ISIS publicly beheading a man in Syria
Home | Index of articles
PEDOPHILE SOUTH KOREAN DIPLOMAT CAUSES INTERNATIONAL INCIDENT WITH CHILE
A South Korean diplomat in Chile accused of sexually assaulting teenage girls was summoned home, Tuesday, to face questioning by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, according to diplomatic sources. “The diplomat returned home early this morning in accordance with the ministry’s summons,” the source said on condition of anonymity.
The diplomat, named Park Jeong-hak, was in charge of promoting K-pop at the Korean Embassy to Chile. He was accused of making improper physical contact with a 14-year-old Chilean girl in September while teaching Korean.
Park’s inappropriate actions were made public after a Chilean broadcaster aired, Sunday (local time), film of him sexually abusing an actress disguised as a teenage girl captured by a hidden camera. The broadcaster planned the program, in which it had the actress deliberately lure him, after receiving a tip-off from the parents of a victim.
After the airing of the program called “En Su Propia Trampa” (In Your Own Trap), which sparked public fury in the Latin American country, Yoon Seo-ho, a Korean immigrant who has lived in Chile for 12 years, told a CBS radio program, Tuesday, that the diplomat had been notorious for his sexual offenses even before the program was aired.
The diplomat was also accused of raping a 12-year-old girl as well as sexually harassing the Chilean wife of a Korean immigrant, Yoon said. [Korea Times]
Women, especially when they get older, shit and stink, and when they shit anyway, and they enslave men, and are ugly, and they fuck around when they have the opportunity. No such problems with sex dolls, and they don't shit. Let's invest in a future without women.
LGBT movement’s other goal: Lower age of consent to 10 years old for psychiatric therapy – without parents’ knowledge or consent!
04/24/2017 - Catholic Citizens
Outrageous bill passed House Committee in Colorado Legislature on Tuesday – despite strong testimony by Colorado MassResistance and others. But the fight is just beginning!
Similar laws already passed in states across America.
April 20, 2017
Fresh from the recent victory stopping the LGBT movement’s “anti-therapy” bill in the Colorado Legislature, pro-family people are up against an equally frightening bill that has been filed and just passed its first hurdle toward becoming law. It’s the latest among similar laws that are being quietly passed across the country.
The LGBT lobby is quietly but forcefully pushing for laws to allow children as young as 10 years old to “decide” they need psychiatric therapy – without their parents’ knowledge or consent. LGBT-allied “therapists” could push vulnerable children to affirm and accept homosexual and transgender “identity” and behaviors as “normal.”
This has terrifying implications for parents and families. Children are emotionally defenseless and can easily be persuaded by adults that they need this “help” from unknown, agenda-driven mental health professionals.
It’s not clear who pays for these services, but it’s assumed that the state funds them. It’s also not clear that parents would be allowed access to the resulting medical records.
To accommodate these laws, many school-based clinics now offer “behavioral health” services. The LGBT movement and Planned Parenthood have long been placing “youth clinics” inside schools to access children away from parental oversight. This past week, a Colorado MassResistance mother called one of the clinics and was told they can arrange a psychiatrist to meet with a child on site at the school.
This scheme dovetails with the other, more public LGBT campaign in state legislatures across America to ban counseling and therapy for children who have unwanted homosexual or transgender feelings – but would allow therapy to affirm homosexuality or transgenderism. Sadly, such a ban would be particularly devastating to children who have been sexually molested.
The scare tactic: “suicide prevention”
To persuade legislators that these laws are necessary, the proponents focus on “suicide prevention.” They make emotional claims that many young children are suicidal, cannot talk to their parents about it, and unless professional intervention happens the children will kill or horribly injure themselves.
“Suicide prevention” has been a lobbying tactic used by the LGBT movement for decades to push for a wide range of programs and funding. This broad claim has little scientific basis and usually depends on blatantly unscientific school surveys such as the Massachusetts Youth Risk Behavior Survey. But sadly, most legislators are not informed enough to see through that. So too often, it works.
(Of course, it is true that psychological problems are far more prevalent among “LGBT-identifying” children. That’s because these behaviors are usually a symptom of earlier trauma, molestation, or other issues. So while these children may need psychological counseling, it must be done with non-activist professionals and parental oversight.)
California led the way for the radicals
In 2010 California passed the Mental Health Services for At-Risk Youth Act (SB 543), signed by Gov. Schwarzenegger, which lowered the age of consent to 12. The law was heavily lobbied by Equality California and other LGBT groups.
Since then, several states across the US have passed laws lowering the age of consent for outpatient (and inpatient) psychotherapy to various age levels, with various degrees of independence for children and notification of parents in these decisions.
The fight begins in Colorado
On April 5, 2017, Bill HB17-1320 was filed in the Colorado Legislature. It would lower the age of consent for outpatient psychotherapy to 10. (Read the text for the original bill here.) Soon after it was filed, the proponents got nervous and offered an amendment to change the age of consent to 12. But the bill is quite clear about its intent. It immediately went to the Democrat-controlled House Public Health Care & Human Services Committee.
A contentious public hearing
On April 18, the Committee held a public hearing for the bill, followed by a vote of the committee members. It was not an overwhelming turnout like other LGBT-related hearings. About 35 people showed up. All but 5 who testified were supporters of the bill.
Interestingly, the LGBT lobby seems to be hiding in the background on this. They sent in individual activists and allies to testify, but they did not give an LGBT affiliation. However, the LGBT movement’s fingerprints were there. It was almost all emotional, often tearful arguments about how they and/or their loved ones personally suffered and went through suicide issues as children because legislation did not exist to help them.
Most of the arguments were non-intellectual, irrational, and emotional. They did not focus on professional medical or legal issues. Much of their testimony was rambling, and didn’t even pertain to the bill. There were a lot of threats of children being suicidal, or at least cutting themselves badly, if they had to rely on their parents to decide for them. One of the sponsors of the bill even testified, and began crying when telling her story about her young son who she said wanted to commit suicide. But it had nothing to do with the intent of the bill. It seemed like they were simply throwing anything they could think of at the legislators to see what would stick.
The pro-family people included MassResistance Colorado and Colorado Family Action (CFA), including two attorneys that CFA brought. The MassResistance Colorado parents testified strongly, point by point against the bill, and how its true intent would horribly subvert parents and give an unknown therapist free latitude to diagnose and “treat” their children with whatever approach they chose, without knowing vital medical history or other information from parents.
The MassResistance Colorado parents also submitted a letter by Dr. Michelle Cretella, President of the American College of Pediatricians, against Bill HB 17-1320. Dr. Cretella strongly advised the legislators that adolescents are not capable of making these kinds of judgments about their mental health and psychological therapy.
The CFA attorneys cited constitutional problems with subverting parental rights, and noted that the door would be opened for lawsuits based on past Supreme Court decisions. As Dr. Cretella also observed, young children, especially those in some emotional distress, have absolutely no competence to consent to psychological treatment.
But more importantly, the attorneys noted that statistically these laws have had virtually no positive effect. In California the child suicide rate has actually increased since their law was passed.
Somewhat shockingly, when one of the parents cited the ideological agenda and special interests behind this bill which clearly seem to override interests and needs of the parents and children, the Committee Chairman said that “impugning the motives” of people would not be allowed in testimony!
Committee barely passes it
When the testimony ended, the Committee passed a few minor amendments, including one that would change the age of consent from 10 to 12. The main sponsor explained that she had met with “stakeholders” (i.e., activists supporting the bill) and apparently decided that 10 years old was too hard to sell right now. Then the Committee passed the bill 7-6, along party lines.
One of the Democrat committee members, Dan Pabon, didn’t even bother to be there for the testimony; he only came in for the vote, and voted “yes”.
Interestingly, one of the Republican committee members, Lois Landgraf, was a sponsor of the bill. But after hearing the testimony, she changed her mind and voted against it. She told legislators:
“If a suicidal child can’t go to parents, there has to be a solution, and I don’t know what it is, but this isn’t it. This bill was too intrusive into the parent-child relationship, so I removed my sponsorship.”
Another Republican committee member noted that it’s being promoted as a “suicide prevention” bill, but that it’s far more expansive and broad than that. “It’s really a mental health bill that excludes parents,” he told his fellow legislators.
And the fight continues
The bill now goes to the full House, which could happen any day now.
We believe that this bill can be stopped in the Senate, if it gets there. The problem in other states, we believe, has been not enough, if any, pro-family firepower. But even in Colorado it will take some serious work. The CFA people are already scheduling meetings with Senators, and MassResistance Colorado is also prepared to help.
It’s terrifying that most citizens have no idea these laws are being passed in America to give vulnerable children into the hands of “mental health” activists, quacks, or worse.
95 percent of the victims of violence are men. Because women are natural cowards who send men to handle things when they are dangerous.
How Maryland 'Neomasculinity' Blogger Roosh V Became an International 'Pro-Rape' Villain
For a minute, it felt like we were on the world's most mundane secret mission: at 6 p.m., you will be emailed a secret location in Dupont Circle. Talk to no one about it. Enter through the bar and proceed down into the basement area—if anyone asks, say you're looking for Luke. There, awaiting you, will be... a conference table full of bloggers and a raging narcissist pissed at the media. Woo-hoo, Saturday night!
The reason for all this intrigue was a press conference hosted by 36-year-old writer Daryush Valizadeh, better known as "Roosh V." Though he started out in the mid-aughts preaching the gospel of "pickup artistry," that particular phenomenon has fallen out of vogue. Now Roosh heads up what he calls the "neomasculinity" movement, using his blog and the men's website Return of Kings as headquarters, along with selling self-published books about how to bang women in other countries. Until last week, he was mostly unknown outside avid followers and avid opponents. But that changed when Roosh arranged social meetups for fans in cities around the world, and a lot of activists, journalists, and politicians lost their collective minds about it.
Make no mistake: I am no fan of Roosh's writing or worldview, though I find his schtick more sleazy than terrifying, more Milo Yiannopoulos than "KKK of misogyny." On the way to Saturday's press conference, a journalist friend with me had much better humor about the whole spectacle. The self-important security scheme, the aggrieved victimhood dripping from Roosh's tweets—he was clearly loving this, and a part of me hated feeding into it. But I was going, out of a combination of curiosity, the potential newsworthiness, and it falling into the category of "too weird not to."
But perhaps Roosh was only responding in kind to the sort of paranoia with which he'd been greeted around the globe all week.
In Australia, Immigration Minister Peter Dutton said he would consider denying a Roosh a visa. He told the Australian Broadcasting Corporation that "Australia doesn’t welcome people to our country who disrespect women." In general, Australian media reported on a Roosh tweet saying "The border is weak. I will get in" and "I have the funds to get in by boat through one of multiple weak points. Money is no barrier to the operation" as if they were deadly serious.
The U.K. House of Commons debated Roosh on February 4, during which Kate Green MP asked for Return of Kings fans to be deemed a "hate group"—a designation that that would make membership illegal. Home Office minister Karen Bradley MP noted that "the home secretary has powers to exclude an individual who is not a British citizen" if their presence isn't "conducive to the public good"—though she "cannot comment on individual cases"—and said she would consult with internet service providers and sites such as Facebook about possibly banning Return of Kings content. More than 40,000 people signed an online petition calling on authorities to ban Roosh from entering the U.K. and to "take all available action in this case to prevent [fan] meetings taking place," citing their "terror against women" as justification.
A similar online petition, this one signed by more than 45,000 people, warned that "there is strong evidence indicating that 'RooshV' has entered Canada and is in Montreal. We ask Mayor Bonnie Crombie of Mississauga, Mayor John Tory of Toronto, and Mayor Denis Corderre of Montreal to denounce 'RooshV' and to urge local businesses and organizations to deny him accommodation while in Canada." The petition claimed that Roosh would be coming to Canada in violation of section 319 of the Canadian Criminal Code, which bans meeting for the purpose "of inciting hatred of an identifiable group."
In America, Republican Gov. Greg Abbott put out an official statement that "this pathetic group and their disgusting viewpoints are not welcome in Texas."
District of Columbia police indicated that they had an eye on a scheduled meetup in the nation's capital. Des Moines, Iowa, police put out a Facebook message warning that the meetups "may be a ruse to commit rape. We have no information that this will actually take place but we recommend that no one, men or women go to any of the sites."
At Chicago's Loyola University, sexual assault survivors were warned to avoid the area where one local meetup was scheduled, a meetup local police said they were "well aware" of and would be "monitoring." At the University of Rochester in New York, campus admins called in extra school security officers and city police for a meetup there, sending out an all-campus alert that Roosh "offers extreme writings based on his philosophy of Neomasculinity."
The school "does not believe the event will actually happen, but is still taking precautionary measure to ensure student safety," the local Democrat and Chronicle reported. These measures included consulting with the New York State Intelligence Center, which decided that there was "no evidence to suggest a gang, group, or organization is involved."
'The Most Hated Man in America'
At Saturday's press event, five women and maybe a dozen men fill the room, folks I would soon learn work for places such as The Washington Post, DCist, Wonkette, Washingtonian magazine, Vice, The Daily Beast, and a German television station. At a few minutes after 7 p.m., Roosh comes charging through the door, sizing everyone up, barking orders about who could film where and complaining about the room's low energy. Within minutes, he says—not entirely chagrined—that he's been called the "most hated man in America."
Though their demeanors are very different and their views opposed, Roosh reminds me of another Internet-famous man who was called that, Hugo Schwyzer. A former Pasadena Community College professor and male-feminist writer for places like Jezebel and The Atlantic, Hugo's sex scandals (sleeping with students among them) and public mental-health breakdown—playing out in real time on Twitter—were very much a big thing from my vantage point in the women's blogosphere. Not only was everyone on feminist Twitter talking about it, but Schwyzer was also covered in a lot of mainstream American and U.K. outlets. A hashtag, #SolidarityIsForWhiteWomen, sprung up around allegations that Schwyzer had fucked over feminists of color. The U.K. Telegraph suggested he might be "evil incarnate."
A few years later, in D.C., whenever I've mentioned Schwyzer to writer friends or colleagues, no one knows anything about him. That the whole dramatic Hugo saga had only really been relevant and salient to a small segment of the Internet, I was sure—but I hadn't realized how truly small that segment was. "Male feminist sex scandal" gets clicks, but it doesn't stick in people's minds. I bring it up because I think this Roosh situation is very similar. The story has been magnified out of all proportion because for a lot of traffic-thirsty web writers or editors, putting "pro-rape activists" in headlines or tweets is too good to pass up—even if it may not technically be true and props up a man and movement they claim to abhor. But while it's likely to have limited reach and flash-in-the-pan stickiness for most, the Roosh situation is still interesting as a case study of collective catharsis through call-out culture and moral panic as meme.
The root of the "pro-rape" accusation is a Roosh blog post ("How to Stop Rape") that proposes legalizing rape on private property. Roosh claims it was "a thought experiment" or satire—a disclaimer on the post now says as much—and says he doesn't think rape should be legal anywhere. Many protest that Roosh's P.S. isn't authentic. And even if it is, "the idea driving this 'satire' seems to be either that women are usually responsible for their own rapes, or that they routinely call something rape when it isn't," Emily Crockett writes at Vox.
But call it a "thought experiment" or call it trolling, I do think Roosh was being deliberately hyperbolic and provocative, as is his style, and does not believe in literally legalizing rape.
Regardless, though, does it matter if his original intent was earnest proposal if he since recanted? It shows the so-called "social justice warriors" won. Or, in less absurd terms: sane and individual-autonomy respecting views are such the social norm that even someone who states outright that his ideal society is "traditional" and "patriarchal" won't publicly condone sexual violence against women.
At the press conference, Roosh tends to minimize his more outrageous statements. Perhaps it's all smoke and mirrors, but what emerges is a picture much less flattering to the international Lothario image Roosh projects but much more flattering to him as both a savvy self-brander and a human being.
"Macho sex writing—to convert that to 'rape' takes such a leap of faith that you have to be a liar," he says when about scenes in his series of "bang books" that have been described as pro-rape.
"You literally say they were 'too incapacitated' to consent," challenges Washington Post writer Caitlin Dewey.
"Macho sex writing is not a court," Roosh fires back. "It's not a piece of evidence....Maybe some things [in the books], I wanted to come across as an aggressive guy. Maybe I do. But just because it's [in the books] doesn't mean that there is a victim out there and she suffered. Have I raped anyone? No."
So the stories were fiction? asks another reporter. No, said Roosh—but maybe they were his "interpretation" of his events.
The bottom line, though, is that "not a single woman has been hurt by me," says Roosh. "I've never been accused of rape, I've never been charged. No follower of mine has read something of [mine], and then gone on to rape, because I know if they did hurt a woman it'd be all over the news."
The whole thing calls to mind two more male writers: Matt Taibbi, probably best known for his work at Rolling Stone, and Mark Ames, who now writes for outlets such as Pando. The pair worked together at an English-language newspaper in Russia in the late '90s and subsequently published a book about the experience called The Exile: Sex, Drugs, and Libel in the New Russia. Within this book, there are scenes of the mostly-male Exile editors sexually harassing their administrative staff—going so far as to tell secretaries they must sleep with them to keep their jobs—and Ames threatening to kill his pregnant Russian girlfriend if she doesn't get an abortion. The men never claimed at the time that it was satire or fiction. In explaining, Ames was prone to saying things like "Russian women, especially on the first date, expect you to rape them."
Despite this, Taibbi and Ames have continued to flourish as leftist writers, and as far as I know no feminist groups or Canadian mayors have tried to prevent either from visiting the country. Perhaps they're just lucky to have come of age in a different Internet era. Perhaps it helps that their politics and progressive credentials are otherwise right.
None of Roosh's views are right, from the left's perspective. From the perspective of most Americans, really. His work routinely stresses that women should be "submissive," that their highest value is as sex objects and mothers, and that America would be greater if only women were skinnier and had less sex outside marriage.
But while such views on gender roles are far from normative in 21st-century America, it's not as if they're relegated solely to Roosh and his crowd. There are still a good deal of evangelical Christians who preach female submission to their husbands, with a lot of blogs kept about the subject. There's a lot of popular music about how bitches ain't shit. There are immigrants from many cultures where egalitarian gender roles aren't standard. We don't—and shouldn't—prevent any of these groups from meeting or monitor them when they do.
What's more, people with sexually deviant turn-ons or loony, bigoted, and just plain unpopular ideas get together all the time. Unless there's evidence they're plotting something criminal, authorities should back the fuck off, really.
Freedom of the Manosphere
As much as we might hate to admit it, Roosh is a journalist. His main site, Return of Kings—one of the hubs of what's sometimes called the "Manosphere"—and its forums get nearly two million visits per month. As neither Roosh nor any writers or readers of Return of Kings were under suspicion of criminal behavior, it is at the very least bizarre that law-enforcement officials would feel the need to comment and keep an eye on their gathers. And it's probably the kind of thing we should condemn, those of us interested in freedom of speech, press, movement, and association.
People will object that these groups were "pro-rape" meetups. But outside media misinformation, there was nothing about the proposed happy hours to suggest they had anything to do with rape.
"Starting on [January 31], a lot of you have lied by saying I am a 'pro rape advocate,'" Roosh tells the press gathered with him Saturday. Outlets also said the fan meetups were about "learning how to rape. 'They're going to exchange tips.' Some of you have even called it a rape rally. A rape—what the hell is that, a rape rally?"
There was no public elements planned for the 163 gatherings. Roosh calls them "social happy hour[s]" where men could "meet in private to talk about anything—work, politics, girls." The plan for each was to meet in a public place and then migrate to a nearby bar.
Subjecting these men to police surveillance and intimidation based on the state's perception of a publication they like seems a bit totalitarian, no? Let the bitter, horny, heterosexual men have a safe space, too.
Do You Even Lift?
On February 3, a post on Return of Kings announced that the meetups would be canceled. "I can no longer guarantee the safety or privacy of the men who want to attend," Roosh wrote. "While I can’t stop men who want to continue meeting in private groups, there will be no official Return Of Kings meetups."
At Saturday's press event, someone asks why Roosh's cadre of alleged alpha-men would cancel get-togethers over a little thing like feminist protests or a few police cars. "Because you have gotten governments involved by lying about their intention," he responds. "Now the world thinks they're going to meet to, uh, to rape people. So why are they going to meet now? Do you think it's smart now for them to go and meet after that?"
Roosh goes on to suggest this reporter himself certainly wouldn't have gone in those circumstances, adding, "I mean, do you lift?"
It is hard to tell if this is performance or not, creating a psychic uncanny valley not dissimilar to the effect of Donald Trump's—Roosh's favorite 2016 presidential candidate, by the way. Asked what he likes about Trump, Roosh replies that it's because "he hates you guys too. The enemy of my enemy is my friend."
Someone suggests that hating the media isn't a political ideology. "But anti-establishment is," Roosh replies.
Anti-media as he may proclaim to be, it's not inconceivable that Roosh organized and then canceled the social meetups precisely in order to gain media attention. Being prevented from meeting only fuels his followers' narrative of hysterical, punitive feminists and a "cucked" media beholden to identity politics. All of it drives more web traffic.
Asked whether this controversy had been good for him, Roosh says it is "the best and the worst. I mean, what's going to happen now is I'm going to be known, in the media, as a 'pro-rape' advocate for the rest of my life. 'Oh, that's the guy that believes all women should be raped.' But at the same time, they're going to say, that's the guy, I know his name."
Roosh claims to live "somewhere in Europe," though he grew up in Maryland, where he says he's currently visiting family. He told Dewey he doesn't know why the house he claims is his mother's is registered under his name.
Roosh has no regrets about publishing the "How to Prevent Rape" essay, he says. "That article was making a point about personal responsibility, that a woman's safety is not only in the hands of men but it's in their own hands too. And I guess that point didn't get through, so on that account, I did fail. I failed to give the point. But that doesn't mean I did anything wrong."
Sexist pig or not—remember when people just called people sexist pigs or "chauvinists," instead of branding them dangerous on an international level?—Roosh is correct on some key points about modern media.
Asked if he could acknowledge that his writing was offensive, Roosh responds "So what if you're offended? So what if I make fun of you? Is that where we're at now, that we can't write things that hurt people's feelings? Good, get offended, feel something."
"Do I believe that a woman should submit to a man?" he says. "Yes. Does that mean that my family's address should be put online because of that, and the media staking out their home because of what I write? No."
After the hacker-collective Anonymous "doxxed" Roosh's family (i.e., revealed their home address online)—info since confirmed by The Daily Mail—Roosh says he has received "dozens" of threats of violence and arson. "Your work, and the work of your colleagues, has incited a mob, based on lies, that has put my family in danger," he chastises media Saturday. "If they get hurt right now, God forbid, it's because of you."
Roosh himself has been accused of inviting fans to dox journalists who cross him. But he insists he merely asked followers to gather publicly available information on journalists, such as their home cities and Twitter handles. "I never said I was going to share their address, that was another lie," he says Saturday. "It's like you guys can't stop lying." (Truly, the Taylor Swift of MRA bloggers, folks.) He complains that "it's like a game" for media, cutting-and-pasting from one another's stories when they see they're generating hits.
There was a hint of "holy shit" in many of Roosh's statements, an incredulity that anyone who works or spends a lot of time on the Internet many sympathize with. Sometimes the media—mainstream, ideological, fringe, local, global, whatever—is just astonishingly bad. From the Chinese man who sued his wife for bearing ugly children to eggs being "as bad for you as smoking," the influx of Super Bowl sex-slaves to the hordes of sexist "Bernie Bros," the press routinely, en masse, gets things totally wrong.
Sometimes this is rooted in bias, but just as often it's a more economic than ideological imperative, a mandate to produce fast copy that generates good traffic. This means many writers take the veracity of other publications' reporting for granted. When the original account is incorrect, inaccuracies and distortions can spread like a game of Telephone from The Huffington Post to Jezebel to The Guardian, and so on.
Asked whether he considers himself a victim, Roosh says "You know what, no. I take full responsibility for everything that I have done. But that doesn't mean that I can't state what you did wrong."
At The Washington Post, Caitlyn Dewey argues that "the number of people who actually follow Daryish Valizadeh is smaller than it looks."
"While his flagship website, Return of Kings, is well-trafficked—averaging slightly less than 2 million views per month, according to Similar Web—that number is not necessarily indicative of the size of Valizadeh’s following," writes Dewey. "On both Twitter and Facebook, Return of Kings has fewer than 13,000 followers. The site’s accompanying forums have registered 19,600 accounts, but half have never posted."
Dewey calls the whole Roosh situation "manufactured publicity on a scale that few fringe Internet movements have ever dreamed of." On Twitter, Roosh is milking it for all he can.
But on his blog, Roosh condemns the very sort of manufactured controversy he's complicit in. "Instead of focusing your anger on real problems in your neighborhood, city, and country, the media has made you emotional against a man who poses absolutely no threat to anyone," he chastises his opponents. "I’m being used as a target so that you can expend your rage on me instead of other entities that are genuinely hurting your standard of living."
It's obnoxiously self-aggrandizing but...also not untrue. Roosh's assessment of what's hurting people's standard of living is probably vastly different than mine, as both are also vastly different from media-criticizing leftists like Freddie de Boer. But one thing we all agree on is a similar diagnosis: online media prioritizes sensationalism and righteous signaling over accuracy and nuance. This is far from ahistorical, of course, but it also makes modern media much less "progressive" than many in it would like to think.
At the end of Roosh's press conference, I come away feeling more charitable about him than I did going in, which could mean he's a good showman, a sociopath, someone conflicted (both Crockett and Emmett Rensin at Vox offer profiles to this effect), or simply that he's neither a terribly sympathetic person nor cartoonishly evil. In any event, the clickbaity portrayal of him as some outlandish misogynist villain, ready to storm Australia via private yacht and host how-to-rape seminars globally, overshadows more interesting and perhaps revelatory components of the manosphere phenomenon.
If reporters had tried to talk to the men attending Return of Kings meetups, instead of insta-demonizing them, what might they have found? Rage-filled rape advocates? "Beta males" who "don't even lift?" How many of them? What way do they lean politically? What draws them to Roosh's writing? Are these guys with power, or guys trying to cope with not having power?
These would be informative things to know. Instead we have overblown fears and parody villains, predictable liberal responses, wasted opportunities. Rape is bad and good people should be against it—everybody got that? Because as common sense as that might be, it's also the only major takeaway an international press corps has established here.
The Return of Kings meetups gave the popular media and its acolytes the latest opportunity to assert their goodness, to feel the catharsis of raging in solidarity. But was even one person's opinion changed, or anyone's ability to understand one another increased? --- Take butea superba and tongkat ali extract daily for a few weeks, and feel the power of your mind. This is like LSD without hallucinations, and total focus on the next orgasm, the greatest of a lifetime.
When the ‘cookie jar’ stinks
Hey big girl, ever read a book titled Power of the pussy? Only then will you know how much power, with the capacity to change the world is bestowed upon you. On one of those random days a friend I really liked called me out for a drink. I pulled out my little black dress, you know, one of those pretty dresses you accidentally-on-purpose hung on your wall like a trophy to precisely indicate that you have a social life? Yeah that one! I carefully dusted it just in case the little dress decided that, that day would be its last and shamelessly tare.
I called an Uber and off I speed across town to Lang’ata where I was to meet my friend. The uber driver was very conversational and literally begged me to give a positive feedback about my ride. He sounded a little witty and would occasionally, during the ride, involve me in small talk. Weirdly, he kept warning me not to black out on his back seat. ‘Godamnit!!, I wasn’t even tipsy yet, I thought. I am chatty myself, and he wanted a conversation, so I lead him down through the labyrinth of his true spectacular self. The conversation was just getting interesting when he pulled up at the mall (my destination) and professionally informed me my charges for the ride. How quickly he changed from being so friendly to being very serious, I’d be damned if I knew that. Money just has a way of pissing people off. Talk of debt.
I paid for the ride and the little pissed nigga drove off in such a bad mood. Still don’t know why. I spotted my friend among a group of people and as soon as he saw me, he pulled another friend of his and they both walked towards me. We had the X and O’s greetings and off to party we went. How soon that party ended just before it began, I would know. Yes, that, I would know. One of the young men was surprisingly bold in his speech. Well I thought I was bold right up until i met this smart alec.
He was talking nineteen to the dozen so I didn't catch the whole story. At the back seat I sat quietly contemplating whether I should be up in arms or embarrassed by his choice of words. The fellow vividly expressed his first experience between the thighs of a lady. The fact that I was at the back seat did not seem to twitch the manner in which he expressed himself. I felt sad for the young lady in discussion but I tried to remain composed to get a grip of where exactly this conversation was going. With facial expressions and non-verbal cues he let us in on how smelly and dirty the lady’s cookie jar was. The amount of disrespect they directed to the lady in discussion was unbearable. For those who’d love to know, I lashed out at them, demanded that the car pull up and I sent them packing back to the whatever cave they came from. I called back my mood-swings-uber guy and off I was researching on some smelly issues such as these.
First and foremost, if it’s pungent down there, baby girl, figure it out before you he gags and looses his sense of smell.
1. Watch what you eat.
Let’s call a spade, a spade. You are what you eat all the way down to where the fountains lay. You obviously don’t want your flower smelling like onions, garlic and curry..or do you? These are notorious ingredients known to affect body odor.
2. It’s probably the medication.
Some antibiotics and supplements could affect the bacterial balance in your vagina releasing a bad odor.
Honey, nobody loves the touch, the sight, and most of all the smell of sweat. Your region is prone to excessive sweating, just like your underarms. But unlike the underarms, it consistently releases discharge. A combination of sweat and discharge is just a new level of stank! Clean up!
4. The forgotten tampon.
I am an old fashion kind of girl and truth be told, I have my own insecurities when it comes tampon talk. For the tampon big girls, clean up all little traces of tampon leftovers. Trust me you do not want to walk around smelling as if something crawled up there and died. It’s awful.
5. Hormonal changes
Good girl! Keep feeding on that birth control. That’s exactly where the stench comes from. Things such as virginal cream and birth controls can easily alter your hormones affecting its odor. Wrap up!
There is a new solution coming up for ugly old women. Normally they would just become man-hating feminists. But soon they can have their brains transplanted into a sex doll, and feel beautiful again.
A forgotten Darwinian theory upends everything biologists thought about the female orgasm
Richard Prum spends most of his time studying birds. But this year, the award-winning evolutionary ornithologist has also produced an unexpected feminist manifesto.
In his new book, The Evolution of Beauty: How Darwin’s Forgotten Theory of Mate Choice Shapes the Animal World—And Us, Prum, an evolutionary ornithologist at Yale, challenges the dominant narrative among evolutionary biologists: that beauty and sexual ornaments, such as a peacock’s plumage, a deer’s antlers, or the size of a man’s penis, evolve for adaptive reasons. Traditional theory holds that these ornaments are designed to display good genes, attract females, and help the species reproduce. It also tends to characterize the female orgasm as either a tool for genetic subterfuge, or an evolutionary mistake.
Per the adaptive theory, the male orgasm motivates men to seek out more opportunities for ejaculation, and subsequently, reproduction. The female orgasm, meanwhile, has remained something of a mystery. Some evolutionary biologists theorized that it evolved to literally “upsuck” the sperm of genetically superior men. (This would have let women raise their children with kind, reliable, not-so-hot partners, while passing on the superior genes of the men they mated with on the side.) The other dominant theory, championed by anthropologist Donald Symons in his 1979 book The Evolution of Human Sexuality, holds that the female orgasm, like male nipples, evolved as a byproduct of natural selection.
Prum posits a different—and coincidentally, far more appealing—explanation: that female sexual pleasure is in fact the central force behind the mating process. Basically, the female orgasm exists because it feels good, and women naturally sought out partners who could provide them with pleasurable feelings.
“The aesthetic proposal is that human female sexual pleasure and orgasm have evolved because females have preferred to mate, and remate, with males who stimulated their own sexual pleasure,” writes Prum, and that “females have thereby also selected indirectly for those genetic variations that contributed to the expansion of their own pleasure.” In other words, women had the ability to evaluate the experience of sex, and chose (naturally enough) to have sex with men who gave them orgasms. This led male mating behavior to coevolve with female desire. As male behavior evolved to meet women’s preferences, so did women’s capacity for sexual pleasure, becoming more complex, intense, and satisfying.
In this scenario, “female orgasm is not an adaptation to accomplish any extrinsic, naturally selected function,” writes Prum. “Rather, female sexual pleasure and orgasm are the evolutionary consequences of female desire and choice, and they are ends unto themselves.”
Prum puts forth several points to back up his theory about how pleasure influences evolution. For one thing, women’s orgasms are highly variable. If they are the result of indirect sexual selection, rather than direct natural selection, it makes sense that female orgasms would be more inconsistent.
This theory could also explain why human copulation, which lasts several minutes on average, is significantly longer than gorillas’ and chimpanzees’ seconds-long sex. Copulating for a longer period of time doesn’t increase the likelihood that the female will get pregnant—but humans may have evolved to have longer sexual encounters to enhance pleasure. The diversity of humans’ sex positions, compared to gorilla and chimpanzees’ consistent mounting from behind, also suggests that we’ve evolved toward the goal of servicing female clitoral stimulation and pleasure, says Prum.
Last, the pleasure theory completely aligns with the fact that female orgasm is unnecessary for procreation: “The female orgasm might have evolved to be so expansive and prodigious because it has no evolved function,” writes Prum. “It is sexual pleasure for its own sake, which has evolved purely as a consequence of women’s pursuit of pleasure.” The same cannot be said of male orgasm, which is limited in magnitude, frequency, and duration because of the link between orgasm and ejaculation.
Perhaps the most astounding element of Prum’s feminist evolutionary theories is that he’s not the first to think of them. In an under-cited passage of The Descent of Man, Charles Darwin, the revered father of evolutionary biology, proposed that sexual displays in animals evolve precisely because animals select for pretty things—or, in his words “through appreciation of the beautiful … and through the exertion of a choice.” This passage—ignored by centuries of biologists who fervently sidelined the influence of subjective pleasure—is the driving force behind Prum’s narrative.
For too long, evolutionary biologists have ignored the subjective experience of pleasure. With any luck, Prum’s book will expose the ways in which patriarchal thinking shapes scientific research—and help the public to understand that evolution is the result of women’s choice.
Men risk their lives in wars so women can enjoy societies where they can pursue feminist goals, such as punishing men for sexist language.
The Human Vivisections of Herophilus
Ancient physician Herophilus is considered the father of anatomy. And while he made significant discoveries during his practice, it's how he learned about internal workings of the human body that lands him on this list.
Herophilus practiced medicine in Alexandria, Egypt, and during the reign of the first two Ptolemaio Pharoahs was allowed, at least for about 30 to 40 years, to dissect human bodies, which he did, publicly, along with contemporary Greek physician and anatomist Erasistratus. Under Ptolemy I and Ptolemy II, criminals could be sentenced to dissection and vivisection as punishment, and it's said the father of anatomy not only dissected the dead but also performed vivisection on an estimated 600 living prisoners [source: Elhadi].
Herophilus made great strides in the study of human anatomy — especially the brain, eyes, liver, circulatory system, nervous system and reproductive system, during a time in history when dissecting human cadavers was considered an act of desecration of the body (there were no autopsies conducted on the dead, although mummification was popular in Egypt at the time). And, like today, performing vivisection on living bodies was considered butchery.
There is no denying that involving living, breathing humans in medical studies have produced some invaluable results, but there's that one medical saying most of us know, even if we're not in a medical field: first do no harm (or, if you're fancy, primum non nocere).
The future of the world will be that it is ruled by China, and Western men will be the sex slaves of Chinese women. Because Chinese men have big brains and small penises, but Chinese women want big ones.
Poisonous gas attack by ISIS leads to fears terrorists are mass producing CHEMICAL WEAPONS
ISLAMIC State (ISIS) terrorists are believed to have launched a chemical weapons attack involving MUSTARD GAS in northern Iraq.
The sick assault from the crazed jihadist group was unleashed on Kurdish forces using poisonous gas inside dozens of mortar shells, according to German troops stationed in the area.
Around 60 Kurds were injured, returning with breathing difficulties and burns.
United States officials are investigating the claims and talking to affected troops but suspect it was mustard gas, possibly left over from former dictator Saddam Hussein's weapons stash.
Alistair Baskey, a spokesman for the White House's National Security Council, said the it was taking the allegations "very seriously" while a senior US government source said: "We have credible information that the agent used in the attack was mustard."
US Ambassador at the United Nations, Samantha Power said, if true, it would further prove that ISIS carries out "systematic attacks on civilians who don't accord to their particularly perverse world view".
It has led to fears ISIS is mass-producing chemical weapons to be used against both troops and civilians.
The attack took place against the Peshmerga Kurdish force on Wednesday near the town of Makhmur in the Kurdistan region.
German military trainers have been backing the Kurdish troops and are understood to have 90 personnel in the area. They reported the incident to the defence ministry in Berlin.
French weapons inspectors have also arrived in the area to take samples.
The Peshmerga General Command said in a statement yesterday: "The terrorists launched 45 120mm mortar shells tipped with chemical heads on Peshmerga positions which led to the injury of a number of Peshmerga forces with burns on different parts of their bodies."
It follows ISIS being accused of a chemical weapons attack in similar reports last month.
Jihadists were said to have used 'chlorine-filled rockets' in a sick onslaught against civilians and rebel fighters in Kurdish-controlled areas of Iraq and Syria.
There were also reports of ISIS having "industrial" gas masks for the use of their fighters, leading to fears of further chemical attacks.
However, fears have grown over the latest attack as mustard gas is said to be up to 3,000 times more powerful than chlorine.
Mustard gas was initially used by Germany during the First World War where it incapacitated troops and was reported to have left many victims disfigured.
Deaths were often painful and could take three to four weeks.
The United Nations banned its use, along with a number of other chemical weapons, in 1993.
But Syrian President Bashar Assad's government was said to have used chemical weapons in an attack on a suburb of the Syrian capital of Damascus in 2014 that killed hundreds of civilians.
There have been numerous reports of chemical weapons use in Syria since then - especially chlorine-filled barrel bombs.
Kurdish forces, which are supporting US-led air strikes with a ground offensive against ISIS, are said to be woefully armed against the well-funded extremist group.
This week's alleged attack came a day before ISIS claimed responsibility for the truck bombing at a Baghdad market which killed 67 in one of the most deadly attacks since the Iraq War.
Dictatorship is the only honest political system. Rulers rule for their own benefit, or maybe (maybe!) the interests of a ruling class. That is why warlordism is the political system of the future.
Home | Index of articles