Over on his little chateau, otherwise known as a blog, the pick-up Heartiste Formerly Known as Roissy suggests a rather unusual role model for young and not-so-young men hoping to impress women with their alphaness: Chris Brown. Not for being a charismatic singer, but for that time he nearly beat Rihanna to death.
Oh, you don’t have to literally beat up women to be an alpha. Just work on making them uncomfortable and insecure.
Maxim #19: Making a woman feel a little emotional pain will reward you a thousandfold in returned physical pleasure.
You don’t have to be fists-of-fury Chris Brown to pick up a Rihanna and make her fall in deep, profound love with you, but don’t let the lesson of their relationship be lost on you. If you are a beta male — and odds are you are — you can superglue your relationship bond by instilling in your woman a calculated level of discomfort and insecurity. You won’t feel bad about this, because you will know that the discomfort you create is subconsciously DESIRED by your girl. Despite her outward appearance of frustration and timorous appeasement, you will know that inside, she is lit up like a vagina tree, with a squirting orgasm shooting out of the star on top.
In addition to everything else that is horribly wrong with this quote, let me just say that “lit up like a vagina tree” is not a phrase that I hope works its way into the vernacular.
So far, so good.
And, excuse me, how do you envision this stateless, lawless society operating?
I am most amused.
please nobody engage dumb randroid babby
i really do not feel reading fifty poorly worded, haughty screeds misrepresenting how money works
but seriously, mikey, we’ve filled enough lame white dude bingo cards already. you don’t have to keep this shit up.
A Randroid should want a stateless, lawless society so that he can be selfish without government inhibiting him!
When he talks, I just hear Chief Wiggum’s catchphrase:
@katz
government has important functions. like punishing women for saying mean things about poor precious delicate mikey.
Well firstly, stateless doesn’t necessarily imply lawless, I in particular feel that laws, and other bigger scale social stuff should be decided upon by a parcipitative democracy in which power is evenly distributed among the people, rather than concentrated upon one singular body.
And I’ll stop feeding the randroid now, even though I managed to get the last one to flounce by keeping to this direct line of reasoning.
A Randroid should want a stateless, lawless society so that he can be selfish without government inhibiting him!
Typical misunderstanding of Objectivist philosophy. The state should exist to provide a framework for great men to rise to prominence and a medium through which others may acknowledge his greatness; it is only in the economic sector that Objectivism calls for minimal government intervention (that is, laissez-faire capitalism).
I in particular feel that laws, and other bigger scale social stuff should be decided upon by a parcipitative democracy in which power is evenly distributed among the people, rather than concentrated upon one singular body.
Can you explain how this could realistically work, with no concentrated body of power to enforce it?
Who first drew attention to this? I want to know who to never forgive.
It would work because there is no concentrated body of power enforcing it, gimme a minute though, I need to brush up on my Bakunin.
So basically Rand fanboy wants the government to recognize how great he is. He may as well want them to provide dates while he’s at it.
In essence though, the way left anarchism works is the socialism comes first, then people get used to it, and then we dissolve the state.
Noadi, I haven’t read your link yet (but I will), but I clicked over from it to this http://www.consented.ca/, and it looks excellent too – full of real statistics with footnotes. Yay, footnotes! So thanks.
I’m just going to post more videos:
I just found a really sweet story about a stray kitten that is about to have an owner. http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/08/14/oh-look-another-one/
In essence though, the way left anarchism works is the socialism comes first, then people get used to it, and then we dissolve the state.
I chortle – because I simply believe the basic assumptions to be erroneous. We are naturally inclined to selfishness; capitalism is thus the only form of economicity that accomodates for our natural state of being. Likewise Objectivism, as a broader philosophy of life.
“Greed is good.” -Gordon Gekko
what does this wooden headed gibberish even mean? the government should sing you a special song every day about how super special and wonderful you are? this is stupid even by randroid standards
Uh, Steele, you do realise that Gekko was a villain of that movie and his personal philosophy was supposed to be seen as repugnant and awful? Just checking.
“squirting vagina tree….”
Am I the only one imagining either the worst selling sexual novelty item ever
OR
A Christmas themed Lovecraftian horror?
I would consider Gekko to be an anti-hero of sorts; a complex character. One who faces hard truths – such as that quoted above. The fact that he is the protagonist of the sequel would seem to indicate that the director shares my views.
Tell us again how you’re the one interested in real equality and we’re the sexists, Usul.
@ Steele – why would I want to “acknowledge the greatness” of some bourgeois tosspot?
The state would have to exist in randroid philosophy because it would be needed to crush the inevitable workers’ rebellion…I mean, last time we had laissez faire capitalism (eg. 19th Century Britain) most of the populations lived in misery. Don’t see why it would be any different if we scrapped the vast majority of state intervention in the economy, to be honest.
Chortle all you want, A natural inclination towards selfishness is actually about as fucking far as you can get from reality, The only thing one can say for certain about human nature is that man is a social being. With the fact that man is a social being, comes altruism and the desire for society as a whole to aspire towards the greater good of everyone rather than the good of so called “great” individuals.
this isn’t an argument- it’s a nostrum, and a particularly dimwitted one at that.