The politically correct internet hit squad is at it again. You know who I’m talking about: the assorted collection of feminists, white knights, manginas, fat acceptance activists and homosexuals who band together to create a virtual shit storm every time a man opens his mouth and says something remotely offensive. Their modus operandi? Raise a ruckus on social media in an attempt to sully the reputation of their target and get him fired by his employer. Unfortunately, they’ve succeeded yet again, this time in the case of Pax Dickinson, the now-former CTO of Business Insider.
Isn’t it a little amusing how a group of people who claim to be tolerant of everything are so intolerant of traditional masculine behavior, and traditionalism in general?
This type of social justice activism/cultural Marxism has become a sort of religion to these people. In this age of atheism, absent belief in any traditional god, these sort of people are moral itinerants. What is right? What is wrong? Who the fuck knows? They have no idea. But once they stumble upon this cultural Marxist, social justice nonsense, they suddenly believe they’ve discovered what it means to be virtuous. They’ve found religion.
So their new answer to the question, “What is right?” is simply to tolerate everyone and everything, except those who do not agree with this view of complete tolerance. So they run around spouting their nonsense, encouraging and mainstreaming the most bizarre and marginal human behaviors in a perverse quest to prove themselves the most tolerant of all their peers. The worst sin, according to these people, is to be intolerant of or insensitive to another person (unless that person is in any way traditional, then they must be destroyed). This blanket tolerance has led, in combination with the natural attention-whoring of women, who comprise most of their movement, to the emergence of the most outlandish self-descriptive language among these types. “Otherkin”, ‘Pansexual”, “Cisgendered”, and so on and so forth.
What this is, really, is the elevation of the deranged and deformed along with the simultaneous tearing down of the strong and traditional. They are threatened by the sight of a masculine, red pill man like Pax Dickinson who unapologetically speaks his mind without fear of offending anyone. His very presence is like rubbing salt into their open wounds. Every time they see him they are acutely conscious of their own inferiority, so they conspire to end him. It’s like a gang of angry, deformed and diseased street cripples overcoming a confident and successful alpha male. They cannot stand the sight of him simply because the contrast of his excellence with their personal failure creates the most acute existential pain imaginable. Their hatred of him is just a projected hatred of themselves.
Their entire ideology is a failure, because tolerance itself is no virtue. The thing that matters is what is being tolerated, not the act of tolerance itself. Would you tolerate a man breaking into your house and raping your wife? Would you tolerate a man who gave your daughter drugs and encouraged her to become a prostitute? Would you tolerate a group of people who laze around the town square naked, covered in their own piss and shit and who harass anyone who comes near them?
Of course not. These people don’t understand that by tolerating every type of degenerate behavior, they are destroying the culture. Imagine what would happen if your immune system suddenly became tolerant of everything. Within days or weeks your body would become host to dozens of infections and viruses, and you would quickly die. That’s exactly what these people are doing to our culture: they’ve essentially turned off our cultural immune system, which naturally acts to kill off what is undesirable, and instead now allow it to tolerate everything. And so the body of the West has become filled with disease.
A backlash against these people is starting to build. This type of insanity will not long endure. It simply can’t. It is evidence that our society is terminally sick and dying. Within a few decades will come a rebirth of more traditional values, and these cultural Marxist social justice warriors will become nothing more than a relic of an ignominious era in our history. They will be looked back at with a mix of horror, pity and laughter. Our descendents will be unable to comprehend how such an absurd ideology was able to take root in society. It will be as incomprehensible and perverse to them as the idea of suddenly chopping off their own body parts (which is fittingly a practice esteemed by the social justice warriors under the guise of “transgenderism”).
These fools think they have found the one true god, but in reality they are simply a cult of death and decay. They are the patron saints of the sick and the twisted, the degenerate and the deformed. They are the enemies of excellence. They fancy themselves as warriors for social justice, but are actually the destroyers of traditional culture. It’s too late to save the West as we currently know it; but like a Phoenix, a new Western culture will rise from the ashes, a culture with traditional values and a healthy immune system to protect itself against degenerate cultural scum. And it won’t soon tolerate these worshippers of tolerance.
Read More: Western Culture Is Dead
You really need to learn to read between the lines here. It’s not like progressives are worshiping tolerance. Heck, they’re probably the least tolerant culture that ever existed. Don’t fall victim to the newspeak.
Instead, what they are worshiping, is that all decisions regarding what should and should not be tolerated is to be done by the state only. After all, being the well indoctrinated drones that they are, this is only a subset of their entire understanding of the world; that all decisions about anything whatsoever, should be done by the state only.
If the state says that Tim McVeigh was a bad guy, then the progressive drones wont tolerate behavior like he displayed. Therefore eagerly bending over to hand more resources to the state to show it’s “zero tolerance” policy towards guys like him.
But if someone decides to display some zero tolerance policy personally, in a way that does not justify nor benefit the state, of course he cannot be tolerated. Simply because, if someone decides to display and act in any way whatsoever that does not benefit the state, then he must, of course, not be tolerated. Such is life in Dystopia.
Last time I checked, from Voltaire onwards, liberal and progressive culture is the one which recognise and elevates diversity of opinion. The drift to PC extremes, which I myself can barely stand (especially in London where I live), is probably a distortion of the balance between the legitimate right to exercise one’s freedom of speech while exercising the equally legitimate duty of protecting other people’s sensitivity.
Say you had a brother with Treacher-Collins syndrome, one of the most disfiguring physical conditions known to man, and I was outspoken enough to publicly label him as a social reject because of his deformity. Would you respect me for upholding the virtues of physical health and aesthetic perfection – after all, those cool studs from Sparta would through deformed infants off a cliff – or your nature of compassionate brother get in the way?
This is of course a gross exaggeration, but you get the point. Being liberal and progressive is one expression of socio-cultural intelligence. Being liberal and progressive while avoiding to tread on the delicate fabric of human nature, takes you to the next level.
“…while exercising the equally legitimate duty of protecting other people’s sensitivity.”
Folks, this is the apex of the “progressive” mind on display. Cognitive dissonance as an entire operating principle, accented with arrogance and an intellectual superiority complex.
Well done, sir. And thank you for such an excellent illustration.
“The tail ( e.g Transgenders ) should not wag the dog ( the society at large) “. The people and lifestyles that exist at the extremes of the Bell curve should dictate the “norms” of a society….
The UK is a PC hell I hear
Liberal-Progressive =cowardice. You snaggle toothed limeys stood by and watched a soldier being hacked to death by some Muslim Urik Hai/orc from the 3rd world.
and then they tirelessly try to stop all the protest marches against this muslim scum
Muslim scum that came to America precisely to ESCAPE the uruk hai among them?
DO I really have to go NAMALT here?
Yeah, muslims, on average are more barbaric than westerners. But blanket judgements are unwarranted.
In short, go be a neo nazi elsewhere.
I know liberal can mean something different in Europe than here, but in the US, liberals are simply progressives; i.e. the ones most hung up on restricting parent’s right to educate their kids as they see fit. As well as against anyone’s rights to live life as they see fit. And the most bent on crushing anyone with a meaningfully different opinion than what the state has told them is acceptable ones. In the US, the ones which respect and elevate differences, are called libertarians. And they are by logical necessity not progressives.
In a civilized world, why would either I, or my brother give even half a second’s thought to what some random idiot “label” us? Only in the kind of petty progressive dystopias we currently find ourselves in, is “labeling” people this or that a necessity, since the kind of scientism that form a necessary adjunct to progressivism, relies on sticking all people in neat buckets, or classes, and then treating them accoring to which classes they are deemed to belong to. Allows dumb people to feel more scientistic, I presume.
And all progressive societies, like proto progressive Sparta, throw children off cliffs. Their criteria for who gets thrown may vary with whatever pseudo intellectual nonsense is fashionable at any given time, but once some gaggle of apparatchiks are given license to “improve” or “lift up” by force backed fiat; obviously those that disagree with them will need to receive a diagnosis. And be “treated.” Or reeducated. Or whatever other newspeaky word is the currently en vogue term for being forcefully submitted to the point of death if necessary.
I’ll leave liberal aside, since you euros often mean something less sinister by it than we do, but being progressive simply means being dumb enough to fall form the idiocy that whomever forms the sitting government, or are the “thought leaders” of whatever culture is currently in fashion, is in some way universally qualified to determine whether one way of life is “better” than another; which is a logical prerequisite for the entire project of society “progressing” from one state to another. Hence, in practice, being a progressive simply means being an unquestioning apologist for whatever thugband currently labeling themselves the government. And that’s all it has ever amounted to; a bunch of pseudo scientific and feelgood mumbo-jumbo aimed at nothing more than glorifying the scum on top, in hope of receiving better treatment oneself.
I disagree with equating liberals with progressives. The latter term is just as nebulous anymore as “liberal” is.
Historically, in the US, Progressivism was about addressing social injustice in society, among other things. In trying to address poverty, for example, simply raising awareness of it was sufficient. But, where “progressivism” has fallen way short, IMO, is in putting all one’s faith in using government as a tool to address injustice. To a point it can, but not to the extent that we see it now, with a bloated Federal government continuing its overreach into everyday affairs. It also fosters a sense of dependency where fostering a better sense of individualism is better.
Where things really get sticky is with the concept of a “champagne liberal” — the types who have high-paying government jobs, who drive Priuses (or, heaven forbid, luxury cars), who live in tony suburbs and not with “the people” in the ghetto (whom the liberals profess to be helping), who shop at Whole Foods, and who profess tolerance when none really exists.
The “tolerance” aspect has morphed into something grotesque, as you mention. It’s just another ideology at work, which bewitches the sheeple into acting against their best interests in the long run.
The fundamental problem of progressivism, is that it by necessity requires some regular humans to be exalted to referee over which changes represent progress, and which don’t. Something which every half literate individual who bother thinking through it, realize is nothing other than giving some regular humans the ability to further their own cause, this time under guise of some magical ‘public good.’
There is no ‘public good’ in any absolute sense. Only a plethora of private ones. There is no God given, infallible comparison function for comparing a society full of Ipads and whores, to one with stone tablets and chaste women. Never was, never will be. One does not, a priori, represent “progress” from the other; no matter what progtards and radical madrasa adherents may say on that matter.
It’s all just random change. Not for the better, not for the worse. The only reliable judge for what is progress and what is not, is survival. Genetic, in the form of biological descendents; and mimetic, in terms of cultural traits. And of those two, the genetic variety potentially, therefore probably actually given sufficiently intense competition, has the upper hand; since the most hardened genetic survivors will embrace cultures and beliefs that place high value on both having lots of kids, and on educating them to be carriers of their parents’ culture.
All other metrics for measuring human “progress”, is nothing but touchy-feely rationalizations for why “we are special snowflakes”, iow gibberish best left to inconsequential yapping by bored women.
“balance between the legitimate right to exercise one’s freedom of speech while exercising the equally legitimate duty of protecting other people’s sensitivity.”
It’s all right there kiddies – this douche thinks that protecting other people’s sensitivity is a “legitimate duty” – in fact he thinks it’s equally legitimate to free speech!
This is why the England is such a pussified wasteland of PC metrosexual half-men.
In the UK you can be jailed for free speech, hurting someone’s feelings, “inciting hatred”, etc. They are a bunch of collectivist PC morons over there. NEVER listen to an englishman on any subject relating to rights or freedom, and don’t forget they were so restrictive that we had to kick their asses and start our own free country.
Liberals are intolerant Nazis but Pax Dickinson is not a worthy champion.
“In The Passion Of The Christ 2, Jesus gets raped by a pack of niggers. It’s his own fault for dressing like a whore though.
— Pax Dickinson (@paxdickinson) July 14, 2010”
https://twitter.com/paxdickinson/statuses/18546571881
Any online or mainstream media executive (of any race or sex) who writes such drivel deserves to feel the heat. I say good riddance.
no thats funny. Its a reference to Mel Gibson’s phone call to his ex saying she looked like a pig in heat (for the way she dressed) and if she got raped by a pack of niggers it would be her own fault. Also called her a whore and cunt and stuff like that.
The other comments he made were right on the money.
When you call a spade a spade in today’s world, be prepared to be whacked upside the head with the spade.
Dude said something he shouldn’t have. Should he have gotten fired? Probably not. Is it worth getting your panties in a bunch. Not in my opinion.
There is much bigger fish to fry. You guys waste your time on feminists. There are people who get killed in your country for challenging power. Where are you then ? Nowhere. You pick meaningless battles. You get distracted by the Divide and Conquer strategy the powers that be have always used.
True
Did you actually read what Pax wrote? Seriously?
“There are people who get killed in your country for challenging power. Where are you then ? ”
I am front and center….but there are few who will join me so the comment is relevant to the vast majority here.
In my line of work, no one uses or reads “Twatter”. This would have been a non-issue. Maybe Pax has now learned to stay away from offices full of bed wetting liberals.
Imagine what would happen if your immune system suddenly became tolerant
of everything. Within days or weeks your body would become host to dozens of infections and viruses, and you would quickly die. That’s exactly what these people are doing to our culture: they’ve essentially turned off our cultural immune system, which naturally acts to kill off what is undesirable, and instead now allow it to tolerate everything. And so the body of the West has become filled with disease.
So in other words, cultural Marxism is societal AIDS.
I really liked that analogy.
very well written article.
10/10 would read again
When your immune system is “tolerant” of a disease, you’re IMMUNE to it.
Your body IS currently host to dozens of infectious viruses and bacteria. Your body has developed a tolerance to them, and you’re fine.
Uhm, sorry, when your immune system has “learned” which antibodies successfully attack and kill a particular bacteria or virus in your body, they attack and kill it immediately. That’s why dead viruses or bacteria in your system are used to vaccinate you – the antibodies “learn” on a dead organism, unable to reproduce and infect you, and once a similar living virus or bacteria is introduced, it is killed immediately. When you are sick, the viruses and bacteria are growing, and your antibodies are struggling to fight and kill them until they “learn” which antibody kills it best, and then the tide is turned and the virus or bacteria is killed.
We’re not walking around tolerating a bunch of living and replicating harmful viruses and bacteria in our bodies. Moron.
There are antibodies that attack and kill “harmful” viruses and bacteria.
There are also many viruses and bacteria that live in your body and are not harmful to you. You are host to many micro-organisms that do you no harm.
Can you believe this fucking autist…..
Your analogy is way off the mark. If the body treats harmful microorganisms like harmless microorganisms, what happens?
Exactly. Not only do you act like a sperglord, you even got that wrong.
wrong, jerry. if there are live viruses inside you for an extended length of time, you have hepatitis. a healthy human does not have viruses.
bacteria, yes, but only in certain areas. p. acnes on the skin, for example, and a range of flora in the intestine, such as lactobacillus and e.coli.
GTFO
Hey assburgers no one gives a shit.
I’ve always seen feminism as AIDS which opens the door to the other diseases like the rest of the moral degeneracy. In general, cultural Marxism is more like cancer; it keeps filling up your country/culture with bad stuff until it dies. (Yes, in this analogy feminism is both AIDS and cancer, making it a pretty good one of you ask me.)
I think that turning off our cultural immune system was a very apt metaphor for what’s occurring in the West today. Great article.
Let this be a lesson to you and learn some salesmanship.
He who brings money into the organization can do whatever he wants.
Not really Uncle Elmer. Even top salesmen have to toe the line in big corporates. There are so many feminists in customers who will go out of their way to injure the interests of a corporation if they do not like the cut of a mans jib that even the best salesMEN are not immune to the effects of this.
This is one more reason I am starting the second economy. Men can set up association and sell to other men and we can forget about the effect feminists (male and female) have on us. That is what I am creating. And as men come to understand this? They will join in and sell into that market.
I just put up the A-MAN-ZON site last weekend. It is still being filled out. A-MAN-ZON is a place where men will be able to buy and sell outside the current guvment jurisdiction. A-MAN-ZON will be a place where feminists will not be able to attack the mans business once he gets it up and going because his clients will not be known to the feminists to attack them.
Here is the site…still under construction and will remain so for some years I would imagine.
http://www.a-man-zon.com
Look, I agree with virtually every other point made in this article, but I’m mystified as to how Pax Dickinson has become a rallying point on both this site and Roosh’s site — whatever his core personal beliefs, and however much I may share them, the guy obviously lacks the basic level judgment needed for a leadership position in a high-profile company.
Believe me, I’m as anti-progressive as can be, but as a business owner, I can’t imagine retaining an employee who goes public with a tweet like “In The Passion Of The Christ 2, Jesus gets raped by a pack of niggers. It’s his own fault for dressing like a whore though,” *regardless* of the context for such a comment.
Sorry, the dude is not an example of the “excellence” or “traditional values” extolled by the author of this post. Ideological differences aside, there’s such a thing as basic respect, common sense, and reasonable conduct.
The worst part about it is Roosh has been censoring opinions he doesn’t agree with.
Maybe someone should hand him a dictionary and point out the word hypocrite.
Start your blog now and refute everything Roosh says on it. When people show up to piss all over your blog, let’s see what a free speech warrior you remain. Roosh isn’t the .gov and he can kick anyone off his blog that he feels like. Private enterprise and all that.
Strawman: No one said he couldn’t. RB is saying he shouldn’t.
And RB is a moron.
Roosh isn’t the .gov and he can kick anyone off his blog that he feels like. Private enterprise and all that. Then of course he shouldn’t complain when he comes hat in hand begging for a few dollars and finds out his community has never moved out of the small pond.
Freedom of speech does not extend in to another mans house you moron. When you talk in another mans house? You observe his desires for what he considers acceptable.
You come in to my house and start talking trash? I kick you out. Simple.
Freedom of speech means you have to freedom to set up your OWN HOUSE and speak in it. What sort of idiot are you to make such a stupid comment, eh? Grow up.
The irony I see in this is that Roosh & clique set up this site as a public discussion forum. The correct metaphor isn’t a private house, but a small town square, or maybe a pub.
If no contradictory is possible, then he should have no hope of his brand of manosphere talk going beyond the fringe community he is comfortable to.
Yeah, except this isn’t a house, genius, it’s set up to be a PUBLIC FORUM. Jeeeez.
He is no different than the hysterical feminists that take such delight in “modding” every word written on their sites, and bragging about use of the “ban hammer” as if it is some source of real power. It’s just laughable, high school type behavior from people who are not strong enough to let their ideas be tested by the unrestricted marketplace.
“The irony I see in this is that Roosh & clique set up this site as a public discussion forum. The correct metaphor isn’t a private house, but a small town square, or maybe a pub.”
It is public. It is still his house. Grow up. If you allow women to speak in places like this they ruin it. Women come in both sexes by the way.
Just look at what women did to Dick Mastersons forums and the spearhead and any other place where men talk.
Just by the way? I was called sexist over and over and over again for not allowing women to join Crimes Against Fathers. So I eventually relented and created a SEPARATE SPACE for women to talk in…..the womens CAF sites.
Guess what? In MORE THAN A YEAR there is not been ONE POST by women in the womens only sites. All the alphas here know exactly why that might be…..but the betas might not. It is because the women wanted to attention whore among the men and disrupt our progress on our project to re-introduce the rule of law into Australia and Ireland.
And the last time I checked? There were MANY places and MANY activities where women exclude my based on sex alone. Just start with womens sports and move on up, right? All womens only sports are illegal under legislation of most western countries because the exclusion is based on sex….but you don’t see any women complaining about THAT sex based discrimination.
And go post on salon, feministing, jezebel and see how long your post lasts, eh?
Really? You paying him for it?
And by the way? What do women do, of both sexes, as soon as men start to talk among themselves? They invade and destroy the place and drive the men away.
Grow up. Roosh is doing a good job. You don’t like it? Leave.
Oh..and by the way? Given the number of places I have been banned from where no one has EVER protested I am banned? How about you men protest MY BANNING before you start criticising Roosh, eh?
I have even been banned from none less than DAVID ICKES Forums for pointing out women are destroying men in the divorce courts using the SAME criminals David talks about.
John Rambo went to the places I was banned from and simply asked if I was banned, if so why, and why did no men protest….for ASKING why I was banned many MEN attacked him and he was also banned in some places..
Go sort out all THOSE other places before you criticise Roosh. Look at the mess women made of other places where they were allowed to speak.
Indeed. I am banned from AVFM! LOL! How laughable is THAT! I was also banned from Fathers Rights Ireland by Joseph Egan. I was banned from the Irish Free man site. Joseph said he wanted the support of the women and they had ganged up and threatened to leave if he did not ban me…that was last November….so I wrote to him and asked him how all that “support” from the women worked out…
You know the answer…they did NOTHING USEFUL. So AFTER you have sorted out all those OTHER PLACES? Get back to us here, eh?
I am against ALL banning or censoring of free speech ANYWHERE. I think it’s cowardly, weak, ineffective, and unamerican. If you ban one line of thought but not another, you instantly show yourself to be a hypocrite who seeks to artificially control the dialog. So what’s the point in censoring anything at all, except the Viagra spam, or incoherent troll ramblings?
So go and sort it out all the censorship of free speech EVERYWHERE ELSE and then get back to me, ok?
I read this blog about 5% as often as I used to, because of the censorship. I don’t like knowing that I’m only allowed to see half of the story and half of the arguments. Feels like something only a weakling would tolerate.
This is really getting tiresome. The tweet was riffing off of a Mel Gibson rant. Quit being butthurt.
Yes, thank you for clarifying. I quite emphatically said “regardless of context.”
I’m not butthurt, just concerned about the credibility of this community if it defends knuckleheads with no sense of proportion.
Tex , I was gonna say exactly what you did. I totally agree with your comment.
Tex,
It is not Pax that is being “defended”. It is those who attacked him who are being denounced mostly. It is also the principal of freedom of speech being defended and the hypocrisy of a group saying “you must be tolerant but I will attack you if you say anything I disagree with.” These are some of the issues.
Sure…some people here will defend Pax. Each man has his own right to his own opinion. So it is not “this community” as you put it. That is a collectivist statement and the first thing you will find out about men in a place like this is that we abhor collectivism in all its forms in the vast majority. You will ind very few collectivists here.
Now…that said….My own position is that making crass jokes in the full view of the public while holding a senior position is foolish. I have held senior positions and my clients have been some of the biggest companies in the world. I was “squeaky clean” so as to retain those clients.
But some times what needs to be said is not “squeaky clean” as people would want. And even when we attempt to say what needs to be said from behind a pseudonym it does not always work.
Example? When I started working on re-introducing the rule of law I used the internet name of “globalman”. I was betrayed by a woman, yes, another woman betrayed me, that I went to school with and is a “devout christian” in the church. She knew me well and knew my wife and her famliy well. She said she wanted to “help me”. Since I had known her from school and she was in the church I revealed to her I was actually “globalman”.
What did she do? She ran directly to my ex-wife and told her….Gee. So much for trusting a woman with a secret, right? She is the LAST woman who ever gets a chance to betray me.
My ex-brother in law then plastered the fact I was globalman all over the place. Such is life. I wanted to remain anonymous but I was prepared to become a public figure. I was very famous in my area in the early 90s and I found I did not like fame and did not like being well known.
Now I must endure being a very public figure for a few years so as to re-introduce the rule of law into Ireland and Australia. So even those of us who try to remain anonymous face difficulties.
The other issue is this. PZ Myers just made a whole bunch of unfounded allegations about another guy being a rapist. PZ Myers works at a university in a senior position. His statements are unconscionable. And yet? Because he is a leftist marxist communist he is not canned.
The hypocrisy of the leftists knows no bounds Tex.
Tex,
It is not Pax that is being “defended”. It is those who attacked him who are being denounced mostly. It is also the principal of freedom of speech being defended and the hypocrisy of a group saying “you must be tolerant but I will attack you if you say anything I disagree with.” These are some of the issues.
Sure…some people here will defend Pax. Each man has his own right to his own opinion. So it is not “this community” as you put it. That is a collectivist statement and the first thing you will find out about men in a place like this is that we abhor collectivism in all its forms in the vast majority. You will ind very few collectivists here.
Now…that said….My own position is that making crass jokes in the full view of the public while holding a senior position is foolish. I have held senior positions and my clients have been some of the biggest companies in the world. I was “squeaky clean” so as to retain those clients.
But some times what needs to be said is not “squeaky clean” as people would want. And even when we attempt to say what needs to be said from behind a pseudonym it does not always work.
Example? When I started working on re-introducing the rule of law I used the internet name of “globalman”. I was betrayed by a woman, yes, another woman betrayed me, that I went to school with and is a “devout christian” in the church. She knew me well and knew my wife and her famliy well. She said she wanted to “help me”. Since I had known her from school and she was in the church I revealed to her I was actually “globalman”.
What did she do? She ran directly to my ex-wife and told her….Gee. So much for trusting a woman with a secret, right? She is the LAST woman who ever gets a chance to betray me.
My ex-brother in law then plastered the fact I was globalman all over the place. Such is life. I wanted to remain anonymous but I was prepared to become a public figure. I was very famous in my area in the early 90s and I found I did not like fame and did not like being well known.
Now I must endure being a very public figure for a few years so as to re-introduce the rule of law into Ireland and Australia. So even those of us who try to remain anonymous face difficulties.
The other issue is this. PZ Myers just made a whole bunch of unfounded allegations about another guy being a rapist. PZ Myers works at a university in a senior position. His statements are unconscionable. And yet? Because he is a leftist marxist communist he is not canned.
The hypocrisy of the leftists knows no bounds Tex.
That’s alright, many members of this community have long been concerned with it’s credibility because of giving too much voice to moderate milquetoast PC pussies like yourself. As seen in national politics, when someone with a strong position starts listening to the weaker, more moderate voices, they become so diluted and ineffective that they hand the victory to their opponents.
“I quite emphatically said “regardless of context.””
Is your daughter a coal burner by any chance?
By that I mean that CONTEXT IS EVERYTHING.
I think the absurdity is that people get bent out of shape about things a guy said on Twitter and work to destroy his life.
It’d be different if he did it at the Kennedy Center Honors as the representative of Business Insider. But he didn’t. It was Twitter. A silly place.
Yes, a silly but very public place.
People are making a mistake when they make it about the guy. It has nothing to do with what the guy did or didn’t do, said or didn’t say.
It has everything to do with the fact that the internet has allowed ‘progressives’ to start a lynch mob on anyone they disagree with. It has nothing to do with that jesus tweet, as the same thing has happened to people who said much less. Remember that guy who got fired because he said dongle to his friend, not on twitter and not even to the ‘offended’ party, and was fired in the same way?
Allowing The Mob to decide who gets to earn a living and who doesn’t is a losing situation, even for those who have more tact. Eventually no amount of tact may be enough to satisfy The Mob. That is typically how mobs work- once they taste blood, rather than sticking to any limits they will get even more hysterical and attack just about anyone for any percieved offense.
I do remember the “dongle” incident and was dismayed by the outcome. While appreciate the common theme of the liberal pile-on, I see these as distinct scenarios.
Re. “Eventually no amount of tact may be enough to satisfy The Mob” — I agree that’s where we’re headed, but no sense in making it easy for them by taking the low road as this Pax character has done.
There’s freedom of speech, not freedom of consequence from your speech. Pax experienced consequence.
two things: dongle was essentially meaningless. and it was a private conversation. I think Pax is hilarious, but wtf are you doing posting that shit on twitter.By the way, that hag that burned the dongle guys got canned.
Nailed it. I think his posts are funny as fuck (way to miss the Passion joke, lefty idiots) but what. the. fuck. You’re working for a big company now. Tell some jokes and shit around your friends. There is a reason I keep most of my my shit off of social media,
Hi Tex,
I am ex-IBM, ex-HDS, ex-PwC and others. You and I both know that in those sorts of companies we have to keep our public comments squeaky clean or you will get canned.
As someone who rose to the top of his profession selling multi-million dollar deals? You will know that I know how that game is played, right?
However, there is a much broader issue here. The much broader issue is that our entire legal system, government system, financial system, media system, medical system is one great big criminal cartel. Anyone who believes what is coming out of the mouths of the likes of Obama, Holder, Bernanke, Cameron, Putin et al has got to be living on another planet.
So what to do? How do you go about introducing an entirely new jurisdiction of law and money in which to do business so as to enable men to move out of the current criminal control grid they are in? And how do you voice these opinions when you know you will get canned if you do?
I mean….anyone working for a major company who says “the guvment is a criminal cartel” has got a very short shelf life….just ask Edward Snowden or Bradly Manning, right? What they did was tell the world the USG was a criminal cartel. And how did that work out for them?
The issue is that other men, say business owners like you, do insist that men do not voice their opinion let alone speak the truth or you WILL can them, right? You HAVE to can them because you customers and clients will insist you can them, right?
So I offered (on my YT channel peternolan1109) to speak out for men who are too afraid to speak out for themselves…afraid of being canned from their job. So far? No man has taken up the offer.
Now…for me speaking out? I have been canned from a consulting gig when a staff member googled me and found out I was opposing the crimes of the Australian guvment, Irish guvment, and standing for equality before the law for men and women. No reason was given for canning me. For the first time in a 30 year career I was taken to a conference room where all the work I had done was transferred to another drive for the client and deleted from my laptop.
I was asked to remove all work for the client from my laptop and I did so. This was one of the worlds largest companies by the way. Not some two bit outfit.
I was disappointed that standing up for truth, justice and equality before the law got me canned from a contract but I accept that such large companies do not wish to be involved with “people of some controversy”. I will deal with the man who did that in the fullness of time.
But it still leaves the question. When you know you will be canned for speaking up? How do you speak up if you want to? And the best I can offer is to speak up for other men on my channel and to my lists on their behalf if that is what they want me to do, and will pay me to do.
If men do not speak up in their own name, or speak up via a proxy? If men do not re-introduce the rule of law in the west? The Illuminati will get their WW III via their stooges Obama, Cameron and Putin. And those men who were too afraid to speak up will be killed in vast numbers and good riddance to bad rubbish in my humble opinion.
Then you are not “as anti-progressive as can be” then are you? You are just another PC pussy that cares more about pleasing everybody than about having a free world. God forbid one of your precious clients found out and dropped you, right? I mean what would you do?
The appropriate response by someone who is truly anti-progressive, in the face of any complaints about what an employee tweeted, would be “We believe that the right of free speech is more important than people’s desire not to be offended. Though we found the comment tasteless and offensive, we stand by our employee’s constitutional rights, just as we stand by yours.”
F*ck me. These people don’t understand that by tolerating every type of degenerate behavior, they are destroying the culture. Says a vehement advocate of a man’s right to spend an inordinate amount of time and money to try and collect as many one night stands from random bar sluts.
How the fuck are you still around?
You are a fucking worthless dumbass
Got more than a two liner to articulate your thoughts? Like me, you have freedom of speech. Exercise it.
Freedom to ban. Exercised.
Freedom to reappear as anonymous guest. Exercised. What a stupid game, mate.
discoflash
#rekt
What’s #rekt? You expect me to rectify something?
Really?!? How more out of context can you get? Were not talking about ONS right now; we are talking about how hypocritical the progressive culture is. If you would expand your mind beyond your one dimensional thinking you would understand the context of this article.
I understood the context very well. It’s the kind of culture you are referring to and the consistency of its sustaining arguments, that I am questioning.
I would expect terms like “degenerate behavior”, “diseased street cripples”, “complete tolerance” in a radical Catholic blog, or spouted by a middle-aged right-wing keyboard warrior slashing away on the liberal/progressive culture sending our social and moral fabric to the cleaners. Or something like that. From a community that prides itself to be young, or at least young at heart, and open-minded on social and sexual dynamics, I would have expected more. If, with such statements, the OP wants to posture as a proud conservative who associates virtue with aesthetical and ethical perfection, and tradition, why is he doing so in a blog where promiscuity, superficial judgment on fellow females and males alike and shallowness in relationship with the opposite sex are openly promoted and advocated?
I understand this blog isn’t written by a single person and reflects a plurality of opinions. However, it should be Roosh’s call to choose which way he wants his preachings to go. As they stand now, many articles keep contradicting each other, much to the detriment of each other’s qualities.
These people are totalitarians. Pure and simple. Great column, too, Scorpion. Bravo.
Sidenote: Where did all these male feminists and trollers come from? It seems that the Pax Dickinson controversy has brought in all this Blue Pill traffic. -_-
No, these are the new residents of RoK.
This is what happens when you adopt the liberal tools of censorship, banning, modding, and shaming anyone who speaks the full red pill truth.
You end up with a cesspool of pussies.
Has anyone else noticed the massive proliferation of late for sites like “Upworthy” and “Gawker” that show feminist-leaning videos? Whenever you log in to Upworthy, a popup comes up that asks,
“Do you believe in good in the world? Yes/no”
WTF kind of question is that??? Thus they associate “Good” with whatever the fuck they have on the site, often times short videos about Feministing. Yea, I think immasculating men and traditional values is great!
As much as I’d like to believe you are right about the cultural reversal, it’s hard to be sure. I think when stupid feminist liberal arts college finally start to become insolvent, that will be a start.
Strange that back when we didn’t have the PC police around, our speech was policed by our own sense of decorum and dignity.
This site is dead. And this article is full of shit.
What once was a sometimes sad, sometimes funny but always honest Site for the daily struggles of modern men, is now hijacked and poisioned by white supremacists with borderline nazi rethoric.You want to know what harms your culture? Its this kind of hatred.
A vote for censorship.
Sweetheart this article was nothing. If you are that offended by this one, then reality just ain’t for you. Go back to Men’s Health.
Scorpion,
“Isn’t it a little amusing how a group of people who claim to be tolerant of everything are so intolerant of traditional masculine behavior, and traditionalism in general?”
Correct…those who preach “tolerance” are the biggest hypocrites of all as they do not respect the right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is one of the most basic rights and it is NOT to be violated. However, those who tell us we have to be “tolerant” violate our freedom of speech all the time.
And WORSE? Those who claim to be on our side? Like Illuminati Agent Paul Elam? They will also actually suppress the truth by claiming lies as Paul has done with me. Paul has claimed all he has ever seen from me is hatred for women and banned me off all things AVFM. How is that standing up for mens rights exactly?
I take the position “If you do not believe in freedom of speech for those that you despise then you do not believe in it at all.” Common attributed to Voltaire.
Conversation with a progressive on Facebook, regarding the excommunication of at least the head of the youth organization of a political party in Finland because they did not want to take in more refugees and for some reason their other comments were deemed racist.
“These thoughts need to be discussed to be proven right or wrong”
“We have free speech, look they spoke”
“they did, and they paid the price. No discussion, no reasoning, direct excommunication. Where is free speech?”
We have free speech, but we cannot have a logical platform to discuss racist ideas. They cannot be given voice”
That’s tolerance.
Bruce Carlton said it best,
The Left isn’t winning by having good arguments – it wins because people are punished for arguing against the Left
I remember in my university campus in Scotland when I first took the red pill and started preaching out to my blue pill friends about the nature of women. Big mistake, I was ostracized, labelled a misogynistic, chauvinistic , sexist bastard and had my character assassinated by hordes of white knights, manginas and female feminists.
Great article ! Loved the analogy where dozens of crippled street mutants overcome a healthy confident successful alpha male. Lol that is just what it is.
Pax actually used the phrase “Pack Of Niggers” in his Twitter feed. I’m sorry but you don’t do that if you want to keep your job.
Can we get every hollywood director fired that uses “nigger” in any of his movies. Everybody is too afraid to say nigger even when quoting something. It’s a joke. Mel Gibson didn’t say “the n-word” he said nigger and that’s who Pax was making fun of. My new hardcover of huckfinn with n-word jim is pretty sweet though.
Lol I know the internet has decimated our collective attention span, but have that many people forgotten the Mel Gibson shitstorm already?
Meanwhile, a Harvard Professor calls for “abolishing” the white race.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2002/sep/4/20020904-084657-6385r/
“Noel Ignatiev, a founder of a journal called Race Traitor and a fellow
at Harvard’s W.E.B. DuBois Institute, a leading black-studies
department, argues in the current issue of Harvard Magazine that
“abolishing the white race” is “so desirable that some may find it hard
to believe” that anyone other than “committed white supremacists” would
oppose it.”
—–
Mr. Ignatiev pledges in the essay that his journal, Race Traitor,
intends to “keep bashing the dead white males, and the live ones, and
the females, too, until the social construct known as ‘the white race’
is destroyed not ‘deconstructed’ but destroyed.”
—–
Mr. Ignatiev, a one-time steelworker and Marxist activist who earned a
doctorate at Harvard, could not be reached for comment. But he writes
about what he believes at the Web site of Race Traitor, whose motto is:
“Treason to whiteness is loyalty to humanity.”
———
Did Mr. Ignatiev lose his job “teaching” America’s young? Nope.
———
“His colleagues at Harvard seem not to take his proposal entirely seriously.”
“Sara Stillman, assistant to the publisher of Harvard Magazine, says
there’s clearly some “misunderstanding” about what Mr. Ignatiev means by
the inflammatory language.”
“Christopher Reed, executive editor of Harvard Magazine, defended what
Mr. Ignatiev wrote in the September-October issue. “He’s arguing against
the mind-set and attitude that automatically grants privileges to white
people he wants more fairness,” Mr. Reed said in a statement.”
———
I officially hate my country. The end can’t come soon enough…
By the way, I have no doubt that the Harvard colleagues who support Mr. Ignatiev’s call to “destroy” and “abolish” an entire race of people, are the very same type of liberal, “progressive” thinkers who would have been calling for Dickinson’s head over his lack of “tolerance”.
Mr. Ignatiev and the others are all jws. Enough said.
God Roosh…..next time find someone who is remotely sympathetic and defensible…..if we can all agree on one thing that is this guy is a giant douchebag. No one in this day and age goes around saying “Pack Of Niggers raping Jesus”, unless they are completely out of the mainstream.
Note; you have freedom of speech from the government, not from your employer. And your employer is very sensitive to feminist social campaign and bad PR. So,be careful what you say, Don’t say anything on sosial media that you can’t explain away in the real life.
There is really no paraphrased breakdown of what this man believes, which would be helpful…just saying that internet attack machines are a religion isn’t breaking any new ground. The RVF and ROK has often shouted about the virtues of shame when it comes to keeping people (women) from being fat and or flaky slut-bags…so sometimes shaming can be a good and necessary thing. I for one am glad that open 1960s and before, ‘I hayt neegars’ type racism has been shamed away, and gay people being stabbed with broken beers bottles or locked up for sucking cock, has been ended via shame…so really it depends on what this man believed; what is good for the goose is also sauce for the gander. And yes, I have fallen victim to the type of liberal group think when I dared chastise a pretty women that got a fucking battleship tattoo across her chest…then lost about a dozen FB friends; so I get it…but lets not cry just because their attack machine is more robust than ours.
You don’t get it. This guy didn’t get shamed. He got fired from his job. I think shaming “fat and or flaky slut-bags” is a good thing. But I don’t think companies should be able to fire a woman for being fat (as long as it doesn’t impact job performance) or being slutty.
Which raises a good point. The argument from the people here who seem to think this is okay, is that a company has the right to fire you if you do something that might reflect poorly on them. So should companies have the right to fire promiscuous women (or men)? Should they have the right to fire people for being out of shape? Should they have the right to fire you if you use swear words outside of work? What if you criticize Obama on social media? How about if you make a religious post on Twitter, and your company thinks it might offend potential Muslim clients? What if you posted a picture on Facebook of yourself with a beer or glass of wine in your hand? You mentioned gays. Should a company be allowed to fire someone for being gay if that persons lifestyle offends a bunch of Christians?
Is there a line? Where is it? If we want to be employed, do we have to live our lives under the complete control of the company we work for? (Or the special interest groups they answer to). Should we be allowed to voice opinions that our company (or the special interest groups they answer to) might disagree with?
I’m reminded of the quote-
First they came for the communists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a communist.
Then they came for the socialists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a trade unionist.
Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.
Replace communists with racists. Replace socialists with anti-feminists. Replace trade unionists with Christians. I realize this sounds a little hysterical, but my point is that by accepting that these companies have a right to dictate what we say outside of work, we’re setting a precedent.
What if the ten major employers in the US came out tomorrow and announced that anyone who said anything negative about the government or the USA would be immediately fired from their job? Would that be okay? How about if I simply said “I’m anti-feminist”?
You got shamed for speaking your opinion on that woman’s tattoo. That’s offensive to women with tattoos. What if two or three people you work with made a complaint to HR at your company? Should you have gotten fired from your job for it? Just wait. It’s coming. If people just passively accept that others have a right to dictate what you say or think, pretty soon we’re going to get to the point where (if you’re a white male, at least) you can be fired for saying ANYTHING, as long as someone, somewhere decides that they might find if vaguely offensive. Is that a country you want to live in? A country void of free speech and dissenting opinions? We’re getting there. As long as people keep shrugging their shoulders and go along with the progressive agenda to ban all speech, thought, or actions they find offensive, we WILL get there.
Tt
This article is alright.
The so-called cultural Marxism is not the root of the problem. Marxism is a very effective revolutionary strategy and it is unrelated to the rise of cultural feminism, cultural homosexuality and their respective power struggles.
Ideological feminism is used to justify ideological homosexuality and vice verse. It is all bullshit.
It is like saying that we know God exists because we have faith in him. And that faith is given to us by God because he wants to give us the opportunity to find him in our Satanic hearts. It is all bullshit.
Love this post. Good work.
Couple things I noticed about the commentary:
1. Looking at the tweets denouncing Pax, every single female profile I looked at was a woman who was either an attorney or a journalist.
2. A majority of the tweets from men were mocking Pax’s style of dress
Their entire ideology is a failure, because tolerance itself is no virtue. The thing that matters is what is being tolerated, not the act of tolerance itself.
GIve this man a medal.
Realizing there’s no genie in the sky is the ultimate red pill. People become atheist because they have a critical mind, they are for the most part empirical. Finding the relation red pill which I can guarantee I took before you was just a natural step. Scorpion, your premise is wrongly targeted.
I love masculine men…
it’s really fuct what they’re doing to pax, I work with a bunch of smelly h1b injuns and A-rabs. My only fun is trolling the nude beach but I’m sick of twinks, where are the real men.
The amount of correctness and censorship in today’s society really angers me. It’s really hard to speak your mind without offending someone. And even worse you can lose your job for something you said. WTF happened to the freedom of speech?
You’ve got freedom of speech, not security to make everyone like what you say.
The amount of correctness and censorship in today’s society really angers me. It’s really hard to speak your mind without offending someone. And even worse you can lose your job for something you said. WTF happened to the freedom of speech?
Return of Kings is homophobic. why? We hate women.
“We live in an age that tolerates everything except intolerance. There’s nothing to judge except judgmentalism. The only sin is believing in sin.”
-Peter Kreeft (paraphrase)