I’ve been much remiss in this…

December 11, 2010

This is Ferdinand Bardamu’s post on Anna Ardin & Sofia Wilens, the two feminists who brought “rape” charges against Julian Assange in retaliation for WikiLeaks’ release of US State department cables.

My personal opinion of Assange notwithstanding, I view the release of the US State Department cables as a good thing overall; if nothing else, it will convince the powers that be to stop waltzing around with their bare asses swinging in the wind. More importantly, it weakens the establishment– and the establishment has been anything but a friend to the people of the United States.

Edit: The Unfrozen Caveman links to an article on Wikileaks by Fred Reed, which sums up the situation nice and neat:

    Two ways exist of looking at Wikileaks, the site that publicizes secret military documents and videos. The first is held self-interestedly by the Pentagon and by Fox News, the voice of an angry lower-middle class without too much education. These believe that Wikileakers are traitors, haters of America, who give aid and comfort to the enemy and endanger the lives of Our Boys.

    Implicit in the Foxian view is a vague idea that the leaks give away important—well, stuff. You know, maybe frequencies of something or other, or locations of ambushes or, well, things. Important things. The Taliban will use this information to kill American soldiers. The notion is vague, as are those who hold it, but emotionally potent.

    The other view, held usually by people who have some experience of Washington, is that the Pentagon is worried not about the divulging of tactical secrets, but about public relations. Wikileaks doesn’t endanger soldiers, insists this way of looking at things, but the war itself, and all the juiceful contracts and promotions and so on entailed by wars.

    Which is obvious if you look at what the military (the president, remember, is commander-in-chief) actually does. Remember the military’s frantic efforts to suppress the photos of torture at Abu Ghraib, photos of prisoners lying in pools of blood while grinning girl soldiers play with them? These had zero tactical importance. They did however threaten to arouse the Pentagon’s worst enemy.

    The American public. (Emphasis Mine.)

And that’s it in a fucking nutshell: Wikileaks threatens to wake the American Public the fuck up. There’s a generational conflict brewing right now between those who maintain the status quo (those who rule ) and those who would change the country ( those who foot the bill ). Wikileaks gives that conflict a huge push.


A little uncertainty can be usefull…

September 28, 2010

An interesting interaction between myself and the Journalist has led to a change in her behavior towards me; I was going through some orientation material with a new hire, when the Journalist came up and introduced herself:

Her: “Hi, I’m X,…I’m one of (The Blanque)’s favorites.”

Me: “You’re one of my favorites?” (with a note of surprise in my voice)

Her: (turning to look directly at me) “Yeah.”

Me: “You are?” (I injected a slight note of disapproval into my voice as I said this)

Her: “Aren’t I?”

Me: (saying nothing, but cocking my head and raising an eyebrow as I looked at her, trying to convey that she was being a bit presumptuous)

I swear to you, I could see the wheels in her head start spinning, trying to figure out what she had done wrong. I’ll give her props on this, though–she never let her worry go any further than her eyes.

I let her hang there for about a minute, then let her down easy, saying that yes, she was one of my favorites (with a slight emphasis on the one), and that I just wanted to see her sweat a little. Since then, she’s been more…attentive, even flirtatious as she speaks to me–prior to this, it’s been a casual “good morning” as she went past. She’s definitely putting more effort to engage me as encounters me during the day. I think I successfully reminded her that she can’t take me for granted.

I guess it’s ok to shake a woman’s foundations a little bit every once in a while.

Ye Gods and Madmen!!!

July 26, 2010

What the fuck is this!?!?!?

Mother sues son she abandoned at age 15 for parental support


W hen Ken Anderson was just 15, his mother, Shirley, made it clear: She didn’t want him anymore.

Ken’s father, a long-haul trucker, had been transferred from Osoyoos, B.C., to the province’s Kootenay region. Although their marriage was rocky, Shirley followed, taking second-youngest son Darryl with her.

Ken was left behind. He had plenty of time to think about it as he wiped bug splatter off car windshields and pumped gas at the local station to make a buck. He says he can’t even remember how many couches he slept on, or how he kept himself going. He just knows he never got to go to a prom, finish high school or even think about college.

The way he sees it, he never really had a mother.

On Aug. 3 and 4, Ken, now 46, will face off in B.C. Supreme Court against the woman who gave birth to him.


Shirley Anderson, 71, is suing Ken and four of his five siblings for parental support. The case has been dragging on for years, but the August hearing should complete it.

Shirley has dusted off a little-used section in B.C.’s Family Relations Act that legally obliges adult children to support “dependent” parents.


Ken is too overcome with a sense of injustice to know what is more of an affront: that the statute exists or that the woman who abandoned him even meets the definition of “parent.”

Ken says it’s been nearly two decades since he even spoke with his mother. “The only time she ever called was to ask for money.”

Christ’s Wounds!!! This is madness!!!

(A tip o’ the hat to Kathy Shaidle for the link).

The truth hurts…

March 18, 2010

Still more fury–and the double standard.

February 4, 2010

Oh, boy.

A while back, PUA Roosh V (author of Bang and A Dead Bat In Paraguay: One Man’s Peculiar Journey Through South America) posted an email he received from a stalker. As Roosh expected, the stalker outed herself, and the fallout has spread to other blogs.

Points to take away from the Anoukange/Roosh clash:
1)When your emotions run rampant, you become your own worst enemy. It doesn’t matter how right or wrong you or the other person is or was, or how badly either of you behaved–if you let your emotions go unchecked, you will alienate any allies you might have, and dig yourself deeper into the hole.

2) Game works. Period. Default User has it completely right. Learn, or get left in the dust.

3)Learn from your mistakes. Poetry of Flesh makes an important point in the comments here:

The last time a guy successfully gamed me when I did not wish to be gamed was late ‘08.

Afterwards, when we were lying in my bed, I turned to him and broke down exactly what he did that made me want him, want to sleep with him, then complimented him on his game. He thanked me, then started telling me stories of how he came up with his methods, how often they had worked, what his no-fail LMR tactic was (which is what he used on me and I was so enamoured with).

I still bring up his tactics when explaining game to my guy friends, when they need tips and tricks for handling LMR.

4)Everyone wants to be dominant. No man wants to get strung along for money and drinks; no woman wants to give herself to any man less than her standards require. All personal interactions are exchanges of power between individuals–and no one wants to yield more power for less return (no one wants to pay too much). Women who fear Game do so out a mistaken perception of the playing field: in the modern West, absent rape, women decide with whom, how, and how often they will have sex. Their only limiting factors are a) how high they set their standards when deciding on a sexual partner, and b) thier value in the sexual marketplace. Women always have the home court advantage.

Men, on the other hand, have to stand out from the crowd, overcome his fear and approach, capture her interest, maintain that interest until he demonstrates that he meets her standards, get her to agree to have sex with him, get her to a location where she will feel comfortable having sex, and get her to overcome her last-minute resistance to having sex.

Most men have no idea how to do any of that. The old rules of courtship that our fathers used to woo our mothers don’t work anymore–because the values that women look for in men today are radically different from those our mothers looked for in our fathers. Feminism and the sexual revolution have made men the default losers in the sexual marketplace.

Game is simply the means men use to even the playing field. Game allows a man to demonstrate those characteristics, values, and standards that women are looking for in men. Game teaches men how not to get taken advantage of by women, or engage in behavior that will lower his value in her eyes.

But what Game doesn’t do is trick a woman into having sex with a man. Game isn’t force, or rape. Game doesn’t guarantee that a man will have sex–it just tips the scales back to even. The final decision to have sex still remains the woman’s. It always has been, and it probably always will be.

5)Women can still get away with shit men can’t. Imagine, just for a second, what the situation would be if it had been Roosh writing those emails to Anoukange; what do you suppose the reaction of would have been? Does anyone believe Anoukange faces the same risks that a man would, had he acted the way she has?

Nah–me neither.

This is Alpha, and this is Beta.

January 26, 2010

A quick and dirty summation of what Game is:

This is a man without Game:

He gets eaten alive. This is Beta.

This is a man with Game:

Not only does he not get manipulated but he ends up manipulating her. This is Alpha.

This is Game. No rape, no force, no lies, no deception. Just Game.

(Yes, I know I’ve posted these videos before; the comparison between the Alpha and the Beta are too good to slip below the fold.)