PatrickC

Self criticism and self censoring can be a very useful and constructive aspect to our lives. For instance we can look back on our past actions and ask ourselves how we could have improved. We self censor for quite healthy reasons, depending on the company we are in. It's not healthy to share parts of yourself with complete strangers. Unless it has some context, such as this board. However, what you could be talking about (unknowingly perhaps) is 'self erasure'. I've highlighted below the parts of your opening post where you might be doing that. I've very loosely outlined the the blue comments as facts and the red ones as what one might call feelings. Except they aren't feelings at all, they are your opinions. You might disagree with some of my conclusions in this manner, which is fine, they could be wrong. They are simply mean't as a guide to help you deconstruct your own thinking when you consider yourself. Ask yourself where did these opinions originate from. After which you can start to build a picture of more facts around them, which will either hold you or others to account for them. By which time you will know the degree of anger you should feel towards your parents. One way you could do this is by asking your remaining siblings how your parents felt when you were born. Did they treat you differently compared to them etc. Anyway this will likely be a slow process, as one thought often leads to another and so forth. Just keep reminding yourself that you weren't born this way. You will notice that sporadically throughout your opening post you were already doing this. Albeit slightly muddled and disconnected. Just keep doing this more, making sure you attach correctly the opinion with the facts. Lastly, you need to start attaching 'real' feelings to these situations (rather than opinions). You did a little of this as below. Note that I highlighted the feeling in blue as a 'fact'. Do more. This process is helped along much faster with good therapy and commited journalling. My thoughts here are merely a guide and not an end in of itself. That said, I hope it proves useful to you and others and best wishes.

The PFC discusses the Monty Python film, The Holy Grail.

14 Powerful Portraits Of Men Reacting To New Mandatory Army Draft In Lithuania http://www.boredpanda.com/army-men-portraits-lithuanian-draft-conscription-neringa-rekasiute-beata-tiskevic-hasanova/

Thanks for the suggestions Autowagon. Anyway, finally managed to edit this one down. Still way to long, but hopefully enjoyable all the same.

Eban was actually good friends with Sean Stephenson (the paraplegic). Who has completely rejected the PUA method now for a more hollistic approach to coaching people through their anxiety and performance issues.

I blame Jeff berwick for popularising this nonesense.

Good call Matt.

I eventually recalled one of the PUA guys before Roosh. Eban Pagan, otherwise known as David De'Angelo in his PUA days (double your dating). He now discusses entrepreneurship these days and interestingly I think he is now married.

One can only hope that MMX has also been driving the Roosh forums bonkers with Philosophy.

Yes, I realised that after I posted it. But it was modded. I was referring to what TheFuzz was claiming earlier on in the thread.

If it will get to the nub of it. It would be very welcome.

It still doesn't nullify the NAP. If there is a percieved threat, such as you say. In which case a knife, gun or whatever would be easily obtainable as a threat motive after the event.

Where weapons are being drawn then you have secure evidence for a 'perceived' threat of force, which the NAP would oblige you proportional self defense against. The more deadly the weapons being weilded, the easier the threat is to assess. I'm not sure that the raising of fists could be considered as that dangerous of a situation to warrant the first swing.

Actually you raise an excellent point here Fractional. Ideologies whatever they are, are normally just 'collectivised' short cuts to preferred states. Except they nearly always fail their protagonists eventually, because of the over simplification of how individuals actually interact with each other in the real world and how that might change over the long term compared to the short term. The best I think we can do with them is examine the best parts and discard the rest using reason and evidence. The best I can tell about Neomasculinism (just my opinion of course) is that it provides men (and some women) with at least a concept of a solution. You and I might not agree with that solution, but it does at least have one, compared to all the other ideas swimming around in the manosphere. Together with an attempt to examine past traditions, which progressives (Leftists) have largely and successfully characterised as either abusive or at best outdated and irrelevant. It is interesting that Roosh is taking this position now. He's getting much older of course, so it makes sense that he's looking into his long term future. I just wonder what with all his shennanigans travelling around the world getting laid left, right and centre. Just how many successfully happily married men he's actually gotten to know over the years. My concern, as has always been with PUA, that this is some kind of Lord of the Flies attempt at solving the marriage crisis. That it's just men learning from their peers, rather than from those men with a real history and knowledge before them.

This still isn't a clear enough explanation for why initiating force is necessary. Certainly I used to hear such arguments as a gaffer managing building sites, when tempers flared. Which they would have a lot if I'd let them. However the NAP doesn't dismiss a percieved threat as unactionable. You would just need some fairly conclusive evidence that it was proportional to convince others that it was a real threat of force. You know yourself as a police officer, that any aggressor would have a hard time convincing you that the first punch was a defensive one. In my experience most acts of violence can be avoided, by either walking away or by giving them warnings about the outcome of such an action. Such as a lost job with no references, pressing charges or one time laughingly, 'I'll be speaking to your mother' and yes it worked. I haven't been involved in a fight for over 25 years, as is the case for most people I know, so it seems to me that they are mostly avoidable. The people that do are normally hotheads or people that prefer to escalate to violence.

Thanks for the response. Your position seems to hold much like some of the older (more rational) MGTOW's (no longer on the internet) I've reached out to in the past. My only contention with current MGTOW thinking (rather than yours), is that I tend to see the problems men face as mostly statist ones and less so gynocentric. Although I do accept that gynocentrism has been allowed to run amok with the help of the state. It's really no surprise when you saw men (at the time) opposed to women getting the vote. They knew exactly where it would lead. The trouble was, the state was already a corrupt institution, so it was kind of powerless against the corruption of women in this regard.

This is a logical fallacy and for a number of reasons. It's similar to the anti abolisionist argument that went along the lines of this, 'most slaves wouldn't be capable of finding work and shelter for themselves, if they were free'. I'm not going to insult your intelligence by explaining the NAP to you, as I'm quite sure you understand it already. But you should give this forum the courtsey of providing examples and evidence for the part I've highlighted above.

Ha ha Shirgal. Forever the jester, shining a light on masters corruption.

So why not a comment section for those upvotes you disagree with too. You see where this is going? Why not ask yourself why a downvote bothers you so much. On the surface it can seem like a very trivial matter, but it's probably not for you, just for everyone else. So sitting and asking the question of yourself is probably the most productive route you can take. The chances are that any explanation you're given you're probably not going to like either.

I have seen the evidence of a PUA lifestyle. Known many men (inc myself to a leser extent) in my past that used the techniques. You've heard the analogy used about women and spiders I presume. Women are much better manipulators than us men. Many of them will bide their time even. The moment you have to drop your guard (and it will come) she wont thank you for it. You sold her a lie she'll say. I thought you were the boldest, bravest and most gallant knight of the realm. In this regard I'll let MGTOW Barborossa have the the last word on PUA. "You only think you're in control until eventually one day you have to show a chink in your armour. At which point you'll be so consumed in her web that you'll be begging her to be gentle with you". __________________________________________________________________________ On an aside, those old friends of mine. ALL of them fathers and ALL now seperated or divorced. In their day they were no beta chumps by PUA standards. Ironically it's only been the beta chumps amongst my friends that have remained happily married. But then again those chaps weren't bull shitting their ladies from the start, so go figure. I'm quite sure this will fall on deaf ears for you MMX. Since you're so wrapped up in your short term gains with women to see what the long term might look for you. But hey don't take my word for it, go ask the men in your life that are long term happily married with kids. They probably know a thing or two about picking a good wife.

Interesting, I'm very curious about this unemployment factor, as it's not an argument I've heard for leaving the EU before. On the contrary it's been an argument for remaining, but for different reasons than the one you're suggesting. Can you extrapolate on this duty free export for me.

You do realise that when I shifted from UPB - APA in my previous post, that it was a shift not dissimilar to your own cruder version of UPB - PB. You've basically rearranged the deck chairs of my wording. As you know APA cannot be universalised. The best we can do is examine the evidence for the pros and cons of certain actions that don't violate UPB and act on that information accordingly in a rational way. People are free to test their relationship theories such as PUA or RTR (let's say) and decide on the better outcomes. They can also ask others for advice or examine the lives of others that chose different theories. However, the trouble with some relationship theories is that sometimes the outcomes don't come to light until several years have passed. After which, if you chose the wrong theory you could be a father, potentially in a divorce court with your balls being nailed to a cross. So choose wisely everyone.

Hi Frosty, I wanted to counter some of your points, but first I wanted to say that this is just my opinion and not a philosophical debate. There is no moral claim anyone can make about a mans choice to get married or not. If you or any other man wants to pursue MGTOW as you've characterised it yourself, that is your choice of course. As fellow anarchists we can hopefully respect each others peaceful choices in this regard. However, my counters are based loosely on statistics and how many men feel around this topic. That said, I have found MGTOW to have been a useful approach to my life as a means to stepping back and taking stock of my own life and desires and as a way to introspect on my past relationships with women. To that end I have found it a useful approach in my life. So these are just my criticisms of the MGTOW position as I see them. I'm no exponent of Neomasculinity either. So this isn't me taking sides here just to be clear. I’m no fan of PUA, but as men aren't there are always going to be some hoops we naturally have to jump through in order to get close to a woman romantically. If this wasn’t the case then women would just be picking men randomly, which wouldn’t say much for our character or abilities as men. Women of course need resources in order to raise a child successfully. Healthy women will also want a man who will be a good father to her children. So this shouldn't come as a surprise to us. Again, not trying to support Neomasculinism here. But the changes we’ve seen in society over the past few decades have been so thoroughly detrimental to family life and particularly the lives of children. I don’t think anyone is saying life should go back to the 1950’s entirely. But that we should at least embrace the traditional parts that benefited individual men and women as a whole. Despite the rhetoric from feminists that the majority of married couples were living miserable lives, in particular women. This simply wasn’t the case for many of them and statistics seem to show that women are more unhappy now than they ever were back then. Many of the reasons why things are developing so quickly is partly due to people having less anchors in their lives, such as marriage, employment and children. People find themselves being tossed around by the latest opinion on what those anchors are supposed to be now. Such as career, single parenthood and ‘do what makes you happiest’ rhetoric. This is true and certainly it’s your right to not pursue these goals as you see fit. The trouble as I see is that most men will probably disagree with you. Most men want a healthy relationship with a woman and they want kids too. Expecting them to just opt out with no solutions to these inherent desires is probably where MGTOW will find a drop off in interest eventually. Stefan has recently pointed out that men tend to live longer and be much happier and wealthier when they exist within a happy and fruitful marriage. MGTOW guys nearly always focuses only on the negative aspects of marriage and the worst traits in women. Even Spetsnaz admitted to Barborosa in a Hangout recently that he gets a lot of messages from guys asking whether they should get involved in relationships with a woman. Thankfully he doesn't put them off, but wisely offers them a cautionary approach if they must. The trouble I have with the way MGTOW often use divorce statistics is two fold. Firstly they tend to equate the marriage rates of the same year with the same year for divorce rates. The problem with that, is that those divorces are often from much older marriages. They were often married in a year that marriage was more prevalent in than the current year they got divorced in. Marriage has been on the decline generally for decades now. Secondly if the most popular divorce statistics are still to be believed then 50% of marriages don’t end in divorce. Which means that marriage can still be a happy outcome for many men. If your earlier statistics on MGTOW growth are to be believed then it seems a big change is coming to society inspired by MGTOW. So by definition that would be a movement of sorts. Albeit a disparate one perhaps.

"You realize that most of your relationship issues prior stemmed from simply being with someone who was completely not ready to be committed" Yes, this is the giveaway to the disingenuous nature of this article. Sounds like an article for the Good Men Project.

Yes you are right, APA is not UPB and therefore not morally enforceable. However, APA can still come with consequences similar to violating UPB. The most obvious and extreme example would be a drunk driver of course. Manipulation can be considered as fraud in some cases. Although manipulating women into sleeping with you might be considered creepy by others rather than fraudulent. Given that most women that allow themselves to be manipulated in that manner, probably see no harm in it. No one has claimed this as a moral issue. The reference to APA is about those behaviours that are seen as virtuous or unvirtuous, which are in a different category to that of morality.