Do any of you watch Aurini?

Aurini

Ostrich
Thanks, guys; glad to know I had a positive impact, even if it was nothing more than keeping Kona company on the drive home.

These days I'm really questioning what I, and "we" are doing. Really, it's a question of who "we" are:


A big one for me was GamerGate; a lot of us had been writing about these issues for a long time before that. Me, Roosh, Adam Piggot (he even wrote about the SJW takeover in WoW 2 years beforehand); I was really hoping this was a start of the "Great Awakening". Instead we got a lot of Johnny-Come-Latelys who poached our talking points, while siding against us. I guess back in College they had the BaldManBad.exe & BeardManBad.exe programs installed. They were emotionally entrenched against us, despite us being in ideological agreement.

Then the Alt-Right went sideways. Almost seems like there was a cynical coup by the Johnny-Come-Latelies to co-opt the movement for their own glory and push out the founders. Every man building up his own little fiefdom, on top of the unthinking mediocrity and frustration of their followers.

Then, to top it all off, a bunch of my long-term friends - guys I've known and supported for a decade - decided to turn on me. Right now they're claiming it's because I'm part of a CIA/Pyramid Scheme/Cult, but the underlying cause was my refusal to wrestle with them over petty Cat/Prot debates, giving them the affect that so many of the Internet People are driven by.

Ten years ago I thought we were the Avante Garde who could resurrect civilization; these days I look around, and on the fundamental level most "Right Wing" people are behaving no differently from the Left they claim to oppose. A generation of punks and narcisssists.

Not that they're entirely to blame; a couple of recent posts have been bouncing around my head as of late.

Number 1
:

Oberrheiner said:
The Catalyst said:
Can someone explain what exactly is bad about usury? It's hard to wrap around. If it does create money out of nothing and allows you to access money that isn't yours/doesn't exist, that's really bad, yet I can't imagine a situation where people would actually want to loan without interest.

Ok, let's call x the total amount of money which exists in the whole world.
Hopefully I didn't lose everyone's attention with that line yet :)

Now say 3 guys take a loan for 10.000 each to buy a house for their families.
With the current usury rates, the total cost including interests will be 12.000 each.

Now for the simplicity of the demonstration let's say that x is 0.
So the bank creates 30k (so now x is 30.000), and those people need to pay back 36k (12 each).
See the problem coming already ?

Two of them will be able to pay back, the third will be left bankrupt and homeless - because the money he has to pay back simply does not exist.
Oh, and the other two will have to basically have stolen the extra 2k of interests from him.
So yeah, it's not exactly a moral system.

Now of course in the real life x is not 0, it's billions of billions, spread across 7 billion individuals, so you don't see the stealing and the getting broke and homeless that much, because it is spread very wide across all of us.
Oh and new money is being created all the time, so by the time you have to pay it back it will have been created by somebody else, recursively until the end of time (or a crash of the whole system) like a ponzi scheme.
But that doesn't make the problem less real.

And after that of course you have whole industries which came to exist because of that, for instance marketing and advertisement.
For instance you don't need to actually steal money from people, you can also spend billions trying to convince them that they need the latest iphone for a thousand bucks when it costs maybe a fifth of that to make, to take just one example :)
So yeah technically you're not stealing from people anymore, you're brainwashing them to give you their money themselves spontaneously.

I've been explaining usury using this exact same metaphor for years, but Oberrheiner flipped it upside down and I saw something new. There are only two choices in a usurious economy: be the guy fucking someone over, or the guy getting fucked.

You want to know why GamerGate and the Alt-Right turned into the same creature as everything else? Because of the latent economic realities of our time. Fuck someone over, or be the guy getting fucked.

Deserve ain't got nothing to do with it.

Post Number 2:

Waqqle said:
1. Women are adults every bit as much as men are. They make grown up decisions just as we do. In all but cases involving genuine criminality, women are solely responsible for any and all sex that happens in the modern secular world. Women are the gatekeepers of sexuality and they alone decide whether or not sex happens. If she refuses you, there is nothing you can legally do to make sex happen with her. Even hookers must consent.

2. In the same way that only an individual man can be truly held responsible for choosing to commit a murder or rob a bank, only an individual woman can be truly held responsible for the sex that she chooses to have. Perhaps she came from such and such a background or did not have a dad but, ultimately she has agency in the same way that a man coming from the same situation does and his sad story will certainly not prevent the judge from holding him solely responsible for the choices he has made.

3. There is no such thing as modern secular traditionalism. Modern secular girls are already going to do it so they might as well do it with you.


Ask an incel if girls who don't already have it in them will choose to bang him or if he can convince a girl who already rejected him. A girl who really wants to preserve her virginity until marriage and live a traditional lifestyle as a housewife and homemaker will do that and she will not give it up to any guy until she is married. Even the most skilled gamer cannot crack a girl who has committed herself to those principles because all the game in the world will not change a sincere "no" into a "yes" (LMR is not sincere but is only part of the game - if it were a sincere refusal, you'd know). Game is just that, playing the game that women like to enjoy before doing what they have already decided that they are going to do (bang a man they are not married to).

Women who are willing to have non-marital sex have already decided in the first 5-10 seconds of seeing you whether they would bang you or not (just like men do, though we judge different features) and the rest is just playing the game that gets you to where she has already decided she will allow you to go. For the girls who are truly committed to trad principles, game is largely irrelevant in terms of getting non-marital sex as they decided long before they ever saw you that you were not getting in without marrying them and that decision was almost invariably based on religious conviction, not fleeting emotion and arousal.

Also, is women were truly committed to trad principles, then why are up to 90% of divorces initiated by women (75% is only the women without the male and 15-20% is "mutual" which totally doesn't mean that the male was coerced in any way - that never happens)? Traditionalism went away in the West with the introduction of hormonal birth control and the entrance en masse of women into the workplace. When you say "we are making women worse," you are operating on logic that might have been relevant 300 years ago when women and men were both basically slaves to nature, had strong religious convictions, and married before they were 18 but that way of thinking only puts you at a disadvantage now because, whether you yourself are trad or not, a woman is most likely not going to be a traditional virgin by the time she crosses your path and, if she is, you won't be able to crack her.

To answer your question: We are making the most of a bad situation. In the modern West, where women have every right to refuse at any point, it is truly women who, in all cases except those involving genuine criminality, are the deciders of whether or not sex happens. They are already going to give it up, if not to you then to someone else, so you might as well get your piece. Just make sure not to get spermjacked, stay healthy, and stay safe.

To sum up his post, Everything that happens between you and a woman happens upon her whim. Men as a whole have had not just their civil rights, but their cultural rights stripped from them. You're not even allowed to expect a woman to keep her word - that's oppression. Furthermore, to return to the "Somebody's going to get fucked" economic principles of our time - the legal system has made sure it's never the woman who gets sacrificed. She's guaranteed survival, while you're thrown into the wood chipper.

The only way you can get married in today's world is to find a wife who wants to submit to her husband. I'm not saying such a woman doesn't exist. But chances are, what you're actually going to find is a woman who wants the trappings of marriage in the same manner that a guy with a mortgage pretends to be a homeowner (Hint: if the bank owns your ass, you don't own shit except by proxy). Short of a deep spiritual commitment on her part, you don't have a marriage; you have a farce. You've signed away your freedom to her, in the hopes that she'll allow you two weekends a month to play with your toys. The rest of the time, she's topping from the bottom.

Again, not saying it's impossible; but what I am saying is that it's 100% in her court, we as men lack any ability to guide women away from folly. The culture, the Church, the law courts are all on her side.

So, to return to the original question: what are "we" doing? It depends on what you mean by "we". If by "we" you mean the sort of men we have on this forum - pursuing self improvement and trying to navigate the treacherous waters of the current year - well, I just answered that. If, on the other hand, by "we" you meant the cultural force that will reinvigorate civilization... well, I've been doing this for over a decade, and I see no evidence that any such force exists. While I was fighting the Hydra they were stealing my saddle bags. I've grown quite tired of putting my neck on the line for fair-weather friends.

I don't know that we can right the direction that civilization is heading. All we can do is try and survive it. I wish I had something a bit more optimistic to share with you, but reality is what it is.

This is a land for wolves now.
 

debeguiled

Peacock
Gold Member
Speaking of topping from the bottom, I was listening to a livestream by a Christian woman and everything was fine until she slipped in a jarring little phrase that gave the game away.

They are so good at pretending to be with the program, but if you listen closely, you will hear the one slip that gives the game away.

A commenter asked her if her husband were Christian and she said, Yes, and then, under her breath, "I wish he were more on fire for the Lord."

Can you imagine that marriage?

"I am so glad to be a surrendered wife, but Honey, could you be more head of the household like this. . . ."
 

Aurini

Ostrich
debeguiled said:
Speaking of topping from the bottom, I was listening to a livestream by a Christian woman and everything was fine until she slipped in a jarring little phrase that gave the game away.

They are so good at pretending to be with the program, but if you listen closely, you will hear the one slip that gives the game away.

A commenter asked her if her husband were Christian and she said, Yes, and then, under her breath, "I wish he were more on fire for the Lord."

Can you imagine that marriage?

"I am so glad to be a surrendered wife, but Honey, could you be more head of the household like this. . . ."

This is precisely why I broke up with my ex. It was subtle... but little hints here and there revealed that she didn't believe in my mission. She didn't believe I had a 'headship' worthy of being acknowledged. Eventually she would have begun plying her wiles on me to push my mission into a hobby, and have me focus on being a work horse for her. Not even for the finances, necessarily (she was well off) but for the bragging rights of having a Clydesdale tied up on her front yard.

I trust you all understand that having a mission is no excuse to abandon your wife or act like a layabout - once you're married you have a duty, and that duty may demand that you put your dreams on hold to work at the box factory - and being the head of the household doesn't mean crushing your wife's hopes and dreams, and forcing her to be your domestic servant - none of this is being advocated for by me.

Mutual respect is the ideal, balanced by mutual fulfillment of responsibility.

It's the respect that's lacking. Even seemingly traditional women have been indoctrinated into the belief that men deserve no respect, and women deserve all of it; and that women have no responsibilities, just manipulation tactics. The saddest part is, by usurping their husbands natural headship women wind up killing the goose that lays the golden eggs. If she'd supported him, instead of corralling him (assuming he was a good man performing his duty) she'd find that he grew into something incredible. Instead, she stymies him as certainly as a single mother turns her son into a sissy, and is left with an old, 300 lb draft animal sitting on her couch.

Just because a marriage is stable doesn't mean that it's a good or healthy marriage.
 
Aurini said:
once you're married you have a duty, and that duty may demand that you put your dreams on hold to work at the box factory

Aye. The box factory sucks. That's what side-hustles are for.

Here's to hoping all of our side-hustles turn profitable. Cheers.
 

Oberrheiner

Pelican
Aurini said:
There are only two choices in a usurious economy: be the guy fucking someone over, or the guy getting fucked.

The fucking is just the beginning though :)
Or the process normally running its (inter-)course, if you prefer.
The ultimate end result is basically everyone being bankrupt, and all the money belonging to the usurers.

We never get that far though, because before that you usually get wars, revolutions, civil wars, what have you ..
I once downloaded (from here IIRC) i video called "all wars are banker wars".
I never got the time to watch it, but the title is certainly true - not in the direct "conspiracy" sense, that is that some bankers actually want wars to happen (we don't know this, maybe it's true, probably it's not), but in the indirect sense, that is considering the way the financial system is set up it can only lead to such events anyway.

Also it's interesting noting that bankers don't steal themselves, they set the system up in a way that their clients steal from each other, then have to give them the spoils in the form of interest.
There is probably something to say about people who respect the letter but not the spirit of the law.
Or about plausible deniability with regards to the decalogue.
Or maybe about catholics vs protestants, but I don't want to start such a discussion (I wouldn't have adequate knowledge anyway).

There would really be a lot to say about many things in fact but no one seems to be really interested much unfortunately.
 
Choose your friends more carefully in future Davis. At this point you'd probably be better off being friends with Jim Toad. At least he's an honest reptile and you'd know where you stand at all times.
 

Aurini

Ostrich
Vladimir Poontang said:
Choose your friends more carefully in future Davis. At this point you'd probably be better off being friends with Jim Toad. At least he's an honest reptile and you'd know where you stand at all times.

Radical responsibility. These were friends I made ten years ago (amazing to think how naive I was back then, even at the age of 30); but while my naivete was understandable, the consequences for that choice remain

A crucial life skill: learning to recognize the small and mean people, and brush them off politely without forging bonds with them. I very much want to lift people up, but many just want to drag you down with them.
 

Aurini

Ostrich
gework said:
Labienus said:
It's a shame he got banned from YouTube.

Are his videos available online anywhere?

I was going to send his Pepe video to someone, but it seems there are no backup videos elsewhere.

BitChute.

I do need to re-up the library, however; I'll start that tomorrow, with the video you mentioned. Thanks for the kick in the ass.
 

Leonard D Neubache

Owl
Gold Member
source.gif


Me every time I click on a bit-chute link forgetting I'm only going to get a site-can't-be-reached screen because "Christchurch Shooting videos must be censored".
 

Aurini

Ostrich
Leonard D Neubache said:
source.gif


Me every time I click on a bit-chute link forgetting I'm only going to get a site-can't-be-reached screen because "Christchurch Shooting videos must be censored".

And yet, for some strange reason Facebook - where the original video was published - isn't blocked.
 
Top