Now that's a creative interpretation...

Someone going by the handle of "Unknown"- clever, that- responded to my post about the unknown unknowns of Russia with the following, er, "arguments":

That bit in the middle about Roosh immediately triggered my BS alarm. As you may know, I have worked for Roosh in the past. My full list of articles is in fact still available for public perusal.

You may also know that I never once accepted a single dime for my work for Reaxxion. I was and remain proud of my work for Reaxxion, but it was all done pro bono to allow the site to grow as fast as possible. Didn't help in the end, sadly, but those were good times while they lasted.

So I have no particular animus against Roosh- in fact, I think he's a very decent guy and a good businessman in his own right. I also have nothing to gain, or to lose, from examining someone else's claims about him. I am, essentially, what might be called "an instance of the finger-post".

So I did investigate the claims. And here was my response:

The first of these contentions, that Roosh lied about sleeping with a bunch of women that he then posted pictures of in his book, Bang, is easily disproven on several fronts.

First, the book in question is not Bang. It is Bang Ukraine. Different book. A minor quibble, I know, but getting the facts straight is important here.

Second, here is the actual video footage of Roosh's appearance- it was an ambush interview, really, but he knew that going in to it- on that Ukrainian talk-show:

As Roosh states in his post on the subject, the two girls that appeared on the show demanded to know why he had used their photos on his blog without their permission. Well, that's fair enough, and they can accuse him of taking their "intellectual property", so to speak, if they want. But that is a very far cry from saying that he lied about sleeping with them.

In fact, as Roosh himself states in the very post that sparked the appearance of these two girls, he categorically did not sleep with them.

Let us give "Unknown" every possible benefit of the doubt and concede that this qualifier could easily have been added after the talk-show appearance. That is a fair concession.

But even then, we still have problems.

The reactions of the women on the show are not those of jilted and angry ex-lovers. They are those of women who are plainly attention-whoring and playing up for the camera. At no point in that segment of the interview do they make the claim that Roosh is lying about sleeping with them- because, as he himself said, he didn't.

About the worst thing he did was take their pictures and post them. Which, if they posted those pictures using unlocked publicly searchable accounts, is really their problem, not his.

So essentially, the claims that "Unknown" makes about Roosh's character are baseless. Even the most cursory examination of the evidence contradicts her claims- I assume, until shown otherwise, that "Unknown" is a woman, based on the second sentence of her own comment.

The second claim, that Roosh is bitter and angry about Slavic women, is harder to prove- but, of course, the burden of proof is not on me. I didn't make the claim, she did. So let her prove it.

One might well ask why I'm taking exception to what amounts to little more than a set of critical comments about a man that I consider to be an ally in the war for the culture and against the SJWs. In reply, I will simply remind "Unknown" of my rules. The second of these plainly says:
If you have something to say, be prepared to back it up. I am driven by logic, facts, and evidence. I am not interested in empty meanderings. If you are called upon to back up an assertion, be ready to do so. Failure to do so may mean that your comment(s) will be deleted. Repeated failure to do so will result in being banned.
Therefore, "Unknown", you are hereby on notice. Your first claim is categorically false, proven so by simple examination of evidence that you yourself referenced. Your second claim is deeply suspect. It is incumbent upon you to prove it. Failure to do so will result in all future comments being deleted.

And contrary to what I expect would be your response to that claim, no, I actually don't care what you think of that. The rules are what they are. Break them, and you will suffer the penalties. That is the way that rules work, after all.

Roosh, of course, does not need me, or anyone else, to defend him. He has no real idea who I am, and we both prefer it that way. He is perfectly capable of defending himself, which he has done against attacks far more substantive and vicious than these. Though his outlook on life differs significantly from my own in several areas, most notably with regard to his (relatively) hedonistic lifestyle, I have great respect for him nonetheless and will not see such a man's reputation sullied for no good cause.

Above all, I absolutely cannot stand liars. And "Unknown" is coming perilously close to being proven mendacious in the extreme.


Popular Posts