The female e-celeb thread

Sword and Board

 
Banned
Catholic
RE: Lauren Southern and Brittany Pettibone on the consequences of hypergamy

I remember on the return of kings website one of the leading shills and his cohorts with their multiple accounts were tirelessly attacking Forney and trying to undermine him until Roosh intervened. Forney must have really done something good to piss (((them))) off so much they went to Defcon1 on him.
 

Chiosboy90

Woodpecker
RE: Lauren Southern and Brittany Pettibone on the consequences of hypergamy

Did you read my post? I said loud and clear, I wouldn't and a lot of people as well on the comments on him, shit talk on Matt for not fighting those 50kg faggots if he wasn't always talking about "being Alpha" and talks down to other men. Did you read that?

The whole point is, he is not a lover, not a fighter, out of shape since decades, no family, writtes books about how to "make love with Philippine women" and shit talks on a married white man with a family.

That is a nationalist?

What the hell? Any other similar guy you would criticize into oblivion.
 

Elmore

 
Banned
RE: Lauren Southern and Brittany Pettibone on the consequences of hypergamy

Sword and Board said:
I remember on the return of kings website one of the leading shills and his cohorts with their multiple accounts were tirelessly attacking Forney and trying to undermine him until Roosh intervened. Forney must have really done something good to piss (((them))) off so much they went to Defcon1 on him.

Are you really suggesting that a guy with 3000 subscribers on his MGTOW YT channel, is a person of interest to Mossad, who've acted by using Alt Accts to run him off a PUA's internet forum?

 

Leonard D Neubache

Owl
Gold Member
RE: Lauren Southern and Brittany Pettibone on the consequences of hypergamy

The Catalyst said:
Can someone confirm that Antifa were not pervasive in Cleveland, that there was no harassment outside of the video, that there was no reason to believe the Antifa had weapons or that anything bad would've happened to Matt had he not ran away?

My impression of the video, it looks awfully suspicious that the Antifa didn't feel at all threatened by Matt. Yes, yes I realise liberals are very bad at recogising threats. But it definitely had a mafia style vibe, that they knew Matt couldn't fight back "or else".

I don't suppose you recall the public mood when Trump's inauguration was nigh.

I thought at the time that for any Right wing celebrity (no matter how minor) to turn up without an armed escort was dumber and statistically more dangerous than participating in a bull run. If you think the Left is bad now, back then they were rabid in every sense but the literal one. I'm surprised there weren't deaths particularly because it only takes one good kick to the head while you're down or solid punch to the back of the head while you're up to be killed if you're unlucky.

Considering the lop-sided legal fallout from the Unite the Right rally Forney was correct to avoid conflict at all costs. If he'd laid those two faggots out (luck/skill/whatever) then odds are he'd be prosecuted now or later for a hatecrime, and the fanboys gushing over what a man he was would mysteriously ghost the second Forney asked for contributions to a legal fund or even bail.

The neo-Right is riddled with little more than screeching manchildren and lulzfags.

You'll find the real deal where people don't have social media accounts.
 

Sword and Board

 
Banned
Catholic
RE: Lauren Southern and Brittany Pettibone on the consequences of hypergamy

Elmore said:
Sword and Board said:
I remember on the return of kings website one of the leading shills and his cohorts with their multiple accounts were tirelessly attacking Forney and trying to undermine him until Roosh intervened. Forney must have really done something good to piss (((them))) off so much they went to Defcon1 on him.

Are you really suggesting that a guy with 3000 subscribers on his MGTOW YT channel, is a person of interest to Mossad, who've acted by using Alt Accts to run him off a PUA's internet forum?


I didn't say that at all.
 

ilostabet

Pelican
Orthodox Inquirer
RE: Lauren Southern and Brittany Pettibone on the consequences of hypergamy

Using that video to criticize MF is stupid; MF turning on a long-time friend for internet points is even stupider (and dishonorable).
 

Elmore

 
Banned
RE: Lauren Southern and Brittany Pettibone on the consequences of hypergamy

ilostabet said:
Using that video to criticize MF is stupid; MF turning on a long-time friend for internet points is even stupider (and dishonorable).

I dont know Forney's work, or him in any capacity beyond that video, in which he made baseless and slanderous allegations of adultery about a married man with a kid, with zero proof or sources. That is beyond the pale. He's also made claims that Mark Collett is Mi5, which again was presented without sources or proof. From what i've heard he seems toxic and joyless.
 

Teedub

Crow
Gold Member
RE: Lauren Southern and Brittany Pettibone on the consequences of hypergamy

Leonard D Neubache said:
The neo-Right is riddled with little more than screeching manchildren and lulzfags.

Think it's the internet in general, not the neo-right. Even when people do punch or fight with antifa/migrants, it still isn't good enough for many, including some on here.
 
RE:

Chiosboy90 said:
Did you read my post? I said loud and clear, I wouldn't and a lot of people as well on the comments on him, shit talk on Matt for not fighting those 50kg faggots if he wasn't always talking about "being Alpha" and talks down to other men. Did you read that?

The whole point is, he is not a lover, not a fighter, out of shape since decades, no family, writtes books about how to "make love with Philippine women" and shit talks on a married white man with a family.

That is a nationalist?

What the hell? Any other similar guy you would criticize into oblivion.

No, I would not criticize him or another similar guy into oblivion, unlike you, basically because I.. do.. not.. care.

Go read the AOC thread: many of us are sick of criticizing her, except for laughs. The real question is how to counter people of her ilk, not the boring approach taken by others to constantly call her stupid. If we’re sick of criticizing a global figure like AOC, why would most of us want to criticize Matt? He’s not a SJW so it would never interest me in the slightest.

You’re confusing my more or less total indifference for any drama Matt is in with some kind of unqualified support for him in his dramas. Other than having no desire to see him get hurt, as antifa wanted, I leave him to do as he sees fit. It’s his life and his core views are ours in essence. Why engage in friendly fire so much?

Based on what I know about his Stefan accusations, he should provide evidence.

Based on what I know about what happened with Aurini (and I know little), I can say I don’t understand why Matt did what he did. Perhaps there’s more to it.

But I’ve no interest in forum-litigating these matters with any vitriol.

He has his own business regarding other people and their feuds amongst themselves. Whatever beefs Matt Forney has with others, including Aurini, is one of our smallest problems.

1,000 people have said Matt is overweight. Move on.
1,000 people have said Matt can’t get laid. Move on.
1,000 people have said Matt is gamma or said it in other words. Move on.

Meanwhile.. The majority of us don’t really care or totally don’t care.

There’s a difference between calling someone a hypocrite or pointing out flaws matter-of-factly (Simeon and eradicator did the latter quite tactfully) and brutish trash talk.

If you think Matt has gone totally out of line and is allegedly vitriolic, I do not see how being viotrolic back at him, however justified people feel, is the answer. It also kinda of shits in threads and therefore leaves a bad stench.

I’m much more concerned with tradthots and the two guys who fucked over Robinson, endangering his life, than rather inconsequential feuds between people who frequent this forum. They are capable of taking care of themselves and arguing for themselves.
 

Coja Petrus Uscan

Crow
Orthodox Inquirer
Gold Member
RE: The female e-celeb thread (formerly: Lauren Southern et al thread)

Milo said on the latest episode of Milo and I, a show on Gavin McInnes' FreeSpeech.TV, that Lauren Southern had engaged in conjugal rights with literally every guy in the movement. I wonder if Molyneux got his slice.

I stand corrected when I said she was an interesting wifer-upper. Those who were tough on them were right.

This has helped crystalise the big problem with women who market themselves with their looks; something which seems to be dramatically on the rise. Some women are able to dramatically addle their minds with colossal amounts of male attention. With that, male attention becomes devalued, leaving the junkie seeking new highs by the most sought after attention. And the false abundance creates an environment where you do the least important, superficial things; and put off the important things.

I'm not averse to women in the movement, but they're going to have to look like Thatcher, Phyllis Schlafly or Camille Paglia.
 

Rorogue

 
Banned
RE: The female e-celeb thread (formerly: Lauren Southern et al thread)

gework said:
I'm not averse to women in the movement, but they're going to have to look like Thatcher, Phyllis Schlafly or Camille Paglia.


Even women who look like that would have men buying their bathwater today.
 

la bodhisattva

Kingfisher
RE: The female e-celeb thread (formerly: Lauren Southern et al thread)

My annoyance with these women is that they were given a platform on the virtue of their relative attractiveness. They bring nothing unique or nuanced and parroted the most basic red pill talking points that you could easily get on this forum, typically with guys just tossing out gems of well-reasoned, thought-provoking critiques of the culture wars. And these are just guys. They don't have TV gigs, huge patreons, or a massive Twitter following. (Though I do commend and respect Lauren Southern's work on the South African farmer genocide...provided she's more than just the person in front of the camera.)

While I agree with most to all of the girls' positions, they are not in any way an intellectual authority. They are entry-level red pill thinkers. At least women like Camille Paglia and Christina Hoff Sommers have decades of study and scholarship to back up their positions - PhD level anti-third wave feminists. I respect their views and could cite them in an academic paper or discussion. With the e-thot red pillers, you can only nod in agreement and think, "Yeah, no shit. We've been seeing/saying this for months/years. Any suggestions on how to address the particular issue?"

They have the following of thought leaders. They're just thot leaders.
 

Leonard D Neubache

Owl
Gold Member
RE: The female e-celeb thread (formerly: Lauren Southern et al thread)

Let's go a bit deeper here.

99% of conservative e-celebs are doing exactly the same as Southern et-al. Selling some sort of feelz for e-bux.

Southern is selling "my vaguely plausible conservative girlfriend" feelz.
Molyneaux is selling "my no-longer-missing academic bro-dad" feelz.

But what you'll notice about all these people is that they're not setting trends. They're monetising feels based on trends that are being crowdsourced in the first place. /pol for example isn't getting its direction from Molyneaux or Southern. It's the other way around. These e-celebs are merely trying to keep up while balancing popularity with the stragglers (why they flirt with ethnic identarianism but won't commit).

I stopped watching this stuff a long time ago and the effect was not dissimilar from ceasing to watch free-to-air television. You go to the source material entirely and you immediately realize that these youtubers are not thought leaders, they're thought monetizers. They just attach various feelz to sell the product.

Here's a question to ask when considering the content of anyone who makes a living based on their e-presence.

Do they ask you to do anything difficult? To make any personal sacrifices (other than to send them ebux)?

Or do they promote the underlying sense that merely listening to them speak The Truth(tm) means that you're on the right track?
 
RE: The female e-celeb thread (formerly: Lauren Southern et al thread)

gework said:
Milo said on the latest episode of Milo and I, a show on Gavin McInnes' FreeSpeech.TV, that Lauren Southern had engaged in conjugal rights with literally every guy in the movement. I wonder if Molyneux got his slice.

I stand corrected when I said she was an interesting wifer-upper. Those who were tough on them were right.

This has helped crystalise the big problem with women who market themselves with their looks; something which seems to be dramatically on the rise. Some women are able to dramatically addle their minds with colossal amounts of male attention. With that, male attention becomes devalued, leaving the junkie seeking new highs by the most sought after attention. And the false abundance creates an environment where you do the least important, superficial things; and put off the important things.

I'm not averse to women in the movement, but they're going to have to look like Thatcher, Phyllis Schlafly or Camille Paglia.

That's not how women work who are attractive. Milo is no credible source. Obviously he would have blown everyone if they were interested, but for women - even slutty women - it's different.

Her ex with the costume was good-looking and I can believe that she did it with Richard Spencer. Stefan might be on the list due to being on the road with her for so long. But is that really surprising if a single woman goes out and spends lots of time with some masculine and charismatic men? I would say that this is logical.

Though who cares - as we noted before - the women with any meaningful impetus are all married or engaged while supporting their men.
 

CaptainS

Hummingbird
RE: The female e-celeb thread (formerly: Lauren Southern et al thread)

Simeon_Strangelight said:
That's not how women work who are attractive. Milo is no credible source. Obviously he would have blown everyone if they were interested, but for women - even slutty women - it's different.

My thinking is that, if it was a lie, she would have issued a denial.

Instead, she suspiciously quits her public life just before the accusations were made, then says nothing.
 

MichaelWitcoff

Hummingbird
Orthodox
RE: The female e-celeb thread (formerly: Lauren Southern et al thread)

They just read men’s articles and repeat the information on camera in revealing outfits.
 

Rorogue

 
Banned
RE: The female e-celeb thread (formerly: Lauren Southern et al thread)

That is how women who have low self esteem act, regardless of how hot they are.

Someone said she was dumped by a bunch of boyfriends in high school and got obsessed/stalkerish. Seems she has some screws loose.

A hot thot who has normal self esteem would certainly not give it up for everyone. She just couldn't get enough of the attention though. She was a slave to it and was happy to give her body to anyone.

It is common knowledge she fucked Allum Bokhari, who is a scrawny nerd.

Simeon_Strangelight said:
gework said:
Milo said on the latest episode of Milo and I, a show on Gavin McInnes' FreeSpeech.TV, that Lauren Southern had engaged in conjugal rights with literally every guy in the movement. I wonder if Molyneux got his slice.

I stand corrected when I said she was an interesting wifer-upper. Those who were tough on them were right.

This has helped crystalise the big problem with women who market themselves with their looks; something which seems to be dramatically on the rise. Some women are able to dramatically addle their minds with colossal amounts of male attention. With that, male attention becomes devalued, leaving the junkie seeking new highs by the most sought after attention. And the false abundance creates an environment where you do the least important, superficial things; and put off the important things.

I'm not averse to women in the movement, but they're going to have to look like Thatcher, Phyllis Schlafly or Camille Paglia.

That's not how women work who are attractive. Milo is no credible source. Obviously he would have blown everyone if they were interested, but for women - even slutty women - it's different.

Her ex with the costume was good-looking and I can believe that she did it with Richard Spencer. Stefan might be on the list due to being on the road with her for so long. But is that really surprising if a single woman goes out and spends lots of time with some masculine and charismatic men? I would say that this is logical.

Though who cares - as we noted before - the women with any meaningful impetus are all married or engaged while supporting their men.
 

Aurini

Ostrich
RE: The female e-celeb thread (formerly: Lauren Southern et al thread)

Leonard D Neubache said:
Let's go a bit deeper here.

99% of conservative e-celebs are doing exactly the same as Southern et-al. Selling some sort of feelz for e-bux.

Southern is selling "my vaguely plausible conservative girlfriend" feelz.
Molyneaux is selling "my no-longer-missing academic bro-dad" feelz.

But what you'll notice about all these people is that they're not setting trends. They're monetising feels based on trends that are being crowdsourced in the first place. /pol for example isn't getting its direction from Molyneaux or Southern. It's the other way around. These e-celebs are merely trying to keep up while balancing popularity with the stragglers (why they flirt with ethnic identarianism but won't commit).

I stopped watching this stuff a long time ago and the effect was not dissimilar from ceasing to watch free-to-air television. You go to the source material entirely and you immediately realize that these youtubers are not thought leaders, they're thought monetizers. They just attach various feelz to sell the product.

Here's a question to ask when considering the content of anyone who makes a living based on their e-presence.

Do they ask you to do anything difficult? To make any personal sacrifices (other than to send them ebux)?

Or do they promote the underlying sense that merely listening to them speak The Truth(tm) means that you're on the right track?

Related.

YouTube and Patreon created e-celebrities the same way the Disney club used to recruit child actors, just without the sodomy part. Before he was kicked from Patreon, Sargon made almost $12,000 a month in earnings from people who are either gullible or voyeuristic and like to see a guy do his little song and dance as the butt of a joke that everybody understands but him. Once he fulfilled his usefulness to the system, they cut him off like Britney Spears’ hair.

Sargon then totally trainwrecked UKIP for which he was running as a EU Parliament candidate together with other online grifters and trashbags who do not understand that the stick of a snarky YouTube comment does not translate into the real world. These people are, at the end of the day, just plebs, and plebs ruin everything they touch.

None of these people are leaders. The crowd will always elect people who resemble them and who are just as incompetent, greedy, loud and stupid as they are. The Right does not need more celebrities who are trying to enrich themselves; it needs to build up power bases and make people reliant upon it. We cannot trust the crowd to do this because they are inherently selfish and incapable. Instead, we need patricians who can grant patronage of sorts, in the way that was common in ancient Rome.

E-Celebs not only fail to push their audience into meaningful action, they'll actively undermine anybody who is. Social Media is a narcissism engine, which is why I've largely disengaged from the Internet.
 

Leonard D Neubache

Owl
Gold Member
RE: The female e-celeb thread (formerly: Lauren Southern et al thread)

^Imagine trying to find a Right wing e-celeb that could do 20 pushups. I can't think of any off the top of my head. Crowder? Who knows.

Then imagine how fast their viewership would collapse if at the beginning of every video they merely did 20 pushups. The soykin would crush each other in the stampede for the exit door.

That's another ugly fact about virtually the entire Right wing e-movement. The reason guys like Moly and Styx and Peterson and PJW are so popular is because their T levels are down in the double-digits and they don't make their viewership feel threatened, nor do they ask of them to become anything other than the softbellied neckbeards they already are.

That's also why Roosh's popularity will always cap out too. These guys can't connect with anyone they know or even suspect is capable of approaching women and having sex with them. Virgins cannot stand Chads, even if the Chad is offering them a way forward.
 
Top