Archive for the ‘Integrity’ Category

Lena Dunham Molests Children; This is What a Child Molester Looks Like

November 4, 2014
Lena Dunham: Child Molester

Lena Dunham: Child Molester

Lena Dunham, the pre-op version of Boss Hogg, is a minor celebrity who has recently admitted she molested her sister.

Previous to copping that she copped massive feels on her own flesh and blood, Dunham was feted by the fags, Jews, feminazis, and other supercilious jackasses on both coasts for allegedly making a little-watched HBO show called Girls. Girls is so little-watched that it doesn’t even average a million viewers per episode. Truth be told, no one is watching Girls except TV critics, who laud the shit out of it due to the excellent P.R. work done by the show’s producers. The very fact that this failure of a show got this fat hog of a child molester on the cover of Vogue is proof that the concentrations of power in this country are very small indeed.

Now before Dunham revealed herself as a child-diddling fucking deviant, my biggest issue with her was the fact that I don’t think she actually makes the show herself.  The biggest boost to Girls‘s buzzworthyiness came because Dunham was only in her mid-20’s when HBO greenlit Girls, with her ostensibly in charge; thus she was hailed as the “voice of a generation” and a wunderkind, thus getting critics to pay attention.

I immediately smelled a rat, especially when I found out that her parents, Laurie Simmons and Carroll Dunham,  are rich, weirdo avant-garde artists. I remember the J.T. Leroy scandal, and how people in showbiz are so desperate for a hit they’ll make up false fronts, names, etc. just to break in.  All-in-all, HBO taking a risk on a 25-year-old with no TV experience made no sense; but taking a risk on her parents doing the show for her and using her as the front man? That made sense. HBO doesn’t really care about the truth anyway, as its left-wing propaganda shows.

But now Dunham has admitted that she molested her kid sister. Bear in mind Dunham is 6 years older than her sister. In her recent memoir, she laughingly recounts three episodes of abuse to her sister:

  • She admits that, when she was 7 and her sister was 1, she pried open her sister’s legs to view her vagina while watching her sister. There is also an implication at this point that Dunham then stuffed rocks into her sister’s vagina and tries to blame it on her 1-year-old sister.
  • She admits that she used to manipulate her sister into lying in bed on top of her while she (Dunham) masturbated.
  • She admits to bribing her sister with candy and other ruses to make out with her—and calls her methods “anything a sexual predator might do.”

All of which Dunham recounts as humorous and exploratory.

Now I will mansplain a few things to you guys. Sexual deviancy laws do apply to children. Children who touch others is sexual ways are punished, placed in foster homes, and put on sex registries. What Dunham did to her sister are enough that, were Dunham not a privileged celebrity cow, she would be registering with the local police for the rest of her life. And no, that’s not a joke; Dunham has literally admitted to crimes.

Lena Dunham is a molester of children.

Now Dunham is facing a backlash because she not only got away with these acts (perhaps—depending on what the statute of limitations were in the states she did them in), but because she thought they weren’t bad acts. In fact, she has tried to deflect criticism by an ironic swat:

That’s right, you guys, it’s soooo weird that you’re freaked out by her actions. Stop being such a prude! Everyone does it!

Remember this the next time someone tries to tell you left-wingers are mentally balanced and/or are morally good. Lena Dunham is their moral and mental leader.

Dunham, being the left-wing ‘tard she is, is desperately trying to stop all dissent. She is threatening to sue people who merely repeat her own admissions to child molestation.

Well fuck you, Lena Dunham.

You’re an unrepentant child molester.

You are an evil fucking ugly cow.

And you don’t even run Girls, a show no one watches.

Are You Date-Worthy? A Quiz for Women

September 11, 2014

This post was inspired by this unintentionally hilarious article. Go read it, please.

In case of tl;dr, the woman writer complains that women need to start asking men out on dates because men are too weak/stupid/unmacho/ungentlemanly to ask women out on dates anymore.

That’s right; according to authoress Lauren Martin, women deserve to be taken out on dates—proper, old fashioned, man pays-and-buys-flowers-and-holds-doors dates—and the only thing stopping this wonderful thing is the failures of men.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.

Now, at first, I was going to just link to the article and laugh.

Then I thought, nahhh, I should respond point-by-point, giving the shiv of truth to each and every one of Lauren Martin’s lies.

Then I thought, nahhh, too much work for soon-to-be-forgotten Feminazi whack-a-mole articles like this. Instead, why not give the girls some chick crack—e.g. a Cosmo-style quiz—while at the same time having each question mercilessly fisk and fuck their delicious little egos into fillet, sending them running to their wine cabinet and therapists and Girls reruns and gay bffs and feminazi studies classes for at least 5-10 years of rehab.

Excellent plan.

So ladies, please see the quiz below. Answer all the questions and answer each question truthfully.  At the end, we can tally up your score and find out if you are truly worthy of a man taking you out on old fashioned, fun, dressed-up, he pays, he holds the door, dinner-and-a-movie, flowers-candy-card, classy dancing, sweet-peck-on-the-lips-on-your-front-stoop-but-nothing-more-expected date.

Ladies, Are You Date-Worthy?

  1. Are you a virgin?
  2. Have you had 3 or fewer sexual partners?
  3. Have you ever had a one-night stand/fuck buddy/”it’s complicated” relationship that included physical sexual gratification for either of you?
  4. How many men have you kissed?
  5. How many men have you made out with?
  6. How many men have you given blow jobs to? How many of those have you swallowed? Allowed to cum on your face or body?
  7. How many men have you given hand jobs to?
  8. How many human penises have you deliberately touched?
  9. Have you ever had sex with a black guy? If so, how many?
  10. Are you lying about your answer to question #9?
  11. How many black guys have you kissed?
  12. How many black guys have you given a blow job to?
  13. How many black guys’ penises have you touched?
  14. Have you ever felt attracted to a black guy? Please explain.
  15. Have you ever said out loud that a black guy was attractive, “sexy”, or in any way sexually worthy? How many times and to whom?
  16. Do you listen to rap/hip-hop/whatever marketing word they’re calling it this week? Have you ever been to a rap/hip-hop/etc. concert?
  17. Have you ever had an abortion?
  18. Do you believe abortion should be legal? Paid for by the government? Celebrated as a right?
  19. Are you a feminist? If not, how much of feminism do you agree with?
  20. How often do you masturbate? Do you have a dildo?
  21. Do you vote Democrat, or anything that Fox News would call left-wing?
  22. Are you proud America elected Obama?
  23. Do you think we need more blacks and/or women and/or other minorities in political power?
  24. Do you believe that blacks are held down because of unfair racism against them, and that they are just as smart and good and kind as anyone else, or more so?
  25. Who do you think was right: Trayvon Martin or George Zimmerman?
  26. Who do you think was right: Michael Brown or the cops of Ferguson, MO?
  27. Do you think nationalized healthcare is good for America?
  28. Are you in favor of affirmative action?
  29. Are you in favor of gay marriage?
  30. Do you believe gays and transgender people are just born that way?
  31. Do you believe gays and transgender people are normal?
  32. Do you want to get married and have children?
  33. Did you major in a humanity? If so, did the title end in “studies” or “theory”?
  34. Do you have a graduate degree?
  35. Are you overweight according to the BMI scale?
  36. Have you ever kissed, fondled, or had sex with another woman?
  37. Have you ever been involved in a sexual encounter involving more than two people? Kissing, making out, and light petting count here.
  38. Do your friends consider you sexually adventurous?
  39. Have you ever taken a naked selfie, or one where you are dressed provocatively? Have you ever sent it to a straight male or posted it where a straight male could see it?
  40. Are you on Twitter?
  41. Do you think a man should be king of his castle?
  42. Do you think a woman should obey her man?
  43. How often do you get drunk? (note: “tipsy”=drunk for the purposes of this quiz).
  44. How often do you use recreational drugs/illegal substances? When was the last time?
  45. How often do you date or have sex outside your race? Races for this quiz: White, East Asian, South Asian, Arab/Persian, Native American/Red. If you are considered “mestizo”, you may claim both races. Jews can group themselves by skin color here.
  46. How often do you date or have sex outside your ethnicity? Your ethnicity is the country of origin of your parents’ ancestors. Don’t be obtuse; if you’re a mutt but mostly Northern European, use most of those countries, but if you’re 100% Irish or Chinese, use that one nationality alone. Jews count as a separate ethnicity here.
  47. Do you go to the same house of worship for services at least 2x a month?
  48. Does that house of worship have only male clergy? What percentage of the administrators are female?
  49. Do you believe in your religion’s teachings? Do you believe in God (or gods)?
  50. Does your religion/church support homosexuality, abortion, affirmative action, government-provided healthcare, or any other planks of the Democratic party?
  51. Do you have a gay bff? Is he promiscuous?
  52. Do you believe a woman should have a career when she is 22?
  53. What is the proper age for a woman to start having children?
  54. At what age do you want to have children?
  55. Would you or have you ever gone backstage or on the tour bus or into a VIP lounge with a male celebrity?
  56. Same question as #55, but with the condition that you have been on or have gone on at least one date with a guy that went well and you two are texting?
  57. For older girls: were you Team Aniston or Team Jolie?
  58. Have you ever cheated on a man you were dating? Kissing, making out, holding hands, touching each other’s bodies, foreplay, sex are all cheating.
  59. Have you ever competed with a man for a job or promotion?
  60. Is it ok for a woman to cheat if she’s lonely, depressed, or she’s fallen out of love with her man?
  61. Did you ever beat a man in competing for a job or promotion?
  62. Did you ever want to beat a man in competing for a job or promotion?
  63. Can you cook a complete meal? Do you do so at least 3 times per week?
  64. Can you clean? Is your home/apartment/room clean?
  65. When not dressed for work, do you dress feminine?
  66. When not dressed for work, do you wear dresses? How often?
  67. Do you watch reality TV? Talk shows? TV dramas? TV scripted comedies? Which ones? How many hours per day?
  68. Do you watch pornography?
  69. Do you have tattoos? How many? How large? Are they visible when wearing any of your own skimpy summer outfits?
  70. Do you believe organizations and companies should be allowed to be all male and exclude blacks?
  71. Have you ever flashed anyone?
  72. Do you swear? How often?
  73. Do you ever say or think that you get along better with men rather than women?
  74. Is there a box of condoms in your room?
  75. Do you believe a woman should look pretty for her man?
  76. If you are overweight, are you ruthlessly trying to get underweight?
  77. Have you ever participated in or cheered on a Slut Walk?
  78. Do you believe women have a responsibility to dress appropriately?
  79. Do you believe single mothers are good mothers?
  80. Do you believe in divorce?
  81. Have you ever been divorced?
  82. Do you agree to raise any children in the religion, town, and way your husband decides?
  83. Do you believe sex is about intimacy, or is more physical?
  84. Do you believe a woman in a serious relationship/marriage has a duty to sexually please her man even if she isn’t in the mood?
  85. If you get into an argument with a man, would you ever throw a drink at him or hit him in anger? Note that “playful hitting”=hitting. If so, and he punched you or slapped you hard, would you consider that fair?
  86. Do you know that regret is not rape?
  87. Do you watch “Keeping up with the Kardashians,” “The Daily Show”, “The Colbert Report,” any kind of talk show, “The Today Show”, anything on MSNBC, or anything on Bravo or E!?
  88. Do you listen to top 40 radio? What about NPR?
  89. Have you ever embarrassed a man who was trying to flirt with you? Ask you out on a date? Get your phone number?
  90. Have you ever liked a man, only to have your gfs/gay bffs dissuade you from dating him?

Quiz Answers

As you can see ladies, the questions really answer themselves, don’t they? That is to say that, immediately upon reading each question, you knew–almost instinctively–what answers would be correct and render you still date-worthy, and what answers would be wrong and render you not worth it for a man to take out on a date. You knew it in your gut, though you hated the fact that you knew it, and that you knew it so well.

And, for some of you, what hurts even more is that even for so-called left-wing men, the “correct” answers and the “wrong” answers remain the same. That is to say that, even though certain men that you would date would express the views that my questions are stupid/don’t matter, you know instinctively that such men still would greatly prefer the “correct” answers.

Some of the questions are super-damning for wrong answers, while others aren’t so much deal breakers.  I mixed and matched according to my whims and what struck me at the moment. Like a good psych quiz, I asked the same questions different ways, and followed easy questions with hard ones, just to keep you off balance. I’m awesome like that.

 

But I don’t need to really tell you if a certain wrong answer is super-damning or merely hurtful to your date-worthy chances; if you aren’t sure, ask a few gfs, or even your token gay bff. The more offended they are by a certain question, the more you can be certain that that question is a super-damning, automatic-disqualifier if you give the wrong answer.

By the way, this list is by no means exhaustive; I barely grazed the anti-male area of family law, for example. But it is comprehensive enough to give 90% of women out there a very, very good idea of what men want out of women, and, equally as important, what they, in the strongest terms, do not want.

What Date-Worthy Really Means

What Date-Worthy really means, ladies, is whether you are worthy of a long-term, locked-down relationship/marriage. You know that and we know that; that’s why, when you really like a fuck buddy, you’ll start whining or setting up circumstances—such as meeting for drinks around dinner time before you’re going to fuck—that will encourage him to lay down some change, hold a door, and otherwise be a boyfriend-on-a-date.

You know that if a man invests his money, time, and charm in public on you, it starts to lock him down into relationship status. Men who put time, money, and effort into courtship behavior are setting themselves up for relationships, whether they know it or not. It is instinctual and natural; when we invest effort into something, we expect it to mean something.

Once upon a time, most middle class women in America gave the “correct” answers to all the questions on this quiz. This is why men then took women on formalized dates; such women, because they gave the correct answers, were deemed date-worthy, and dates were designed to further test the waters for lifelong commitment, i.e. marriage. Other women—the sluts of their times—were not taken on dates; they ended up as bar floozies, prostitutes, yoked to underclass or unrespected men, or else lonely and alone in their lives. Johnny the Good Boy didn’t marry Suzy the Floozy, he married Mary the Good Girl.

And here’s a very important part you ladies need to hear: Johnny married Mary because it was a good deal for Johnny. Johnny got a loving, virginal wife who never compared his faults or shortcomings to past lovers; obeyed his word; respected him; cooked and cleaned for him; stayed feminine for him; gave him regular, faithful sex; and all-in-all remained a loyal wife.

These are what the “correct” answers mean to men: she is worthy of a man’s time and investment because she will reward the man with what he wants. And this is why your “wrong” answers today hurt you so much inside: you instinctively know that your actions have devalued you so that investing time, money, and effort on you isn’t worth it to a man today, unlike, say, your grandmother. Ladies, you are much less worthy of love—less “date-worthy”—than your own grandmother. Unlike your grandmother, you ladies aren’t a good deal for a man today.

Another way to put this for women is to stop thinking “what do I want out of a man” and start thinking “what does a man want in a woman.” Men—especially men in the PUA community—spend an inordinate amount of time wondering what he has to offer to a woman to get what he wants. Women would do well to wonder what they have to offer to a man to get what women want—dates, intimacy, long-term commitment, etc. And it ain’t just sex, ladies; no man every went to war, worked for 40 years at a worthless job, or built a mansion for a prostitute or the easy chick down the block.

 

What Happens When You’re Not Date-Worthy

You’re fucked.

Just kidding.

Kind of.

There are some things you can do to mitigate the damage your “wrong” answers indicate. However, that is left to another post and time. I will say this much: many times the Rubicon cannot be uncrossed; the bell unrung; the die uncast. But despite this, you can at least mitigate such damage—and not in the ways you’re probably thinking.

Strong Fathers=Strong Anti-Feminist Daughters: Margaret Thatcher

April 25, 2013

I watched a documentary tonight on Margaret Thatcher, the recently deceased, long-time right-wing British prime minister. It aired tonight on New York’s local public television station, and surely the commies there must have gnashed their teeth, as it mostly praised the “Iron Lady,” whose politics led Britain from near bankruptcy and turmoil of the 1970s caused by left-wing policies to the prosperity of the “Cool Brittania” 1990s (which Tony Blair’s left-wing Labour Party took credit for, but only by adopting much of Mrs. Thatcher’s economic policies).

Now the documentary flashed back a few times to her youth. Thatcher was a plain-faced girl; she was no great beauty in her youth, despite several politicians trying to paint her as such. She had a rather man-jaw appearance for her time (still more feminine than the muscular beasts of today, however), as well as a lazy eye. She was, all in all, a good example, physically, of the common potato-sack English country girl that have disappointed many a foreigner foraging England for tasty bits to eat. They are not as fat as American girls, but we still have a baseline of beauty in the U.S. (excluding our descendant-of-slave women, natch) that exceeds England’s roses; no wonder so many English men fantasize about an American lass (Ted Hughes, John Cleese, hell, Russell Brand anyone?).

Given her flawed appearance and above-average intelligence—she was an Oxbridge girl— in today’s world, Mrs. Thatcher would have been told, nay, ordered to think that she was a lesbian. And had her father left her family, as so many do today, or been a weak man, her lack of father figure would have made her easy prey to the feminist lies that so easily slip in when men do not slam the door in their faces. Dykes would have stalked her to and fro, and “sexual experimentation” would have been set upon her to fill the void of a father figure. She would have grown to hate men, loathe men, blame men for to loving her, not taking care of her—and demand the state fill the void. The wolves of perversion most easily slip into meadows where no sheep dogs lie to protect tender, weak lambs.

But no; she had a strong father.

One solid reason for the rise of feminism—the “feminazi loop” as I think of it—is the percentage of women and men who grow up with single-parent (re: female) households. The more this has increased, the more feminism has risen. And the more feminism has risen, the more men have checked out of marriage; the more weak men, subservient to women, have bowed down to their wives and feminism; and the more transient men have become “temporary daddies” to the daughters of the women they fuck. All this allows daughters to feel a whole in their lives where fathers should have been, to feel abandoned, and to have that abandonment easily turned to hatred for the men not in their lives.

But Margaret Thatcher’s father was different, as the documentary (and evidence) shows. Thatcher’s father was not the bumbling simpleton of modern sitcoms, content to be pushed around by a domineering wife–which is the story a feminazi would have you believe causes strong women who lead. Nor was he some terrible tyrant who inspired great hatred in Thatcher for his evil, making for a narrative about Thatcher being some social crusader against evil Patriarchy. Nor did he abandon the family, thus making some narrative about how Thatcher learned how to be strong from a “strong, independent womyn,” i.e. her mother.

No: Mrs. Thatcher’s father, Alfred Roberts, was a self-made man (a dirty term to many British) who built himself from a poor boy with no employment into a successful businessman, local politician, and local church leader. He lectured strongly but lovingly to his daughters, and probably encouraged Margaret, the smart but plain one, to do chemistry at college (which she did major in) so that the plain girl could have better prospects for a husband (as nerdy men would be less picky) or a solid career should no man take her (STEM degrees, then as now, never suffer for demand like fluffy humanities do).

But his most important job was as the moral and intellectual shaper of his children’s lives. He lectured them from the pulpit and the dinner table. He emphasized frugality and never spending more than what you had, and lived by such an example—he seldom, if ever, borrowed money. He encouraged modesty and femininity in tune with self-confidence; a combination any historian can recognize in the best females of history, but is alien to the twisted dogma of feminazis today. He filled his home with the intellectual discourse of conservative-libertarian thought that he followed, and made his daughters read the same. He taught them that self-reliance was one of man’s highest goals, and that shame, not greedy palms, should mark the hands of those who needed a handout. People, not laws of the state, should help those in need. He enforced Christian, patriotic, dutiful morality upon them, through example, lecture, and testing. And he kept them from the idle froppery and lazy self-indulgence that many rising-class families can suffer. He demanded a feminine daughter, and he got her.

As a result, Margaret Thatcher did not grow up hating men, become a lesbian, sire brats out of wedlock, or demand a totalitarian welfare state. Instead, she valued men, especially her father. As the documentary points out, he was largely the most important person in her life; one of the only ways to make her lose her cool was to insult him. She loved the man, and his strength gave her the strength to save her nation. She never doubted herself, or used her femininity to claim that she was a victim (Hilary Clinton, anyone?); she refused to have herself, or her nation be womanish victims, as her piercing actions against the many union rioters (stirred up by KGB agitators, no doubt, and forerunners of our Occutards) and the Argentinians in the Falkland Islands war show.

Perhaps the most touching moment of the documentary is her T.V. interview following her victory in the Falklands, where she is happiest that not one more British solider or sailor will be at risk. This is especially touching considering that, just before, the documentary showed peaceniks blaming her for “needlessly” attacking Argentinian ships. Mrs. Thatcher angrily replies she attacked a ship “supposedly” not doing anything for one reason—to save British military boys whom those Argentinian ships threatened.

This women loved masculinity, and masculinity in one of its highest forms: military men patriotically dying in battle.

The shame cast on all feminists is that this towering figure of history—this woman–is never possible in a feminazi-made world. It was only a strong father that could make a daughter love men, deplore left-wing thought and all its weak, blame men, celebrate female-illogic bullshit.

Strong fathers=strong women. Women unafraid to love men, and to rip man-hating feminazis and other leftists a new one.

R.I.P. Iron Lady. For you truly were equal parts lady and iron.

Reasons Why I Drink, #1

November 28, 2012

Reasons why I drink, #1

Gavin McInnes is Canadian, who came here because it was a refuge from Canada’s increasing police state. But now that we’re a police state—where can we go?

Caveat to the fact that not all of his “outrageous arrests” hit home with me. I’ve learned that sometimes one-side of a story is very different from all the facts. For example, the Indy 500 driver he mentions who got arrested for trespassing on protected land—I immediately thought “he could have been illegally hunting and covering it up.”

But still—those news stories on his list that I know of make me cry. And do a shot of Jameson.

Here’s to what America once was, and down with what it has become.

Ann Althouse: Murdering a Newborn Child is Ok, We Should Have Sympathy for the Murderer

October 3, 2012

Easy Annie A. does it again.

First, it was 1984-ing any comments that brought up factual black dysfunction while at the same time posting that showing videos of black people taken with their permission is evil racism.

Now, it’s claiming that a girl who murdered her newborn son after hiding her pregnancy is somehow a sympathetic hero.

This is leftism, America; where truth goes to die, and murdering children is an act of heroism.

Chuck Rudd must feel right at home there.

Integrity and Selling Out: Chuck Rudd

March 3, 2012

I debated entitling this post “Whore of Week: Chuck Rudd”, but it’s far too depressing, craven, and meaningful to be tossed out like that. In fact, this is the saddest post I’ve made, even in the age of Obama.

Chuck Rudd, the Gucci Little Piggy

For those of you who don’t know who Chuck Rudd is, he is a blogger for his own site, a site called “Gucci Little Piggy.” Chuck began Gucci Little Piggy after being a frequent commentator over at Chateau Heartsie. Chuck was a respectable commentator at Chateau Heartsie, often elucidating and debating ideas and techniques brought up by the blog. He was never a PUA type, more of a guy who recognized the value of the advice there on human behavior and HBD. He was anti-feminist for the most part, and definitely a supporter of men’s rights.

Chuck’s blog began in the same fashion, with posts regarding black versus non-black behavior, crime, women and feminism, and the like. Chuck wasn’t a hardcore angry white male, raging against a system designed to blame whitey and put masculinity down. Rather, he was just a concerned advocate on the anti-left side of the line, pointing out the fallacies and idiocies of the left, and how they are leading us all down the primrose path to destruction. He very eagerly called out leftists for their shoddy logic and idiocy–and, most recently, that man-hating douchebag, Hugo Schweitzer. But he wasn’t completely obsessed; he often blogged about his longtime girlfriend (hence why he’s not a PUA), concerts he was attending, his job as a waiter, or his being a redhead.

Chuck wasn’t a leader in the Manopshere, but a valuable officer, doing battle in the guerrilla-warfare army that is the current Manosphere.

However, he is now lost.

The Good Men Project

A little more background is necessary.

So Chuck’s most recent bugaboo had been Schweitzer. Schweitzer was writing for a website called The Good Men Project. The Good Men Project is a site run by a bunch of limp-wristed, masculinity-hating, faggoty ass half-queer pussies who want to make men subservient to women; merely perusing their “about” page will show you that.

Proof? Read their “about” page. These fags want to dictate to us all what “enlightened masculinity” (i.e. faggy, pussy, left-wing-worshiping betaness) should be. Hell, they even talk like feminazi whores, about how theirs is a “social movement” to “foster a national discussion” on what it means “to be a good man.” For anyone with two eyes to see, they are exactly paralleling the “national discussion” and “social movement” bullshit of the blame whitey niggers and cunts. Oh look, one of their own “blame whitey” writers already talks about “having a national conversation on race.” (The nigger even cites Ward Churchill—-Ward-fucking-Churchill—-as a reputable source!).

Just take a look at their group picture and tell me these guys wouldn’t “forgive” a cheating woman for cuckolding them, would gladly let their wives “stray” to save a marriage, think looking at porn is rape, and would induce chemical castration to satisfy their wives. The kinds of sackless fascist fucks who have Priuses (Prii?) with Obama stickers on them, a desire to be a totalitarian’s bitch, and no testosterone.

The entire site was openly created to destroy masculinity. Anyone contributing to the website—anyone writing articles for them—is contributing to their cause of men getting pegged on the street by women.

The Sellout

And now, former man and now turncoat sellout Chuck Rudd has written for them. Here and here, thus far. And Chuck is proud of this: see here and here.

Integrity

In this day and and age, integrity is an illusion. In certain but not all times in history, for a person to break his word, cheat a man, cheat on his spouse, rob, steal, murder, or lie, he would be castigated by his community and outcast, forever not to be trusted. People understood that those who show the propensity to break social bonds and go back on their word for personal gain were not trustworthy creatures.

In this day and age, that idea is a joke. The fact that Al “The Liar” Sharpton has his own show on an NBC-owned cable news station makes all credibility for NBC (not to mention MSNBC) fly out the window. What is more, the fact that no other news organization is going apeshit at Al Shaprton’s having a job in a news room shows just how much integrity they all have.

But integrity is important, even if it is as spat upon and ignored as those without integrity should be. It lets you know whom you can trust, who is reliable, who won’t just do anything for fame, money, and power. There will always be liars and sociopaths, manipulators who will try to seem trustworthy while really working for their own ends. But, to take the logic to a point of reductio ad absurdum, there will always be murderers and rapists as well, who will get away with their crimes, but we do not throw up our hands and say that murder and rape aren’t important. And intergrity certainly is.

Chuck’s Response

I got into it with Chuck in this blog post. There, he admits he wrote for The Good Men Project to “further” his writing career; such a blatant admission that he merely did it for his career, and thinking that was enough to support The Good Men Project’s goals, both take us to a surreal plane of existence—-that is all too coldly real. As Chuck argues, his career aspirations alone justifies becoming a Benedict Arnold, and yet somehow, in Chuck’s twisted world view, he still is a trustworthy writer.

You can see later on down the page that Chuck adopts a blase attitude towards my anger at his selling out. That doesn’t surprise me; to a man who has no principles, selling out means getting something—fame, money, power, career advancement—for nothing—for he had no principles to begin with. Even sadder still, Chuck’s regular commentators don’t mind it at all—showing how many fools and knaves inhabit the manosphere.

Let me be clear, children: Anyone who trusts what Chuck Rudd writes from now on, after knowing all this, is a fool.

That is what integrity means, and why it was important at many times in history—and why, during those many times it was forgotten, such ignorance was a sign of the decadence and decay of that society. And why the fact that Chuck’s selling out has had little to no consequence to his readers—because none of them expect or demand integrity from those sources they read and write to—because we live in a world tragically coming to its end.

Closing

This entire episode has left me very depressed.

First, Chuck was one of the first blogs I read each day, and I went back to it several times after the first readings, hoping for more posts and writing comments. I was fooled by a conniving guy out not for men, but for himself. But the others who still go there—after he outed himself as a principle-less douchebag, and defend him—fool themselves daily, and this is also disheartening. So many viewers are willingly following a nothing, merely because they don’t want to stop, think, and take a moral stand. A principled stand. A stand for integrity.

I would tell Chuck off here, but his actions show that he doesn’t care about his values or principles or anything like that. It would be like telling a stage magician he’s not really a sorcerer. The whole thing is a pretense that neither really believed in the first place and they believe their audiences will happily play along with for the sake of the show. Bread and circuses. Chuck got his career advanced, and we now know that he will, if paid enough, go about hugging Al Sharpton and claiming the Soviet Union was a misunderstood utopia.

What is more, I would tell the followers of his blog off, but they are, as I said before, fools and knaves, products of their time. To yell at them is merely cursing at the wind—the winds of change, the winds of destruction, the winds of a dying civilization.

It is most depressing to see the symptoms of wrong and yet be powerless to convince anyone of the same—indeed, to see them gleefully double-down on the wrongness of it all. Unfortunately, I have the curse of Cassandra. No wonder she yanked her hair out.