January 21, 2010 by CH
So a Republican won Dead Ted’s royal Democrat Senate seat in Massachusetts. More blessed magical karmic justice there could not be.
(Sung to the tune of ‘Singing in the Rain’)
I’m piiiiiissing on Ted’s grave
just piiiiissing on Ted’s grave
What a glorious feelin’
I’m defiling his name
Let the DNC chase
everyone from the grave
Come on with the pee
I’m urinating freely
aaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhh…………….
Error: Please make sure the Twitter account is public.
 | Dr.Benway on “Conspiracy Theory… |
| Dr.Benway on “Conspiracy Theory… |
 | Sentient on Mocking The Globohomo Cor… |
| Sentient on Mocking The Globohomo Cor… |
| Dr.Benway on “Conspiracy Theory… |
| Sentient on The Confound Of Silence |
 | oink on Mocking The Globohomo Cor… |
 | Hackett To Bits on Mocking The Globohomo Cor… |
| Sentient on Mocking The Globohomo Cor… |
 | Mr. Random Commentue… on Mocking The Globohomo Cor… |
Even as a Democrat, I was happy to see this result. Of course I will not admit that in front of my family and friends.
LikeLike
Epic!
LikeLike
Survival of the Richest!
LikeLike
The world is a better place with Ted Kennedy dead. He was a despicable, loathsome human being.
LikeLike
quite à propos…..it’s been raining like a mofo here in southern cali the last few days.
LikeLike
amen!!!
LikeLike
Cassandro, I concur in spades~ and it not like me to wish ill of the dead.
LikeLike
It’s worth quoting Auster here:
Who would have imagined that of all the ways Kennedy’s bill—on the verge of passage after 40 years—might be stopped, it was Kennedy’s own death that did it? If the death of Kennedy right in the middle of the health care debate leading to the wholly unexpected election of a Republican to Kennedy’s seat leading to the defeat of Kennedy’s bill when it seemed to be within days of passage doesn’t at least suggest to skeptical human minds the workings of Providence, then nothing can.
The assassination of President John F. Kennedy led to the passage of several major liberal bills of his that had been stalled in Congress at the time of his death, most notably the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Immigration Reform Act of 1965.
By contrast, the death of Sen. Edward Kennedy led, not to the passage of the nationalization of health care bill that Kennedy had fought for all his life, but to its shattering DEFEAT.
LikeLike
Grow up.
LikeLike
I’ll use the victory as an excuse to smoke a Monetcristo.
But, I’ll temper it by recalling the jubilation when Bushie won over Algore.
Still, fuck that giant head, immigration-loving Dead Kennedy.
Roast
In
Peace
LikeLike
Yeah, Scott Brown… what a turn for the better.
LikeLike
Teddy’s dead . . .
That’s what I said . . .
LikeLike
The deal the Democrat’s made to cut the unions out of paying the Cadillac tax was absolutely disgusting. Say goodnight to the Democratic party in November.
LikeLike
Glad the Dems were stupid enought o pick a woman to run. Women in olitics are dumb assess who rely only on the feminist-civil-rights-steal-from-the-white-man affirmative action model. I wonder if this arrogant bitch did the usual vist to black churches and the grossly condescending “We gotta CLIMB DAT MOUNTAIN…ETC” type speeches…
LikeLike
…all he did was misuse them…
rip them off and
abuse them…
I luv you man
ps
sorry about
the neck
LikeLike
I was very pleased with the result. Funny thing is there were so many dems that took that loss so personally they were acting like someone shot their dog or worse, cancelled their subscription to the NY Times. The melodrama was nauseating.
Go Brown. Get some.
LikeLike
The Mass. voters have a couple years experience with “RomneyCare” – which served as something of a model for much of ObamaCare.
That experience was enough to get them to elect a Republican, in a state with a 13% registered Republican voter population.
I am happy that this idiotic travesty got its ‘partial birth abortion’ throuhg the loss of TeddyK’s seat to the GOP. It is so shadenfruedenous.
LikeLike
@Firepower
Montecristo? Really? I bet it’s not Cuban but from DR. If you had taste you would smoke a Cuban Cohiba.
Stick to dating matters R.
LikeLike
I hope you aren’t suffering from premature celebration. This is the same area that brought us goofy Republicans as Olympia Snowe and that goon from Rhode Island.
LikeLike
If you want to find out
what I taste like –
ask nice
LikeLike
Guys – Get on Twitter and talk more about how this election was about a radical feminist assuming she owned the votes of blue collar union Democrat males.
Only she didn’t. The Empress had no clothes. Dem males did not like the feminist bitch. They remembered the Amirault Case.
Right now, most pundits are not using the word feminist to describe what voters did not like about her.
We need more people on Twitter to reach critical mass so the theme gets accepted more.
On Twitter the trick is to follow 1000 people that someone like @usvoice or @rightcommentary follows. Those two are traitors but attract the kind of person who agrees with us.
Just get on Twitter. It is mini-blogging. Roissy – please follow everyone @mensnewsdaily or @veteransabroad follows and use each tweet to lead into each of your articles. Others will RT each of those tweets.
LikeLike
Anonymous – Yes, it is true that Brown is pro-choice and could theoretically betray men’s rights to ingratiate himself with feminists for reelection like Arnold sort of did.
But:
1) Fathersandfamilies.org says he has openly supported shared parenting, a major MRA cause.
2) He will remember that all the rabid feminists voted against him and he still won. He knows MRAs backed him.
LikeLike
It doesn’t matter – the system is at breaking point and there will be no rally.
LikeLike
can we get a post on politics and game already
LikeLike
Fag.
LikeLike
yeah, sick poor people should just go bankrupt and die.
LikeLike
As a registered Massachusetts voter who cast one for Scott Brown…it was my pleasure.
LikeLike
Your pick of song is particularly apt…remember the bit from a Clockwork Orange?
LikeLike
I don’t have much hope for this country reviving itself, until we get a completely reformed political system. Just denying the vote to women would likely be the best solution to our problem. Imagine, no more telegenic men. Just smart guys who solve problems.
Anyway, Brown’s election is satisfying because it is a kick in the face of Democrats. I know hardly any liberal Democrats who aren’t ignorant, vindictive, opinionated, and arrogant.
I look forward to 7 more years of Obama in the White House. Every time he appears on TV or on a magazine cover, those bozos who voted for him will get to see their mistake and cringe a little. Seven years of punishment is too easy on them, but, he can only serve two terms.
BTW, Obama is starting to look an awful lot like FDR. He was a huge disaster, but luckily, Obama can’t get more than two terms.
Soon, if not already, the only people who “believe” in Obama will be the same people who think O.J. didn’t butcher his wife, or, if he did, like, who really cares.
Democrats, on a good day, rise to the level of contemptible.
LikeLike
“john
Glad the Dems were stupid enought o pick a woman to run. Women in olitics are dumb assess who rely only on the feminist-civil-rights-steal-from-the-white-man affirmative action model. I wonder if this arrogant bitch did the usual vist to black churches and the grossly condescending “We gotta CLIMB DAT MOUNTAIN…ETC” type speeches…”
I don’t know, but she did fall for the mooninite bomb hoax
http://www.wired.com/table_of_malcontents/2007/02/mooninite_bombs/
LikeLike
Pissing anonymously, of course.
LikeLike
I just don’t get it. If Roissy is a nihilist, then how – or why does he have such strong feelings about Ted Kennedey? If he is hated so much there must be some political, or dare I say, metaphysical reasons why Roissy pisses and shits on the old bastard’s grave.
Just saying.
LikeLike
Can you imagine an Alpha mocking a dead man with song? No, you can’t. Just another reminder of Roissy’s true nature: an insecure, child like brat.
LikeLike
Ted Kennedy finally makes a difference!
LikeLike
Settle down children.
LikeLike
Whoa, whoa, Roissy is a Republican. *MIND BLOWN*
In other news, it’s so cold outside a guy from New Jersey broke his hand on Snooki’s tit.
LikeLike
With the Republican party being taken over by pious imbeciles and generally resentful provincial scumbags, I can’t figure Roissy’s conservatism in the modern environment. I can see a sort of conservative pessimism (or realism) based on determinism and such, but from my experience (as a southerner) Republicans are uniformly God-bothered boobs who are the worst of dogmatic moralists. Do you honestly prefer guys like Sam Brownbeck, James Inhofe, or Tom Coburn to Obama and Kennedy? I could get a sort of Nietzschean conservatism as a reation to liberal do-googery, but I can’t get how the Republican party represents anything of that sort as it has thoroughly taken on the politics of populist and class resentnment.
LikeLike
Brian,
You’ve just thrown a softball really slow with no curve…but it is Roissy’s fault for not having already shown all his readers why being Republican is the only answer for an American PUA/MRA.
Yes, Socons can be dangerously stupid in that they deny the very concept that men need to get laid + their minds can be easily taken over by Marxist feminists, our true enemy. The way they laid down their manhood before Queen Victoria (who thankfully died 108 years ago today) was disgusting. The way Republicans dressed like women to protest Grover Cleveland having sex with a young woman was pathetic.
The main example of GOP treachery toward men is the way Marxist feminists have convinced a lot of church going assholes to be against males as “sex offenders” and “sex traffickers/human traffickers”.
Yes, Sam Brownback is the absolute worst of these and it is scary that he is best friends with the new Chief Justice and Alito (he chose them). It is probable that, in order to get Alito confirmed, Brownback made a deal with radical feminist Senator Maria Cantwell to push the 2005 VAWA/IMBRA law on the rest of his colleagues so she wouldn’t vote to have a filibuster on his appointment.
But therein lies the point: Brownback was a GOP traitor who sold men’s rights to the Democrats so he could get a “conservative” sent to the bench. It was still the Democrats, 100% dominated by Marxist feminists and filled with the most completely Beta politicians, that was and is the main enemy.
Alito and the Chief Justice have since ruled against part of VAWA and ruled against Sotomajor’s denial of rights to white firefighters. I would expect them to completely overturn VAWA and IMBRA when someone finally challenges those laws in their entirety.
Now Coakley in Massachusetts was known, especially via the Amirault Case, to be a man-hating feminist of the worst degree. Against Brown her TV ads said he wanted violence against women and would have rape victims turned away at hospitals. She was disgusting in her man-hating feminist campaign…yet the media and bloggers on both sides have covered this up.
The Democrat men of Massachusetts sure noticed her bad attitude toward them.
Now I know Glenn Sacks thinks he is a Democrat and it is good for MRAs to work Democrat politicians with a conscience. I know the female Senator from Missouri (Claire) is a little bit sympathetic to men’s rights.
But the GOP is the only way out of the tunnel of Marxist feminist lawmaking and Scott Brown seemed to get it (Brown openly agreed with FathersandFamilies.org on shared parenting for instance while Coakley opposed them).
Libertarians are sadly filled with Marxist feminists who pretend to love the Constitution but completely forget that when it comes to not wanting to insult women by even mentioning the word feminism much less men’s rights.
On Twitter, my pro-male accounts are being followed 90% by those who say they are conservative or libertarian. Liberal males barely follow the accounts. PUAs who are not MRAs are insane young fools. IMBRA is an example of a law that was made to control which women you are allowed to approach and tell you that you have no fundamental right to approach them.
To change politics, you guys have got to get on Twitter and help me battle the Republicans and Libertarians who do not want to discuss feminism. The Democrats are impossible to deal with. They are 100% behind the anti-male feminists by definition.
A Democrat male voter who doesn’t understand the male Democrat leadership is totally on the side of Marxist anti-male feminists is just confused and doesn’t know what is going on at all.
LikeLike
Nobody on Twitter will debate feminism. In general the strategy of feminists and their sycophants is to avoid debate altogether. They need to be forced into debate.
I repeat that 90% of the people who follow my anti-feminist accounts on Twitter are Constitutionalists who mostly say they are conservative.
A ton of these followers also say they are social conservative Christians…which is interesting considering the vulnerability of church-goers to wanting to close strip clubs and arrest men for being with whores and wanting to use federal funds unconstitutionally to “educate” young women not to have premarital sex.
I respect the type of people who listen to the men’s rights message so I see more freedom for men in the long run dealing with the Christians than with the feminists who won’t follow on Twitter or debate or discuss anything.
LikeLike
The NOW is totally Democrat and it is from their legal arm, Legal Momentum, where all the worst laws are made and being planned to arrest men for wanting to meet women and possibly get laid or get off. IMBRA is just the first of the laws they want.
If you want to be Democrat, you must demand that they officially condemn the NOW.
LikeLike
Remember, Sam Brownback only made a deal with these she-devils. The womyn of the Democrat NOW and their representatives, Cantwell and Clinton, were the ones he made a deal with.
LikeLike
Also remember that Socons are now only 20% of the US population and less than 40% of the GOP and much less of the vote GOP pols need if you count the vital independents. Ron Paul is a devout Christian but he and his kind “get it” when it comes to not interfering with men’s sexual choices.
Constitutionalists – the new GOP majority – will support strip joints and the right of men to meet women (overturning IMBRA) and the right of a man to go to a room with a woman without the govt saying he had agreed to have sexual intercourse or being able to prove that he did have intercourse.
It is the Democrats, led by anti-male feminists, who have been taking on the role of ending men’s sexual rights…Spitzers feminist wife forced him to sign the law she wrote making it a crime to be with a prostitute.
LikeLike
To be honest, I voted for Brown for two reasons:
1) To break the 60-40 Senate filibusterer-proof majority the Democrats had, thereby killing the Health Care bill.
2) Because Ayla Brown is incredibly fuckable.
The Republicans lost in ’08 because they deserved to lose–not because the Democrats deserved to win; if the Republicans can’t learn that lesson, they don’t deserve to win in 2010.
LikeLike
go fuck yourself
LikeLike
To the tune of Henry the VIII…
I’m the American Voter, I am
The American Voter, I am, I am
Oswald shot a Kennedy from the seventh floor
They’ve been shot at many times before
And if ev’ry one shot a Kennedy (Kennedy!)
We wouldn’t have a worry or a sound (No sound!)
‘Cuz there’s one good kind of Kennedy
And that’s a Kennedy we’re certain is dead!
Second verse, same as the first!
I’m the American Voter, I am
The American Voter, I am, I am
Oswald shot a Kennedy from the seventh floor
They’ve been shot at many times before
And if ev’ry one shot a Kennedy (Kennedy!)
We wouldn’t have a worry or a sound (No sound!)
‘Cuz there’s one good kind of Kennedy
And that’s a Kennedy we’re certain is dead!
LikeLike
I’m surprised no one has pushed the biomechanics angle on this. Coakley, the childless, smarmy feminist crone being defeated by an Alpha male who worked as beefcake when young, who married a woman who was attractive enough to be featured in a rock video, and fathered two hot daughters. [He even made jokes about their availability in his victory address!] It’s like Roissy vs. an army of overthehill haters.
LikeLike
I may be wrong, but I don’t think Roissy is an opponent of feminism if we take it narrowly to mean equal rights (or the discrimination of judging individuals based on group data) but rather that academic/ intellectual feminism denies broad group differences between men and women that have cultural ramifications and underestimates the way in which tinkering with one element of gender relations upsets then entire edifice those relations support. I am a political liberal and I adore Roissy’s reductionism (and it certainly priques a certain variety of liberal piety, but liberal political views in many areqas don’t rely on those pieties). What you guys have in mind as being “liberal” is just a narrow absurdist subset of liberalism, rather than just a broad sense that government has some role to play in affairs that effect the public good, but leave it up to the individual situation to decide when that is. I don’t see why my opinions on Roissy’s insights (which are mostly positive) have anything to do with my desire for single payer healthcare (which is liberal) and my distaste fo gun control (which I guess is conservative) my perssimistic genetic determinism (which I am not sure if that is liberal or conservative anymore). I don’t like ideologies that tell me what I have to believe before I know what issue we are talking about.
You guys seem to be largely victim-mongers, which make me think you aren’t terribly alpha – I would imagine the general orientation of alpha is that you don’t spend much time nursing resentments. I don’t see much difference in the feminist/racial resentments of the minorities traditionally associated with the left and the resentments we now see being nursed by right-wing political correctness.
As for “marxist feminists”, I don’t know what that is – if you are a marxist, you see gender issues as completely secondary to class issues. That just sounds like a trope of the right where they just lump various anti-American or hated things, despite the friction between them, into one category, hence Obama becomes a Muslim socialist, as if there is such a natural union.
Isn’t Roissy’s point that feminist’s disregard for gender differences (a disregard that isn’t necessary to believe in basic civic equality or opportunity, not outcome) and wrecking the traditional rights and responsibilities of the genders has greatly benefited PUA like himself at the expense of various constituencies who benefited under the old regime?
LikeLike
Brian,
You just said a lot of nothing except for the scary admission that health care is more important to you than your right to say hello to a woman (IMBRA law was written and pushed by Democrats). The fact is that the NOW (National Organization for Womyn) is the enemy of all MRAs (Men’s Rights Advocates) and this organization, with its legal arm called Legal Momentum, is officially aligned with and totally controls the Democratic Party. The GOP under Bush started to acquiesce to this left-wing (no arguing it isn’t Marxist) organization out of abject fear from idiots like Bush himself (the guy drank away most of his brain cells) who think all women accept even the most radical feminist views. Most Republican citizens over 40 will remember the GOP vocally opposing the NOW by name (and forms of feminism like victim feminism or gender feminism by name) until around the Monica Lewinsky scandal when guys like Rove foolishly tried to pull PUMAs (Hillary supporters who were furious that Gore and others weren’t upset enough about Bill cheating on Hill) away from the Democratic Party.
Nothing of what I just said is debatable. If you voted for Clinton in 1996 because he wanted to ban cigarette smoking in public places (like I did) than you (and I) had your priorities wrong. We men should have priorities our gender rights back then.
NOW is Marxist because it believes US males are exploiting women, especially foreign women for their evil desires. No debate there either.
The ACLU is totally behind the NOW. The ACLU has stood up for individual rights in many cases (including the rights of former Nazi camp guards and terrorists) but will never stand up specifically for men’s rights when men are up against the NOW itself (Duke Lacross case for example). That is when the ACLU becomes hypocritical.
As an aside, the ACLU just came out saying that a female chain smoker who was kept in the hospital because she was about to give birth to a suffering fetus (the fetus died anyway) deserves to sue the hospital for having tried to save the 9th month fetus. That shows they still back the NOW at all costs (this is today’s news).
So you have to decide whether the Democratic Party’s total marriage to and dominance by the NOW is something more or less important than your desire to have single payer health care (so important to you personally?).
At least you can admit that the health care issue makes you want to bow out of the political fight MRAs are trying to organize.
Now you gave a clue to why you don’t seem to care about the feminists dominating the DP and it is the ugly scourge of PUAs many of whom do not care about MRA issues.
PUAs seem to think it is a challenge to land a feminist in bed. Even Roissy seems to want to date feminists until he is “too old” and, only then will he go the “foreign bride” route. Why? Why not date a 19 yr old foreigner now??
PUAs sometimes refuse to follow MRA Twitter accounts like @Veteransabroad @MensNewsDaily @Antifeminism and @mensnews and @objectifychicks:
Mainly that you think US males have *BENEFITTED* from feminism.
Now yes, from about 1965 to 1977 the sexual revolution benefited men and still does. The NOW is correct for its position that federal funding for abstinence education is unconstitutional (they don’t say “anti-male” however). NOW is being hypocritical there because federal funding for VAWA is also unconstitutional.
But the NOW feminists abandoned their real support for the sexual revolution when they grew to middle age and saw men their own age dumping them for younger models.
They started becoming mostly anti-sex, especially in terms of older men dating younger women. They made it illegal for managers to date subordinates and professors to date students – unheard of blasphemy in Europe and non-feminist countries. Worse, they promoted the paranoia of the rape culture – where women should fear giving out personal information to men they just met. PUAs SHOULD HATE THEM AND THE DEM PARTY FOR THIS FACTOR ALONE! They made the word “Stalking” a word that doesn’t exist in other languages until they become feminized like the Germans and adopt the English word Stalking to use in their own languages.
The Democrats wrote and passed IMBRA which forces US men to be background checked before being allowed to date much younger foreign women. Brownback got the GOP to vote for this when he made a deal with Cantwell so she would not oppose cloture of the Alito vote…but the fact remains that Brownback stabbed men in the back to appease the DEMOCRATS on a heinous law they wanted.
Yes, they must seem to men under 25 like *ALLIES* because they prefer to tell young women not to date the older “patriarchy”…giving you a very temporary advantage over men like me if you and I are competing for a 20 year old who was brainwashed by feminism.
Young poor US males cannot dream of affording a trip to date a gorgeous Russian woman whose character would tower over the shallow, HPV-infected feminists young PUAs are trying to manipulate in bars.
Did you know what the official NOW statement on the Letterman joke was? They said they believed Palin was wrong about him referring to the 14 year old and that he was referring to the 18 year old…but that the “imagery of a 34 year old Alex Rodriguez with an 18 year old female is violent characterization of male patriarchal fantasies”.
That way of thinking is part of the Democrat platform.
Do you agree with that? Maybe until you are old enough to desire an 18 year old but have her reject you because she listened to them (no amount of game can save a man after a woman has second thoughts about his age related to feminist ideological conditioning).
Democrat males are like frogs being slowly boiled. You haven’t learned to jump yet because you, understandably, are still fretting about the anti-sex social conservatives.
And Sarah Palin does not help because she seems to be both an anti-sex Bible thumper + a supporter of the NOW!!
If it is Palin vs Clinton…men are screwed!
But Palin is not the GOP. Please get on Twitter and help keep her from getting the GOP nomination. Blast her while following hundreds of conservative Twitterers per day and getting followed back by 75%.
You can also get on Twitter and blast your fellow Democrats into rejecting the NOW or not letting them control the party, for instance by insisting that Martha Coakley run against Scott Brown (she lost because of the anti-male Amirault Case that repulsed blue collar union Democrat males and caused them to vote for Brown).
As you can see, it is complicated. Both US parties are against males and you can argue that conservatives were worse until the 1980s.
Libertarians tend to forget the Constitution to appease women as well (falsely equating women to feminists).
It is also debatable whether the GOP will step up for us or whether Democrats will diffuse laws like VAWA and IMBRA on their own to keep the male vote from revolting…and then the Democrats would be smart to go on a full-scale frontal attack against social cons for their opposition to premarital sex and other things men want to do.
Glenn Sacks is the leader of MRAs and he is a Democrat.
But he knows he is trying to fight an epic battle for control of a Democrat Party that men lost control of in the 80s (men lost control of the Republican Party when Bush was nominated in 2000).
LikeLike
Bottom line on why not to support the NOW controlled Dem Party:
1) The NOW is determined to convince young women that men tend to be rapists and stalkers so they should NOT give out their phone numbers to male strangers. In federal court, Democrat judges have consistently pushed form the horrifying meme that “if it saves one woman from being harmed, this law is justifiable regardless of the inconvenience it may make to the perceived rights of a given male”. The NOW backed a proposed law making it illegal to stare at women or stand under a stairwell to glimpse under their skirts.
2) The NOW backs all cases of false abuse charges against men. All. Is that clear? Is it not clear that the Democratic Party is controlled by the NOW? Any argument there?
3) The NOW cheered when a federal judge said “getting a woman’s personal contact information is like buying a gun, both should require background checks” (European Connections vs Gonzales 2006 – IMBRA case). Another judge said of IMBRA “There is no fundamental right for an American to communicate with a foreigner”. Yes, this was a Bush Junior appointee but he was upholding a Democrat law.
Maybe IMBRA doesn’t infuriate some people here?
Roissy sure understands that this law is a total outrage.
That is one reason why he assumed that this post about the traitor Ted Kennedy would not be controversial (I believe Ted turned against men when he became impotent in the 90s).
LikeLike
Bottom line is that feminists are, since the 80s, no longer the defenders of premarital sex and hooking up, except for same-age people who meet via feminist guidelines (permission to kiss for example – feminists control student unions and faculty rule-makers at colleges).
You are less likely to seduce a feminist than a woman who actively dislikes them. A feminist is more likely to have second thoughts after giving you attention or personal info – more likely to want to punish you, at least the next day, for being alpha and for having “dominated” her. If you don’t score with a feminist on the first evening, odds are higher than with other women that you won’t.
LikeLike
One can easily see a young male college student cheering as the NOW made it basically illegal for professors to date students even when the women were not taking their class.
It comes from insecurity. They think “screw that guy who has an unfair advantage over me because he has had more time to read books and gather experience and financial security that impresses women”.
This is a massively short-sighted POV. By age 27 a man is already being considered too old to date 18-21 year old women in US society…thanx to misandry.
In the 80s when Germany was not yet feminist, I lost my 22 yr old gf when I was 24 to a 40 year old millionaire and I was furious at the inequity of it all (the feminists have now solved that “problem” in German society by changing the culture to be more anti-older-male so now I wouldn’t get the same benefit the 40 year old got in 1986).
But, even when I was young and furious at the inequity of the older guy getting my woman, I would never have sided with feminists if they tried (by legal or cultural propaganda means) to take away the right of that millionaire to compete with me in any way, including if he was her boss.
LikeLike
I just think a woman’s mere political views don’t have much at all to do with what motivates her nether regions. And I also don’t think personal character quirks (such as the need for power, attention, the precise metric of what a woman needs personally) are much informed by her intellect or reason (or a man’s, for that matter). We want what we want, then layer the “reasons” on afterward.
I reckon it could be that women of certain personal chracter traits are more drawn to one or another ideology, but the “cause” is not clear to me in my own presonal dealings. People in general are quite adapt at compartmentalization and why their broad beliefs can be suspended in “their case”.
“feminists control student unions and faculty rule-makers at colleges”
You’ve been reading too many David Horowitz blog posts and not enough actual interaction with college girls (or college faculty, for that matter). I can tell you the hookup culture and “sex positive” feminism of the Katie Roiphe/Camille Paglia type is thoroughly and transcendantly triumphant. Sure there are a few scolds and such here and there, but they have like zero actual power. Clearly I think we just have a case where the small percentage of women who couldn’t flourish under the old regime are more drawn to positions in academia where they can theorize about their own predicament vis a vis traditional gender relations, but make the mistake of assuming their experience is generalizable to their gender. To me ideally expressed feminism would simply allow this sort entre into avenues where they can personally flourish while not assuming most women are absent from those areas owing to sociological, rather than psycho-genetic, reasons.
LikeLike
Then again, perhaps I am biased as, being from the South, the only anti-sex chorus I ever heard was from the ever-present and overly empowered religious conservative sector, which pokes its nose in everything south of the Pennsylvania border and is taken for granted as an arbiter and legislator of all things in society. And, strangely, these folks have the least conservative views I know of with regard to a pessimistic genetic determinism and acknowledgment of the cruel facts of biology in determining all outcomes it touches (gender, sex drive, and sexual orientation among them). I never once felt any scolding or sexual prudery from any quarter except for the hyper-radical theocrats that hover over every legislative action in the Sourh. Maybe I would feel differently had I grown up and lived in an area less benighted.
LikeLike
Brian,
Now you are talking. Please get on Twitter and attack the social conservatives for this. I will back you up (retweet and call out your detractors when appropriate). Follow 1000 libertarans to start. 750 will follow you back within days.
My experience is with paranoid NOW supporters in NYC and Boston and San Francisco, LA and Seattle.
These are the type of “men are rapists and exploiters of the female proletariat” womyn who think that giving their phone number invites being raped over the phone…or “more logically” getting “sexually harrassed by a phone stalker”.
I left the USA largely because of this type + the type of socially conservative father or friend who would tell a woman not to date a male more than 5 years older than she is.
While the socons are bad in person in terms of their prudery and busybody attitude when you are specifically trying to date their very own adult daughters (your right to do so), the worst they do politically when not agreeing with Democrat feminist laws (Sam Brownback) is they push a strip joint into another county here and there. In federal court the GOP justices are the only hope for us in regards to laws like VAWA and IMBRA being overturned and new ones being overturned as well when necessary.
Remember that the upholding of the IMBRA law requires a judge specifically saying that men do not have a fundamental right to approach women without government interference.
IMBRA violates everything a PUA holds sacred.
It singlehandedly made me political (I did not care about politics until I heard about IMBRA’s existence).
LikeLike
””””Nothing of what I just said is debatable. If you voted for Clinton in 1996 because he wanted to ban cigarette smoking in public places (like I did) than you (and I) had your priorities wrong. We men should have priorities our gender rights back then.””””
lol but didn’t you realize that if you could get that banned from smoking in public places and take freedom from those people that any freedom could be taken away.
LikeLike
A point many people make but it doesn’t apply. If someone were to complain that IMBRA is government interference like anti-smoking laws are government interference, the feminists can turn around and say that IMBRA is OK because the kind of person who is against this law is also against laws protecting people from smoke and other direct assaults.
In other words, this argument that no government interference in bad behavior is ever necessary can hurt the cause of overturning the laws that have no justification except feminist theory.
It is not “freedom” to assault others. Smoking in front of others and children really is an assault on their lungs. If cigarettes were invented today, they would be banned like cocaine is now.
When someone lights up in front of me without asking, I want to beat them up, not go to another place. If I was there first, there would be hell to pay.
If I liked you, however, I would let you smoke if you asked politely. Sometimes a good conversation is worth withstanding some smoke for a little while.
Cigarettes were only grandfathered because of corruption money in the early 20th century. Republicans, who were normally laissez faire (small government minded) tried to ban them in the early 1900s but there was too much money to be made. They were corrupted. Think the later cocaine wave spread by the Sicilian Mafia around the world — only MORE money.
Even though I am so much against IMBRA – the Democrats paying off Brownback with a favor to take my right to say hello to women away (the red tape of this law really, really hurts when you are traveling in Eastern Europe and want to meet someone quickly in a town you are just passing through), I would choose not to vote Republican if they try to get state anti-smoking laws repealed by the Supreme Court. Restaurant owners often have such low IQs – they don’t understand that young employees need money but also a healthy workplace + customers in the middle of a meal cannot just stand up and walk out without paying if someone starts smoking next to them.
And I don’t like watching guys who can handle smoke meeting all the young stupid women who think they have to hang out in the smoke filled bars and discos…while I have to avoid the place altogether because I am smart enough to know it spreads colds and sore throats and the flu fast.
The majority of Americans agrees with me on this and I know that a court that would overturn IMBRA can also easily uphold smoking laws.
The reason is because IMBRA assumes that a man will commit an assault *after* he gets a woman’s contact information while smoking laws just ban the assault itself. There is no comparison. The moment someone lights up, they are seriously imposing on others who don’t want them to. The same cannot be said of a man approaching a woman to say hello – if you try to say they are the same thing (men saying hi to a woman = man blowing smoke in a woman’s face), you are *helping* the feminists make their point.
A court could then easily say “We disagree with the plaintiff who says that blowing smoke in a woman’s face should be legal – we find that he not only cannot do that but we also find the idea of his approaching a woman without permission to also be repugnant”.
It is better to say that blowing smoke in a woman’s face is wrong but saying hello to her is not wrong.
Then again, if someone succeeds in getting anti-smoking laws overturned at the same time, the same ruling, as getting IMBRA overturned, I would be happy. I would respect the decision. 😉
Last week I let a “buddy” have the keys to my apartment for a few days so he could impress a gf and get laid (the apartment was nice).
When I got home, the entire apartment stunk to high Heaven. He had been smoking in it. I called a cleaning service to steam clean the walls and drapes and rug.
My kind of high class woman would notice otherwise.
The highest class women with the best (healthiest) bodies are incredibly quick to reject men with traces of smoke on them.
This is the #1 reason why I don’t go to bars – the tramps in bars often smoke cigarettes themselves which makes them worth only a quick adventure at most and only in the first year or two of the downhill slide that smoking will cause them.
I won’t kiss a woman who has been smoking more than 6 months.
LikeLike
In short, anti-smoking laws are at best debatable. A law making it illegal to introduce US males to foreign women without background checks is NOT debatable on any planet, especially since upholding them means having a judge say that men do not have a fundamental right to say hello to women.
One should not associate the debatable with the outrageous and non-negotiable, especially since the smoking laws are fairly easy to defend in court and are likely to be upheld on a national level (the German Supreme Court just upheld such laws when they were expected to possibly not).
Now sure, you can argue that anti-smoking laws are wrong, but not that they are as bad as IMBRA or even in the same league. We can argue smoking laws until the cows come home and that would only make the point. The issue is debatable.
IMBRA is not debatable. Nobody on Twitter, for instance, has tried to justify the law in a year.
One doesn’t put the debatable and non-debatable in the same basket without making the non-debatable seem debatable as well.
The only place where the enemy (Democrat feminists) argue in favor of IMBRA online is Wikipedia where they have federally funded workers guarding any changes citizens might try to make in their propaganda description. Wikipedia is the worst place on the Internet because what one writes can and will be erased if it undermines feminist sacred cows.
LikeLike
Jesus Christ, Jack, you’re a wanker. Have doug1 and xsplat shacked up and had a crack baby?
LikeLike
Cornai: On Twitter you will find MRAs pushing the Scott Brown Alpha Male vs Childless Feminist Coakley angle. Please jump on Twitter and post this kind of short and powerful comment while following everyone the other PUAs and MRAs follow (2 out of 3 will follow back).
Roissy: Please at least announce each new posting as a post on Twitter with a link. Then follow 3000 people who follow other PUAs and MRAs.
Meh: The mostly lower class or low self esteem males who smoke (23% in the US – maybe 30% in your corner of the British Commonwealth) are basically Omegas to the 80% of gorgeous young females who are non-smokers. There is almost zero chance of a male smoker getting laid with a non-smoker female and the latter are likelier to be healthier (including less HPV and Herpes resulting from risky behavior) and smell better than what the smoker is left with as his “target market”.
This does not even get into what women look like after two years of smoking (same effect as smoked ham).
The USA leads the world in allowing the more highly educated, higher socio-economic status males to finally speak out against the lower class guys who, by definition, cannot compete for the best women, but just pollute the air around everyone else almost as a petty way of saying “if I can’t have the best women, at least I will stink up the environment so the best women don’t come to this hot bar or restaurant and the best men won’t bother competing with me for the dregs that do come.”
In the USA, upper-middle-class alpha males do confront the lower class guys at least in restaurants and at least in coastal areas where the latter are presumed to understand civil behavior but apparently not want to conduct themselves civilly. I try to be polite but firm with “Excuse me but I am allergic to smoke. Could you smoke that a bit later”. That can lead to an exchange of insults but mostly guys will put out smokes in restaurants. I fully understand that, in Eastern Europe or the back country of Australia, it would be seen as bizarre to stand up to another guy because he is smoking – not because it is cool to smoke in public but because of a century of tobacco industry conditioning that it is somehow OK to pollute everyone else’s air.
Sorry to be so harsh, but you sounded like you wanted honesty with your one-sentence wanker comment that showed no analysis of any kind and no perception that 80% of women won’t be interested in you if you smoke.
Brian: Besides ignoring the Bible Thumpers who are already a captive market, the Republican Party in the USA needs to abandon its love of rednecks who might emotionally react to anti-smoking laws. They should target more educated guys and thus destroy the Democratic Party.
It is clear that the Republicans have not been targeting males in general in the past 15 years. Look at the fuss about Monica. Monica is the only thing Clinton did right. That scandal was meant to bring Hillary supporters into the GOP fold – which has had the effect of ruining the party.
LikeLike
BTW, James Bond was a chain smoker as was his creator, Ian Fleming. Ian Fleming died really young at 54, which was the time he would have really started to score better with young women than ever before (he was rich and famous now). He died of emphysema – smoke had destroyed his lungs while he was still young.
James Bond turned out to be a bad role model for aspiring alphas. You’re supposed to have a modicum of durability with your success.
LikeLike
Jack wrote: “You are less likely to seduce a feminist than a woman who actively dislikes them.”
Very true but why would you want to have a feminsist to begin with? Feminist “womyn” are angry. They have deep seated issues that cannot be debated away.
The only good thing about feminism is it helps you identify the nut jobs. Once you meet a member of the opposite sex, start paying attention to the attitudes they hold. If they are indicative of feminist ideology, dump them…it’s that easy.
Time wasted debating feminism is time lost finding a woman who doesn’t have all the deep seated issues feminism seems to attract.
As far as getting a number, forget feminism for a minute. If she does not give you a number she is not interested. You can try to find all sorts of reason why she did not give you the number but in the end….she is not interested. So just move on….
LikeLike
That is the point I’ve been trying to make. It is not worth going after feminists to date in the first place. They will give you their number and maybe 7 or 8 dates, but they are not jobs and walking time bombs of hate. They will think nothing of cutting off friendships at any time. That is how cold feminism has made them.
Find out in the first 10 minutes where a woman stands on feminism and be ready to bolt. It really isn’t worth it to waste time talking more than 15 minutes (unless she gives you her number by then in which case you can prolong the discussion for 30 minutes to see if you are going to get laid feminist casual style).
However, Roissy says he wants to save the foreign women route until he is too old for these feminists.
Roissy seems to think US feminists are a “challenge” worth dealing with while one is still young. This is the PUA Disease – a feeling that, ultimately, there is nothing wrong with the DC or San Francisco or Boston women if they behave bizarrely…the problem is that the guy just didn’t behave properly himself (he didn’t have enough game for instance).
But this is the wrong strategy. The best young Russian women will not feel they have to date men over 50. They might, but it is best to start heavily dating them (and living over here) at around age 40.
We only have one life to live. I strongly recommend that one live it with non-feminist women 18-22 and forget the very idea that there is some kind of challenge in dating feminists 25-35. There is no challenge so much as it is a waste of time and then you will trade them in for a younger model anyway.
We have seen in this thread that both US political parties are fucked up and antagonistic to men. Brian made very good points of dissension after I detailed why the GOP was best.
So we should all set up business colonies of expats in cool areas abroad and support each other in the lives we want to lead. I am already overseas in paradise.
LikeLike
””””’customers in the middle of a meal cannot just stand up and walk out without paying if someone starts smoking next to them.””””
Yea but there used to be smoking areas and you didn’t notice it in the no smoking areas.
Really business likes no smoking because smokers tend to stay in a resteraunt longer and talk non smokers tend to leave after eating keeping seats open. Turns out people don’t have all that much to talk about lol
What about seat belts.
Child support.
Prohibition in the form of drinking and driving.
Roadblocks looking for people drinking and driving.
LikeLike
All rules that are the entry to more rule and less freedom of choice.
If there are no choices then no freedom.
LikeLike
Like germany and illegal to work more than 40 hours so people can’t work more than someone else and save money to improve there lot in life.
LikeLike
Class.
LikeLike
Hallo Gunslinger,
Du hast richtig ausgesprochen!
Now you’re talking. Germany is a mess (I can forgive you for thinking that anti-smoking laws are bad because Hitler was a non-smoker who tried to get such laws passed – it was just that this plus the Autobahn and der KDF Program were the only things he did right (also Hitler’s program of sending volunteer nubile females to help farmers “breed their livestock” was pretty cool). Most people see others smoking in their presence as an assault but everything else you mentioned are serious indeed.
I know a poor family in Berlin, Germany with 6 children aged 18-23…all struggling financially.
About 9 years ago, the 6 children were touted as the next BradyBunch – their musical talent was phenomenal and the audio tapes and marketing preparations foretold that they would make millions by capturing the Euro competition and thrilling American music buyers.
They were THAT good. Unglaublich zuzuhoeren.
But the Berlin Government stepped in to say the parents could not EXPLOIT THE CHILDREN! Someone in government must have read that Michael Jackson regretted losing his childhood. They wanted to save the children so they forbid the children from playing in their own band or even rehearsing. Recording music was completely verboten. The kids had to go to school and be allowed to “play” in the yard.
This, folks, is what conservatives mean when they talk about “socialism” or “Marxism”. This is why I fear the Democrats in the USA.
And Germany gets worse. While the Russian “police state” means that you can be stopped by police at any time and shaken down for a $20 bribe…the citizens of Russia are not taxed to death so they are always happy and strive to get rich and I just love being in Russia.
But the 45% taxes in Germany seem to have caused so many people to be depressed, or to be content with 2 months of budget vacations. Many of the more adventurous move to the USA or Australia.
High taxes literally CASTRATE males in 3 ways:
1) If you have to forward an *extra* $5000 to a government at the end of the year (it is OK to pay a few thousand $ per year in taxes like social security), you are literally sacrificing your ability to invite a college coed to spend a week with you at a resort in the Caribbean.
Sending those taxes totally stops you from wining and dining her and all that sex. Even if you don’t have game enough to use the money to secure a real girlfriend (PUAs are being ideological when they pretend they get the best women without providing them with vacations and fine dining), paying an extra $5000 in taxes to a socialist government like the German gov DIRECTLY steals about 26 $200 lap-dance sessions with 19 yr old hotties where each session would have brought you to completion.
That constitutes castration. They get foreigners by forcing them to pay 300 Euros per month for “health insurance” if they want a residency permit. That’s a lot of sex they are robbing from a foreigner who wants to be legal (this is why most foreigners refuse to register).
2) Socialist governments will take your extra $5000 that directly cost you lots of sex and then GIVE IT TO COEDS as grants for their education!! The coeds will NOT THANK YOU!!!!
The coeds will thank the government. You are no longer needed. No reason to date you if you are not the same age and muscular. Which segways into the next effect:
3) Socialist governments will use your $5000 not only to give to young women directly for their studies and dorm room and food, but they also pay for Women’s Studies courses to teach young women that we older men are the “patriarchy” to be hated…especially if we dare discuss feminism in a conversation with them.
So forget “police states” where cops want bribes for imaginary violations. These countries are often the most free countries on Earth with low taxes or everyone cheating on their taxes – governments that don’t pay attention to their citizens and foreigners are the BEST GOVERNMENTS.
So, yes, maybe you were right that if the government has the ability to enforce anti-cigarette laws, they have too much power to enforce taxation…the worst castration tool.
Seat Belt Laws – Every country now has these – They don’t come close to taxation as a threat although they seem to be based on the horrifying idea that a government can save you from yourself. Remember that anti-smoking laws are meant to protect others from your bothersome smoke, but seat belt laws are meant to protect you from yourself.
Supreme Courts everywhere need to at least stipulate that these laws are meant to protect the flow of traffic because it would take time to scrape your bloody corpse off the road so bodies need to remain inside crashed vehicles.
Child Support – Must never be more than what you would be paying if the child were in the man’s custody. It needs to be fixed and a minimum so rich men can breed more and/or find more gorgeous women. Child Support must not be used to force a rich man into not being able to date lots of other gorgeous women and/or have more kids as revenge by the jilted older wife. I would say it should be capped at around $500 per month tops.
The NYTimes writer who was getting $10,000 per month salary and paying $5000 of that in child support for two kids + $3700 per month of that in taxes? He should have been 2009 Beta of the Year for allowing that.
LikeLike
Abkurzung:
1) German government stopped a BradyBunch Family from performing because of out of control Child Labor Laws and Child Welfare Bureaus.
2) A Tax State is far, far, far worse than a Police State if the latter just means police checking your documents on the street and shaking you down for $20 now and then.
3) High taxes castrate males, because (contrary to macho PUA posturing) money gets men laid while lack of it stops them cold. Feminists make sure high taxes then go to poor gorgeous college students to make sure they don’t need to date rich older men for any reason.
4) Child support must be a minimum fixed number allowing divorced rich men to have lots of new children and lots of new women to have sex with.
LikeLike
It is impossible for true Alpha to vote democrat for many reasons, chief among them the liberal notion that forced altruism is by nature a valued quality and something that is “good” for this country.
Any political party that wants to take more of my money will never get my vote. Let it be my choice if I want to give to the poor, but do not force it upon me through excessive taxation with the goal of wealth redistribution.
beta – rely on government or be OK with Dems taking more of your money
Alpha – rely on self and fight back against liberal tax policies that benefit the poor
If I want to help the poor let it be my choice, do not force it upon me with higher taxes to support 16 year old girls with 2 kids.
It is easy to see why Roissy is conservative….all issues regarding feminism aside, do you really want higher taxes? Governmnt taking more of your money? What kind of trait is that?
PURE BETA
LikeLike
Jake,
You just made the fundamental mistake that most US Republicans make – you failed to go to the heart of the matter on taxes that effects males and, instead, just used the typical rhetoric that is known to convince only 50% of the population.
Remember that most Democrat males are that way because they hate the Social Conservatives trying to mess with our sex lives, including raising the age of consent and gleefully ruining someone’s life because they streaked at a baseball game as part of a college prank (and got labeled sex offender for life).
No, the ONLY argument against taxes that is guaranteed to win over the Male Vote is the DIRECT argument:
1) Taxes directly take cash that could have gotten you laid
2) Taxes directly go to the most sexually attractive women to make them less dependent on cute guys with jobs..enabling them to grunt in the sack with poor student males.
3) Taxes directly go to feminist organizations and grants to women’s studies institutions that directly teach young women to hate older men (including those who graduated last year).
Get a Twitter account and nail that reasoning home while following a lot of Democrat males who will get the picture.
LikeLike
[…] This Is Me With A Smile On My Face « Roissy in DC Share and […]
LikeLike