A Perfect Example of Fake News

2017-02-07 By Filed Under: Entertainment & Media, Politics, Society Leave a Comment

A local Detroit news station gave us a perfect example of fake news last week.

An Iraqi man claimed that his mother died because she was barred from seeking medical care in the United States due to President Trump’s recent executive order temporarily barring immigrants from seven countries, including Iraq.

Here’s the story, as it was originally published:

A local business owner flies to Iraq to bring his mother back home to the US for medical treatment. But under President Trump’s ban on immigration and travel from seven predominately Muslim nations, he was forced to leave his family behind.

His mother died just one day after being told she couldn’t return to the United States.

Mike Hager fled Iraq with his family during the Gulf War, returned during the Iraq war and worked alongside United States Marines and Army forces. He now owns a business in Metro Detroit and said his mom would still be alive today if President Donald Trump had not instituted his travel ban on Muslim countries.

Mike Hager said he was returning home with his family that included his sick mom. They were returning home to the United States where his mother has lived since 1995. As they were waiting in line at the airport in Iraq on Friday, he was told that he could pass through because he was a U.S. citizen. But his family members – including his mom – weren’t allowed, despite holding green cards.

“They destroyed us. I went with my family, I came back by myself. They destroyed our family,” Hager said.

Hager was born in Iraq and fled during the Gulf War. He lived in a refugee camp with his family for four years before settling in the United States. In the 2000s, he returned to Iraq where he worked as a contractor for the United States Special forces between 2003 and 2008 as an interpreter and cultural advisor. He even survived being shot in the back while serving.

He’s a proud American citizen whose family has now been torn apart.

“The immigration told us that the President of the United States put an order right now – you guys cannot go,” he told FOX 2’s Amy Lange.

Hager, his niece, and two nephews were traveling with his 75-year-old mother, Naimma, home to Michigan. They traveled to Iraq to visit family and when she fell ill. Hager said he didn’t expect it to be a problem for the family to travel since they all had green cards and had lived in the United States for 20 years.

“I was just shocked. I had to put my mom back on the wheelchair and take her back and call the ambulance and she was very very upset. She knew right there if we send her back to the hospital she’s going to pass away – she’s not going to make it,” Hager said.

Sadly, he was right. Naimma, lived in the United States since 1995, wasn’t allowed to come home. She died in her native country. Hager said if it weren’t for the order, his mom would still be alive today.

He blames her death on President Trump.

I really believe this in my heart: if they would have let us in, my mom – she would have made it and she would have been sitting right here next to me,” Hager said. “She’s gone because of him.”

Just as the family was traveling, President Trump signed an executive order banning travelers from seven majority-Muslim countries.

Travelers from Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Libya, Yemen and Somalia are banned from traveling to the United States for 90 days so the country can detect “individuals with terrorist ties and stopping them from entering the United States.”

Hager says he has no idea when his nephews and niece will be able to return to the United States and he’s worried about his own status – even though he is an American citizen.

“This is our home. We’ve been here for too long, we’ve been here since we were kids,” Hager said. “If I’m not wanted overseas in Iraq and I’m not wanted here, then where do I go? What am I supposed to do with my family?”

Hager is mourning more than his mother; he’s also mourning the way of life he believes that makes America great. He also has this message for the Commander in Chief:

“You have to understand you have a daughter – you have family – imagine if somebody does that to your mom. You put the terrorists on this side – the bad people – but don’t mix everyone together,” Hager said.

Several of my liberal friends were sharing this story gleefully. You may have already seen it floating around.

They smugly used this sob story to criticize President Trump’s “heart-breaking, racist travel ban”. They sarcastically proclaimed nonsense like, “They said it was worth it if even one life was saved. Guess they need to save two now.”

Oh, how morally self-righteous was the virtue signaling!

And I have to admit, as the story’s written, it is a pretty heartbreaking story.

There’s only one teensy, tiny, little problem with it…

IT’S FAKE NEWS!

Literally, the very next day, that Detroit news station had to publish a retraction. The Iraqi man actually lied to the media about his mother dying due to President Trump’s travel ban.

The leader of a mosque in Dearborn has confirmed to FOX 2 that a man who claimed his mother died in Iraq after being barred from returning to the United States under a ban instituted by President Trump this weekend, lied to FOX 2 about when her death occurred.

Imam Husham Al-Hussainy, leader of the Karbalaa Islamic Educational Center in Dearborn, says Mike Hager’s mom did not pass away this weekend after the travel ban was put in place. The Imam confirms that Hager’s mother died before the executive order was signed.

On Tuesday, Mike Hager told FOX 2 that he and his family were stopped while trying to return from Iraq to Michigan. He said that he was allowed through because of his American citizenship but his ailing mother and other family members were not. He then claimed that his mom passed away in Iraq on Saturday, as he was traveling to the United States.

Travelers from Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Libya, Yemen and Somalia are banned from traveling to the United States for 90 days so the country can detect “individuals with terrorist ties and stopping them from entering the United States.”

After the story aired on FOX 2 and was posted on FOX2Detroit.com, we received many questions about the validity of Hager’s claims. FOX 2 has confirmed that his mother died five days earlier – on January 22, 2017.

According to Al-Hussainy, Hager’s mother had kidney disease and was receiving treatment in Michigan – where she lived – before traveling to Iraq to visit family. The Imam said she passed away on the Monday, January 22, five days before President Trump instituted the travel ban.

“That’s true. The 22nd of January, his mom died,” Al-Hussainy said. “She did die but that was a couple weeks ago – before the ban.”

Al-Hussainy says Hager contacted him on January 19th to tell him his mother was very sick with kidney disease and he was going to Iraq to be with her. She died there and another mosque in the Detroit area here even held a prayer service in her honor.

The Imam, who voted for Trump, did not want to address the general unrest over the travel ban or the weekend chaos for travelers and protesters at the airports. Instead, he called for peace and patience.

“There is confusion. There is a mix that they have to distinguish between good refugees and bad refugees and if this is what it takes to stop them for a while, to screen them, that’s fine for the security of the country,” he said.

Mike Hager is no stranger to FOX 2 and our viewers. In December, he donated several thousand dollars to send a cheerleading team to their tournament after a tragic death of one of their teammates.

It was a cheer coach who contacted FOX 2 about his mom’s death. FOX 2 was able to obtain a Facebook post from his account last month that memorializes his mother on January 22. The post has since been deleted.

It’s unknown why he would lie about when it occurred. When we tried talking to him at his home and business, he was nowhere to be found.

Earlier when confronted via text about his lie, Mike wrote “Since I lost my mom I’ve been on heavy medication – I can’t even sleep. I did not make anything up.”

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! Stupid liberals!

I took great pleasure shoving it in their smug faces the fact that the Iraqi man lied.

No shit. The original article had one major, glaring problem that stopped me from trusting it. Anyone who actually stopped to critically think about the article should have seen it.

The “journalist” who wrote it never once mentioned the Iraqi man’s mother’s diagnosis. That would be important to know about a woman who was flying back to the United States from Iraq in order to seek medical care. What kind of illness is treatable only by first world medical care but is otherwise fatal within days? What kind of illness kills a person in days but makes them perfectly healthy to survive a 17 hour flight? If the mother was that close to death, I can’t imagine what a U.S. hospital could really do for her once she arrived.

Any quality journalistic article should have discussed those details. But fake news doesn’t hold itself to the same fact-checking standards as real news.

Instead, we got this fluff piece without any useful facts. It’s almost like the media publishes fake news designed to elicit a purely emotional response predicated on one’s pre-conceived biases toward President Trump. But I’m sure they’d never do that…

And the damn liberals fell for it.

Conspiracy?

I doubt that some shitty local Michigan “news” station is part of a broad global media conspiracy. A grand conspiracy theory probably doesn’t exist in this case. So I’m not even arguing for it.

But this saga does point to a wider problem with today’s media. There simply aren’t any scholarly standards when it comes to reporting on President Trump.

Local news stations run small-time human interest stories all the time. Not usually a big deal.

Except this time. And I think I can easily explain why.

First, I presume that the journalist who reported this story, Amy Lange, is biased against President Trump. Media journalists skew heavily toward being liberal, so this really isn’t much stretch of the imagination. And like most liberals, the globalist media establishment has successfully brainwashed her into believing that President Trump is literally the second coming of Hitler.

So when this Iraqi man, Mike Hager, comes to her with his sob story about his mother dying due to President Trump’s travel ban, she believes him. There’s no need to fact-check or verify the information. Obviously, it must be true because President Trump is Hitler and wants all foreigners to die! I’ll bet he’s laughing maniacally about the death of a sick, elderly lady!

At least that’s what I imagine was going through the brain of this reporter. Assuming she even has a functioning brain.

Verifying your sources is one of the hallmarks of being a competent journalist. This should be an ethical standard for journalism. I’m not asking for much here.

We deserve a media we can trust to report clear, straight-forward facts that are verified by multiple sources. We deserve a media that allows people to formulate their own opinions based on those facts.

But instead, we get this lazy piece of shit. Someone who reports a story as fact verified by nothing but “her feels” about President Trump.

This is the very definition of fake news.

I’d almost prefer a grand media conspiracy theory over trash like this.

Leave a Comment Filed Under: Entertainment & Media, Politics, Society

The Last Man Super Bowl Challenge 2017

2017-02-05 By Filed Under: Life Adventures, Musings, Society Leave a Comment

Today is Super Bowl Sunday. My least favorite day of the year.

I’ve never liked sports. Watching grown, sweaty men chase after a ball always seemed like one of the most pointless things in existence. Even as a kid, I never understood how the masses of sheep just swallow up that garbage.

The worst offender here in America is football. Sure, people enjoy watching the other sports like baseball, basketball, hockey, etc. But football? Well, it’s basically a religion in this country. People wake up early on Sundays to go to church, then they come home to mindlessly zone out and watch whatever game is on.

Then comes Super Bowl Sunday, which is like Christmas or Easter to the followers of Footballism.

Except I hate football. If Super Bowl Sunday is Christmas, then I’m Ebenezer Scrooge.

Before I was born, my mother always thought all men liked football. I proved her wrong.

You know how some people have a strong passion in favor of a specific team? I have exactly that same passion, except it’s all directed at hating football in general.

“But the Super Bowl is more than just football! That’s when they air all the hilarious commercials!” That’s another thing I’ve heard over and over.

Except I also hate commercials. Modern society is way too over-commercialized.

So when you put football and commercials together? Well, that’s just a big bowl of shittiness.

It’s crazy to me that some people actually watch the Super Bowl just for the commercials. Seriously? I actively avoid advertising. As a kid, I would tape my usual TV shows so I could fast forward through the commercials. Today, I frequently pirate watch my shows online, commercial-free. I make sure Adblock is installed on all of my computers so I can avoid all ads online.

So it’s mind boggling when people tell me they just watch the Super Bowl for the commercials. What a fucking waste of time.

I want absolutely no part of this Super Bowl bullshit. I don’t want to know who’s playing, where they’re playing, or anything about the outcome of the game.

Except society won’t let me.

The Super Bowl is all anyone wants to talk about the day after.

I hated it growing up. The Super Bowl is literally the only thing the other kids in school wanted to talk about. Either that, or the dumb commercials that aired during the game. But I spent my time on more useful endeavors, like playing with Legos. I had nothing to contribute to their dumb discussions about that dumb game. So I was always ostracized from the other kids.

As an adult, the thing now is Super Bowl parties. Yay! If I want any kind of social life on Super Bowl Sunday, it revolves around getting together to eat shitty food and pretending to be interested in watching 200 pound men run into each other when they’re not standing around scratching their jock-itch.

No thanks. I’ll be spending the evening playing video games in my underwear while shunning the world.

And literally, I have to shun the entire world. If I want to avoid learning who won the Super Bowl, I have to avoid LITERALLY all social media. A complete media blackout. That means no Facebook, no Twitter, no Instagram. I can’t check any news sites or forums, lest I accidentally be infested with the Knowledge. Even when I take every precaution I can think of to avoid finding out who won, the Knowledge still somehow finds me.

This challenge of avoiding the Knowledge of who won the Super Bowl is collectively referred to as “Last Man”. I’ve been informally playing it the last couple of years. But since I’ve returned to blogging, I can now publicly announce my participation in the challenge this year.

Last year, I had hoped to make it one full week without learning the outcome of the 2016 Super Bowl. But I couldn’t even make it 24 hours. Fortunately, I don’t remember any more who won last year. And I don’t fucking give a shit, either.

My goal is the same this year. I want to make it one week without learning the Knowledge. Although preferably, I’d never find out who won.

I will update this blog post when and if I learn the Knowledge this year.

Wish me luck!

Oh, and I hope your team loses.

Update: 2017-02-06, 5:30 PM EST

I may know who won. I momentarily saw a post on the Roosh V Forum thread dedicated to playing Last Man saying, “Take a look at my avatar for who won”. Without thinking, I glanced over for a fraction of a second and saw a swirl of red and blue. I don’t know what the logos look like for each team, so I’m not completely sure yet who won.

However, the colors of red and blue may be a give-away based on my knowledge of which teams were playing. Though since this is America, I figure there’s a good chance EVERY team has elements of the flag colors in their logos. The RVF poster also had a troll icon in his post, so there is a chance he’s trolling. Which means there’s also a chance the logo may not even belong to one of the teams that were playing.

Still, I’m going to estimate my chances of knowing the winner of the Super Bowl at 75%.

Fuck, it hasn’t even been 24 hours yet. I’m going to be so pissed if it turns out I actually do know the winner. If there’s one place I thought would be a safe space for avoiding the Knowledge, it’d be a forum thread dedicated to avoiding the Knowledge. Fucking trolls.

Leave a Comment Filed Under: Life Adventures, Musings, Society

Is It Okay to Punch Nazis?

2017-01-31 By Filed Under: Politics, Society Leave a Comment

As you probably know by now, Richard Spencer, the man who coined the term “alt-right”, was sucker-punched while he was giving an interview on the day of President Trump’s Inauguration. As 4chan’s /pol/ board figured out, the guy who surprised Spencer with a sucker-punch is likely a literal shit-eating cuckold.

This prompted many leftists to start asking the question, “Is it okay to punch Nazis?” To which they agreed that it is.

Because, apparently, all members of the alt-right are Nazis. Apparently, anyone who disagrees with leftist philosophy is a Nazi.

If we built a time machine and went back to 1942 to punch Hitler in the face, then yes, punching Nazis is okay. Hell, punching the ordinary Nazi soldier would be perfectly fine, too.

It’s okay because those Nazis actually took action of murdering people. Physical violence is perfectly justified when it’s in response to physical violence. That’s called self-defense or defense of others.

Just like how protests only work if they’re in response to actual governmental action, physical violence is only justified as a response to violence. Not to an imagined slight. But to a real threat.

But physical violence as a response to someone’s speech? Physically assaulting someone simply because of their beliefs?

FUCK NO! THAT IS WRONG!

It is NOT ACCEPTABLE to commit PHYSICAL ASSAULT in retaliation for someone’s SPEECH.

Jesus-fucking-Christ, I can’t believe I have to actually explain this.

But that’s the state modern-day leftists have placed us. They are actually forcing me to defend Richard Spencer, even though I find a lot of his beliefs highly repugnant.

Freedom of speech is a sacred right that must be protected. Free speech is a defining, guiding principle of our democracy. Free expression is a bedrock upon which our great society is founded.

It doesn’t matter what a person says or believes. It doesn’t matter if they’re promoting genocide or ethnic cleansing. That applies equally, from “gays and Jews are sub-human” to “kill all white males”.

Personally, I don’t believe in committing genocide of any ethnic group. A shocking claim, I know. But I don’t care if someone expresses pro-genocide thoughts.

I don’t care unless that person starts committing actions that violate the rights of others. That’s the dividing line.

People have the fundamental right to say and believe things, even if those thoughts and ideologies are morally abhorrent.

Voltaire’s famous saying is, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

Voltaire did NOT say, “I disapprove of what you say, so I will punch you in the face.”

It is only morally justified to react with violence if a person actually starts practicing what they preach by putting a genocidal ideology into action.

You are only morally correct to physically attack and assault people if they are direct, immediate threats to your or another human being’s right to live safely and freely. Thoughts, opinions, and beliefs are NOT immediate threats to anyone’s safety.

Otherwise, the slippery slope is far, far too dangerous.

Disagree with someone’s right-wing political views? Eh, just call them a Nazi. Then it’s okay to punch them because real Nazis have murdered millions of people.

Disagree with someone’s left-wing political views? Eh, just call them a Communist. Then it’s okay to punch them because real Communists have also murdered millions of people.

You don’t even have to justify why someone is a Nazi or Communist. Just label them as whatever you want. Then you have free reign to react with all the violence you want.

Actual societal progress can only be made when people are freely allowed to speak their minds. We need the free exchange of ideas. We need to be able to fairly debate ideas out in the open.

It makes no sense to shove repugnant ideas underground, allowing them to fester. If people have hate in their hearts, they’re only going to become more stubbornly committed to that hate if we force them to keep their beliefs repressed.

But if we engage them in dialogue and keep an open-mind, their minds will be far more pliable to re-considering their ideologies. Judging people for their beliefs rarely has the effect of causing them to change their minds.

Liberals used to believe in free speech.

I used to describe myself as liberal. Hell, I used to be an active member of the ACLU when I was an undergraduate.

But that was back when liberalism actually stood for something. Back when liberals actually valued and defended the right to freedom of speech. I still subscribe to the philosophies of classical liberalism. It’s a shame that today’s liberals have tragically lost their way.

As an example of just how far we’ve fallen, consider the Skokie Affair of 1977. Real Nazis–or at least Americans who actually identified as Nazis–planned to march through the predominantly Jewish community of Skokie, Illinois.

Tasteless? Of course. But the First Amendment guarantees every group’s right to peaceably assemble and express their beliefs.

I’m not the only one who agrees. The ACLU–yes, that ACLU–defended the Nazis’s right to march and argued the case before the United States Supreme Court. Many ACLU members resigned in protest of the organization defending Nazis. But to me, the case demonstrated the unwavering commitment to the principles of free speech that liberals used to defend.

But now, forty years later?

Liberals would just punch the Skokie Nazis in the face and call it a day.

Reacting to “incorrect” speech with physical violence? That sounds like something real Nazis might actually have done.

Abhorrent ideologies, indeed.

Leave a Comment Filed Under: Politics, Society

Protests Only Work If You Actually Have a Cause

2017-01-27 By Filed Under: Politics, Society Leave a Comment

I watched with great amusement the “Women’s March on Washington” protests last Saturday through the constant Facebook status updates and the intense media coverage.

Meanwhile, I spent the whole day eating pizza, playing video games, and fapping to Internet porn. Yet that was still more of an accomplishment than anything those marchers achieved.

I still have absolutely no idea why they were marching.

If you want to make a protest work, you have to actually have a cause to march for. And you must publicly declare your cause.

The “Women’s March on Washington” looked like a random grab-bag of feminist screeching. Birth Control! Abortion! Planned Parenthood!

The protests against President Trump’s Inauguration the day before weren’t any better. They seemed more like an excuse to riot and smash up the local Starbucks. Or an excuse for a literal shit-eating libtard to sucker punch an Alt-Right figure simply for voicing different political opinions. Or an excuse for a fat, ugly, disgusting feminist (but I repeat myself) to do her its best Darth Vader impression.

Without any discernible cause to be marching for or against, these protesters just look like whiny little bitches who are crying because they didn’t get their way. Boo-fucking-whoo, your side didn’t win an election. Try again in four years when maybe the Democrats won’t be running the most incompetent and corrupt candidate ever who plays identity politics and feels entitled to the presidency solely for possessing a vagina.

By all means, protest against President Trump if he actually does something worthy of protest. If he actually commits some atrocity against U.S. citizens. If he invades a foreign nation for no good reason.

Hell, I might even join you in that case.

But until then, these stupid protests are happening solely due to fear.

The lying, corrupt media has worked up all the leftists into a frenzy, solely by making them afraid of President Trump. The leftists fear that President Trump will take away their healthcare, leaving them to die in the dirt. They fear that President Trump is going to lock them all away in a concentration camp simply for being brown or gay. They fear that President Trump is LITERALLY the second coming of Hitler.

That’s all it is. Fear.

Bare fear is not a justifiable reason for protesting.

Bare fear is not a justifiable reason for doing anything.

Taking to the streets solely out of fear only makes your side look cowardly and weak. These protesters look like nothing but dumb, feral animals. How can you win people over if you’re unable to control your base impulses?

You need a unified, coherent message to win people over with protests. You need an actual cause regarding something that’s actually happened. Not what you imagine will happen.

Consider some of the great protests throughout history.

The Arab Spring in 2011 was a series of uprisings against Muslim dictatorships in favor of establishing democratic rule.

With chants of “No Blood For Oil!”, protesters marched in 2003 in opposition to Bush’s idiotic war in Iraq. These protests echoed back to those of the 1960s and 1970s, when protesters took to the streets to voice their opposition to the United States’s idiotic involvement in Vietnam.

The original 1963 “March on Washington” where Martin Luther King Jr. gave his famous “I Have a Dream” speech was spurred by deep civil rights violations and extensive discrimination and segregation against black people.

Gandhi marched in 1930 to collect salt in defiance of the British monopoly on the salt trade.

I don’t even insist that protests must remain non-violent. If necessary, there is a proper time and place for violence and property destruction during a protest. Thich Quang Duc, for example, lit himself on fire to protest his government’s persecution of Buddhists.

Less dramatically, the Boston Tea Party is another great example. Men gathered to destroy a shipment of tea as a protest against unfair taxation levied by their British overlords, paving the way for the American Revolution later on.

All of these great protests have one major, important thing in common. They all had a clear, well-defined cause because the protesters actually had legitimate grievances. Their governments had actually done something in reality worthy of protest. Those governments had actually taken adverse actions that negatively impacted different groups of people.

Actual human rights violations, government atrocities, unfair taxes, etc. are all fair game for things to protest against. You don’t even have to agree with the protesters’ positions to at least acknowledge they have a cause.

But protesting because you’re scared of the boogeyman? Marching in the streets because of your deranged fever dreams of scenarios that will never happen? Vandalizing businesses because you lost a fair and free democratic election? Go fuck yourself.

Besides, there is no reason to fear President Trump. He is going to Make America Great Again. For all Americans.

Leave a Comment Filed Under: Politics, Society

I Support President Donald J. Trump

2017-01-20 By Filed Under: Politics Leave a Comment

President Donald J. Trump was inaugurated into office today.

I have been an ardent supporter since the day he first announced his candidacy.

My biggest regret in not returning to blogging earlier is that I missed my opportunity to chime in on the craziness that was the 2016 presidential election while it was happening. So yeah, I know I’m a little late to this party now that the election has passed.

Still, I feel compelled to express my support for the 45th President of the United States, Donald J. Trump.

Here are a few reasons why I’ve been a Trump supporter since the beginning:

I Love Trump Because the SJWs Hate Him

When Donald Trump first rode down that golden escalator and announced his candidacy on 15 June 2016, like many people, I didn’t know what to make of him. I first thought Trump was just going to be another clown among the cornucopia of Republican candidates.

I only knew Donald Trump as that billionaire real estate investor with the catchphrase of “you’re fired” from that television show I never watched. But then he gave us a new quote which was repeated almost as often:

“When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best… They’re sending people that have lots of problems… They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”

And oh my, did that quote set off the social justice warriors. Their screechings then began to amplify after Trump showed us his Teflon coating during the first GOP debate on 06 August 2015 when he was “confronted” by some of the things he had said about that fat, ugly, gross lesbian, Rosie O’Donnell.

That’s when I knew I had found my candidate.

I’ve been forced to watch the SJWs steadily gain power over the last eight years with Obama in charge. They’ve gone on witch hunts to purge straight, white males from college campuses. They incite mobs to threaten people’s livelihoods because they have a different political opinion. They promote cultural degeneracy and destroy stable families, all while spewing hate and venom toward anyone with more traditionalist views.

This shit needs to stop. I am sick and tired of the blue-haired freaks lecturing me non-stop about my “privilege” and the dangers of “toxic masculinity” and “rape culture”.

Supporting Donald Trump for president is the ultimate way to fight back against the SJW lynch mobs.

I love seeing the SJWs constantly triggered by everything Trump says and does. It’s so beautiful. The SJW bullies are finally getting theirs.

Even if Trump was the second-coming of Hitler like the SJWs screech, I still would have voted for him solely to piss off the SJWs. That’s how much I despise them.

Political Correctness Is a Cancer That Needs to Stop

As a physicist who currently works in academics, I’ve seen firsthand just how damaging political correctness can be. I’ve personally been subjected to a couple of HR “investigation” witch hunts because some cunts didn’t like a couple of off-color jokes I told. I constantly feel like I have to walk on egg-shells to avoid saying something which could potentially be “offensive.”

I whole-heartedly believe in freedom of speech. And I yearn to actually have the freedom to speak freely.

But SJWs, always on the lookout to find some way of being a victim, want to take away my right to free speech. They keep pushing for laws to outlaw so-called “hate speech.” If I dare to criticize a woman or Islam or an illegal immigrant or a member of some other “protected minority”, the SJW lynch mobs will descend on me like a plague of locusts.

Or maybe I’ll just inadvertently commit some “micro-aggression” instead. Then I’ll just be condescendingly lectured to about my “privilege”.

That was one motivation for re-starting my blog. I’ve reached the point where I can’t stand anymore to be constrained in my speech. Working in academics is also the reason I have to blog under a pseudonym, lest I be denied a job if the other academics discover I’m actually not a communist.

But now, like a gift from the heavens, here comes Donald J. Trump, standing up against the incessant political correctness. Trump is a man who speaks his mind and doesn’t apologize for it. He truly lives and speaks freely, and I envy that freedom. Fortunately, Trump has been showing me the way to fight against PC culture.

If President Trump achieves nothing else while in office but the complete destruction and annihilation of PC culture, then I will consider him to be a success.

Trump Is an Old-School Liberal

Besides my hatred of SJWs and the corrupt media, I also support President Trump because I agree with his stances on the biggest issues facing the United States.

Ironically, Trump ran as a Republican, even though many of his stances are really of the old-school liberal variety. I actually happen to be pretty liberal (in the classical sense) on a wide variety of issues, and they perfectly align with Trump. It’s almost comical that he’s been embraced by today’s conservatives and rejected by today’s liberals.

Once upon a time, Democrats used to be the party that represented average, blue-collar workers like my father. The type of men who built and maintain the infrastructure that made America great. They get no special glory working in factories or coal mines or construction jobs. But those vocations are vital for society. Democrats made sure those workers could unionize, protecting their jobs and increasing their standard of living.

Liberals used to be people like Jim Webb, John F. Kennedy, or Howard Dean (who was my first-ever vote for president). Candidates with populist messages who supported the hard-working middle class that make up the backbone of this country. Candidates who wanted to use the power of government to help people.

But that all started to change under the “leadership” of President Clinton. He signed NAFTA into law, and ever since, those good-paying manufacturing jobs have been bleeding away. Hillary wanted even more shitty trade deals like the TPP so we could lose even more jobs.

Trump knows a bad deal when he sees one, and I support him for pushing to re-negotiate America’s horrible trade deals. As I grew up in the Midwest, it came as no surprise to me when Trump swept the Rust Belt on election night.

Ending Pointless Wars

I’m so old, I remember when liberals were also the ones against fighting pointless wars. Oh, how I remember the controversy when Bush and the Neo-Cons dragged us into Iraq in 2003. At the time, I had no choice but to identify as a liberal because I so strongly disagreed with the decision to invade Iraq. And as it turns out, I was right all along that we shouldn’t have invaded Iraq.

I can’t forgive Hillary for voting for the Iraq war. And Obama has made absolutely no progress on ending America’s pointless quagmires around the globe.

But now with President Trump, we’re actually getting a president who doesn’t believe in wasting resources fighting these never-ending wars that do nothing but enrich the military-industrial complex.

Imagine if Hillary were taking office, instead. She’s so much of a war-hawk that we’d probably be finding ourselves in wars with North Korea, Iran, Syria, and maybe even Russia. I’ll never understand why contemporary liberals have such a hard-on for hating Russia. Maybe they’re mad at Russia for proving that communism is a failed ideology.

Instead, we actually have a president that wants to strengthen our alliance with Russia. The horror!

America Is Broken, But Trump Can Fix It

Career politicians are good at suckling at the American taxpayer’s teat. Too bad that’s all they’re good at.

Crumbling infrastructure, rapidly increasing national debt, a broken health care system, stagnant wages, mortgage-sized student loan debts, lack of good high-paying jobs, piss-poor border controls, skyrocketing costs of living, a dwindling space program, an ever-expanding surveillance state… the list goes on. That’s the legacy that America’s career politicians have left us.

And I can’t even tell if they’ve done this maliciously, or if it just happened due to their gross incompetence.

Even many liberals realized the severity of our problems during the 2016 election. That’s why they threw their support behind Bernie Sanders. Too bad ol’ Bernie turned out to be the epitome of the career politician who’s only good at suckling at the taxpayer teat.

What we need is a true outside perspective. We need a president who can look at our problems from a completely new perspective. We need a president who isn’t beholden to the special interests.

President Trump is that rogue, maverick outsider.

I support President Trump because I believe he may be the only man on Earth who can fix these problems on this level of magnitude. His years of business experience prove it. President Trump is a man who thinks big and dreams bigger.

America First

As an American nationalist, I want to dream big again about America.

I want America to rebuild its infrastructure. New roads, new buildings, new bridges. Tap water that everyone can drink.

I want an America where a family can maintain a comfortable lifestyle on one spouse’s salary so that the other can stay home and raise the children.

I want an America where we once again push the boundaries of the frontier as we assert our dominance into space. It’s depressing that we don’t even have an operational space shuttle program.

I want an America that respects its traditions and preserves its culture. I want an America that lives up to its ideals of freedom and liberty for all people. But it must make sure that everyone coming into this country respects those principles.

With a president who puts America first, we can do it. We can have a government that actually works for the people it serves. Not one that shills for globalism and protects the establishment.

No more wasted resources. No more money spent on idiotic wars abroad. No more time wasted on feel-good distraction issues.

Now with President Trump, we have a leader who will invest his time and our money solely into America.

And I believe it because above all else, President Trump has shown his commitment to efficiency. You see this efficiency mindset in everything Trump does. From the way he markets himself to how he spends his money to how he determines his policy positions. His policies are based on the mindset of making the government work more efficiently in service to the American people.

And all of that finally begins today, 20 January 2017, as Donald J. Trump assumes the office of President of the United States of America.

I couldn’t be happier.

MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!

Leave a Comment Filed Under: Politics

Did Family Guy Just Promote The “Good Guy with a Gun” Narrative?

2017-01-12 By Filed Under: Entertainment & Media, Firearms, Movies & Television, Politics Leave a Comment

Wayne LaPierre, CEO of the NRA, famously once said, “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun.”

I strongly agree with that sentiment.

Family Guy, created by super liberal Seth MacFarlane, is not a show I would expect to endorse that pro-gun narrative.

Yet there it was in this past Sunday’s episode, “Passenger Fatty-Seven”.

Peter, Cleveland, and Joe convince the ever-entertaining, horny pilot Quagmire to score them free airline tickets for a trip to San Francisco. However, their return trip is interrupted when ambiguously Eastern European terrorists whip out a few sub-machine guns and hijack the plane. Their intent is to crash the plane into Las Vegas as a statement against American materialism.

The episode doesn’t tell us how these terrorists even managed to get their guns on the plane. I’ve passed through airport security numerous times. The blue-uniformed, high school dropouts working for the TSA never seem like they could possibly be qualified for screening anything. The unspoken subtext here is the worthlessness of the TSA’s security theater at actually stopping a determined set of terrorists.

Onboard the plane, the terrorists take Peter hostage. They threaten to execute him unless Quagmire complies with their demands to open the cockpit. Being a good pilot, Quagmire naturally refuses, leading to a tense standoff between him and the terrorists.

Meanwhile, with the terrorists distracted, Joe and Cleveland devise a plan to take back the plane.

“You know, I have a gun in the bag I checked. If we can get to the galley, we can take the elevator down to the cargo hold,” Joe whispers to Cleveland.

Normally, this is where I would expect the liberal Family Guy writers to inject some witty commentary about how guns are bad. Or maybe shock and outrage from Cleveland that Joe brought a gun with him on a plane!

But surprisingly, none of that is present in this episode. Cleveland simply responds with “Good idea, Joe!” as they put their plan into action of sneaking around the plane to retrieve Joe’s gun from his checked bag.

As part of the suspension of disbelief, I have to ignore the part where a plane’s cargo hold is easily accessible by elevator from the passenger area. I have never once been on a plane like that.

Anyway, Joe’s plan works. He retrieves his handgun from his suitcase and successfully uses it to defeat the terrorists who were holding Peter hostage.

Although there is a surprise plot twist where Quagmire has to save the day at the end, it doesn’t negate Joe’s heroism in the episode.

There is a gag where Joe forgot his bullets because they were packed separately. So he has to resort to simply pistol-whipping the terrorists, instead of shooting them. Since Family Guy is a comedy show, this doesn’t bother me at all.

I actually have to commend Joe for knowing the TSA policy that guns in checked airline baggage have to remain unloaded. Although he doesn’t seem to know that guns must also be locked inside a sealed, hard-sided container. Joe actually just pulled his handgun out, loose and unholstered, from his bag.

I guess I can’t expect the Family Guy writers to know every single policy detail about flying with firearms in the United States.

Ultimately, however, Joe Swanson is, without a doubt, the epitome of Wayne LaPierre’s “good guy with a gun”. That good guy with a gun is the one who stopped the bad guys with guns.

One could still argue that Family Guy isn’t endorsing that the average citizen be armed for self-defense against bad guys with guns. After all, Joe is a police officer. So, of course, he’s the most natural choice to be packing heat. And despite the libertarian side of me that generally distrusts contemporary law enforcement, I have to admit that some cops are heroes who do selflessly save people’s lives.

However, Joe’s occupation is never once mentioned in this episode. And even if it had been, he was off-duty the entire time.

If you watched this episode as a stand-alone, you would get the impression that Joe was just an average, armed citizen. And not one single person had a problem with that.

Little by little, the culture marches forward in favor of greater firearms freedoms. I’ll count this Family Guy episode as a victory for gun rights supporters.

Oh, and the episode ends with a hilarious joke about the awful and shitty Spirit Airlines. Can’t beat that!

Leave a Comment Filed Under: Entertainment & Media, Firearms, Movies & Television, Politics

Is Dear Abby Another Sign That Game Has Gone Mainstream?

2012-05-26 By Filed Under: Society Leave a Comment

Yesterday, the University of Man had this post discussing mainstream sources accepting basic tenets of Game. And today, I just stumbled upon a very unlikely one: Dear Abby.

I’ve come to expect the newspaper advice columnists Dear Abby, Annie’s Mailbox, Dear Prudence, etc. as bastions of feminist thought. There are countless examples of them shaming men and chastising them for refusing to “man up”. For example, there’s this recent Annie’s Mailbox column discussed by The Angry Dad where the response insists a dad get checked for ADD because he doesn’t want to work two jobs so his wife can stay at home with their baby. Or this post from Roosh describing a Dear Prudence letter that suggested a man go to counseling for wanting daily sex from his wife.

However, I found one of today’s Dear Abby letters rather interesting. First, here’s the letter (I’ve bolded a few relevant parts):

DEAR ABBY: My friends and I are women in our late 40s and early 50s. Some of us are married, some are single. Individually or as a group we have taken classes, volunteered, gone on cruises, gone to clubs and bars — you name it.

We have noticed that nearly everyone at these activities is either female or with a female as part of a couple. There are loads of single middle-aged women out there joining things and having fun, but there seem to be almost no single middle-aged men. Friends in various parts of the country report the same thing.

Where do the single men go? They rarely go out alone or with a male buddy. Our running joke is they’re all home watching bad cable TV. Middle-aged guys must be there somewhere, but where? You’d think that if they wanted to meet women, they’d go where women are, but we rarely see them. Can you solve this mystery for us? — WHERE THE BOYS AREN’T, NORTHERN WYOMING

When I first read this, I laughed at the middle-aged women not understanding the concept that men, no matter what age they are, don’t want middle-aged women, so it’s no surprise that the woman who wrote the letter can’t find them and rarely see them. I was expecting Abby to have a whole response shaming these men, calling them emotionally immature or somesuch for not wanting to settle for these old hags, and I even began planning today’s blog post as a response to it. But then her response completely surprised me:

DEAR WHERE THE BOYS AREN’T: Part of your problem may be that most of the males in your age group are already married. I don’t recommend looking for eligible men in clubs and bars because the ones who go there are usually looking for younger women…

She just flat out tells the truth about male nature to these women, that most men are seeking younger women. No shaming, no chastising. Just flat out stating an objective fact, like saying the sky is blue. She just tells these women that for men who do want to meet women, they ARE going where women are. Where the young women are, that is.

There’s really nothing to respond to in this Dear Abby column. The rest of her response that I didn’t post is completely reasonable advice for a single, middle-aged woman looking to meet a man. I just wanted to write my own post about it because I was so surprised that such a mainstream column as Dear Abby would accept and state as fact the truth that men want younger women.

If basic tenets of Game are becoming this mainstream, maybe the Manosphere is winning after all.

Leave a Comment Filed Under: Society

You Breed ‘Em, You Feed ‘Em

2012-05-21 By Filed Under: Society 2 Comments

I hate children. Or at least other people’s children. I suppose I would love my own, if I had any (at least none I know about), and I plan on keeping it that way. Whether it’s a crying baby on an airplane, parents shitting all over my NewsFeed with inane pictures of their shitty kids, or the little bastards hogging the playground equipment when I’m drunk, I just thoroughly despise those little drains on society’s resources.

But what I absolutely hate the most is being forced to support other people’s kids with my tax dollars, along with their parents who find it acceptable to indiscriminately pump out their little bastard spawn and collect their welfare checks and other government assistance. Here’s one such story that caught my attention:

I firmly believe that if you can’t support your own children, you shouldn’t have them. And if you ignore that and have them anyway, then I don’t care if they’re starving and have nowhere to live. I, and the rest of society, should not be responsible for your mistake. I know the bleeding heart liberals will chime in with something like, “but why should the innocent children suffer?!” To which I respond, because I want their parents’ useless genes weeded out of the gene pool, and because maybe the parents should’ve thought about what kind of life they’d be providing for those children before they pawned them off on the welfare state.

Did the system fail her?

Did you catch this anchor’s question right at the beginning of the video? This is the kind of mentality I’m up against. No, the system didn’t fail her. SHE failed the children when she spread her legs, got knocked up, and didn’t abort FIFTEEN times. Seriously, I have no sympathy for this “mother” or her 15 bastard spawn.

Somebody needs to pay for all my children… Somebody needs to be held accountable, and they need to pay.

Yes, how about you hold yourself accountable and pay for your own damn children. Or your three baby daddies. Society doesn’t owe you a damn thing, especially for your irresponsible procreation. And especially not me or my tax dollars.

It’s this kind of bullshit that lets single mothers run rampant through our society without any consequences. They’re free to get knocked up by the deadbeat badboys that make their vaginas tingle without having to bear any of the burden. It’s time we end this for the future good of society.

A society with a system like this in place is doomed to failure. It’s not a sustainable model. Because you know who builds the bulk of society? Beta provider males. The ones who work hard, long hours in factories or offices to make an honest living and provide for their families. The geeks who develop the software and hardware that went into developing your iPhones and big screen TVs. The nerdy engineers who design the buildings, roads, and bridges you use everyday.

And what do they get for all this work? Long periods of celibacy before finally settling with an aging, 30-something used up wife who pumps out 0-3 kids for him before divorcing him because she got “bored” and taking half his hard-earned income and rarely letting him see those kids. How long before this beta male wises up and learns his hard work is also going to support a dysfunctional society that supports and tolerates women cavorting about with pump-and-dumping cads who show no signs of commitment? As it is, women have no incentive to find a good, honest, stable provider when they know the government will just foot the bill for any “accidents” that happen when they spread for the smooth talking player.

I’m not criticizing just the women, here, either. There’s also this recent story making its way through the headlines:

And you thought Octomom had her hands full—a Tennessee man who has fathered 30 children is asking the courts for a break on child support.

Desmond Hatchett, 33, of Knoxville has children with 11 different women, reports WREG-TV.

The state already takes half his paycheck and divides it up, which doesn’t amount to much when Hatchett is making only minimum wage. Some of the moms receive as little as $1.49 a month. The oldest child is 14 years old.

Hatchett explains how he reached such a critical mass: He had four kids in the same year. Twice.

Back in 2009 when Hatchett was in court to answer charges that many of the mothers were not receiving child support, he had 21 children. At the time, he said he was not going to father any more kids, but he ended up having nine more in the past three years.

The state cannot order Hatchett to stop making babies. He hasn’t broken any laws, according to the report.

This guy is just as bad as his 11 baby mammas. In fact, I find this guy so reprehensible that I support the state garnishing his wages for child support. This goes far beyond the normal cases of beta males being divorce raped, or even a player being forced to pay hefty child support for a one night accident that the girl won’t abort. By the time you’ve fathered 30 kids, you damn well know it’s no longer just an accident.

And we all know none of those 30 kids will grow up to be the next Einstein, Shakespeare, or Mozart. We all know they’re going to grow up to be 30 more deadbeat drains on society’s resources who perpetuate the same cycle. Though this is one prediction where I wouldn’t mind being wrong.

I swear, sometimes I wish there were IQ requirements before people were allowed to procreate. But the first, minimal thing we can do is to STOP REWARDING THIS BEHAVIOR. Most of us agree and argue that government should stay out of people’s private sex lives, and I’m taking that further to argue that government should stay out of the failed aftermath, too. Without this safety net in place, most girls would never allow themselves to be impregnated by these idiot losers. And that means the gene pool would be a much nicer place to swim.

The government should stop providing incentives for careless people to have kids when they can’t afford them. And if that means having a few babies starve to death for the greater good, so be it.

2 Comments Filed Under: Society

No, There Definitely Is Something Wrong With You

2012-05-05 By Filed Under: Sex, Society, Uncategorized Leave a Comment

For my second blog post on here, I was planning on discussing more about my life story and how I got into the Game. But then I decided, to hell with that. I’m just going to jump headfirst into the Manosphere with a fan-favorite topic: bashing feminism.

This recent post on Jezebel titled “For Chrissakes, There Is Nothing Wrong With You: A Dating Manifesto” attracted my attention, as it’s just dying for a response. It’s another one of those feel-good pieces of nonsense proclaiming how all women are beautiful in their own way. I hate to break it to you, ladies, but not all of you are pretty. In fact, many of you are just plain ugly, and the chances of that are higher if you’re one of the fat feminist land-whales who regularly reads Jezebel.

The whole article reads like a butthurt woman who has failed to attract a quality man and is now desperately rationalizing her failure by seeking the support and comfort of other butthurt women who have failed to attract a man. She just can’t grasp the fact that men are primarily attracted to a woman’s looks, and her hamster is desperately spinning to find some other explanation. More than that, she is trying to find a way to excuse herself from having to improve her looks, or really anything about her, to attract a man. Sorry, but arguments that fall under the category of “there’s nothing wrong with me, there’s something wrong with everyone else!” just don’t work.

The simple truth is that if you can’t attract a mate, from a biological and evolutionary standpoint, there is something wrong with you. The entire evolutionary process is dependent upon finding a member of the opposite sex with which to mate, and if you can’t make yourself attractive enough to find a quality mate, you are failing in what evolution is pushing you to do. I freely admit that in my former beta days when I couldn’t attract a girl to save my life, there was indeed something wrong with me. So I set about identifying what I was doing wrong and improving that aspect of my life by learning Game. Why can’t women just freely admit the same? If men aren’t finding you attractive, perhaps you should think about finding a way to improve your looks. If I tried to make the same argument, that women should love me and be begging to sex me up just for being the charmless, needy beta that I was, I would be laughed off the Internet.

But I digress. Let’s go through this article so that I may point and laugh at all that is wrong with it. My comments are in bold.

As modern ladies of marrying age (read: used-up thirty-somethings who have ridden the cock carousel and are now desperately looking for a guy to settle down with before they get much older and hit the wall completely), our trusty inadequacy paradigm has always gone something like this: “I’m too fat for the men I like (What men is that, dear? All the alpha males who make your vagina tingle but won’t have anything to do with you because you’ve allowed yourself to bloat up?).” “I’m too ugly to get married (Yeah, you probably are).” “I’m too old to find a guy (Don’t worry, I’m sure one of those poor betas you friend-zoned a few years ago will still desperately take you now that no other man with options will).”

And that’s just the first sentence. Let’s continue.

So couldn’t we just call bullshit on this entire idea and be, I don’t know, people? People who don’t exist “for” men? (No. As I explained earlier, women exist for men just as much as men exist for women. That’s just how life and biology works. Deal with it.)

…

We have to quit defining ourselves solely in relation to dudes. Like, “I am not me—I am some imaginary man’s imaginary perfect 10, plus 50 extra pounds, minus a 20-inch waist, plus a threatening commitment to feminism, minus any desire to pretend to care about bike polo! That’s me!” No, that’s not you. That is a weird monster you made up to torture yourself. (Or maybe it is you, and your hamster is spinning to convince yourself it’s not. If a man made the corresponding argument, “I am not me–I am some imaginary woman’s imaginary perfect 10, plus 50 times needier, minus any confidence, plus a threatening addiction to World of Warcraft, minus any desire to hold a steady job!”, you’d call him a creepy loser.)

…

Any man who is a person wants to be with a woman who is a person (An ATTRACTIVE person). Attraction isn’t intellectual, it’s involuntary—and if men really only wanted to squirt their penises inside of silent supermodels (they do), then regular people would be extinct. But look to your left. Look to your right. Regular people in the house! (So by your “logic”, you’d be happy being with just a regular man, then? Also, men really, really, really just want to have sex. The hotter the woman, they more they want to have sex with her. But most men aren’t capable of attracting silent supermodels, so they settle for whatever woman consents to letting them put their penises inside her. Unfortunately, most of the time they’re settling for quality similar to your regular, bloated ass. I would bet my life savings that if they actually had the chance to leave your “regular” self for a supermodel, you should consider your ass dumped.)

Fundamentally, men are attracted to the exact same thing in women as women are in men (No, they are not. Men are primarily attracted to looks. Everything else is a far distant second place): Confidence. Self-assuredness. Agency. Knowing who you are. (I don’t give a shit about any of this in a girl if she isn’t pretty. Also, this contradicts the idea of attraction not being intellectual you were saying just a moment ago.) But it gets sticky, because confidence is also the opposite of helplessness, and a lot of men (insecure men) (I noticed your cheap shot at attempting to emasculate the men who disagree with you. It won’t work on me.) need women to be helpless, because helpless people aren’t in charge. (If I have to choose between a girl who’s helpless and your cuntish feminist attitude, I’m choosing helpless. But men don’t want helpless chicks. Men want pretty women who are sweet, pleasant, and feminine. Though I can see how you’d confuse that with being helpless.) And people in charge want to stay in charge. And the people in charge are men. (Thank the Lord Almighty!) (To be clear, I’m talking in broad, sloppy, systemic generalities here—not saying your dad is secretly trafficking lady-slaves from Belarus or something (If my dad was doing that, I’d buy him a beer and give him a high-five). You know what I mean.)

…

All the faux-evolutionary excuses people give for modern beauty ideals (gigantic boobs means more milk for cave-babies! A tiny waist means a bigger uterus!) are garbage. (They’re beauty ideals because those things make most men’s dicks hard. I really don’t care what the evolutionary reasons are. Gigantic boobs and tiny waists make my dick hard. The opposite of small boobs and a large waist does not. That’s all the reason I need.)

…

Here is what I will cop to in terms of our primordial human standards of beauty. To bag an early-man, you probably needed:
1. Most of your limbs.
2. Minimal open sores.
3. A baseline level of health and robustness to be able to care for a child and/or defend it from lions. (Yeah, but I don’t think feminism and female obesity was quite as rampant in prehistoric times as it is now. Hence, a far larger percentage of women would be deemed bangable by that fact alone.)

…

We, as women, go our whole lives believing this lie that all we have to do is to stop being too fat and too flat-chested and too bitchy and too uptight, and then the perfect dude will finally love us forever. (Um, yes, pretty much.) But chasing that stupid phantom doesn’t make us necessary—it makes us disposable. It makes us powerless. Because we’re not people anymore, we’re holes. Miserable, back-stabbing holes. (Golly gee-whiz, what man wouldn’t want to stick around and commit to you with your obviously pleasant disposition?)

There’s this dumb, deathless stereotype that women only chase men who don’t need them (read: rationalizing the womanly desire for aloof alpha males)—but, um, that’s because everyone wants someone who doesn’t need them. Everyone wants someone who doesn’t need anyone! (Alpha males don’t. That’s partly why they’re attractive.) The only people who actually should be helpless are babies, and who wants to fuck a baby? Not me! (Pro tip: If you just yelled “Meeeeee!” and high-fived yourself, call the cops.) (This whole thing is starting to read as angry and incoherent.)

…

But what’s needier than turning your life into one endless Sally Jesse Raphael makeover episode?  What’s more helpless than carving yourself out of some dude’s janky old rib? (Trying to desperately convince the Internet that you don’t need to be attractive to get a man interested in you?) That is the opposite of finding an actual person who might actually love you. So stop it. You are not “too” anything for anyone. Be a person. Hang out with people. Do what you want and you’ll get what you want. (Not necessarily. Ladies, if you eat a tub of ice cream every night, you might be doing what you want, but you certainly won’t get the man that you want.) Giving up on other people’s expectations isn’t settling (So can I give up on women’s expectations that I be confident and hold a decent job and still have them find me attractive?)—it’s demanding what you fucking deserve. (You don’t deserve anything if you’re not going to put in the work to achieve it.)

Working to make yourself attractive to the opposite sex isn’t needy. There is no shame in women conforming to the standards desired by men of being pretty, sweet, and feminine. Competing with others for mating privileges is a normal, natural part of life. Evolution makes competition necessary. Attracting a man is why feminine women wear makeup and stay thin. Attracting a woman is why men do, well, pretty much anything. But being attractive takes work. Ladies, no matter how much you rant on the Internet, you’re never going to attract a quality man if you lay around staying all fat and frumpy and feeling entitled to have an attractive man interested in you without you needing to do anything.

If you’re not going to put in the effort required to attract a quality man, that’s fine. Nobody’s forcing you to. But then don’t bitterly complain when no man finds you attractive.

Leave a Comment Filed Under: Sex, Society, Uncategorized

Just what the Internet needs, another blog!

2012-05-02 By Filed Under: Science, Society Leave a Comment

And I’m sure my ironic title isn’t even original. So… just what the Internet needs, another blog ironically commenting how the Internet needs another blog. And that itself probably isn’t even original either. This has the makings of a rather boring infinite loop.

But enough digression. I’m Quentin Shrodax, the author of this here blog (just in case you missed the big title at the top), and I’m looking to break into the so-called Manosphere. Maybe you’ve heard of it, maybe you haven’t. (If you haven’t, let me fill you in. I’ll wait.)

But the Manosphere is only the biggest subset of what I want to blog about. Science is a big passion in my life, so I’ll be talking about it quite frequently. I currently hold a Master’s degree in Physics, so you can trust me that I know what I’m talking about. But I’m also very interested in Psychology and how human beings interact. It’s what drew me to Game in the first place, but I also informally study larger social structures, which is why the third biggest topic of this blog will be about Society as a whole.

So yeah, that’s a tidy summary of my tagline and enough for my first blog post. In the near future, I will detail how I got into Game and more about who I am and what I do (besides girls). So here I go, jumping into the blogging world head first.

Welcome to the world of Quentin Shrodax.

Leave a Comment Filed Under: Science, Society