided to pursue her bachelor’s degree once my dad left. . . .
My mom . . . met my bearded, New Englander father in D.C. Following the affair with his client’s paralegal, my parents separated, and I became extremely depressed. . . . Out of concern, mom got me a therapist in Newton. . . .
My therapist’s office had a big, comfy green chair and bookshelf full of games and books with titles that mentioned “childhood trauma” and “anxiety,” but we didn’t use those words. Dr. S taught me card games and tried to get me to talk about my father and stepmother.

Well, you can read the whole thing, but the short version is, her father is a selfish creep and her parents’ divorce when she was 8 years old inflicted a psychological wound in Adriana Miele from which she has never recovered, and therefore she hates and fears men. This probably explains why she got into Yale, really. Elite schools require applicants to submit essays along with their applications. Because of grade inflation and programs that teach kids specifically how to take standardized tests, lots of kids finish high school with near-perfect GPAs and high SAT scores. The admissions essay is a way for students to signify their “progressive” politics by telling stories about themselves, signalling their solidarity with radical faculty on the admissions committee.

This is why there are dozens of Adriana Miele clones on all the Ivy League campuses, see? If it weren’t for their feminist “Look at Me I’m an Oppressed Victim” narratives, they’d be attending one of those overpriced second-tier liberal arts schools that exist merely to provide a pseudo-Ivy experience for rich kids who got rejected by Harvard, Yale, Princeton and Columbia. Adriana Miele leveraged her victimhood (and half-Peruvian ancestry, to check the “diversity” box) into an acceptance at Yale, so that now her Daddy can pay the tuition bill while she proclaims to the world how all the men at Yale are rapists.

How could anyone even stand to be in the same room with a whiny overprivileged brat like Adriana Miele? The belief that Ivy League kids are “the best and brightest” in America was never really true, and the prestige of that bogus “meritocracy” continues to decline. There is no standardized test for virtue, so maybe the boys at Yale are as bad as the girls at Yale, and rape is everywhere on campus.

Simple question, Adriana: Isn’t your stepmother a feminist, too? Hasn’t all this “liberation” and “empowerment” of the past 40 or 50 years produced a lot of messed-up kids like you? And what about those rapists at Yale, huh? Here’s $20 that says every one of those Yale boys you’re accusing of being sexual predators is the son of a woman who considers herself to be a feminist. Two generations after “Second Wave” feminism emerged from the New Left in the 1960s, it is nearly impossible for young fools to understand the difference between (a) the traditional values that feminism condemns as “patriarchy,” and (b) the selfish attitudes that feminists celebrate as “liberation.” If feminism is to a great extent the cause of your problems, what kind of fool would insist that more feminism is the solution to your problems?

Answer: The kind of fool who attends Yale University.

* * * A SPECIAL REQUEST * * *

The Sex Trouble project, exploring the depths of feminist insanity, is an exercise in reader-sponsored journalism, and I have fallen far behind in my thank-you notes to those of you who have generously contributed. Your generosity would be especially appreciated today, because I’ve got until 6 p.m. ET to hustle up an extra $82 in the tip jar. This involves a brief if rather embarrassing story that might amuse readers.

A few weeks ago, things were going splendidly. My Army son came home for a visit, and we all gathered ’round the TV to cheer Alabama to victory in the BCS National Championship game. Meanwhile, I had received a belated payment for some work I’d done two years ago, which enabled us to catch up some overdue bills and I even took my wife out for lunch at a Mexican restaurant, $24. The PayPal account was doing OK, and I paid the phone bill from that and noticed a surplus sufficient that I could afford to order $58 in feminist books as further research for the second edition of Sex Trouble. What could possibly go wrong?

 

Well, the Great Blizzard of 2016 didn’t create any particular expense, but it did distract me quite a bit, and somehow I overlooked the cable bill, which is also the Internet bill, and the thievish scoundrels nice people at Our Friendly Local Cable Provider told me on the phone the other day that I have until 6 p.m. ET today to come up with an unusually large sum (overdue amount, fees, blah blah blah) or else, no Internet.

And obviously, no Internet = no blogging.

OK, check my PayPal account and then check the balance remaining in our regular account and . . . Yeah, I’m $82 short. And $82, of course, is equal to the sum of $24 (lunch at the Mexican restaurant) and the $58 I spent on books. It’s as if God had been watching every penny and decided, “Yeah, let’s remind him who’s running the show.”

“Fear not!” I told my dear wife. “The tip-jar hitters have never failed me yet. Just maybe say an extra prayer, OK?”

Pushing it to the edge of catastrophe is a bad habit, but there were times I hit the road on The Shoe Leather Fund with no other plan for how I’d get back home. Really, I’m too old to be doing things the gonzo way and should be more prudent about such matters, but for the time being there’s a deficit of $82 and whatever you can chip in — $5, $10, $20 — will be deeply appreciated. Contrary to what feminists claim, patriarchy is usually just another word for “paying the bills.”

HIT THE FREAKING TIP JAR!

Never doubt God answers prayers. Thanks in advance.




 

Category: Education, Feminism, Sex Trouble, Shoe Leather Fund

Friday Fiction: 100 Word Challenge

Posted on | February 5, 2016 | 4 Comments

by Smitty

They were awesome. Cute, healthy (thank God!) and absolutely a blast. Ellen had waited so long for children.
He arranged them on the hospital bed for a photo op. The cards and flowers continued to pour in. No way to work all that in. Mom & Dad would be arriving any moment, radiating pride that their “grandparent score” was upped another notch.
He barely heard the door to the room open.
The gynecologist entered, along with another physician he didn’t remember. The room temperature seemed to drop 10 degrees; the bulbs were somehow dimmer; their faces: stone.
“Ellen. . . ?” he ventured.
“We’re sorry.”

via Darleen

Category: Friday Fiction

‘Neo-Masculinist’ Fail? @RooshV Cancels Meetups After Feminist Threats

Posted on | February 4, 2016 | 30 Comments

Wednesday I reported how pickup artist (PUA) Daryush “Roosh V” Valizadeh provoked feminist hysteria by announcing that fans of his “neo-masculinist” site Return of Kings would hold meetups around the world on Saturday, Feb. 6. The feminist reaction, which deliberately and dishonestly smeared Roosh as an advocate of rape, was so vehement that he decided to cancel the events:

I can no longer guarantee the safety or privacy of the men who want to attend on February 6, especially since most of the meetups can not be made private in time. While I can’t stop men who want to continue meeting in private groups, there will be no official Return Of Kings meetups. The listing page has been scrubbed of all locations. I apologize to all the supporters who are let down by my decision.

What was perhaps most remarkable about this was the way in which “mainstream” (i.e., liberal) journalists parrotted feminist propaganda that depicted these meetups as “rape rallies”:

The announcement came after outraged activists around the world planned to protest the event, which Valizadeh claimed included 165 meetings in 43 countries. Politicians on at least three continents said the meetings were unwelcome. The mayor of Melbourne, Australia, even said anyone attending one of Valizadeh’s “Return of Kings” meetups could be charged with trespassing on city property. . . .
“A few groups of guys that I know will be showing up to those [meeting] places with baseball bats,” a California woman opposed to the neo-masculinists wrote on Facebook, a post that Valizadeh then shared with his nearly 20,000 Twitter followers.
And in Toronto, an all-girls boxing club said it would crash a local neo-masculinist meeting — gloves on and ready to rumble.
“Let’s go,” club owner Savoy Howe challenged Valizadeh, according to the Huffington Post. “Get in the ring with me.”

Regardless of your opinion of Roosh or his fans, the so-called “game” of PUAs is about successfully competing against other men for female companionship. The basic idea is, if a woman goes to a bar or a party looking for a hookup, “game” will increase the odds that you will be the lucky winner of that sexual lottery. To condemn PUAs as “misogynists” implies either that (a) casual sex is wrong, or (b) the only reason these men succeed in hooking up with women is because they hate women. As Maetenloch at AOSHQ put it:

So men who seduce women are bad, bad, bad and also rapists. But women who seduce men are merely affirming their natural feminine sexual freedom and fighting back against the patriarchal mores of our culture. Got it.

Feminist rage against PUAs would appear to be an attempt at creating a reversal of the old male chauvinist double-standard wherein (at least according to feminist mythology) the womanizing Lothario was celebrated for his conquests while promiscuous women were denigrated as sluts. In point of fact, civilized Christian people have never condoned fornication or adultery by either men or women; marital loyalty and fidelity were reciprocal obligations binding on both husband and wife. Contrary to what any feminist might claim, there was never a time when the promiscuity of the “lady’s man” was socially condoned by responsible adults. It was only the influence of post-WWII liberalism (we may cite Alfred Kinsey, Wilhelm Reich, Hugh Hefner and Helen Gurley Brown as particular examples of a general trend) that turned the serial seducer into an object of admiration during the Sexual Revolution of the 1960s. To blame “patriarchy” for what was actually a consequence of decadence promoted by the cultural Left is one of the many lies at the core of feminism’s false philosophy. But I digress . . .

Advocates of so-called “pro-sex” feminism celebrate the behavior of promiscuous women as inherently good and “empowering,” while pretending that the male partners of these women are engaged in abusive exploitation. Certainly I would disapprove of my daughters hooking up with random strangers, and I imagine my readers would disapprove of their daughters doing so. My readers, I dare hope, cherish traditional ideals of love and marriage, or if not, at least respect those of us who do cherish such ideals. However, feminists are (a) against love, (b) against marriage, and (c) enthusiastically in favor of random hookups.

“Marriage means rape and lifelong slavery. . . . We reject marriage both in theory and in practice. . . . Love has to be destroyed. It’s an illusion . . . It may be that sex is a neurotic manifestation of oppression. It’s like a mass psychosis.”
— Ti-Grace Atkinson, 1969

“I’ve gone home drunk with someone on the first date — scratch that, the first meeting — and f–ked sweaty until 2 a.m.
“I ‘lost’ my ‘virginity’ at age fifteen and haven’t had the decency to regret it. . . .
“I’ve gone down and dirty with strangers on a crowded dance floor. I’ve played quarters with the wrestling team. Once, I had sex with my girlfriend in a barely hidden doorway. . . .
“And I hereby declare my right to be wild and still maintain my bodily autonomy.”
— Jaclyn Friedman, “In Defense of Going Wild,” in Yes Means Yes: Visions of Female Sexual Power and a World Without Rape, edited by Jaclyn Friedman and Jessica Valenti (2008)

Many more feminist sources could be cited to similar effect, but these two — one from a famous early leader of the Women’s Liberation movement and the other by a prominent spokeswoman for 21st-century “Third Wave” feminism — suffice to illustrate the point. Feminists are pro-promiscuity and anti-monogamy, and yet feminists denounce pickup artists for preaching the same degenerate philosophy to men! Indeed, feminists condemn PUAs like Roosh as hate criminals:

The leader of a self-described neo-masculinist movement has cancelled a series of meetings planned for cities worldwide on Saturday because he “can no longer guarantee the safety or privacy of the men who want to attend”.
Daryush Valizadeh, who goes by the name Roosh V, posted a brief statement on Thursday apologising to his “supporters” whom he said were “let down by my decision”, but said he “could not stop men meeting in private groups”.
Meetings were planned in 43 countries, including Britain, where planned gatherings in Cardiff, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Leeds, London, Manchester, Newcastle and Shrewsbury raised concern among police chiefs and MPs.
Nearly 80,000 people signed an online petition calling for Roosh V’s group, dubbed Return of Kings, to be banned from the UK after they advocated women being banned from voting, described a woman’s value as dependent on her “fertility and beauty”, and that women with eating disorders make the best girlfriends.
Before the events were cancelled, shadow Home Office minister Sarah Champion MP demanded that Theresa May take action against the group using hate crime laws.
“Rape of women has increased by 41% in the last year. I’m appalled that the government are sitting idly by whilst a group who believe women are pieces of meat without any rights are allowed to spread their poisonous ideology in the UK,” she said.
“As far as I’m concerned Return of Kings are encouraging violence against women and girls. This should be viewed as a hate crime and the government and police should use our existing laws to deal with it swiftly to show we won’t accept anyone promoting abuse.”

Does anyone believe the claim by Sarah Champion that British women experienced a 41% increase in rape in the past year? Unless she is referring to crimes committed by the recent influx of Muslim “refugees,” this statistic would seem impossible. When or where did any category of violent crime ever increase 41% in a single year? Not even murders in Baltimore, Chicago or Detroit ever saw such a sudden and dramatic increase. I suspect that Sarah Champion is doing something that feminists always do — lying. If it weren’t for lies, feminists would have nothing to say, because they are incapable of speaking the truth.




 

Category: Sex Trouble

In The Mailbox, 02.04.16

Posted on | February 4, 2016 | 2 Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho


OVER THE TRANSOM
EBL: The Mudshark Incident
The Political Hat: White Privilege Conference And Friends
Michelle Malkin: Exposed – Open-Borders GOP Lobbyists Attack Sessions, Cruz
Twitchy: “The Horror!” Not Everybody Shares Cosmo’s Concerns About #PPact Funding In Texas


RIPPED FROM THE HEADLINES
American Power: An All-Caps Explosion Of Stupid Gender Identity Politics
American Thinker: Cleveland Cliffhanger? Prospects Of A Deadlocked GOP Convention
Conservatives4Palin: Americans Tired Of Elites Calling Them Stupid And Vicious
Don Surber: Fake Cry Of Rape May Draw Five Years In Prison
Jammie Wearing Fools: Paranoid Grandmother Still Spooked By Vast Nonexistent Conspiracy
Joe For America: Tina Turner Has Not Left The Building
Pamela Geller: Mosque Obama Visited Has Been Under FBI Surveillance Since 2010
Protein Wisdom: Obama Proposes $10/Barrel “Fee” On Oil For Green Cronies
Shot In The Dark: The Scary Thing About Iowa
STUMP: Chicago Doings – The Storm Before The Storm
The Gateway Pundit: Iowa Governor Branstad Still Whining About Cruz’ “Unethical, Unfair” Caucus Tactics
The Jawa Report: Radio ISIS Suffers Technical Difficulties
The Lonely Conservative: Better Red Than Ted?
This Ain’t Hell: First Female Engineer Soldier AWOL
Weasel Zippers: Des Moines Register Calls For Caucus Audit: “Something Smells In The Democratic Party”
Megan McArdle: President Trump’s Revolution? Fear Not.
Mark Steyn: The Peace Of Submission


Shop Amazon – Create Personalized Gifts for Your Special Valentine

Category: Linkagery

In The Mailbox, 02.03.16

Posted on | February 4, 2016 | 3 Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho


OVER THE TRANSOM
EBL: Angela Merkel, What Have You Done?
Da Tech Guy: The Unexpectedly Chronicles – So Much For The GOP Hating Hispanics & Blacks
The Political Hat: Queering Outer Space
Michelle Malkin: Chicken Little Chuckie Schumer – America’s Disease-Fighting Phony
Twitchy: DeRay McKesson Of #blacklivesmatter Files To Run For Mayor Of Baltimore


RIPPED FROM THE HEADLINES
American Power: Swagger, Curses, And Confidence – Trump Returns To Form In New Hampshire
American Thinker: How John Adams Predicted Bernie Sanders And His Acolytes
BLACKFIVE: Book Review – Casualties By Elizabeth Marro
Conservatives4Palin: Sarah Palin – Witnessing Dirty Politics Firsthand
Don Surber: Anybody Going To Apologize To The Tea Party?
Jammie Wearing Fools: Deranged Trump – Ted Cruz Stole Iowa Or Something
Joe For America: Good Guys With Guns Win Again!
JustOneMinute: Breaking Bold!
Pamela Geller: Watch Obama’s Radical Speech At Jihad-Tied ISB Mosque In Baltimore
Protein Wisdom: NYT Tells Cruz And Rubio Sorry Boys, You’re Not Hispanic Enough
Shot In The Dark: Utterly Unimpeachable
STUMP: Words Have Meanings – Neither Kale Nor 80% Funded Public Pensions Are Healthy
The Gateway Pundit: Karl Rove Breaks Down How Cruz “Cheating” Stole Iowa From Trump
The Jawa Report: Cornhole Watch – Justin Nojan Sullivan aka TheMujahid
The Lonely Conservative: Cruz Apologizes To Carson Over Caucus Mixup
This Ain’t Hell: Louisiana Vet Secretary Under Investigation For Misuse Of Funds
Weasel Zippers: Rep. Steve King – No Dirty Tricks Against Carson; Posts Based Off Media Reports Including CNN
Megan McArdle: Six Takeaways From An Exciting Night In Iowa
Mark Steyn: Second-Degree Bern


Shop Amazon – Top Valentine’s Day Gifts

Category: Linkagery

Don’t The #TrumperTantrum Gags Just Write Themselves?

Posted on | February 3, 2016 | 31 Comments

by Smitty

Category: Donald Trump, humor, Politics

How @RooshV Trolled the World

Posted on | February 3, 2016 | 82 Comments

 

Daryush “Roosh V” Valizadeh is a pickup artist (PUA) who has somehow managed to get himself identified as such a menace to women that he’s listed by the Southern Poverty Law Center. (“Is banging hotties a hate crime now?”) In general, I consider PUA culture to be folly, a logical consequence of liberalism’s amoral “consenting adults” ethos of sexual hedonism. For decades, liberals have insisted that all voluntary sexual activity is good; the more sex, the better. There is no such thing as morality, according to liberals, and therefore no one can be permitted to express disapproval of, inter alia, Bill Clinton sodomizing White House interns. Liberals will denounce you as a judgmental crypto-fascist if you dare to criticize the shameful behavior of sexual degenerates like Anthony Weiner, and it is this licentious attitude which has given rise to PUA culture. If the whole point of life is to get as much sex as you can (and this would seem to be the Clintonian doctrine, against which no opposition is permissible) then anyone who isn’t getting laid as regularly as Robert Plant on Led Zeppelin’s 1971 world tour is just a pathetic loser.

In the Post-Moral Age of Liberalism, it makes sense that the losers want to become winners, and the winners want to brag about their success, and this is where PUA culture comes from. Yet even if we stipulate, arguendo, that hedonistic decadence is acceptable, PUA culture violates two basic principles of wise behavior:

  1. Do not join a lemming herd in its stampede to oblivion. When civilizations become decadent, most social trends are bad trends. Beware of fads. Do not become a habitual conformist, a follower of fashionable attitudes. Develop a habit of independence, and accept the fact that to be an honest man in an Age of Lies will not make you popular with the deluded fools who believe whatever they are taught in public school, and whose behaviors are a result of emulating whatever they watch on TV.
  2. Never discuss strategy in public. You see this error all the time in politics, where some consultant or “strategist” (e.g., Karl Rove) selfishly seeks to enhance his reputation by bragging about his own cleverness. In any competitive enterprise, the “secrets of success” must remain secret, or else your competitors will figure out how to beat you at your own game. To publicize your methodology is to invite others to imitate it, and what happens when everybody is playing the same game with the same tactics?

So, even if you have no moral objection to promiscuous fornication — indeed, especially if you are a would-be womanizer — the popularization of PUA methodology is a bad trend. What has made the PUA community so controversial, however, is neither its tactical errors nor its flagrant immorality. Liberals like the SPLC’s Mark Potok despise all morality and endorse every form of perversion. No, what liberals condemn about PUA culture is its “misogyny,” a feminist thought-crime for which no liberal would ever condemn such idols of liberalism as Ted Kennedy. (Mary Jo Kopechne could not be reached for comment.)

  • Question 1: If feminists say pick-up artists hate women — for this is what “misogyny” means — isn’t it fair to assume that Bill Clinton is also a woman-hater?
  • Question 2: If men who repeatedly succeed in seduction are condemned by feminists, does this condemnation not also apply, by an obverse principle, to promiscuous women whose behavior justifies the boasts of PUAs?

Well, anyone who expects logic, honesty or intellectual consistency from feminists is a hopeless fool and, as if it were their goal to confirm once and for all what fools they are, feminists have freaked out over Roosh’s latest project. At his “manosphere” site Return of Kings, Roosh proposed an international meet-up day this coming Saturday, Feb. 6.

This would seem like nothing controversial — fans of a popular Web site, with many thousands of regular readers, getting together IRL (“in real life”) to socialize. Yet because (a) feminists hate Roosh, (b) feminists are shameless liars, and (c) major media organizations are staffed almost entirely by “progressive” allies of feminism, these meet-ups were labeled “rape rallies,” and a bizarre hysteria took hold. The Toronto Sun‘s coverage is a typical smear:

Roosh V. plans ‘rape should be legal’ meetup in Toronto
Roosh V. is back but Mayor John Tory says he’s not welcome in Toronto.
The notorious American pick-up artist — who ruffled feathers during a tour stop in Toronto last summer to promote “neomasculinity” — announced on his blog that Hogtown will be among the 10 Canadian cities hosting local “rape should be legal” meetups on Feb. 6.
Toronto’s “tribal meeting” for only heterosexual men will take place at 8 p.m. at Queen’s Park near the Edward VII statue.
“The media in Canada, Iceland, and the United Kingdom have also put out defamatory reports about the meetup that falsely claim it’s a ‘rape’ gathering where we will strategize on how to rape women,” said Roosh V, whose real name is Daryush Valizadeh, on his website. “Not a single meetup will be cancelled. We will not be intimidated by the actions of the lying media and leftist political establishment.”
According to Valizadeh’s website, there are 165 meetings in 43 countries slated for Feb. 6. Hosts will wait until 8:20 p.m. sharp at the meeting point before “moving on to the final location.”
It isn’t clear if Valizadeh will attend Toronto’s meeting. The 36-year-old could not be reached for comment on Tuesday.
Tory’s office said Valizadeh’s views don’t “reflect the values of Toronto and his statements about women are demeaning and unacceptable.”
“While free speech is the law in this country, promoting violence against women is wrong,” the mayor’s spokesman, Keerthana Kamalavasan, said, adding the mayor’s views have not changed since Valizadeh’s last visit to Toronto in August.
“Roosh V and his hate speech have no place in our city and should have no platform here either.”

This “hate speech”/”violence against women” rhetoric is nothing but propaganda, and the Toronto Sun‘s coverage is strangely reminiscent of the kind of transparent hype Hunter S. Thompson used to publish when he was starting out as a young sports writer:

At one point, in Florida, I was writing variations on the same demented themes for three competing papers at the same time, under three different names. I was a sports columnist for one paper in the morning, sports editor for another in the afternoon, and at night I worked for a pro wrestling promoter, writing incredibly twisted “press releases” that I would plant, the next day, in both papers.
It was a wonderful gig, in retrospect, and at times I wish I could go back to it — just punch a big hatpin through my frontal lobes and maybe regain that happy lost innocence that enabled me to write, without the slightest twinge of conscience, things like: “The entire Fort Walton Beach police force is gripped in a state of fear this week; all leaves have been canceled and Chief Bloor is said to be drilling his men for an Emergency Alert situation on Friday and Saturday nights — because those are the nights when ‘Kazika, The Mad Jap,’ a 440-pound sadist from the vile slums of Hiroshima, is scheduled to make his first — and no doubt his last — appearance in Fish-head Auditorium. Local wrestling impressario Lionel Olay is known to have spoken privately with Chief Bloor, urging him to have ‘every available officer’ on duty at ringside this weekend, because of the Mad Jap’s legendary temper and his invariably savage reaction to racial insults. Last week, in Detroit, Kazika ran amok and tore the spleens out of three ringside spectators, one of whom allegedly called him a ‘yellow devil.'”
“Kazika,” as I recall, was a big, half-bright Cuban who once played third-string tackle for Florida State University in Tallahassee, about 100 miles away — but on the fish-head circuit he had no trouble passing for a dangerous Jap strangler, and I soon learned that pro wrestling fans don’t give a fuck anyway.

Dimwits with an appetite for phony controversy, whether they are Florida wrestling fans or Canadian feminists, are always being suckered by this kind of ginned-up hype. Really, what was Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail ’72 trying to explain? Thompson’s reference to his early career in sports journalism, which is the purest form of media hype known to man, was meant to suggest that no intelligent person should be deceived by political journalism, where the pretense of Objectivity was even less plausible than a press release about Kazika the Mad Jap. Thompson perceived in modern media the aspect that Richard Weaver called “The Great Stereopticon.” The media factory produces Conventional Wisdom, a shoddy simulacrum of reality, accepted as an ersatz substitute for truth by people too lazy to think for themselves.

Honestly, feminists and PUAs deserve each other. The accusation that Roosh is an advocate for legalizing rape is the kind of bogus nonsense that only a feminist could possibly believe.




 

Category: Feminism, Media Bias, Sex Trouble
« go back — keep looking »