The Boromir Strategy of opposing Cultural Marxism and PC diktat

http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/2016/07/the-boromir-strategy-as-advocated-by.html

There is a false belief that we must possess the same faults as the Left to win. That we must harbour the rapist, the pedophile, the deviant and the criminal if they are effective at parroting what we like. That we must harbour evil and its potent force of degeneracy because the shit is flecked with gold. Thankfully, the majority of us see through this falsehood. For example, if there were plenty of evidence that a certain PUA were a rapist by the legal definition, we would be foolish to hold such a person up as a moral authority at a time when we need good leaders more than any.

Spiritual leaders must be pure. We already have hypocrites in power.
There is no such thing as an atheist that understands faith. If they understood it, they’d have it.
There is no such thing as a bad person with the right to lecture the good. There is nothing to learn from these people who willingly made many mistakes and continue to expect respect for evil deeds.

Know them by their fruit. They were a toxic influence then and it was easier to resist. Once a cheat, always a cheat. Once a liar, how can you trust them? Once a criminal, how can they speak of law with respect?

The Nazi stuff, while funny for rhetoric, is ultimately self-defeating. It makes people switch off. We’re tired of hearing about it. The fact the supposed Alt Right is defending ardent socialists makes me gag.

It worked on a rhetorical level to speak like them. To disempower their linguistic tricks by overuse.

The point is idiots didn’t get the joke in mockery, so we see genuine emotional appeals as fact like “If I can’t judge feminists, they can’t judge me by calling me mean names like misogynist, they’re the real sexist, they’re misandrists! Now I can ignore everything they ever say!”

No wonder the feminists mock them for this, they deserve to be! They’re doing the same BS.
It’s like the shit test myth, it’s a way for them to feel desirable even when in the midst of rejection.
In this case, it’s a way to feel reasonable when reason is literally on their side already.

Playing victim is a big one. Nobody is ever going to believe the normal white man is a victim. They’re too loaded in the historical stakes, they have various privileges handed to them like average IQ score. This makes the losers of the group especially humiliated, so they attempt to ‘flip the script’, while also feeling innately superior as part of their group, which doesn’t work. Contradiction Central. You can’t use SJW tactics seriously unless you are an SJW. Even they aren’t really serious, they never agree on anything.

For example, saying social science is BS then using all their studies and terms e.g. social frame, social script, evolutionary psychology stuff, it’s embarrassing to be associated with these people, it’s like a logical feminist looking at one next to her at a rally doused in her own period blood with regret.

jury nodding yes

They mistake the arguments for powerful in themselves. They support victim culture. If only SJWs accepted those premises, it wouldn’t matter IRL.

They accept the evil premises e.g. we are all biologically equal, when the Burden of Proof is otherwise on them, and then try to make special appeals to exceptions.

It doesn’t work.

Let them feel the full weight of the Burden. And if you MGTOW, actually GO.

hmm did not know nice surprised hot

As for faith, societies are built on spiritual belief in the future. It’s the only way they can survive. Narcissists don’t like God as a Father Figure because he’s bigger than you, you can abandon him and he makes rules that interrupt your hedonism. I saw the funniest article from a supposed redpill site claiming the Alt Right was bad because it wanted to ‘police’ men. Imposing positive expectations that lead to a good world are a burden on a selfish hedonistic failure. They won’t even accept good rules, as their complaints about the evil postmodernism are from bad faith, they want personal Special Snowflake exemption as much as Sandra Fluke wants exemption from the expense of her own baby-killing.

Ask them one simple question: Was the Sexual Revolution a good thing?

If they say yes, they side with Cultural Marxism from hedonism. The societal impact has been ruinous to anyone with a clear conscience to sift the evidence. CM would never have taken hold without that, ahem, carrot. It pacifies men and keeps women distracted from settling down too by wasting their time on ‘bad boys’ that 50s movies told them to like. Prior to the 50s, the idea of women preferring the Bad Boy would’ve been stupid.
These losers in the manosphere explain away their failure to attract women as a defect in the women themselves. Plenty of men are happily married, it’s you dudes.

A town of Patriarchs they claim they desire would beat them to death for negging their daughters. They want to be treated like indulged brats just like the people they hate so much, and that’s why they hate them, the narcissism of small differences. A Patriarch for President would tighten drug law, curb binge drinking, reduce sex tourism and tighten rape law.

However, we must practically show people the way first and reverse the political damage that actively inhibits spiritual good. Once the path is clear, faith will naturally creep back in, once financial interests are abolished. Otherwise, people only hear the propaganda. Two-prongs is the best approach because the practical reality differs from theory, where spirit is always a higher concern, quite literally.

Good comments on a linked post.

“Thus the great harm of the manosphere is the way that it warps one’s worldview. The ultimate effect of being a regular consumer of the manosphere is that’s one’s view regarding sexuality, and men, and women, becomes satanic and joyless.”

A cheap squirt of endorphins, I’ve seen it described.
Casual sex for cheap people.

“The Left has sought to prohibit – and even legally proscribe – white / Christian / European national pride (and hatred of their opponents) precisely because the Left wants whites / Christians / European nations to stop resisting, lie down, and die.”

They fear the power of family. You can’t have a family without unity and you can’t have unity unless you oppose the forces driving them apart.

There is a difference between pride and not being ashamed to live and do good (righteous pride). They are actively shaming the good.

Castes of the West

http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.co.uk/2007/05/castes-of-united-states.html

Fine breakdown of the social strata.
By my use of the word strata, you could place me presently, but you’d be erroneous to trace my background (hint: dirt poor). That is the problem with these structures, no account of mobility (trajectory upward or bankrupted).
I would like to make a distinction between rich and wealthy.
The rich need to work. That’s it.

Article: What you can’t say

http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html

What scares me is that there are moral fashions too. They’re just as arbitrary, and just as invisible to most people. But they’re much more dangerous. Fashion is mistaken for good design; moral fashion is mistaken for good. Dressing oddly gets you laughed at. Violating moral fashions can get you fired, ostracized, imprisoned, or even killed.

Ideas have fashions too. They have a timeliness and a reactionary component to them.
Useful to anyone beyond the mainstream.

Why do humans argue?

Because there’s a wrong way to do things and we need to defend it.

paper pdf, here’s select from the abstract section ;

“Our hypothesis is that the function of reasoning is argumentative. It is to devise and evaluate arguments intended to persuade.” [DS: good]

“Skilled arguers, however, are not after the truth but after arguments supporting their views.” [ehh, sorta]

“Reasoning so motivated can distort evaluations and attitudes and allow erroneous beliefs to persist. [that’s poor reasoning and should be discounted from pure theory]

Proactively used reasoning also favors decisions that are easy to justify but not necessarily better. In all these instances traditionally described as failures or flaws, reasoning does exactly what can be expected of an argumentative device: Look for arguments that support a given conclusion … favour conclusions for which arguments can be found.”

I like cogpsych papers, but they tend to miss the wider picture and the subtlety of linguistics in rhetoric e.g. emphasis.
Social signalling, in short. If your social reputation depends on empirical truth, suddenly it becomes the primary priority. This is why politicians don’t have lifelong careers at the top. Ownership is separate from outcome.
A theme that could be applied to this blog: smug

Bread and circuses

Reading mainstream media for fun, I try to discern little patterns and connections. It’s all too predictable and dreary when you see the code case-by-case. I see the bugs, the levels of awareness and the knitting completion of the quilt of lies.

My current approach is yielding sufficient if not preferable results irl

I’m still trying to come up with little games to slowly spread the truth, especially social ones that lure out like-minded individuals. Slowly building up stock of bright people, assisting their development and finding ways to boot out the weak with minimum fanfare.

I’m disaffected, that’s the word. I am disaffected by this social scripting from MSM.