Quote: (01-27-2013 04:58 PM)BIGINJAPAN Wrote:  

His videos are too long. The drinking and smoking makes them twice as long as they need to be. IMO he is trying to hard with the props.

Even with a deep voice he still sounds effeminate.

The body language is what makes him seem feminine. All the flair with the wrists and hands.

Also I can't stand people who over-enunciate every syllable of every spoken word. It's a try-hard way of sounding intelligent and comes across as obviously fake to anyone who's truly well-spoken.

Quote: (03-06-2014 05:39 PM)cardguy Wrote:  

Is this quote from the same Aurini? I just came across it:

Quote:Quote:

The truth about the PUAs is that they’re nothing but extremely successful pussy-beggars; they’re the top 1% of Nice Guys.

http://www.goodreads.com/author_blog_pos...actosphere

Yes, that's the same Aurini. I remember reading that post on his blog: http://www.staresattheworld.com/2014/02/...ctosphere/.

Aurini's most-viewed video succinctly sums up what is wrong in society in ten minutes. It's stuff people here will know, but if only all the men of the West could watch this..





This is also brilliant:

I believe that article was written when a lot of the game guys were getting into a Twitter tiff with the dark enlightenment/neo-con guys.

Btw, count me in as another Aurini fan.

Smart guy, great voice. Definitely like his podcast.

I recently started watching Aurini's videos and he is pretty good. He seems to throw off a lot of people because of his 'attitude', that's what some guys on /pol/ told me.

I didn't know people actually thought highly of him, my first ever knowledge of the dude was Thunderf00t's videos ripping on him, he's even got his own meme from that:

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=all+th...+shortcuts

I'm a fan of neither of these two because at the end of the day it's just 2 dudes arguing on the internet, but he came out of that argument with Thunderf00t looking pretty awful, I think the name "Thunderfart" was used at one point lol so much cringe.

Our very own Aurini on this year's Millenniyule, a festive favourite of mine. I know Roosh and Woes have had their differences, but in light of what Colin and Davis talk about in the video regarding no longer publicly attacking those on the right — I'd love to see Roosh on next year's edition. It's a good conversation, and I particularly enjoyed Davis' breakdown on how modern movies encourage narcissism and don't provide proper male role models.






It's funny, by every Christmas I'm completely sold on white nationalism due to this show, and by the time February rolls around I'm back to my position just to the left of it. Woes you evil radicaliser!

No. The whole Anton Lavey thing makes him very difficult to watch.

Quote: (12-15-2018 10:03 AM)Easy_C Wrote:  

No. The whole Anton Lavey thing makes him very difficult to watch.

I like Aurini. I also remember seeing Anton Lavey's daughter on some talk show. Absolutely would bang.

I have watched his videos and I liked a few of them. He is an intellectual with a bit of a Christian touch. Funny thing , it took a minute for me to realize he was Canadian. I don't agree with his views all the time (because I am a lecherous, sexual degenerate and a slave to my desires with little self control ) but I respect his honesty and the fact he is not a bitch(he served in the military and means what he says).

You guys know he's a forum member right?

Of course, hence my "our very own Aurini" intro!

As an aside, this was the first thread I ever started on here I think.

I like Aurini. He's one of my favourite voices in the manosphere along with Roosh, QC.

It's a shame he got banned from YouTube.

Not anymore I dont. What the fuck???

This is a sad day for Hawaii's Davis Aurini viewership, and the Forneycaters.

Aloha!

I originally came across his video on generational cycles and watched it in one sitting (it was almost two hours long if I recall correctly). After that one, I was hooked and went through the catalog.

I got introduced to ROK and the Forum through him. He is one of those posters/writers/thinkers that usually gives a perspective on things that I haven't considered, and more often than not I end up agreeing with. I also got introduced to a lot of other interesting people through him, so it's safe to say Aurini has had a great influence on me, something for which I'm grateful. In fact, he did a requested video for me answering a question and I did end up taking his advice, which had an immense impact on my life - real life, not just intellectual life. Money well spent.

It is a shame he got kicked off of Youtube (though I can't say I'm surprised). He had a lot of interesting and valuable things to say.

Even if he doesn't keep going somewhere else, people should reupload his stuff so others can learn from him. I hope he's doing alright.

You can still watch him on twitch:

One a week sadly but its a live show

https://www.twitch.tv/davismjaurini

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:

Quote:[/url]

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.
[url=https://rooshvforum.network/thread-68599-post-1916679.html#pid1916679]
Number 1:

Quote: (01-06-2019 06:38 AM)Oberrheiner Wrote:  

Quote: (01-06-2019 01:13 AM)The Catalyst Wrote:  

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:

Quote: (01-06-2019 12:00 PM)Waqqle Wrote:  

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.

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. . . ."

Quote: (01-10-2019 02:44 PM)debeguiled Wrote:  

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.

Quote: (01-11-2019 10:56 AM)Aurini Wrote:  

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.

As my friend with 3 kids and a good wife used to say jokingly, it is very non-equal that women monopolized child bearing.

I haven't heard of him, but his content looks alpha as fuck. I'm checking him out.

Quote: (01-09-2019 07:09 PM)Aurini Wrote:  

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.

Quote: (01-12-2019 07:20 AM)Oberrheiner Wrote:  

Quote: (01-09-2019 07:09 PM)Aurini Wrote:  

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

The english language never ceases to amaze me

My mastery of it used to be better, but having been forced to learn german fucked it up somehow.