Boycott the Boycotters: the Culture War

For Liberals, everything is the political. Even the personal. In a an attack ginned up by the Obama Administration, the culture war over Sandra Fluke and Rush Limbaugh has resulted in over 140 companies currently pulling advertising on the Rush Limbaugh show. While I’m not a fan of Limbaugh, the campaign by the Obama White House is pretty clear: get rid of any and all who are not 100% hard-left. This is aided and abetted by the uber-liberal leadership of most of America’s corporations, and definitely their media buyers, who are as hard left as they come.

In order to fight back, Conservatives of all stripes must boycott and punish the boycotters. Eliminate the “free lunch” of the hard-left, and make their banishment of all who don’t toe the hard-left line expensive. In other words, fight back. Banishing Louis C.K. from the White House Correspondents Dinner (afore-said comedian had obscene words for Sarah Palin and her retarded son, particularly the c-word) is a good start. So too is punishing Bill Maher who said the same things about Palin. But punishing companies like Citrix, and Quicken Loans, and Sears is essential to making the defenestration of Limbaugh expensive. Because otherwise it will happen to others: novelists Andrew Klavan, Brad Thor, and Vince Flynn are targets too. As are actors Adam Baldwin, Robert Downey Jr., and Tom Selleck.

The only way to stop this is to boycott (and let the companies know you are boycotting them) the left-enablers. The following companies deserve your boycott (since they got in bed with the left):

21st Century Insurance • Hotels.com • Rite Aid • Ace Hardware • Honda • Robitussin • Acura • IBM • Sam Adams • Advance Auto Parts • Icy Hot • Sam’s Club • Advil (All products) • Intuit/Small Business • Schiff – Digestive Advantage • Alacer/Emergen-C • Schiff – Mega Red • Allegra (all products) • Johnson & Johnson (All Brands) • Schiff – Move Free • Kohl’s • Schiff – Sustenex • Ally Bank • La Quinta • Scotts Miracle-Gro (all products) • American Express • Lifetime • Autozone • Little Caesars • Sony • Lowe’s • State Farm • British Petroleum • Luxottica • Staples • Bullfrog Sunblock • Macy’s • Sterling/Kay Jared Jewelers • Caltrate • MasterCard • Subway • Centrum • McDonalds • Takeda Uloric • Chapstick • Midas • The Home Depot • Clorox (Pinesol/Homecare) • Napa Auto Parts • ThermaCare • Cortizone • National Realtor • Toyota • DeVry • NBC-TV • Discover Card • Office Depot • Twinings of London • Domino’s Pizza • Office Max • Tyson/Wright Brand Bacon • Exxon/Exxon Mobil • One Main Financial • Unisom • Farmers Insurance • United Healthcare • Ford • Orkin • U.S. Army • Outback • U. S. Postal Service • General Motors (All products -GM Certified Service • Chevy • Onstar • Cadillac • etc) • Preparation H • Visa • Gold Bond (all products • ProNutrients (all products) • Walgreens • Grainger • Progressive Insurance • Wal-Mart • Green Mountain Coffee • Prudential • Wells Fargo • Hallmark • Radio Shack • Wrigley • H&R Block • Rent-A-Center • Yahoo!

The full list is at the Think Progress (thanks! Lefties!) Pinterest page.

Carbonite, which consisted of Rush Limbaugh users, basically, is in free-fall. The stock is plunging, off its 52 week high of $21.10 to $8.06 at the time of this writing. Sleep Train is now asking to return to Limbaugh’s show, and has been refused. While Hannity and Levine are also targeted for extinction, so far the punishment of both Carbonite and Sleep Train (which has also lost sales) has been swift, but the examples have not been made publicly enough.

Another company needs to be made into a target, and sales driven down, to the point where the company is in serious trouble. For too long, conservatives have not been united and angry enough to make a difference. Boycotts and counter-boycotts are essential in making the endless culture war expensive for Liberals. This would seem to indicate a company already in trouble, that has mostly male customers (women are quite liberal, there is currently a 12 point gender gap in most polls matching up Obama vs. a Republican), and one that depends on consumer purchases daily (not intermittent big capital expenditures).

Ace Hardware, Domino’s Pizza, and Autozone would be my bets as the likeliest companies to target specifically. Others might have more insight.

For those wishing to boycott backup service Carbonite, I-Drive.com works well, or Mac and Linux users can use the command rsync and cheap, USB drives to backup their data without privacy or performance issues. Those willing to roll their own can use Cygwin on Windows to get the same result.

As James Fulford noted, advertising is part of the problem. It is too focused on political correctness and enforcement rather than results. And this is because the entire industry is shot-through with gays, and women, not Don Draper style “Mad Men,” bad boys in White collar outfits and status.

Fulford notes that David Morse, owner/CEO of New American Dimensions, an advertising/marketing firm that is 100% GLBT/Minority Owned (Morse by his photo is White, thus making him a gay man), has written that multiculturalism is the new dogma that cannot be questioned:

If, in fact, the nation has passed the threshold where Americans can no longer shamelessly vent against a multicultural society, at least in public, then perhaps some attitudes need to change among those of us who do multicultural marketing.  

If America has entered a new era, then it bids us, as multicultural marketers, to embrace a freedom that many of us never felt we had. We have permission to be bolder in our marketing. We have the license to develop campaigns that push the envelope, and support multicultural causes and concerns that may have made us timid in the past. What does this mean? For starters, more Hispanics, Asians and gays in mainstream ads. And let’s not be afraid to show cultural authenticity. Our country, our customers and consumers are ready to see multicultural America as it really is. Let’s show Hispanics speaking English. Let’s depict African-American culture in a way that’s respectful and aspirational, yet real. Let’s depict Asian Americans and gays—period. That’s how we’ll lead the way to portraying the American reality that Buchanan so much disdains. [The reference to Buchanon is Pat Buchanon and his book which has a chapter decrying the end of White Majority America.]

Morse claims expertise in the African American Market (12% of the population, only 40% of which or 4.8% of the general population is middle-class), the Asian-American market (about 5% of the population), Hispanic-American market (about 23% of the population, median household net worth of $6,000 or so), gay and lesbian market (about 2-5% of the population), and the youth market (fairly small and without much money).

None of these market segments are worth much money. Only McDonalds and Nike have figured out how to make money off the Black consumer. Gays can make an antiques district profitable, but that’s about it. Hispanics have no money, ditto the youth segment.

Advertising is not really about these segments of the population. They don’t have the money, numbers, or clout to make and break consumer products. Which rely heavily on marketing (unlike say, coal or silver mining, or electricity generation, or steel production, or gas and oil drilling). What this hard-left orientation of the advertisers is all about is the female consumer.

Marketing and advertising are aimed at the female consumer, of whom it is believed that 85% of all consumer purchases are directed/influence by women. Women like gays, very much. Bravo, Logo, and the rest of the gay networks don’t survive on gay viewers, but women who turn into such shows as Project Runway and Fashion Star.

And most White professional women live in a non-ideological but heavily cultural arena where their views, decisions, and lives are shaped by their culture. Not reading Marxist tracts or thinking deep thoughts about economics, politics, and such. Most people cannot afford that — they have their daily lives to live, and that’s enough. God knows I can sympathize with that time pressure.

White professional women, and White women in general, have real issues with most of their White male peers. They are not sexy enough. They don’t make enough money, compared to themselves (women always demand a premium of wealth and power, compared to themselves, if there is not compensating sexy assholery in the man). White male professionals and White men in general are not aggressive, assholerly, and testosterone-driven enough, to satisfy their female peers.

That this is the natural result of suppressing White male conflict, to avoid deadly violence and poverty (think the Balkans, Kansas border wars, Southern Feuds, Prohibition Gangsterism, and more), and enhance prosperity (technological advances and safe suburbs depend on suppressing sexy violence in men) is beyond the point. Women are not told the truth, that you don’t get something for nothing, and so are filled with resentment. “I was promised sexy men, and all I got for my career was fellow cubicle dwelling drones!”

Hence the embrace of gays, non-Whites, and desire to erase the old “White Majority America” because the one thing women will not tolerate is lack of sexiness in men. They can’t stand it.

That’s why there is a double standard. Rush Limbaugh can rightly say that anyone spending $3,000 a year on contraception must be a slut, given that most women spend less than $300 a year (Fluke must have been engaging in sex four, five times a day, that’s in excess of what Russell Brand has claimed). Of course, it is highly unlikely that Fluke spent more than $30 a year on contraception. If that. As a law student and barely attractive in her thirties, as an ardent feminist, she’s unlikely to attract that many admirers, much less have the time. But for saying that, Limbaugh is punished. Why?

Because he’s on the side, however uncertainly, of White guys. And most White women have big problems with White guys — they just are not sexy enough.

Bill Maher and Louis C.K. can say horrible things about Sarah Palin and her son. That’s “OK” with most women, they hate Palin and her kid too. Why? Because Palin is a “traitor,” in that she’s unapologetically on the side of ordinary White guys. She’s part of Redneck America, which retains its affection for average White guys and is not part of the alliance (White collar White women, gays, Blacks, Hispanics, White elites) against them.

Short-term, the boycott against Limbaugh must be costly. Conservatives must wage a defense in depth, punishing particularly the most vulnerable companies and driving them down explicitly. But long term, White Professional women must be peeled away from the anti-White guy alliance. I do not think that White guys can be made more sexy, in enough numbers, to matter. That just cannot happen.

But what can happen is telling the truth. That security and wealth come at a price. Unsexy men. And that if White female professionals in enough numbers succeed in eradicating the traditional White Majority America, their place will not be as the sexy woman in a Target Ad with a male-model non-White guy radiating good looks, virility, and testosterone fueled dominance. But rather as an aging babushka in Putin-ized Russia, easy targets and prey for “youths” who view her as someone who can be victimized, endlessly, with impunity. Because they can.

This is a hard truth. Like much but not all of Life, it is an ugly truth. But one that women are fully capable of grasping, if told in simple and easy terms, often enough. This is why it is important to fight on the cultural battlefield, not just the political one. All across the West, White professional women have become “empowered” and thus found most of their male peers profoundly unsexy, and thus unworthy of existence. They’ve been lied to and told they can be young and beautiful forever. That a utopian non-White majority society will consist of sexy, dominant men interested in endlessly courting them. That’s a pretty obvious lie, but one that they told themselves. Breaking that apart will be difficult (self-derived illusions are the hardest to shatter) but not impossible. Long term the survival of the West depends on breaking that illusion that many (not all) White professional women have told themselves.

About these ads

About whiskeysplace

Conservative blogger focusing on culture, business, technology, and how they intersect.
This entry was posted in advertising, culture. Bookmark the permalink.

18 Responses to Boycott the Boycotters: the Culture War

  1. Mike says:

    I think what happened to Carbonite and Sleep Train speak for themselves. Obviously the media won’t give that much coverage, but the lesson won’t be lost on other advertisers and potential advertisers.

  2. chucho says:

    This is basically a good sample of the S&P 500. A typical American’s life would be made difficult and more expensive by shunning every one of these companies.

    A boycott from the right will never work, since the corporate ethos of large companies will always be democratic (small d) and panders to the Cathedral.

  3. HR Lincoln says:

    I’ve listened to Rush, somewhat frequently, since 1991. I am suspicious of PInterest’s list; they bill it as a listing of compainies that no longer advertise on Rush’s show; I believe that many of those companies, if not most of them, never ran ads on Rush’s program.

    Great post. I canned Carbonite the minute I heard about their action. I have no doubt that Rush brought them a ton of business, and would love to see this take them down, and visibly.

  4. map says:

    I agree with HR Lincoln. I have serious doubts that most of those companies have ever advertised on Limbaugh. Yes, Carbonite advertises on Michael Savage and Michael Medved, but the large, major firms? I doubt that. I was amazed to hear a Google ad on Dennis Miller.

    The major firms are already very liberal and they do not advertise on right-wing radio. I’ve never even heard a Wal-mart ad on any of these shows. Which I find interesting.

    Right-wing radio relies heavily on local advertising to move product, not national commercials.

  5. Uncle Steve says:

    Part of this is a psy-op. That woman who put together the Pinterest page is trying to manufacture the appearance of universal consensus on the matter of Rush vs. Fluke (that is, against Rush and for Fluke).

    She got most of the companies on her list from this article, which is about Premiere Networks circulating a list of 98 advertisers who want to avoid “environments likely to stir negative sentiments.” :

    http://www.radio-info.com/news/when-it-comes-to-advertisers-avoiding-controversial-shows-its-not-just-rush

    http://www.radio-info.com/newsletter/html/tri-03092012.html

    a quote from the article:

    “To all Traffic Managers: The information below applies to your Premiere Radio Networks commercial inventory. More than 350 different advertisers sponsor the programs and services provided to your station on a barter basis. Like advertisers that purchase commercials on your radio station from your sales staff, our sponsors communicate specific rotations, daypart preferences and advertising environments they prefer… They’ve specifically asked that you schedule their commercials in dayparts or programs free of content that you know are deemed to be offensive or controversial (for example, Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh, Tom Leykis, Michael Savage, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity). Those are defined as environments likely to stir negative sentiment from a very small percentage of the listening public.”

    Notice the very last sentence in that passage: “negative sentiment from a *very small* percentage of the listening public”. In other words, big mainstream companies don’t want to get trouble from professional, vocal, activist moonbats. Nowhere in the statement does it say that all of a sudden these 98 companies are abandoning Rush because of the Fluke flap. The way our frothing, hyphenated, aged, Pinterest moonbat puts it (“THANK YOU for SUPPORTING WOMEN1!!11!!”) would have us believe otherwise.

    It’s not as bad out there as hard-core liberals would like to have us believe, but the threat they pose is real, because they will use no end of verbal jiu-jitsu and carefully crafted propaganda to try to create the appearance that the whole world is with them. Manufacturing consensus is one of the things they do very well, especially when they pull it off using the boatloads of cash and big Hollywood assets they control.

    It’s time for us to tear up the astroturf, and let the world know what the real consensus is.

  6. Doc says:

    I made a killing on Carbonite by selling short… Cha-ching… (Thank you for being so predictable…)

    Don’t boycott – if you think a company is doing something stupid make it work to your advantage. Obama did more for me by going after Rush, then he’s done all year… Of course, I’d rather make money by earning it, but I figure all of the Congress Critters were doing the same thing before jumping on the band-wagon since they can’t be charged with insider-trading… Heck, I wouldn’t be surprised if Obama made a couple of million on this deal – that would be typical for his ilk…

  7. white@onrice.com says:

    The same David Morse who played Jack Morrison on St. Elsewhere?

  8. no mo uro says:

    “It is too focused on political correctness and enforcement rather than results. And this is because the entire industry is shot-through with gays, and women, not Don Draper style “Mad Men,” bad boys in White collar outfits and status.”

    Ah, but Whiskey, that (Mad Men) is the image and the narrative. And it works in two ways.

    One, it is the fig leaf for which intergenerational vengeance can be exacted. By constantly putting out this imagery, the great bludgeon of guilt can be applied, and any indeiscretions or outrages by the left can be made to seem justified.

    But the second way is more insidious. When the feminists said they wanted equality, we all figured that they meant they wanted to be doctors and lawyers and scientists and own small businesses, etc.

    They didn’t. They wanted to become Don Draper.

  9. Rurik says:

    For those of us who have investments, check the company lists. If your investment is one of those listed, you might want to consider whether or not to sell. If you feel you cannot sell, you can still retaliate by voting against corporate recommendations at the annual meeting. I already peruse the board nominees and vote against those with strong leftist political ties.

  10. Prof. Woland says:

    Good idea. It is long overdue. Being in sales, there is an old adage we use, “A happy customer will tell three others while an unhappy one will tell 100”. As you have seen by Sleep Train and Carbonite, broadcasters like Rush have to power to destroy companies not just make them suffer a little. It needs to be understood that the same thing can happen to companies that happens to individuals that the SPLC and Media Matters goes after.

    The strategy of killing a chicken in front of the monkeys to keep them in line means singling out just one company out of the hundred listed by Think Progress and making an example of it and not just conducing a general boycott. The type of companies most vulnerable will be like ones in the food industry with a perishable inventory followed by ones that sell primarily to a conservative / white clientele. When foreign companies engage in trade warfare they do exactly that, they boycott goods that are produced in a politically sensitive part of the exporting country. Russia’s boycotting of US chicken legs is a good example or Chilean grapes is another. We also saw this to a degree when MSNBC went after Bill O’Reilly and he retaliated by going after GE. In this type of game you have to up the ante. Even if corporate media won’t participate, this strategy can go viral in the internet age making any hope for quick recovery impossible once the poison is in the bloodstream.

    It would not hurt to steal a page out of the left’s book and start an organization that does nothing but track companies who engage in politics, the implied threat being that they will be the ones who get their proverbial necks wrung like Leghorn Foghorn if they pick the wrong fight.

  11. Jelly Bean says:

    “They didn’t. They wanted to become Don Draper”

    Well, OF COURSE. But isn’t that what most children want, what most young people envision when they imagine themselves in their future careers- a cool, hip, intelligent person who’s both the master of his/her field and a rebellious innovator, admired by everyone? That’s why so many kids want to be singers, even if they hate their music lessons and never actually sing. Some people grow, mature and realize that life doesn’t work that way, but for a select few. Such people reevaluate their goals, readjust their views and proceed towards a more realistic type of success/happiness. Yet, a lot of people never get it. They end up feeling entitled, cheated and depressed.

    Women, being human, follow the paths described above, depending on their levels of intellect, mental stability and wisdom. I think what a lot of MRAs refuse to see is that women aren’t different from them in that respect, and that the stupid, the insane and the entitled are human traits of certain layers of our population, not the overall feminine traits.

    The extreme folly of our system wasn’t granting women equal rights. It was assuming that all women were the reasonable, intelligent, self-aware types of people. But women are human beings so, much like men, the vast majority will never achieve anything above mediocrity and a substantial percentage is stupid, selfish and unbalanced.
    Equal rights are not the problem. The presumption that women are moral and fair high achievers by default is the problem. If equality before the law was actually upheld, many of the problems you decry would disappear. It doesn’t mean that YOUR life would change for the better or that the girls would like you or that you’d get a better job, but the odds would no longer be stacked against you, and you could plan your family and career choices in the context of a fair society when it comes to gender. We need merit-based education, merit-based employment, fair divorce laws and slightly less pro-woman reproductive laws (that area could never be fair or equal, no matter how you spin it.Biology makes the experience too different for the sexes and puts the mother both under disproportional stress and risk and in disproportional control over the shared child. I can come up with better laws than we have now, but nothing close to perfection in fairness.)

    After that, plenty of men and women will still fail in life and end up miserable, and that’s okay. The original classic feminists didn’t seek to make most women happy, but to offer a fair shot at personal success to everyone. It’s okay if under merit based hiring, most police officers and firefighters in the country will become men. However, if a 6’3” amazon of a woman with shoulder width to match and a history of athletic achievement dreams of putting out fires, she is ENTITLED TO AN OPPORTUNITY TO TRY OUT. Classic feminists would be annoyed by the notion of government organizations dedicated to encouraging women/girls into sciences, business, law, math and so on. They didn’t advocate for equal numbers in everything, just the opportunity to try out if one desires and feels able. Equal opportunity, not equal results. And thus the right to vote and the right to property. Sure, most women who vote are idiots, but that’s true of most men as well. Try asking any random person what are the names of the republican candidates. Heck, try asking a random person who is the democratic candidate. If you want to argue against idiots voting, that’s another subject, but don’t pretend it’s a gender issue.

    TL;DR Life never reaches expectations for most people, and a lot of people throw hissy fits upon discovering this. But everyone deserves a legal opportunity to find out if he or she is one of the lucky few, if he or she so desires. To deny this is to become no better than a nazi, a feminazi, a member of KKK or Al Sharpton.

  12. no mo uro says:

    Bean-

    I will do you the courtesy of believing that you personally do not believe in anything but merit-based advancement, and that you are not a female supremacist.

    I will not, however, grant your premise that femisim has EVER been anything other than dominated by the ideas I mentioned. Not in Patricia Ireland’s time, nor Steinem’s, nor Friedan’s, nor Susan B. Anthony’s.

    95%+ of ALL feminists, in all eras, were never about “equal pay for equal work”. Never. Ever. They were about one of two things: use intergenerational guilt to get whatever they could without regard to proportion or what’s fair in the present (amoral piggish trunk), or using the system to act on their deeply held belief that women are in fact SUPERIOR to men (immoral ideological trunk). The equivalents of these two groups also exist in the black community.

    I am sick to death of this myth of the “classical” feminist being some major force. The “classical” feminists who would actually be angry at government help of girls vs boys? I’ve never encountered one (outside of yourself). And they were never anything but a statistical blip, in any era. The issue isn’t whether or not there are equal numbers of idiots among men or women – there are. It’s about motivations. The groups I’ve described are essentially, statistically within scientific error, the entirety of the feminist movement since before any of us were born.

    And if you believe otherwise you are quite naive.

    • Jelly Bean says:

      From what I remember reading in middle school, in the time of Susan B. Anthony, most of the major feminist figures were happily married and claimed that their most important roles in life were those of mothers. I believe Anthony herself was the exception rather than the rule, but perhaps I need to revisit the topic and do some more research.

      I believe that “classical” (egalitarian) feminists are numerous, but they are not a major force for the same reason that MRAs are having trouble recruiting a significant portion of the population. Normal, sane, emotionally balanced people cringe at the notion of making a loud racket and demanding rights, even if they agree that things aren’t all that fair. Such people prefer to work extra hard to even out the field rather than “raise awareness” which usually looks like it requires a total loss of dignity. Most women didn’t march with signs and burn bras. They just witnessed history take a turn and continued with their lives the best they could, like everyone else. Then, the next generation of girls was born , and then the next. They entered this new changed world, got socialized to live in it and went through the same sensitivity training as everyone else. There is no inside organization for all women that steers the country. The government women’s focus cabinets, or whatever the hell they are called, don’t consist of a single percent of the American women and aren’t accountable to…well, they aren’t accountable to anyone, really. I suspect that people in charge of the victim interest groups are like the CEOs of banks; in it for their own power and gain, engaging in the inside deals. But, who knows?

      So many women happily parrot nonsense and readily benefit from unfair advantages, not because they are female supremacists, but because they are human beings. We’ve already established that most humans are pretty stupid. I’d like to propose that most people are also intellectually lazy, morally simplistic, selfish and not self-aware. Women, being people, fit that mold in large numbers. They aren’t taking what’s not theirs because they believe themselves superior, but because it’s easy and they see no down side for themselves. Simple people are more susceptible to the outside shame than the internal guilt. Internal guilt requires personal values and a strong character which the intellectually lazy and the morally simple just don’t possess. Yelling “Girls rule! Boys drool!” and having everyone agree with you is fun, especially if one doesn’t have any real claim to power and isn’t superior in any way. Taking one’s ex husband’s money is nice because one can buy stuff with it and that feels good. Simple people don’t think beyond that.

      That’s why REAL legal equality is so important. Large groups can’t handle having advantages granted to them without abusing those advantages because individual members of most groups are sheep, and the ones who agree to accept the advantages on behalf of the group are usually depraved con artists. It’s true for everyone. Many of the MRAs deny that the patriarchy was ever really damaging to women. That baffles me. Men are people, and like all people, they didn’t handle power graciously or responsibly in large numbers. Many guys DID beat their wives after frustrating work days. Those women in the early 20th century who asked the activist social workers to develop that first contraceptive pill had kids coming out of their ears because their alcoholic husbands wouldn’t even agree to practice the rhythm method. A man could leave his wife and kids to starve, and there are many examples of this in history. Alternatively, a man could divorce his wife to marry a younger girl, take the kids and never allow the mother to see them. The list goes on and on. Of course, many men were good husbands and fathers and took their job to guide, provide, manage and set the example seriously, but that didn’t help that powerless woman with 20 starving kids while her drunk husband beat her. Much like knowing that both of his neighbors have loving, devoted, honest wives won’t help a man who is being robbed of his children and property after his wife decided she likes another man better. All people need fair legal protection because that’s the only guarantee against falling prey to an asshole.

      Gender wars are a sad sight. It’s illogical to wrestle with the opposite sex and can’t lead anywhere good. It’s impossible to have prejudices against a gender and lead a normal, happy, healthy life because a deep, fulfilling romantic partnership becomes impossible along with a meaningful relationship with both parents and all the possible children. Half of the potential members of your community become automatic enemies. But the enemy isn’t a man or a woman. It’s the unfair system, the professional victimhood agitators and the lack of common sense and decency in the masses.

    • Jelly Bean says:

      Oh, and sorry about the extremely long replies. Apparently, extreme wordiness is a female trait like the love of children and chocolate. I’m trying to work on that, but, currently, I find it impossible to communicate my meaning without writing a 19th century novel.

  13. HR Lincoln says:

    Looks like I suspected right about the bogus list of companies “boycotting” Rush.

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/03/16/Winning%20the%20Narrative%20the%20Rush%20Limbaugh%20Edition

  14. idealart says:

    ” We need merit-based education, merit-based employment, fair divorce laws and slightly less pro-woman reproductive laws (that area could never be fair or equal, no matter how you spin it.”

    I’ve felt for years that eliminating affirmative action would change the culture. Blacks and women haven’t done much with all the help they’ve been given. They just want more and are desperately looking for a scapegoat (white heterosexual men of course).

    I my experience women started getting really nasty about the time they started competing with men economically, in the 80s.

    • Jelly Bean says:

      People always do less with “help”. When it comes to true self-esteem and respect of others, the only path is real personal accomplishment. Everyone knows that either consciously or somewhere deep down. There are no winners with affirmative action.

      My little brother had the highest GPA in his graduating class. When the National Honors Society met with their lead teacher and the principal a few weeks before the graduation ceremony, the valedictorian was announced to them- the highest ranking girl, 4th in their graduating class. She stood up, looked at my brother, looked at the principal, looked at my brother again, turned bright red, stood there kind of lost, and then when they called her again went to the front of the classroom. The principal explained that gender of the valedictorian had to alternate every year. Later, my brother tried to tell her that it’s okay, and they both agreed that it was just a stupid thing, but she was still very embarrassed, and she stayed very embarrassed about it. The thing is, I’m sure this girl would’ve been thrilled to be the 4th golden tassel to walk the stage. That high school is extremely competitive, and being 4th is quite an accomplishment. But instead, my brother got robbed off his rightful title, and that girl got cheated of feeling proud of her real accomplishments.

      As for nasty women, I still assert that those of you who have this problem hang out with the wrong crowd. Women, as a whole, aren’t looking for scape goats, our self appointed spokes people are. And, of course, you’ll always find those who are immature failures and need someone to blame, but that’s a human thing, not female thing, and it certainly doesn’t affect the whole gender.

      And as for competing with men, most women don’t see it that way. We are just people born into a culture with norms and expectations. It became expected of girls in certain socio-economic classes and with certain abilities to go to college and prepare for careers, so that’s what they did. No matter what some PUA bloggers say, middle class men don’t take women without education seriously. I don’t know any doctors, lawyers, accountants, dentists or financial advisers who came from families with similarly professional fathers who married girls without degrees. Then, most women (other than those lucky few who are actually passionate about their field and land their dream job) hope to take some time off to raise their kids. Sadly, sometime in the 80s, it became a lot less possible for a family to maintain dignified lifestyle on a single income. Girls my age are, generally, the same in that regard. We would like to have kids and stay with them for a few years, at least, but housing in a reasonably safe neighborhood, healthy food, good schooling prospects in near future and other such things are needs that trump the desire to stay at home. A doctor’s wife will get that chance, but not that of an accountant, not in a major metropolitan area.

  15. nyccine says:

    Women will accept the truth if we repeat it simply and frequently?

    I don’t think so. If we take nothing else from the PUA community – and there is quite a lot about evolutionary psychology those guys have picked up on that the mainstream community by and large just will not touch – you *must* realise that women, in the main, really do believe the nonsense they claim. When a woman claims that any man who behaves like a typical beta is really just a creep trying to con his way in her pants, or comments that you are “just a loser who can’t score with women,” or when she insists her alpha isn’t sleeping around despite all evidence to the contrary, she isn’t “lying” in the strictest sense of the term; this is God’s own truth, as far as she’s concerned, and pointing out that this damns well over 80% of the male population isn’t going to cause a light bulb to go off and make her realise that belief is nonsense.

    This is not restricted to just the left-hand side of the bell curve, or the lower classes; this is now mainstream thought among the college educated, upper middle classes (which is why out of wedlock births have skyrocketed). A prime example is a co-worker of mine. She’s relatively young (25), attractive enough to have her pick of men – not the drop-dead model type, but definitely “the girl next door” type, well-educated (two bachelor’s degrees), from a relatively well-off family, easy to get along with. And yet, rock-fucking-stupid when it comes to her man. She ended up giving him her deceased Grandmother’s ring to present to her, and this was after she busted him trying to hook up with another, younger girl via facebook, but which she’s convinced meant nothing. She also thinks it’s just happenstance that every time that got into a tiff and “broke up” that he had a new girlfriend immediately. No, he’ll be a good man when he grows up (he’s just as old as she is), and they’re going to live happily ever after.

    Women have the amazing ability to convince themselves that what their heart wants is what is right for them, and any and all evidence presented will be filtered through that worldview. The only way to change that is by force – in other words, the dreaded patriarchy, which will never return. There is no going back, no putting the genie back in the bottle. Any attempt to do so will just reinforce the belief that you are trying to oppress her (which, really you are. For society’s own good, but still).

Comments are closed.