Today we are here to celebrate a great victory of the global left, an epochal turning point in everything that is progressivism, as well as the radiant path of the exploited, that is to say of the exploited, towards a radiant future. And I'm not talking about Renzi's split from the PD (which is necessary for the future merger of PD and M5S, wanted by the trio Elkann-De Benedetti-Cairo), but of the story of Richard Stallman.
You know that I have always considered Stallman as a kind of counterproductive fake, and when we talk about computer science my opinion remains unchanged. But what has happened has nothing to do with computer science and concerns the cringe feminism that is fashionable in the US at this time.
Stallman has just been forced to resign from his position at MIT, due to the Epstein affair. Now you say, man, was Stallman involved?
He was not involved, but today as for feminists, it is not necessary to be really involved in a story, just being a "white male" to get involved regardless.
In short, Stallman said the only sensible thing he ever said publicly in his life. He was talking about a researcher in the field of Artificial Intelligence who seems to have been invited to Epstein's party, and he would (according to the accusations) have sex with a seventeen-and-something-year-old.
Stallman said a sensible thing about it, something like "it is absolutely plausible that the girl presented herself to the accused as consenting, although she was a slave. Without knowing the system behind it, it was impossible for the accused to understand that he was not consenting. And as far as age is concerned, the difference between 17 and 18 and 18 is invisible to the naked eye ”.
For saying this he was forced by the tide of cringe to resign both from the FSF and from MIT. Now, the problem is not to establish what the fault is: so long as the US is a system that allows freedom of opinion, such an opinion is completely legitimate. He does not accuse anyone of any crime, and what he says is rationally plausible, if not realistic.
If you turn to Germany and observe the brothel advertisements, in no case is it written "the girls give it to you because they are poor and have to live". You can check for yourself: https://www.fkk-sharks.de , or http://villa-vanilla-saunaclub.de/ which has just opened and has placed advertising everywhere. Even in the photographs they look joyful: ah! sucking cock from a Bulgarian truck driver is the new No-Carb diet!
Today prostitution uses terms like "GFE", a girlfriend experience, which means one thing: prostitutes, as a minimum professionalism , must show the ability to behave as if they were your girlfriend for years. They certainly do not tell the customer " you make me sick, but since I am in fact white trash for women, I have to suck it as if I liked it ".
So Stallman's opinion is not only rational, but also materially true. Whether prostitutes, slaves or not, they are always asked to behave as if they were having fun.
Also on the difference between 17 and broken and 18 the thing is absolutely questionable, since a double-blind test very few would be able to say which is that of 17 and broken and that of 18.
But this is not the point: the point is that any other behavior would have led to the exact same assault by American feminists. We can give an example.
For example, I don't like the question of brothels. Since I know that the girls are slaves, and that if I met one of them on the street in normal conditions they wouldn't smoke me smear, I don't enjoy the thought of being pitied by a twenty-something-year-old.
So, if I went out and said that as far as I'm concerned, prostitution could also end tomorrow and be crushed, feminists would be happy? Absolutely not.
Because feminists claim not only the right to be a prostitute:
But they also claim the rights of prostitutes to pay and legitimacy . So, saying that prostitution should disappear, I'm creating unemployment in a purely female sector (according to them).
So not even excluding the use of prostitutes, I could handle it: I would be going to hit a profession that is 98% female, and therefore I would be a misogynist who takes the
penis out of the mouth of women.
And even on age I wouldn't go so far. My personal policy is that at work I do not have meetings with women, alone, if the walls of the room are not glass (in my company the walls of the meeting rooms are all glass, and now it is almost everywhere in companies where they soon consult), or it is an area of an open space (which excludes "by itself"). And of course, I avoid going up in an elevator with single women (always to avoid my presence making them feel in danger of rape: the male is invisible or dangerous, but if you are two in an elevator you cannot be invisible, so you're dangerous by definition), and all that is required of the modern white male to live. As is known, non-white males have always built equal societies.
If we then go to advances from younger women, I would say that I am even more drastic: I simply categorically, a priori and without exception reject the idea of being able to please a woman who is 10 years younger than me. Which excludes everything that is under about 38 years old.
Could this, you say, put me safe from feminists? Absolutely not.
First of all, they will say that my attitude is discriminatory towards women as I get on the elevator alone with a male. (the small detail that to subdue a young German, on average as high as me or more, it would take a tiring session of randori / judo, which does not allow any erection, does not seem relevant), and also the fact that the meeting rooms have walls transparent should NEVER be sold to feminists as a measure to protect women. Officially they serve to "know at a glance where a colleague is when he is in a meeting, you look for him in the office and the chair is empty". The idea that the men asked for transparent walls in the meeting rooms and glass doors in the offices, to protect themselves would send the feminists on a rampage: they take away their power.
Even the story of the fact that I brutally interrupt any seductive game, looks or not, by any female (at a guess) less than 40 years old, sends them on a rampage: for the feminist the "YES" is imperative as the "NO", and if "NO" means, precisely, "NO", the "YES" means only one thing: "YES".
And there are feminists who have hypothesized that even the REFUSAL to have sex with a woman is a violence against her, for reasons that are unintelligible. I say this because there is a movement, MGHOW, ( https://www.mgtow.com/ ) which is being crucified simply because (roughly summarizing) it is a movement of men who refuse to have any woman with report requires a distance less than half a meter. If you do a short search on google you can clearly see the fierce hatred that feminists have against them : yet, after all, they should be happy too. Although I do not approve of the choice, in the sense that I would not do it myself, I do not believe that a group of women who do the same would have similar treatment. It would be their right to "say no", right?
And since my attitude is to say no, a priori and without exception, then the thing is already suspect. Fortunately I have been a white male for almost half a century, so I know how to survive: just have faith on your finger and say that "you are married", and (for now) feminists must accept it. Although, as I see around the internet, there are some theories (always feminist) about this thing, for which my wife should be the one to decide if a woman can court me, since I can't claim the right to speak on your behalf. (I'm not sure this would make things better. Feel free to go to my wife and ask permission to give me a blowjob, but only if you are quick enough to avoid things )
Can you tell me what other opinion or strategy a man should have in order not to fall into the trap of fucking with a girl he met at a party, since even saying no is wrong? (there is one, but I get there later).
Here is the point: feminism is being structured in such a way that it becomes a process that always and in any case leads to the condemnation of the defendant. At the precise moment Stallman was targeted, he had no chance at all: even if he kept quiet, they would have said "why is Stallman silent?"
From my point of view, modern feminism is filed under the heading "because
a healthy person a sane male can no longer be said to be left", but the problem is that these ladies have power as their goal .
And the proof is in this very fact: they have targeted Stallman. Why Stallman? Because if they had targeted Alt-Right people like Ben Shapiro, Milo Yannopoulos or Sargon, but also Republicans like Blaire White or Sh0eonhead , the answer would have been a loud raspberry. And the sadistic power of feminists doesn't like raspberries.
If they dealt with Stallman because they knew that Stallman would resign : the power requires to show examples of free cruelty, so that nobody feels safe . If they had attacked Ben Shapiro we would have heard laughter all over the world, and despotic power does not like to be mocked.
The "innocence is no excuse" framework that modern feminists have set up saves only one type of men: those on the right, who screw them up, respond with a hard-nosed face and send you back a good laugh.
The power that feminists are reaching can only be expressed against left-wing males. They can only slaughter those.
Stallman has resigned, but there is no need to remember that he was a civil liberties activist; once he dug the pit around him, he was isolated. A left male (moreover radical) does not live without the radical left. They attacked him because he was weak.
Similarly, a Vlogger named Contrapoints (a person of extraordinary intelligence) was forced to leave Twitter (but I see that she is back now) because the "non-binary" decided to be right while she was wrong, and since they are non-binaries know only two positions: reason and wrong. Not binary. But Contrapoints is defined even as SJW, so it is placed in the area of the extreme left: once again, the white transsexual is
the male to die.
In practice, these feminists will produce a phenomenon of reverse selection: hardly in place of Stallman will a feminist go, perhaps MIT will put a woman, but only 8% of American women say they are "feminists", so there is a 92% chance of a non-feminist ending up there.
The only survival strategy of the white male for the continuous massacre of feminists has a name: to be on the right, to be surrounded by other right-wing males, in right-wing working environments. The right is the refuge of any white male, regardless of his political opinions.
In practice, feminists are not fighting against "the patriarchy": they are not even able to worry about the elites, but they will simply exterminate the white male of the left. Their language police, their "absque strepitu advocatorum" trials, their witch hunt (ROTFL!), Their race for purity, only work with left-wing males, and they will slowly take them all out, destroying their lives , their careers, their affections.
I don't know how long Michael Moore will survive, Allen has already been annihilated and there are few aspirants for the title of "Progressive White Male that feminists will slaughter next week". No one wants to make the sacrificial lamb, not even the most stoic of the left.
This chronicle, that is, is the chronicle of the massacre of the left male.
In the end this natural selection will do nothing but favor the white male of the right, eliminating the competition on the left. Because only the left male resigns for such a thing, and he does so only if he is in areas of the left, like the academy or the FSF: the white male of the right fucks him highly. First of all, he finds himself working in culturally right-wing environments (because everyone feels at ease with his fellow men), and therefore is out of reach of political pressure, and then responds with a resounding laugh.
This leftist has devised the "Safe Zones" in schools, and they believed this was a victory. I wonder what they will do when they realize that if you were born male and white, your only "Safe Zone" is the right.
and I wonder what they will do when they realize that turning the right into the "Safe Zone" of any white male, regardless of ideas, has been theirs.
Of course, if Trump wins the next election, you know who to look at: as Michael Moore said, "the white American male". Who today knows he can only exist on the right.
If you are looking for a culprit, you just have to look at yourself in the mirror.
Some will say that all this happens in the USA; therefore in Europe we are generally safe, but forget that the European leftists are short of ideas, and since they have always gone "on tow" of the fashions, you must expect that all this also arrives from us.
But there's no reason to worry. The solution exists. It doesn't matter what ideas you have, whether you are progressive or not. The problem is only to find an area where these flying goats do not have any POWER: because it is the power they want. So just throw yourself to the right and say yourself publicly to the right, and then live peacefully. Today's right, Alt-Right, is too confusing and heterogeneous to have a thought police. In other words, there is much more freedom of thought there.