[AnonymousBosch]

Thanks, Men.

(12-18-2016 06:34 PM)scorpion Wrote:  

A thread about a female typist who needs to be taken down a few notches is practically the AnonymousBosch bat signal.

It's less that than, well... look, for all her power and privilege she heads off to University and - let's give her the benefit of the doubt - works damn hard to get her degree in her chosen field. Does she respond to this educational opportunity and the privilege of been given personal power over a Philosophy Journal with a brilliant, unique personal insight into said field, or does she simply churn out the same Basic Bitch Marxist Deconstruction of the Dominant Culture that 70+ years of Leftist Thought Leaders have already hammered into the ground before her, adding absolutely nothing of value?

Functionally, I've already heard everything she could ever write - 'Dominant Culture BAD!' - from the mouths of the 1970's infestation of Lefty Dyke Primary School teachers, and they didn't come from money and power.

All that changed is pre-'85 they tried to drive Revolution-Inspiring Ressentiment via Social Class and Sex, and post-'85 they switched to Race and Sex. Minorities should look at the venomous contempt Marxists now drip for the Working Classes to see their eventual-and-entirely-predictable -future, come the revolution, where they will never, ever be allowed to hold actual power. The breaking of chains will be entirely-illusory.

As such, what real use is Mark Zuckerberg's sister, or her 'educated thought'? It's entirely fungible with 10,000 other Goyim Typists.

Note that she doesn't give up her position as Editor to an actual underprivileged minority: she must stand as the gatekeeper of allowed thought. Nothing will change after the revolution, except there will be less people capable of challenging the Marxist Tribe.

I'm starting to think Marxism is now crumbling purely-due to everyone being bored shitless by endless repetition.

[Quintus Curtius]

I'll just leave this here.

https://qcurtius.com/2016/12/18/a-respon...detractor/

[Roosh]

(12-18-2016 07:49 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  

I'll just leave this here.

https://qcurtius.com/2016/12/18/a-respon...detractor/

I haven't seen such a beautiful takedown in a long time. It's so complete, and hits her from so many angles, that I don't think a proper response can even be crafted.

Quote:

Ms. Zuckerberg! I realize you are trying to make a name for yourself by attacking random strangers on the internet in the hope that it will validate your own existence. I realize that your famous family name makes you feel entitled to pass judgment on others and malign others for no reason. I realize that you feel entitled to bully and condescend to others who do not accept your feminist agenda. It is not an untried path; others have walked this road before. But I would hope that you have more potential than this.

Unlike you, I am not a child of privilege. No one ever gave me anything: I made my own way in life as the son of immigrants who did not have the benefit of being royalty like yourself. I earned my love of ancient wisdom with my own effort, and I hold it close to my heart.

Straight to the bone.

[AnonymousBosch]

Beautiful and eloquent, QC.

There's more discussion taking place here:

http://www.unz.com/isteve/donna-zuckerbe...-and-rome/

[Samseau]

(12-18-2016 07:49 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  

I'll just leave this here.

https://qcurtius.com/2016/12/18/a-respon...detractor/

Mess with the best...



Looks like Cankleberg bit off a little more than she could chew.

[Libertas]

Pasting from what I said on QC's post.

You could tell just how angry and bitter this person is by reading. Everything is sneering and preening. If you haven’t read Scott Adams’ blog post on what he calls “word-thinking” (which I try to expand on), you should. Because that’s what this is. This person starts off by using buzzwords like “white supremacy” and “toxic masculinity.” The key insight about word-thinking is that once you accept a label paired with a concept, all critical thinking shuts down and confirmation bias takes over. One need only glance at that…thing, whatever it is that was published, and you can see that’s what’s happening.

Then this person has the audacity to tell people in the field what they *should* be doing, particularly the commanding language of “focus your scholarship on non-elite white men.”

The concept of letting people focus their work on what they want seems completely alien, doesn’t it?

These people have no idea. You can tell just how scared they are that they’re losing…”big league!”

Culture is going to be the theme of 2017 I think. Onward!

[nomadbrah]

Disagree Libertas, the overwhelming feeling here is envy.

Envy born from fascination of the forbidden fruit. Envious that we can read the classics and use them for their purpose, while she has to deny them their purpose because of her ideology.

It's basically "if I can't have it/him no one shall".

[Captainstabbin]

(12-18-2016 09:34 AM)Mr. D Wrote:  

Dr. Donna Zuckerberg? Did her brother pay for her Princeton PhD?

Guarantee Princeton kisses her ass in hopes that Mark will pay for a new library wing.

[Atlanta Man]

(12-18-2016 07:49 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  

I'll just leave this here.

https://qcurtius.com/2016/12/18/a-respon...detractor/

"While you were bullying people for not adhering to your politically-correct ideology, I was starting a law firm, trying cases in court, fighting for the rights of the common man, and making an honest name for myself. This is the difference between you and me. While you are a spoiled child of privilege, I am a man who has earned his way through life through the sweat of his own brow."

Damn QC! You took the condom off and didn't even spit on it you just shoved it in! Skipped the vagina and went straight to the ass!

[HighSpeed_LowDrag]

(12-18-2016 07:49 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  

I'll just leave this here.

https://qcurtius.com/2016/12/18/a-respon...detractor/

"You come at the King, you'd best not miss."

She missed.

[Horus]

Roosh and QC's readership stats just got ten feet higher. Thousands of men have now been inspired to browse the classics section of their bookshop. And I now have a weird craving for scones.

[Paracelsus]

Wonderful to see AB back in town.

[quote='Benoit' pid='1466762' dateline='1482049674']
Mark Zuckerberg's sister points and shrieks.
How to Be a Good Classicist Under a Bad Emperor


Here are her 8 ways to keep badthink out of classics
[quote]I hope we can start a dialogue within the discipline to discuss the problems further.

1. When you hear someone —be they a student, a colleague, or an amateur — say that they are interested in Classics because of “the Greek miracle” or because Classics is “the foundation of Western civilization and culture,” challenge that viewpoint respectfully but forcefully. Engage them on their assumed definitions of “foundation,” “Western,” “civilization,” and “culture.” Point out that such ideas are a slippery slope to white supremacy. Seek better reasons for studying Classics.[/quote]
   
   You have to wonder about someone who can't distinguish a fact from an idea.
   
   [quote]
2. In your scholarship, focus on the parts of antiquity that aren’t elite white men. Read and cite the work of scholars who write about race, gender, and class in the ancient world. Be open about the marginalization and bias that exists within our discipline.[/quote]
   
   It's okay to be prejudiced in favour of an academic viewpoint that is marginalised (because it's not supported by the evidence) ...
   
   [quote]
3. Model a kind of Classics that isn’t quite so congenial to the neo-Nazis of the Alt-Right.
   As the Alt-Right becomes more vocal and normalized, we may face pressure to frame our research and teaching in a way that will appeal to this new audience of Classics enthusiasts. Resist that pressure.[/quote]
   
   ...but it's not okay to be prejudiced in favour of an academic viewpoint that is marginalised (because it's not supported by the evidence).
   
   That said, note what's implied: the fact that her leftie viewpoint came about because academia was pressured to frame its research in a way to appeal to a certain audience of Classics enthusiasts - notably, the moral relativists, revisionists, and renegades.
   
   Of course, if she wants to model a kind of Classics that isn't congenial to the neo-Nazis of the Alt-Right, perhaps she could go in the direction of demonstrating how Genghis Khan and Attila the Hun were actually highly enlightened fellows who respected women, preserved every book they came across, and were in favour of democracy.
   
   [quote]
4. Do not write content for these men. Sometimes they publish articles such as “Mate, Hate is Great! A Philosophical Defense of Misogyny”; if you are approached to contribute to such a blog, refuse and write about the incident instead.[/quote]
   
   This is rather the opposite of "dialoguing", but it's not like Zuckerberg could hold her own with a group of such men anyway. That's why she's writing from a nice safe ivory tower and didn't have the balls to go and confront QC on his own page.
   
   [quote]
5. Consider coming out in support of progressive student and community movements. Classics has a long history of regressive politics, and if we are serious about social justice and activism, we must speak out.[/quote]
   
   "Regressive politics" = conservatism and accepted historical models. This is a good thing, if this is correct it proves there's still some life in the old dead white men yet.
   
   [quote]
6. Write to professional Classics organizations, including the Society for Classical Studies, and encourage them to take a stand against these groups. Samuel Huskey has written and shared a lovely example of such a letter.[/quote]
   
   Who's Samuel Huskey?
   
   
   
   Oh.
   
   And what stand should a Society for Classical Studies take, one wonders? Ban the students? Demand they not be taught? Destroy original thought in this area?
   
   [quote]
7. If you are so inclined, engage with the classical reception that these men produce. There is a narrative blooming that you can see in that Breitbart Guide to the Alt-Right, where the writers claim, “Skinheads, by and large, are low-information, low-IQ thugs driven by the thrill of violence and tribal hatred. The alternative right are a much smarter group of people — which perhaps suggests why the Left hates them so much. They’re dangerously bright.” But the Alt-Right are not “dangerously bright.” They are young men — if you’ll excuse the pun, the kids are alt-right — whose inane readings of classical texts often provide a window into their intellectual shortcomings.[/quote]
   
   In other words, you can tell someone's IQ from their views. Isn't it fun listening to someone who hasn't even cracked the age of 30 pontificate about "young men"? Presumably there are no young women in the classics, and if any of them have conservative viewpoints they are not stupid.
   
   [quote]
8. I am considering creating a Tumblr to document examples of Alt-Right Classics. If you are interested in contributing, contact the Eidolon team ([email protected]).
   

[/quote]

So after all that, her great idea is basically to create a David Fatroll-style blog about shit she doesn't like? The apple, it seems, doth fall far from the tree when it comes to the female members of the Zuckerberg family.

[AnonymousBosch]

(12-19-2016 12:58 AM)Horus Wrote:  

Thousands of men have now been inspired to browse the classics section of their bookshop. And I now have a weird craving for scones.

Empty carbs are degenerate AF, but I had a group of mourners heading my way this afternoon on very short notice. The dead man's Millennial Daughter was freaking out about me not having any food for them - she'd already scoured the cupboards looking to comfort eat only to discover I don't eat junk food - so I knocked thirty of these out before the oven finished heating up using basic pantry ingredients.



I know how to do this because I'm from a rural area in an age where Scones were Serious Business to the Country Women's Association Set, where the implication that one's scones weren't quite up to snuff could trigger lifelong resentments between feminine cliques.



I sent the girl out into the garden to pick Raspberries and Dill, but she didn't know what Dill was, meaning I had to go out and cut it myself. Even though I told her the gardening gloves were by the door, she didn't know Raspberry Canes had thorns, so came back very scratched up, meaning I had to go out and pick a them myself once the scones were in the oven. She wanted to know why I already had 'all those ingredients' to make scones - meaning flour, salt, (soy) milk and (canola) butter - and said she 'eats out' most nights. Later, when I went to clean up after everyone left, she said she'd help me, but couldn't seem to understand why someone wouldn't own a dishwasher, and seemed to struggle with the concept of drying dishes by hand.

Despite seeming to know so very little about everything, she does has a University Degree.

On the plus side, she loved the scones: "These are sooooo good!" As such, I have to offer Donna thanks for the roundabout inspiration.

[Tex Cruise]

(12-19-2016 05:37 AM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  

I know how to do this because I'm from a rural area in an age where Scones were Serious Business to the Country Women's Association Set, where the implication that one's scones weren't quite up to snuff could trigger lifelong resentments between feminine cliques.

Maybe slightly off topic, but my grandmother says that electric ovens were really the turning point in making good scones. Keeping a consistent temperature for making scones with a wood stove was really an artform.

Many years ago an old swaggie called in here at what is now my home looking for food. My great-grandmother fixed him up with, among other things, a fresh batch of scones. He wandered down to a nearby waterhole on the farm to set up camp and boil the billy.
They found him dead in the morning (of natural causes).

Years later when my great-grandmother was being introduced to somebody, they replied "Oh yes, Didn't you once kill a man with your scones?"

[Kaii]

(12-18-2016 06:01 PM)kbell Wrote:  

Welcome back AB!

This! Welcome back sir!

[Aquiles_Baesta_Parada]

Mark Zuckerberg has a sister?

[heavy]

Solid late season run at Best Thread Title of 2016

[Dusty]

Ms Zuckerberg and her ilk are triggered by the fact that ancient Greeks and Romans were superior and they were all white men who created it. So dogmatic they are, they are unable to accept the great contributions of these civilizations because they were driven by the achievements of white goyem men.

[storm]

I've just read her article in detail, as well as QC's response. Read her article "Bang Rome". I was not able to find her dissertation (has not been published yet?). My takeaways:

1. The classics department has either independently come to the same conclusions as us or would VERY easily be tempted.

2. She writes like you and I might, coming home drunk on a thursday night. She either 1. didn't think this through; or 2. she is the one with an "inflated estimation of [her] own intelligence".

3. She is scared. Physically, viscerally, obsessively scared. She is profoundly aware of how TANGENTIAL her work in feminism apologetics is to the field of classic literature.

[Samseau]

(12-19-2016 12:32 PM)Dusty Wrote:  

Ms Zuckerberg and her ilk are triggered by the fact that ancient Greeks and Romans were superior and they were all white men who created it. So dogmatic they are, they are unable to accept the great contributions of these civilizations because they were driven by the achievements of white goyem men.

The toxic mix of Talmudism + Feminism is something to behold. Not only does a Talmudic Female find it impossible to understand the hierarchical nature of man, but the idea that she should find herself beneath the gentiles on this hierarchy is also extremely offensive to them.

From the other thread on this topic, on the hierarchical nature of men:

(12-15-2016 04:33 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(12-15-2016 12:06 PM)Atlanta Man Wrote:  

Here is the deal with the "manosphere" as I see it-
It is all men and it is defined by male characteristics. The only thing we all agree on is we like to fuck chicks(except for Jack Donovan), everything else is up for debate. There are white dudes who are White Nationalist, there are white dudes who are not- They both frequent these male oriented sites we call the "manosphere" where women are not really welcome but some are tolerated. Most people that are liberal are not used to all male spaces and males disagreeing yet continuing to interact. The Manosphere is not the Alt Right, but it gets discussed a lot here because men tend to talk politics. This attempt to connect the Alt Right to the Manosphere is weird to me because everyone here knows that I am black(so not racist against blacks),I date all races(so i do not care about race mixing), I don't care for Richard Spencer, I do not support the Alt Right (I openly mock them) and yet I clearly get along with most of the people on RVF. I think that leftist writers, especially females, cannot fathom that men don't have to agree with each other to have discussions online. Hell, Delicious Tacos was a Hillary Supporter and as liberal as it gets and everyone here likes his writing (I even bought both his books!).

Right on.

Women will never be able to comprehend the Manosphere, because Men operate by hierarchies while women operate by consensus.

Women are constantly trying to show their superiority to other females by representing the group's values the best, while men are simply competing with one another and could care less about how well they fit in.

Thus, within the manosphere, the White Nationalist guys all have their rank (not at the bottom, but far from the top either), game guys have their rank, media gurus, programmers, etc, we are all defined by what we do. Then we assertively get ranked according to our usefulness to each other, and the leaders at the top are the ones who ultimately create the most value for the most men.

In this utility system our individual beliefs matter very little, since what we believe to be true or false are not open and shut questions that can always be answered easily. Men accept that they do not know the truth and move on, because ultimately what matters is what we do, not what we believe.

The opposite is true of female groups, which is why female groups never accomplish jack shit. Talented members of female groups are usually held back if they stand out even a little, and men are unable to perform in female groups because their talent always go unrecognized if they do anything outside of conformity.

This is also why giving females the right to vote was a massive blunder, because females are incompatible with individuality. The entire Classical Liberal framework, and the US Constitution, was written by men for men. It is unnatural for women to play by such rules because they cannot understand them.

Schopenhauer said it best:

Quote:

And since women exist in the main solely for the propagation of the species, and are not destined for anything else, they live, as a rule, more for the species than for the individual, and in their hearts take the affairs of the species more seriously than those of the individual. This gives their whole life and being a certain levity; the general bent of their character is in a direction fundamentally different from that of man; and it is this to which produces that discord in married life which is so frequent, and almost the normal state.

The natural feeling between men is mere indifference, but between women it is actual enmity. The reason of this is that trade-jealousy–odium figulinum–which, in the case of men does not go beyond the confines of their own particular pursuit; but, with women, embraces the whole sex; since they have only one kind of business. Even when they meet in the street, women look at one another like Guelphs and Ghibellines. And it is a patent fact that when two women make first acquaintance with each other, they behave with more constraint and dissimulation than two men would show in a like case; and hence it is that an exchange of compliments between two women is a much more ridiculous proceeding than between two men. Further, whilst a man will, as a general rule, always preserve a certain amount of consideration and humanity in speaking to others, even to those who are in a very inferior position, it is intolerable to see how proudly and disdainfully a fine lady will generally behave towards one who is in a lower social rank (I do not mean a woman who is in her service), whenever she speaks to her. The reason of this may be that, with women, differences of rank are much more precarious than with us; because, while a hundred considerations carry weight in our case, in theirs there is only one, namely, with which man they have found favor; as also that they stand in much nearer relations with one another than men do, in consequence of the one-sided nature of their calling. This makes them endeavor to lay stress upon differences of rank.

Feminism is doomed as a concept because women have no worth without a men to bear them children, which is why women are always drawn to male-dominated spaces.

[Once Was Not]

After that QC rebuttal her hamster has to be in defcon level 1 Armageddon nuclear meltdown. I forecast a minimum 100 pounds packed onto that frame to be able to cope with such a thorough thrashing.

[Roosh]

ROK discusses Zuck's sister and other feminist typists:

Quote:

The women’s criticism of groups of men who challenge the orthodoxy of our sociopolitical landscape reads like a projection of their own feminine inadequacies and a craving for the male dominance and validation they claim to hate. Tell me a time when either Return Of Kings or the Roosh V Forum praised women like them.

The supreme irony, too, is that Zuckerberg’s brother created Facebook from an original concept called Facemash, which rated the attractiveness of Harvard girls and got the budding entrepreneur in hot water. This was all really no different to anything Return Of Kings currently does in rating women.

http://www.returnofkings.com/109049/mark...ss-over-us

[Roosh]

"Muh anti semitizm! Muh death threats!!"

[/url]

She's being destroyed, and no one has written any defenses of her:

[url=https://evolutionistx.wordpress.com/2016/12/19/dear-donna-zuckerberg-you-dont-own-the-classics/]https://evolutionistx.wordpress.com/2016...-classics/
http://dailycaller.com/2016/12/18/campus...-classics/
https://thebastion.co/2016/12/19/mark-zu...te-screed/
https://archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/103543877/

Here's her husband:



http://www.businessinsider.com/harry-sch...012-7?IR=T

Looks like she has higher T than he does.

[Dusty]

Looks like she stayed in the Tribe.

[John Michael Kane]

(12-19-2016 02:25 PM)Dusty Wrote:  

Looks like she stayed in the Tribe.

Well, that wasn't very diverse of her.