Saturday, October 8, 2016

- The Latest Teapot Tempest

I was out with some friends for happy hour Thursday, and one of the other men there is another recently single man in New York. We compared notes and talked a bit about how to be successful in the dating market at such an advanced state of ripeness. Neither of us is famous, but we’re both successful. I’m taller and better looking, but he has considerably more money than me. The conversation sounded quite a bit like the ‘hot mike’ video from Donald Trump 11 years ago.

It’s really not the end of the world. Men (or at least boys) have spoken to each other like this basically forever. But in our Feminized culture, its considered immoral for men to act like men. If Hillary and the sisterhood have their way, it’s going to become ‘illegal’ for men to act like men. This is no reason to disqualify him, and I doubt anyone but Hillary’s already converted sisterhood is going to.

“Sexual Assault” for instance, is now defined in the academy, as “any unwanted sexual attention”. But “unwanted” leaves a lot of room – too much for our legal system unless we want to abandon the premise of ‘innocent until proven guilty’. The problem there is that it’s the woman who unilaterally get’s to decide what sexual attention is wanted and which isn’t.

Take for example that man – the man that no woman wants. He’s overweight, short, bald, has a poor job with little prospect for advancement, he’s socially awkward, and has poor hygiene. If he so much as says good morning to a woman, under a law crafted the way the sisterhood wants it, he would be guilty of ‘sexual harassment’.

I on the other hand, have personally had women that I met seconds before, respond very positively to me putting my hand on their bottom or some other overt sexual act. Under the law as Feminists would have it, all that would be perfectly OK. At least until I meet some famous woman at a party someplace who would never consider a peasant like me no matter how good looking I may be.

You need to understand the goal here. The goal is for women to be the sole arbiters of who dates who, and to completely eliminate male input into that equation. All the choice for women, no choice for men. But the process for getting there involves making masculinity first, unfashionable, then immoral, and eventually illegal. Right now we’re at the bridge between immoral and illegal. The NYTimes, National Review and the rest of the MSM on the right and left, are all arguing for a continuation of the trend. Opposing it, are the Alt-Right, and Donald Trump.

A longer post is justified for this, and I’ll try very hard to get to it this evening. For now I think it should be enough to say that I think the Trump tape is a tempest in a teapot, and won’t change anyone’s minds.

6 comments:

Muzzlethemuz said...

Hillary has gotten people killed and that's a reference to our federal employees up to and including a US Ambassador and that's the ones we know about. It is completely reasonable to believe that intelligence assets were exposed and compromised by her use of the un-secured server. She is as responsible for our loss of credibility globally as Mr. Obama and that loss of credibility has led to an erosion of stability in the eastern and western hemispheres and a willingness for the Putins and Jinpings to see just how far they can push us. This will come to a head and this will only be adjudicated in the end with nuclear saber rattling and hopefully it stops there. Putin is reported last week to be interested in putting a base in Cuba. Does he put nukes on that base? Do you think Hillary and her constituency have the resolve to tell Putin no?
Mr. Trump is a frat boy. Money and girls. Trump's issue doesn't appear to be candor or unethical behavior so much as a lack of discretion. I think people are pretty set at this point. The margins of error have sat for months at +/- 5 points with Hillary usually on top. In a hyper-political, media-saturated age with millions glued to their smart phones, social media and PC/bullshit feminized culture, this will likely hurt Trump with whatever sheep/fence sitters are left out there.
I continue to think it's a numbers game. The cities have the numbers, the youth bulge and the PC urban/urbane consensus. The sticks where I live, not so much. Trump is untouchable at this point and if the Mexican judge fiasco didn't bring him down (what Mexican judge fiasco?) nothing will. His loss won't be due to his actions. We already know he in prone to gaffs and untoward behavior. His loss will be due to the fact that there's simply more of them going to vote than there are of us.

chess said...

The great white shark called feminism has already "bumped" us and taken a leg off below the knee. We wont get that part back .Ever. That shark is coming around for the blast your ass out of the water like a fat seal strike on Shark Week. .. If a few are lucky it hits you off center and you will survive.. In reality even if you dont die a "good" death then you make it to the beach just to have the land crabs pick you apart while you are still alive.. That is what awaits masculinity.
Muzz you are correct that it is the numbers and this is the last hurrah. The biggest number will be ???? 4 new SCOTUS.. That way it will be legal to hunt us like the vermin we will have become...

Soylent Green part deux.

Hell_Is_Like_Newark said...

The only men I have scene really upset about what Trump said are the effete-veggie-manlet variety. Frankly, I doubt many of them were going to vote for Trump in the first place.

Trump does have an issue with women support though. I refer not to polls, but to his fundraising numbers. His money (donations $200+) are coming from about 70% men. Hillary's number have a lead with women, but nothing as unbalanced as Trump's.

I really don't know how this will turn out. As Tom pointed out, most men are not going to be offended by a throw away boast that I would hear on any fishing trip. Women however.. words to me seems to set many of them off than actual action. Bill's horrid treatment of women and Hillary's debacles elicit not so much as a raised eyebrow.

The reaction to Trump got me thinking of the 'Fit Mom' brouhaha a while back. For those who don't remember (or cared at the time). Maria Kang posted this photo:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/17/opinion/navarrette-maria-kang/


The feminine world went apoplectic at this "fat shaming bitch". Kang had her Facebook account deleted at one point for posting such "hate".

If Tom is right, it won't just be masculinity that will become 'illegal'. The law will be completely rewritten around all the insecurities of women. Anything that a woman finds offensive will be an illegal act of hate.

Hell_Is_Like_Newark said...

Talked to my elderly Father today. He was in a bit of a funk over the latest Trump brouhaha. Dad pretty much gets his news from reading The Weekly Standard, National Review, watching Fox News, and other traditional conservative venues.

Conservative Inc. is really hammering Trump hard short of overtly endorsing Hillary. He is pretty much convinced enough of the woman vote will go for Hillary after the hot mic release.

I spent a little time browsing sources from Conservative Inc. I can say that the traditional Right is harder on Trump than Hillary's camp at this point. I swear, the Republicans kill themselves politically by "friendly fire" as much as they are damaged by the opposition.

Muzzlethemuz said...

Chess & HILN, agree on all. Here's what I say and I feel in regard to much of the commentary on this site - it is all on the presupposition that things stay the way they are. The beta, fem, LGBT, trans/PC weirdness that has been growing to a crescendo pitch is an outgrowth of stable, soft, western democratic systems and the minute the times cease being soft, all that B.S. is going out the window.

As I have mentioned in my musings w/o trying to play Chicken Little... I just don't see the status quo staying in place beyond 2020 and here's why:

1. Economics. The global financial system, currently running along lines scripted at Bretton Woods, is running out of steam. There's too many people, too much automation, too much grow-or-die exigency, the planet is finite, human population growth isn't. Something has to give. Tom has written at length, eloquently, and at a level above my comprehension, with regards to the Ponzi scheme that is western finance. While this system has out-performed all others, that I am aware of, providing the greatest good to the greatest number, there are cracks and fissures forming that can't be hidden forever under low interest rates and quantitative easing. A financial calamity is probably in our future and that will break the status quo.

2. Geopolitics. The confluence of China's ascendancy, Russia's renewed ambitions, North Korea's death wish and global Islamic calamity, is going to have to be dealt with at some point. Based on what's been happening with the aforementioned countries and ideologies, I would think something is going to pop by 2020. Either Pakistan and India go at it, Israel hits Iran, China finally goes after Taiwan and then we will have our moment of truth. A limited nuclear war even in faraway Southeast Asia will have a horrible, depressing, rippling effect on human relations globally. In a time of war, like Manhattan after 9/11, people will regress to a more primitive state. Security will be paramount, soldiers and sailors will be revered, ass clown metro caricatures like the cast of Friend's will be viewed as outdated anachronisms. Geopolitical developments have enormous potential to break the status quo.

Muzzlethemuz said...

3. Domestic ennui. As regular RFNJ readers are probably aware, I was a federal employee long enough to get a LEOSA credential and I can tell you that at least as far as the federal government and many of its enforcement agencies go, there is a systemic breakdown in morale and efficacy occurring across the board in a diversity of agencies from the US Secret Service to the US Forest Service and everywhere in between. I have friends in ICE who get paid to not do their jobs... because when you're a deportation officer on the US/MX border and your president endorses a policy of protecting illegal aliens... guess what? You sit in the office all day and buy crap on EBay. That's exactly what's happening in certain offices I am aware of b/c those guys are not allowed to do their jobs.

On the local level in the state where I live, with a ban on hi-cap magazines, the local SO will not go after hi-cap magazines unless they are used in a crime and generally that's the gangbanger kids in small-sized cities nearby. LE is exhausted. The FOP endorsed Trump. Liberal legislatures like to look busy and compassionate by passing every single law they can to "protect and keep us safe," but rarely inquire to see if LE and the A/USA's and DA's have sufficient resources to prosecute the potential influx of new cases. When I was in and even more so now, there are simply too many laws, regulations and policies to be able to function anymore. The irony is, agencies get so bent out of shape now in the eyes of the PC press and public (for fear of bad media & law suits) they impose a level of paperwork that de-incentivizes the individual officer from working a beat b/c even writing an infraction citation becomes a two-hour ordeal when you get back to the office and have to write the thing up & submit to a DOS-based computer program. So the irony that I lived first hand is liberal legislatures love passing laws but they ensure, simultaneously, limited enforcement. Except for one area... gun laws.

However, an order or decree from the likes of Hillary to go after the guns would be completely unenforceable. The cops (a huge majority in my opinion) do not want that job, could not do that job and it would become a shooting war, of that I am convinced. The system is going to grind to a halt and when that happens I'll be interested to see the academics, leftists, LGBT, et al., get in the patrol cars and pick up where the police left off. They won't. It would be anarchy and with that, the status quo would break.

So, these are three conditions that are real, are occurring and will have the effect of absolutely destroying this bizarre, beta, grrl power status quo that has swept up the liberal elites.

In every time, in every epoch, in every place, it has taken a man with a blunt object, a sword, or a gun, to get the tribes to behave. Nothing has changed. The liberal mind has inured itself from reality, having enjoyed the relative peace and prosperity that men with guns won us in 1945. It is my contention that economic upheaval, geopolitical events and/or domestic dysfunction are going to see to the creation of conditions that are highly unfavorable to the current status quo and a return to a values system and worldview more consistent with the state of nature i.e. survival of the fittest and the dominance of the community over the individual. I think that time is close, I think it is unavoidable and should it occur all of this will be moot. We will be finally living in an era (in effect having returned to) where actions are more important than words.