Link: The problem with moral fashions

How did I forget to share this?

Some would ask, why would one want to do this? Why deliberately go poking around among nasty, disreputable ideas? Why look under rocks?”

rationale for this entire blog

I guess moral relativism just admits they switch out the labels like colour swatches.

I guess their complaints about populism are realizing they’re out of style.

http://paulgraham.com/say.html

Again, status signalling is really all about Freudian signifiers.
The Pietism of virtue signalling gets to me.

Video: The psychological idea of God

Convert an atheist to hierarchical norms today!

See: Why mockery?

Signalling is Freudian signifiers.
>Checkmate, atheists.

People who claim Freud was wrong about sexuality still get the most ripe interpretations of inkblots despite sleeping around. Stop flirting with Wicca and commit to Christ.

egocentrism is fine, a weak superego is terrible

A lot of supposed nihilists are just Freudians with no clue how to interpret.

Speaking of impossible memes (because you find nihilism to have meaning) – cognitively.

How is a meme qualitatively different from an idea?

Meme is such a pretentious way to discredit any faith by coaching it in pseudo-Darwinian paradigms. Thoughts do not guide behaviour, it is values and those arise from cultural principles. Religion shows the shifts in paradigm of cultural dominance over time.

Today my pill is so red it shifts into the UV spectra.

Iconography is not the territory.
Virtue signalling is the modern Pietism. These basic bitch Pharisees.
Remember to self-flagellate with your Father’s disappointment today!

Why do people think blogs are nice?

They’re not.

They shouldn’t be.

If you’re saying something on the internet, it’s probably realistic and gritty.

That’s seldom nice.

Blogs are for people who vaguely hate themselves because maintaining one is like chasing a toddler.

..Have you ever tried that? I’d rather herd cats or do makeovers for SJWs.

I’m not going back to the old posting format of rambling about nothing in particular because too much is Happening.jpeg but the splinter of outgrouping reactions I get is like a case study in projection.

But it isn’t personal. That is literally the entire point.

I don’t wanna be an internet celebrity based on my sex or any other bullshit. I don’t want to be a target from both sides of a nonsense war. I don’t want the shekels to sell out my good name. I want to be able to change my mind without a corporate pimp breathing down my blouse.
I want a vaguely normal life but to share certain opinions with people who might be searching.

We should be able to criticize anyone without coming up with the most superficial shit about them (their sex, their race, their sexuality) and maybe those things have meaning in context, and individual examples, but I sincerely hope it isn’t all we are.

As a species.

Just a series of pigeonholes and stereotypes.

A line of t-shirts with different victim group logos.

Otherwise, why are we here? Why bother?

Since every fucking group is claiming to be a victim group nowadays – even the straight white men.

At that point, where is the line?

Like, men have a lot going for them biologically, so for the ones with some of the best odds based on success/life outcome studies to start bitching, while also decrying ‘victim culture’, I’m a tad confused by the whole business.

It isn’t just the weak ones, the normies are starting up too. For real.

It isn’t a class thing either, which may be justifiable on economic grounds. They’re literally doing meninism as a serious movement. But… also trying to claim innate superiority, which cannot be revoked by societal circumstance…

The status signals are basically a crosshatch at this point. A big grey goo blob of FA.

It’s a clusterfuck. I think the initial signals were a joke, a counter, then some fools got a taste for it and started doing the MRA, MGTOW pity-me party shit we were mocking the feminists for.

…That’s social justice. If you have their emotional appeal tactics, you are one of them.

Regardless who you claim to be signalling for, yourself or others. Otherwise, Emma Watson would be racist. By the current rulebook. But since SJWs can signal for their own group AND get offended on behalf of others, it doesn’t mash or stick.

You’ll never be included in their considerations, guys. The game is deliberately rigged against you. That’s why I’m so harsh on the topics, not men per se, because there are soft reasons to go about it but playing according to the enemy’s rulebook makes me doubt IQ findings. Is this the WEIRD set of societies or not?

If the best Western Man can do is to sit there crying into his fucking cornflakes?

Did the meany feminists take your rights away?

Our elders from the war generations would be disgraced. Where’s the verve?

Aside from blaming all women for a problem that wasn’t even instituted by women (cough Cultural Marxism cough), they also make various sexist errors to their own sex i.e. all men who don’t think like us are cucks (misuse of term) and get super-triggered if you question them, even to point out minor issues, politely.

If you’re as triggered as the Third Wavers, no wonder people are turning off from your message.

What kind of masculinity is that? It has nothing to do with your sex. That’s actually really sexist to assume, that your entire group has to think as one. Stand alone with your opinion or don’t bother.

I also remark on female topics of course but despite the popularity of them (that one bloody make-up article) nobody starts accusing me of various -isms. As if these words mean anything, let alone when applied to rather humble critiques that few people will ever care to read.

People cannot read something, comprehend it and move on with their life anymore.

I’m not about to get suckered into ‘debates’ with randos in the comments either. It’s on the About page, I don’t expect anyone to care for my opinions and vice versa. They’re just kinda here.

I laugh at some of my old ones. I have no issue with other people taking shots at me, as long as they’re fair. I have taken down three posts from public view and here’s why.

  1. He was a prick but he quickly realized. He advocated for domestic abuse in marriage… despite being a lifelong bachelor. I still have his records in case he acts up again and he knows this.
  2. Two versions of the same post I still get people trying to access. While the girl was an SJW, she made some silly comments as a teenager on Youtube and when I found out she was trying a non-political career in music and my results came up on the first page of Google, I thought that wasn’t morally right, it wasn’t cricket, so I messaged her on tumblr (obviously) and told her I’d taken just those main ones off public because I do believe it’s wrong to ruin someone’s career over their belief system, even if they oppose mine.

I don’t reserve any group from criticism because we’re all human and that’s exactly the way it fucking should be.

Showing sympathy to an outgroup doesn’t make me one, either. It’s absurd reasoning from the people claiming to be ‘rational’. The quality level has really gone down since this stuff was underground. Could be black ops but I fear not.

Too many entryists who haven’t intellectually matured to fully engage in the topics.

And they don’t get the jokes either. Not just mine, unPC humour in general is difficult for them.

Like, if I had to nominate an unofficial soundtrack for this blog, it’d be this.

Because I don’t pull punches regardless of target, even if they’re in My Group, if they’re pulling stupid shit, I will reserve the right to take the piss out of them.

This used to be normal. I’m not special for doing this.

The hypocrisy card doesn’t work on me because I also prey on my own group with similar attitudes. I’m not upset about this turn of events, overall bemused.

You can hate me, as long as you don’t hate all women or white people using me as an excuse. That sort of common sense would be pleasant. Have some goddamn perspective yourself, while you’re slagging off whoever for the same charge or don’t be shocked when people laugh at your ‘measured’ opinions in person. As if I should entertain specious reasoning because you happen to share certain biological or social traits!

What?!

Yet, I’m called a feminist by the right wing (like they don’t rely on meritocracy for capitalism), a Nazi by the feminists (I don’t even) and so on… like, at this point, it says more about the specific posts they choose to read into. Disapproving of one person’s actions or opinions isn’t the same as invalidating their existence.

You can be a dick. You have every right. People can also notice and take the piss for it.

Why are people so touchy?

I’ve linked to people trying to slag me off, I think it’s hilarious. Nobody really cares, guys.

Can we blame tumblr?

I guess it’s too mainstream.

Blogs are supposed to be crappy, they’re online diaries. That’s part of the entertainment value, that they’re life without the filters and varnishes of regular social media.

Imagine how silly you’ll feel on your deathbed getting riled up by a blog post.

Either it’s true, in which case be grateful I didn’t prolong your ignorance or it’s untrue, in which case, see it as snappy and ironic. Because that’s probably what I intended.

I’m hardly about to explain every joke or reference I make, it’s exclusive deliberately.

Not getting a joke doesn’t make you stupid.

I can’t believe I have to type this.

You disagree?

Write your own damn blog.

I’m not playing World War B like many of them, trying to outsignal how edgy they are.
Women don’t care about that ‘macho’ shit.
I’m winging it, and that’s why they keep copying me. New material.

I’ve seen certain people with larger audiences lift vast tracts of my opinions or subject choice.

Well, at least the ideas are getting out but a wee bit of credit would be nice, ya jerks.

I’m not going to tell you to stop having your opinions even if I think you’re totally, 100% wrong. In fact, I welcome it. Gives me something to laugh at and feel smug about. Let everyone hear what you think, doesn’t change the facts or my mind, if the same ‘logic’ previously failed.

People have tried to go after me, but not for very long. What’s the point? IRL, you wouldn’t recognize me on TV either.

I’m not what people expect, like many young people seeing through media machinations for the first time. The internet is different. I’ts supposed to be.

The anon comments I get here are insane, they all sound the same. They think I haven’t heard their particular lies before. If that were true, I’d be writing on here about those, wouldn’t I? If they were so novel to me.

I won’t start on the ones who try to chat me up, impress or neg me.

Aside from those creeps?

I don’t mind most of this. I’m used to being ahead of my time.

Now, if you’ll excuse me, I have to see a man about rigging an election.

Cheerio.

Video: not an argument

People miss how beautiful that expression is. However, in specific cases, they should be able to break it down precisely why or they themselves have no reply, no argument, simply an assertion.
You have no requirement to answer a non-question, it’s a habit of socializing that we speak upon the completion of a sentence, it doesn’t require that sentence have merit. The Burden of Proof rests on the initial speaker, still.

Yet it can’t be used to outright deny or dismiss without having a specific reason why.


Meanwhile, the only way to effectively deal with r-types, ignore them, however loudly they scream.

See Best Post.


You only protect your own, but they have made it clear they are against you. Don’t lift a finger.
They say strength is bad until they want you to use it on their behalf.

Hey, if they’re so strong without their weapons, if their arguments have the same calibre as a bullet, go right on ahead and let them stand independently, you oppressive shitlord, and die that way if necessary. It’s what they would’ve wanted.

If evil imports evil, what is there to save?

Yourself, is the answer to that question.

Self-interest is rational. Pathological altruism is insanity.
You help those who would help you, the other side of the golden rule. Darwin’s rules. Sacrifice for people who would sacrifice you is patriotism dialed up to the incredible level of a cartoon character.

I swear most of Molly’s job is talking down the autistic from their pedestal of self-righteous stupidity.
If anyone deserves the Rasputin treatment, it’s a terrorist. Thankfully, your taxes go to pay people with guns already. The Parliament attacker guy? Shot, if memory serves, by a white guy with glasses. In a country that stupidly restricted guns. Even we don’t need you, Gun Bro. If the State can’t do the basic thing of shooting the bad guys for us…

I’ve never, ever heard of a liberal defending a conservative from any attack, ever.
Anyone?
They are not like you. They do not like you. Partially because you would defend them, implicitly stating they’re too weak to do it themselves. If you respect them as adults, leave them be. Let them live (and die) free. You are not their precious State, you have no duty to them, you are not getting paid, that is not your job ~z-snap~. You can’t play hero to two villains. They have engineered this setup on purpose. By importing violent left-wingers, they get the distraction to sneak off (reward of cowardice: survival) and the claim to victory (reward of victory). They literally do not lose.

If they don’t value their own safety, why should you?
America is too diverse to be united. You have the Diverse States of America.

He’s wrong about signalling (thinking) as a sign of tribe. Anyone can signal, its value is nil. How many of those diverse callers would help him, if he needed it? The odds are against, aren’t they? There are plenty of r-types signalling K as the idea spreads to new groups and creeps into mainstream awareness. The other day I heard a random cafe-owner say, “I want to protect this country, I’m like a wolf.” R-types invade by signalling. It’s a social invasion, they’re the fifth column, the barbarians sacking Rome from the inside, a swarm of locusts crying out as they hit you. History has taught us the hard way that ideological unity comes from genetic homogeneity.
The culture war is one of ideas. The weapon is a meme. A tiny little piece of information, a snippet of truth.

Signallers are, more often than not, liars.

They signal whatever ‘virtue’ is powerful, hoping for scraps from that table.

They are the begging dogs of society, asking you to hunt for them. It’s like every time Roosh calls for “someone! do something!” and his little internet boyfriends scurry to rescue the damsel and White Knights whatever he asks for. What are you, his wife? At least “think of the children!” defends the helpless. Adults have no business defending other adults. They rise and fall on their own merit, raised or dashed on their own petard.
K-society says: They do it themselves or it doesn’t get done.
R-society? It’s very espionage, ultra deceptive.
They offer you friendship while holding a knife in their other hand. They extend an olive branch first because it’s less effort, not because they like you or believe in the healing power of metaphor. There is a bargain they author, that you never asked for, and if you don’t like it, the carrot, they’ll ‘offer’ the stick. This is called a con. Con artists rely on confidence and trust. Virtue signallers rely on confidence and trust…

They want control over you, that is their power, to wiggle you like a little puppet.

In a victim culture, they are the biggest victims. In a K-shift, they are magically K-leaning.
Occam says: It’s all a lie.

I warned you, years ago. I knew these interlopers would pop up like fleas.
They don’t mind you dancing the right-wing jig as long as it’s to their exact tune.

Guess which is which.

If your friends are your enemies, you’ll never succeed. How to test?

A k-type invented the expression: actions speak louder than words. Until I see you sacrifice for this tribe, it owes nothing to you. If all you have are words, speak to the birds.

Just because someone is smoke-signalling your tribe doesn’t mean they’re on your side. Indeed, this makes it less likely, a friend doesn’t feel the need to keep reminding you they’re not a foe, not a threat, like they’re anticipating something…

DO NOT TRUST A DODGY SIGNAL.

The incongruence should ping to you. What’s in it for you?

In the super-complex theories of strategy, this is called A Trap. It’s a primitive form of distraction by claiming Ally while wearing the coat of your enemy to cuckold him for whatever reason before attacking when factors are on your side and you can turn your coat back and show your true colours. This is the problem with games like chess, where the colours never change sides because they were bribed or got bored. You never get betrayed in chess because the enemy never falters and it’s all very polite and open, two equal lines fairly opposing one another with Queensberry rules. That was 2nd generation warfare, we’re on four. Then again, maybe it’s a commentary on the reality that a leopard can’t change its spots. Who knows? I certainly don’t.

http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/226350.html
“Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil.”
They don’t fully quote it for some strange reason. The Bible is actually very witty.

Ask – why do they want your trust? Why aren’t they doing literally anything else? What’s their game? 

It’s a great way to buy time when you know you’d lose in a fair fight.

aka cheating

If this was the 15th century, a ship running up your flag is probably pirates.

And they won’t kill you with rum.

Newsflash: BAD GUYS LIE. THEY LIE OR THEY WON’T FOOL YOU LONG ENOUGH TO WIN.

Back to terrorism. All the way back, centuries and centuries and centuries, like the ideas.

Self-proclaimed liberals have a lot in common with the mythological ‘moderate Muslim’; that is to say, they will claim to be loving and giving until they have power and numbers to be the opposite of those things.

The ‘American Indian’ only gave with the expectation of receiving more in future.

A liberal is a dictator waiting to happen. Biding their time until everyone else has disarmed and made nice.
They know exactly what they are doing. That is what guys like these do not get. Everyone else is slowly waking up. We make memes.

comment
“So if I’m understanding Stefan’s argument correctly it is: “While you certainly have the right to defend yourself, you have zero obligation to defend anyone else against a threat.” Is that the argument you are taking issue with? If so, what is your counterargument? If there is an obligation to defend others where does it come from?”
They want all conservatives to rush to protect them, like the police. While we are occupied, they survive and screw over the next batch of rueful idiots. The type who, at the Gates of Saint Peter, would claim the moral victory is more important.
The self-styled ‘liberals’ scoff at loyalty to children, nuclear family and country… until it comes to discussions of noblesse oblige (without class???), pensions, the social contract and human rights (without property rights). Then it’s all about universalism, collectivism and helping those who can’t/won’t help themselves. They are morally relative, liberal with logic ….wrong, in bad faith (100% deliberate). What they say is usually ‘not an argument’ because it comes from a hypocrite (no-proof), a deceiver (valid use, not ad hominem) and they argue it from bad faith, really pushing something else entirely under the radar.

They are loyal to their own body, especially the neck. They don’t want to save the pandas, they want to save their own skin.

In common speech here, they’re ‘trying it on’ i.e. they know they’re lying to get what they want and disappear when their half comes due, but they’re hoping you don’t know that.

All their virtue signals are overt pleas to get, without giving. 

Argument and clause. Devil and detail. Plan and plot.

Essentially it’s;
>HELP THE OUTGROUP! THE INDIVIDUAL IS NOTHING TO THE GROUP! SACRIFICE AT ALL COSTS!
>…STOP DEFINING THE INGROUP! THAT MODEL IS REDUNDANT AND EVIL!
and that, my friends, is why we mock them.
See: Why mockery?

It is also why you shouldn’t trust ambassadors. 300 was right.

That diverse cast of people calling into Molyneux are attempting to appease him while he gains power (they smell a whiff and cannot yet crush him) and then to advise him to his destruction once he has gained it (and after they have gained his trust). That is what high-IQ r-types DO. The toxic friends of the world. The fairweather traitors and degenerate preachers.

Clinically, they have many names. Sociopath tops the list.

Question a normal person: #crickets

Question a sociopath: you are (lie), (lie) and (lie), evil person! Appease me! Account for your sin!

They’ve found a scapegoat to slaughter.

Sociopaths especially detest those who describe their tactics to the masses for protection.

You can’t defame the truth, though, can you?

What happened to most of the edgelords?

They weren’t.

The edgelords, with no edges. The type to assume woman and feminist are synonymous, and liberal means gay, and refer to women as ‘females’ and ‘girls’, never noticing the ripple of cringe.

They’d use some of the same words (cuck, degenerate) but it was an empty power play to make shekels from personal branding, usually YT.

Most so-called alt-righters shouting it from the rooftops (and alt-lite, if that’s still happening) are just signallers punching down at feminists (just the women); they don’t even believe in CM, they don’t know, care or wanna know. They want someone to beat on and women seem a good target.

On any other topic e.g. Roosh’s race, they’re cuckier than the cucks. They retreat so far up their own arse, everything smells like shit. They are milquetoast keyboard alphas, totally incompetent IRL. Look at the manosphere. Look addit. Ask them: are all men equal? 

responses are hilarious and full of dissonance

wrong dr house urgh shut up idiots

they believe in sexual hierarchies, but also there are no leagues?
sex with a woman is good, the woman having sex with you is bad
there is no Hell but God’s a good idea
opinions mean nothing, unless a man has them
men can’t be ugly but women are shallow bitches
modern woman is entitled, man deserves social reparations
women are the cause of the world’s problems but totally incompetent
men have no duty to society but it sure owes us
real men…..
science is great because it questions things but don’t question me
projection is only real when women do it
men are always rational and therefore superior
women can’t be smart, look at this graph
I need a smart woman who’ll let me manipulate and humiliate her, but no other guy

The white Muh Dicks.

Bullies, all of them, pretending to stand for something other than their flaccid egocentrism.

The sort to look up to Nietzsche, seriously. You should be impressed.

As for degeneracy, those hypocrites and false prophets….

It’s no loss to our cause, believe me.
They were never with our cause.
They never understood us. Technically, they cucked us for a while, or tried to, cheering against our enemies doesn’t make them allies.