Post: #1

As you may recall, our favourite Video Game critic received some questionable death threats on her twitter account, and then claimed that the 'authorities' told her that she should quit talking about Video Games if she wanted the threats to stop.

Well - I decided to contact the SFPD to see for myself what they had to say, and surprise surprise - they say that she never made a report.

Full video and transcript here.

Quote:Esparza: I’m very familiar with the case… the incident. There’s nothing, there’s no record of any incident occurring on the 28th of August [Ed: this would be the date that she reported it, the 26th is when she received the tweets]. I’ve been trying to reach her for the past two days. If you have a way to contact this person and ask them for a case number, we’d appreciate that. There’s no record from our dispatch centre that I called and asked. There’s no record of any report being taken. So, when I saw her tweets it says “authorities”; Anita should make sure she reports to the San Fran police how she did this because there’s no record.

Post: #2

delete

Post: #3

(09-11-2014 07:25 PM)Cunnilinguist Wrote:  Dupe-ish

/thread-39859.html

Re-read it, this is brand new; I literally just finished transcribing the call from earlier today. The SFPD says she never reported this.

Post: #4

This is far from a dupe.

This is original reporting and an original development.

This is A+ work, Aurini!

Post: #5

Anita's a more sophisticated western version of a Nigerian online scammer.

What a deplorable fucking cunt.

Post: #6

This has the potential to deliver a knockout to the SJW propaganda, well done Aurini, Hopefully this is included in the documentary you are working on.

Post: #7

This is hard proof of her fraud. UK reporter was on it earlier today as well:





It's going to be impossible for her to sweep this under the rug.

Post: #8

Aurini made the call, filmed it, and posted it. Now his site and documentary and journalistic efforts will receive the attention they so deeply deserve.

Fortune favors the bold!

Post: #9

Post: #10

The Title, though, that's Matt Forney/RoK Philosophy - turn it into a question.

You could tell that the officer was really insulted that anybody would accuse the SFPD of that sort of behaviour.

Post: #11

Alright guys, here's what I want to do. Get a list of the top 20 journalists/bloggers who wrote about Anita's most recent threat in which they took her word for it, and then call them all out and put their reputation on the line. We can blow this up to involve journalists not just in gaming.

Post: #12

(09-11-2014 08:13 PM)Roosh Wrote:  Alright guys, here's what I want to do. Get a list of the top 20 journalists/bloggers who wrote about Anita's most recent threat in which they took her word for it, and then call them all out and put their reputation on the line. We can blow this up to involve journalists not just in gaming.

Brilliant.

I've mostly been focussing on the behind-the-scenes stuff, insiders and what not, as well as getting a multitude of people who have been harassed, who aren't giant babies about the whole thing.

I'll leave the journalistas to you; look forward to ti.

Post: #13

Bravo Aurini, just fantastic work. I hope this buries her.

Post: #14

This is truly incredible work, Aurini. Roosh, your idea sounds genius.

Give these people no quarter. Remember what they've done to the likes of Pax Dickinson or anyone else they remotely disagree with. It's time to bring down the fucking hammer.

Post: #15

Here's a handy Google search:

https://www.google.com/search?num=100&ne...dlapSQU_Pk

Many many outlets wrote about this.

Post: #16

Aurini got a tweet from actor Adam Baldwin: https://twitter.com/AdamBaldwin/status/5...0940548097

Post: #17

I know this is a very serious matter. But one of the quotes in the Youtube link was pretty awesome.

Quote:MatrixQ2 hours ago

I felt a great disturbance in Feminism, as if millions of SJWs suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced. I feel something wonderful has happened.

Post: #18

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.

Post: #19

Who is giving Anita money? Where does she get her support from?

I'm sure they'd like to know she is lying.

Post: #20

Groundbreaking. The idea that SJWs and professional victims lie as a matter of course will reach the mainstream consciousness. Hopefully, there will be no more Sarkeesians able to scam money from the public anymore.

Well done, Aurini.

Post: #21

SJWs I've been arguing with on another forum for a few days about this saying "We'll wait for more evidence. Aurini could have faked his phone call."

You know when I saw the Ray Rice punch the first thing I did was admit that I was wrong about the way I assumed the situation went down. These people are utterly INCAPABLE of doing the same thing. There is video evidence for them to watch and they still have to cling to their narrative. Fucking unreal.

Post: #22

(09-11-2014 08:01 PM)Roosh Wrote:  

This is hard proof of her fraud. UK reporter was on it earlier today as well:





It's going to be impossible for her to sweep this under the rug.

This bitch's cause got smacked so hard, the characters in the games she doesn't play felt it.

Post: #23

I think we should target the largest publications about the Anita story (a max of 5). Put the journalists on blast in a semi-coordinated manner then contact the ombudsman of each.

Post: #24

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: #25

(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?

Arrogance and stupidity often go hand in hand.