The Application of Free Thought: Avoiding the Catch-22

In my last post, Free Thinkers and False Allies, I discussed the Catch-22 of thinking for yourself; how the subtle complexities which typify free thought are utterly beyond 95% of the population, rendering whatever solution or insight you’ve achieved as a failed non-starter from the get go.  Attempting to spread your idea will only result in a dumbed down, mass-market imitation product which replaces your own, and utterly fails to achieve anything of worth.

In other words: very few men can swallow the Red Pill.  Most would prefer GLeeMONEX.

One of the great conceits of the political left is that “raising awareness” is a necessary and useful activity.  That merely drawing attention to the social ill du jour is as commendable as actually fixing it, leading to flag-filters on Facebook avatars and rallies to end poverty, that fail to propose any solution at all.  As risible as all of this is, it nonetheless serves a function: to organize and indoctrinate the participants into an identity, and to establish the acceptable bounds of speech.  It fails to achieve the ends it was ostensibly pursuing, but that was never the true purpose in the first place.  The left wing rally is essentially a church service, sans the self-improvement which the latter instills.

Rallies and movements are left-wing and modernist by their very nature; on a fundamental, grammatical level they’re about numbers first, and ideas second.  Inherent to them is the belief that if a million people believe something, then it can’t possible be foolish; and since most people aren’t able or willing to correct errors in their worldview, the rally’s causus belli must be something as small and inoffensive as possible. “Muslims hate us for our freedom!” – not because we are degenerating as a culture and attempting to force our depravities on them, while they are following the words of a murderous child rapist.  The latter speaks of cause and effect; that if mosquitoes are attacking you, you might be living in a swamp.  It calls out the participants of the rally, and suggests an individual course of action, not a massed movement of sound and fury.  Rather than pumping the participants full of narcissistic supply, it confronts them with a bracing truth, and sets them on an arduous path of personal development instead of noisy pride.

Contrast today’s rally or mass movement to those of years past: our grandparents might have organized in public, but when they did so it was as part as a pre-established social group.  A Christian rally, or a veteran’s march, some sort of functional community which already had ‘Red Pill’ truths built in to the core of it, with standards of behaviour applied and enforced amongst the adherents.  The rally wasn’t an attempt at achieving a sense of identity – it came out of a sense of identity.  As for the purpose, our grandparents would have marched in pursuit of a specific, actionable item.  It would have been something which coalesced with the rest of their worldview (even if the overarching worldview was only fully understood by those in charge) and was realistically achievable.

Such a march isn’t possible in today’s social climate due to the erosion of family and community, the miseducation and transient historicity of your typical Millennial, and the pervasive culture of narcissism.  Any attempt at meaningful action will devolve into a cult of personality; simplified slogans shouted out to manufacture an identity, with the entire movement hanging upon the charisma of its figurehead.  This is an extremely fragile organization, as the hint of human imperfection in the leader will doom it all to failure.  In addition, its goals will be vague, and its accomplishments counterproductive.  Instead of trying to achieve an goal to benefit a community, the goal is just an arbitrary point around which a community tries to form.

This is why I finished off my last post by saying:

Rather than trying to distribute the ideas – and handing them over to the Obsessives and Extremists who turn them into a farce – we need to own them.  We need to implement them.

We must go out there and create.

It is this which I would like to explore more deeply today: how the fruits of free thinking can be harvested, despite the inability of deep thinkers to explain themselves to society at large.

For the essence of this, consider the Manosphere and the Red Pill: the Manosphere began as nothing more than men comparing notes on women, and realizing that the prevailing wisdom of our era was rooted in falsehood. “Be a nice guy, just be yourself!” was a script for failure; the rugged masculinity which was regularly decried was, in fact, what women actually wanted.  A thorough examination of women’s attraction triggers followed, culminating in a theoretical understanding which matched observed reality.

Now: what did we do about this?  Did we become street-corner proselytizers, trying to explain to women that their stated beliefs conflicted with their behaviour?  That their push for men to act effeminate would only sour relations between the sexes?  Or that they should try and realign their attraction triggers to match the feminist political agenda which they were foisting upon the world?

No – or at least, most of us didn’t.  What we did was apply this new heuristic to our interactions with women.  Some men used it to find women who were sexually available for short-term flings, others used it to screen for women who would make virtuous wives.  Either way, we put it into practical application.  If women like men who are fit, commanding, confident, and successful – well, become all of those things!  Don’t sit around whining about how that’s not what Sesame Street promised you growing up.

Restoring the virtue of our women came not through lectures, but from behaviours; by putting the new heuristic into action, you generate the structures and organizations which have been eroded over the past half-century.

Roosh V took this theory, and put together a series of books which explained it’s application to his audience.  He wasn’t lecturing about theory – he was writing about practice.  He created something useful and marketable, a solid base which he owned.  This expanded into his forum, a community which has taken on a life of its own.  It is worth noting that the RVF exists for its own sake, not as a counter-reaction against an ideological opponent.  While feminists are frequently ridiculed on its pages, those who comprise the membership would be just as happy if there were no feminists to oppose.  RVF members don’t derive their identity from being anti-X – their identity comes from their individual accomplishments, and they frequent the forum for the sake of intellectual debate, entertainment, and networking.  Any political actions which derive from this shared identity will be as organic as the community-group that participates in local politics.

Another prominent example of the Red Pill in application is Vox Day’s various endeavours.  Of note are Castalia House and InfoGalactic.  Upon realizing that the publishing industry and Wikipedia had been taken over by far-left interest groups who eschewed objective truth and good fiction in favour of ideological nepotism, he didn’t go on a quest to ‘raise awareness’ of the problem; instead, he saw an opportunity for action.  While both of these projects are still finding their footing, by all accounts InfoGalactic is not only providing unbiased information, it’s providing it at a superior level to the equivalent articles on Wikipedia.   Castalia House, meanwhile, is free to pick up the talented authors who are being ignored by the mainstream publishers due to their race or sex.

Then you have writers such as Quintus Curtius, who noted the lack of moral history being provided in today’s climate, and so he took it upon himself to translate some notable works.  Or John C. Wright, who saw the lack of catechizing of today’s Catholics, and so he provided an extensive theology series, in addition to his science fiction work.  You have Aaron Clarey explaining applied economics to the younger generation, and men like Matt Forney and Mike Cernovich providing alternative political coverage.

And of course you have the thousands of anonymous commenters who take all of this and apply in their family and in their business, to avoid dangerous pitfalls and to raise successful children.

The whole point of thinking for yourself isn’t to create a new mass movement of brainwashed drones; group think is the enemy, not the goal!  The point is to create a superior strategy for yourself, and in the process create a product or structure that benefits others.  It can be something as humble as a small business which instills a good work ethic in your employees, a how-to guide which eviscerates the assumptions of the predatory financial class, or a large-scale organization which encourages moral excellence in its members.

All of us will continue to have these lofty, idealistic discussions, of course; both for their own sake (intellectuals enjoy intellectualism, after all) as well as for comparing notes and refining our theories.  But what ultimately matters isn’t the debate – it’s the action.  Not the centrally-planned, coordinated action of a mass movement, but the ongoing implementation of new plans, new endeavours, and new accomplishments – all of which are the domain of individuals.  It isn’t the inculcation of ideas which matters; it’s the inculcation of new practices.

I’ll leave you with the words of Hayek from Fight of the Century: Keynes vs. Hayek Rap Battle Round Two“:

I don’t wanna do nothing, there’s plenty to do.
The question I ponder is who plans for whom.
Do I plan for myself or I leave it to you?
I want plans by the many, not by the few.

ͼ-Ѻ-ͽ

patreon-button

Share Button

Davis M.J. Aurini

Trained as a Historian at McMaster University, and as an Infantry soldier in the Canadian Forces, I'm a Scholar, Author, Film Maker, and a God fearing Catholic, who loves women for their illogical nature.

You may also like...

8 Responses

  1. Lucas Temple says:

    We are lost in the wilderness Davis. We have alot of theories about how to build an identity to replace the one we’ve lost, but many of us have resigned ourselves to enjoying the decline in as much hedonism and narcissism as possible.

    I understand why, but it just goes to prove there isn’t much incentive for men to go out and rebuild civilization by finding good women and creating families.

    Porn, video games, and banging sluts are far easier and contain far less risk. Those of us who can lead by example will, but it will be a long and slow rebuilding behind the scenes. It’s a long game and patience isn’t something our culture possesses.

  2. GCM says:

    Sir, with all due respect, you talk about “restoring the virtue of our women” followed by “[Roosh] created something useful and marketable, a solid base which he owned.” You do realize the disconnect here. Men are generally are not using game to secure a monogamous relationship and engage in coitus for the exclusive purpose of siring children. Nay, a number of young men are simply making excuses to live the Don Juan lifestyle with all the trimmings. What is the end result? A bitter man in his 40’s with plenty of p-pelts on the wall, still trying to chase young tail with his favorite lines, but without the trophy wife nor prodigious progeny.

    What game actually reveals is that “high value men” create a specialized program aimed at men with “lower social value” who have average looks at best and the inherent propensity to be clumsy around women. These boot camps may temporarily increase the student’s confidence around women, but as soon as he pays the $2000 for essentially two nights in Vegas, the learning curve dips and he is inevitably back to square one. Sure, he may pull the lucky chick who is a 6 or 7 out of his hat, but those high value women that he craves are still not on their sexual radar. Why? Because of the guy’s evolutionary defaults.

    Game only works for those men who have the predisposition to use their charm and wit and convince women to fuck them, then weasel their way out of a long-term commitment. We are talking about the upper crust of men—good looking, suave, sophisticated–which is NOT reflective of the overall population of men.

    Roosh (and Roissy) are decidedly NOT allies in the Cultural War, considering they are moral degenerates. Those who hitch their wagon to them destroys their credibility, in particular as a Christian. They claim to despise women who are on the cock carousel, yet offer ways to “pump and dump” those same women, or even those women who are holding out for the right guy. Christian men in increasing numbers are being swayed to learn how to say sweet nothings in a young woman’s ear until her amygdala is overloaded. Plowing every orifice until his heart’s content, the supposed moral superior (men) never calls back…and has the audacity to call the woman a slut. She is now left to believe the only way to get an “upstanding fella” is to give in and have sex with them.

    R and R claim they want virginal women, or women with little sexual experience. However, they employ every trick in the book to bed them; when women refuse, guys label them “cold”. When they succumb, guys call them “sluts”. It’s a lose-lose situation. It is obvious that the father failed in his duty to properly instruct his son to refrain from trying to rut every women he sees. Curious, as I thought the Bible condemned sex outside of marriage. Yet, “Christian men” set aside Roosh and Roisy’s abject immoral behavior merely because they are anti-SWJ.

    Until they have a conversion experience and denounces their empire of sin that he created, their tools. They are our favorite uncles who are leeches, but somehow finds a way to buy us cool stuff or get free stuff. We know what he does is utterly contemptible, but as long as we get something out of it, we look the other way. Fascinating how some Christian men refuse to outright distancing themselves from a man who packages liberalism–the emancipation of one’s soul in pursuit of carnal knowledge outside of marriage.

    This is Christian masculinity.

    http://cbmw.org/uncategorized/profiling-christian-masculinity

  3. GCM, you’re equating Roosh’s work with PUA bootcamps. They’re a foundational difference between the two – and if hedonism was the grammatically logical conclusion of Roosh’s work, then his end goal would be a new form of pornography and sexbots. It isn’t; so you are wrong about his foundations.

    To reiterate: you are throwing some nasty and false accusations against Roosh; I could link five articles that demonstrate how false your accusations are. But the point isn’t whether or not Roosh is a sinner – we all are. I’m not here to be his cheerleader.

    I’m here to tell you to open your eyes; he whom you call an enemy is the man who can save you from the abyss you flirt with.

  4. GCM says:

    “GCM, you’re equating Roosh’s work with PUA bootcamps.”

    Specifically, I am equating Roosh’s moral turpitude in light of your comment “restoring the virtue of women”. PUA bootcamps also share this characteristic.
    Offering instructions to “pump and dump” women is other than virtuous? We know that men are the purveyors and protectors of morality who, if Christian, are to refrain from sexual activity, yet Roosh and Roissy and PUA bootcamps run counter to those ideals. While it is noble for you to defend their free thinking, and while they have the liberty to engage in such actions in our free society, ultimately their conduct is destructive.

    “They’re a foundational difference between the two – and if hedonism was the grammatically logical conclusion of Roosh’s work, then his end goal would be a new form of pornography and sexbots. It isn’t; so you are wrong about his foundations.”

    False premise on your part. Hedonism is the extension of Roosh’s work as well as PUA bootcamps. They share this characteristic—get whatever they can from a woman sexually to gratify base urges. If she is cagey about his wares, and refuses to entertain his sexual advances, she clearly is a woman who espouses virtue. Is not such a trait desirable? Should not Roosh and Roissy, if she measures up in other aspects, snatch her up considering the rarity of locating such “pure hearted” women? But to Roosh and his fan bois, she is other than amenable; she flat out rejected their “romantic” overtures, and thus is summarily dismissed from consideration for marriage and procreation. Is not marriage and procreation the pinnacle of civilization?

    “To reiterate: you are throwing some nasty and false accusations against Roosh; I could link five articles that demonstrate how false your accusations are.”

    By all means offer up the links with the requisite commentary.

    “But the point isn’t whether or not Roosh is a sinner – we all are. I’m not here to be his cheerleader.”


    Your own words state otherwise. “He created something useful and marketable”. While it is admirable that he dispenses “advice” “about the nature of female behavior, the overall purpose of his Bang Books are squarely designed to procure trim, which again run counter to Western ideals and Christian values. Our society’s “structures and organizations” further erode when men consciously pursue women who are fallen -and- who purposely trick women to sleep with them while making promises of a long-term commitment.

    Men have the duty as the superior sex to keep in check their own rutting tendencies as well as female solipsism. Rough sledding, but required work on the part of men. The Roosh’s and Roissy’s of the world, however, open up the floodgates with their predatory counseling. How are they decidedly encouraging “moral excellence” when they themselves are not raising a family, which is the ultimate alpha move?

    
“I’m here to tell you to open your eyes; he whom you call an enemy is the man who can save you from the abyss you flirt with.”



    Manly virtue requires men, as the alleged superior being, to exercise complete restraint from mounting any and all women in their paths merely because they have the savior-faire to pull it off. Roosh and Roissy actually undermine patriarchy by flooding a woman’s amygdala in hopes she will relent and quench their sexual thirst. Regardless of a female’s independence streak, women are owned by their fathers even today. So when Roosh and company “pump and dump”, they are setting back the timetable for patriarchy to make its triumphant return. In other words, both should refrain from having sex, remind her that motherhood is sacred, and teach her to properly behave as a woman. If their actions fail to bear any fruit, then she is unworthy of their precious time. That is the essence of Christian masculinity.

    “the rugged masculinity which was regularly decried was, in fact, what women actually wanted.”

    Another false premise. Men individuals define what is masculine. While it is laudable for men to help their brethren to clarify what should be manly behaviors, the social-sexual hierarchy essentially square pegs men–certain behaviors are automatically labeled as being “gamma”.

  5. GCM says:

    For a supposed man of many words, sir, your seemingly refusal to offer a cogent rebuttal on this important matter tells me everything I need to know.

  6. I’ve had this argument too many times. Don’t hate the player, hate the game, son. The real world invovles strategy, power games, and the dance of eros. Either learn from those who understand it – or reject their wisdom because they don’t fit in to your preconceived notion of holiness.

  7. Sam J. says:

    @GCM

    “…Men have the duty as the superior sex to keep in check their own rutting tendencies…”

    There’s your problem right there. That Men should lecture, sacrifice and slog away while Woman have fun is not going anywhere. Men are NOT the superior sex. They’re better at some things and Women are better at some things. A combined pairing of a Women and a Man working together are a fantastic team but it’s difficult if not highly improbable to get that today. Just because some can doesn’t in any way change the long odds that any one Man will. Any Woman can use the stored capital of Men and just run away with it on a whim. At the present rates of divorce it’s like spinning a six shooter with three bullets in it, putting it to your head and pulling the trigger. If Women are not going to also change then…we’ll just be done. Some will survive but most won’t. The EXACT same thing happened in ancient Rome. No fault divorce followed by Women acting much as they do today and the end result was, Men refused to get married, they even went so far as a bachelor tax and then when the barbarians came Men refused to fight. Why fight for an overtaxed Empire that made it impossible to have a family. The Empire had no value.

    Your points about Men are correct but we don’t control Woman and their behavior. Women must also bring something of value to the table.

  1. October 7, 2017

    […] is the latest post in my ongoing series on Right wing […]