[placer]

Related: One of my first tastes of the red pill was with a girlfriend in Mexico. She got upset at me because I didn't finger her; I told her I didn't because she didn't give me consent to do so. I realized, after that conversation, that a girl likes it when a man initiates the sex, especially if he is self-confident enough about it to not ask for consent. (I shed off the blue pill scales on my eyes and accepted the red pill while dating in Mexico; one great exercise was listening to Nine Inch Nails' "Closer" over and over until I realized "You know, it's OK to want to fuck this girl who has put me in the friend zone and have nothing to do with her if she doesn't put out")

There is just something very unsexy, for a girl, when a guy looks at her and says "Do you want to have sex with me?" Guys who think like that are generally virgins.

[MrLemon]

(08-29-2014 12:18 PM)Glaucon Wrote:  

The most idiotic thing is, if you point out this is wrong, you will be called a rapist. That is why it was unanimous.

This is how all witchhunts grow. This is classic American witchhunt.

Pure, 100% crazy-freaky-Puritan, batshit crazy female witch hunt. You can't fight it. Better to just make your exit.

For those of you who didn't grow up in the USA, it's important to know, our country every few decades or so, goes absolutely insane over some issue. I mean, really weird and psycho, usually this involves women who froth at the mouth and point their fingers at people (usually somebody powerless and convenient) and accuse them of satan worship, rape, or whatever.

In the South it was lynching of black men. A little known fact...in most lynch mobs, it was the local women, the white women, who would push to the front and scream obscenities while a black man was tortured and hung from a tree.

[Dusty]

Quote:

In the discussion that followed, a few lawmakers, such as Republican State Sen. Bob Huff, voiced cautious misgivings. The comments from Sen. Lori Hancock, Democrat from Berkeley (found at 1:09 in the video of the hearing), provide a rather stark demonstration of both the ideological zealotry and the moral intimidation underlying this bill. While Sen. Hancock at first claimed to appreciate the complexities raised by Sen. Huff, this turned out to be pure sarcasm. "It's probably hard to be a guy when you think you're just doing what guys, culturally, are allowed to do—push a woman around a little bit, whatever," Sen. Hancock remarked with a snide chuckle. "I think what we're talking about here is a profound cultural shift which needs to happen."

Read more: http://reason.com/archives/2014/06/22/ca...z3BzRINViY

Sen Hancock

[The Lizard of Oz]

Quote:

"It's probably hard to be a guy when you think you're just doing what guys, culturally, are allowed to do—push a woman around a little bit, whatever," Sen. Hancock remarked with a snide chuckle. "I think what we're talking about here is a profound cultural shift which needs to happen."

That is a straight up Stalinist Year Zero utterance. There needs to be a "profound cultural shift" -- meaning, men and women need to start behaving in a way they've never behaved in world history. And she feels supremely qualified to enforce such changes by law, and break a few eggs to make the omelet.

It's never good when the commissars are chuckling.

She has the party apparatchik mug for sure. Chilling.

[The Lizard of Oz]

Ezra Klein, one of the leading lights of the American left, has written a truly chilling, indeed sinister, post in support of this insane law. The post is entitled "Yes Means Yes" is a terrible bill and I completely support it.

Quote:

SB 697, California's "Yes Means Yes" law, is a terrible bill. But it's a necessary one.

It tries to change, through brute legislative force, the most private and intimate of adult acts. It is sweeping in its redefinition of acceptable consent; two college seniors who've been in a loving relationship since they met during the first week of their freshman years, and who, with the ease of the committed, slip naturally from cuddling to sex, could fail its test.

Defenders of the bill argue that the lovers have nothing to worry about; the assault will never be punished, because no complaint will ever be brought. Technically, that's true. But this is as much indictment as defense: if the best that can be said about the law is that its definition of consent will rarely be enforced, then the definition should be rethought. It is dangerous for the government to set rules it doesn't expect will be followed.

But I've come to think that this view — which was, initially, my view — misses the point (this piece, in particular, did a lot to change my mind). The Yes Means Yes law is a necessarily extreme solution to an extreme problem. Its overreach is precisely its value.

Every discussion of the Yes Means Yes law needs to begin with a simple number: A 2007 study by the Department of Justice found that one in five women is the victim of an attempted or completed sexual assault while in college.

One. In. Five.

That study relies on surveys of two campuses, and sexual assault is a notoriously underreported crime, so it's possible the real number is much higher, or somewhat lower. Either way, it's far too high — evidence that something has gone very wrong in the sexual culture.

If the Yes Means Yes law is taken even remotely seriously it will settle like a cold winter on college campuses, throwing everyday sexual practice into doubt and creating a haze of fear and confusion over what counts as consent. This is the case against it, and also the case for it. Because for one in five women to report an attempted or completed sexual assault means that everyday sexual practices on college campuses need to be upended, and men need to feel a cold spike of fear when they begin a sexual encounter.

This piece of shit, who not long ago was in college himself (he's just 30), wants all men on college campuses to "feel a cold spike of fear" every time they're about to fuck some girl. He wants a "cold winter" to settle on college campuses, and he wants to create a "haze of fear and confusion" about "consent". All this, based on the demented and obviously unbelievable "1 in 5" sexual assault statistic based on **two surveys** (surveys!). That ludicrous number, in his opinion, justifies making the lives of all young guys on college campuses into a living hell, and permanently ruining some of these lives in the process.

This is almost unfathomably evil. These scumbags are no different from the Bolsheviks whose moral and intellectual heirs they are.

[Veloce]

(10-14-2014 05:16 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  

This piece of shit, who not long ago was in college himself (he's just 30), wants all men on college campuses to "feel a cold spike of fear" every time they're about to fuck some girl. He wants a "cold winter" to settle on college campuses, and he wants to create a "haze of fear and confusion" about "consent".

These are, without a doubt, the bitter rants of a man that wasn't getting any in college.

[Dusty]

(10-14-2014 05:16 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  

Ezra Klein, one of the leading lights of the American left, has written a truly chilling, indeed sinister, post in support of this insane law. The post is entitled "Yes Means Yes" is a terrible bill and I completely support it.

Quote:

SB 697, California's "Yes Means Yes" law, is a terrible bill. But it's a necessary one.

It tries to change, through brute legislative force, the most private and intimate of adult acts. It is sweeping in its redefinition of acceptable consent; two college seniors who've been in a loving relationship since they met during the first week of their freshman years, and who, with the ease of the committed, slip naturally from cuddling to sex, could fail its test.

Defenders of the bill argue that the lovers have nothing to worry about; the assault will never be punished, because no complaint will ever be brought. Technically, that's true. But this is as much indictment as defense: if the best that can be said about the law is that its definition of consent will rarely be enforced, then the definition should be rethought. It is dangerous for the government to set rules it doesn't expect will be followed.

But I've come to think that this view — which was, initially, my view — misses the point (this piece, in particular, did a lot to change my mind). The Yes Means Yes law is a necessarily extreme solution to an extreme problem. Its overreach is precisely its value.

Every discussion of the Yes Means Yes law needs to begin with a simple number: A 2007 study by the Department of Justice found that one in five women is the victim of an attempted or completed sexual assault while in college.

One. In. Five.

That study relies on surveys of two campuses, and sexual assault is a notoriously underreported crime, so it's possible the real number is much higher, or somewhat lower. Either way, it's far too high — evidence that something has gone very wrong in the sexual culture.

If the Yes Means Yes law is taken even remotely seriously it will settle like a cold winter on college campuses, throwing everyday sexual practice into doubt and creating a haze of fear and confusion over what counts as consent. This is the case against it, and also the case for it. Because for one in five women to report an attempted or completed sexual assault means that everyday sexual practices on college campuses need to be upended, and men need to feel a cold spike of fear when they begin a sexual encounter.

This piece of shit, who not long ago was in college himself (he's just 30), wants all men on college campuses to "feel a cold spike of fear" every time they're about to fuck some girl. He wants a "cold winter" to settle on college campuses, and he wants to create a "haze of fear and confusion" about "consent". All this, based on the demented and obviously unbelievable "1 in 5" sexual assault statistic based on **two surveys** (surveys!). That ludicrous number, in his opinion, justifies making the lives of all young guys on college campuses into a living hell, and permanently ruining some of these lives in the process.

This is almost unfathomably evil. These scumbags are no different from the Bolsheviks whose moral and intellectual heirs they are.

Lizard, I too saw that Klein article and was outraged for the same reasons you are.

I just saw this article on National Review about Klein's article:

Quote:

The Illiberal Ezra Klein

Jettisoning due process for those accused of rape is a small price to pay for social change.

By Charles C. W. Cooke

If, in the modern era, a speaker proposes that one “cannot make an omelet without breaking eggs,” his audience can safely presume that he is joking. At one point, perhaps, it was deemed copacetic for leaders to off a few innocents in order for the living to get the right idea, but, in these more enlightened times, such displays are rather frowned upon. By all means make your case, our better angels enjoin. But keep the guiltless out of it.

This conceit has been accepted widely throughout civil society — indeed, it arguably put the “civil” part into that welcome phrase. And yet, from time to time, we are reminded that not everybody has quite grasped its consequence. Among those who are struggling with the idea is Vox’s Ezra Klein, who yesterday afternoon argued in no uncertain terms that we should disregard the due-process rights of accused rapists in the name of bringing about social change. California’s controversial new sexual-consent law, Klein wrote, was little short of “terrible,” and yet, because he agrees with its intentions, he has decided to “completely support it” anyhow. “If the Yes Means Yes law is taken even remotely seriously,” Klein explained, “it will settle like a cold winter on college campuses, throwing everyday sexual practice into doubt and creating a haze of fear and confusion over what counts as consent.” “This,” he concluded, “is the case against it and also the case for it.”

Or, rather: What is terrible about this law is, in fact, what is wonderful about it. The law’s “overreach,” Klein says, is “precisely its value,” authorities having hit upon “a necessarily extreme solution to an extreme problem.” That “cold winter” of which he writes? That’s a feature not a bug, the measure’s virtue being, in Klein’s words, that it will “create a world where men are afraid” enough of the authorities that they “feel a cold spike of fear when they begin a sexual encounter.” All in all, Klein adduces, “The Yes Means Yes law could also be called the You Better Be Pretty Damn Sure law.”

That’s one option, certainly. Another modest proposal might be, “An Enabling Act for the Salem Rape Culture Trials.”

Since the nation’s universities first started to go down this road, opponents of such enactments have leveled two key criticisms. The first is linguistic. As a matter of dull routine, progressives have taking to shouting “government in the bedroom!” at almost any available juncture. Don’t want women to kill their unborn children in a hospital? “Government in the bedroom!” Oppose the redefinition of marriage? “Government in the bedroom!” Believe that Catholic charities should be able to decline to provide contraception within their benefits packages? Etc., etc. And yet, now that states and colleges are drafting sexual-consent rules that, in Heather Mac Donald’s immortal phrase, “resemble nothing so much as a multi-lawyer-drafted contract for the sale and delivery of widgets,” there is nary a peep from the usual suspects. What gives, guys? Cat been given explicit written permission to clench your tongue?

The second objection is a more serious one: Namely, that attempts to micromanage the personal and subjective realm of private sexual behavior will inevitably end up undermining due process. Alarmingly, Klein doesn’t even bother to pretend that this will not be the case. Instead, he describes the subversion of presumed innocence as the idea’s central virtue:

Critics worry that colleges will fill with cases in which campus boards convict young men (and, occasionally, young women) of sexual assault for genuinely ambiguous situations. Sadly, that’s necessary for the law’s success. It’s those cases — particularly the ones that feel genuinely unclear and maybe even unfair, the ones that become lore in frats and cautionary tales that fathers e-mail to their sons — that will convince men that they better Be Pretty Damn Sure.

Or, as he puts it somewhat eerily later on, “ugly problems don’t always have pretty solutions.”

Criticizing this approach, New York magazine’s Jonathan Chait noted that Klein is essentially “arguing for false convictions as a conscious strategy in order to strike fear into the innocent.” This, Chait suggested represents “a conception of justice totally removed from the liberal tradition.” Chait is correct. Indeed, this is as brazen an example of illiberalism as I have seen for a good while. And yet I’m not at all sure why we are supposed to be so taken aback by it. Even if it were the case that the average American “liberal” was a champion of individual rights and due process, it would be wholly irrelevant to this case. Why? Well, because Ezra Klein isn’t a “liberal” in any meaningful sense of that word, and because, far from agonizingly sacrificing his “liberalism” in the name of a competing good, Klein has merely done here what all rudderless, easily distracted progressives do: He has proposed a blunt increase in the power of America’s Star Chambers as the natural answer to the problem du jour.

In doing so, Klein has neatly illustrated just how dangerously capricious and supple the Progressive Hierarchy of Pieties really is. I daresay that it is rather easy to be a “liberal” when liberalism lines up nicely with the prevailing sentiments of one’s social cohorts. But it is much, much harder when it does not. Genuine “liberals” — those in the tradition of John Locke and Adam Smith, and not of Herbert Croly or Rachel Maddow — do not forsake timeless principle for last night’s orthodoxy because, for them, due process is as important today as it was at the time of Magna Carta. Ezra Klein, by contrast, appears to be something of a weathervane. Forced to choose between the universal principles of the Enlightenment and the transient pressure of this year’s moral panic, he plumped squarely for the latter. For shame.

Still, I’d venture that this should surprise precisely nobody. As Freddie deBoer argued brilliantly earlier this year, the “online liberalism” to which Klein and his ilk primarily cater is not really “a series of political beliefs and alliances but instead a set of social cues that are adopted to demonstrate one’s class background — economic class, certainly, but more cultural class, the various linguistic and consumptive signals that assure those around you that you’re the right kind of person.” Because faux-“liberal attitudes change very rapidly and then congeal into a consensus that is supposedly so obviously correct that it does not need defending,” hard and fast ideals are expendable — just tools to be deployed for as long as it is convenient, and thrown to the wayside when it is not. “In the past year,” deBoer noted, “liberalism as an elite social phenomenon has abandoned first rights of the accused and second the right to free expression.”

Indeed so. And why the hell not? When you have no North Star, all is mere expedience. When you see no natural rights with which you must contend, each and every question becomes a mathematical balancing act. And when you are cheered for sabotaging justice and booed for advocating fair play, your incentives begin to go askew. Somebody has suggested that one in five female college attendees are assaulted? Time to cut the prissy talk, liberals, and to fetch the Malay boot and the rack. Hurry, hurry, we have a culture of fear to instill — pour encourager les autres, natch.

— Charles C. W. Cooke is a staff writer at National Review.

[Sombro]

Neo-Victorianism on Campus

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/n...?nopager=1

Quote:

...the Occidental case is emblematic not of “rape culture” but of the emotional fallout from sexual liberation. Jane was a virgin before her tryst with John. She only decided to report her intercourse to the Occidental authorities, after prompting from her college advisers, when she realized how much it had affected her psychologically. She saw that John “wasn’t fazed by what happened at all” and appeared to attend classes without difficulty, whereas she found herself distracted and unable to concentrate. She should not have to risk the discomfort of seeing him, she concluded, and thus, Occidental should expel him.

Jane’s reactions are understandable, if hardly grounds for expulsion. While there are thankfully few actual rape victims on college campuses, there are thousands of girls feeling taken advantage of by partners who walk away from casual sex with no apparent sense of thwarted attachment. That such behavior conforms to the ground rules for campus sex doesn’t matter. What campus feminists call “post traumatic stress disorder” and fear of getting “raped” again is often rather a female’s quite natural embarrassment at reencountering a sex partner whom she barely knew and with whom she has no continuing relationship. Girls losing their virginity are at particular risk of being emotionally ambushed by drunken hook-up couplings. Though sexual liberation has stripped virginity and its loss of any formally recognized significance, the lived experience can be more momentous than girls are prepared for.

[The Lizard of Oz]

(10-15-2014 08:11 PM)Sombro Wrote:  

Neo-Victorianism on Campus

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/n...?nopager=1

This article (by a woman named Heather McDonald) enraged me. And it did so despite being completely correct with respect to the facts. She recognizes them perfectly well:

Quote:

But isn’t this bureaucratic and legislative ferment, however ham-handed, being driven by an epidemic of campus rape? There is no such epidemic.

...

If campus rape were the epidemic that the activists allege, there would have been a stampede to create alternative schools for girls. Instead, every year the competition among girls (and boys) to get into selective colleges grows fiercer. Sophisticated baby boomer mothers start their daughters’ preparation for college earlier and earlier. The Obama White House asserts that campus rape “survivors” suffer a lifetime of psychological and physical trauma, yet females are graduating from college in ever more disproportionate numbers, after which they go on to have lucrative careers, with no evidence of crippling mental injury. The bogus statistics thrown around by the feminist-industrial complex—a one-in-four to one-in-five incidence of sexual assault among undergraduate girls—dwarf any known crime rate, even in the most brutal African ethnic wars. In 2012, Newark, New Jersey’s rate for all violent crimes—murder, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault—was 1.1 percent; its rape rate was under .02 percent. Activist researchers attain their 20-25 percent rape incidence statistic by the strategic phrasing of questions and the exquisite parsing of definitions. In a 1986 Ms. survey that sparked the campus-rape industry, 73 percent of respondents whom the study characterized as rape victims said that they hadn’t been raped when asked the question directly. Forty-two percent of these supposed victims had intercourse again with their alleged assailants—an inconceivable behavior in the case of actual rape. Sixty-five percent of females whom a 2000 Department of Justice study deemed “completed rape” victims said that they did not think that their experiences were “serious enough to report,” nor did their alleged “victimization” result in physical or emotional injuries.

Despite all this, she draws the deranged conclusion that the current feminist witch hunt on college campuses has "no downside". Because apparently, even though there is no "rape epidemic", there is instead a "squalid hook-up culture", which turns out to be just as bad.

Quote:

The ultimate result of the feminists’ crusade may be the same as if they were explicitly calling for a return to sexual modesty: a sharp decrease in casual, drunken sex. There is no downside to this development.

She feels that dudes who pump and dump sluts are apparently so bad that they deserve "no sympathy" (even though she realizes that their lives can be destroyed for that reason!)

Quote:

There are no sympathetic victims in the campus sex wars. While few boys are guilty of what most people understand as rape, many are guilty of acting as boorishly as they can get away with. Sexual liberation and radical feminism unleashed the current mess by misunderstanding male and female nature. Feminists may now be unwittingly accomplishing what they would never allow conservatives to do: restoring sexual decorum.

And her blithe prescription to solve the problem? Easy, dudes and sluts should just stop drinking and fucking each other. What's the point of doing that anyway, right? After all, "conservatives" know it's bad, and so do "progressives", so we have everyone in agreement on this point. Just stop it...

Quote:

But the solution is not more complex procedural protections cobbled over a sordid culture, the solution is to reject that culture entirely. Just as girls can avoid the risk of what the feminists call “rape” by not getting drunk and getting into bed with a guy whom they barely know, boys, too, can radically reduce the risk of a rape accusation by themselves not getting drunk and having sex with a girl whom they barely know. Mothers worried that their college-bound sons will be hauled before a biased campus sex tribunal by a vindictive female should tell them: “Wait. Find a girlfriend and smother her with affection and respect. Write her love letters in the middle of the night. Escort her home after a date and then go home yourself.” If one-sided litigation risk results in boys taking a vow of celibacy until graduation, there is simply no loss whatsoever to society and only gain to individual character. Such efforts at self-control were made before, and can be made again.

To which I say: HAG. Fuck you and the horse you rode in on. Fuck you and your "conservative" ideas if, knowing full well that there is no "rape epidemic" and that guys are being expelled and their lives ruined on the basis of false accusations, you fail to see any "sympathetic victims". Fuck your stupid hagcunt that monstrously chatters about how an imagined "vow of celibacy until graduation" by "boys" -- "boys" -- is "no loss to society".

I've said it many times -- fanatical progressives and feminists are the ones driving this witch hunt, of course, but many "conservatives" are more than happy to join in, one way or another. There is a disgusting shared prudery, a mincing fear and hatred of sex and of pleasure. And there is a frightening shared disregard for individual human lives and fates, a terrible willingness and even hunger to break the very same human eggs to make some (supposedly different) social omelets. The progressives are even worse, of course, and they are the ones in the driver's seat; but there is plenty of the same on the supposed other side.

[Native Baltimoron]

(10-15-2014 08:50 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  

Some Cow Wrote:

Mothers worried that their college-bound sons will be hauled before a biased campus sex tribunal by a vindictive female should tell them: “Wait. Find a girlfriend and smother her with affection and respect. Write her love letters in the middle of the night. Escort her home after a date and then go home yourself.” If one-sided litigation risk results in boys taking a vow of celibacy until graduation, there is simply no loss whatsoever to society and only gain to individual character. Such efforts at self-control were made before, and can be made again.

To which I say: HAG. Fuck you and the horse you rode in on. Fuck you and your "conservative" ideas if, knowing full well that there is no "rape epidemic" and that guys are being expelled and their lives ruined on the basis of false accusations, you fail to see any "sympathetic victims". Fuck your stupid hagcunt that monstrously chatters about how an imagined "vow of celibacy until graduation" by "boys" -- "boys" -- is "no loss to society".

I've said it many times -- fanatical progressives and feminists are the ones driving this witch hunt, of course, but many "conservatives" are more than happy to join in, one way or another. There is a disgusting shared prudery, a mincing fear and hatred of sex and of pleasure. And there is a frightening shared disregard for individual human lives and fates, a terrible willingness and even hunger to break the very same human eggs to make some (supposedly different) social omelets. The progressives are even worse, of course, and they are the ones in the driver's seat; but there is plenty of the same on the supposed other side.

Not only that, but an ongoing relationship is not evidence of consent, per the statute. So all that advice will not only blueball the poor saps who listen to their mothers, it will also fail to protect them from regret-rape accusations.

Traditional marriage will not be resuscitated until it means guaranteed sex with no risk of theft of children and money by unilateral divorce. People like Heather McDonald don't really care about marriage, or traditional values, or they would be encouraging young women to avoid giving in to their feral instincts rather than castigating young men partaking in the sexual buffet that is contemporary collegiate education.

[sixsix]

(10-14-2014 09:22 PM)Veloce Wrote:  

(10-14-2014 05:16 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  

This piece of shit, who not long ago was in college himself (he's just 30), wants all men on college campuses to "feel a cold spike of fear" every time they're about to fuck some girl. He wants a "cold winter" to settle on college campuses, and he wants to create a "haze of fear and confusion" about "consent".

These are, without a doubt, the bitter rants of a man that wasn't getting any in college.

Exactly. This is a guy that hated popular guys that were getting the girls, that wasn't invited to the parties, and is driven by his resentment to get back at that culture.

[Sonsowey]

Even if you get someone to literally sign a contract, it has no meaning. Consent can be withdrawn at any moment for any reason. Her signing a contract is no indication that she consents two minutes later.

Just ridiculius. Guys please do not deal with crazy girls who might put you in legal troubles. Please deal with normal healthy sane women.

[The Lizard of Oz]

Good video, Roosh. Great to see some righteous anger directed at this Bolshevik Year Zero piece of shit and his sinister article.

[TigerMandingo]

This is basically ugly people who don't want other people to have sex and enjoy themselves.

Lizard, it's funny that you bring up the Bolsheviks. I agree with the comparison entirely. Stalin said something to the effect that "they are rabid dogs who need to be put down" right before he launched his War of Terror against the Bolshevik Party and the Red Army.

These progressives really are "rabid dogs".

[The Lizard of Oz]

(10-18-2014 04:39 PM)Cunnilinguist Wrote:  

(10-16-2014 08:00 AM)sixsix Wrote:  

Trotsky:

Thank God, today's proggs don't have those kind of chops.

The similarities between the two pics are clear (ethnic affinity) but the differences are more striking. One is a tough character (still no match for the Georgian monster), the other a mangina.

Trotsky rose out of nothing to command an army in battle, and do it very well.

I don't think Ezra Klein is going to be commanding an army anytime soon.

Today's mangina proggs are an odd crew because as depraved as they are, they are not truly bloodthirsty. They just don't have those old-fashioned chops and energies (again, thank God). They still can and will do a lot of damage, but it's a different sort of thing. So while they are indeed the heirs to the Bolsheviks, this also requires some qualification.

[Saga]

Quote:

...men need to feel a cold spike of fear when they begin a sexual encounter.

Quote:

It's those cases -- particularly the ones that feel genuinely unclear and maybe even unfair...that will convince men that they better Be Pretty Damn Sure.

Abject insanity. This means: instilling fear in a targeted population, knowingly punishing the innocent to set an example, sacrificing the pursuit of just judgment for the sake of satisfying ideological belief.

Apparently, he's effectively arguing that terror can and should be used as a political, social and behavioral tool. The Committee of Public Safety would be proud, Citizen Klein.

[Libertas]

Guilty until proven innocent. The creep of dystopia continues.

It was a good video Roosh. Your skills on camera are pretty good, though game certainly translates over to that. One of the reasons I think I've been good at talking to women was because I honed my craft in speaking and conversational skills behind a camera a few years ago.

[Zep]

Very good video, made things excruciatingly clear.

I agree with a commentor, "Karen Straughan". You may not like her, but, we have seen the numbers she commands. Bring this to her and see if she'll comment on it.

Other Ideas:

- warn all male students of university campuses to NOT get involved in sex because it could very well end up in a rape sentence. They should go off campus for their physical needs. The girls on campus will go fucking nuts. No sex will equate to not feeling loved, and when females get upset...lol...shit hits the fan in ways men cannot predict. "hell hath no fury like a woman scorned".

-then make the men and women who are suffering on campuses aware of whoever is sponsering and hiring Klein, like Mastercard, and make sure these advertisers hear about it. They will, from women. Women love to bitch via writing.

- Start up a buzz-phrase like "Ezra Klein owns your body"...because he is behind this, and woman DO NOT like anyone telling them what they can and cannot do with their bodies.

- Offer up alternate universities to students in nearby states, make it known that ANY man convicted of a 'rape' accusation by a California University gets a LOT of attention so that students considering dropping money on a Californian University consider other universities in other states.