After what happened to Roosh in Montreal, it has become apparent that the major cities of Canada have gone the way of Toronto. It is sad to see a country with such great potential become a behemoth of feminists. Instead of promoting free speech and urging unique ideas, the streets of Canada have become host to the street-thuggish nature of self hating feminazis. Hate to say I told so, but at least I'm glad I'm outta there for good...
Trainwreck (Written and starring Amy Schumer) is an R rated comedy that attempts to reverse the gender roles of a traditional Rom-Com. The movie was disappointing. Maybe I should have adjusted my expectations but to be honest they were low to begin with. The first 30-45 minutes was slow, stupid and unfunny and while the rest of it does have its moments, it isn't really worth going, maybe a download at best...
Amy really should have taken on a co-writer. Transitioning from a 15 minute stand-up routine to a full feature film is tough and it is common for comedians to fail. You will see many articles on Buzzfeed and other SJW blogs claiming Trainwreck as a success but they are just trying to push an agenda. Remember, no major studio will green-light a movie starring Whitney Cummings, Sarah Silverman or Chelsea Handler so they desperately want to claim this movie (directed by Judd Appatow with a supporting cast of male athletes) as a victory for women in Hollywood. While the studio will make a profit on this, I highly doubt she will be cast as a lead in a movie she didn't write or in a non "Amy" role. The studio has banked on Amy's loyal followers, Judd Appatows directing style and a ton of cameo's to fill theater seats.
The main message of the movie is: girls that slut it up are damaged, broken and whore around because they would rather not try than risk failing. This message is admitted by Amy's character to her sister towards the end.
The problem isn't the message but the character development and casting. Amy's character starts out as a slut by choice, NYC magazine writer who is earmarked for executive editor. In the beginning of the movie we are introduced to her raunchy lifestyle of an endless stream of men (most of them good looking) who not only go down on her but also would love to make her breakfast. But of course Amy feels like she is being suffocated and is out the door looking for the next dick to fill her polluted vagina.
The only guy she keeps as a regular FWB is the vain popping John Cena. While John Cena's performance is decent, his character is completely unnecessary. Even though it is plausible for Amy Schummer to get dicked by good looking guys (Yes the thirst is real), it is completely unbelievable for guys like that to want a relationship with her, let alone wife her up. They did hint at him being a closet case but the whole "guys who work out are obviously gay" cliche has been done to death and just isn't funny anymore.
The worst character development in this film was by far Amy's romantic interest (Bill Hader). He is a tall, handsome doctor who specializes treating professional athletes. Greatest job in the world for a doctor right? You make lots of money, hang out with pro players, get court-side tickets, travel etc. But wait, there's more! You see, we learn in the film that he also treats the cheerleaders. On top of this, one of his best pals is Lebron James who for some reason hangs out in NY and I guess commutes to Cleveland...? We also learn that this doctor has time for charity work with "doctors without borders." So you see, he is part rich athlete doctor, part Mother Teresa. All of this and yet, he seems to not have women in his life. You would think he'd be lining up the cheerleaders outside his big ass Manhattan condo, but no, he is too busy doing knee surgeries and treating African kids. Up until now he just doesn't have time for women.
This is all about to change as an alcoholic semen-filled Amy enters his office. Even though Amy hates sports and is usually either drunk or high, the doctor falls hopelessly in love with her. I mean, where else is a pro-athlete doctor who lives in the biggest metropolitan area in the country gonna find another woman? It's either Amy or he goes back to his miserable life massaging the thighs of exotic cheerleaders.
Besides bad character development the script lacked structure. It felt like the first part of the film was an entirely different storyline. There were characters that felt were added later. For instance, Amy had a friend at the office who was introduced early in the film, but she only had 3 scenes in the entire movie and 2 of them were given away in the trailer.
Even though the message might be construed as positive, it is lost in an unstructured plot with no consequences. Let's compare Trainwreck to Bridesmaids. Very similar starts, Kristin Wiig's character was, like Amy, just "having fun" and then eventually takes risk and cleans her life up.
Amy's character also embarks on a similar journey but the difference is Wiig's character ends up with a cop after getting tired of being "fuckbudy #3" for Jon Hamm, while Amy's character turns down better dick than Jon Hamm and then finally settles for tall, rich, NY Knick's doctor.
This is why "Bridesmaids" will be watched 10 years from now and probably be shown in Film Genre classes while "Trainwreck" will be forgotten after its Netflix release.
After a whole month on Seeking Arrangements in Los Angeles these were my findings:
Most of the hot women in all other dating sties are in seeking arrangements. Some of the average ones are there too, although they come cheap (dinner and a movie).
For every man there must be several hot women on the site. I rarely had to initiate conversation. Within a few minutes of logging in each day, I received a couple of emails from girls that would normally reject or not answer my emails on other dating sites.
Looks do not seem to matter. I put very unflattering pics of myself, pics that i would not put on regular dating sites and texting is super easy.
On dates with hot ones, most seem to have large debts ($200,000+) and require a monthly arrangement of either Cash, place to stay, uber rides, etc.
The purpose of this experiment was to highlight how bad hypergamey is. I have done other experiments with male models but with so many similar experiments done by others, that value has somewhat diminished. And with the mass enrollment of bodybuilding.com veterans in the online dating space it seems that the majority of mediocre to hot girls have moved to seeking arrangements. I have written before how seeking arrangements has eliminated the need for hired guns. Well, it seems that it is also eliminating the few left opportunities in online dating sites.
What does this mean?
The number of girls doing this is so high that its impossible to avoid them. Do not be surprised if the cute girl you meet on POF isn't blowing someone for a free place and a pre-paid uber account. Since most men do not have that kind of money, it will push one to work harder, be more ambitious and productive. In conclusion, as the middle class is getting squashed so is dating for the middle. Think big, go luxury.
Shining through like an AIDS ribbon in a medium filled to capacity comes an outlet and an online portal so demeaning to one's intellect and so hurtful to the average female's IQ that for all intent and purposes might as well exist as an over the counter colonoscopy soothing syrup. I'm talking about BUZZFEED: The online media outlet responsible for much of the degeneracy that has widened almost to the point of no return...
Buzzfeed started out as a cool, new wave media outlet that bridged the gap between the traditional distribution model (main stream media - ie. CNN) and the social media revolution. The new generation was having a hard time adjusting to an outdated medium that was struggling to keep itself in the game and survive the new disruptive internet force. The Huffington Post had already established itself and controlled much of the online space but this was not enough. Huffpost's demographics consisted of young people that were already watching mainstream news but did not want to read the whole article and more importantly did not want to sit through "breaking news" segments. There was still a large market up for grabs, mainly made up of college students who were used to getting their news from the Daily Show - Colbert - Real Time with Bill Maher and wanted an online media portal that would break down information in "lists" with some jokes in between including social media knock off interactive buttons ("hearts", "wtf", "LOL" etc). From a business perspective it was brilliant.
As usual with anything new, all the writers were predominately male and the audience was balanced with a slight skew towards men. Some of the articles were funny. And with new ways of producing GIFs and MEMEs rising, so did Buzzfeeds popularity. Writing articles had never been easier. Come up with a list, add a two line paragraph accompanied by a GIF and viola, you got yourself an article. Since political comedy shows had already drawn the map for "information" through satire, Buzzfeed's rise was fast and the damage to Journalism was hard.
There was a problem, however, when Buzzfeed hit a plateau in traffic and just like with any ad-driven business model, that became a big dilemma. Whenever this happens the company has a couple of options to to choose from:
A) Ally yourself with other outlets for redirect traffic
B) Take money for bullshit fluff piece articles
C) Start a subscription model
D) Aggressively cater to new demographics
Buzzfeed chose every option except C, which would have fixed the traffic and revenue problem.
In order to ally itself with other outlets, Buzzfeed had to define itself as a progressive left leaning online portal which would then be shared via Huffington Post, Rollingstones, TIME and later by even smaller outlets like Gawker and Salon. This is the reason you often have the same article, usually regarding a gay guy crying about his pizza being delivered late, published with the same title on the same day on five left leaning media outlets. The perks of allying yourself with the left are more than just redirects and googleranks. The gay mafia had well been established in Hollywood and was aggressively promoting talent-less "writers" that catered to their agenda by exposing them to main stream audiences via their connections.
While it is normal for media outlets to take money for promotion articles (fluff pieces), Buzzfeed needed to make sure they also fit its progressive agenda. Such articles include:
An example of would be 'Misconceptions about Indians.' With this article they kill 3 birds with one stone: drive traffic to their site, cater to a new market and get paid. This is why any top 10 destination list is a bucket of shit. If anything those destinations should be avoided.
After its near 10 year run Buzzfeed's readers represent the most notorious sect of SJW. Now catered to young girls with record low attention spans, their articles are no longer funny and the whole site is pure leftist propaganda. There is a problem though. Buzzfeed has now hit another plateau and it has squeezed every ounce of juice in the left's fruit basket. What else is there left? The government subsidized organizations that were set up throughout academia are still producing bogus studies about micro-aggression and straight male privilege but how much of an effect they will continue to have remains to be seen.
Buzzfeed and related sites have gambled with their future and their fate is now tied with the political left. They cannot grow unless there is a new market and in order to create a new market the country needs to move further left. In order to do that, the government needs to subsidize more SJW programs and Colleges have to create more bullshit social science degrees. If a democratic candidate were to loose the next election, you can bank on those programs being cut. They are basically recruiting centers for the far left. Along with them, these media outlets will be crushed. Think of Buzzfeed as a publicly subsidized company that chooses sides, if its side wins they will get more funding, if it looses they will be cut down drastically. A similar scenario is occurring with the BBC in Britain where the conservatives are set to cut BBC funding. The only difference is the indirect relationship between the media outlets and public funding. Instead of directly taxing the citizens for the purpose of providing a public media outlet, American citizens are taxed for the purpose of creating feminist organizations to recruit more members and deliver them straight to buzzfeed. This relationship is unnatural and cannot last forever. It is only a matter of time when the rainbow colored shit hits the fan.
Since a lot of candidates have thrown their weight in the ring for next year's presidential elections in the United States, a lot of pundits, TV personalities, political analysts and pretty much anyone with a twitter following is lining up after their favorite contender. Some of the same players have some of the same backing. Repubs have lined up the military industrial complex nuthouse and Dems as usual the Homosexual, Tranny and visible minority army spearheaded by vegan eating Feminazis. On the surface it seems the average American has only bad choices. And while that might be the case for every election in a western country, (choosing between the lesser of the two evils) in today's political landscape, it has become the norm.
Out of all the different voting groups, one in particular has a chance to redeem themselves. As many in America and probably around the world have witnessed, African Americans have been protesting in full force (or maybe that's how some media outlets are reporting it. Hint: MSNBC, CNN) for their right not to get shot by cops. A legitimate protest but not if you take into account the fact that the people shot, strangled and killed were not saints to begin with. Regardless, there is definite anger in that community. A community which has voted for one political party since the days of the cold war onward. Here's why this should change.
First of all, voting entirely for one side will get you nothing but false representation of affirmative action poster boys. The way to advance a cause politically is to have leverage against both sides. If you put all your eggs in one basket, that leverage quickly disappears. You become a very useful tool but nothing more. For the Democratic Party, the Black vote is as certain as 'written in stone'. The only time they matter is prior to election day. Successful groups, on the other hand, such as the Jews or powerful industry players like tech, energy and foreign lobbies heavily fund both sides. This way their questions are answered regardless of who wins. If these groups were to only fund and vote one way, they would be about as powerful as a teenage protester publicly beaten by his mother.
Another reason why the African American community needs to stop their unconditional loyalty to the left, is that the left is preoccupied with causes that the majority of African Americans do not agree with: feminism, gay rights, government funded sex change operations, mandatory child support. And even the lefts economic plans hardly help the community at all. Let's dissect this a little further. The social causes from the left which are heavily funded by rich white groups that belong to their respective communities and couldn't care less how Compton is doing, have annihilated the Black Family Unit. Feminism and Child Support has destroyed the Black Family Household, which has the highest rate of single mother households. Many of the black men are actually in prison because of unpaid child support bills. One of them recently got shot trying to escape from it.
Even economic policies that look good on paper such as raising the minimum wage may not help the black community. Sure such archaic plans might relieve some pressure if people tackle the problem from both angels. Say, if the minimum wage is raised by $2-$3, theoretically it should elevate many from the poverty line and those families would have a better shot at reaching the middle class. But in reality this is naive theoretical thinking mixed with a Hollywood happy ending story line. Families preoccupied more with consumer culture than with reaching the middle class is the elephant in the room not tackled by these policies. Raising the minimum wage is lobbied by rich billionaires so that the poorest parts of society can continue to buy their useless products. These lobbyist, know that the extra $2 will not go towards the purchase of healthier food or a college fund but to a more expensive pair of sneakers or a head set.
To put it bluntly, the biggest profiteer from raising the minimum wage would be the high end escort that blows Michael Jordan. She can now charge more. Almost the same price as getting shit on in Dubai. The hypocrisy doesn't stop there. The left loves to attack the church. And more often than not they are correct. However, you will never, ever see a leftist movement in America attack black churches. While guys like Bill Maher or other liberal talk show hosts will have long segments of bashing the Catholic Church and the 'crazy' Evangelicals, they will then invite black preachers to discuss not only black topics but everything in general. The black churches are responsible for a lot of the problems in the African American communities. Where ever there is poverty and ignorance, the church or any religion for that matter flourishes. And black churches are swimming in a pool of ignorance.
One of the biggest problems that has decimated the African American community is young black women constantly getting pregnant. It is politically incorrect for the left to attack black churches, so they keep tying it up to education, birth control and other government funded programs in order to lobby for more funding. The truth is, however, that black churches preach stuff like "you shouldn't have sex until you're married" and yet constantly close their eyes to young black girls with three or four fatherless babies. And instead of discussing personal responsibility, they spent most of the time bashing the system. Is the system responsible because a black teenager cannot keep her legs closed? That the same girl spends $500 on headsets. Is the system responsible that her "boyfriend" left since he can't pay child support but has $1200 in debt worth of new Air Jordans?
The system is not responsible for these occurrences. While the system is responsible for incarceration rates and just like any complex network of rules has its own problems, cherry picking convenient statistics and blatantly leaving out the elephant in the room, will not help the community and it will definitely not get others outside the community on your side. No matter how much time 24/7 news channels spend on covering the protests, it will not change the fact that there are plenty of families who use common sense, responsible spending and join the middle class, making it hard for people to buy into "the racist system".
Do you remember HOOTERS? The 'sports bar' that served overpriced beer and food in exchange for young, hot servers. When Hooters expanded, it caught everyone's eye. Local News channels often reported whenever a new one opened up. It was a big deal. Hooters had a terrific business model too. Think about it. It raised prices with no rise in costs. A Hooters waitress got paid the same as a waitress at your neighborhood bar. She made her real money on tips. It wasn't long, however, before every similar establishment started applying the same model. Hire hot servers, raise prices and cash in. The hooters model of serving and entertaining customers was successful for a long time. So much so, that it become the norm for every place with an alcohol license. Five years ago it was very normal to walk into an average neighborhood bar and be waited by a hot waitress, or an amazingly seductive female bartender.
Lately, I have noticed the disappearance of the Hooters model. I no longer expect to be served by big breasted waitresses or my drink to be poured by a a petite bartender barely being able to hold onto a vodka bottle. Nightclubs are still the exception but even that is about to adjust. What could have been the driving force for such sudden change? Why is it that when I get a drink after work, the bartender is a guy and the person serving me might be a guy or a mediocre looking girl? As usual there are a number of reasons with varying degrees.
First, the tax loophole of tips has been closed. When Hooters was cool and popular, servers did not have to declare their tips. Neither the owners, nor the managers cared. So, the hooters business model made a lot of sense for hot, young girls since they could avoid taxation and essentially make the same or sometimes more than they would have, getting a real job.
Second, as word quickly spread, the hooters business model market was bombarded by applicants. Every young, attractive girl or even those who thought were attractive, wanted to work in a similar place and make tips. It wasn't just the money. Women don't really have a sense of making logical decisions based on finances the way that men do. What I mean is, it wasn't that these girls were sitting down, calculating how much they make as a waitress and then comparing that to how much they make as an accounting clerk and eventually came to a decision that wearing tight shorts and a revealing sport shirt was the clear logical, mathematical choice. No! Attention and status had a lot to do with it. And because the market was filled with applicants, owners and managers ran interviews like auditions. Remember, the business model was not how good a server you were, but how attractive you appeared, both in looks and your flirtatiousness. It plays well to a girl's sense of entitlement, validation and narcissism. The job required all three. Girls would hear from their friend Wendy, who showed up casually with or without a resume and was hired on the spot. This blew the seeking-validating-meter of girls everywhere. "Wendy got offered? Right away? Im prettier than her!" It was a less glorified version of going to auditions as an actress. This massive flooding of new recruits or hired guns, essentially lowered their value. It was expected that you would have a hot, young, flirtatious girl serving you greasy burgers and the attention they got from their customers started to decline. The customer base suddenly changed from an entirely male clientele to couples, families, groups of friends. The job lost virtually all the status and validation that it once had.
Third, the rise of Seeking arrangement. Although 'sugar-daddy' sites had been running for a while, they only became popular, on a mass scale, the last couple of years. With access to porn, no judgement culture, a culture that doesn't have consequences for women, banging an old guy is the next step after flirting with him for tips. Why flirt and give out a fake number for a 30% tip when you can blow him for a monthly expense account and not have to deal with mundane tasks like: looking up your schedule, waking up in the afternoon to go to work and rough manual labor such as: drink pouring, stressful problems of seat arrangements and other quizzical cash register dilemmas.
With an increase in the college debt bubble and a narrowing, ever-growing, educational pyramid scheme, the government simply offered to make education cheaper, but really cut a deal with the banks to lower interest rates while promising them more customers (students) instead of doing the hard work of restructuring the education system by cutting one third of the programs that need to be cut. Add a femi-centric media that only makes excuses for women and blames their situation on the patriarchy and you can see how easy it is for a 20 year old girl to create a profile and start seeking arrangements. It is no longer necessary for her to do a Hooter like job. Instead of meeting her sugar daddy as a hired gun, she can now cut out the middle man with the click of a button.
Ever been faced by an awkward date where even though you would penetrate the woman in front of you and are quite sure that she more than passes your boner test, she continues to sell herself? And not in a good way either. It's one of those selling points a lame used car salesmen with little vendor skills would use. “Haha…my friends keep saying how can you afford to constantly go to the best restaurants but I'm just blessed I guess.” Yes you are. And I'm just about to vomit. Well, this scenario is called over-gaming - a term generally used for men, who by gaming too much, lose a sure thing and end up going home alone at the end of the night.
I recently discovered, even though the facts of this have been staring me in the face through much of my life, that most women over-game on dates. It's not that they are annoying, selfish, entitled, ..well, actually yes, they are all those things too. But most definitely they talk themselves up to be someone more than they are. Here's the kicker though….to any woman that’s reading this….you REALLY NEEDN'T BOTHER. A straight man will never sleep with you because you eat at the best restaurants in town or you can afford a room with a view or you just finished your second masters degree if you do not pass his boner test. Everything else is either a bonus or a nuisance depending on who’s judging.
I’ve never seen a guy say “you know, I was almost not gonna fuck you, but thank god you have that PHD...now I got a raging hard on...let's go.”
A good woman player (and this is a rarity nowadays since when you don’t have to hunt and meat is provided for you, you eventually lose your hunting skills) is a woman that refuses to eat the same meat provided for her and loves the chase as much as the different flavors. She games just enough. Her texts are not about her celebrating with her friends at a mansion over bottles of expensive don perignon (over-gaming), but a simple “i'm gonna blow your mind” or “rock your world if you meet me tonight” (perfect gaming).
Come to think of it. Have women lost the ability to seduce? Would Mrs. Robinson today be able to seduce Benjamin (for the younger readers: The Graduate reference) or would Benjamin have to purchase her a drink, go after and convince her that he should have sex with her and her daughter?! Has the so called “power” movement the feminists hijacked turned the clock backward. It seems women today have the game of a woman in the late 1940’s, early 50’s and the desire of of a 12 year old! I consider myself somewhat lucky that I am old enough to still remember a time when I started dating, where cell phones only took calls. And texting on a date was a huge no-no. That was a time when a woman would still put in some time and effort to get to know you and put the last remaining brain cells to good use by coming up with a simple flirt. It seems all of that is long gone now. All I have to contend with are fuzzy memories.
Game as instituted by the original PUA's is as dead as DEAD. Game 5.0 is more of a lifestyle and career move than anything else. Guys that are still doing the 'clown' routine on dates will not get laid because of it, if at all, but in spite of it. We have a reached a point where random fucking is on the cusp. Banging a 20 year old girl at your place, smashing her face against the couch and ejaculating where it suits you, no longer goes down to game, but simple randomness.
So why do women feel the need to over-game? Women will over game for the simple fact that they are obsessed with how they appear. They are constantly fishing for compliments. It takes a little research into their finances to properly understand how much they care about what people think of them. Women need to be constantly seen eating at the best restaurants, wear the most expensive clothes, get expensive seats at concerts etc. All of this, not because they must have a certain type of food, shirt or are all groupies. But because it would look like they are living the perfect life when in fact they are all on seeking arrangement looking for a sugar-daddy to pay their rent. Social media has accelerated this phenomenon to an entirely post apocalyptic speed.
During the date with a stranger, however, she cannot use her social media status in her favor. This is why whenever a girl asks if she can add you on instagram or facebook before having sex with you, your answer should always be NO. If you say yes, you are just another statistic emboldening her narcissism. So on a date, she is unequipped with her virtual status. Since she spends so much time and energy documenting her life, it is very important she tells you exactly why her life is awesome. The sad thing is, I couldn't give a shit.
I don't give a shit if you post pictures of you in machu pichu and i don't give a shit about your story about how you "totally got plastered with your friends, and your slutty friend hooked up with one of the tour guides, but you didn't, cause you are not that kinda girl." What is the point of such stories? Is this supposed to make me appreciate you more? How the fuck are travel stories from you gonna help me get a boner? Men tell such stories to be entertaining, charming and seductive with the hope of possible sex later. Men boast about their career, business and financial achievements because they are appealing to the "seeking provider" side of the girl, again with the goal of sex. But how is you boasting about your masters in immigration studies help you be more fuckable? If you have a big nose and chubby arms, are they gonna suddenly disappear because you wrote an essay on the 'Irish diaspora'? No, my dick doesn't respond to that and no amount of SJW social reengineering propaganda will be able to change it.
I would like to address a mixup that has bothered for me for some time. A term that has become misconstrued so much it has lost all meaning. If you ask the majority of white people what diversity means, their ‘uncensored’ definition will be something along the lines of: the promotion of non-whites. The term always surfaces when a study, picked up by the media, shows the wage inequality between 2 different demographics or the share of a particular industry being unevenly divided. The results of such studies vary with whites, asians or men being on top of virtually every study. The interpretation, however, is always the same: what can the government do to diversify X industry or Y institution. The media is very hypocritical since it usually tears it apart when it becomes a white dominated field or a male dominated trade. This hypocrisy has caused many men, in particular white men, to despise anything to do with diversity. Well I am here to explain what diversity means to me or rather what it should mean.
Diversity to me means:
Enjoying a wide variety of ethnic food.
Having access to a variety of racially diverse women.
Having access to diverse group of employees that could help build a better product or marketing campaign by taking advantage of their diverse perspective.
Using employees as seen fit based on racial appearance or cultural upbringing to sell to a foreign market.
Engaging in an analytically driven, socially political discussion with a diverse group, taking in everyones different point of view.
Enjoying diverse music, film, games from all over the world and collaborating to produce better entertainment content.
Hearing and accepting diverse opinions without judgement
Collaborating with or including diverse groups of people in a free and fair competition.
Diversity to me does not mean:
Being called a racist because I despise certain types of ethnic food.
Being called a racist because I prefer a certain kind of race to fuck. Everyone is entitled to a sexual preference.
Claiming certain industries are racist because they are dominated by a particular ethnic group without taking into account any other factor.
Nascar is racist but a black dominated sport is not.
Silicon valley is sexist even though girls refuse to major in STEM.
Hollywood is sexist since most directors are men without taking into account that there are very few women who don’t love attention and almost always choose to be in front of the camera instead of behind it.
Accusing an award show for being racist because they didn’t nominate a minority actor without taking into account a performance that was not even close to deserving a nomination.
Change a comic book’s characters gender or race.
Force predominately white writers of a successful show to add more minority characters which only furthers bad stereotypes and only helps pay for high-end escorts of a few minority actors that always get those part.
Give one group a leg up because they aren’t “privileged” enough.
Accept “underprivileged” groups into schools over “privileged” groups who have better grades.
Attacked by online social justice warriors for making a joke only because a “diverse” group was part of the punch line.
Getting involved in debates with subjects you know nothing about only because you hear the battle cry of a reddit moral flag bearer.
If we remember the principles of diversity, we should all benefit from it. Unfortunately, the hypocrisy has invaded most media outlets, academic institutions and much of the online space. I still believe however we can see through the cultural marxist cloud and not let them divide us while at the same time have a healthy, uncensored debate.
There is a huge push from the left to ban fraternities. It resembles an organized top down campaign that stretches from newspapers to online blogs and talk shows to the 24/7 news junk box that is shoving ‘ban frats’ rhetoric down our throats. Let us for a moment entertain the idea that these naysayers are right. That frats are bad, racist, full of misogynists, useless and overall a tradition that we need to do away with. What would happen the weeks that follow? What do proponents of banning frats think will happen and what will actually happen?
The ideal leftist scenario:
A huge rally cheering the decision at the main university square led by bald feminist gains coverage on all the main media outlets. There are students being interviewed on TV, crying with joy at the decision. A huge victory for civil rights and justice for women. No more accidents from hazing. Young males now have the opportunity to evolve in their own unique way as individuals and not as a typical frat guy. Reports of ‘rape’ and ‘sexual assault’ are drastically cut down. Alcohol abuse is down and now students that could not get in to the famed frat parties no longer feel rejected, boosting self-esteem all around campus.
What will actually happen:
Brainwashed from the Huffington Post and spoiled by all the media attention they are getting, the majority of the students experience some sort of happiness. They feel as if they have been part of a great civil rights movement, the kind they only learn about in history books or pretty much every liberal arts course they are forced to take, regardless it not being a part of their major.
A week goes by and things have settled, the cameras have left, the attention is gone and the initial validation the students got from destroying one of the last ‘bastions of patriarchy’ has diminished. They go back to their daily life of exams, boring lectures, group projects, masturbating, weed, alcohol and trying to get laid. Thursday night approaches and students are looking to loosen up after a week of lectures, tests, studies, group projects and more masturbating. Some friends get together and agree that tonight they are gonna party. They decide to go out, not at a frat party of course, because they no longer exist but at a mixer, organized by the art history majors. Dressed to impress and looking to forget their academic life, students head towards the mixer with a big smile on their face, an extra pack of condoms and a viagra, in case they drink too much and affect the strength of their erection. This is a new kind of party. There is no hierarchy, no typical “douche frat guy” stereotype. Everybody is allowed to hang with anyone and everyone. And more importantly, everyone is allowed in.
The night starts off slow. It is rather quiet and boring with students talking about how “this course is kicking my ass” and how “i totally bombed this" pulling an all nighter. After a couple of hours and after they go through one or two keggers, things begin to change. A couple of attractive girls have entered the room and the mood transforms from bullshit talk to “I will burn this place down to get inside of them” talk. The girls are immediately approached by several guys. As they make their way across the room, their eyes catch a group of guys who are tall, athletic and sociable. After a couple of more drinks, a bigger group is formed between the attractive girls and sociable, cool guys. The night progresses further with more drinking. They start making out, things are going well and two of the guys, who happen to be roommates bring girls back to their place. They fuck the girls and send them on their way. These two guys who have been best friends for a while, kinda like ‘brothers’, discuss how they’ve had a great night and they should probably head to that place again next week.
A week passes by and the two ‘brothers’ make their way to the same place to replicate their success. They meet up with some buddies and start drinking as usual. The same group of girls enters, this week wasting no time working the room by quickly making their way towards ‘the brothers’. After small intros they take over a part of the place and make it 'their corner' for the rest of the night. Throughout the night, hot girl after hot girl is being introduced to the 'brothers' through mutual friends. The night ends with a larger group of the brothers and their female companions making their way to their apartment and finding a private space to fuck in.
The next day, the original two brothers while discussing how last night rocked, agree that they need to move into a house, because the apartment is too small to bring back a group of people from the party. They look for affordable houses nearby campus but realize that the two of them alone cannot afford that rent. They agree that they need additional roommates to be able to afford the rent of the big house. The house has nine rooms so they need seven more roommates. They put out an ad for seven roommates and get a ton of applications. However, throughout interviewing the initial applicants it seems they don’t see eye to eye and the applicants they are getting don’t match the brothers personality and lifestyle. After a disappointing week of weak applicants, the brothers make their way again to the same mixer for a night out. While having fun in what is now ‘their corner’, they mention that they are looking for roommates to some of their buddies. Their friends are eager to apply, willing to leave their current residence immediately. The brothers realize that it would be best to get roommates of similar interests, so they remove the initial ad they had placed and invite likeminded friends or ‘brothers’ to move in.
Everyone moves in and it is now a house of nine brothers. Everything works out great at first but within a few days a fight breaks out and the brothers disagree on how to solve it. The original two then decide there needs to be a code or a law or a set of rules everybody has to agree with, otherwise these kinds of situations will continue to happen. They also agree that the house needs structure. So they make themselves president and vice president. A week passes by and everything is resolved, all the brothers agreeing to the new structure and leadership. To celebrate all of them make their way to the same mixer again. During that mixer, they realize they have been staying at that same corner the whole night. They don’t agree with the choice of music, drinks, company and overall vibe of the mixer. They feel they can throw a better party at their place. And even charge people to come in. Excited about this new plan, they put every brother to work. Everyone is assigned responsibility to organize and promote this new event.
The party is a success. The majority of hot girls on campus are in attendance. The brothers have all emptied their balls and agree to do this every week. Ideas are pitched for theme parties based on holiday events (halloween, christmas) maybe even something as crazy as a toga-themed party. At the next party there is a line up going in. Rumors have spread throughout campus that the brothers know how to throw a party. The brothers then decide to let the hot girls they know and their friends in for free. Everyone else has to pay. It’s yet another party success. They are the talk of the campus yet again. So much so that they are being approached during the day time if they are looking for new roommates. As it happens, one of the brothers is leaving and they really do need a new roommate but this time around they got a A TON of likeminded applicants. In order to tackle this dilemma, they create a screening process with a series of tests in order to better decide who the next brother should be. Importance is placed on loyalty and how badly one wants it. After all, they are coming to the brothers not vice versa.
The success of this house, prompts other like-minded young, straight males to rent houses and model them after the brothers. As years pass, a tradition is formed and these houses also develop an alumni base, entering the pop culture mainstream, spreading to universities across North America.
In conclusion, banning frats is absolutely fucking stupid. No one is forcing girls going in, drinking half a keg and squeezing three-quarter feet of cock in their vaginas. No one is forcing young males to shove carrots up their asses. Human beings are tribal. It’s in our genes. And this ridiculous social re-engineering will not work. You can ban the term FRAT HOUSE, but you cannot ban similar minded men getting together and forming a group. You cannot ban frat houses just like you cannot ban women only restaurants and women only gyms. If you ban frat houses, then you have to ban every single nightclub with a guest list.
It occurred to me these past few weeks that the online world, and with that I include social media, dating, skype and every other mechanism we use to get in touch with other ‘people’ has gotten completely out of hand. The most annoying byproduct of two decades of internet has been the cultivation of online junkies. While some use the internet for work, to do good and in most cases to get information it would take them otherwise hours to gather, more and more people, especially those of the millennia generation, are using it to feed their rapid growing addiction. To them social media is the drug that has unlimited supply but just like any other drug comes with it’s own dependencies and addictions. Younger women are particularly hit hard from this ailment, which explains the stupid faces they make on the thousands of selfies a year they must have on their new iphone. It’s not adoring, or cute or something for their bff. It’s just an SOS call. A cry for help. But how should one deal with such an addiction and should we even worry that it would spread far and wide, reaching so deep within the soul of western civilization that it would ultimately serve as the catalyst for its destruction?
Well, for starters, going back to basics will help. And no, I don’t mean getting a rotary phone! We can use the fanciest technologies we like and download all the latest software. But use them responsibly. Where the online junkies have failed and resulted into being taken over from their addiction is the fact that they let their own happiness depend on the number of likes or hearts or inbox messages they get. The day that those likes or hearts or messages stop coming their craving amalgamated to the point of no return and shook them to the very core, producing a useless statement, pointless picture or an otherwise annoying cry for help through several social media sites until they get the ‘recognition’ they think they deserve.
If you wanna post something, do so if you are promoting something that will benefit you or you actually have an announcement you wanna share. Don't do it because you need a boost to make up for your uninteresting life outside of the internet. You will create nothing of value if you are constantly distracted by updates and text messages. You will not come up with inventive ideas and if you do, you will certainly not be able to see it through over all the swipes and likes. And lastly and probably the most annoying term to ever be permanently ruined by this is "tech savy". Updating your status, creating online dating profiles, recording vine videos does not make you "tech savy." On the contrary, what used to mean technologically adept now means online junky.
If no one ever challenged the status quo, the EARTH would still be FLAT!