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.
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… Read more »
@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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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…
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… Read more »
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.
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.
“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.
*platform of reason
Many Feminist say Logic is a male invention to oppress women. Why bother then?
They do? Seriously?
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… Read more »
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
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… Read more »
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.
well there are only so many hours in the day so….
“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.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
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… Read more »
Stingray: That’s probably a correct reading of the situation.
Exactly. HUS is just another facilitator of female solipsism.
“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… Read more »
[…] 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 […]
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.
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… Read more »
The moment that site fell apart wasn’t the “Dalrock-gate”, it was after she posted the blog on Kate Bollocks.
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… Read more »
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.
bolick IS gorgeous
…for a female of that ilk.
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
[…] androsphere personalities regardless of their actual content is a new low for Susan Walsh. Umslopogaas called this increasingly fascist for good […]