Category Archives: Thinking

The conspiracy of “MGTOW’s subversion”

To those who think that MGTOW can be “inflitrated” or “coopted” or “subverted” I ask the following question: since when did the observation that fewer and fewer men are engaging in relationships with women for the purpose of reducing a vector of risk from state interference become some organization or club that can be attacked?  And for what purpose? To induce men into becoming vulnerable to State attack by getting them to marry?

Think about it.

The following is an extract that I think might shed a bit of light on the issue.

In “Subversion of Social Movements by Adversarial Agents”  Eric L. Nelson outlines “thirteen suppressive or subversive methods” to bring about “social movement failure.” Failures are classified as either “petit” or “complete,” depending on whether the targeted movement or organization is merely demoralized and shaken up, or completely “brought down.”

The methods, each of them explained and illustrated, are:

1) Suppress Information Flow;

2) Suppress Recruiting Efforts;

3) Reduce Recruiting Opportunities

4) Develop Attractive Alternatives;

5) Tempt Members to Leave;

6) Reverse Recruiting Using Demoralizing Information;

7) Operationalize Secure/Faux Concessions;

8) Expertly Directed, Incessant Proactive Manipulation of Media;

9) Resource Depletion;

10) Stigmatization;

11) Divisive Disruption;

12) Intimidation; and

13) Intrapsychic Wounding.

The article ends with the following (abbreviated for this post) conclusion.

“Thirteen tested and theoretical methods of subversion reviewed here were designed to induce petit or grand failure into targeted social movements. History demonstrates that in the laboratory of real life multiple methods of subversion are generally deployed sequentially and concurrently, in accordance with the tactical strategy developed by adversarial agents specific to a targeted social movement.”

Too many people are conflating simple disagreement and very sloppy thinking of a very sloppy term with some sort of social conspiracy.

C’mon guys. Focus on what is important: your control over your life, and helping other men effectively deal with the currently hostile legal and cultural environment so that we can live the best life that we can, regardless of the current state of the world.

Advertisements
Tagged ,

How to Know Thyself

I believe that one of the biggest problems that people face, in terms of our personal selves is that we too often get lost in a means goal, and not going straight for the end goal.

A means goal is a path to an end goal. We get lost in “I need to drive to the next city” and not “I need to get to the next city.” What happens if the car is broken? Or the roads closed? Then we must do battle to focus on making the car go from A to Z, and we fail to consider other alternatives. Having someone drive us, the bus, the train, airplanes, boats.

Then again, is getting to the next city even the goal? Or is it also a means goal? Perhaps it is, to spend time with loved ones. That would be an end goal. Perhaps it is not, but to have an interview, to get a job, do pay the bills. What if paying the bills is really the end goal? Makes focusing on driving seem silly, doesn’t it?

Example: “I believe that promoting X makes me a good person.”

Promoting the idea is a means goal, “being a good person” would be the end goal. It is my experience that when we directly work on being a good person, that we get tangible results sooner, because we focus on the elements of the goal: what are the criteria that I can measure that will allow me to ascertain whether I am in fact, a good person?

When we do this, we often realize that the means goal would not have gotten us to where we want to be, or that there are better, simpler, quicker and less energy intensive ways of getting to that goal.

I’ve often had difficulty with the concept of “know thyself.”

The answer, it turns out is simple: know your needs, your goals, your strengths, weaknesses, habits and preferences.

If you know your needs, you’ll know your goals. If you know your goals, you can evaluate what strengths or weaknesses, habits and preferences bear on the achieving the goal.

When you know these things, and put them all in order, life becomes much simpler and more pleasant.

Tagged

Thought of the day: What makes us human?

If we developed AI, one could say that they are our spiritual children, or inheritors. What makes us human, “doomed” should our species perish, perhaps even at their hands? The loss of “the human spirit” or the loss of our genome? Which part makes us sad?

Tagged ,

On dictionaries

Let us remember that the purpose of a dictionary is not to offer one, comprehensive, infallible statement of what something is.

It is a tool designed to present the best possible, brief, verbal pointer to a concept so that people may better understand and communicate. As a device based on language, it falls prey to the very kind or errors that it attempts to prevent or remediate. Were it otherwise, all dictionaries would have precisely the very same definition, without exception.

“The dictionary definition of X is…” at most a guideline. A dictionary’s definition is a starting point for a conversation, not an end point. Its purpose is to ease communication and understanding.

The real hard work and responsibility of genuine conversation and communication, is up to us, and not to be fobbed off on the tool.

Tagged ,

On perfect security and freedom

2015-05-12-Perfect-Freedom

When I was younger, I thought that if I did not have
perfect freedom
that I was oppressed.

I am now told that
if one does not have
perfect security
that they are oppressed.

One needs only as much
freedom and security
as is necessary
to accomplish one’s goals.

Tagged

Is Homosexuality Nature’s Population Control?

I’ve often wondered the same thing. Dawkin’s answer is very plausible to me (as if my point of view on the matter had any foundation.)

Tagged , , ,

An excellent case study on Feminist use of language to frame thoughts

Feminists are excellent at is controlling the mental framing of an argument. Notice that in every instance that Mike made a point, that she immediately changed the scope of the conversation. She does not announce “I am now changing the scope!” She does it entirely by presupposition, in a fluid manner. This is the tool that all skillful Feminists use, I would guess, 80% of the time. The benefits is that it seems conversationally “natural” and that to to stop the technique, one must get bogged down by refuting the presupposition, point by point, where as a response she need only apply the very same technique to the rebuttal. The only way to counter this that I’m aware of is to be able to simultaneously shift the frame again in such a way that her presuppositions are refuted, presuppositionally, and to grab the frame back and hold it.

This highlights, what I think is a difference in classical communication style between men and women. People who have “a masculine mindset” tend to all make the same error when dealing with such people: we reach for the explicit. But, like sex that does not need words, acceptance of ideas is often based on the non-verbal, and being explicit is actually counter-productive.

This particular debate about sexual consent on the BBC’s ‘The Big Questions’ provides a text-book example of both the arguments, techniques used. There are also two members, a man with short and white hair, and the woman sitting next to Mike Buchanan who simply nail it.

This video is worth keeping kept as a case-study.

Tagged , , , ,

A video that every MGTOW should see

This is a video that every MGTOW, or MRA should pay attention to. Very insightful. I’d rather let the content do the talking than to attempt to describe it.

Let go of the notion of “deserving.”

I have to admit that someone who says “it’s not what [the fathers] deserve, but what you deserve” is merely playing into the same message that women hear from day one. You deserve. You deserve. The whole notion of deserving is part of the problem. I grew up thinking that that I deserved only the worst in life. The word deserve implies some merit, a debt owed. But what was done to have earned this debt as a child? Nothing. It is a bad concept that when disconnected from performance implies that a moral, a non-measurable, intangible, purely conceptual cause to the effect of merely existing. The concept deserve of good or bad things should be abolished, and the term earned should be used instead. To do otherwise is to set the child up for failure by imposing conditions over which they have no control.

Let us as men banish this pseudo-moralistic term and replace it with more accurate terms such as “earn,” which puts the child, and eventually the adult back in control of their life.

Tagged , , ,

You are just a racist

“You are just a racist.”

Many a person has levelled this popular charge against, well, anyone they don’t like. I’d like to take a moment to correct the statement and simultaneously arm you for the next person who calls you a big bad meany racist.

A racist is a person who believes a particular race is superior to others.

Calling someone a nigger, spic, jew or cracker does not make one a racist. At most, it makes them a boor. That one might engage in behaviours that are popularly attributed to a certain group does not imply that one is part of the group, or that they adhere to the ideology that denotes the group.

I believe that women ought to be treated with a baseline of respect. Does this make me a Feminist? Of course not.

That Chinese people eat pork and that Canadians eat pork does not make the Chinese Canadians, or vice versa.

There is only one sure way to know if someone is a racist, misogynist, this, that or the other -phobic: that is to ask whether they subscribe to a particular idea or not.

And even if they do, this does not imply that the person, as a whole complex creature, should be dismissed. A KKK member surely can be a good mother, and a fascist can surely also be a good father, or auto mechanic.

The label, whether accurate or not, does not imply anything about any other ideas or behaviours. To claim it so would be a simple ad hominem, as well as simple-minded name-calling.

The question to ask, in these kind of contexts, is: can I demonstrate that the individual in question has negatively discriminated against someone in such a manner as to cause measurable harm?

 

Tagged , ,