Post: #76

If they are legit that's what they are to do or will end up doing:

Step 1: Find a worthy man who will lead them
Step 2: Submit to that man and become a SAHM
Step 3: Guide the house and raise the 5+ children well in submission to such a worthy husband.

Their character is to be a kind and gentle spirit and industrious worker in the home.

If they are merely careerists or marry to further their career then they are phony.

Post: #77

I understand that these maybe 'good' girls, the type we want more of and that could be role models for other. However, I would advise against taking their political insight seriously.

If we say these two are ok, then we need to vet out each and every one. Even then, they are only women and are not capable of the level of insight that is available to smart men. There is little advantage in having these people as chearleaders in my opinion.

I mean, I'm sure no man has ever become soft at the sight of a nice, pretty woman who flatters him, and then fallen for her manipulations. Don't get soft.

They may be nice women, but their political opinions should be given no respect. This is a man's world.

Post: #78

(02-03-2017 09:37 PM)infowarrior1 Wrote:  If they are legit that's what they are to do or will end up doing:

Step 1: Find a worthy man who will lead them
Step 2: Submit to that man and become a SAHM
Step 3: Guide the house and raise the 5+ children well in submission to such a worthy husband.

Their character is to be a kind and gentle spirit and industrious worker in the home.

If they are merely careerists or marry to further their career then they are phony.

One is already married, that's a good sign seeing she's only 23. Agree on the SAHM. That's where a wife belongs. Submit to a worthy man and produce children for his tribe. Yup, that's my plan for family life. It all starts by filtering for a woman who is not just willing to submit to your leadership, but actually enjoys it! I honestly have no problem with their self-promotion of their books, as it can provide any future husband a supplemental source of income in case he's ever injured, fired, laid off etc. Having kids these days is expensive. Writing a book is a passive form of income which can pay long-term benefits. It is actually one of the better career choices for women seeking to be a SAHM, because it can be done in the spare time. There's a reason why I think these girls check out, and that's because neither of them went to law school to become a lawyer cunt.

(02-03-2017 10:13 PM)kavi Wrote:  I understand that these maybe 'good' girls, the type we want more of and that could be role models for other. However, I would advise against taking their political insight seriously.

If we say these two are ok, then we need to vet out each and every one. Even then, they are only women and are not capable of the level of insight that is available to smart men. There is little advantage in having these people as chearleaders in my opinion.

I mean, I'm sure no man has ever become soft at the sight of a nice, pretty woman who flatters him, and then fallen for her manipulations. Don't get soft.

They may be nice women, but their political opinions should be given no respect. This is a man's world.

I agree that male political insight is always more cutting, biting and uncensored. They are not, and should not be, political leaders of men. Men should not look to them for insight.

That being said, when they talk about politics, especially anti-feminism, they are speaking for other girls that need to hear that message. When men talk about anti-feminism, it often sounds like "men want to restrict my rights" to women. When women speak to other women (especially women that have an audience that listens), other women are more likely to take them seriously and may just consider growing their hair out, wearing a dress, or reconsidering their career choices. There's a place for women talking about politics. It is limited, but to say they have no place at all is simply missing how women speaking out about a proper masculine/feminine dynamic is intrinsic to a balanced and healthy culture. Women need to hear that message from other women.

Post: #79

(02-03-2017 10:27 PM)John Michael Kane Wrote:  I agree that male political insight is always more cutting, biting and uncensored. They are not, and should not be, political leaders of men. Men should not look to them for insight.

That being said, when they talk about politics, especially anti-feminism, they are speaking for other girls that need to hear that message. When men talk about anti-feminism, it often sounds like "men want to restrict my rights" to women. When women speak to other women (especially women that have an audience that listens), other women are more likely to take them seriously and may just consider growing their hair out, wearing a dress, or reconsidering their career choices. There's a place for women talking about politics. It is limited, but to say they have no place at all is simply missing how women speaking out about a proper masculine/feminine dynamic is intrinsic to a balanced and healthy culture.

Women should hear that message from other women

It may or may not be effective. My understanding is that women tend to do what they feel like and rationalize it later and they are not generally logical. Because (unlike men) it does not make sense for women to take risks for big wins, they mostly live according societal expectations. They know they are weak and fear abandonment, exhile and the loss of social standing.

Women's behaviour comes from biology and social conditioning. I don't think many women will change their behaviours due to logical arguments from other women on youtube. They are also very jealous of other women, and I bet most actually dislike those two for the amount of male attention they garner.

Either way, I doubt their positive effect on other women will be more than negligible.

There is a place for women talking about politics

Not necessarily, and I don't think there were many prior to 50 years or so ago and we did fine.

It's just much better not to give women power over society in general. You have no idea what they will do as they are irrational and illogical. And then you must also allow all other women (feminists/pro-choice/government leeches) the same freedom. It is better to nip it in the bud.

We need to control women, not give them their own power structures and audiences that they can influence at their will.

Post: #80

Women are herd creatures. They follow trends wherever the leaders take them. They take their fashion cues from other women, not men. That's one reason why you need women preaching modesty, not sluttiness. A man that preaches about modesty will sound like a man that is unattractive to women, and is just trying to regulate what women wear. He'll be branded a man that "can't get any" and is just jealous. Trust me when I say that women have a role in putting forth messages that women need to hear. Just like you don't take women seriously about how to be a man, any woman hearing messages about how to be a good woman should COME FROM ANOTHER GOOD WOMAN. Any cultural noise that preaches the right gospel is desperately needed in an age where the feminists control the narrative. Don't throw away a freebie.

As far as jealousy goes, I've seen plenty of anti-feminist women say they agree with the Pettibones. Good for them I say. You aren't going to change a culture overnight. Things went down hill over the course of many decades. They won't be fixed quickly either. If feminism is noise, and femininity is signal, we need more signal and less noise. Or at least more signal to counteract the noise that's not going away easily.

You could argue in the pre-internet age that politics was merely a man's thing. When a man read the newspaper, and his wife didn't bother. You could go back to the days when men talked about politics in pubs, and the women weren't around. In the internet age, everyone gets a chance to compete for their viewpoint. Trying to shut down feminine women for supporting candidates like Trump doesn't make sense. In an ideal world, women wouldn't have the vote. But until we've reached that radical conclusion (which is highly unlikely baring a major collapse), you might as well have a few female allies on our side. It makes it far harder to charge the conservative right with sexism if you have women attached to the movement than compared to when it is a sausage fest.

I agree with nipping feminists in the bud. But asking women that are promoting masculinity/femininity is honestly a poor tactic. We've seen how the left has so much infighting as to who is higher up on the victimhood scale. The right will win when we don't fight petty battles and focus on the prize.

Post: #81

(02-03-2017 11:06 PM)John Michael Kane Wrote:  Trying to shut down feminine women for supporting candidates like Trump doesn't make sense.

Can't disagree with that.

I think there are two issues here. One is the general idea of a Patriarchal and traditional culture that we push for. The other is current politics and how best that can be affected. I was speaking in terms of the former.

There's an obvious conflict with wanting women to vote Trump/Brexit but also not wanting them to vote at all. I think the move to the right (Trump and Brexit) is good but I still don't see where that leaves us. Society is still very far from ideal. Standards have dropped too much (this is what it all comes down to) and there is no political solution to that, only a cultural one, possibly. Culture drives politics I think, and not the other way round.

Interesting thought, what are the girls' views on women's right to vote? I think that would be good to know.

Post: #82

(02-03-2017 11:37 PM)kavi Wrote:  

(02-03-2017 11:06 PM)John Michael Kane Wrote:  Trying to shut down feminine women for supporting candidates like Trump doesn't make sense.

Can't disagree with that.

I think there are two issues here. One is the general idea of a Patriarchal and traditional culture that we push for here. The other is current politics and how best that can be affected. I was talking from in terms of the former.

Understood. One part is an ideal for values, and what we'd like for a culture. The other part is ideal tactics, meaning what actually works to get you there. In an ideal world, women would have zero involvement in politics. We don't live in an ideal world, therefore, what's the optimal use for feminine women that want a culture of masculine men? I say women, in the blunt sense, are a resource to be enlisted in that fight, without compromising our stated goal as the leaders of civic responsibility (statesmen) should always be men.

There can be a few exceptions like Le Pen in France right now when all the men around them are acting sackless. That's a sad state of affairs, but when the men have lost the balls, every once in a while a Saint Joan of Arc is needed. This, is obviously far from ideal, but it is better than letting the cucked men run the show. Ideally, once Joan of Arc wins the battle, she retires until a strong man can actually lead the show.

Post: #83

(02-03-2017 11:43 PM)John Michael Kane Wrote:  

(02-03-2017 11:37 PM)kavi Wrote:  

(02-03-2017 11:06 PM)John Michael Kane Wrote:  Trying to shut down feminine women for supporting candidates like Trump doesn't make sense.

Can't disagree with that.

I think there are two issues here. One is the general idea of a Patriarchal and traditional culture that we push for here. The other is current politics and how best that can be affected. I was talking from in terms of the former.

Understood. One part is an ideal for values, and what we'd like for a culture. The other part is ideal tactics, meaning what actually works to get you there. In an ideal world, women would have zero involvement in politics. We don't live in an ideal world, therefore, what's the optimal use for feminine women that want a culture of masculine men? I say women, in the blunt sense, are a resource to be enlisted in that fight, without compromising our stated goal as the leaders of civic responsibility (statesmen) should always be men.

There can be a few exceptions like Le Pen in France right now when all the men around them are acting sackless. That's a sad state of affairs, but when the men have lost the balls, every once in a while a Saint Joan of Arc is needed. This, is obviously far from ideal, but it is better than letting the cucked men run the show. Ideally, once Joan of Arc wins the battle, she retires until a strong man can actually lead the show.

Examples like Deborah come to mind. Who arose as a mother figure in Israel and mended relations. Who presided over a nation of sackless men.

She extorted Barak to take up command of the military and lead the men to victory. But because he insisted on her coming with him. God hands the victory over to Jael who killed Sisera with a Tent Peg while he was asleep.

Joan of Arc actually never fought but presented herself as a symbol to inspire men to fight.

Post: #84

I figure this may be appropriate given the discussion of this thread :

Post: #85

(12-21-2016 02:06 PM)Samseau Wrote:  Does anyone think we can trust random women to be loyal to us...? First sign of $$$ and they'll say whatever they are told to say.

Spot on. Mr. Ailes thought he could trust that Megan Kelley...

Post: #86

(02-04-2017 10:30 PM)infowarrior1 Wrote:  

(02-03-2017 11:43 PM)John Michael Kane Wrote:  

(02-03-2017 11:37 PM)kavi Wrote:  

(02-03-2017 11:06 PM)John Michael Kane Wrote:  Trying to shut down feminine women for supporting candidates like Trump doesn't make sense.

Can't disagree with that.

I think there are two issues here. One is the general idea of a Patriarchal and traditional culture that we push for here. The other is current politics and how best that can be affected. I was talking from in terms of the former.

Understood. One part is an ideal for values, and what we'd like for a culture. The other part is ideal tactics, meaning what actually works to get you there. In an ideal world, women would have zero involvement in politics. We don't live in an ideal world, therefore, what's the optimal use for feminine women that want a culture of masculine men? I say women, in the blunt sense, are a resource to be enlisted in that fight, without compromising our stated goal as the leaders of civic responsibility (statesmen) should always be men.

There can be a few exceptions like Le Pen in France right now when all the men around them are acting sackless. That's a sad state of affairs, but when the men have lost the balls, every once in a while a Saint Joan of Arc is needed. This, is obviously far from ideal, but it is better than letting the cucked men run the show. Ideally, once Joan of Arc wins the battle, she retires until a strong man can actually lead the show.

Examples like Deborah come to mind. Who arose as a mother figure in Israel and mended relations. Who presided over a nation of sackless men.

She extorted Barak to take up command of the military and lead the men to victory. But because he insisted on her coming with him. God hands the victory over to Jael who killed Sisera with a Tent Peg while he was asleep.

Joan of Arc actually never fought but presented herself as a symbol to inspire men to fight.

Well put. In an ideal world, men run point at all times, never lapsing. When they lapse, the best of women will encourage them to find their sack and get out there and run the show again. A woman's power of persuasion over her man should not be underestimated. That's why it is critical to chose a long-term woman who encourages you to be the best possible version of yourself, and supports you in your life's mission.

Post: #87

(02-04-2017 11:30 PM)MajorStyles Wrote:  

(12-21-2016 02:06 PM)Samseau Wrote:  Does anyone think we can trust random women to be loyal to us...? First sign of $$$ and they'll say whatever they are told to say.

Spot on. Mr. Ailes thought he could trust that Megan Kelley...

You mean Megan Smelly...

Post: #88

I've dated a few girls like this. On the surface they claimed to be traditional conservative and anti feminist. But when you got to know them better you could see they exhibited a lot of the typical liberal feminist traits: strong and independent types, careerists, didn't want to cook or clean( thought it should be shared by the man also), wanted men should cater to them and their needs, wanted to be the breadwinner and ok of the man to stay at home.

If they are single and over 30 chances are they will be your typical strong independent don't need a man types, no matter what they claim their beliefs are.

Post: #89

Their names are Brittany and Nicole... anyone in the US who fucks girls and speaks English should know better.

Post: #90

(02-05-2017 11:42 AM)PolymathGuru Wrote:  

(02-04-2017 11:30 PM)MajorStyles Wrote:  

(12-21-2016 02:06 PM)Samseau Wrote:  Does anyone think we can trust random women to be loyal to us...? First sign of $$$ and they'll say whatever they are told to say.

Spot on. Mr. Ailes thought he could trust that Megan Kelley...

You mean Megan Smelly...

Ailes is not red pill from all the stories I've read about it. Kelly has a strong odor of being a cunt just based upon her on-air attitude. He should have smelled trouble if he was aware, which he wasn't. You bring a cat into the Fox House and you pay the price.

(02-05-2017 02:20 PM)Baldwin81 Wrote:  Their names are Brittany and Nicole... anyone in the US who fucks girls and speaks English should know better.

That is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read on this forum. Many American girls are slutty. Millions of American girls have a very common name in the United States. Now all girls that have a common game are sluts? What profoundly poor logic.

Post: #91

(02-05-2017 05:36 PM)John Michael Kane Wrote:  

(02-05-2017 02:20 PM)Baldwin81 Wrote:  Their names are Brittany and Nicole... anyone in the US who fucks girls and speaks English should know better.

That is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read on this forum. Many American girls are slutty. Millions of American girls have a very common name in the United States. Now all girls that have a common game are sluts? What profoundly poor logic.

1. This is the halo effect at work.
2. You've made white knight posts defending their honor.
3. You did recon on their family background.
4. You determined NAWALT.
5. You're possibly planning a party in hopes that they show up...

Sir, in spite of the above, please accept my best MikePenceAnimeTrad-wishes in securing the everlasting love and commitment of a traditional American girl named "Brittany" with multiple, public, social media accounts and thousands of followers.

Post: #92

(02-06-2017 03:46 PM)Baldwin81 Wrote:  

(02-05-2017 05:36 PM)John Michael Kane Wrote:  

(02-05-2017 02:20 PM)Baldwin81 Wrote:  Their names are Brittany and Nicole... anyone in the US who fucks girls and speaks English should know better.

That is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read on this forum. Many American girls are slutty. Millions of American girls have a very common name in the United States. Now all girls that have a common game are sluts? What profoundly poor logic.

1. This is the halo effect at work.
2. You've made white knight posts defending their honor.
3. You did recon on their family background.
4. You determined NAWALT.
5. You're possibly planning a party in hopes that they show up...

Sir, in spite of the above, please accept my best MikePenceAnimeTrad-wishes in securing the everlasting love and commitment of a traditional American girl named "Brittany" with multiple, public, social media accounts and thousands of followers.

You don't know what you're talking about.

Post: #93

(02-06-2017 03:46 PM)Baldwin81 Wrote:  

(02-05-2017 05:36 PM)John Michael Kane Wrote:  

(02-05-2017 02:20 PM)Baldwin81 Wrote:  Their names are Brittany and Nicole... anyone in the US who fucks girls and speaks English should know better.

That is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read on this forum. Many American girls are slutty. Millions of American girls have a very common name in the United States. Now all girls that have a common game are sluts? What profoundly poor logic.

1. This is the halo effect at work.
2. You've made white knight posts defending their honor.
3. You did recon on their family background.
4. You determined NAWALT.
5. You're possibly planning a party in hopes that they show up...

Sir, in spite of the above, please accept my best MikePenceAnimeTrad-wishes in securing the everlasting love and commitment of a traditional American girl named "Brittany" with multiple, public, social media accounts and thousands of followers.

To respond to your post:

1. Halo effect? Are you saying that I'm defending them because I find them attractive? I dropped a gorgeous model that I had as a girlfriend because she was always acting flaky and was entitled. When I dumped her for bad female behavior, was that the halo effect? You should see some of my other posts on this forum. I'm always preaching for guy's to dump women that don't live up to expectations. Bad women are emotional and financial vampires. Good women can act a boost to a man's life. We must draw the distinction between women worth investing in, and those that aren't. This whole idea that all women are awful secret sluts/feminists/etc. is deeply wrong. I advocate for men to look for tells as to whether or not a woman is good news or bad news. You have to be willing on some level to trust, but also verify if you're ever going to be in a successful LTR. Game isn't just a tool for gaming short-term women into bed. It is an essential skill to learn how to filter for good women if you're looking to have an LTR or family some day.

2. You need to look up what it means to be a White Knight. A White Knight is a man that defends a woman's bad behavior and makes excuses for it. I haven't seen anything that these two have done that I find highly objectionable. I'm talking about behaviors the average American woman indulges in. (Slutty outfits, duck faces on their social media, talking crap about how feminism is great, how Clinton should be President because #Imwithher, tattoos, etc.) In fact, I'd argue that their behavior, from what we know of it, is far better than your average American girl. I've already listed all the reasons why in my previous posts, none of which you bothered directly address. My argument was based upon facts, your's was based upon conjecture about girl's with a common name, something utterly preposterous on its face. Either you address my points I've made in many previous posts, or you go back to the tenuous point about girls named Brittany and Nicole.

3. Gmac, a member who I trust, and has provided lots of great contributions to this forum, not to mention the Deploraball, has said his gut says they check out. Do we have reason to believe that Gmac is a White Knight too? Is Gmac trying to lie to us? A friend of mine that I've known for two decades is friends with Pettibones. This friend has been married to a wonderful, feminine woman that is strongly anti-feminist. My friend constantly is attacking feminists and cucks on facebook, and giving them shit. This man is a take-no-shit masculine man, and is married to a feminine woman, who has already given him several children. When a man like that who has excellent red pill insights as to women (and has proven to pick a good one) says that the Pettibones check out, then I'm going to take his word for it. I asked him about them, and he's known their family for a long time. They are family oriented people (ten kids total!), not some crypto-feminists as has been suggested. None of their published work suggests that they are anti-men, anti-family or the like.

4. All women are sexual, unless they have some type of medical condition that makes them asexual. Women's sexuality resides upon a spectrum of restricted versus unrestricted. On the far end of restricted, you have the religious virgin until marriage. On the far end of unrestricted you have porn stars with triple digit cock counts. AWALT is a lazy man's argument, because that says all women are sexual, and because they are sexual, they are all complete sluts. Nuance matters. Of course humans in general are sexual. AWALT is a profoundly simplistic way of looking at women's sexuality that doesn't take into account the individual woman, her upbringing, her social circle, if she is religious or not, etc. All women are sexual, but all women express that sexuality differently. Some want it strictly within the confines of a LTR or marriage, some will bang you in the back of club bathroom stall. Saying AWALT is overly simplistic.

5. I'm a sociable person. I'd invite you to a party if you lived near me. I've been to almost all 50 states and many countries around the world. I friends everywhere. I'm interested in meeting people that share my values. The Pettibone sisters preach anti-feminism, one is already married at a young age, and they come from a conservative Christian home that lives what they preach from what I can tell. I am outcome independent regarding the Pettibones. There's no "master plan", but I'm all for encouraging them to continue to their work to preach against feminism, and more for traditional gender roles. If you're ever between San Francisco and LA, I live off the 101 highway. Easy enough place for you to stop, Drop by and we'll have a beer, that's what I do when I extend the baton to anyone, be it the Pettibones or you.

The bottom line is, we live in a culture where femininity is utterly discouraged. When I see two girls who are being counter-cultural to that, you're damn right I'm going to support it. I live in California, home of the blue-haired SJW feminist. I like Western civilization, and believe in the patriarchy. How are we going to have a patriarchy if every woman is suspected to be a slut, even when her behavior suggestions otherwise? Are we going to write off even the Amish girls? The bottom line is, for men like myself, who are interested in having a family, you need to pick your battles very carefully about what kind of women deserve criticism and which ones deserve encouragement. I'm always open to reversing my judgement on the Pettibones or any other girl if they do a 180 and start acting up. A man should support and encourage feminine women conditionally. They get our support providing they support us back.

Last but not least, I wrote this lengthy post because I'm here on a forum run by a man who has been accused of being a rapist. Roosh the rapist. Has a nice ring to it, doesn't it? Too bad it is a complete lie. That's what happens when you paint people into a corner based upon conjecture, not evidence. I give Roosh and the Pettibones the same leeway. Roosh has stated that he believes in the patriarchy as the ideal method for culture, and I support him in that viewpoint. That makes me someone who supports an accused rapist. The internet makes it very easy to tear down someone's reputation, facts be damned. I don't cast judgement on anyone absent compelling evidence to support it, which is why I took issue with your character assessment of two women who have no history of being bad news. I encourage you to not jump to conclusions. We don't like it when the Mainstream Media paints Roosh as a rapist, do we? You're on a forum run by an accused rapist. Does that make you a rape apologist? Of course not! Just contemplate how putting strangers on the internet on blast without any evidence to back it up is a really poor form of argumentation or winning people over to your cause.

I, for one, want to win a culture war. Women are part of culture, even if men should lead it. Shooting down potential allies is not how we win. We must make friends and alliances, not have infighting. Leave the infighting and purges to the feminists, SJW's and assorted leftists. I say we stick together with like-minded people. That's how we win.

Post: #94

While we should always exercise precautions, understand that women are never going to get everything right on their own, because that's now how they're made. You pick a woman with good raw materials and mould her into what you want for a wife.

Post: #95

(02-06-2017 10:45 PM)StrikeBack Wrote:  While we should always exercise precautions, understand that women are never going to get everything right on their own, because that's now how they're made. You pick a woman with good raw materials and mould her into what you want for a wife.

Bingo. Start with good raw material and mold accordingly. Don't try to take something that is fundamentally broken, then try to repair it by turning it into a fixer-upper.

Post: #96

(02-06-2017 07:13 PM)Gmac Wrote:  

(02-06-2017 03:46 PM)Baldwin81 Wrote:  

(02-05-2017 05:36 PM)John Michael Kane Wrote:  

(02-05-2017 02:20 PM)Baldwin81 Wrote:  Their names are Brittany and Nicole... anyone in the US who fucks girls and speaks English should know better.

That is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read on this forum. Many American girls are slutty. Millions of American girls have a very common name in the United States. Now all girls that have a common game are sluts? What profoundly poor logic.

1. This is the halo effect at work.
2. You've made white knight posts defending their honor.
3. You did recon on their family background.
4. You determined NAWALT.
5. You're possibly planning a party in hopes that they show up...

Sir, in spite of the above, please accept my best MikePenceAnimeTrad-wishes in securing the everlasting love and commitment of a traditional American girl named "Brittany" with multiple, public, social media accounts and thousands of followers.

You don't know what you're talking about.

There is some truth to this. I have dated 2 girls who I considered fully traditional, neither had ANY social media accounts. Both were American citizens, but from patriarchal backgrounds (Jordan, India).

Post: #97

I know both conservative men and women with social media accounts. Having a social media account doesn't automatically make you a leftist SJW. While all attention whores have social media accounts, not everyone who has a social media account is an attention whore. I have a facebook account that I rarely use, but I also use it for business and it is helpful to promote my brand. The Pettibones have a brand, and they are promoting it via social media. I'm not sure what's so revolutionary about that. Aside from using social media to promote a brand, I'd say overall it is a net negative for society, and would also respect a woman (or man) that didn't have any presence on it whatsoever.

Post: #98

(02-06-2017 09:50 PM)John Michael Kane Wrote:  

(02-06-2017 03:46 PM)Baldwin81 Wrote:  

(02-05-2017 05:36 PM)John Michael Kane Wrote:  

(02-05-2017 02:20 PM)Baldwin81 Wrote:  Their names are Brittany and Nicole... anyone in the US who fucks girls and speaks English should know better.

That is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read on this forum. Many American girls are slutty. Millions of American girls have a very common name in the United States. Now all girls that have a common game are sluts? What profoundly poor logic.

1. This is the halo effect at work.
2. You've made white knight posts defending their honor.
3. You did recon on their family background.
4. You determined NAWALT.
5. You're possibly planning a party in hopes that they show up...

Sir, in spite of the above, please accept my best MikePenceAnimeTrad-wishes in securing the everlasting love and commitment of a traditional American girl named "Brittany" with multiple, public, social media accounts and thousands of followers.

To respond to your post:

1. Halo effect? Are you saying that I'm defending them because I find them attractive? I dropped a gorgeous model that I had as a girlfriend because she was always acting flaky and was entitled. When I dumped her for bad female behavior, was that the halo effect? You should see some of my other posts on this forum. I'm always preaching for guy's to dump women that don't live up to expectations. Bad women are emotional and financial vampires. Good women can act a boost to a man's life. We must draw the distinction between women worth investing in, and those that aren't. This whole idea that all women are awful secret sluts/feminists/etc. is deeply wrong. I advocate for men to look for tells as to whether or not a woman is good news or bad news. You have to be willing on some level to trust, but also verify if you're ever going to be in a successful LTR. Game isn't just a tool for gaming short-term women into bed. It is an essential skill to learn how to filter for good women if you're looking to have an LTR or family some day.

2. You need to look up what it means to be a White Knight. A White Knight is a man that defends a woman's bad behavior and makes excuses for it. I haven't seen anything that these two have done that I find highly objectionable. I'm talking about behaviors the average American woman indulges in. (Slutty outfits, duck faces on their social media, talking crap about how feminism is great, how Clinton should be President because #Imwithher, tattoos, etc.) In fact, I'd argue that their behavior, from what we know of it, is far better than your average American girl. I've already listed all the reasons why in my previous posts, none of which you bothered directly address. My argument was based upon facts, your's was based upon conjecture about girl's with a common name, something utterly preposterous on its face. Either you address my points I've made in many previous posts, or you go back to the tenuous point about girls named Brittany and Nicole.

3. Gmac, a member who I trust, and has provided lots of great contributions to this forum, not to mention the Deploraball, has said his gut says they check out. Do we have reason to believe that Gmac is a White Knight too? Is Gmac trying to lie to us? A friend of mine that I've known for two decades is friends with Pettibones. This friend has been married to a wonderful, feminine woman that is strongly anti-feminist. My friend constantly is attacking feminists and cucks on facebook, and giving them shit. This man is a take-no-shit masculine man, and is married to a feminine woman, who has already given him several children. When a man like that who has excellent red pill insights as to women (and has proven to pick a good one) says that the Pettibones check out, then I'm going to take his word for it. I asked him about them, and he's known their family for a long time. They are family oriented people (ten kids total!), not some crypto-feminists as has been suggested. None of their published work suggests that they are anti-men, anti-family or the like.

4. All women are sexual, unless they have some type of medical condition that makes them asexual. Women's sexuality resides upon a spectrum of restricted versus unrestricted. On the far end of restricted, you have the religious virgin until marriage. On the far end of unrestricted you have porn stars with triple digit cock counts. AWALT is a lazy man's argument, because that says all women are sexual, and because they are sexual, they are all complete sluts. Nuance matters. Of course humans in general are sexual. AWALT is a profoundly simplistic way of looking at women's sexuality that doesn't take into account the individual woman, her upbringing, her social circle, if she is religious or not, etc. All women are sexual, but all women express that sexuality differently. Some want it strictly within the confines of a LTR or marriage, some will bang you in the back of club bathroom stall. Saying AWALT is overly simplistic.

5. I'm a sociable person. I'd invite you to a party if you lived near me. I've been to almost all 50 states and many countries around the world. I friends everywhere. I'm interested in meeting people that share my values. The Pettibone sisters preach anti-feminism, one is already married at a young age, and they come from a conservative Christian home that lives what they preach from what I can tell. I am outcome independent regarding the Pettibones. There's no "master plan", but I'm all for encouraging them to continue to their work to preach against feminism, and more for traditional gender roles. If you're ever between San Francisco and LA, I live off the 101 highway. Easy enough place for you to stop, Drop by and we'll have a beer, that's what I do when I extend the baton to anyone, be it the Pettibones or you.

The bottom line is, we live in a culture where femininity is utterly discouraged. When I see two girls who are being counter-cultural to that, you're damn right I'm going to support it. I live in California, home of the blue-haired SJW feminist. I like Western civilization, and believe in the patriarchy. How are we going to have a patriarchy if every woman is suspected to be a slut, even when her behavior suggestions otherwise? Are we going to write off even the Amish girls? The bottom line is, for men like myself, who are interested in having a family, you need to pick your battles very carefully about what kind of women deserve criticism and which ones deserve encouragement. I'm always open to reversing my judgement on the Pettibones or any other girl if they do a 180 and start acting up. A man should support and encourage feminine women conditionally. They get our support providing they support us back.

Last but not least, I wrote this lengthy post because I'm here on a forum run by a man who has been accused of being a rapist. Roosh the rapist. Has a nice ring to it, doesn't it? Too bad it is a complete lie. That's what happens when you paint people into a corner based upon conjecture, not evidence. I give Roosh and the Pettibones the same leeway. Roosh has stated that he believes in the patriarchy as the ideal method for culture, and I support him in that viewpoint. That makes me someone who supports an accused rapist. The internet makes it very easy to tear down someone's reputation, facts be damned. I don't cast judgement on anyone absent compelling evidence to support it, which is why I took issue with your character assessment of two women who have no history of being bad news. I encourage you to not jump to conclusions. We don't like it when the Mainstream Media paints Roosh as a rapist, do we? You're on a forum run by an accused rapist. Does that make you a rape apologist? Of course not! Just contemplate how putting strangers on the internet on blast without any evidence to back it up is a really poor form of argumentation or winning people over to your cause.

I, for one, want to win a culture war. Women are part of culture, even if men should lead it. Shooting down potential allies is not how we win. We must make friends and alliances, not have infighting. Leave the infighting and purges to the feminists, SJW's and assorted leftists. I say we stick together with like-minded people. That's how we win.

I can tell that this person's online brand and what it represents is a big deal to you.

I sincerely wish you the very best.

Post: #99

Isn't it just a consequence of the nature of women to follow? Why do we expect them to come up with original ideas? Wouldn't this be exactly how feminine women act? Following, supporting and looking up to men, rather than trying to lead, support and be looked up to? If men can't get behind women who want to follow and support them, we are doomed, I think. If we are suspicious because they are not acting like men... but we supposedly value women who act like women, aren't we being completely contradictory? Just a thought.

Post: #100

(12-19-2016 05:18 PM)Roosh Wrote:  I don't believe no one has called out these two sisters yet. They came up during Trump's election, mining The_Donald subreddit for posts to share on their Twitter (without attribution) while doing videos is excessive makeup. They have added not one new idea to the conversation, yet men in the "New Right" are drooling over them because they are WB.

New red pill ideas, from women?


I think your expectations are a little high.