Post: #1

A month ago I agreed to an interview with a site called the Kernel which seemed almost red pill to me. But after the interview it got bought out by pro-homosexual and pro-transexual The Daily Dot, so the interview morphed into a bit of a hit piece:

The Web's most infamous misogynist regrets nothing: http://www.dailydot.com/lifestyle/roosh-...-misogyny/

Quote:“I'm going to be compared to Hitler,” Daryush Valizadeh told me recently. In one sense, he was referring to Godwin’s Law, the Internet adage that states that any online discussion will eventually devolve into Nazi comparisons.

But in another, Valizadeh, better known as “Roosh V,” was being quite literal. Few people have inspired such loathing online as this seemingly mild-mannered American expat who makes a living selling ebooks about how to pick up girls.

We talked for 2 hours so he obviously didn't include everything, but reading over it, it doesn't appear he took me out of context. I do remember giving longer answers, however.

Post: #2

Seeing the amount of smack Peter Schiff took recently for the cut and skewed interview on the Daily Show, I'm surprised you've managed to hold your own for the most part.
They can mangle your words any which way, especially when proven wrong.

Post: #3

Great response to the 1 in 5 UK women get raped.

His words are loaded out the ass even when he said basically the world you see, he just doesn't see it and doesn't live in it.

Yea no shit, cuz you're so blue-pilled you couldn't tell a slut from a church girl.

Post: #4

Its still a nice attention boost.

Your audience grows. Let the haters hate. Those who get it will find their way.

Post: #5

Best exchange:

Quote:Q:Isn’t it hypocritical to criticize “sluts” while making your living from teaching men to sleep with as many women as possible?

A: Men don't get to choose what they get from women. In the last 20 years, women announced they don't wanna get married right away, they want to focus on their job, have fun. So I'm teaching guys to get something anyway. I could stay home and cry that no woman wants to marry me, or find out what I have to do to take advantage of this new goal women have.

Post: #6

A lot of great responses in that, Roosh.

I think that it would be good for us to start think about what a future world would look like instead of dreaming of the old ways.

What those people don't get is that it takes a lot integrity for woman to expose their heart or be vulnerable. That's what I want from a girl. That's when I get most turned on and am motivated to protect them and all that ancient stuff.

Even with clear signs of aggression- that doesn't prove rape. A girl can easily fake bruises and cuts. Conversely, if some guy fucks a girl who is passed out, there's not going to be an signs of violence. For these reasons, I don't think that rape should be determined based on signs of violence.

Obviously, it shouldn't be based on anybody's word either. Unfortunately for us, it's like car insurance where even if you didn't cause the accident, just being part of it is going to tarnish your record.

I think both men and women would greatly benefit if we could figure out a definite way to determine if someone was raped or not.

Then the whole discussion would be over.

Post: #7

LOL, this white-knighting prick tries to condescend to Roosh but he can't even get the name of a country right:

Quote:What separates him from the legions of other pick-up artists online (apart from his imaginatively titled travel guides: “Bang Columbia,” “Don’t Bang Denmark,” “Bang Iceland,” etc.) is his extraordinarily vitriolic and misogynistic views about women and society as a whole.

Any interview with Roosh is good because he never comes off as some foaming at the mouth fanatic -- he always seems laid back about his unthinkably outrageous ideas. So the hostile interviewer is fundamentally stymied.

Post: #8

Great answers that countered the interviewer's assumptions head-on.

(02-13-2014 06:25 PM)soup Wrote:  I think both men and women would greatly benefit if we could figure out a definite way to determine if someone was raped or not.

That, and a return to the principle of innocent until proven guilty. Right now the burden of proof seems to be put upon the accused to demonstrate that no transgression occurred (and in a lot of college campuses' kangaroo courts this is increasingly a reality)...which is a complete perversion of fair process.

Post: #9

Well the site seems to have twice as much traffic as ROK, so this is going to be good for you

Post: #10

Quote:The entire modernist movement is "training women to act like men with small dicks." They've got such a chip on their shoulder, such penis envy...

Brilliant and succinct. This truly is the modern Western woman, a sort of wannabe-man with something to prove who tries her best but can obviously never quite measure up, and her failure to do so devastates her psyche. And when women go down this quixotic path of trying to be men and inevitably fail, they have also necessarily failed at being women, since the opportunity cost of trying to be a man largely eliminates her ability to cultivate her natural feminine virtues. So the modern Western woman (career oriented, feminist, anti-tradition, etc...) is ultimately a failure as both a man and a woman. And this is not the sort of failure where you get to try again next time. This is an existential failure. It's the sort of failure you don't even recognize until you're a few decades into this party when it's already too late. Is it any wonder so many women are on anti-depressants and self-medicating in record numbers with alcohol? They've been sold a lie, and once they inevitably begin to realize this fact they feel a deep inner despair for having failed on the most basic level as women.

Post: #11

Reading the interview was an infuriating experience, but I'm used to that by now. Well done, Sr. Roosh.

No apologies, no backing down, no retreating one millimeter. It's a pathetic hatchet job, to be sure, but it just shows that they have nothing to throw at you except the prevailing orthodoxy.

It's like reading a transcript of an examination of a heretic by the Inquisition. Never once--not once!--did they attempt to respond to Roosh's philosophical points in a meaningful way.

Instead it's just: but you're a heretic, you're a heretic, your ideas are different, how can you say that, etc, etc.

All old hat by now, and so, so tired.

But it matters little: what does matter is, as Goebbels once said, that they concern themselves with us time and time again. We are not going away. They are underestimating so much...and it is already too late for them. The cracks in the edifice have already begun.

We are going to grab them by the throat and crush their pathetic windpipes.

Post: #12

The interviewer is a fool (and bad "journalist") for interjecting himself into the article. "I can't relate at ALL to what Roosh is saying."

It's as if he's trying to win favor from his audience. In essence, to white knight. "Look girls, look at how I don't agree with this douchenozzle that I interviewed."

Post: #13

(02-13-2014 06:25 PM)soup Wrote:  I think both men and women would greatly benefit if we could figure out a definite way to determine if someone was raped or not.

Then the whole discussion would be over.

Actually it's not that hard. If a woman offers up physical resistance, it's rape. If she very clearly and repeatedly with no equivocation communicates the words "No!" "Stop!" or other words to that effect, it's rape. If you are sober and she is not, most people are going to consider that rape. Definitely if she is passed out or too intoxicated to have any idea what is going on, that is rape. There is some disagreement on when a woman becomes an adult and therefore it's okay to sleep with her, but pretty much everybody agrees that sex with a child under wherever they draw that line is rape.

She regrets it the next day because you didn't call her back and made it clear it was a hit and quit, or for whatever reason she feels shameful and slutty about it? It's not rape. It was a drunken hookup where both parties began the evening by going out to bars with their friends, consumed large amounts of alcohol and flirted with members of the opposite sex? I'm going to go ahead and say that most of the time, but not always, that's not rape. Drunken hookups are kind of a gray area, but women need to take some accountability and responsibility for putting themselves in dangerous situations where they are leaving themselves open to a statistically likelier scenario for rape to occur.

Roosh is right that feminists want to expand the definition of rape and extend it to a lot more areas. It doesn't take more than a quick perusal of their blogs and sites to see that upper-middle class internet feminists talk about and fret over rape well out of proportion to its impact as a social problem.

Post: #14

Quote:But not to live the best life?

I would make that girl have the longest hair…

Post: #15

Quote:In the U.K., feminist campaigners have been receiving very graphic and near-constant threats on social media of genital mutilation, sexual assault, rape, etc. What do you make of this?

First of all, that's not something I do. But why would a man threaten a feminist with rape? Because he's angry. And why is he so angry? That's a question feminists don't want to find out. I'm not saying it’s right, but to threaten someone with genital mutilation would take a lot of anger—why don't we ask why? Men aren't angry because they can't get a beautiful girl every night; it's because these groups attack what it means to be a man. Feminists need to understand when they face these attacks that these men feel like they're causing their own problems.

BOOM! Nailed it. They don't want to answer the question because you have to be honest, and introspective.

No Homo!

Post: #16

(02-13-2014 06:28 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  LOL, this white-knighting prick tries to condescend to Roosh but he can't even get the name of a country right:

Quote:What separates him from the legions of other pick-up artists online (apart from his imaginatively titled travel guides: “Bang Columbia,” “Don’t Bang Denmark,” “Bang Iceland,” etc.) is his extraordinarily vitriolic and misogynistic views about women and society as a whole.

Any interview with Roosh is good because he never comes off as some foaming at the mouth fanatic -- he always seems laid back about his unthinkably outrageous ideas. So the hostile interviewer is fundamentally stymied.

This guy is seriously fucking out to lunch if he thinks that Roosh was "extreme" for saying American women are masculine, too into their phones, and only want to fuck guys who are famous or on steroids. Any guy who goes out with his eyes open can see these trends.

I love how all these white knight and mangina journalists are telling us to jam a square peg into a round whole and live in the past. The time for treating Americunts like queens is long gone. Either adapt or let them shit all over you.... and yes I hope my commentary is seen as "extraordinarily vitriolic" it's my username. Fuck guys who think like this and expect us to live up to dated gender roles that don't work anymore. Open your fucking eyes and see what's going on around you.

Post: #17

This is the best part of the interview:

The Daily Dot Wrote:Reporter: I’m not familiar with the case, but if she was genuinely mentally ill then that would absolve her of some responsibility. You can’t be morally responsible for your actions if you have no grip on the real world.

Roosh: We're making up mental problems for women at all stages of their life so they will never be held completely responsible. Lets say I marry a woman and she kills me, guess what: I put her in an unstable state, I was verbally abusive, emotionally abusive, even though I was just a normal guy. They'll always find an angle.

You held your composure and provided a great reply in the face of a very difficult and slippery question. Bravo!

Post: #18

This is a great interview.

Even though they intended this as a hit piece, you actually came off looking better than the interviewer did because it was obvious the interviewer was grasping at straws.

Post: #19

(02-14-2014 04:15 AM)The Texas Prophet Wrote:  This is a great interview.

Very true. Roosh killed it in the interview.

My hat is off to you Roosh, you handled the interview with grace and aplomb. It was exactly what it needed to be.

Post: #20

Great interview.

The interviewer is so clueless that they think they're winning, painting you as a monster, while they're actually making you look like a rational and intelligent guy.

The comments section is content-free bleating.

"I'd hate myself if I had that kind of attitude, if I were that weak." - Arnold

Post: #21

Rooshv once again puts his categorical social ineptitude on display for the world to see. Good job.

Post: #22

It's really shocking how completely unaware the interviewer is. It's like he wants to debate you, but did the least amount of preparation possible. I guess he figured the sound bytes he picked up on his mandatory gender studies class and from reading Jezebel were enough.

It reminds me of that chick from Time interviewing one of the Klitschkos. Journalists these days have this strange air of unearned superiority, especially when you consider that these are mostly people writing fluff blog posts scraping out 50k a year in a dying profession.

Post: #23

I knew quite a few journalism students and frankly they weren't very bright. Seeing some of the level of ineptidude coming from those classes astounded me. It's no wonder MSM is filled with goons that have no grasp outside of anything rational outside of their own dogma. They're no better than the nut house evangelical right.

Post: #24

(02-13-2014 06:04 PM)Christian McQueen Wrote:  Great response to the 1 in 5 UK women get raped.

His words are loaded out the ass even when he said basically the world you see, he just doesn't see it and doesn't live in it.

Yea no shit, cuz you're so blue-pilled you couldn't tell a slut from a church girl.

1 in 5? What in the fuck. I read that, and instantly thought "Either feminists did not pass research methods 101 (of course), or there is a rape epidemic going on in the UK."

Seriously, If I was a woman, and there was a 1 in 5 chance of me leaving my house and getting raped, I would probably never leave home.

I do not get how these feminists receive publication, my first year in College I was tasked with reading quite a few feminist peer-reviewed journals and as I was reading the breakdowns of their methodology, I told myself, "There's something highly lacking here."

The foundation of a lot of this feminist based research is turning opinion into something that resembles empiricism, seduction as rape for example, is a case of taking a feminist's opinion of what rape is (seduction, regret) and turning REAL rape stats - which legitimate researchers believe to be somewhere in the 1 in 50 range - into something monstrous -- 1 in 4, or, 25% of the University/College population. These feminist researchers will ask a woman, "did you FEEL regret after being seduced?" the woman being asked will put a checkmark, and then in addition to that question the researcher will ask something like, "Did you FEEL used after he did not call you back for sex?" and again, the woman will put a checkmark. The researchers will then calibrate the amount of answers where the woman "felt" conned by her seducer, and use this as an confession of having been raped; because our current generation has this easy-access hookup sex culture (in post secondary campus' anyways), there are bound to be a lot of women who may have felt conned into having sex (but not actually raped), and in turn we arrive at these high stats that say women are victims of a large rape epidemic, when in reality, they are just making poor sexual partnering choices.


Anyways,

Good job Roosh. While I don't always agree with everything you write about, I did dig your interview, you handled it very well.

Post: #25

Much angrier interview than normal, imo.

Well prepared and well reasoned.

WIA