Is “nervous compliance” an official fetish? If not it should be.
So this is some sort of self-improvement scam. “Take our class on business success!” and the like. All of these things are wastes of money and many may sometimes tip over into actionable fraud.
But the man who started it, Keith Raniere, along with actress Allison Mack and Seagram hieress Clare Bronfman, are being charged with “sex trafficking” and running a kind of sex cult where hot women would be recruited, then branded (hot!) and have sex with the founder. I mean, isn’t that the entire POINT of doing anything? Men build houses so women will come inside the house and have sex with them. Teenage boys learn how to play guitar so teenage girls will like their songs and have sex with them. It’s why men do anything.
This guy, Raniere, is on another level. He got his hot sex slaves to recruit other sex slaves for him, in a sort of recursive pick-up artistry. Come on, that’s pretty great. Anyone who has ever had a women recruit the other gal for a threesome, or even had an ex-lover introduce you to a new lover, understands the thrill of that.
Mack, under Raniere’s direction, would allegedly recruit women into the group, force them to to have sex with Raniere, have his initials branded into their skin, have them operate under “master-slave” conditions, and would abuse them if they disobeyed.
I don’t get the “force” part. I mean, if she was holding them down while Raniere raped them, fine, prosecute and send them to jail. But I have a feeling “force” means “hey, if you want into the club you have to put out.” While is the entire point of the club. Remember those old bumper stickers from the 1970s for hitchhiker, “Cash, Grass or Ass?” Is that sex trafficking now?
The FBI became involved as five women spoke out against the group in a New York Times exposé. After Raniere’s arrest, FBI official William Sweeney said in a statement: “As alleged, Keith Raniere displayed a disgusting abuse of power in his efforts to denigrate and manipulate women he considered his sex slaves.”
What “power” did this man have over these women, really? These were attractive, intelligent and in most cases very well off upper-middle class career women. He wasn’t even paying them, it’s not like it was an employer-employee relationship. His “power” was social proof as far as I can tell.
“He allegedly participated in horrifying acts of branding and burning them, with the co-operation of other women operating within this unorthodox pyramid scheme. These serious crimes against humanity are not only shocking, but disconcerting to say the least, and we are putting an end to this torture today.”
I’m against branding and tattoos in general, but these were adults weren’t they? They wanted into a club and this was the hazing ritual. Are we going to arrest the entire military of the United States for getting tattoos as part of their male bonding?
Think about this: I could move to Los Angeles, rent a hotel room and pay a desperate 18 year old girl $600 to get anally gang raped by ten old men, film it, and distribute it on line and that’s “free speech.”
But I can’t pal around with a couple of beautiful career women to give me social proof to recruit other beautiful career women for hot threesomes and sexy initiation rites like bikini tatooing?
It’s ok to “humiliate” women as long as you film it and show it online, but it’s terrible “manipulation” to do it privately and consensually?
As far as I can tell, this Nxivm/DOS group is far more moral – far more feminist, even – than the entire Los Angeles pornography industry.
All I can say is I’m glad I’m old and settled down now, because if half of what I did in my teens and 20s, in the USA, back in the 1990s, were known, I’d be in jail, along with just about every girl I’ve ever dated and half of my guy friends too.
One of my guilty pleasures is watching Pastor Steven Anderson of Faithful Word Baptist Church on youtube. A decade ago my other guilty pleasure was watching Westboro Baptist Church parody music videos but I don’t think they make them anymore. I find them refreshingly subversive to modernity and liberalism.
I don’t enjoy watching, say, Paul Washer videos. Anderson is a dork and not particularly bright. But Washer is a full fledged sociopath. So the difference is it’s fun to see Anderson ranting and railing against stuff, often getting it wrong in a hilarious way because he’s not that smart and a huge dork. But it’s not fun watching Paul Washer because he’s a competent, sadistic sociopath. It’s the difference between watching a crazy old man yelling “get off my lawn” to a bunch of naughty kids vesus an evil psycopath psychologically torturing children.
Anderson (and the Westboros) were known for their “homophobia” but really that’s what they used for publicity and controversy. As Anderson notes, the fact is most people don’t approve of homosexuality and are absolutely repulsed by transsexualism. That’s exactly why the media promotes LGBT constantly (and also, relatedly, why they promote Jews, Israel and Holocaust culture so much – and also why there is so much Afrophilia.) People have to be browbeaten by this stuff because they naturally don’t like it.
While the media will tell you Anderson is “hateful” it’s not true, he’s actually kind of dorky, which makes it fun.
You have to understand the role that Pastor or Preacher had in American society. Before the era of mass education, the only educated person in a community was the Minister. Harvard University, in fact, all of the universities, were started to train ministers. In an entire town, the Bible was very often the only book that anyone had. So the Pastor was not just a religious figure, he was essentially the only intellectual.
The precise reason that religion lost so much cultural clout is because people started to read more than one book – and more than one person started to read. So Pastors lost their place as the only educated person in town.
In any case, Anderson tries to fulfill the role as “general intellectual” for his small congregation of working class, mostly (but not exclusively) Whites in Arizona. He’ll read the news for them, discuss issues, etc.
In this particular video, he actually does a somewhat credible job of trying to explain the difference between SEX and GENDER. He wants to tell his congregation why women shouldn’t wear pants, because while putting on a pair of pants doesn’t change a woman’s sex, it can be seen as a form of cross-dressing.
But he even gets this wrong, mostly because he’s a) not that smart and b) kind of a dork.
So he writes three columns on the whiteboard and has the congregation categorize different kinds of clothing into either for men, for women, or both. He starts with easy stuff: skirts, dresses, bras, pantyhose – all for women. Then, he asks about shoes, hats, gloves, tee-shirts, etc., and everyone agrees they are for both women and men.
So then he comes up to his big point, his coup de grace. How comes there’s nothing in the men’s column? He wants to point out that the verse in the Bible that says women’s shouldn’t wear “what pertains to a man” would have no meaning if there’s no clothing specifically for men.
But one of his congregation helpfully points out – TIES. Oops. Here’s a clear case. In modern, American society, men wear ties, and women don’t. But that ruins his entire point. His point was to say that women shouldn’t wear pants and pants are exclusively for men and if women wear pants there’s no point in the Bible verse.
But it’s OBVIOUS to everyone that ties are more stereotypically men’s clothing than pants. So what does Anderson do? Well, he’s a dork, and not that bright, so he mocks the guy who helpfully tried to help him out and give him a CLEAR example of something in our culture that is for men only: ties.
So Anderson says, well, he’s seen women wear ties. (WHAT?) I do remember a school uniform that had a kind of “tie” for women, it was a short thing, more like a ribbon really, that they would wear over their right breast. It was never popular and never caught on.
But Anderson just tries to ignore this to make his point, that women shouldn’t wear pants – and throws his earnest, helpful congregant under the bus – even tries to make fun of him. He’s just not that smart, because it was the obvious answer. Essentially, his entire sermon is begging the question.
Besides – physically speaking, it would make a lot more sense for men to wear something like kilts, wouldn’t it? I mean, men have a penis and testicles that literally hang down inches between their legs, and wearing pants scrunches them up in a very often uncomfortable way. Wearing tight underwear is actually bad for fertility – men who are having trouble getting their wives pregnant are often told to wear boxers to give their balls some breathing room. In fact, the entire biological purpose of a scrotum is to keep the testicles at a lower temperature than the rest of their body, thus, not killing sperm.
Did God design the male genitals incorrectly? Of course not, so men should wear kilts. Women’s vaginas are inside and their outer vulva doesn’t take up any room, making pants anatomically correct.
So the fact that men wear pants and women wear skirts is just cultural, in fact, biologically inappropriate.
So why do women wear skirts? It’s to signal sexually of course. It’s to make a show of “easy access.” You just have to hike up their skirt to penetrate them. So in theory, Christians who are against this sort of thing should point out that the modern American culture has it all wrong, and that CLEARLY it is more in tune with God’s creation – and sexual modesty and the “life culture” of fertility and natalism – for men to wear skirts – i.e., KILTS – and for women to wear pants, at least a piece of clothing that restricts access to their vaginas. Pants show less skin than skirts, after all.
Anderson, being not too smart and only reading one book, is actually THE WEAKEST LINK and exactly the reason why the sexual permissiveness and now transsexualism has been able to take hold. He – and people like him – were just outsmarted by the sexual revolutionaries. The irony is, of course, that if Anderson and the people like him were even slightly familiar with the context of the cultures of their own Bible, they would know that men actually did wear skirts – robes – in Biblical times and that women most certainly did NOT show their legs or signal easy access to their vaginas.
(White Anglo-American conservatives got stuck at Protestantism and left the culture to the most insane leftists instead of continuing our actual organic tradition, which should be post-Protestantism. The Enlightenment.)
(((Curtis Yarvin))) may be a Jew, but his neo-reactionary movement attracted Catholics. In their attempt to demonize Whites, Protestants, Americans, the Enlightenment, and modernity, they have instead introduced a whole new generation to the reason we threw off the yoke of the Catholic church in the first place.
The “Catholic church abuse scandal” is really just the victims of the Catholic church growing up, and now that the Catholic church has lost its institutional power, and now that sexuality is understood biologically and scientifically, the shame conditioning that the Catholic church used for centuries to enslave Europeans doesn’t work anymore.
It’s obvious how homosexuals came to dominate the “celibate” Catholic institution.
Consider: one of the primary complaints about Muslim “refugees” and “immigrants” in the West in how they treat women. One only needs to look at their own culture to understand how different they are than us. For a Muslim boy, when he sees a girl his sexual attraction is coming from her. She is doing something that causes him to feel arousal, and since she is the actor, she is the seducer, it’s ok for him to rape her. He was just standing there, minding his own business, and this girl walked by, acting sexy, therefore she’s a whore. The only way a girl can not be a whore is to cover her entire body because if he can’t see her, she cannot seduce him.
So take a typical scenario in Ireland or America in the 1950s. A boy grows up, begins puberty, but unlike his peers, has no interest in girls at all. The idea of marrying a girl, having sex, and starting a family is off-putting to him. Since the Catholic church tells him that “lust” is a grave sin, and he himself is apparently free of this “lust,” he realizes that he is actually “more spiritual” than his peers. His uncouth, sexually obsessed peers who are obsessed with the girls now reaching puberty, are just not as “spiritual” as he is.
So, he joins the priesthood. He is assigned to work in a boy’s school.
There, all of a sudden these boys start acting sexy, or more specifically, acting gay. It’s not the priest’s own desires coming to the surface, it’s the boys who are acting gay, or acting seductively or acting sinfully. If one of the boys seduces him the priest merely goes to confession, eats a cracker, and all is forgiven.
Lesbians are of course different than gay men. So a girl begins puberty, but unlike her peers, these boys are not interesting at all. In fact, they are quite scary and even disgusting. While her girlsfriends are all crushing on various boys, she’s actually turned off by the whole affair. She can’t understand why her close friendships with her girlfriends are all being interrupted by their growing awareness of boys.
She must just be “more spiritual” than her peers. She is, in a sense, on a “higher spiritual plane.” Unlike the “earthly” desires of her girlfriends, she’s only interested in the “pure” and “spiritual” things.
So, she becomes a nun, and is assigned to a orphanage. There, she has to take care of these disgusting, rowdy, violent, and gross boys, with their little penises popping underneath their pants all the time. It’s up to her, a “truly spiritual” woman without these “desires of the flesh” to whip these boys into line. She, in fact, quite enjoys it when these boys feel shame for their disgusting “lust,” their “sin.” It’s actually quite a power trip, watching these proud boys become ashamed of themselves. For the ones that are defiant, beatings work well. As the “Good Book” says, spare the rod, spoil the child.
It was a late summer afternoon, Sally Dale recalled, when the boy was thrown through the fourth-floor window.
“He kind of hit, and— ” she placed both hands palm-down before her. Her right hand slapped down on the left, rebounded up a little, then landed again.
For just a moment, the room was still. “Bounced?” one of the many lawyers present asked. “Well, I guess you’d call it — it was a bounce,” she replied. “And then he laid still.”
Sally, who was speaking under oath, tried to explain it. She started again. “The first thing I saw was looking up, hearing the crash of the window, and then him going down, but my eyes were still glued—.” She pointed up at where the broken window would have been and then she pointed at her own face and drew circles around it. “That habit thing, whatever it is, that they wear, stuck out like a sore thumb.”
Children are amazing in the sense they will believe pretty much anything you tell them. After all, you’re an adult and children are evolved to mimic older humans. The central image of your religion is a man being tortured and the central story is of a man being murdered for the sins of the world so it’s the “sinful” child’s fault.
Sister took hold of Sally’s ear, turned her around, and walked her back to the other side of the yard. The nun told her she had a vivid imagination. We are going to have to do something about you, child.
Like sociopaths, eventually these predatory homosexuals begin to recognize each other and that’s when they start working together:
A 1998 UK government inquiry, citing “exceptional depravity” at four homes run by the Christian Brothers order in Australia, heard that a boy was the object of a competition between the brothers to see who could rape him 100 times. The inquiries focused primarily on sexual abuse, not physical abuse or murder, but taken together, the reports showed almost limitless harm that was the result not just of individual cruelty but of systemic abuse.
The Roman Empire, eventually Christianized, swept through Europe, enslaving the “heathens” and creating these institutions. At the forefront were these “celibates” that did not have normal sexuality. They were, perhaps, even the first victims of Catholic sexual repression. Unable to accept that they were the perverts, that they were the reprobates, that they were the sinners, they projected that onto others, even children.
Since these children and “heathens” did not feel ashamed of their naked bodies and their natural sexuality, that just proved how the “celibate” Catholics were of a “higher spirituality” and it was their duty to beat – and rape – the devil out of these Europeans.
From the proto-Protestants like the Lollards and the Hussites, to the Reformation itself, eventually Europeans rebelled against these evil, psychopathic Catholics, rejected the “celibate” homosexual priests, the “celibate” lesbian priestesses, and demanded that Church institutions be led by normal, married men and women.
The first mistake that Americans made was to adopt the African custom of slavery, a mistake that harms America to this day. The second mistake Americans made was to import millions of Catholics, mostly in the 1800s, and surprise, surprise, along with them came Jews. It was only a matter of time until they joined up with each other to attempt to re-enslave the real Americans, the posterity of the Protestant Founding Fathers.
Hence, (((Curtis Yarvin’s))) “neo-reactionary” movement and the sick Catholics that follow him.
I was sexually assaulted when I was about eleven years old by my best friend at the time. We were roughhousing, engaging in horseplay as we always did, and he pinned me on the ground and then, out of the blue, kissed me on my lips.
I didn’t know what to do or what that meant, so I did the first thing that seemed logical – I punched him in the face as hard as I could.
He got off me and said “ow!” and I got up. I don’t remember what happened afterward but by the end of the day we were friends again. It never came up, except for once, years later, when he mentioned it. I didn’t really want to talk about it as I found the whole episode rather embarassing.
Another time I was non-sexually assaulted; I went to an outside “kegger” with a friend, and as soon as I got out of the car, some guy who I had never met or seen threw a beer bottle right in my face and started screaming at me, daring me to fight him. He had a couple of his boys with him, and at two to four, so I slunk away, embarassed and ashamed. I brooded about it all night, sometimes making up heroic scenarios were I beat down the bully, but mostly I just felt weak.
If Ford’s testimony is 100% accurate – it’s no big deal. For her to nurse these childhood wounds is a symptom of narcissism, a classic tell tale sign. For most adults, the incident is a “life lesson.” The lessons she could have picked up from this is that sometimes people are violent, men can be sexually aggressive, and it’s not a good idea to get drunk around strange males.
Pound Me Too #MeToo is going to some strange places. Sexual misbehavior among teenagers needs to be dealt with by parents and community institutions like the church, when it becomes a political matter it becomes a criminal matter and that is a dangerous road to go down.
Hence, PoundMeToo isn’t going the legal route. Instead, they are settling for sub-legal punishments, typically involving getting people fired from their jobs, or never hired.
Jezebel.com lays out the plan, in their article The Next Step for #MeToo Is Into the Gray Areas
Jack Smith is a professional progressive that was just fired from the Social Justice Warrior company MIC.com after a couple of his ex-girlfriends/hookups got together and decided that he was “abusive” “coercive” and “withholding.”
They are explicit that they are not accusing him of doing anything illegal but instead “abusive” – not physically abusive, but emotionally abusive.
One women who claims she was in an active sexual relationship with him said, “he was sometimes emotionally detached, sometimes involved, and I got tired of the fact that he was obviously withholding things from me.”
Here’s a revealing statement from another of Smith’s lovers:
“I think that he has a pattern with women where he is able to figure out the thing that they are most sensitive and vulnerable about,” she says. “For me, that is that not only have I never been in a serious relationship, but just that I’ve never had like consistent trustworthy affection that I don’t know whether it’s gonna turn on and off at any moment. I think that he gave that to me for a month on purpose, and then only gave it back intermittently, like it was a game… After he groomed this part of me that is the most sensitive, the most scared, it felt like he then spent the next six months poking it, to fuck with me for fun.”
Playing head games is what women do in relationships, but it’s now quasi-illegal when men do it. If a woman breaks off a sexual relationship, it’s kosher, if a man breaks off a sexual relationship, it’s abusive, manipulative. You can get fired if your ex-girlfriend’s get together in their “whisper network” and give you bad grades. Bad in bed? Emotionally withholding? Too needy and clingy?
This is what making the personal political means.
How seriously should we take #MeToo and feminism in general? Consider, that none of these sexual issues are new, they are as old as humankind. Human cultures developed – quite haphazardly – institutions and norms to prevent these sorts of issues.
One is a legal drinking age of 21. Another is the segregation of the sexes, both Kavanaugh and Ford went to single-sex schools. Ford herself points out that she didn’t tell her parents what happened because she didn’t want her mother to know that she had been drinking with boys.
But none of the #MeToo feminists are interested in, say, bringing back monogamy, an end to underage sex, and aren’t particularly interested in prosecuting teenager girls who drink illegally or sneak into parties with boys.
Imagine how comical everyone would find it if men started accusing women of being “withholding” and “emotionally abusive” because of a few weeks long fling that ended badly?
When Jessica pulled me into a closet in tenth grade and turned the lights out, wrapped her arms around me without asking and stuck her tongue in my mouth, I didn’t feel entirely comfortable with it. I wasn’t really that into her. Did I now owe her something? Can she, 30 years later, accuse me of being “withholding?” Can I get her fired from her job for showing no interest in me afterward?
People will rightly say, it’s different for boys and girls because boys are stronger and more violent.
Indeed, that is the truth. Boys are stronger and more violent than girls.
Hence, we have those rules – no underage drinking and no going to parties with boys.
If the feminists have any suggestions, they are free to make them. Typically it’s “teaching boys to not rape.” Our entire culture and society does, in fact, teach boys to not rape. So now they are expanding the definition of “rape” to mean not calling the next day, coming too soon, being “emotionally withholding” or making a woman “feel pressured.”
They aren’t going to be happy until all men are exactly the way they want them to be, from puberty to old age. Any breach of the protocol – which changes on a woman’s whim, over time even – is, if not a crime, nevertheless worthy of punishment by public shaming or getting fired from your job.
This is how American women, especially Democrats and the progressives, are choosing to exercise power – emotional public presentations, sexual vulnerability, and a “mean girls” sub-political network. This might be a good tactic if they could keep it focused on conservatives and Republicans, but by nature these women having to strike near, not far. So it’s blowing up the left itself more than anyone, even if Kavanaugh loses.
There’s no “solution” to this “problem.” Eventually people will get tired of listening to women bitch about their relationships – especially, women who are promiscuous and have left a string of sexual and emotional chaos behind them. Don’t be misled that the idea behind this is to “protect women” or even to punish bad men. No feminist will encourage, say, a return of monogamy.
They don’t want to “solve the problem” – they just want you to listen – and if you don’t listen sympathetically, you’re abusive, emotionally controlling and probably bad in bed too.
Who’s laughing now? Remind me to never run for Supreme Court.
As soon as I got to the party, I saw her. Chrissie. Blonde hair, blue eyes, a tiny little frame. She was almost 16, a sophomore, and I was 17, a junior. All day I’d seen her swimming in the pool and I just couldn’t get her out of my mind for some reason.
“Like, ” she was saying to her friend, as she flipped her hair and rolled her eyes. She looked just so delicious, it made me want to bite her ear lobe or even just sniff her hair. I had to think of a plan to get her alone, I thought, as I took another sip of this terrible tasting beer. Why do adults drink this crap anyway? …
Not only do Mates of State sing uber-white “indie” rock/pop, they – a White woman and a White man – got married, had sex at least twice, and made two little tow-headed White girls.
Now they bring their little Aryan children on tour with them. The momma even breast feeds on the road – how White is that?