ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2016 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Saturday, June 27, 2015

The irrelevance of the neville

Aaron attempts to rationalize his own uselessness in the cultural war:
Danby, you're just a partisan, like everyone else - you recognize no objective standards of honesty, or morality, rationality and merely wish to use naked aggression to support your cause, whatever it may be, rationality be damned. If that means banning someone who politely, intelligently, and honestly disagrees with you using logic and evidence, then rationality and fairness be damned.

I can't respect that, but its human nature. I hold myself to a different standard of conduct than you and I am willing - I even feel I owe it to myself as someone with courage, strength, and nobility - to fight my enemies under the same overarching code of rationality and honesty that I hold myself to.

I'm not saying treat an enemy who has shown himself to be weak, scummy, and dishonest with rationality and honesty. Roosh, for instance, who has shown himself to be weak and dishonest, would simply be ignored by me.

But when I ban people for politely disagreeing with me I show MYSELF to be weak and pathetic. But this is an older tradition of thinking and feeling that seems to be dying out in the world, to be replaced by a tradition better fit for emotional weaklings like Roosh and those incapable of self-discipline.
It's telling that Aaron thinks of himself as strong and noble when he is observably weak, self-centered, and feminine. This is what happens when white-knighting gammas venture forth from saving fair maidens from dragonish pick-up artists and enter the cultural wars.

What does a wartime general do when one of his soldiers doesn't follow orders, but instead "politely, intelligently, and honestly disagrees using logic and evidence"? He has him shot for insubordination. Aaron is lucky this is only a cultural war at this point, and he's only being banned by one of the leaders who is fighting it. To call someone like Roosh, who has taken more heat from the Left than anyone else I know, including me, an "emotional weakling", is not only shamelessly dishonest, but downright laughable.

Aaron is a self-delusional liar. He wouldn't ignore Roosh. In fact, he's not ignoring him now, but repeatedly brought him up out of context here. Not only is Aaron projecting when he talks about Roosh being weak and dishonest, but his "overarching code of rationality and honesty" is obviously not something to which he actually holds himself.

We don't need self-delusional nevilles on our side. They are literally worse than useless, always far more interested in trying to elevate their own relative stature by shooting at their own side instead of taking risks by taking on the other side. Roosh was obviously right to ban Aaron, and if he persists in attacking us rather than the SJWs, I won't hesitate to do the same.

If Aaron genuinely wishes to be strong, rational, and self-disciplined, I would encourage him to revisit his assumptions in light of the way his behavior observably contradicts them. He should also recognize that focusing on the other side rather than tone-policing your own is not in any way tantamount to recognizing no "objective standards of honesty, or morality, rationality".

Labels: ,

157 Comments:

Anonymous Gary June 27, 2015 5:58 AM  

In a fight to the death there are no rules.

And make no mistake about it, the SJW and their ilk want us dead.

Once you have that fact fixed in your head the rest should be easy, you fight them with all tools at your disposal with no quarter given.

I wish more people on "our side" would wake up.

Anonymous Danby June 27, 2015 6:03 AM  

Yeah, pretty much my assessment of him as well. As I told him in the he other thread, "Aspie, butthurt, Gamma and obsessed with another man is no way to go through life, son."

His basic problem is that he offered his wisdom on Roosh's site and was promptly banned. He thinks he has some sort of moral right to offer his Gamma wisdom, and as long as he's polite, no one has any right to object.

I tried to instruct him but he's pretty hopeless.

Anonymous PhillipGeorge(c)2015 June 27, 2015 6:12 AM  

Gary, I carried that exact same thought to the news SCOTUS are now celebrating gay weddings. AS IF gay couples are now going to blend into middle class suburbia as happy contended soccer double moms and soccer double dads, living quiet discrete unobtrusive lives.
Or think about this: In Islam duplicity, lying to infidels is a virtue. It is impossible, and I mean impossible, to have open honest dialogue with anyone to whom duplicity is a virtue.
Base Hypocrites and sociopaths cannot be fully engaged. They have to be managed.
The cost of not executing murders is the promotion of murder. The cost of diversity is the attempted eradication/ genocide/extinction of any specific truth, one specific exclusive Truth. Once you say there is no absolute truth you rebel against God by default condition of being and admit a lifestyle of garbage in garbage out; life is a flux of garbage. An honest seeker, any honest seeker cannot remain that way indefinitely. There's only one flag means, break through or crash and burn.

Anonymous Steve June 27, 2015 6:16 AM  

Random thoughts:

I even feel I owe it to myself as someone with courage, strength, and nobility - to fight my enemies under the same overarching code of rationality and honesty that I hold myself to.

This is neckbeardy as fuck.

Aaron, that is not how men talk. You are not a hero from Arthurian legend or Japanese anime. You are not a gallant Confederate general. You are not Peter Fucking Parker. There are no fragrant M'ladies who will melt into your arms on reading about your internet courage. No cute little waifus all aquiver at your noble debating skills. Mary Jane won't tingle your spidey senses with a victory-wank.

Roosh, for instance, who has shown himself to be weak and dishonest

Roosh has balls of steel. He could've chosen an easy life banging hot girls, but instead he puts himself out there, fighting the good fight and trying to help his fellow men... and banging hot girls. If we had more Rooshes around the world would be a better place.

'Neville' - I'm sorry Prime Minister Chamberlain's name has been associated with uselessness. He was actually a rather effective statesman.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan June 27, 2015 7:03 AM  

Conservatives always getting their egos wrapped around the tactical axle while ignoring the strategic engine.

Gay marriage if fucking silly, but it is supposed to be a free country, so let us push for a free country, not chase after every halfwit on a battle field where we suffer a severe propaganda deficit.

Free expression, I reserve the right to critique any of the government sanctioned "minorities" and the government is free IMO to completely de-legitimizing itself in trying to stop this critique.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan June 27, 2015 7:30 AM  

Aaron's role is to legitimize the left, never allow that crap, but don't think for a second that a squish like that is the real problem. The real problem in that vein are the conservative intellectuals upon hearing any idiotic rhetoric from the left then immediately turn to other conservatives and preach the conservative message while not disqualifying the left's propaganda (and that is all it is).

So we lose slowly at first and then rapidly as we did this week to people whose practical political skills dwarf ours even as our intellectuals dwarf their non existent intellectuals.

Blogger W.LindsayWheeler June 27, 2015 7:41 AM  

Who is this "Roosh" guy?

Someone post a link to his blog. Thanks.

Blogger VD June 27, 2015 7:45 AM  

Forget it, Wheeler. There is absolutely no reason for you to read Roosh and you're only going to get banned. Don't bother.

Blogger Bastiat's Ghost June 27, 2015 8:28 AM  

Roosh does have balls.

Anonymous FisherOfMen June 27, 2015 8:28 AM  

>So we lose slowly at first and then rapidly as we did this week to people whose practical political skills dwarf ours even as our intellectuals dwarf their non existent intellectuals.

Analogy: The most fit, paragon, godlike, man-amongst-men quaker is absolutely helpless as he stands before the most subhuman, idiot, drooling soviet.

Blogger JartStar June 27, 2015 8:30 AM  

It's posturing in case of a loss so he can always claim victory as he was Noble in defeat.

Anonymous Earl June 27, 2015 8:39 AM  

Who are these people Danby and Aaron? Where did this conversation take place?

Blogger Ron Winkleheimer June 27, 2015 9:03 AM  

Judging from the picture Steve linked to, Aaron has never been laid.

Aaron, stop surfing the Internet and go to a gym. Seriously, use all the time you spend on the Internet at a gym.

Also, lose the sword. Women are not impressed by swords. It is the 21st century. You are not Neo.

Blogger W.LindsayWheeler June 27, 2015 9:20 AM  

I had to google him. Another Armenian freak job. We need to send these people back to the cage in the Caucases mountains. Out of their natural habitat, they become weirdos. Without their Slav and Turkish harriers they go all wild without their natural enemies.

This dude needs to be shipped back to his bannana republic.

Blogger Cail Corishev June 27, 2015 9:21 AM  

to fight my enemies under the same overarching code of rationality and honesty that I hold myself to.

The problem is you can't do this. It's not possible to fight them "under a code" of your choosing. They get to fight according to their own code, which is "the ends justify the means and we don't stop until everything that bugs us is destroyed."

Say you go into a boxing ring expecting a legitimate match, and the other guy comes over before the bell even rings and starts hitting you with a chair. When you turn to the referee for help, he grabs your arms and holds you for the other guy to hit. No one's climbing in the ring to help you. What do you do?

Well, you can say, "I'm a boxer and I play by the rules, so I'm not going to fight back until the bell rings, and then only with my fists above the belt." Okay, fine, but then you're going to die. Maybe that's okay; causes need martyrs. But causes also need fighters who will take inspiration from the martyrs -- from their deaths, not their tactics -- and go do what it takes to win. If the martyr convinces all the fighters to join him in martyrdom, guess what happens to the cause?

I think the Christian victory at Lepanto involved divine intervention, after the people prayed the Rosary in great numbers. But there was still a battle, still men fighting and dying and doing everything they could to make the other guy die first. And when the survivors came home, I bet their friends and families didn't chastise them for sinking to the enemy's level. (They did have to ignore their own moderates, though, like the King of France and Queen of England, who thought they could cut deals with the Turks to turn elsewhere.) In fact, the pope who led the prayers was the same man who had gathered together the Christian forces of defense. Pray and fight.

The idea that you can win a fight without fighting sounds very Zen, almost like the guy saying it knows something profound that others don't know. But it's crap; he doesn't actually know anything at all. He's just never been forced into a real fight.

Anonymous Joudan June 27, 2015 9:26 AM  

In all discussions of warfare and war fighting, and the proper attitude towards it, I've never seen a better short statement than that set forth by Walter Russel Mead in his short essay on Jacksonian Americans, "The Jacksonian Tradition"

For the first Jacksonian rule of war is that wars must be fought with all available force. The use of limited force is deeply repugnant. Jacksonians see war as a switch that is either "on" or "off." They do not like the idea of violence on a dimmer switch. Either the stakes are important enough to fight for—in which case you should fight with everything you have—or they are not, in which case you should mind your own business and stay home. To engage in a limited war is one of the costliest political decisions an American president can make—neither Truman nor Johnson survived it.

The second key concept in Jacksonian thought about war is that the strategic and tactical objective of American forces is to impose our will on the enemy with as few American casualties as possible. The Jacksonian code of military honor does not turn war into sport. It is a deadly and earnest business. This is not the chivalry of a medieval joust, or of the orderly battlefields of eighteenth-century Europe. One does not take risks with soldiers’ lives to give a "fair fight." Some sectors of opinion in the United States and abroad were both shocked and appalled during the Gulf and Kosovo wars over the way in which American forces attacked the enemy from the air without engaging in much ground combat. The "turkey shoot" quality of the closing moments of the war against Iraq created a particularly painful impression. Jacksonians dismiss such thoughts out of hand. It is the obvious duty of American leaders to crush the forces arrayed against us as quickly, thoroughly and professionally as possible.

Jacksonian opinion takes a broad view of the permissible targets in war. Again reflecting a very old cultural heritage, Jacksonians believe that the enemy’s will to fight is a legitimate target of war, even if this involves American forces in attacks on civilian lives, establishments and property. The colonial wars, the Revolution and the Indian wars all give ample evidence of this view, and General William Tecumseh Sherman’s March to the Sea showed the degree to which the targeting of civilian morale through systematic violence and destruction could, to widespread popular applause, become an acknowledged warfighting strategy, even when fighting one’s own rebellious kindred.

Probably as a result of frontier warfare, Jacksonian opinion came to believe that it was breaking the spirit of the enemy nation, rather than the fighting power of the enemy’s armies, that was the chief object of warfare. It was not enough to defeat a tribe in battle; one had to "pacify" the tribe, to convince it utterly that resistance was and always would be futile and destructive. For this to happen, the war had to go to the enemy’s home. The villages had to be burned, food supplies destroyed, civilians had to be killed. From the tiniest child to the most revered of the elderly sages, everyone in the enemy nation had to understand that further armed resistance to the will of the American people—whatever that might be—was simply not an option.

OpenID mickoneverything June 27, 2015 9:29 AM  

Something I rarely see articulated is that part of the problem is that liberty-loving folk tend to be the more independent loner types. Gamma SJW types congregate together for protection. This means that they will naturally begin any engagement with a numerical advantage. We have to make an effort to get other like minded people involved - they just follow a natural herd instinct.

Anonymous Jourdan June 27, 2015 9:31 AM  

Given that Jacksonian view, it's no wonder today's SJWs want Jackson off the $20. Due to the backlash, they've had to settle for poor Hamilton on the $10, but I ask you in all honesty: We know little of Hamilton's private life, though it appears he spent his formative years in a brothel in the West Indies.

That being the case, how do our SJW comrades know for sure that Hamilton didn't self-identify as a woman?

Anonymous The other robot June 27, 2015 9:34 AM  

What would Che do?

Blogger Al Cibiades June 27, 2015 9:39 AM  

Well said Phillip.

SJW's not only lie but actively engaged in subterfuge to misconstrue the facts to support reasoning that gay marriage is a civil right. Phd Physicist and Psychiatrist Jeffrey Satinover followed the footnotes filed as proof in amicus briefs submitted to the court on many of the hot button issues of the day and has noticed a disturbing pattern. The leftists know that the supreme court is the strategic center for imposing their unelected will on the majority. (I propose familial suffrage. 1 family 1 vote and an amendment for term limits for judges as a start)...

Satinover's presentation is an hour well spent if you really want to dig into how a special interest group gained acceptance and promotion from the field originally engaged with healing their disorder...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TF6AhmfLKA

Blogger W.LindsayWheeler June 27, 2015 10:06 AM  

Well, there are two types of ways to conduct war. The Spartans conducted war, as did all the Greek states prior to the Pelopponessian War as a type of gentlemanly conduct. One beats the other army on the battlefield and that was that. There was no killing of civilians or burning of homes. (Burning of farmhouses only to draw the other army out.) The Spartans never chased anybody down, like the Israelites. It was beneath them to kill retreating forces.

The Spartan Way of War and Christendom's Way of War and Chivalry was because it was a war between brothers. In Classical Greece, between bands of aristocratic families who were all Greek. In Christendom, it was between Christians.

The Jacksonian Way of War was concieved between strangers, between civilized Christian Europeans, and Amer-Indians who were Stone Age Barbarian peoples.

Was Sherman's March to the Sea really a victory? Southern Resentment over that lasted over 100 years forcing the continuation of Southern Culture. To treat fellow Christians that way but I regress. The Jacksonian Way of War is the war of progressives, the Jewish Way of War but it is not the European Way of War. With the advent of Protestantism with its Jewish influence, changed the way of war in Europe.

So what is the Traditional European way? Or do you adopt a foreign ideology? Are any of you still European?

Blogger Cail Corishev June 27, 2015 10:10 AM  

Aaron's other fallacy is his claim that we're not fighting by, to quote him, "objective standards of honesty, or morality, rationality." Later he throws in "courage, strength, and nobility." So let's look at these:

Honesty -- Vox is painfully honest. He quotes people at length, so there can be no charge that he's misconstruing what was said. This is the case with all the "dissenting right" bloggers I follow, such as Sailer, Derb, and Dalrock. I'm sure there are exceptions, but for the most part, those on our side value honesty. Compare that to SJWs, who consider honesty to be a foolish weakness. They routinely quote us out of context and put words in our mouths, because we're scum and the end justifies the means. We might talk to you for a while and then ban you when you get annoying; they'll look at you and say, "I see you follow a GamerGater, so you're blocked without discussion, and if we ever get a chance to put a boot on your face, we will."

Peter didn't make some backdoor calls and try to get Irene Gallo a surprise firing like Tim Hunt's. He handled the situation openly and publicly, stating his intentions and expectations at every step and giving the other side plenty of time to respond. John Wright and others did the same. Both Puppies groups have been honest about their intentions and tactics from the start. Heck, most of the time Vox tells them where he's going to shoot next. You can't get more honest than that.

Morality -- The word means a set of guiding principles for how to behave, so it depends on what Aaron thinks those should be. But we do have a set of guiding principles which we follow. See Vox's rules of the blog, or the way he insists on giving apparent trolls a chance -- even a second chance -- to prove themselves. The only guiding principle of the SJW is, say it with me, "The end justifies the means." We win big on this one.

Rationality -- It is to laugh. We're usually accused of being hyper-rational. We're the side that insists that reality exists and the way to live is to deal with it rationally. SJWs claim reality is subjective, so rationality (reason) cannot be trusted; emotions and instinct are superior. We win this one in a shutout.

Courage -- If you want to say people who block everyone who disagrees with them on Twitter are the courageous ones, have at it. If you got banned from a guy's blog and want to call him a coward, fine, but how many comments did he allow you first? How many times did he warn you? A blog's comments area is actually a delicate thing, and a couple of trolls can turn it into a wasteland if they aren't strictly controlled. It's better to be too harsh than too relaxed. If you got banned unfairly, go elsewhere. If you're not actually a dink, it won't happen again. If it keeps happening, guess what? It's you.

Considering many people posting on blogs like this could lose their jobs or freedom if they were found out, I don't think our side lacks courage.

Strength -- We're physically stronger, mentally stronger, emotionally stronger, and spiritually stronger. What's left that matters?

Nobility -- Now we're getting closer to what really bothers him and what he thinks of as morality. From the dictionary: "Having moral eminence and freedom from anything petty, mean, or dubious in conduct and character." In other words, he wants us to be perfect. He doesn't like it when we use harsh language, when we say things that might hurt someone's feelings, when someone on the other side cries. In a word, he wants us to be nice. But nobles aren't nice, they're noble, which sometimes excludes niceness -- for instance, when being honest hurts someone's feelings. And if the noble gets caught up in trying to be ultra-noble by staying on his horse and issuing challenges the official way, he's going to die at the hands of a robber with a crossbow.

Blogger Bateful Higot June 27, 2015 10:19 AM  

Ah yes, the rational, impartial, emotionally strong intellectual. His rallying cry: Death or Dishonor His enemy: anyone who returns fire in an insufficiently hamstrung fashion.

One would think that a man who went solo on Dr. Oz's show for an obvious hit job with an asssuredly hostile audience would get more credit than being called an emotional weakling. But then, this man is clearly a moderate. He should be glad that the SDL only shot him in the knee.

Anonymous Elijah Rhodes June 27, 2015 10:23 AM  

The posts in this thread exemplify why this blog is so freaking excellent.

Blogger Cail Corishev June 27, 2015 10:32 AM  

The really offensive thing is the claim that we're not already adhering to a strict code of morality. They accuse us of being violent and unprincipled, but think about what that would mean if it were true. Is Tor on fire? Does Scalzi have to be escorted by bodyguards when he goes out to enjoy his lawn? How many gays are being stoned to death today by radical conservative Christians in response to yesterday's court ruling?

When the nevilles complain that we're being uncivilized, it just shows that they've led such charmed lives that they've never really seen "uncivilized." We already hobble ourselves by refusing to sink to the enemy's tactics in many ways, but they want to entangle us further.

Blogger Jack Ward June 27, 2015 10:35 AM  

I still suspect that Vox is Roosh.

Anonymous Soga June 27, 2015 10:53 AM  

Aaron: for men, hair really ought to go on balls, not on necks.

Blogger Edd Jobs June 27, 2015 10:55 AM  

It appears that the Lutheran Church of the Missouri Synod just told SCOTUS to go pride itself.

Anonymous Susan June 27, 2015 11:11 AM  

I still think the descriptive "noble defeatist" is the best one I have heard yet for truly defining a moderate. Middle of the road, along with all the other flattened road kill.

Anonymous The other robot June 27, 2015 11:25 AM  

The real war is coming:

“We got to complete what Denmark didn’t finish,” he insisted. “Denmark didn’t finish his mission.”

Anonymous Steve June 27, 2015 11:32 AM  

Ron Winkleheimer - I should've said - that wasn't Aaron, merely an artist's impression of him based on his words.

I get the impression he's a young guy, probably of the white knight and Aspergery disposition. Probably doesn't get laid much or at all. If he doesn't own one or more of the following, I'll eat m'hat:

* scraggly beard
* fedora
* katana
* Waifu pillow
* MLP plushies
* Richard Dawkins books
* Matrix style leather coat
* cargo shorts

The good news is - if I'm right and he is still a young fella, he can change. Before he ends up a middle aged incel like Chris Gerrib.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan June 27, 2015 11:34 AM  

The right is mainly a prop in leftist theater anyway this scripted propaganda is mainly to reassert hierarchy in the Party. Next week a different production with the same villains trotted out for punishment.

That will change of course as we adopt an actual strategy which disqualify their most effective weapon they have that being propaganda

Blogger Danby June 27, 2015 12:06 PM  

@ Earl
Who are these people Danby and Aaron? Where did this conversation take place?

I've been around a while. Aaron is a newcomer.
The conversation took place a couple of days ago starting Here
He starts off slow but the walls-o-text just get bigger and more gamma the further it goes on. I decided not to let it go, and to respond every time he posted. He didn't give up until last night.

His basic complaint is that Roosh banned him. Somehow, he thought someone here would agree that that's the Worst Thing Ever(tm) and proof that Aaron is better than Roosh, because he's polite wand he would never ban a polite commenter, no matter how much he disagreed, because baning is thought control and aspie aspie ass pie faggot.

I'm not real clear on what he wanted to achieve other than to whine about Roosh.

Anonymous The other robot June 27, 2015 12:10 PM  

Peter Frost touches on a bunch of issues that seem relevant to culture wars and real wars.

It would seem that the number of young white men who cannot get mates could be mobilized in some manner ...

Perhaps the current pushing of homosexuality by the elites is an attempt to defuse the problems posed by an oversupply of young males.

Anonymous Aaron June 27, 2015 12:28 PM  

Curious, I've never yet heard of a military structure being applied to intellectual debates where self-appointed leaders are applauded for squashing intellectual disagreements. Military structures are useful in emergency situations where immediate action is required and there is no time for debate. This is the first I've heard that scientific and ethical debates should follow a military pattern suitable for emergencies where immediate action can mean the difference between life and death. One imagines the history of Western science and thought would be rather a different thing had this paradigm been followed.

Even in the military, off the field and away from the requirement for immediate action debate is valued and encouraged at least among officers, and in the Israeli army criticism and debate is encouraged even from privates to their commanding officer.

But apparently ethical, philosophical, and scientific debate should be authoritarian and hierarchical to a degree not even followed in the military, and its "leaders" should be self-appointed based on a self-proclaimed access to knowledge and truth - truth not to be determined through discussion, of course - and such self-appointed and self-proclaimed leaders should suppress anyone even from within their own camp pointing out contradictions or lack of logic in their positions as well as any discussion as to the significance of their actions and behavior.

I must say, sir, that while I cannot agree with this, it is highly original and you show a great deal of courage in proposing a viewpoint that most people would regard as eccentric and peculiar at best.

Its odd, however, how no one wishes to address the actual point I am making. If we must use military analogies, the correct one is of soldiers running from battle in a cowardly fashion. Would you ridicule and revile your enemy for being a pathetic coward, yet if your own soldiers flee in a cowardly fashion claim that anyone pointing this out is "aiding the enemy"?

I very much doubt it. If your own soldiers showed fear and cowardice, you would not think addressing this point is inappropriate, nor would you choose as an ally someone who has shown himself to be fearful and cowardly - or would you?

When I said I would "ignore" Roosh I simply meant I would never respond to him directly because he has proven himself to me to be both dishonest and weakly incapable of handling rational disagreement. It does not mean that I will avoid making comments about Roosh.

Roosh is hardly courageous simply because he has taken flak from the left. Roosh was a marginalized member of society with no clear direction in life and an inability to fit into prevailing social structures, who then coopted (to put it politely) already existing and hugely profitable and popular ideas about how to attract women and recycled these ideas into a business that capitalized on the delusions and fears of naive and unattractive men who struggle with women. Very, very courageous that.

Perhaps Roosh's most original contribution to what he inherited from Mystery was to take what was up to that point merely practical advice on how to get laid, and make it into a religion where male value is dependent on female approval and a man's life task is to figure out what it takes to make women like him. To paraphrase Roosh "a man's value is what a woman thinks of him"

I confess I never would have been bold enough to think so low of my fellow men as to expect them to find this peculiar religion appealing, but Roosh has proven once again you'll never lose money by thinking the worst about people. Roosh has understood what the Grand Inquisitor has perceived - that man craves servitude, not freedom, and will make an idol out of anything. Woman, perhaps, being the most insipid of man's long and sorry list of idols, and thus well suited to modern man.

Anonymous Sheila June 27, 2015 12:40 PM  

Cail Corishev - your post at 10:10 was spot on and marvelously well thought-out and written. Many thanks. I'm going to save this to utilize in future if you don't mind.

Anonymous The other robot June 27, 2015 12:44 PM  

Is it just a coincidence that China's population around the time of the Taiping rebellion was around 300M? Is it just a coincidence that popular discontent about repression by Elites in the US is growing?

Do the same forces operate in the US as operated in China?

Anonymous Daniel #0189 June 27, 2015 12:44 PM  

That is a false paraphrase, Aaron. Do sleep standing up? Because that may be the only time you stop lying.

Anonymous VFM #0202 June 27, 2015 12:48 PM  

Aaron, leading off here with a riff on "what you seem to be saying" will garner derision from the charitable and PgDn from the rest of us.

Anonymous Steve June 27, 2015 12:50 PM  

Aaron - I must say, sir,

Holy wall of sanctimonious text, Batman!

No wonder you got banned. Ain't nobody got time for that.

To paraphrase Roosh "a man's value is what a woman thinks of him"

Nah. What makes a man a high value man?

It's not what women think of him.

It's what other men think.

Women mostly just respond to the hierarchy men have established.

So, Roosh is, at least, internet-famous, has several books out and built his own thriving alternative media. There are many thousands of men who will testify that Roosh is, as we say here in England, the dog's bollocks.

What have you done, except complain?

Anonymous Donn #0114 June 27, 2015 12:55 PM  

This reminds me of the scene in The Quiet Man when everybody is shouting, 'Marquis of Queensberry Rules!' 'Marquis of Queensberry Rules!' While everybody is involved in a general donnybrook with biting, kicking, pitch forks, and mayhem all over the place.

Sure, we're all going to obey the Marquis of Queensberry Rules while the other side is biting and kicking their opponent in the face.

Anonymous Daniel #0189 June 27, 2015 12:58 PM  

I still suspect that Vox is Roosh.

Very interesting...

Blogger W.LindsayWheeler June 27, 2015 12:59 PM  

Aaron. I compliment you on your excellent observations. I like your takedown of Roosh's lifestyle/business.

Anonymous Steve June 27, 2015 1:01 PM  

Daniel - Spooky.

Anonymous Aaron June 27, 2015 1:01 PM  

Daniel - its not even a paraphrase. Its close to an exact quote. This is your hero - a man who clearly and without shame says a man's value is measured by how women see him. I have to admit it takes balls - or perhaps the better word is an utter lack of shame - to say that. Makes me understand why a capacity for shame might be something worth cultivating.

A man's value is what other men think of him at any given time? I see. So your task is clear then, if you are to have value - figure out what other men value and learn to give it to them. Never, ever develop your own principles or a backbone. You are well on your way to becoming a leader like Roosh.

Blogger Danby June 27, 2015 1:02 PM  

Well, he is persistent, i'll give him that.

@Aaron, you problem is pure mischaracterization. In other words, lying.
You are lying about what has happened, what is happening, and what will happen.

You were banned from RoK, not because Roosh is a coward, but because you're an aspie faggot, as this new post proves.

This is not a debate that's been militarized, it's a military operation that you want to debate about.

No-one, literally no-one here cares about your man-crush on Roosh.
WE
DON'T
CARE
We also don't care that you think anyone who refuses to put up with your shit a coward and unmanly. The opinion of an aspie faggot like you is beneath contempt. You wouldn't know manly if it invaded your cornhole.

In plain truth, the fact that you got banned at RoK is a primary indicator that you need to work on your masculinity problem. The first step is to stop lying to yourself. Harshly judgmental self-criticism is the only way to improve. Acknowledge and accept your failures, and FIX THEM.

And get some exercise, 'cause, dude....

Blogger ScuzzaMan June 27, 2015 1:13 PM  

Further, Sir Noble Courageous, if you do not grok the parallel between physical war and cultural war, if you have not perceived yet the common element in these two phrases, if you are truly incapable of making the infinitesimal leap to conflict and organization in a more general sense; then noble and courageous and rational and consistent you may be, but you're a noble courageous, consistent idiot

You would be fit for cannon fodder if you could learn to stand the line and shoulder a weapon.

Can you?

Anonymous Steve June 27, 2015 1:14 PM  

Aaron - A man's value is what other men think of him at any given time?

Pretty much. Can't escape being judged by our peers. They don't need to like you, but if they all think you're useless, that's a problem for you.

I see.

Doubt it.

So your task is clear then, if you are to have value - figure out what other men value and learn to give it to them.

Yes. That's how you become rich, famous, powerful, or even merely successful.

Never, ever develop your own principles or a backbone.

Wrong. People who matter will suss you out if you're a pussy or a bumlicker.

You are well on your way to becoming a leader like Roosh.

Cool.

Blogger Nobody June 27, 2015 1:15 PM  

Steve: ...but instead he puts himself out there, fighting the good fight and trying to help his fellow men... and banging hot girls.

In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and in view of his appearing and his kingdom, I give you this charge: Preach the word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction. For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. But you, keep your head in all situations, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, discharge all the duties of your ministry.

For I am already being poured out like a drink offering, and the time for my departure is near.

I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith.
And banged a lot of hot girls!

Anonymous Soga June 27, 2015 1:16 PM  

Instead of being such an aspie, Aaron, you should realize that Roosh is talking about sociosexual value.

Obviously, objectively, God establishes a different value system. But if you don't understand what people value, how they rank others in their eyes and where they fit into social hierarchies, you're missing out on some very useful knowledge that you can leverage in your life to do more meaningful things.

There's a reason people here tell Gammas to stop complaining, shut up, and do something with their lives. Gamma males are what we categorize as males that are among the bottom of the sociosexual food chain. They're extremely obnoxious to men that occupy a higher sociosexual position, and women find them very repulsive. The sociosexual hierarchy has been well-established through repeated experiences and sharing notes by men and women in what you might call the Manosphere. In other words, it's been tested, repeated, and used as a basis for successful predictions. It is scientific.

It is particularly telling that one recurring characteristic of a Gamma is his obsession with being thought of as honorable, morally superior, and "not like all those other guys that just don't live by a code." And of course, completely missing the fact that those "other guys" do live by a code, it's just not your code.

Go read Alpha Game. They're currently doing a series on living as a Delta. Read through the blog, and you'll see why it's worth striving for.

Anonymous Steve June 27, 2015 1:18 PM  

Nobody - no man who has ever lived went to his death regretting that he banged too many hot girls.

Anonymous Aaron June 27, 2015 1:31 PM  

Oh no Soga, no such easy cop out. Roosh makes quite clear that he means man's, shall we say, "metaphysical" value.

That a man's sociosexual value is how well women like him is a truism. Its like saying a man's attractiveness to women is determined by how attractive women find him. Doesn't need to be said.

Roosh ties it into Darwinian ideas about how a mans "purpose" in life is to reproduce, and thus his value as a human being is measured by how attractive women find him and makes it into a nifty little philosophical package for men looking for meaning. He's quite clear about how Darwinism provides purpose and a standard of value for a man.( Although I understand Roosh is moving away from evo-psyche these days - what new religion will he invent?). Of course, Darwinism says nothing about purpose or value - it merely explains why some behaviors we observe today have been selected for through an utterly blind process - but its not the first attempt to make Darwinism the basis for a religion, and it won't be the last. It might, however, be the most pathetic attempt - a man's life task to serve women's perceptions of whats attractive.

Which ancient philosopher would have foreseen this particular excrescence of human fallibility? Yet I cannot deny that it somehow seems well suited to the diminishment of modern man, and perhaps Vox is right in anointing Roosh a "leader" for modern men.

I have to go away for a bit, but I'll be back.

Anonymous Steve June 27, 2015 1:32 PM  

...unless the proximate cause of his death was being caught by the missus.

Blogger Nobody June 27, 2015 1:36 PM  

Steve - It is called fornication. I can excuse you if you are not a Christian, but every Christian man will regret his past bed hopping, if in fact he was once a bed hopper. It is called repentance. But I can only deduct from your answer that any man who was a virgin when he got married, in your mind, was never fully a man.

Anonymous Steve June 27, 2015 1:45 PM  

Nobody - Men can't be virgins. Not really.

I dunno if any non-Amish men are getting married these days without having "done it" at least once.

But if they are, good luck to em.

Blogger Josh June 27, 2015 2:03 PM  

Aaron. I compliment you on your excellent observations. I like your takedown of Roosh's lifestyle/business.

BAHAHAHAHAHA

Blogger Nobody June 27, 2015 2:14 PM  

Steve: Nobody - Men can't be virgins. Not really.

Sure they can. You just have your own fleshy (maybe spirit) reasons to believe that they can't. If the Amish can do it, so can everyone else. If the Amish can be virgins...

But you are beside the point. You want to celebrate this Roosh, then celebrate him. But no Christian man is going to say to G-d: I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. And banged a lot of hot girls! Thank you Jesus! Thank you, thank you, thank you!

but instead he puts himself out there, fighting the good fight and trying to help his fellow men... and banging hot girls.

And thus mankind will be saved!?!

I'm not going to debate this, or this Roosh, or you. You get it, or you don't. Carry on.

Blogger VD June 27, 2015 2:23 PM  

When I said I would "ignore" Roosh I simply meant I would never respond to him directly because he has proven himself to me to be both dishonest and weakly incapable of handling rational disagreement. It does not mean that I will avoid making comments about Roosh.

In other words, Noble Sir, you're just another lying, self-delusional Gamma. You're useless, pathetic, and laughable.

Nobody invited you to debate. Nobody asked you to debate. And nobody cares what you think, Noble Sir, except for one of the resident Omegas.

Blogger Bogey June 27, 2015 2:49 PM  

Aaron there's more than just one side to the social sexual hierarchy. Until women stop choosing the strongest male, and thus far they've shown no proclivity to do so, we must deal with the hand were given.

Blogger RobertT June 27, 2015 3:00 PM  

Amen

Blogger RobertT June 27, 2015 3:00 PM  

Amen

Blogger Bastiat's Ghost June 27, 2015 3:04 PM  

I decided to take your advice Vox about never backing down or apologizing. Have you ever put together a 'how to' post that might offer some pointers? I'm specifically dealing with a couple of feckless SJW that keep tossing out red herrings one after another.

Anonymous A.B. Prosper June 27, 2015 3:17 PM  

Ask the Confederates what happens when you fight like a gentleman during a culture war. Best case scenario subjugation. More likely, extermination.

As for moderates, feh. The only advice I'd deign to offer them is "you have to stand for something" they don't and as such they'll fall for anything.

The SJW's at least stand for something, even if what they believe in is Left hand Path Christianity and anathema, it is something.

Now as for the culture war, what our side needs to do is come to an accord on what they want instead of what they have. Once enough of us do that we can win. Enough people are out there willing to make the sacrifices, they just lack ideology. Now I'm not one of those idiots who thinks it needs to be one ideology or can't be a compromise or can't be dissolution of the union for that matter, any of those will work. What won't work is not having an idea what a replacement society would be like, how it would be run, what its public values would be, how to or how not to act economically, diplomatically, that kind of thing.

Once that happens, people have decided what kind of future they want comes the next step. The K selected folks have to build protocols to prevent infighting (Rabbit 101 is after all turn one group of wolves on another) At that point, they festivities can start and yes with a hard cruel fight, it can be won and even kept.

But virtually no one knows what they stand for , even us. Stand against? Yes. But not stand for. So we seethe.

Now, the big flag flap is at its roots is about just that, denying people symbols to rally around. As such resisting is good, very good, Hate is good. Anger is good. Preparation of the battle-space is good. In time, once what is needed is known action is good. Prayer is very good .

What moderates and sellouts do is drain away that energy for feel-goods, out of misplaced reason or when honest out of fear and as such they need to be ignored. Every time .

Some are moles, seem honestly mean well but none of them are of any value since they refuse to shit or get off the pot.

Anonymous Steve June 27, 2015 3:58 PM  

Nobody - Sure they can. You just have your own fleshy (maybe spirit) reasons to believe that they can't. If the Amish can do it, so can everyone else. If the Amish can be virgins...

No, I don't mean that.

Men can be chaste, but not virgins.

The concept of virginity only makes sense in relation to women and female physiology. That's why most societies prized girls who haven't had sex yet, but few people really care if a young man has had sex prior to marriage.

Marriage is dead anyway. Let the gays have it.

And thus mankind will be saved!?!

Pass.

Anonymous Aaron June 27, 2015 4:37 PM  

Danby, I wasn't banned from RoK. I was banned from Roosh V way, way back in the day before Roosh became a "leader" of the cult of male service to women, back when I myself thought my vocation in life was to serve women, like Roosh. I believe my offense was asking for a clarification about how "demonstrating higher value" isn't a contradiction to his advice not to try and "impress" women, or some such trivial idiocy of the kind that obsesses men who believe their vocation is to study how to please women best.

A bannable offense, I am sure you would agree.

Steve - I applaud you. I cannot have anything but contempt for your lack of spine, but I have the utmost admiration for your honesty in admitting to it. The one thing I can't stand is people who fudge the issue and pretend they are not doing what they are doing. You've drawn a clear line in the sand, and made clear where you stand, without obfuscation or hedging. You are not a strong man, but that takes some strength. As Aristotle said, some men are born slaves, and to admit that earns you some respect at least.

VD - sorry, but no. It was quite clear when I said that I would "ignore" Roosh I meant I would not directly have a discussion with him, since he has shown he cannot abide by the self-discipline needed to be honest and rational. Not everyone has this self-discipline.

Bogey - learning how to shape-shift to please women won't make you a strong man. Roosh appears so weak and unimpressive on TV because he is preoccupied with impressing women rather than developing an authentic personality, which means having an unyielding set of principles and a backbone that refuses to budge even in the face of feminine disapproval - apparently the scariest thing to a modern man.

Blogger Nobody June 27, 2015 5:00 PM  

Steve: Yes, I have eyes to see and ears to hear the world as it is.

It doesn't mean WE have to give in to it, just because, as tempting as it is.

Marriage is not dead, unless one looks at marriage only in the eyes of the States presumed authority over it.

Don't shrug, remember, we're not republicans.

Blogger Danby June 27, 2015 5:05 PM  

@Aaron. Yes, a bannable offense.

Any time you meet a failure, and this includes getting banned years ago, you have a choice, to learn from it, or to protect your ego. You seem to be the sort that has consistently chosen to protect his ego. That's what Gamma means. That's why you keep getting called Gamma. You obviously haven't learned from it, or you would not still be so butthurt about it now.


The first step to learning from it is to acknowledge your part in the failure. I've been banned from plenty of fora. In every case this is what led to it;
1) Breaking the mood. Every blog has a tone, an atmosphere, which is the reason people frequent it. If your posts break that mood, you won;t be welcome.
2) Failure to gauge reactions. If you don't see how people are reacting, you don;t know when you're crossing the line.
3) Insistence on the rightness of my original position, despite any contrary argument.
4) refusal to acknowledge errors
5) directly challenging the blog host or moderators.
6) Being boring. Argument, real argument, is interesting. Aspies insisting they can never be wrong and endlessly restating their original point that everyone else in the forum has rejected, are boring.

So which of these error did you commit? Probably all of them.

But instead of acknoledging that you screwed up, you insist that Roosh is too cowardly to engage you. This is plainly false, and this reaction is actively hurting you, mentally and emotionally. It's also preventing you from convincing anyone, but that's a side issue. So long as you refuse to examine your own behavor in relation to your own failure, you will remain a Gamma.

His blog doesn't exist to meet any and every objection anyone might have to his thinking. It exists to propagate his message. Why on earth should he allow you to derail the blog?

If you want a debate, challenge him to a debate. on neutral ground, with defined limits. That's the proper approach, not demanding a public debate on his blog.

Blogger Cail Corishev June 27, 2015 5:09 PM  

I believe my offense was asking for a clarification about how "demonstrating higher value" isn't a contradiction to his advice not to try and "impress" women

Oh, you're that kind of asspie. I thought you were just a concern troll, but that's worse. No wonder.

Anonymous Steve June 27, 2015 5:21 PM  

Nobody - if it was up to me, we'd roll back the laws on quickie divorces, no-fault divorce, and the various anti-male, anti-father laws and practices that make divorce such a huge risk to men these days.

Till then I couldn't in good faith recommend the institution of marriage in its present denatured form to any young man. It's dicier than giving away your bank details to a friendly Nigerian chap who emails you out of the blue. I know, and you probably do too, men who have been ruined when their supposedly loving and faithful wives suddenly turned out to be not.

And the law, judiciary, police, and tax system is always and firmly on the side of the woman. Even when she decides to throw away decades of married life on a whim.

I think marriage is a good thing, in its traditional form. But we might need to come up with some alternative to the current legal misdefinition of "marriage".

Aaron - kindly provide examples of your "strength".

Roosh appears so weak and unimpressive on TV

Post some Youtube links to the TV appearances you've made.

Anonymous Aaron June 27, 2015 5:36 PM  

Danby, your advice is about being "liked" - basically learn what the majority likes, and bend to it. I understand that you can see no higher value than learning how to fit in well within any prevailing climate and advise others to do the same. Its clear why you accept Roosh as one of your "leaders".

My assumption is that rational criticism should be fairly and honestly considered even, perhaps especially, when it is disagreeable and strays from the prevailing "tone", and that in order for a climate of debate to flourish men must discipline their egos.

Your advice is about how to run a forum of sycophants and lickspittles, and more concerned with ego and position than rationality, logic, and honesty.

As I said, you are a good representative of the code of modern man, where ego, impression-management, position on a hierarchy, matter more than logic, rationality, honesty, and authenticity, and discussion should be ruthlessly stripped of discordant or disagreeable elements - otherwise known as logical criticism - and comments should be judged not for their truth but the relative status of who makes the comment.

Many societies, perhaps most, have been organized on your principles. My code flourished, it seems briefly, in Western culture from the 1500s to perhaps WW2, and seems to be dying out.

Also, some of your advice doesn't apply to me - I was banned for a single question.




Anonymous patrick kelly June 27, 2015 5:54 PM  

what an aspie-troll-bot

we get it
you don't like Roosh
we understand why you don't like Roosh
we don't care

you have a code
we understand your code
we don't care

you think we are shameless hypocrites for not caring
we don't care.

but maybe if you write about it enough on your own blog
some of us will show up
and tell you how much we don't care

I care more about this blog. I really hate it when guys like this get so much attention...but yet here I am feeding him...can't help myself sometimes....some trolls are funner than others.....I'm not having much fun......

Can weHaz more gunz'n'nFl posts? Will someone please poke Mr. Wright and provoke him to write comments with insane amounts of entertaining prose again?.....

(re: using the royal-ilk "we"...I don't speak for anyone else....unless I do....I'm barely ilk...)

Blogger Danby June 27, 2015 6:08 PM  

@Aaron, you ignorant slut.
no, it's not about being liked. I don't fucking care about being liked. I've never in my life been generally liked and I can't give half a turd about it now.

It's about being heard.
It's about communicating.
It's about not being a massive tool.
It's about improving yourself and the world around you.
it's about being a man, a subject with which you have no familiarity.

Look, we all know you consider yourself above us all, with your oh-so-pure principles and your steadfast determination to argue everyone to sleep by repeating the same 4 paragraphs in slightly different ways for all eternity.

Get it through your solid adamantium skull that we're trying to help you. Well, some of us are. I am. I'm pretty sure there's quite few who wish you would just fuck off and die already.

You haven't made one honest point. You just keep making the same assertions, backup up by your limitless self-regard and lack of accomplishment. And those assertions are obviously false to anyone who has been in this arena for more than 3 weeks. So either back them up or go away.

Blogger Nobody June 27, 2015 7:04 PM  

Steve - I get that. So how how do we change that? Sure, we can keep talking about it. We can try reasoning with the unreasonable. Hell, we may even change a few minds. But in the end, here we are. Is living in a worldly way an answer to the worldly problem? I knew a couple, several years ago, who got married in a Church without a license, had their 3 children by midwife, did not vaccinate their children, and home-schooled their children. The rest of us, well, we sure are inured to the law, aren't we? They play their pipe and we dance. They play their dirge and we mourn. A lot of people don't want to hear this, but some day, it either comes to blows, or we just resign to the fact that we will be under their thumb, no matter how much we reason.

Anonymous Forrest Bishop VFM #0167 June 27, 2015 7:06 PM  

Aaron post, edited for brevity-

Danby, you're , everyone , you , your , someone , you .

I , I , myself , you , I , I , I , myself , someone , my enemies , I , myself .

I , enemy , himself , Roosh, himself , me .

I , people , me , I , MYSELF , Roosh , those .

Blogger VD June 27, 2015 7:08 PM  

VD - sorry, but no. It was quite clear when I said that I would "ignore" Roosh I meant I would not directly have a discussion with him, since he has shown he cannot abide by the self-discipline needed to be honest and rational. Not everyone has this self-discipline.

What is clear is that you're not honest. You're not self-disciplined. You're a weak, spergy, self-delusional little gamma bitch who is clinging to your one long-past encounter with Roosh like a tarzanello.

Your advice is about how to run a forum of sycophants and lickspittles, and more concerned with ego and position than rationality, logic, and honesty.

You're lying again. You observably don't know a damn thing about rationality, logic, or honesty.

My code flourished, it seems briefly, in Western culture from the 1500s to perhaps WW2, and seems to be dying out.

Sure it did, Noble Sir. And based on your example, it's not dying out, it's dead, because you're certainly not living up to your romantic ideals. I'm not banning you yet, I'm simply telling you that we aren't interested in your opinions, your code, or your weird little obsession with Roosh. So go find a woman on the Internet for whom you can white knight or whatever else it is you do.

We don't care.

Anonymous Aaron June 27, 2015 7:09 PM  

Danby, you are trying to help me become like you - but I have emerged from being a person like you, through life experience, and pain. I have no wish to go back to where it was no easy feat to emerge from.

You say "to be heard" - to be heard all I should have to do is abide by the rules of civil discourse. You think I must show special obeisance to those by whom I wish to be heard. I operate on the assumption that adults are interested in logic and are capable of disciplining their egos. You think the burden rests entirely on me, I assume a minimum interest in logic on the part of those I wish to hear me. You seem to see debate as a venue for the assertion of personal ego - I see it as a "submission" of personal ego to rules of logic.

We are different beasts, you and I, cut from different cloth. We are not having an intellectual disagreement, but a character disagreement, and from that there is no appeal.

Peace.

Blogger VD June 27, 2015 7:10 PM  

Aaron post, edited for brevity-

Fucking gammas. I try not to hate them, but it's really, really hard. They're so damned self-obsessed and they're so mind-numbingly tedious.

Blogger Danby June 27, 2015 7:20 PM  

you are trying to help me become like you - but I have emerged from being a person like you, through life experience, and pain. I have no wish to go back to where it was no easy feat to emerge from.

No, no you haven't. You are lying right there, for all the world to see. No you were never like me, you don't know the second thing about me. Whatever you were, you were never like me. For one thing, I've always been able to look at myself and question my own conclusions.
And don't ever talk to me about pain, girly boy. Until you've had to learn how to manipulate your own brain to reroute the pain signals, you don''t even know what pain is.

You say "to be heard" - to be heard all I should have to do is abide by the rules of civil discourse.

And that's why you'll never again feel the touch of a woman.

Anonymous Aaron June 27, 2015 7:24 PM  

Vox, whether you ban me or not is up to you, and can only reflect on you. I have been banned from more sites than I can count. A disregard for hierarchy and an expectation that men submit their egos to the egalitarian rule of logic does not seem to sit well in the modern climate of self-assertion and lack of restraint.

The only sites in the "manosphere" I have found who have the ego-restraint and intellectual honesty to not ban me, even when I say disagreeable things and make criticisms, are the MGTOW sites, even though I am far from a being a MGTOW myself.

Anonymous Aaron June 27, 2015 7:28 PM  

Its sad, Danby, that the worst fate - and insult - you can think for me is that I might not win a woman's approval.

While I like women and have not suffered at their hands (which makes me unpopular at the MGTOW sites, but to their credit they don't ban me), it would never occur to me in a million years to look down on a man for failing to live up to some woman's standard.

Principles, having a backbone, matter more than women.

Blogger Danby June 27, 2015 7:36 PM  

man those grapes are sor, aren't they Aaron?

I have been banned from more sites than I can count. A disregard for hierarchy and an expectation that men submit their egos to the egalitarian rule of logic does not seem to sit well in the modern climate of self-assertion and lack of restraint.

Aaron, really, it's not us, it's you.

Anonymous Aaron June 27, 2015 7:41 PM  

Oh, I agree, it is me. I understand that it is I who am unusual. I'm not winning any popularity contests.

Blogger Cail Corishev June 27, 2015 7:41 PM  

I try not to hate them, but it's really, really hard.

You aren't kidding. I promised myself a few weeks ago that I'd stop beating up a particular Gamma-leaning group because firing the same direction (kinda sometimes, anyway). But they do make it hard, unless you avoid them altogether. And this is one of the worst examples of the species, the Gamma who thinks he's discovered the Big Contradiction that no one else is smart and noble enough to see: Alphas are really woman-supplicating cowards and Gammas (especially he) are the masculine heroes. Gotcha!

And now he's determined to get you to ban him too, so he can go feel righteous some more about how no one can handle the wisdom he's putting down. None of us is man enough.

Can we trade him for Sandifer?

Anonymous A Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents June 27, 2015 7:41 PM  

Aaron
Danby, I wasn't banned from RoK. I was banned from Roosh V way, way back in the day before Roosh became a "leader" of the cult of male service to women, back when I myself thought my vocation in life was to serve women, like Roosh. I believe my offense was asking for a clarification about how "demonstrating higher value" isn't a contradiction to his advice not to try and "impress" women, or some such trivial idiocy of the kind that obsesses men who believe their vocation is to study how to please women best.

Dude. No one cares if or why you were banned at RooshV.

NO. ONE. CARES.

Understand? Your diarrhea of the keyboard is less interesting than some fat broad going on about her Beanie Baby collection.

UNDERSTAND?

Blogger Cail Corishev June 27, 2015 7:50 PM  

I have been banned from more sites than I can count. A disregard for hierarchy

No, it's not that or any of the other humble-brags you list. It's because you're a dink. Nothing more or less. You're not a special snowflake or "unusual," no matter what your mommy said. Just another dink. We've met you before and will again, and you're the same ass pimple every time. Eventually Vox will ban you, or you'll run out of ways to try to get him to ban you and move on to another site that needs your dinky wisdom, and we'll forget about you in about two seconds. Maybe someday you'll grow up and stop trying to prove you're smarter and better than everyone else, or maybe you won't. We don't care.

Anonymous Aaron June 27, 2015 7:56 PM  

I'm not trying to prove I'm smarter or better than anyone else.Rather the opposite. The difference between me and those on this site is precisely that I do not self-aggrandize and am willing to "submit" to logic and an objective code (the moral code that despite your protests, you know is right), and am not preoccupied with winning popularity, favor, or the approval of women. Nor was I always like this - it was a moral struggle. And I am far from perfect, but I try.

But you - you indulge in the monkey brain side of your mind, which we all have.

Anonymous Aaron June 27, 2015 7:57 PM  

And it is because of people like you that the West has no future.

Anonymous A Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents June 27, 2015 8:00 PM  

Cail Corishev
You aren't kidding. I promised myself a few weeks ago that I'd stop beating up a particular Gamma-leaning group because firing the same direction (kinda sometimes, anyway). But they do make it hard, unless you avoid them altogether.

Sometimes I think back to cow-orkers from the past with my new knowledge and it's amazing. Back in the 90's I worked in a group with a Boomer who was fat, balding, lived with his mother, never traveled, and who pedestalized women like crazy. He was totally reliable at routine operations, and it was a pleasure to work with him in that area, because if he said something would get done, it would get done. B asking him to learn something new was out of the question. Oh, and he was a walking encyclopedia of conspiracy theories, from "who killed JFK" to "what's nuclear power doing to our vital bodily fluids", etc. Watching him tie himself in knots around any female younger than himself was painful; sometimes being in the same room with him at work was like "fingernails down a chalkboard" over and over.

His incuriousness led him to become redundant, but he did hold on long enough to take an early retirement. And yet, the group managed to survive.

Anonymous A Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents June 27, 2015 8:05 PM  

I'm not trying to prove I'm smarter or better than anyone else.Rather the opposite.

Well, then, Mission Accomplished.

Your work here is done, pardner. You can ride into the sunset.

Anonymous patrick kelly June 27, 2015 8:21 PM  

Ok, I take it back, this thread has been somewhat entertaining....I've had a few laughs now....

Blogger Josh June 27, 2015 8:52 PM  

And it is because of people like you that the West has no future.

WE

DON'T

CARE

Blogger Doc Rampage June 27, 2015 9:03 PM  

Wow. This has been a real education, watching from the sidelines as Aaron goes through the same shit I've gone through in the past. He's trying to be impartial and logical, and people get enraged because it seems to them that he is putting on airs of superiority. He sees that tempers are getting high and thinks the way to cool things down is to step back, clarify his position in unemotional terms, and try to come to a basic understanding. This enrages everyone even more.

This has been a real eye-opener for me: my preferred tactic for trying to persuade people--impartial, logical argumentation-- just pisses people off.

Seeing the problem does not suggest a solution, though. If I see an issue and I want to make others aware of it, I have no way to do so because the only way that I know to persuade people will have the opposite effect, hardening them against my position.

Maybe, Aaron, it's because you and I don't see what is really happening. You (and I) see this is an argument where you are trying to persuade the people on this blog that they are being logically inconsistent. Maybe they don't see it that way. Maybe they are fully aware that they are being logically inconsistent and they consider this so obvious that if someone points it out, they must actually mean something else. Like if a woman says, "How do you like my new hair?" and you answer, "Well, it's pink." It's obvious that it's pink, so you must mean something else by saying that.

So, it seems obvious to you that if they recognized their logical inconsistency, they would take steps to become logically consistent, while to them, it's obvious that if you point out their logical inconsistency, you have some ulterior (and presumably hostile) reason for doing so.

To you, trying to be polite is your way of getting them to listen to you without giving offense. To them, your politeness is just a tactic to prevent them from responding in kind to what they see as an attack.

Well, it's just a hypothesis. I confess I really don't understand what set everyone off about what you said.

Blogger Josh June 27, 2015 9:08 PM  

This has been a real eye-opener for me: my preferred tactic for trying to persuade people--impartial, logical argumentation-- just pisses people off.

No, that's not it...

Anonymous A Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents June 27, 2015 9:15 PM  

You (and I) see this is an argument where you are trying to persuade the people on this blog that they are being logically inconsistent.

Passive-aggressiveness is not logic, though. Neither is repeating the same faulty premise over and over again.

Anonymous ticticboom June 27, 2015 9:23 PM  

I'm pretty sure there's quite few who wish you would just fuck off and die already.

*raises hand*

Anonymous Aaron June 27, 2015 9:24 PM  

Rampage, this is what it is, dude. Welcome to the human race. And there might not be a solution, as you say.

I do feel that the problem has gotten much worse in modern times, though, with its lack of restraint and encouragement of human evil, as you see with feminism and all sorts of aggressive power grabs that flourish in a permissive climate.

I have more to say, but I must bow out for tonight.

Blogger Josh June 27, 2015 9:29 PM  

I have more to say

Your ideas are intriguing and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

Anonymous ticticboom June 27, 2015 9:30 PM  

http://wondermark.com/1k62/

Now, Gallo claimed that everyone who took offense to being called nazis were sealioning in an attempt to duck questions.

Aaron, on the other, is the real deal. Banhammer can't come down soon enough. I'm already sick of his loggorhea.

Anonymous Soga June 27, 2015 9:40 PM  

And here, we have a prime example of two Gammas getting into a Gammakkake circle jerk.

It would be beautiful if it weren't so pathetic.

Blogger RBooster Man June 27, 2015 10:31 PM  

Steve - It is called fornication. I can excuse you if you are not a Christian, but every Christian man will regret his past bed hopping, if in fact he was once a bed hopper. It is called repentance. But I can only deduct from your answer that any man who was a virgin when he got married, in your mind, was never fully a man.

"Nobody" is a faggotty concern troll. Doesn't surprise me. "Nobody" couldn't tell the difference between multicultural states and mono cultural states when it comes to state collapse aftermath on earlier threads on this blog.

Blogger RBooster Man June 27, 2015 10:39 PM  

Many societies, perhaps most, have been organized on your principles. My code flourished, it seems briefly, in Western culture from the 1500s to perhaps WW2, and seems to be dying out.

"Nobody" and Aaron should be butt-buddies.

Blogger Doc Rampage June 27, 2015 10:44 PM  

Seven. I was wondering how long it would take for someone to call me a gamma, this blog's way of disqualifying someone. It was seven comments.

Well, I am very introspective and I don't like big parties, so there's that. But why would you hate someone for being introspective and not liking crowds? Why would that disqualify them from having a useful opinion?

Blogger Cail Corishev June 27, 2015 10:49 PM  

Doc, taking your bafflement at face value for a moment and assuming you're not Aaron's sockpuppet, I'll answer: it's the disingenuousness -- the "Gollee gee, I'm just asking questions here, why don't you appreciate my wonderful advice?" nonsense, when it's obvious that he loves being rejected. He was never asking honest questions, and "impartial, logical argumentation" never entered into it. He was lecturing from the start, but tried to hide it in piles of concern about our moral well-being.

If he were honest, he could have just said, "Hey, I think you guys are too mean to SJWs and moderates, and if you were nicer, you'd persuade more people. And I don't like Roosh because he banned me unfairly, so I think you'd be better off if you didn't associate with him." We still would have disagreed with him, but it would have been an honest discussion, and we wouldn't have slapped him around.

But he didn't do that. He came in with a bunch of den mother disappointment about how we're not being noble enough, so we're going to win the war but lose our souls or something.

Look, I read Ender's Game when I was 15, and I already got a little tired of Ender's "What if I turn into my enemy?" angst then. Along with Ender, I decided in the end that, yes, you have a right to defend yourself against obliteration with whatever means necessary, and regrets can wait until the war is over, and no, that doesn't mean you're going to turn into the enemy. We're not SJWs, we're not sinking to their level, and we are acting nobly, so Aaron can stuff his concern. He just doesn't like us, which is his prerogative, but it doesn't make him our daddy or our confessor.

So eventually, after endless posts of his attempts to make us nicer people (which at this point looks like nothing more than a plea for attention, so I guess it worked), it becomes clear that he's really just butthurt about Roosh banning him freaking years ago. Who the fuck cares? How does his victimhood make him our moral sensei?

And now we get you, playing the same disingenuous "Gosh, I just can't understand why this bugs people" game. As tiresome as it is predictable.

Blogger Cail Corishev June 27, 2015 10:58 PM  

sealioning

Is this new? A couple days ago a Twitter SJW called me a sea lion after I didn't immediately crumble in the face of his shaming attempt. I thought he was making fun of my face (so hurtful!) but now I've seen the term twice today. Never heard it before. Did they actually invent a term that means, "Beating an SJW like a drum in an argument"?

Anonymous ticticboom June 27, 2015 11:10 PM  

"Beating an SJW like a drum in an argument"?

That sums up how SJWs use it. Usually after lobbing vitriol unprovoked, and being shocked when their target doesn't immediately surrender.

Anonymous Nathan June 27, 2015 11:29 PM  

I like ED's definition of sealioning as "a logical fallacy that states that facts don't matter when opinion is involved. Basically what happens when a rational human questions the validity of mayonnaise as a gender."

Blogger Danby June 27, 2015 11:32 PM  

Sealioning

Blogger Danby June 27, 2015 11:35 PM  

Sealioning is the belief that what Aaron was doing is unfailingly polite.

Anonymous tiredofitall June 28, 2015 1:02 AM  

"Aaron. I compliment you on your excellent observations. I like your takedown of Roosh's lifestyle/business." - W.LindsayWheeler

Wow...when you get Wheeler's approval, it must be really bad.

Blogger Doc Rampage June 28, 2015 2:54 AM  

Thanks Cail, I really am serious. And I feel your pain on the "we should be better than our enemy" slogan. It's one of the most annoying themes in modern fiction, right up there with "torture never works" and the army where half of the officers and soldiers are women who are just as good as the men (that one is bugging me today because I just finished the otherwise awesome Powder Mage trilogy).

So here's a theory (sorry, I know this will annoy a lot of you, but I'd really like to get an answer): Danby has said that he was trying to help Aaron, and I take him at his word. I believe he really was trying to help Aaron. But he was doing so by insulting and demeaning Aaron. So how to reconcile these two apparently inconsistent truths? Maybe Danby's idea of "helping" is to abuse Aaron until Aaron submits, at which point Danby can effectively instruct Aaron in proper decorum. But if Aaron is anything like me, then he doesn't see attacks in this way. If so, Aaron recognizes that the attacks are not genuinely dangerous to him, so they are just minor annoyances whose purpose he does not understand. The idea of submitting to someone because they abuse him just does not even occur to him. He will ignore the abuse until it becomes too much and then either leave or lash out. The possibility of submitting probably literally never occurs to him (this is how I got into most of my fights in high school. Looking back on it, maybe they were just looking for signs of submission and they were probably as befuddled by my first ignoring and then attacking them as I was by the initial tormenting).

In other words, I'm suggesting that the whole thing is caused by a clash of world views that are alien to each other. To Aaron, telling someone that they are being inconsistent is just an opening to a conversation, and the insults that he receives in reply are just meaningless noise. To the rest of you, being told that you are being inconsistent is an aggression and the insults that you reply with are social signalling intending to make him submit.

Anyone buy that?

Blogger Doc Rampage June 28, 2015 2:57 AM  

Danby@ "Sealioning is the belief that what Aaron was doing is unfailingly polite."

Well, I wouldn't say "unfailingly". There were some passive aggressive things that Aaron threw in there.

Anonymous Shut up rabbit June 28, 2015 4:51 AM  

It's astounding the lengths some people will go to to convince you that you should care about their feelz. Tautologically discombobulating.

Let me add my voice to the chorus:

"I don't care!"

Anonymous Gary June 28, 2015 8:33 AM  

What women think of me? Don't give a shit.

The vast majority of them are dumber than doornails.

Why would you value their opinion?

Anonymous Aaron June 28, 2015 1:13 PM  

I think you're right. I can't really add to what you said. It's a clash of world views. I care about logic and argument, they care about social submission.

You say on the other thread that "you make people angry" - I would urge you to consider the possibility that you are not "making" anyone angry at all, just as I didn't "make" anyone angry on this thread. There are a lot of aggressive people who use anger as a tactic. In the psychological literature sudden, inexplicable anger is a classic conditioning tactic used by aggressive personalities.

It is designed to put people off balance and make them think they did something wrong, when for the life of them they cannot imagine what. People naturally seek for patterns and assume they must have triggered the anger. Not so. The anger is just an act of aggression for them to force compliance.

The subject of covert aggression and the tactics people use to force compliance is a fascinating, if dark and dreary, window into the pettiness of the human soul.

But its important to realize you are just being aggressed against and you didn't do anything to "provoke" it.

Based on your comments, I would posit that you are not an aggressive personality and that you are encountering aggressive personalities who use anger and other tactics to condition you. You might be falling into the trap of thinking searching for patterns and finding the cause in your behavior.

But there is nothing you could have done to avoid the anger - it isn't about what you did. Its simply about someone using aggression against you to obtain what they want, whatever it is.

There is nothing I could have done on this site to have gotten a different response - I criticized a figure that is revered on this site, as well as an action by the owner of this site. That is bound to provoke naked aggression from people not willing to subordinate their aggression to the rules of logic and civil discourse.

So there is no way to avoid this aggression and hostility - there is nothing I can *do" short of simply NEVER expressing an unpalatable opinion.

Give up the dream of finding a "way" to appease unprincipled aggressors - they must merely be confronted with firm boundaries. Give up the delusion that it *must* be something you did because humans aren't crazy, right? No, humans aren't crazy, but they are evil.

Anonymous Giuseppe June 28, 2015 1:27 PM  

People, people, why are you wasting so much time on Aaron?
Rule 6. from my comment 102 on VD Post "we'd like you better if you were losing"

For reference:

"6. He is arguing, aiming the rifle at you, or others in the trench, etc. - Shoot him directly. Dump the corpse into no man's land or use it as a way to protect the sandbags from enemy fire."

Blogger Danby June 28, 2015 1:33 PM  

Wow, the gamma is strong in this thread.

The "aggression" has nothing to do with submission. it's an attempt to break through the thick ego-protecting shell of denial.

Aaron's entire "I'm coldly rational" schtick is a very-blatant ego-protection mechanism, designed to keep rational thought away from his false self-image. Only very strong emotional reactions, such as anger, can break through that shell when it gets truly established, And a man who has given up on female companionship is inside a very thick shell indeed.

You've not broken through to a higher level of rationality, you retreated from reality, because it's just too painful to admit that you are the source of all the problems in your life. Not anyone else, you.

Until you begin to get a glimmer of that, nothing you or anyone else says makes the least bit of difference.

BTW, that's also why people around here reccommend exercise for cases like yours. Exercise in men releases testosterone, which really can help break down the reality denial field.

Basically, Aaron, every thing you've said about yourself and what you are doing here and why you are doing it, is a lie you tell yourself to keep from feeling bad, because your life is a pathetic wad of failure. Those moments of extreme pain, when you thought you were growing, you were failing to grow, giving in to the pain, and protecting the little boy that nobody wanted to play with.

Anonymous Aaron June 28, 2015 1:36 PM  

They spend time on me, Giussepere, because something about me bothers them. They know I am right - but they lack the self-discipline to submit to logic and reason, they lack the strength of will.

It makes them troubled and uneasy in their minds to see someone not living by their code, but by the code they secretly know they should be living by - so they must lash out.

Anonymous Aaron June 28, 2015 1:45 PM  

I'm not "coldly rational" Danby, I'm warmly, passionately, partisan in my views - I merely recognize reason as the final arbiter, not my passions, however fond I am of them.

While I thank you for trying to teach me the "arts" of ingratiating myself with aggressors - basically, submit - its not a skill I am able to learn.

I'm probably deficient some way. Just weird I suppose. Don't pummel your brains over it - you will never be able to understand a weird character like me.

Anonymous ticticboom June 28, 2015 2:07 PM  

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say this pitiful creature's father didn't bother to raise him. It's one thing to waltz into someone else's place and insult virtually everyone there. BTDT. It's another to be surprised at the reaction.

"You disagree with me. Therefore, you're unintelligent, illogical slaves unable to think for yourselves. Hey, why are you getting angry? That just proves you're irrational."

It's obvious he's incapable of ever considering the possibility that he might be wrong. Or of ever seeing things from someone else's point of view.

Gammas honestly believe that if they refuse to acknowledge defeat, they haven't lost. In the real world, a fight often ends when the loser either submits or dies. Everyone else but gammas know this at a visceral level.

I've seen it way too many times where some twerp simply will not shut the fuck up and go away. Instead he keeps mouthing off to people ready, willing, and able to turn him into a stain on the floor. Then, as he's getting pounded, keeps running his mouth until he's unconscious, dead, or someone pulls the other guy off him. And they never learn their lesson, sadly.

No doubt he greets the prospect of physical confrontation with shock and horror. And somehow has managed to convince himself that makes him morally superior, instead of a worthless coward.

Anonymous Shut up rabbit June 28, 2015 2:13 PM  

A: I'm right about everything yet still miserable
Ilk: Maybe your ego is the problem?
A: No, I am right about everything.

My personal interest in as an object lesson in how self-deceiving someone caught up in their own ego can be.

Let me ask you a question (in the spirit of enquiry, not to encourage your delusions). Are you fit and healthy? If you are right about everything then you know that being physically healthy is important to sound mental health don't you?

How often do you train? Do you allow yourself cheat days in your diet? Whats your PB for 10k? How much can you press? 1RM?

Because if you are an obese, whiny man-child or a skinny neck beard white knight WHY WOULD WE LISTEN TO YOU? You are like a 2 pack-a-day man telling everyone else to stop smoking or an obese fitness instructor.

YOUR attitude is not something anyone would want - your self-righteousness is on a plane of existence that does not intersect with our realities. You are creating a fantasy in which you are always right because YOU are writing the rules. Nobody else is playing by them rules, nobody.

Justify it all you like but you are basically saying "You are all wrong because you aren't miserable like me!" Do you realise why nobody takes you seriously?

People get angry with you because they point out your obvious failings and try to help but you ignore them and tell them they should be miserable like you (because if EVERYBODY thought like you the world would be a better place but until then we should all become martyrs to an imagined cause because YOU WON'T GET OVER YOURSELF!)

So, tell me again how right you are about everthing? Point me at your instagram pics, you blog, your achievements that prove you are always right. You can't? Because the whole world and everyone in it are wrong but YOU are right. That is the definition of an ego problem.

Anonymous Aaron June 28, 2015 2:38 PM  

This conversation has veered way off track.

The original logical point I made still stands, has gone unaddressed, and I showed how Vox Day's application of more-than-military levels of authoritarianism to ethical and philosophical debate is illegitimate and misconceived.

Roosh is a shameless policer of thought and opinion, and in this respect not worse than SJWs, and for Vox to vilify cowardice on the part of SJWs but then ally with someone showing similar cowardly traits, undermines the respect Vox is entitled to, his fitness for leadership, his judgement of character, and the ultimate success of any group that tolerates cowardice in their midst.

Well, that's pretty much it, then.

Blogger Doc Rampage June 28, 2015 2:43 PM  

Aaron, I'm quit a bit older than you, so I'd like to point out that even though, like me, you may not feel the emotional need to belong and it doesn't particularly bother you when others are angry at you, there are practical reasons to learn to simulate normal human interaction. The simple fact is that society is structured in such a way that you will be much better off if you can learn to blend in as a person with normal social instincts. My career has suffered a great deal because I was not always able to do this. I have always gotten abysmal peer evaluations. If not for a few managers who valued my skills regardless of my social failings, I would never have advanced at all. One of the people who got purple-faced angry at me for reasons that I did not understand was the CEO of my company. That kind of thing is no good.

Don't let your pride interfere with your goals.

Anonymous Shut up rabbit June 28, 2015 2:46 PM  

Rules of the blog - you were asked direct questions. Answer them or don't come back. I'll be nice, I'll accept an answer to just one of them...

Blogger Doc Rampage June 28, 2015 2:55 PM  

On more thing, Aaron. Everyone here except me has made it clear that they don't care what point you are trying to make. So why are you still trying to make the point? Regardless of how you started out (and I believe that your intentions were honorable in the beginning), you have now gotten annoyed enough by the reaction that you are deliberately provoking people. Be honest with yourself; that's what you are doing now.

Anonymous Aaron June 28, 2015 3:07 PM  

Ok, Shut up rabbit, I'll answer one of your questions. I don't believe you'll appreciate my answer, though.

"Because if you are an obese, whiny man-child or a skinny neck beard white knight WHY WOULD WE LISTEN TO YOU?"

Because ideas are good or bad based on logic and their merit, not the social position of the person presenting the ideas.

You see, its a difference of character. Its an age old dispute. There have always been men who thought an argument should be judged on its merit, and those who paid more attention to "social proof".

For a brief period in the history of Europe, men of my kind - just barely - predominated, but all good things come to an end, and the world is returning to its old ways.

Anonymous Aaron June 28, 2015 3:36 PM  

Doc Rampage, of course they don't want to face what I have to say and would rather subject me to "social compliance" tactics to make me shut up - I don't see why I have to cooperate with them, though.

After they've tried to deflect attention by attacking my personality, its legitimate for me to bring up my original point one more time, which they very much don't wish to face.

I am not saying anything solely to provoke, but I am not holding back what is true just because it might provoke. It is a good lesson for them - one, "social compliance" tactics, the first thing they reach for to make an uncomfortable truth go away, don't always work, and two,to have to confront the pain of a truth that their best efforts at social compliance tactics has failed to make go away. Facing that pain is the foundation of the ego-discipline needed to have adult conversations.

Blogger Danby June 28, 2015 3:48 PM  


"Because if you are an obese, whiny man-child or a skinny neck beard white knight WHY WOULD WE LISTEN TO YOU?"

Because ideas are good or bad based on logic and their merit, not the social position of the person presenting the ideas.


logical conclusion: Aaron is an obese, whiny manchild or a skinny neck beard white knight.

Dude, you are the very definition of a midwit, someone with a 120 IQ who thinks he's hot shit. I have an IQ over 160, and I'm not the smartest person in this forum.I was studying dialectic at an age where you were still learning to read.
You have not made any logical arguments at all. None. you have made gratutitous assertions, not backed by logic or evidence. The only backing your assertions have is that you arrived at them as conclusions.

here is is in more formal language:
Shut Up Rabbit: your obvious lack of social status indicates that your opinion is of little weight

Aaron: Truth is truth regardless of social stature

I respond, to the contrary: The underlying premise of rabbit's argument is that the purpose of listening to an argument in the moral sphere is to learn from that argument how best to live. When someone whose life is an obvious failure wants to provide advice on how one should live one's life, that must be taken into account. Since Aaron's life is an unpleasant morass of unwarranted self-regard, lack of contact with social reality, and ego protection, he cannot have arrived at a correct conclusion about how that life should be conducted.
Therefore his assertions should be ignored.

How's that?

Anonymous Aaron June 28, 2015 3:49 PM  

Doc Rampage, I have found, unfortunately, after much trial and error and trying various different things, that people engage in unprovoked aggression and the best response is to meet it firmly. I went through a period where I tried very hard to avoid stepping on anyone's ego, thinking that wounded egos are the source of all conflict. It didn't work.

It didn't work because my theory was wrong. I thought all aggression was really self-defense, and if a person does not feel his ego is attacked, he won't attack.

Unfortunately that proved to be a quixotic view of humanity. Aggressive people attack because they want something from you, or just to bring you down.

The one thing I know is that being "nice" and "trying to fit in" will be disastrous and blow up in your face - if you follow this route, I hate to say it, but you are in for a shock. But maybe you need to experience that. (by being "nice" I mean above and beyond the normal rules of civility and decorum)

If you got bad peer review evaluations, it can be something as simple as the fact that others felt if they got you out of the way their career paths would be easier, and correctly identified you as someone unlikely to retaliate.

You should research character disturbance, its prevalence in modern society, the aggressive personality style and the tactics they use, and how you can defend yourself. There's a lot of stuff on the web.

Blogger Danby June 28, 2015 3:50 PM  

For a brief period in the history of Europe, men of my kind - just barely - predominated, but all good things come to an end, and the world is returning to its old ways.

When was this shining moment in the history of mankind? I would contend it never existed, and i will willingly wager that you cannot provide any period of more than 1 year when it was true.

Blogger Danby June 28, 2015 3:53 PM  

Unfortunately that proved to be a quixotic view of humanity. Aggressive people attack because they want something from you, or just to bring you down.

Or they're trying to slap some sense into your thick skull

The one thing I know is that being "nice" and "trying to fit in" will be disastrous and blow up in your face - if you follow this route, I hate to say it, but you are in for a shock. But maybe you need to experience that. (by being "nice" I mean above and beyond the normal rules of civility and decorum)

How cute, it's trying to warn it's elders off getting along with people.
How fucking wrapped up in your own opinion can you be Aaron?

Anonymous Aaron June 28, 2015 4:06 PM  

Thank you for telling me your IQ, Danby.

I understand your need to qualify yourself to me and earn my esteem - what other good qualities do you have?

Anonymous Aaron June 28, 2015 4:22 PM  

It just occurred to me Doc Rampage that a major source of why you provoke people may be because they can perceive that you don't care what they think of them.

If someone cares what you think of them, you have power over them, and people might be uncomfortable around someone over whom they lack this basic kind of power.

They may wish to MAKE you care what they think of you.

No matter how polite and nice you are, its clear you don't care what they think of you, and don't play the status game, and thus they have no power over you - and that's scary. You are free from levers of control everyone uses on everyone to force compliance.

As the people on this site show, the status game is hugely important to most people, and its how they try and exert power over you - you see the endless attacks on my "status" - but if you don't care, you might make them feel frighteningly and disconcertingly powerless when it comes to you.

Perhaps the worst sin you can commit to another person is not care what he thinks about you? You deprive him of his power over you, and he doesn't know where he stands. He's scared. He's also angry - because your indifference, even if not at all hostile and even nice, is an incredible wound to his amour propre.

A thought - just throwing it out there.

Blogger Eraser June 28, 2015 4:30 PM  

Aaron, assuming you're not just trolling us all, you have a serious problem: You're unable to accept the difference between what OUGHT and what IS.

to be heard all I should have to do is abide by the rules of civil discourse
They know I am right - but they lack the self-discipline to submit to logic and reason

The world where people have to listen to you because you're "civil" exists only in your mind. This is the OUGHT.

In the real world, not everything you say has value to people. If what you say has no value to your listeners, they won't want to listen. You can complain until you're blue about logic and civil discourse, and they still won't want to listen. But now they are annoyed with you. This is the IS.

See the difference? Your moral superiority is entirely in your head.

No, you don't even follow your own rules. You claim to be civil, but you have accused people in this discussion of having "no principles or backbone", a "lack of spine", a "character disagreement" with you (true, by the way), that they "indulge in the monkey brain side of [their] mind", and "because of people like [them] that the West has no future". That is the opposite of civil.

Blogger The Requital June 28, 2015 4:37 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Anonymous Aaron June 28, 2015 4:39 PM  

Eraser, the issue is not that some people might find my point uninteresting. The issue is the hostility, verging on hatred, that I provoked.

Danby thinks that to avoid this hostility, I must avoid saying unwelcome things, and anything I say must be very ingratiating and submissive. I think that all I should do is be civil, and expect adults to be able to have a logical conversation.

You are, however, right that my kind of intellectual discourse has a diminishing presence in the modern world.

Blogger The Requital June 28, 2015 4:41 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger The Requital June 28, 2015 4:43 PM  

Thanks Danny and Shut Up Rabbit. I find it instructive on the whole about how it is impossible to have a honorable fight when the enemy refuses to show themselves on the field.

Anonymous ticticboom June 28, 2015 4:46 PM  

Rather than respond to a wall of text of you claiming to be 'nice' with another wall of text explaining that cold formality can be as, or more, insulting than gutter profanity, I'll let Dimebag Darrell express my views on this matter.

Walk on home, boy.

Blogger Eraser June 28, 2015 4:52 PM  

The issue is the hostility, verging on hatred, that I provoked.

I wonder why...

I think that all I should do is be civil, and expect adults to be able to have a logical conversation.

Did you even read the last paragraph? I put a list of your insults there. You have not been civil.

You are, however, right that my kind of intellectual discourse has a diminishing presence in the modern world.

I never said that. But we can hope.

Blogger Danby June 28, 2015 4:56 PM  

Danby thinks that to avoid this hostility, I must avoid saying unwelcome things, and anything I say must be very ingratiating and submissive.

No, I think anything you say should be honest. You should avoid saying dishonest things, particularly about yourself.

So far you have not.

And you can't even see what I am talking about..

BTW, you ignored my totally rational, logical argument above, instead picking out background information to insult me. Because you're Mr Coolly Rational. Or maybe you're a delusional freak.

Anonymous Aaron June 28, 2015 5:04 PM  

Danby, also, thanks for being honest.

For you, if someone gives you life advice, you don't trust yourself to asses it for logic and common sense. Rather, you wish to receive wisdom from an authority figure, thus relieving you of the responsibility to think. You also don't trust yourself to assess the logic of an argument. Instead, you look at the relative social status of the person saying something, and accept him as an authority based on that.

And this, by the way Rampage, answers your earlier question about why they called you gamma.

It's a tradition of thinking that hasn't been popular in the West since the Middle Ages, although I believe the guru system in India is based on the same principles.

Anyways, there is probably little point in continuing - best, and good luck.

Blogger Doc Rampage June 28, 2015 5:13 PM  

Actually, Aaron, I do care what people think of me. It's not a very strong emotion for me; all in all I'd rather spend the day reading a good book than hanging out with the guys so they like me better, but it's not completely absent. I'm not a sociopath.

You care what these people think of you too. You don't want them to think that they have intimidated you or driven you off. So now that you've made your point, why not stop? You are just hardening the anti-gamma prejudice in the group.

Blogger Danby June 28, 2015 5:18 PM  

For you, if someone gives you life advice, you don't trust yourself to asses it for logic and common sense. Rather, you wish to receive wisdom from an authority figure, thus relieving you of the responsibility to think.

DING DING DING! Completely wrong!

I take into account the fact that I could be wrong. That has evidently never occurred to you. You came to all of your conclusions about life at some ridiculously young age, and will never ever let yourself consider that you could have erred.

You also don't trust yourself to assess the logic of an argument. Instead, you look at the relative social status of the person saying something, and accept him as an authority based on that.

So far there has been exactly one (1) logical argument presented in this entire discussion. so far you have ignored it, instead arguing coolly and logically by assigning base motives to my every statement. Don't you trust yourself to address the logic?

And this, by the way Rampage, answers your earlier question about why they called you gamma.

How about because he is, like you are, a Gamma?

It's a tradition of thinking that hasn't been popular in the West since the Middle Ages, although I believe the guru system in India is based on the same principles.

1) India is not the West
2) The guru system is exactly the opposite of what you're describing, as the guru is believed to have received divine inspiration, and thus to have access to extra-logical information.
Still waiting for your cite of a time period when society was run under your style of rules. a vague wave at "the Middle Ages" won't work. You may be referrring to the philosophical debates of the Middle Ages, which were, yes, worked out on the basis of rational thought. Except when torture, murder and warfare were used to consolidate the logical argument. Ask Dominic how he out-argued the Albigensians, or ask John Bosco about his disputations with the Calvinists.

BTW, what did you think of the Summa?

Anonymous Aaron June 28, 2015 5:25 PM  

Yeah, I'm going to stop. A sociopath, btw, is someone who has no empathy and kindness, not someone who is disinterested in status. Also, I wouldn't worry too much about the gamma thing - it is a characteristic of weak men to be preoccupied with superiority. There is a reason PUAs always appear nervous and weak when you finally see them, and the owner of this blog does not seem strong to me. You say you are older so it probably isn't relevant to you, but I only started getting good with girls when I dropped the whole childish "alpha" thing. Women correctly perceive it as weak. Anyways, I said it all before, so peace. I'm out.

Blogger Danby June 28, 2015 5:44 PM  

And he flounces off, none the better for the encounter.

Doc, you seem less deeply embedded in a hardened shell of narcissistic ego-protection. Think about some of the stuff I said above, about needing to stop protecting your ego. It's important and whatever you socio-sexual status, it can only help you to achieve some self-improvement.

Anonymous ticticboom June 28, 2015 5:52 PM  

Don't go away angry, just...go away.

Blogger Doc Rampage June 28, 2015 7:08 PM  

Danby, since you have such contempt for introspective men, I have to assume that you don't engage in a lot of introspection yourself. Which leaves me wondering where you get all of this knowledge you think you have about the internal workings of other people's minds.

Blogger Cail Corishev June 28, 2015 8:24 PM  

People, people, why are you wasting so much time on Aaron?

I don't speak for anyone else, but I wasted the time because we get a lot of Aarons, and we'll get more as we win more battles in the culture war. Our side, being made up of generally decent people, is susceptible to the "your armor is getting tarnished" charge, so it needs to be exposed as the scam that it is. It has one purpose only: to hobble us so that we fight less effectively.

I didn't write a single word to Aaron; what would be the point of that? You don't "discuss" with a liar. I engaged with him to give him rope and shine a light on what he was doing, to make his motives and tactics unmistakable to anyone paying attention. Task completed, in my opinion. Now he can be ignored over there in the corner along with the other guys with their panties on their heads.

Anonymous ticticboom June 28, 2015 9:10 PM  

Doc, you seem to be confusing introspection with solipsism.

Useless Lotus Eaters, contemplating their navels, and congratulating each other on how superior they are to people who actually go out and do something.

Blogger Danby June 28, 2015 9:48 PM  

Doc, I have no contempt for introspective men. I am, in fact trying to encourage more introspection. I won't characterize you, but Aaron is neither quiet, nor introspective. In fact, that is my entire point. An introspective fellow looks inside for the source and solutions to his problems. That's what the word means. A Gamma blames everything in other people.

Anonymous Toby Temple June 28, 2015 11:00 PM  

Gamma: IT IS ALWAYS THERE FAULT!!!

That is their slogan.

Anonymous Aaron June 29, 2015 12:43 AM  

This experience has also clarified things in my mind. A useful lesson, at the end of the day.

There are two types of men. Men with the strength to submit to logic, and weak men who see an argument, or a personal interaction - life itself - as a status contest.

The trick is to immediately identify the insecure whose concern is with status, and either ignore them, or fight them using status-tactics (if you can do so without getting nauseous), with a complete disregard for logic and honesty, as they fight.

Either learn the weak man's art of spin and adopting poses, or simply don't waste your time with the status obsessed.

From now on, the moment a man reveals himself to me as status-obsessed, I will recognize that I am dealing with a weak person incapable of logic, and not pursue the conversation.

It is a good rule going forward. One of the key words I will look for is "alpha" - this word is the biggest giveaway as to what preoccupations a man has, and is clear evidence of lack of self-confidence.

So in the end this was a good experience for me - it allowed me to formulate an intelligent and useful principle going forward about how to allocate my time and effort, and what men are beyond redemption.

Not everyone is strong, and not everyone can become so - my quixotic unwillingness to accept that some men are irredeemably weak has blinded me. Character does not change, it just doesn't.

Danby, you have helped me, in the end.

Blogger automatthew June 29, 2015 1:08 AM  

Fighting retreat, check.

Anonymous Toby Temple June 29, 2015 1:13 AM  

The irony coming from Aaron's own declarations is astounding.

Aaron. Your inability to view yourself anything other than weak despite the observable reality classifies you as the weak type of man. A gamma. You claim to be logical yet you reject reality.

You do not embrace your faults because, to you, you have none of those or you do not see them as faults. Hence you are incapable of learning and becoming better.

The lesson you are claiming is nothing more than a self-affirmation of a belief that you already hold: THEY ARE WRONG AND I AM RIGHT.

Blogger Danby June 29, 2015 3:34 AM  

Aaron
Please show one time I used the word "alpha", you dishonest pig.
Please address the lone logical argument in this thread.
Please show a single instance of your assertion of an earlier time when the tactics you claim, but fail, to use were the standard of interaction and influence.
Please support a single assertion you have made with logic and/or evidence.
Please show a single comment you have posted that is free of invective, assigned motive, and misdiagnosis of your opponents psychology.
You claim the mantle of reason, but you have yet to wear it.

Anonymous ticticboom June 29, 2015 7:15 AM  

Weakness is strength.

Cowardice is courage.

Emotion is logic.

Blogger ScuzzaMan June 29, 2015 8:00 AM  

Beware the Naked Man Who Offers You His Shirt.

Great book title, pretty good book, useful principle.

Not having experienced everything possible, wise men learn from the experience of others. Not to say that one cannot learn from the pure thought experiments of others, but to put them in their right relation to actual experiments in the real world.

Nor does a principle have to true in every circumstance in order to be useful; just more often than not.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts