Latest insanity masquerading as virtue: transabled.

[fractional slacker]

Recently I pointed out a fallacious argument on FB. Not long after I was accused of having ableist privilege. Anti social injustice cowards are a dime a dozen. They aim to not only disarm your rational abilities, they want to convince you to physically harm yourself. Disgusting misanthropic cretins.

This may be rare now.  That will quickly change when they start indoctrinating pre schoolers with the ultimate sacrifice to the gods of altruism.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/becoming-disabled-by-choice-not-chance-transabled-people-feel-like-impostors-in-their-fully-working-bodies

[Mister Mister]

this has to be a joke, right?...it reads like an article on the Onion.  If this is true, it is incredibly contemptuous, encouraging people who want to self-harm rather than trying to protect and understand them

[Donnadogsoth]

We must never think things are a joke.  This is perfectly in keeping with the various victim-groups and their demands.  Once they are accepted the next step will be counselling children so that they will be able to maximise their transabled lifespan.

[MMX2010]

This was posted on the Roosh V Forum by esteemed-member, AnonymousBosch.

 

-----------------

 

From my observation, the last 10 years of social media and the normalisation of the Smart Phone has rewired the Human Mind. Women have become disconnected from the idea of connection, except as a romanticised and idealised phantasm. They dream about finding 'the one', but, realistically, a boyfriend to them is just a complication in the way of the easy-distractions and self-affirmation of the smart phone, as are children.

I'm expecting the next generation of largely-ignored children to respond as would children of alcoholics I've worked with, where they understood they were never as important to the parent as the bottle was. Hell, I suspect the majority of Millennial acting out, (victimhood, need for constant approval, catastrophisation, sexual dysfunction, fear of emotions, fear of losing control of self by having fun, conflict avoidance, addiction to heightened emotional states of chaos and drama, identification with wounded birds), comes from children who knew they were never as important to their mother as her career was, and never mattered to their father, because he wasn't there, or was impotent enough in the relationship to be invisible.

The next generation are either going to become so ferociously-independent as to become more like Generation X, or become even more whiny and victimised.

How does EvoPsych fit into a changing social landscape then, because, I'm telling you now, it's not going to be about being the biggest swinging dick in the room if girls get more positive reinforcement out of shaming celebrities and sports stars rather than dating them. You can blame 'bad game' all you want, but there is a deeper mental change happening.

Matt Forney and I have recognised the Millennial indifference to content creation and how they are largely passive except when reacting to something. Roosh and I have mentioned a transition into Clown Game, as Millennials don't always react positively to too much confidence. (I mentioned in the Texting thread how I pitch my personality below jerk so I can dial it up or down).

A girl looks to her smartphone seeking a distraction because she's incapable of entertaining herself. She's conditioning herself to the entertaining and trivial, away from commitment. If all you can offer a girl in this transitory period of re-normalisation is a telegraphed 'whassap' communication style and constant negging, I believe you'll be irrelevant to women within another seven years.

As traditional female mating desires evolve into something else, you adapt or die. I say this as a guy who was advocating letting my physicality do all the taking and dialing down my intelligence only two years ago on here. Things are changing that quickly.

-----

Further thought:

If Evopsychs think Millennial Girls are drawn to a certain type of badboy alpha due to cocky overconfidence, there's simply too many subtypes of women with greater experience at distracting themselves with male approval at different points in their sexual history.

Say there's three women I notice at a party:

- Blonde cheerleader party girl type, the world is her oyster

- University-educated career type, envies the cheerleader, but knows she's 'smarter' than her

- Blue haired, tattooed, pierced waif, despises the cheerleader, is bored by the career types.

I would operate on these assumptions:

- Jerkboy Charisma coupled with physicality will work on the cheerleader, and work less as she approaches the wall.

- I'd tailor the jerk for the career girl: increased verbosity, more snark, 'you and I are the only ones in the room who would get this'. My physicality would be less of an advantage: she'd be attracted to it, sure, but once I successfully fight off her suspicion that I'm a Dudebro / Dumb Biker.

- The waif is looking for neither. She looks for a bad boy not out of sensing physical or social superiority in her partner, but a desire for a partner that appeals to her narcissistic self construct formed by her psychological issues. As such, she would be seeking a wounded bird to nurse back to health, (criminal, drug dealer, gang member) - my tattoos would be a huge advantage here - or she'd be seeking 'A Beautiful Loser', so they can both be Damaged Together, and the drama thereby would need to be dialled up, and I'd hint at a Dark Past.

As society is transferring power away from Perky Cheerleader to the Blue-Haired, Damaged Waif, I'd expect her desires to become the norm.

What fantasy is hugely-popular with women?

The story of what seems like an Alpha Jerkboy, and whom everyone seems to think is a story about male dominance whilst missing the key attraction to women: he's actually a Wounded Bird the main character nurses back to health.

 

(Insert picture of Fifty Shades of Gray here.) 

 

What fantasy is hugely-popular with Millennial women?

 

(Insert picture of The Fault In Our Stars here.) 

 

Beautiful losers being damaged together, taken to the romanticised extreme of being cancerous.

MMX2010 and I were discussing this song privately the other day, and now I see a deeper layer of greater clarity behind it: beautiful losers, being damaged together, trying to regain innocence.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HoG4_kMwr_s

 

[Donnadogsoth]

That's a good analysis you've connected us with, MMX2010.  What it is missing is an explanation of how the Waif is right, that she and increasingly the bulk of the population, are wounded birds.  How?  Because they've been denied their humanity in terms of principled knowledge that forms the basis for potent political-economic action.

 

The "player" type can gain a semblance of this, at least in the dating arena, from his knowledge.  He may be cynical, but at least he knows more than the average slob or bitch, and can root his self-confidence in his informed will-to-power.

[MMX2010]

 

The "player" type can gain a semblance of this, at least in the dating arena, from his knowledge.  He may be cynical, but at least he knows more than the average slob or bitch, and can root his self-confidence in his informed will-to-power.

 

That's the plan.    (And suddenly you realize why a 39-year old man like me listens to Demi Lovato.  It's not because I agree with anything she believes, but because I know it's good for me to understand what she believes - because so many women between the ages of 19 and 23 believe it.) 

 

I posted the following reply to AnonymousBosch's post. 

 

---------------------

 

It's funny because I understand what you're saying, and I understand how to game it. They're trying to regain their innocence by sitting around, doing nothing, avoiding introspection, and - above all else - not doing any serious work.

 

So her first step is to get with this dork. 

 

 

 

And it's great because they have such an "emotional connection" - but she knows (although she can't quite verbalize it) that it's oh-so-depressing. Naturally, it's his fault, so she needs his polar opposite - but not too opposite, because who wants to date a hyper-trigging shitlord?

 

So I come along with minimal agreement on feminism, pro-gay rights, and other issues - but with an emotional aloofness that hints at a really sad childhood. Magically, I have the ability to agree with her political rants and complaints about her boyfriend like 10% of the time - but the other 80% I either ignore it by telling a funny story or shut it down with a raised eyebrow and the question, "Are we here to have a good time, or to sour the mood?" The other 10% of the time, I'm a shitlord.

 

I'm her guy on the side, until I get bored of her. And so I need an exit strategy, which is among the most messed-up of exit strategies ever: HAPPINESS.

 

No, seriously. Something like, "Ever since I changed my diet to a more red-meat based, vitamin supplemented, healthy fats approach, my mood has elevated. You should go on that diet, too." Or, "Ever since I've been reading The Last Psychiatrist, I've learned so much about the excuses I make to prevent myself from succeeding. You should read him, too."

 

Just the subtle, but repeated hints that I'm happy, she isn't, and she should become happy by following my example will be enough to provoke her, "I don't think this is going to work out..." response.

 

And it works because acquiring happiness through hard work is the last thing she wants to do.

 

 

------------------------

 

AnonymousBosch's reply was as follows:

 

Running with this ball:

 

Why would this passive, self-loathing type want to be in a relationship with a successful, interesting, happy man?

 

Being the partner of a high value man would create expectations for her of having to raise her value to meet his: of working out; of dieting; of increased public-visibility; of needing to be socially-charming; of triggering that particular Millennial trait of craving positive attention whilst being threatened by the possibility of the potential negative attention that being noticed might bring; of living a more intense life with greater responsibility; and of the intimidating possibility of being taken outside her comfort zone and routine with the unpredictable passions of those who embrace living.

 

It's easier for her to either just bang and next him; or gather attention via public rejection; convince herself he would have dumped her eventually anyway; and binge watch whatever new Netflix series is out whilst staying single, with no responsibilities to anyone but herself.

 

There's definitely a new breed of woman who are seemingly-conditioned for self-extinction.

[Donnadogsoth]

And where do all these lazy women come from?  From an educational system that teaches them no principles, and a mediated environment that entertains them to death, all amidst a society of abundance and a culture of self-esteem and misandry where they can look forward to the gynaeceum.  So they're trapped in a comfortable virtual reality, alienated from the truth.

 

I read of a future scenario once, where every person had their own cell, and in the cell was a blob.  They would live their entire lives in the cell, never leaving it, and there was only one rule:  obey the blob.  If they ever disobeyed the blob, the blob would engulf them and eat them.

 

Society itself faces a Blob, that is stalking, devouring, hemming in, and dissolving everything through its secreted solvent. History, race, culture, language, religion, sexuality, environment, national sovereignty, all is being dissolved by the universal solvent from the Blob. To oppose the Blob is to be dissolved. Women are the least likely to oppose it. Men are close behind.

[MMX2010]

And where do all these lazy women come from?  From an educational system that teaches them no principles, and a mediated environment that entertains them to death, all amidst a society of abundance and a culture of self-esteem and misandry where they can look forward to the gynaeceum.  So they're trapped in a comfortable virtual reality, alienated from the truth.

 

I read of a future scenario once, where every person had their own cell, and in the cell was a blob.  They would live their entire lives in the cell, never leaving it, and there was only one rule:  obey the blob.  If they ever disobeyed the blob, the blob would engulf them and eat them.

 

Society itself faces a Blob, that is stalking, devouring, hemming in, and dissolving everything through its secreted solvent. History, race, culture, language, religion, sexuality, environment, national sovereignty, all is being dissolved by the universal solvent from the Blob. To oppose the Blob is to be dissolved. Women are the least likely to oppose it. Men are close behind.

 

True, indeed.  But now you know why I don't take MGTOW's seriously, preferring Roosh's NeoMasculinity instead. 

 

Under MGTOW's, you either abandon women to the cultural forces that are destroying us all or you wildly cheer on those cultural forces.  But under NeoMasculinity, you fight for your women against these cultural forces. 

[Donnadogsoth]

True, indeed.  But now you know why I don't take MGTOW's seriously, preferring Roosh's NeoMasculinity instead. 

 

Under MGTOW's, you either abandon women to the cultural forces that are destroying us all or you wildly cheer on those cultural forces.  But under NeoMasculinity, you fight for your women against these cultural forces. 

 

But the MGTOW's, at least from thinking like barbarossa and Stardusk, don't believe in cultural forces, they believe in biological forces masquerading as cultural forces.  They are fatalists who believe the best a man can do is carve out a tiny ubermenschish niche for himself while Rome burns.

 

I disagree with the MGTOW's on their analysis because I believe in ideas, that ideas can create genetic-like changes in the host human mind, effectively turning people into different species from the uneducated.

[MMX2010]

But the MGTOW's, at least from thinking like barbarossa and Stardusk, don't believe in cultural forces, they believe in biological forces masquerading as cultural forces.  They are fatalists who believe the best a man can do is carve out a tiny ubermenschish niche for himself while Rome burns.

 

I disagree with the MGTOW's on their analysis because I believe in ideas, that ideas can create genetic-like changes in the host human mind, effectively turning people into different species from the uneducated.  That includes women.

 

Yes.  That's why my motto is, "Anything for an audience." 

 

Just get close enough to her to make my pitch, and if she accepts, we're a couple.  If she doesn't, we're not. 

 

MGTOW's would rather let other people permeate their ideas into women, hoping that these women will find them attractive and gallant for standing by and not participating.  (Doesn't compute.) 

[Snafui]

When it comes to the MGTOW community the great disconnect between the desire that women should be independent of men financially but dependent sexually is fascinating. Those do not go together naturally so they just create a different version of Sisyphus for themselves and not women.

[MMX2010]

When it comes to the MGTOW community the great disconnect between the desire that women should be independent of men financially but dependent sexually is fascinating. Those do not go together naturally so they just create a different version of Sisyphus for themselves and not women.

 

That's pretty funny, but for me the funniest MGTOW-contradiction is their hatred of PUA.  This means they want to refuse to satisfy the subset of female emotional needs connected with sexual attraction and yet be appreciated because of this refusal.   

[J. D. Stembal]

I'm fascinated by all camps in the manosphere, because I am a man.

 

The podcaster I enjoy listening to the most is Spetsnaz because he references his personal experiences, and adds self-knowledge to his insights. Sandman also talks a bit about his family life and how it has affected his adult relationships.

 

The most important aspect of the movement is that more and more men are no longer reticent and want to talk openly about their struggles and emotions. It's a shame that not many feel that they can safely use their real names when they discuss men's issues.

 

How many men, for instance, are opening up a serious dialogue about their experiences with male genital mutilation? I've been laughed at, ignored or shamed for my openness, usually behind my back, and it stings a bit.

 

One of my male friends sent me a text a few weeks back asking me about my "man channel" on Youtube. He didn't actually deride me, but I could sense the social disapproval behind his words, and this is one of the most conservative libertarian people that I know.

 

Many others, with which I try not to associate, are so far left that I cannot have a serious discussion or debate about the non-aggression principle. "What about the roads???" Loosing the Against Me argument onto a leftist is nearly a guaranteed show stopper. Libertarians can usually take a step back and briefly entertain the notion of a stateless, non-coercive society, even if they don't openly endorse it.

 

Edit: I just realized that this post is extremely off-topic from the original post. Please accept my apology.