Rationalism in the Matrix

It would appear that I mixed up the proverbial shit pot with last week’s The Gift of Anxiety post, which was itself a response to another post on another blog’s response to yet another post made by your humble author here. If it sounds like a tangled mess, just know that it’s happened before. For my readers, I feel apologies are due, because I think this blog’s purpose deserves more than to be dragged down by the petty machinations of fem-centric Matrix-speak; and particularly the variety that censors any rational challenges to its venerable vulnerable ideologies.

If you find fault in my having even entertained a response to this, well, I can’t say as I blame you. If I’m guilty of anything it was in attempting to logically reddress what amounts to a brick wall of socially reinforced fem-centric ideology that by definition has no margin for any critical analysis of it.

Reader BJ’s comment:

RT, you’re engaging with an emotionally charged being in an analytical argument, a battle whose W.O.M.D are the very tools which make you a man, logic and reasoning, for which there are no comparable counter measures.

However it was reader Höllenhund who really brought this home for me:

By the way, older, experienced MRAs have stated that it’s completely pointless to try to have a rational debate with women about these issues. They’ll always get angry or react in some other irrational way, and you can bet white knights will immediately come to their defense. It’s a waste of time. As Alte said, “if you have a rational argument, take it to the men”.

Guilty as charged, but if there was any benefit to this clusterfuck of idealism vs. censorship it brought to light the necessity to protect the social system that is the feminine Matrix.

Censoring for Affirmation

Reader Umslopogaas wrote an interesting post in reference to just this dynamic that inspired an awareness in me. The feminine social Matrix is a system that was built upon, and depended upon an older social paradigm that never accounted for a globalized connectivity. If men becoming aware of their true SMV was a primary Threat to that system, then the rise of social media and global connectivity was its facilitator. For men, the Meta Game and true unplugging began as a result of meta-connectivity and the free exchange of observations and ideas that followed.

Although I think it’s a bit of a dramatic stretch to compare Aunt Giggles’ censorship with the Gestapo, I do think there’s another, more apt comparison – that of religious figures’ censorship.

The rise of social media has inspired a more open means of discourse in previously closed social arenas. Nowhere is that more obvious than in religious / theological debate. Where in previous times a religious leader’s ‘inspired insight’ was closed to interpretation or discussion, now they must be prepared to defend their position online to the global consortium of the internet.

This globalized marketplace of ideas doesn’t make for a comfortable environment for people with an absolutist mindset used to receiving constant praise, if not acquiescent silence. Now, courtesy of blogs, social media, and the general connectivity of the internet people can voice their criticisms of ideas that, in a ‘real time’ social setting, they would never dream of initiating out of repressed courtesy or fear of ostracization.

For those unaccustomed to a contrary position in their ego-invested beliefs, this proves a to be a challenge. To remain effective in their message they must stay contemporary and use the ‘voice of the age’ – in this case social media – however they also must entertain the risk that some dissenting voice will call them to the carpet on their perspectives. The inherent problem with this is that it necessitates a critical insight that may conflict with that ego-invested belief.

For religious leaders this is a very tough trade off: Posting your sermon on your blog to reach the massess is simply good marketing, and implies certainty in the relevance of that message and/or idea. However the strength of that message must stand up to public scrutiny for it to be considered a strong theory, assertion or  perspective. The same holds true for the religion of the fem-centric society.

Since the apex of feminization in the 90’s, fem-centrism has taken its social positions as articles of faith. It just is because it always has been, and no one questions its purpose or validity. Old ideologies die hard, but are the ones most tenaciously clung to by those whose livelihoods depend on the old paradigms to endure. To preserve this system in the face of a building volume of social critique, a degree of dissociation has to be instituted. Thus we have the professors and pastors of previously unchallenged ideologies selectively filter out conflicting ideas, thus recreating the echo chambers they were accustomed to under the old paradigm, or take the lazy way out and simply brook no audience for any feedback by turning off anyone’s ability to comment on their ideas.

People who have questions don’t frighten me. People who have no questions scare the shit out of me.


40 responses to “Rationalism in the Matrix

  • Peregrine John

    Let them bring it on. Ad hominem screeching, dodging the question, changing the subject, and the many logical fallacies and inconsistencies that instantly pop up (due, I suspect, to the brainwashed nature of the adherents, leading naturally to their knee-jerk responses) are easily swatted away. Insist that they use the logic they claim to be capable of, and there can be no loss.

    Don’t mistake their lack of conversion to something like reality for loss of the argument: The presumed rationality of their arguments is their primary defense, though those walls are protected only by smoke and mirrors. Your goal isn’t to bed them, it’s to free yourself from their rulership. They can make good on their supposed reason and intellect, or they can keep their deranged views to themselves. Again: There is no way to lose except by backing down.

  • umslopogaas

    @Rollo Tomassi:

    This globalized marketplace of ideas doesn’t make for a comfortable environment for people with an absolutist mindset used to receiving constant praise, if not acquiescent silence. Now, courtesy of blogs, social media, and the general connectivity of the internet people can voice their criticisms of ideas that, in a ‘real time’ social setting, they would never dream of initiating out of repressed courtesy or fear of ostracization.

    Interesting. Yes the – thus far – essentially untamed nature of the Inter-Webz is a critical tool for anybody desiring to think for himself, outside of orthodox reality (and media). Everybody writing stuff has to have the ability to defend said claims and/or back them up. This is has proven rather inconvenien for the ilk of Aunt Giggles etc (after ‘Dalrock-Gate’ she soon published her own article vis a vis divorce and essentially came to the same conclusion as Dalrock, clandestinely doinga 180° turn).

    What worries me, however, is the prospect of increasingly fascist methods. Deleting comments, censoring, banning people for being “too critical” etc. I fear this will be the future.

    For those unaccustomed to a contrary position in their ego-invested beliefs, this proves a to be a challenge. To remain effective in their message they must stay contemporary and use the ‘voice of the age’ – in this case social media – however they also must entertain the risk that some dissenting voice will call them to the carpet on their perspectives. The inherent problem with this is that it necessitates a critical insight that may conflict with that ego-invested belief.

    Heh.

    Of course the flipside of damsels dancing to their own tune with court cringers, manginas and sockpuppets bleating varying verses of “yes”, “you are so right!”, “you are such a wonderful blogger, I wuv you!” is their unpreparedness…for that moment when somebody finally looks at their stuff and shows them their fallacies.

    What comes first? The egg or the rooster? Do women debate badly because they are used to never be called on the BS? Or do they censor heavily because they are intrinsicly bad at debate?

    My own gut feeling is that it’s primarily the latter. Of course being surrounded by lickspittles and never having to account for anything…also doesn’t help.

    Since the apex of feminization in the 90′s, fem-centrism has taken it’s social positions as articles of faith. It just is because it always has been, and no one questions its purpose or validity. Old ideologies die hard, but are the ones most tenaciously clung to by those whose livelihoods depend on the old paradigms to endure. To preserve this system in the face of a building volume of social critique, a degree of dissociation has to be instituted. Thus we have the professors and pastors of previously unchallenged ideologies selectively filter out conflicting ideas, thus recreating the echo chambers they were accustomed to under the old paradigm, or take the lazy way out and simply brook no audience for any feedback by turning off anyone’s ability to comment on their ideas.

    Indeed. Feminism – just like multiculturalism – is dogma, is the West’s ersatz religion. Which is why dissent is not just as dissent but well…heresy. Which makes us the heretics. May we evil, evil troglodytes be burned!

    However, what will be most interesting is the fact that they (i.e. the powers that be) are still maintaining a system of – at least theoretical – democracy, pluralism and the freedom of expression. Of course this is an illusion at this point. But the more orthodox positions (i.e. feminism über alles) are questioned and critiqued…the greater energy they will have to use in order to uphold the farce, their house of cards.

    Endgame: either they go full Orwellian at some point in the not so distant future…or we win. Simply because *we* rely on truth while *they* rely on disimilation, distortion and outright lies.

  • Stingray

    Do women debate badly because they are used to never be called on the BS? Or do they censor heavily because they are intrinsicly bad at debate?

    It’s both really. How often do men or women call a woman on any of her BS? You never really know how she might react. A woman who calls out another woman on her BS in a group very quickly becomes a pariah, even if the other women think she might be right. They simply do not want to be kicked out of the group.

    Also, women do not debate well because our feelings get in the way. A single word can trigger feelings that make it incredibly difficult to even dissect what is being said enough to objectively look at it. In this case, I think it was the word *dread*. All women have felt this with their husbands or SO’s at one time or another and it is horrific. This feeling makes it nigh impossible to register the rest of the argument enough to break it down and rationally decide if it is sound or not.

  • Rollo Tomassi

    At the end of the day, it’s Sue’s blog and she’ll bloody well post what she wants and decide who gets to have a take or not. And that’s perfectly fine; it’s her work and she can be the arbitrator, but given that prerogative, don’t expect much more from her than what she deems relevant discourse.

    I’m not petitioning to have my own or anyone else’s ideas or premises validated on Hooking Up Beta, but the bias of her positions are evidenced by her censorship, and that’s something that has to be taken into consideration when evaluating her views.

    I’m not the one who uses Suz’s posts for blog fodder, she riffs on my work. But in doing so and stifling any rebuttal it only emphasizes the weakness of her arguments.

    This will be the last blog post I make of this. I’ve got a bigger purpose to serve than entertaining the vanity of people who have no interest in informed discourse.

  • itsme

    i accepted long ago that women simply are not equipped to think logically and rationally, much less talk that way.

    this is a feature, not a bug. this behavior is by design.

    once you accept this you’ll laugh. not at them, but at yourself. at all the time and energy you’ve wasted trying to appeal to a woman’s nonexistent logic module.

    mother nature’s the only bitch who’s got any sense. she’ll sort this all out eventually, as she always does.

  • Columnist

    Many Feminist say Logic is a male invention to oppress women. Why bother then?

  • walawala

    Time post and here’s a real-life example.

    Girl I have banged regularly for 2 years after gaming her successfully goes through these situations.

    She came over to my place from her city in another country and stayed for 2 nights and banged her brains out.

    Then she saw me frowning at my Blackberry. I had forgotten the password or pushed in the wrong numbers 10 times and it had erased everything.

    She created a drama in her head that I was upset about breaking up with “one of my gf’s” and her ASD went up.

    Next thing she’s packing up and leaving. Writes mee a long note about how she feels cheap and bad etc and we wont’ see each other again.

    I don’t answer it at all…Then I decide to IM her to say “hey”….

    She gets all “you hurt me, we will not meet up again”

    Me: Cool

    Her; Are you drunk?

    Me: Nope, but you sound like it…

    and on and on it went.

    The point here being that after reading this blog faithfully and facing situations arising out of it…I no longer get as rattled by these dramas.

    She wanted me to feel bad. But I just couldn’t. That drove her even more mental.

  • Snoeperd

    Have been thinking about this very subject for a while now; the parallels between religion and feminism. In both cases the proponents favor extensive influence in our personal lives.
    (i remember a story from my grandparents where a priest visited their house and mentioned that “there was enough space for another few children” in their house of 8 people)
    Also in both causes any discussion on the values of the ideology are immediately smashed into submission without any rational argument whatsoever. I guess people need their faith after all

  • Mike C

    Since this post and the anxiety post both partially address Hooking Up Smart, let me offer my thoughts and observations as a long-time reader and commenter there. In my view, HUS has had 3 distinct stages of evolution:

    1. Stage 1- NO understanding whatsoever of the “Game/Red Pill” view of the SMP, female attraction, sexuality, and nature
    2. Stage 2- Understanding and Incorporation of Game/Red Pill view of the SMP, female attraction, sexuality, and nature
    3. Stage 3- Rejection of Game/Red Pill view of the SMP, female attraction, sexuality, and nature.

    Dalrock-gate seems to be the dividing line/trigger point between Stages 2 and 3

    In Stage 1, if you read the beginning of the blog, you’ll see no understanding of things like alpha versus beta men, female hypergamy, etc. Stage 2 had a lot of male commentary including guys like myself, Yohami, Badger, Byron all sort of explaining the Red Pill view of things. Some women took the information well, and I think for others it created a “hostile” environment. In Stage 2, Susan often agreed the vast majority of time with guys like myself and Yohami in the comments. She even has a post titled The Wisdom of Yohami. Stage 3 starts the disassociation from the manosphere and often the repudiation of Red Pill concepts. I believe the change is sincere (but factually and philosophically incorrect), but I also believe it is motivated by shrewd rebranding. No doubt in my mind, part of the motivation is to make the site “less hostile” to women. Case in point. See Emily’s comments 28 and 29 on VD’s Fidelity Survey post. Mission accomplished.

    The site is “less hostile”. In my mind, part of that “less hostility” is really just shielding women from potentially unpleasant truths or conversation. In Stage 3, you’ve seen her going backwards on concepts like alpha men versus beta men, and sort of redefining what female hypergamy is and is not. On some level, it really just doesn’t matter. I participated there for a long time because I enjoyed it, and I thought I could get some useful info and perspective across. Really, I could care less what message or views she puts out to women. I do hope young men are not reading and using it as a template for what they should or shouldn’t do as they will be going down the wrong path in their interactions, but I guess if they are not smart enough to find blogs like Rational Male or Badger’s Hut or Yohami to get a different view, then they deserve whatever misfortune or bad results they get out in the SMP.

    I’ve got something I say “Reality is reality”. No amount of handwaving or bullshitting can change the underlying reality of something. Ultimately, most debate is just mental masturbation….sound and fury signifying nothing. It behoove men to seek out correct understanding of reality and shape their lives based on that. Its on women to convey to other women a corresponding accurate view of reality.

  • unscathed

    I never really became unplugged until I accepted the fact that women are not meant to be overt, rational, and think logically like most men. I wasted years trying to make sense of this one or that one and every situation in-between. Once I discovered this blog and other resources, it all made perfect sense. I treat women like cats now.

  • Stingray

    Its on women to convey to other women a corresponding accurate view of reality.

    Heh, how? I asked Vox a similar question once and his answers made sense. The biggest being don’t sit back when women are being stupid and be silent. Women take this as being in agreement. When a woman does speak up, typically she is shunned. Most are not comfortable with that.

  • deti

    MIke C:

    “No doubt in my mind, part of the motivation is to make the site “less hostile” to women. Case in point. See Emily’s comments 28 and 29 on VD’s Fidelity Survey post. Mission accomplished.”

    I read Emily’s comments and the context. I’m surprised to see those comments stand unchallenged.

    I also note Yohami has not been around either.

  • Stingray

    Man, I don’t know how to ask this without coming across catty, so . . . here goes: All y’all men are very familiar with female solipsism, right? Regarding Emily’s comments and this whole kerfuffle, most every woman who reads any of this is going to take it personally. Those comments are going to go unchallenged because that site is aimed at and is dominated by women. It always appeared to me that men were the guests helping things along and to give good insight, but that it was always going to remain a woman friendly site. That means, whenever anything gets taken too far, as men tend to do in women’s eyes, that it was going to be stopped. Hence why the hypergamy is stopped short, instilling anxiety is stopped short, the dark triad traits, stopped short. Most everything of controversy will not be taken to the Nth degree as men like to talk about it (like it would make sense to all of you) because it is far too uncomfortable. to internalize for the solipsistic female.

  • deti

    Stingray: That’s probably a correct reading of the situation.

  • Peregrine John

    They do? Seriously?

  • umslopogaas

    @Stingray:

    I concur. I actually wrote something similar in my article on my blog. We’re 100% on the same wavelength regarding this stuff.

    Oh and that’s also a field I will invest energy into: understanding the female mind & its functions. I guess it’ll be a lifelong quest…

  • umslopogaas

    @Rollo:

    Absolutely. It’s her blog so her rules. I have no problem with that. It’s just a tad sad to see another women lost to ‘zhe dark side’.

    Lord knows there are few enough willing to opt out of their solipsistic delusions. As Mike1 writes: she briefly “got it” and then elected to waltz back into blissful baths of illusion for another round of hamster ballet.

    In the mean time, us grunts will just grimly soldier on.

  • umslopogaas

    @Mike:

    Splendid comment. Very enlightening. I hadn’t thought of HUS this way but your analysis of its development makes sense.

    First ignorance, then enlightenment and then arrogance and corruption. Heh. As always…no good deed goeth unpunished.

  • Leap of a Beta

    “Although I think it’s a bit of a dramatic stretch to compare Aunt Giggles’ censorship with the Gestapo, I do think there’s another, more apt comparison – that of religious figures’ censorship.”

    Hahaha. I went over to Umslop’s to read his post before finishing yours, left a couple comments, came back, and this made me laugh.

    Mostly because I had a… Unique(?) experience with her censorship. See, I wasn’t censored for anything I actually said AT HER blog, but for what I said in a small comment at Vox’s. It was after her post on knowledge of game making game ineffectual, but that her daughter just ran into BAD game.

    Apparently Susan went all US government on me and decided that my acts in another land warranted censorship. I got unbanned later, but the whole thing was…. childish and egotistical, for her to think that I have to play by her rules on other people’s websites.

  • AlphaWhiskey

    “once you accept this you’ll laugh. not at them, but at yourself. at all the time and energy you’ve wasted trying to appeal to a woman’s nonexistent logic module.”

    Man oh man is this ever true. I’m in this phase right now, and I look back on all the hours I spent expecting women to operate from the same self-evident platform or reason and logic, and I just shake my head with a wry smile at my own folly.

  • AlphaWhiskey

    *platform of reason

  • Does Feminist = Anarchist? « stagedreality

    [...] run in with Susan (or Aunt Giggles as he calls her) on how to deal with this kind of censorship of Rationalism in the Matrix and how Rationalism is condemned in a fem-centric [...]

  • Johnycomelately

    Knowing the innate feminine competitive drive, I think Aunt Sue is pissed off that an East Coast trust fund baby (Kate Bolick) is going to make squillions from her work.

    She wants a piece of the pie and want in on the act, which mean peddling to the established party line. Which goes to show that ‘game’ is still a potato too hot to handle.

  • Höllenhund

    “I believe the change is sincere (but factually and philosophically incorrect), but I also believe it is motivated by shrewd rebranding.”

    She probably craves mainstream acceptance in one way or another. A book deal, a radio show, that sort of stuff, which equals money, of course. Hence her rubbing shoulders with that Bolick woman. She obviously fancies herself as some sort of spokesperson for all women dissatisfied with the current SMP. I don’t think she actually cares about the consequences of feminism, she’s just one of the people who want to cash in on it’s bankruptcy.

  • Candide

    The moment that site fell apart wasn’t the “Dalrock-gate”, it was after she posted the blog on Kate Bollocks.

  • Höllenhund

    Exactly. HUS is just another facilitator of female solipsism.

  • YOHAMI

    Stage 2 is when I discovered HUS and the comment section there was outstanding. So many different voices and angles, from rad fems to pure mras to everything in between.

    It was a bunch of people exchanging information, and with mikeC, deti, badger, imnobody, dogsquat… fuck so many great voices, plus some stellar girls as well.

    Susan had the “guys bad/girls victim” bias always at hand and some other perks, but I called her on it and it didnt seem to be a big issue – fuck, everyone of us has biases, its how you handle them what makes the difference – and other people called me on my bullshit too. It was good.

    I think the Stage 3 shift started with the Bolick / Atlantic feature. I remember long, long stupid dissertions about Bolick being “stunning” and the whole thread being polarized. Then the debate with Doug that ended up in Dalrockgate.

    I assumed a role there, pointing to the flood of bullshit and calling her on her stuff frontally. At least now I understand why that doesnt work. I see it wasnt a bug but a feature – the switch was intentional.

    And all those great voices that used to populate HUS are going to land somewhere else. It’s all good.

  • Höllenhund

    Yeah, her calling that Bolick broad ‘gorgeous’ was an utterly delusional statement even by Internet standards. Does she even realize Bolick will obviously end up doing a lot of disservice to average women by basically presenting the spinster lifestyle in an unrealistically good light? She will drive spinsterhood instead of rolling it back. And yet she bands together with her, even though she claims she wants to help women thrive in this SMP.

  • Rollo Tomassi

    Interesting take. I figured Bolick was on the gravy train once she started getting MSM attention, but after the book deal and having her ‘story’ co-opted for possible TV, then I knew she was in it for the money.

    Predictably the fem-matrix eats her shit right up, but the reality of it now is Kate Bolick’s financial well-being depends upon her staying the perpetual spinster into her late 40’s and into her 50’s. The moment she ‘finds love’ is the moment the residual checks start getting smaller. She’s only relevant so long as she plays the role she created for herself now.

    If there’s any correlation, Aunt Sue got a contact high from her marginal brush with Bolick and now thinks she can gravy train the gravy trainer.

  • NahReally

    One-itis: “this is the feeling that a particular woman is actually special. This is just an illusion; she is the same as the other three or so billion.”

    OMG…Rollo had one-itis for Sue!! :O lol

    Don’t debate with women…ESPECIALLY on the subject of attraction. Even if they do somehow manage to become self-aware enough to agree with you do you think any chick, once her blog hits mainstream, is going to stand by her controversial statements against the barrage of White Knights and Feminists and MSM-hate the way guys like Rollo, Roissy, Roosh etc. do? Fuuuuck no. They will cave in a heartbeat to protect themselves from social pressure and majority-judgement.

    There’s a lesson in that, too, really.

    I leave you with lolz:

  • itsme

    bolick IS gorgeous

    …for a female of that ilk.

  • jim

    well there are only so many hours in the day so….

  • L. Byron

    Mike,

    that’s a very, very good summation of the changes that have taken place at HUS. I hadn’t seen it quite that starkly before but I have to say I agree.

  • Scott

    If it wasn’t for the internet I almost would have (due to religious social conditioning/brainwashing every week) become a pastor even though I internally did not believe everything about the social issues that most religions preach and I would have then been a self-righteous reinforcer of the fem-centric culture (OMG, that was a close call), and I would not have learned about game and thus become an authentic masculine man. I freed myself and I now can bend my own thoughts to decide on the beliefs I honestly believe in and on what I decide to focus on daily and on living the way I want to live. I have traveled so far within the rabbit hole now that there is no going back, and this new reality is home and being true to my true inner self I’m much happier here. I feel so happy it is like when I was at a Las Vegas casino pool and there was a CEO, an NBA coach, and others including many Playboy bunnies, it was 97 degrees, and the bright sunlight was glistening on the water and on the Playboy girls wearing bikinis, and I was smiling feeling so good in the rabbit hole.

  • One By One » Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Technology

    [...] androsphere personalities regardless of their actual content is a new low for Susan Walsh.  Umslopogaas called this increasingly fascist for good [...]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 5,419 other followers

%d bloggers like this: