Roosh V, Pro-Rape Pick Up Artist, Announces Worldwide 'Tribal Meetings'

[phildwyer]

If I had to bet on how this will end

I already offered to bet anyone $100 that he'll be in jail within six months. Offer still stands.

 

[phildwyer]

Him getting directly challenged seems to result in you getting 'outed' as a 'white-knighting beta fag' (or some other such choice epithet if you are male

I believe "mangina" is the preferred term.

Perhaps the weirdest thing about this unbelievably weird community is that they've invented what amounts to a whole new language. It really is straight out of 1984. Do other internet niche groups do the same thing I wonder?

 

[phildwyer]

Hes not wrong about Islamic views of women, whores and wives.

Yes he is. He's completely wrong about them. He's completely wrong about everything.

 

[phildwyer]

oh dear oh dear. seems to me you're saying women not up to the job.

Yes, but you're an idiot. Go back to your magick.

I'm saying that when boys grow up without a father, they can easily become prey to the likes of Roosh.

 

[phildwyer]

Doesn't matter about the derail, Roosh is yesterdays chip paper now anyway. But yeah, Crowleyites & the disciples of Daryush have much in common - Both gullible sad sacks with various things missing from themselves being milked, bilked and generally had over by sinister perverted conmen.

Yep. If Crowley were alive today he'd be peddling PUA guides. That's pretty much what he did when he was alive, come to think of it.

That's the occult. I sort of feel sorry for all that stuff in a way coz it's just so fucking corny. How can anyone be into that? And yet Sebastian's Model is into it. What went wrong Sebastian?

Some people are just naturally Weird As Hell I guess. Or maybe it's a perverted sense of power, which they imagine can be achieved by "magick" because they're so clearly incapable of achieving it in any other way. Christ knows really.

 

[IC3D]

Yes he is. He's completely wrong about them. He's completely wrong about everything.

I think it chimes with your comment about how patriarchal societies keep closer tabs on family and his attitude comes straight out of 18th century England or the contemporary middle east. Women these days arent under the eyes of family but out doing stuff and therefore are whores, all his acolites probably hate modern society and want things the way they were when they held status just for being a bloke

 

[phildwyer]

I think it chimes with your comment about how patriarchal societies keep closer tabs on family and his attitude comes straight out of 18th century England or the contemporary middle east. Women these days arent under the eyes of family but out doing stuff and therefore are whores, all his acolites probably hate modern society and want things the way they were when they held status just for being a bloke

Oh right. Yes, that does seem to be what he thinks. There's lots of anti-Islam stuff on his page though (maybe it's by his followers, rather than him?)

Of course he's absolutely right about the effect of patriarchy on female sexuality. But he thinks it's a good thing.

 

[DaveCinzano]

If I had to bet on how this will end, I'd bet on the cops hauling barrels filled with fromaldehyde and other bits from his mom's basement.

Has anyone seen his mom recently?

 

[Pickman's model]

Yep. If Crowley were alive today he'd be peddling PUA guides. That's pretty much what he did when he was alive, come to think of it.

only he didn't.

 

[Pickman's model]

Yes, but you're an idiot. Go back to your magick.

I'm saying that when boys grow up without a father, they can easily become prey to the likes of Roosh.

and i'm saying you're talking utter bollocks. but carry on, it's not like your spouting shit's anything new or unusual.

 

[Pickman's model]

Yes, but you're an idiot. Go back to your magick.

I'm saying that when boys grow up without a father, they can easily become prey to the likes of Roosh.

yes, you're saying that their mothers aren't up to the job. thank you for clarifying that though.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I'm saying that when boys grow up without a father, they can easily become prey to the likes of Roosh.

Instead of just saying this over and over and over, can you provide anything that looks like evidence for the assertion?

 

[toggle]

Yes, but you're an idiot. Go back to your magick.

I'm saying that when boys grow up without a father, they can easily become prey to the likes of Roosh.

oh dear.

 

[phildwyer]

Instead of just saying this over and over and over, can you provide anything that looks like evidence for the assertion?

How could there be any empirical evidence for that? There couldn't. The only possible evidence would be rational.

Now, correlation is not causality, but the emergence of Roosh (and he's far from alone) obviously suggests some kind of serious social dysfunction.

It seems to me that only a young man entirely lacking in sensible or responsible male guidance could be taken in by such charlatans.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

It is odd how some of those criticising Roosh sound pointedly like Roosh in their criticisms. I don't really believe that dwyer believes the crap he's spouting, but if he does, he is the flip-side of the same reactionary coin.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

How could there be any empirical evidence for that? There couldn't. The only possible evidence would be rational.

In your head, this probably sounds meaningful. It is, of course, gibberish.

 

[phildwyer]

only he didn't.

Yes he did. Crowley was notorious for seducing naive young women, and subjecting them to horrific sexual ordeals. That was kind of his whole thing. Why do you admire this man?

 

[Pickman's model]

It is odd how some of those criticising Roosh sound pointedly like Roosh in their criticisms. I don't really believe that dwyer believes the crap he's spouting, but if he does, he is the flip-side of the same reactionary coin.

it's strange how he's managed to be remarkably consistent in his nonsense throughout.

 

[phildwyer]

yes, you're saying that their mothers aren't up to the job.

No, you are saying that. I'm saying that fathers aren't up to the job. Obviously.

 

[Pickman's model]

Yes he did. Crowley was notorious for seducing naive young women, and subjecting them to horrific sexual ordeals. That was kind of his whole thing. Why do you admire this man?

what you said, with which i disagreed, was rather different.

 

[Pickman's model]

No, you are saying that. I'm saying that men aren't up to the job. Obviously.

no, what you're saying is that the absence of a man makes their progeny more likely to fall prey to people like roosh. and you specifically laid this at the feet of the heads of the 38% of american households who happen to be women.

 

[phildwyer]

what you said, with which i disagreed, was rather different.

I said that if Crowley was alive today, he would basically be Roosh.

Both of them use "magick" to ensare young women into sexual traps.

Once again: why do you admire Crowley?

 

[Pickman's model]

I said that if Crowley was alive today, he would basically be Roosh.

Both of them use "magick" to ensare young women into sexual traps.

Once again: why do you admire Crowley?

no, what you said was

If Crowley were alive today he'd be peddling PUA guides. That's pretty much what he did when he was alive, come to think of it.

and of course it isn't pretty much what he did when he was alive. can't you keep your lies straight?

 

[phildwyer]

no, what you're saying is that the absence of a man makes their progeny more likely to fall prey to people like roosh. and you specifically laid this at the feet of the heads of the 38% of american households who happen to be women.

No, you did that. I laid the blame on the absent fathers. Which is where it properly lies.

I see that you're unwilling to discus your admiration for Crowley. Why is that?

 

[phildwyer]

of course it isn't pretty much what he did when he was alive.

That's exactly what he did.

He taught people that sex was an end in itself, that physical pleasure was the highest aim of life, that hedonism knows no morality, that it is legitimate for the strong to exploit the weak, and basically the whole gamut of the sub-Nietzschean pseudo-philosophy to which you proudly adhere.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

 

[bluescreen]

No, you did that. I laid the blame on the absent fathers. Which is where it properly lies.

You don't seem to be able to see what you are saying: that the absence of a father is likely to make a child more susceptible to the Rooshes of this world. Ergo that a mother cannot adequately raise a child on her own. It's palpable nonsense as any of us who know single mothers can attest.

 

[bluescreen]

Or maybe the single mothers we know are merely exceptions to the dwyer general rule?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Or maybe the single mothers we know are merely exceptions to the dwyer general rule?

tut tut

That sounds dangerously like empirical evidence.

 

[phildwyer]

You don't seem to be able to see what you are saying: that the absence of a father is likely to make a child more susceptible to the Rooshes of this world. Ergo that a mother cannot adequately raise a child on her own. It's palpable nonsense as any of us who know single mothers can attest.

Ergo nothing. There is no ergo here.

Look, this is silly. Obviously I'm not saying that a single mother can't raise a son successfully. That's what Pickman's is saying. I'm saying that the absence of male guidance in adolescence leaves young men prey to the likes of Roosh.

Would you (would anyone) deny the truth of that?

 

[phildwyer]

One more thing. Hang on...