Post: #26

Their behavior is getting so fraudulent that soon we'll be able to go after their advertisers, which would really hurt them. But until then, I think we can push back by going after the individual journalists.

Post: #27

(09-11-2014 09:00 PM)aphelion Wrote:  It's just baffling to me. How could someone with so much on the line do something so utterly stupid, so transparent, so utterly disprovable with so little effort?

I said it before. It's because she saw Zoe Quinn cashing in on HER model and realized she had to do something to get herself back in the spotlight. "Hey guys, remember me! I get harassed too!"

Post: #28

(09-11-2014 09:00 PM)aphelion Wrote:  It's just baffling to me. How could someone with so much on the line do something so utterly stupid, so transparent, so utterly disprovable with so little effort?

Post: #29

(09-11-2014 09:00 PM)aphelion Wrote:  It's just baffling to me. How could someone with so much on the line do something so utterly stupid, so transparent, so utterly disprovable with so little effort?

I call it Nero's Law.

I'm sure QC could elaborate with far more elegance.

When you read the lives of Roman emperors, you see how debased a person becomes when he has no checks on himself. You get away with one thing today, so to feel a rush of excitement you up the stakes the next day.

Eventually you reach madness, as you lose connection with reality.

The same is true of feminists like Anita. There are no checks on her.

To avoid a total thread jack....It's often good to be told "no." It keeps us from gong apeshit like Nero, Caligula, and Anita Sarkeesian.

Post: #30

It has begun.

Post: #31

Here are some of the bigger mainstream articles taken off the first Google page of Roosh's suggested search:

Washington Post
Article By Soraya Nadia McDonald
Nadia is an expert on race and gender relations. Gee, as an overweight black woman, I wonder where her opinion lies?

Business Insider
Article By Julie Bort
(Julie 'We're all out of license plates' Bort is good about keeping her biases offline, but here's a tweet that shows her stance).

BBC
Article by Kevin Rawlson

Kevin also is good about keeping his personal opinion on Twitter a secret, but here's some of the things he recently retweet, and another, and another, which show he is a typical White Knight.

Three major publications, publishing articles by authours who are biased in favour of women. Or perhaps they simply did not do any actual research on who Anita was before they published their articles? Funny how I found a video where Anita says she doesn't like video games within 4 minutes of Google searching. The video of Anita admitting she doesn't like video games was circulating longgg before she received these supposed death threats. The material was available before these 'journalists' released their articles.





So the journalists are either:

1) Inherently and knowingly bias, and the fact that Anita is a conwoman doesn't matter to them because she is a woman.

Or

2) So lazy and inept they can't even be bothered to research the topic of their articles for more than 10 minutes.

Either way, this just shows that Mainstream News sources are completely untrustworthy and unprofessional.

Also, as always, Jezebel and Manboobz show their complete lack of integrity by overwhelmingly supporting an exposed con artist. I love how MB even titles his article 'The bullies are losing', with zero lack of self awareness that he is supporting a bully, and in doing so making himself one. Doesn't seem like the bullies are losing at all.

Post: #32

It just keeps getting better n' better.

Post: #33

(09-11-2014 09:04 PM)Roosh Wrote:  Their behavior is getting so fraudulent that soon we'll be able to go after their advertisers, which would really hurt them. But until then, I think we can push back by going after the individual journalists.

Some people among the gaming community have been sending emails to advertisers over Gamersgate. They have also developed a boycotted site list. I'm not sure how effective it has been, but there has been calls to try and hurt these people financially.

Post: #34

Well here is my little contribution to the attack: http://fanghornforest.wordpress.com/2014...tic-fraud/

Post: #35

Post: #36

(09-11-2014 09:17 PM)iop890 Wrote:  

Her profile pic tells you everything you need to know about her intelligence and morality.

Post: #37

Think she's in a lot trouble if this is all true.
https://twitter.com/femfreq/status/507669980754632704
https://twitter.com/femfreq/status/507620969666461696


Just for fun, retweeting a 15 year old
https://twitter.com/femfreq/status/506981945113202688

Post: #38

(09-12-2014 01:06 AM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  

(09-11-2014 09:17 PM)iop890 Wrote:  

Her profile pic tells you everything you need to know about her intelligence and morality.

Rachel Haywire is actually not an SJW, she's affiliated with neoreactionaries/the Dark Enlightenment and used to contribute to Alternative Right. She's also a batshit lunatic (I have a bit of history with her).

Not that this makes a huge difference, but just putting it out there.

Post: #39

(09-12-2014 02:33 AM)Matt Forney Wrote:  Rachel Haywire is actually not an SJW, she's affiliated with neoreactionaries/the Dark Enlightenment and used to contribute to Alternative Right. She's also a batshit lunatic (I have a bit of history with her).

Not that this makes a huge difference, but just putting it out there.

If the hair dye fits...

I was wondering earlier if the end game of all this SJW crap is simply to create job opportunities for Women's Studies Majors as PC Consultants to game companies. It's not like there's a lot of use for their degree otherwise.

Post: #40

(09-12-2014 02:29 AM)nick_ Wrote:  Think she's in a lot trouble if this is all true.
https://twitter.com/femfreq/status/507669980754632704

Post: #41

(09-12-2014 03:29 AM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  I was wondering earlier if the end game of all this SJW crap is simply to create job opportunities for Women's Studies Majors as PC Consultants to game companies. It's not like there's a lot of use for their degree otherwise.

Social Justice is just an extension of political correctness, which is a part of Cultural Marxism.

Cultural Marxism was developed mainly by the Frankfurt school. They theorized that western culture helped to maintain the current hierarchy. So before worldwide revolution could be achieved western culture must be destroyed.

Post: #42

If you have concern about the validity of the absence of a phone call by Anita, make a public record request (FOIA act) request. Than the fact whether she made a call or not will be public record for anyone to reviewed. It will be signed my a public record officer under penalty of law that not records exist.

Post: #43

Not to take anything away from this serious topic but, this is hilarious on a number of levels.

Right down to how she reacts to evidence is the classic deniability stage of someone who fucked up. I wonder when her brain chemistry will change to dread at the thought of mounting evidence and call-outs and then outright dismissal of the accusations but instead making up another excuse.

"I was forced to do it!!!"

There is enough material on these people and their cohorts to write entire books.

Post: #44

(09-11-2014 08:38 PM)The Reactionary Tree Wrote:  In case any manosphere bloggers need a 'how to' guide to destroy your political enemies, our good friend Matt Forney has the blue print:
http://mattforney.com/2014/01/27/how-to-...th-google/

Quote:By the time you finish reading this post, you’ll be able to ruin your enemies’ lives, end their careers and leave them utterly destitute. And all you need is a computer and a blog.

I’m talking about manipulating Google to push negative articles about them to the first page.

Roosh has discussed doing this in the context of fighting feminists and leftists, but his advice doesn’t go far enough. He did a wonderful job tarring Gawker witch-burner Nitasha Tiku with accusations of racism, but in order to really do harm to people, you need to hit them with charges that most everyone—HR flacks in particular—will find offensive.

This article will show you precisely how to do that.

Please note that I’m not a legal expert and everything in this article (hell, everything you read on the Internet period) should be taken with a grain of salt. Also, this article is written from an American perspective; if you live in Canada, the U.K. or another country with stricter libel laws, you have less wiggle room for these kinds of operations. Also, bigups to my friend Zampano, who helped me perfect my techniques.

The best example I have is my article on Sarah Figalora, the intern who interviewed me for the aborted ABC News hatchet job on the manosphere a few months back. My piece on her is currently the number one Google result for her name, while the number three result is a link to the article from my Facebook page. My article on Alyssa Pry and Alexa Valiente, the interns who wrote the 20/20 hit piece, is also highly ranked (number one for Pry’s name, number two for Valiente’s), but because just about everyone in the ‘sphere went after them, I’m going to focus on my article about Figalora.

Here’s why my mission to tar Figalora’s name was a success, and how you can replicate my methods.

1. Write the article in as balanced a tone as possible.

An article full of swear words and far-fetched accusations is useless. Remember, you’re trying to convince neutral third parties that the person you’re writing about is a scumbag, not preaching to the choir. As a result, you should use polite, measured language and avoid anything that makes you look angry or uncouth. Additionally, don’t forget to put the target’s name in the article title.

2. Avoid direct accusations against your target.

You’ll note that while the article is titled “Is Sarah Figalora Guilty of Journalistic Fraud?”, nowhere in the piece do I outright accuse her of journalistic fraud, instead presenting my findings in questions and qualified comments about her honesty. This is to protect myself from a possible libel lawsuit. By titling the article with a question, I implant the desired idea in the reader’s head (Sarah Figalora is a journalistic fraud) without actually saying it. Despite the best efforts of our legal system, people are natively inclined to assume that criminals are guilty until proven innocent; manipulating this instinct is key to writing these kinds of articles.

Keep in mind that there are limits to this technique. Anything sexual, for example, will likely land you in hot water regardless of how you phrase it. For example, don’t write a blog post titled “Is Joe Schmo a Child Molester?” even if you have timestamped photos of Mr. Schmo touching little boys in their private areas.

Remember, don’t be a dumbass: you’ll live longer.

3. Keep the article short.

In our age of 140-character Tweets and text-free Buzzfeed listicles, the average moron’s attention span has dwindled to nil. If your article is too long, your prospective audience will lose interest long before you get to the money shot. Keep your blog post in the neighborhood of 500 words and don’t waste the reader’s time: make your points and shaddup.

4. Hyperlink the first instance of the person’s name with the URL of the blog post.

You’ll notice that in the first sentences of my articles on Figalora and Pry/Valiente, I’ve linked their names with the URL of the article itself. What’s the point of linking to a blog post that you’re already looking at? SEO. Hyperlinking the first instance of the target’s name makes it as clear as possible to Google’s spiders what the subject of the article is, giving your post a shot in the arm. Ideally, you want to put the first occurrence of their name in the first sentence, as the higher the link is in the HTML, the more SEO juice is provides.

5. Network with other bloggers to get the article ranked on Google.

Depending on how obscure your target is and/or how unique their name is, you might not need to take this step, but it helps. If you have a network of websites, bloggers and Twitter feeds who are aligned with you ideologically, try and get them to link to your article to boost it in Google’s search results. With the articles on Figalora and ABC, this was easy; the manosphere has essentially become modern-day samizdat, a tightly-bound collective where memes and information are spread at the speed of light. If you write something of quality in the manosphere and promote it just a little, you’ll have people flocking to read it and share it in no time.

Thanks to my articles (as well as everyone else’s work) and the might of the manosphere, Sarah Figalora and her compatriots’ careers are over. From now on, any time they apply for a job that pays more than minimum wage, the HR ladies are going to see my articles and immediately pass them over for the position. And since none of them have the intelligence to develop real skills, write books or go into business for themselves, I sure hope they love making lattes.

Even if they somehow manage to make a life for themselves, I’ll have caused them enough sleepless nights and stomach-churning stress to make them think twice about their actions.

I can already hear the objections from the peanut gallery:

1. “You’re a misogynist racist asshat and anyone who knows even a LITTLE bit about you will see through your articles!”

This assumes that most people actually do their homework when they read stuff on the Internet. Spoiler alert: they don’t. The vast majority of employers who Google the names of prospective hires won’t bother to research the credibility of the site smearing them; they don’t have the time.

My statistics bear this out: of all the people who’ve arrived on my blog searching for “sarah figalora,” over 90 percent of them did nothing but look at the article in question, then leave.

Not only that, a substantial minority of searchers won’t even bother to click on the article at all. As soon as they see the headline “Is Sarah Figalora Guilty of Journalistic Fraud?”, they’ll close the tab and toss her resume in the trash.

2. “But what if Google changes their search algorithms to remove your articles? Huh Matt, what then?”

If you think that Google, even as creepy and subservient to the Cathedral as they are, is going to upend their algorithms to protect a bunch of unpaid interns and low-wage Gawker trolls, you’re delusional.

It’s precisely because of this that attacking targets like Figalora is worthwhile.

The producers, the editors, the people on the higher rungs at ABC, Gawker and the like are safe; they have enough money, power and name recognition to ward off threats from people like us. It’s the entry-level drones like Figalora and Tiku, who dream of becoming the commissars of tomorrow, who are the weak spot in the MSM’s defenses. Imagine if every time an unpaid intern or minimum wage-slave with six figures of student loan debt attacked the manosphere, they had a negative, SEO-optimized article about them online within a day.

Destroy enough of these wannabe apparatchiks and eventually they’ll think twice about taking us on.

3. “Why are you attacking these poor girls? They’re just idiots doing what they’re told! You should be going after the people in charge instead!”

This line of logic, applied to other epochs in history:

1776: “Why is George Washington wasting time fighting those Hessian mercenaries? He should be sailing across the Atlantic to assassinate King George!”

1865: “Why is Lincoln fighting those poor Confederate soldiers? They don’t know any better! He should be going after Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee!”

1944: “Why are the Allies killing those German soldiers? They’re just following orders! They should be concentrating on Hitler!”

Newsflash: journalists who support evil regimes are as morally culpable as the regimes themselves, even if they don’t directly participate in their evil acts. This was established by the Nuremberg Trials: journalists who egged on German war crimes were hanged alongside the Nazi officials who actually carried them out. I don’t care if Figalora and her comrades aren’t getting paid to smear me, how low on the totem pole they are or any of that crap: the mere fact that they’re working for the MSM makes them my adversaries. Does a soldier on the battlefield concern himself with the fact that the enemies he’s shooting at might be nice guys who are just following orders?

No: he nuts up, does his duty and pulls the trigger.

The manosphere’s ability to inflict real harm on its adversaries is growing by the day. Just look at what happened to Kevin Conboy, the flabby-faced WordPress employee who threatened to wipe Chateau Heartiste and Return of Kings off the Internet. Not only did the little chickenshit immediately lock his Twitter account and blog when he started getting backlash, the Return of Kings article on him shot up to number two on Google in less than a day of being online.

That’s the message we want to send to leftists and feminists: if you smear us, you’ll end up just like Conboy or Figalora.

You can’t run and you can’t hide. You put one of ours in the hospital, we put one of yours in the morgue. We will drag your name through the mud, get you fired from your job and reduce you to poverty. For every Pax Dickinson who is torn apart by a pitchfork-wielding mob, we will send a dozen feminist interns to the unemployment line. And if one of us falls, ten more will take his place.

We have the power. It’s time to start using it.

And Sarah, if I’m ever in your neck of the woods, I’ll take my coffee straight black, please.

It's true, if someone isn't super famous it's very easy to get an article about them to the front page of Google. Often a single reddit link is all it takes, SEO-wise.

Post: #45

(09-12-2014 02:33 AM)Matt Forney Wrote:  

(09-12-2014 01:06 AM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  

(09-11-2014 09:17 PM)iop890 Wrote:  

Her profile pic tells you everything you need to know about her intelligence and morality.

Rachel Haywire is actually not an SJW, she's affiliated with neoreactionaries/the Dark Enlightenment and used to contribute to Alternative Right. She's also a batshit lunatic (I have a bit of history with her).

Not that this makes a huge difference, but just putting it out there.

Haywire was kind of associated with the neoreactionary movement. She wrote up this dumb piece saying she left, though most neoreactionaries do not even consider her part of the movement: https://medium.com/@rachelhaywire/how-i-...b049740096

Post: #46

(09-12-2014 05:21 AM)The Reactionary Tree Wrote:  Haywire was kind of associated with the neoreactionary movement. She wrote up this dumb piece saying she left, though most neoreactionaries do not even consider her part of the movement: https://medium.com/@rachelhaywire/how-i-...b049740096

I was thinking "A female typist. Don't read it. You will be dumber for exposing yourself to it."

I did.

Goddammit.

She describes herself as a 'punk rock chick'. I'm guessing Neoreaction is just another one of the various personas she'll discard over the years in her search for that elusive, unique-enough identity to match her inflated self-conception of being a more interesting and intelligent person than everyone else, hence her need to dramatically and publicly flounce away from a scene she thinks she's above.

Wherever she ends up in the political-spectrum, I guarantee you it will involve many more bottles of Clairol.

I banged a shitload of these punk girls in my early 20's - they're generic enough in behaviour and motivations to be interchangeable - and not one of them ever seemed to consider the 'anarchy' they long for would most likely result in them being raped and gutted in a ditch somewhere, and not necessarily in that order.

Decrying capitalism and societal order whilst blogging on a PC or Mac seems particularly poseurish.

Post: #47

(09-12-2014 07:36 AM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  

(09-12-2014 05:21 AM)The Reactionary Tree Wrote:  Haywire was kind of associated with the neoreactionary movement. She wrote up this dumb piece saying she left, though most neoreactionaries do not even consider her part of the movement: https://medium.com/@rachelhaywire/how-i-...b049740096

I was thinking "A female typist. Don't read it. You will be dumber for exposing yourself to it."

I did.

Goddammit.

She describes herself as a 'punk rock chick'. I'm guessing Neoreaction is just another one of the various personas she'll discard over the years in her search for that elusive, unique-enough identity to match her inflated self-conception of being a more interesting and intelligent person than everyone else, hence her need to dramatically and publicly flounce away from a scene she thinks she's above.

Wherever she ends up in the political-spectrum, I guarantee you it will involve many more bottles of Clairol.

I banged a shitload of these punk girls in my early 20's - they're generic enough in behaviour and motivations to be interchangeable - and not one of them ever seemed to consider the 'anarchy' they long for would most likely result in them being raped and gutted in a ditch somewhere, and not necessarily in that order.

Decrying capitalism and societal order whilst blogging on a PC or Mac seems particularly poseurish.

I should have included a "trigger warning"

Post: #48

Let me know when you'd like to hit the advertisers of those websites, if the journalists don't respond. I know someone who can send a few scathing corporate emails and demand certain companies to withdraw advertising.

Post: #49

(09-11-2014 09:38 PM)Billy Chubbs Wrote:  Business Insider
Article By Julie Bort
(Julie 'We're all out of license plates' Bort is good about keeping her biases offline, but here's a tweet that shows her stance).

mid-nineties simpsons reference recognized and extremely appreciated.

Post: #50

This is AWESOME. Its great when someone doesn't let lying bitches get away with whatever they want. This feminist con woman has been getting away with everything she does, including fundraising over $160,000 to make bull shit youtube videos, faking death threats, and being a all around cunt. I hope she gets whats coming to her and it appears she is on that path. I commend the OP for actually putting in some work to get the real truth out, I hope more people follow suit.
Justice