Feeds:
Posts
Comments

http://www.japantoday.com/category/politics/view/japan-may-tighten-sanctions-in-wake-of-n-korean-rocket-launch

 

TOKYO —

Prime Minister Shinzo Abe instructed his government on Sunday to swiftly consider tightening Japan’s unilateral sanctions on North Korea following Pyongyang’s rocket launch earlier in the day.

Japan also lodged a protest with North Korea over what Pyongyang says was the launch of an “Earth observation satellite” on a rocket. The protest was made through diplomatic channels in Beijing immediately after the launch at 9:31 a.m. Japan time, Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga said at a news conference.

The launch, which came on the first day of an eight-day window during which North Korea had said it would launch a satellite, was widely viewed as a ballistic missile test in violation of U.N. Security Council resolutions.

Aside from a plan to tighten unilateral sanctions on the North, Japan will cooperate with the United States, South Korea and other countries on the adoption of a new sanctions resolution by the Security Council at an early date, according to officials in Tokyo.

Suga quoted Abe as telling officials to “make preparations so (the government) can swiftly decide (to tighten the) sanctions our country imposes (on North Korea).”

The government has been considering reviving sanctions that Japan partially lifted in July 2014 in return for North Korea’s establishment of a special committee to reinvestigate the fate of all Japanese in North Korea, including those abducted in the 1970s and 1980s, government sources said.

Among the sanctions eased then were a ban on senior officials of the pro-Pyongyang General Association of Korean Residents in Japan, also known as Chongryon, from re-entering Japan after visiting North Korea, and returning the amount of remittances to North Korea that must be reported to the Japanese government to the pre-sanction level of more than 30 million yen from more than 3 million yen.

On top of reinstating these sanctions, the government is also considering tightening rules for remittances and expanding the list of people banned for re-entry to Japan from North Korea, the sources said.

In cooperation with the United States and South Korea, Japan is also thinking of slapping additional financial sanctions on North Korea.

The Japanese government plans to implement its own punitive measures before the adoption of a sanctions resolution by the Security Council, with one of the sources saying, “Debate at the United Nations could stall as the Lunar New Year season begins in China, which holds the key (to U.N. discussions).”

China, a close ally of North Korea, is one of the five permanent members of the Security Council with veto power.

At his news conference Sunday, Suga also criticized North Korea for yet another provocation following its fourth nuclear test on Jan. 6, despite a wave of calls for restraint from the international community.

The top government spokesman said the “flying object” divided into five parts after liftoff, with four falling into the sea and the fifth continuing southward.

North Korea’s official media announced that Pyongyang had successfully put a satellite into orbit.

Defense Minister Gen Nakatani said at a separate news conference that “some kind of object has possibly been put into orbit around the Earth” and his ministry will analyze the nature of the rocket used Sunday.

The rocket launched this time was probably similar to the one launched on the previous occasion, Nakatani said, referring to the firing of a derivative model of the Taepodong-2 ballistic missile in December 2012.

Speaking to reporters earlier, Abe said the launch was in clear violation of U.N. resolutions that ban Pyongyang from conducting any launch using ballistic missile technology.

“Japan will cooperate with the international community to deal resolutely” with the matter, he said.

Separately, Suga said the launch was a “serious act threatening international peace and security.”

Suga said there were no reports of damage on Japanese territory from the rocket that flew over the southwestern prefecture of Okinawa.

Abe instructed Cabinet members to take every possible measure to stand ready for any unforeseen events, he added.

With Maritime Self-Defense Force destroyers equipped with antiballistic missiles deployed in waters around Japan and batteries of interceptors positioned in Tokyo and other parts of the country, Japan remained on alert for possible further launches.

Later Sunday, Nakatani and his South Korean counterpart Han Min Koo agreed during telephone talks that their countries should work closely together, as well as with the United States, in responding to North Korea’s rocket launch, according to Japanese officials.

Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida, meanwhile, agreed separately with his U.S. and South Korean counterparts over the phone to reaffirm coordination in responding to North Korea’s latest provocation.

Kishida and U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry recognized the importance of adopting a powerful U.N. Security Council resolution against the North. With South Korean Foreign Minister Yun Byung Se, Kishida discussed forging closer cooperation bilaterally as well as trilaterally with the United States over the issue.

After separately briefing Kerry and Yun about Tokyo’s plan to implement its own sanctions against Pyongyang, Kishida told reporters that he has “received positive responses” to the idea.

With Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, Kishida shared the view that the launch is a violation of U.N. Security Council resolutions.

He also held talks with his counterparts from Britain, France, Italy and Malaysia.

© KYODO

John McCallum, Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, told The Hill Times that in the next few week the government will introduce “radical changes” to the Citizenship Act.

Liberal MPs said to The Hill Times that the language requirement for new immigrants to apply for Canadian citizenship will be probably eliminated as it “disenfranchises” new immigrants from their right to take part in the political process.

Up until now candidates for immigration under Federal Skilled Worker Program are required to prove in a language test approved by Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) the ability in English or French in the following four areas: listening, speaking, reading and writing.

They have also to meet the minimum level of Canadian Language Benchmark (CLB) 7 in English or Niveaux de compétence linguistique canadiens (NCLC) 7 in French for their first official language in all four language abilities.

Candidates for immigration under the Federal Skilled Trades Program must must meet the minimum level of CLB 5 (English) or NCLC 5 (French) for speaking and listening, and CLB 4 (English) or NCLC 4 (French) for reading and writing.

According to Andrew Griffith‘s research quoted by The Hill Times, there are 33 federal ridings in Canada with a visible minority population of 50 per cent and more, 23 are in Ontario, eight in British Columbia, one in Quebec, and one in Alberta.

 

http://en.cijnews.com/?p=25718

The Pump-and-Dump Feminist

 

Reina Gattuso (@reinagattuso on Twitter) is a Harvard-educated feminist and a compelling argument for why men should be warned to avoid Harvard-educated feminists. If it were up to me, heterosexuality would be strictly prohibited at Harvard University for the very reason that no man should ever have sex with the kind of women who attend Harvard University, of whom Reina Gattuso is a typical example.

Actually, Ms. Gattuso is a typical example of many things, none of them good. She is an extraordinarily bad human being, which is why she was chosen as a student speaker at Harvard’s 2015 Class Day:

Reina has spent the past four years studying Comparative Literature and Studies of Women, Gender, and Sexuality; co-founding a feminist magazine, Manifesta; reading poetry at The Harvard Advocate; and writing for The Crimson, where she co-founded an inclusivity and diversity working group. . . . She is looking forward to spending next year on a Fulbright-Nehru Student fellowship in Delhi, India. But first, Reina is looking forward to outing herself to her grandmother on Class Day.

Yes, American parents, this is why you should send your daughter Harvard (annual tuition $45,278), so that she can celebrate her graduation by “outing herself to her grandmother.” Just in case anyone missed her baccalaureate coming-out speech, however, Ms. Gattuso wrotea column for the Washington Post in which she mentioned that she “has publicly admitted to making out with half the lesbian, queer, bisexual, bicurious and questioning women at Harvard.”

That column, in which she describes herself as “selfish” and “reckless,” was published with the headline, “Why monogamy’s not for me,” which is a rather transparent sour-grapes rationalization. Has anyone ever sought a monogamous relationship with Ms. Gattuso? Of course not. To borrow a line from an old Steppenwolf song, she is evil, wicked, mean and nasty.

No decent person would seek an intimate association with Reina Gatttuso, certainly not on a permanent basis. The Ivy League is decadent and depraved, but she is a very bad person even by Harvard’s abysmally low standards. Among the notorious graduates of Harvard, she is perhaps not as bad as Ted Kaczynski (Class of 1962), but the Unabomber wrote only one manifesto, whereas Ms. Gattuso issues her demands sequentially and in installments as a columnist for Feministing, where she delivers such empowering messages as “Romantic Love Is a Patriarchal Conspiracy,” “My Vagina Is Tired of Compromise” and, best of all,“Sexual Objectification Is an Evil Male Plot for World Domination,” which includes this astonishing sentence:

I literally cannot talk to other women about how upsetting I find being street harassed without part of me feeling a little smug about it.

“Literally.”

This is an astonishing sentence, I say, because it is difficult to imagine that Harvard University would award a diploma in literature to someone who would write such a sentence. As much as I enjoy mocking the Ivy League —meritocracy, my ass — is it too much to expect a Harvard graduate to avoid this ignorant juvenile habit of haphazardly dropping “literally” into sentences as an intensifier? At least Ms. Gattuso did not commit the common error of using “literally” when she meant “figuratively,” but if we ask what function “literally” serves in that sentence, the answer is, none whatsoever.

Would you say that I am being pedantic? Nitpicky and hypercritical? Yes, and deliberately so, because I do not like Reina Gattuso, and one way people communicate hostility is through this kind of fault-finding attitude, where everything the other person does is subjected to mocking criticism and ridicule. This is how feminists treat men, habitually, yet they will start shrieking in panicked victim mode — “Harassment!” “Abuse!” “Misogyny!” — if any man dares call them out on it.

Feminists are simply women who do not like men. They have converted their anti-male hostility into a simulacrum of a political ideology, and expect the rest of us to take their rants and screeds seriously. In the feminist’s mind, she is in the position of a tenured professor and we are all a bunch of clueless kids who have signed up for her Gender Studies class. She is an expert, and we are in need of her enlightenment. The subject of today’s lecture is the same as yesterday and the day before: “Men Are Bad and Stupid, and You Should Hate Them.”

It really is as simple as that. The feminist is a grievance collector, who spends her life cataloguing the wrongs and evils for which men are responsible — that is to say, everything — and encouraging other women to do the same. This endless repetition of gripes and complaints about men is occasionally interrupted by endorsement of some other trendy progressive cause (global warming) as well as predictable electioneering efforts on behalf of left-wing candidates.

For example, whenever CNN goes off one of its periodic white-cop-shoots-black-teenager binges, feminist bloggers will reinvent themselves as experts on racial injustice and after the storm of made-for-TV protests blows over, feminist bloggers go back to ranting about abortion rights and “rape culture.” Their interest in politics is similarly episodic, following whatever is in vogue among progressives. When Bush was president, feminists pretended to be experts on terrorism and foreign policy, but once Obama was elected, feminists suddenly became experts in health-care policy. Currently, feminists seem intent on convincing the world that Donald Trump is the Worst Racist Sexist Homophobe in the History of the World, Ever. However, if Trump should lose the Republican nomination — to Cruz or Rubio or whoever — then feminists will discover that, contrary to their earlier judgment, the GOP candidate who beats Trump is actually the Real Worst Racist Sexist Homophobe in the History of the World, Ever. But I digress . . .

In addition to “making out with half the lesbian, queer, bisexual, bicurious and questioning women at Harvard,” Reina Gattuso also occasionally decides to subject herself to the patriarchal oppression of heterosexual intercourse, and she has written an 1,800-word column explaining how and why she generally despises the men she has sex with:

Alas, friend of mine, you have had an orgasm and are falling asleep. I have not had an orgasm and am not falling asleep, which means I am awake, which means I am now going to lecture you about feminism.
Who are you? (Big questions.) You are anyman, everyman, you are one of any number of lucky bastards with whom I have happened to roll into bed because baby, it’s been a few months and none of the cute activists are texting me back. Or maybe you are a cute activist who texted me back — in which case listen up, buddy, because this one’s for you, too.
Who are you? You’re a decent guy. You’re solid. I do not feel like you are going to rape me. (Yay! Let’s throw a party!)
No, you’re not a bad guy. The sex wasn’t particularly bad, either. And I know bad sex. I know sex that tastes like coercion and I know sex that tastes like endings and I know sex that tastes like hand sanitizer, which is a bad thing to put on your hands before you finger someone.
No, friend, it was not bad sex. It was normal sex. Normal, boring, vaguely dehumanizing hetero sex.
Which is precisely the point: The normalcy.
Believe me: I enjoy having someone mortar-and-pestle me for a few minutes as much as the next ornery bisexual. But friend, I feel that you can do better. . . . .

Here I will interrupt to explain that I can find no independent corroboration that Reina Gattuso has ever had sex with a man. Or a woman, for that matter. Of course, I can understand why anyone would be reluctant to admit that they had sex with a Harvard feminist, but that’s not my point. What I’m saying is I was unable to find a column anywhere with a headline like, “I Banged Reina Gattuso,” so that what she says about having sex with men (or women, or transsexuals, or whatever) is unverified. She claims to have had sex with men, but no men have stepped forward testifying to the truth of her claim. With that stipulation in mind, please continue, Ms. Gattuso:

Because there was something in the choreography of the whole thing that just struck me as, I don’t know — unsatisfying in a way only feminism can remedy.
Yup, I’m talking about the orgasm deficit. . . .
Sex is now over. Sex is now over because you have decided it is over. You have decided sex is over because you are a man, and because this choreography that favors men with penises — man becomes erect, man penetrates woman, man ejaculates — is what we have been told sex is.
Because we’re brainwashed.
Ever heard of a thing called patriarchy? . . .

Your boyfriend is a loser and, therefore, patriarchy.

How many times do we have to read variations of this same tired theme? Anything and everything that any feminist decides to complain about is always blamed on “male supremacy.” Everybody has been brainwashedby the patriarchy, we are expected to believe, and therefore we need feminists to tell us The Hidden Truth of the Oppressive Conspiracy that, in this example, has cheated Ms. Gattuso out of her orgasm. But the Oppressive Conspiracy of male supremacy is so vastly powerful that it can explain whatever irritates or annoys a feminist. The patriarchy is the Swiss Army Knife of feminism, an all-purpose tool of theory and analysis. After several paragraphs of ranting about the patriarchy, Ms. Gattuso finally reaches the, uh, climax of her argument:

We f–k until you come, I do not come, you do not ask if I would like to come or if you can help make me come, and then we’re done f–king, because you have decided we are done f–king, and everyone is supposedly happy.

OK, enough. Anyone who wants to subject themselves to the rest of Raina Gattuso’s lecture can go read the whole thing, but let me suggest that if she is accurately describing an actual experience, she may have misunderstood it.

“Pump and dump” — this is a phrase that the pick-up artist (PUA) community uses to describe a situation in which a guy decides to make a move on a woman who interests him only in terms of a one-time opportunity for sex. This kind of play is also known as “hit-it-and-quit-it,” and may be part of a PUA’s general strategy of running up his number just for the sake of the game. It’s Tuesday night at the local sports bar, not a lot of action available, and here’s this woman who’s giving him green-light signals. She is not the kind of woman he would consider for anything like a actual relationship, but (a) she is clearly signaling her interest and (b) it’s Tuesday.

What the heck, why not? Run up the score. “Pump and dump.”

That’s how the PUA sees it, but — plot twist — he doesn’t want the woman to realize how low she rates in his estimation. The game is about psychology, and the shrewd PUA realizes that the woman flashing him the green light is probably hoping for more than just a one-night stand. In all likelihood, she has in mind some kind of audition, where if everything goes well, he will want to develop a relationship. In that kind of situation, you see, there isn’t much incentive for the PUA to make any extra effort, to be sensitive and considerate. He doesn’t love her. He doesn’t respect her. He has no reason to do anything more than the necessary minimum: “Pump and dump.”

Now, the key to the PUA’s success is this: She never realizes it’s a game. If a player is really skilled, his targets don’t even suspect he’s a pick-up artist. Everybody thinks of PUAs in terms of the bar scene, but a master of the game could be just any guy anywhere. Nobody suspected Asheville, N.C., coffee shop owner Jared Rutledge of being a PUA master during the months he was running up his number:

In 2013, he hooked up with 15 different women, and in 2014, he achieved 22 “scores” (a new woman every 16 days, on average).

Alas, the damned fool decided to brag about his conquests on an “anonymous” blog, and thereby destroyed himself. What was interesting was that some of Rutledge’s targets insisted angrily that they had real relationships with him that weren’t “just about sex,” so that even after they were told they had been played, they still didn’t fully realize the nature of his game. Even though all decent people must deplore Rutledge’s unethical behavior, his remarkable success demonstrates how easily women can be deceived by a skilled player.

And this is what Raina Gattuso doesn’t understand about the men who play her as a “pump-and-dump.” Whether or not any of them would describe themselves as PUAs, they are treating her the way we might expect a player to treat a woman he regards as a “low-value target.” She directs her feminist “orgasm deficit” rant toward “any number of lucky bastards with whom I have happened to roll into bed,” evidently with no thought of how these “lucky bastards” viewed their encounters with her. Does she think they were all incompetent and clueless? Or was it the case, as we might more readily imagine, that these guys didn’t feel the need to waste any extra effort on a casual “hit-it-and-quit-it” score?

An alternate theory is that Raina Gattuso has a (not uncommon) combination of bad judgment and bad attitude. Such women exude a general hostility toward men, a chip-on-the-shoulder attitude that is a sort of pre-emptive defense against unwanted attention. In their minds, they are signaling how “strong” they are, but others just perceive them as rude and bitchy. (Males commit similar errors as, for example, the guy postures as cool and aloof but is perceived by others as merely sullen and hostile.) A woman who tries to strike the “strong woman” pose will, quite predictably, be avoided by most men. What this type of woman will typically do, however, is to aggressively pursue men who strike her fancy, and this is where her bad judgment comes into play, in that she invariably chooses bad men or, at least, men who are wrong for her.

Recall that Ms. Gattuso described herself as “selfish” and “reckless,”which is to say that she is impulsive and irresponsible and makes bad decisions. She has apparently never been in any enduring or stable relationship with any of her lovers, male or female, and what else would we expect? When a young woman makes this kind of attitude and behavior her habit, it is unlikely she will ever change, especially when she has made this the basis of her political identity. Ms. Gattuso has gone out of her way to publicize herself as a promiscuous bisexual feminist — “outing herself to her grandmother” as a graduation stunt at Harvard — and perhaps you can imagine her repudiating her self-created identity, but I can’t. She is utterly doomed to become a crazy cat lady.

Knowing that the comments at Feministing are moderated, I decided to use the system to communicate some useful truth:

The real problem — and I say this merely for the benefit of whichever editor is assigned to delete my comment — is that (a) Reina Gattuso does not actually like men and yet (b) she continues to have sex with men, while (c) believing that the men she has sex with are too stupid to figure out her game. Given her avowed lesbian preference, why is Ms. Gattuso having sex with men at all? In a word: narcissism. She enjoys being the center of attention, and if no lesbians are available to serve her narcissistic need, she’ll settle for whatever male is available. Assuming that these men are even minimally perceptive, however, they can see exactly what kind of game she’s playing.
Well, OK, buddy: You have been invited to worship The Bitch Goddess, who views you as an abject and inferior servant — a mere instrument for her pleasure — and you can either (a) humiliate yourself in masochistic supplication to her imperious demands, or (b) just get it over with and try never to be so foolish again in the future.
While it is futile to offer advice to the omniscient Ms. Gattuso, who already knows everything, I hope the editor assigned to delete this comment will heed my suggestion: Stop treating men as if they are your moral and intellectual inferiors, simply because they are male. Any honest and intelligent man will refuse to be treated in such an insulting manner. This is why the anti-male prejudices of feminists tend to become self-fulfilling prophecies: Feminists treat men badly, and good men therefore avoid feminists, and then feminists wonder why all the men they meet are so bad.

That’s the bottom line, really. For women like Raina Gattuso, feminism is just a political rationalization of their sadistic tendencies.

When @RooshV Is Right

 

When @RooshV Is Right

Currently 3,000 words into writing a very long article about the denouement of the drama about pickup artist (PUA) Daryush “Roosh V” Valizadeh, I need to take a break and give readers something to chew on in the meantime. As a father, a husband and a Christian, of course I must frown in disapproval at the entirety of PUA discourse. On the other hand, (a) I’m old enough to remember the “swinging singles” scene of the 1970s, and (b) I was a Democrat back then, so it’s not as if I don’t know how The Game is played. Or at least, how The Game used to be played. Exactly what it’s like for a young guy on the scene in the 21st century, I can’t say and, given the toxic aspects of contemporary “hookup culture,” my advice to any young man would be: If you can find a sane woman, marry her, and stay the heck away from the singles scene.

Whether viewed from either a practical or moral perspective, the prevailing insanity of young women’s attitudes and behavior in 2016 is a strong argument against pursuing the kind of hedonistic pleasures that pickup artists seek. It seems that the more a young woman goes through the “pump-and-dump” experience of a carousel rider — a hookup here, a “friends with benefits” arrangement there, cohabiting for a few months at a time with various boyfriends, etc. — the crazier she becomes. A girl who might have been potential wife material at 16 starts bouncing around from boyfriend to boyfriend and, by the time she’s 21 or 22, she has sustained so much emotional damage she is probably doomed to become a Crazy Cat Lady, gobbling antidepressant pills and updating her Tumblr blog between appointments with her therapist.

No father would want his daughter to become a carousel rider, nor would any mother want her son to date that kind of low-self-esteem trash, and yet PUAs are chasing after these “pump-and-dump” girls? Why? Oh, wait a minute — I’m having a flashback to the summer of 1978. However, I was a Democrat then and, also, I have the right to remain silent and to have my attorney present during questioning, Sheriff. But I digress . . .

Obviously, I do know why young guys go to nightclubs in search of easy action, but with the benefit of hindsight, I recognize this as a game for losers. If a guy is really a winner, he’s got a girlfriend, and if your girlfriend is a winner, well, why not get married, settle down and make babies with her? With two parents who are winners, your kids are almost guaranteed to be winners, and the world needs more winners, right?

There are way too many losers in the world already, which explains why these losers are all reading pickup artist stuff on the Internet, trying to figure out how to win. This is not to say, however, that what Roosh V says is always wrong. In fact, a lot of what he says about male/female dynamics is very insightful, despite his bad motives and the deliberately insulting language he uses toward women. And here is one of those cases where he makes an excellent suggestion:

 

A man at a bar will roll his eyes at feminist talking points, but he will nonetheless persist in his pursuit of the notch. This must end. . . .
Not only must you pass on a feminist, but you must let her know whyyou are passing on her. It must be clear to her that a man she was considering for sex has rejected her solely for her beliefs. Examples:

Girl: “It’s too bad that men still make more than women.”
You: “Wait, are you a feminist?”
Girl: “Well yeah.”
You: “Too bad, I don’t date feminists. Have a good night.”

Girl: “Birth control should be a human right, like mobile internet access.”
You: “So you’re a feminist?”
Girl: “I think if you believe in true equality, you’re a feminist, too.”
You: “LoL. I don’t talk to feminists.” Backturn

An argument or debate is not on the table. Do not give her the chance to explain her beliefs or demand to know yours. Once she admits to being a feminist, someone who believes in female superiority at the cost of male well-being, she no longer exists in your world.

 

This is exactly right, or almost so. Roosh V is correct that no man should ever let himself be drawn into an argument or debate with a feminist in a casual conversation. Seriously, guys: Once she identifies herself as a feminist, or exhibits the kind of hostile attitude that is typical of feminists, this is your cue to walk away, even if (a) she looks good, and (b) she’s otherwise giving you green-light signals. What you must realize is this: Feminists consider men their inferiors, and if a feminist signals sexual interest toward you, the question is, why?

Feminism attracts selfish, cruel and dishonest women by offering them a political rationale for their sadistic revenge fantasies. The only reason a feminist is ever interested in any man is because she craves the opportunity to humiliate him, thus to prove her own superiority to him. Jessica Valenti married Andrew Golis in 2009 and has been publicly humiliating him ever since, a shame that Golis (five years younger than his Vindictive Man-Hating Boss Lady wife) is required to endure in his assigned role as The Good Liberal Man, the Ice Queen’s sperm-donor/roommate/babysitter in their loveless sham of a marriage.

Only a masochist with zero self-respect could be interested in arelationship with such a heartless monster as Jessica Valenti, and this is what any pickup artist must consider if he encounters a woman who calls herself a “feminist.” Clearly, Roosh is correct that snubbing her — and making sure she knows why you’re snubbing her — is the smart play.

Do not argue or debate with her. Feminism is always a lecture, never a debate. Feminists have no respect for men. No feminist ever wants to hear anything a man has to say, so what’s the point of saying anything to a feminist except “good-bye”?

Heed my wisdom, young man: Nine times out of 10, the only reason a woman like that ever flirts with a man is to prove to herself that she couldget him if she wanted him. Feminism is the political rationalization of neurotic women’s psychological deficits, you see. The feminist has self-esteem issues which she reverses into a grandiose narcissistic projection of herself as a Heroic Crusader for Social Justice. If you find yourself in a situation where such a woman is giving you green-light signals, therefore, this question is always why? And the answer is that she wants you to  make a move (thus validating her sense of herself as sexually desirable), so that she can have the sadistic pleasure of rejecting you, therebydemonstrating her superiority to you.

This is certainly not The Game a smart player would ever play, and so Roosh is right: Walk away. Of course, an unscrupulous cynic could probably think of alternative ways to play that scenario, but this would require (a) a genuinely wicked imagination and (b) master-level skills. Since I hung up the spurs when I married my wife in 1989, there are probably very few young riders in the carousel rodeo with the necessary combination of skills and attitude to execute the old Triple-Burn Play, and I’d be a fool to give away that kind of strategy, even if it eweren’t for my Christian moral objections to sinful fornication. Besides, if I waive my Miranda rights, anything I say can and will be used against me, and therefore I’ll invoke my right to remain silent, Sheriff.

The Game is a bad game, boys. “For the wages of sin is death,” and you can believe what you want to believe, but there is such a thing as justice in this world, and what goes around comes around sooner or later. Sinners usually learn that lesson the hard way, and a wise man would never play The Game rather than to risk becoming an Andrew Golis.

God must really hate that poor fool for some reason.

ADDENDUM: Let me add, while it’s on my mind, a further thought about PUAs. The median age at first marriage in 1959 (the year I was born) was about 20 for women, and 23 for men. It is now about 26 for women and 28 for men. What this trend represents is the decline of marriage, and if you haven’t studied this demographic trend as a historical phenomenon, you should. However, what the would-be pickup artist needs to think about when considering this trend is his exit strategyfrom The Game. By the time a guy is in his mid-20s, about half the women his age are already married. We may suppose that the woman who marries in her early 20s is more tradition-minded and also probably more attractive than the woman is still single at age 27 or 28. Remember what I said about carousel riders and emotional damage? How many times can a girl get burned in bad relationships before she’s psychologically broken beyond repair?

OK, so you are a college-age nerd who can’t succeed with the ladies, and you turn to the PUA community seeking to improve your chances. The key thing I wish to emphasize here is, don’t let The Game become your Afghanistan war. A young player — the guy who’s 21 or 22 and scoring regularly — may be tempted to believe he can keep playing The Game forever. If you pay attention, though, you’ll notice guys who stay in The Game too long, and it’s a sad sight to see a dude in his 30s hanging around bars trying to hit on girls 10 years younger than him. See, guys, there is ultimately no future in The Game, and the only way to win The Game is to quit The Game. And your chances of getting out of carousel rodeo, to exit The Game as a winner, are best if you find someone to marry before you get to the point that you’re picking through the culls and rejects that other guys didn’t consider keepers.

Pay attention ladies … you might … learn something.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 345 other followers