Murderer Cruz Gets Tons of Love Letters

Sorry, red pill deniers. If you refuse the Red Pill, you have to get it in enema form.

Excerpts from the article:

Mass murderer Nikolas Cruz is getting stacks of fan mail and love letters sent to the Broward County jail, along with hundreds of dollars in contributions to his commissary account.

The attraction of women echoes the fascination with killers like notorious cult leader Charles Manson. Lyle and Erik Menendez, the Beverly Hills brothers convicted in 1994 of murdering their parents, attracted a pair of brides while spending life in prison. So-called “Bundyphiles” sent bags of mail to Ted Bundy, the serial rapist-murderer.

“I reserve the right to care about you, Nikolas!” writes a Texas woman. The letter was mailed six days after Cruz murdered 17 students and staff and injured 17 others at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School on Feb. 14.

The reverent note takes up all available space on the front and back of a greeting card showing a furry bunny holding binoculars looking out at the ocean. The inside of the card says, “Out of sight, but never out of mind.”

A teenager wrote on March 15: “I’m 18-years-old. I’m a senior in high school. When I saw your picture on the television, something attracted me to you.”

The letter was mailed from Texas and tucked inside an envelope covered with hand-drawn hearts and happy faces. “Your eyes are beautiful and the freckles on your face make you so handsome.” She goes on to describe herself as white with big, brown eyes. “I’m really skinny and have 34C sized breasts.”

A woman from Chicago enclosed nine suggestive photos, including a shot of cleavage, another in a skimpy bikini eating a Popsicle and a tight shot of her backside as she bent over.

Now, deniers, how many nice guys get this kind of attention from women? Take your time.

“There’s piles of letters,” said Broward County Public Defender Howard Finkelstein. “In my 40 years as public defender, I’ve never seen this many letters to a defendant.”

“The letters shake me up because they are written by regular, everyday teenage girls from across the nation,” he said. “That scares me. It’s perverted.”

Via Anonymous Conservative:
https://www.anonymousconservative.com/blog/news-briefs-3312018/

Advertisements

Sexual Harassment: The Left’s Three Bad Options

November 2017: The proliferating sexual harassment scandals that started with Harvey Weinstein are now proliferating too rapidly for one to keep track. And they are disproportionately affecting leftist men. Enhancing the deliciousness is the fact that the left itself started this crap, back in the 1990s.

The left now has three bad options for dealing with the current sexual harassment conflagration:

1) Keep going with it, ruthlessly assailing the leftist men and ending their careers. In this scenario, Democrats like Al Franken and John Conyers are forced out of Congress. And many a leftist media personality is gone, gone, gone. The left doesn’t want this, obviously.

2) Admit that it has gone too far and try to step on the brakes. That means that a fullthroated affirmation of the presumption of innocence replaces the “Always believe a female accuser” thing that the left has embraced now. It also means a return to sanity about what constitutes “sexual harassment” and so forth. E.g., grabbing someone’s boobs is sexual harassment; saying something that some woman claims made her “feel uncomfortable” isn’t. This requires a return to sanity by the left and is therefore almost certainly off the table as an option.

The other problem with this option is that feminism is now such a huge part of the modern left. For the non-feminist left to try to excise the feminist branch would not be like excising a tumor; it would be like the tumor trying to excise the rest of the body.

Furthermore, the culture and incentives of “victimhood” are too deeply embedded in leftist constituencies for this to be stopped now. Victimhood claims now ARE the left; that’s what modern leftism IS. To admit, even as a theoretical possibility, that a claim of victimhood could ever be wrong would be to undercut the very foundations of modern leftism itself. They will never do this.

3) Explicitly say “It’s okay if leftist men do it, but not okay if non-leftist men do it.” They actually do go that far, some of them, but it’s not a convincing argument for sane people, naturally.

The problem for the left here, obviously, is that “Anyone who agrees with my politics should be allowed to get away with sexual molestation” is not going to be a winning argument with most people.

In the event, what they are actually going to do is try to have their cake and eat it too, as the left has always tried to do. That is, they will try to make a big deal out of it when men of the right commit some leftist sin, or are accused of doing so, but to totally ignore it, or do the minimum amount of media coverage and commentary possible, when men of the left do it or are accused of doing it. This is a bad choice for the left, especially now that we have the Net to provide information, but they may think that it’s their best of a set of bad options.

Memo to leftists: The actual best option is (2), Admit that it has gone too far and try to step on the brakes.

The left won’t want to do this, though, because it would constitute an admission that it is possible for a leftist witch hunt to go too far. For the left, even admitting that such a thing is possible in theory is unacceptable. So, while that would actually be best for everyone, it won’t happen.

This is one of the reasons, of many, that I hate sharing a planet with leftists. Out of spite and blind stubbornness, they will do everything in their power to AVOID win-win situations, if that requires admitting that non-leftists are correct about something.

ADDENDUM: Mike Pence’s rule about being alone with women who aren’t his wife doesn’t look so dumb now, does it, left-wing morons?

Game Will Kill the Left

In the comments here, Peppermint articulates a thought (lightly edited) that a lot of men on the red pill right have had over the last five or ten years:

In order to have sex or get to the point of having sex or even get the attention of a woman with options you need to not behave in the ways that every leftist says you should.

Women seek domination. They don’t want you to convince them that everything they were told in school by teachers who wanted them to sleep with low quality men is false using facts and logic. They want you to simply believe in yourself and believe in the things you believe so that they can believe in you…

The #1 reason the left is dead is young intelligent men have to behave in non-leftist ways to hook up with the women they want.

I don’t know if it’s the #1 reason, but it’s certainly a reason. And this is excellent.

And aside from the advantage it gives us fighting the civil war in this particular society in this particular time and place, it also is a beneficial fact for the human species in general: It implies that there is always a biologically instantiated negative feedback mechanism to prevent any set of ideas from becoming too metastasized: Young women want rebels. Therefore, to get sex, young men have to be against the prevailing norms. Therefore there are very strong incentives for young men to set themselves against whatever is the prevailing orthodoxy. This is true of all men in general, who are a significant demographic group, obviously, and especially young men: The fighters.

Feminist: The Players Are Right

Via The Rational Male: Feminist Sheryl Sandberg (of “Lean in” fame) admits that PUAs are right about the nice guys versus jerks thing:

When looking for a life partner, my advice to women is date all of them: the bad boys, the cool boys, the commitment-phobic boys, the crazy boys. But do not marry them. The things that make the bad boys sexy do not make them good husbands.

Of course, she quickly reverts to standard feminist form:

When it comes time to settle down, find someone who wants an equal partner. Someone who thinks women should be smart, opinionated and ambitious. Someone who values fairness and expects or, even better, wants to do his share in the home. These men exist and, trust me, over time, nothing is sexier.

At the end she couldn’t resist a parting shot of standard feminist BS, so she says that women find men who “value fairness” sexy.

Overall, though, it’s interesting and encouraging that even feminists now admit that the playahs were totally right all along about the bad boys thing. (I use the plural “feminists” because Sandberg isn’t the only one who has admitted this.) Though I imagine it’s not politically correct in feminist circles to phrase it as, “the playahs were totally right.” Of course, the accusations of misogynist women-hating rape ideology will not cease, even as feminists say the same things. Orwell was not exaggerating about double-think.

A Twofer from the Chateau

Good Chateau post here:
https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2017/09/26/the-great-men-on-loosed-women/

It starts with a good classic red pill quote, and in the last paragraph, Heartiste NAILS the difference between freedom and license.

First, the quote from Cato the Elder:

Woman is a violent and uncontrolled animal, and it is useless to let go the reins and then expect her to not kick over the traces. You must keep her on a tight rein… Women want total freedom or rather – to call things by their proper names – total license. If you allow them to achieve complete equality with men, do you think they will be easier to live with? Not at all. Once they have achieved equality, they will be your masters…

This quote illustrates what has happened with feminism: When we gave women equality, they wasted not a microsecond before they started forcing men to support children that aren’t theirs, legally discriminating against men in hiring, removing the presumption of innocence for men accused of rape, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. There can be no equality with women; it simply isn’t a Nash stable situation. If men don’t put limits on their participation in social decision-making, before you know it feminists have taken over everything. Now you’re in jail because you and a woman each had a glass of wine and then had sex… but her wine removes her responsibility for her actions, neutralizing her consent… But your wine doesn’t remove your responsibility for your actions, so YOU’RE A RAPIST!!

Next, Heartiste nails the difference between freedom and license:

License is different than freedom in that it grants the recipient a reprieve from personal responsibility and from the consequences of one’s actions. License means basically the removal of moral agency, so when women demand license what they are demanding is blamelessness.

That is beautifully precise. Freedom, properly speaking, would mean that you have the right to get your dumb ass drunk and stupidly hook up with someone you normally wouldn’t bang. Then you wake up in the morning, regret it, and deal with the consequences of your own behavior like an adult. Many women are willing to do this, of course, but too many aren’t. They want the right to say “I was raped!” to blame their fuck-witted choice on someone else. That is not freedom; it’s license.

One Ex-Feminist’s Experience with Feminism

Via the Dark Herald:

Ultra-feminist founder of Femen Brazil declares herself pro life, apologizes

In her new book “Bitch, no! Seven times I was betrayed by Feminism” (Vadia não! Sete vezes que fui traída pelo feminismo), Giromini writes that she was repeatedly pushed to do drugs, to engage in sex with strangers, and was even molested by a lesbian, all at the hands of feminists who claimed to be fighting for women’s equality.

The Left isn’t really a political movement; it’s evil and insane people using the language of politics to advance their evil and insanity in the world and inflict it on everyone else.

Feminism Is Something New, Really, it Totally Is!

No, it really is not. Does this seem familiar?

In the common law of crime in England and Wales, a common scold was a type of public nuisance—a troublesome and angry woman who broke the public peace by habitually arguing and quarrelling with her neighbours…

The offence, which was exported to North America with the colonists, was punishable by ducking: being placed in a chair and submerged in a river or pond. Although rarely prosecuted it remained on the statute books in England and Wales until 1967.

Note that last date. If we’d kept this law and enforced it, a certain destructive modern political force would have been terminated ab ovum. The Infogalactic article continues,

In the Commentaries on the Laws of England, Blackstone says of this offence:

“Lastly, a common scold, communis rixatrix, (for our law-latin confines it to the feminine gender) is a public nuisance to her neighbourhood. For which offence she may be indicted; and, if convicted, shall be sentenced to be placed in a certain engine of correction called the… ducking stool, because the residue of the judgment is, that, when she is so placed therein, she shall be plunged in the water for her punishment.”

Also,

A scold’s bridle, known in Scotland as a brank, consists of a locking metal mask or head cage that contains a tab that fits in the mouth to inhibit talking. Some have claimed that convicted common scolds had to wear such a device as a preventive or punitive measure.

By the way, notice the amused mastery aspect of these punishments. The scolds are not even being ceded enough dignity to punish them in a serious way; it’s more the legal equivalent of being turned over the knee and given a spanking. But of course, no one wants to do that to an ugly woman; only cute babes get spanked. This is echoed in Jim’s comment on how Russia handles disruptive attention-whoring women: “I really love the way Russia deals with Pussy Riot… Recall the wonderful video of them breaking up a Pussy Riot event with whips, not arresting them, just chasing them away like stray dogs.” Seriously, it should be legal for any man to give a woman who acts like this a nuclear wedgie or something.

Of course this isn’t practical, because who’d want to grab the underwear of a pigtank feminist? Ugh. Fanciful notions about wedgies aside:

Women like this really are a problem for any society. Their modern variant, feminists, have affected our society to the extent that First Amendment protections and the presumption of innocence for men accused of rape are being dangerously eroded.

We tend to think of feminism as an ideology, and of course it is, but it is also, and originally, a female personality type. It has been known forever, and encoded in the law for centuries, that some women are inclined to go around accusing all and sundry of various sins, and causing general strife for no reason.

They do this, though they don’t admit it to themselves on a conscious level, to attract attention. Indeed, almost 100% of them are ugly, old, and/or fat. (Relatively bangable ones who participate in this do so in a lukewarm, do-the-bare-minimum way for career reasons or to go along to get along.) Accusing someone of some sort of crime is an effective way to capture attention because it’s hard – indeed, it can be personally costly – to ignore it. That is why attention-seeking losers moved from “You, sir, are a bounder with no manners!” to “You’re a rapist!”

From H. L. Mencken’s “The Uplift as a Trade” (i.e., presuming to uplift others’ morals as a profession), Baltimore Evening Sun, March 2, 1925:

One hears that “the women of the United States” are up in arms about this or that; the plain fact is that eight fat women, meeting in a hotel parlor, have decided to kick up some dust.

Mencken adds,

The eight fat women, meeting in their hotel parlor, find it easy to alarm the politicians, who are not only dreadful cowards but almost unbelieveable asses. Something thus gets afoot. Governors jump; legislators rush through new laws; judges respond to “public sentiment.”

Plus ca change, plus c’est la motherfucking meme chose. Mencken wrote this 92 years ago, and everything “modern” is here: The ugly sexual marketplace loser women trying to attract attention and spread their misery to everyone else via totalitarian minding of other people’s business political activism, the absolutely spineless elected officials, and the judges, invertebrate and venal, obediently interpreting the law to be in compliance with this week’s loudest-screeching rabble-rousers. And as Mencken also observes (though I didn’t quote it), even back in 1925 all this was facilitated by a cooperative press.

Feminism’s appeal is now almost entirely gone even among women, thank God. The last shreds of its appeal will vanish completely when the last shreds of its costume of being something new have fallen off. Feminism is not something new. It is old, old product in new packaging.