[civpro]

I started reading his blog in around 2012 and as far as I know he was the first writer in the general pick up/game sphere to talk about test injections. For that he deserves major recognition.

[el mechanico]

I wouldn't be proud of that.

Mike does SJW X 1000 on his negative comments.

[Sooth]

(12-10-2015 10:30 PM)el mechanico Wrote:  

Mike does SJW X 1000 on his negative comments.

That's great because Mike is a man and he uses his own empire to fuck his enemies over.

SJWs rely on other people. They'll email your boss to get you fired, call the police to arrest you etc.

Mike and Victor are definitely something to behold. I don't agree with many things I read in their writing but I can still say those two are my biggest role models in the manosphere.

[Fortis]

All the best to Mike. He changed my life. I remember having back pain from deadlifting and debating between staying home or going to his first NYC meet up. I am eternally grateful for deciding to go meet mike. He's super humble, easygoing and just all-around cool. I've made so many friends on this site thanks to that first meet-up in NYC. I really can't say thank you more than that. I could list names but you all know who you are.

Anyway, thanks.

[Killer Joe]

(12-11-2015 02:16 AM)Sooth Wrote:  

(12-10-2015 10:30 PM)el mechanico Wrote:  

Mike does SJW X 1000 on his negative comments.

That's great because Mike is a man and he uses his own empire to fuck his enemies over.

SJWs rely on other people. They'll email your boss to get you fired, call the police to arrest you etc.

Mike and Victor are definitely something to behold. I don't agree with many things I read in their writing but I can still say those two are my biggest role models in the manosphere.

I'm going to have to side with elmech on this one. Mike's modus operandi lately seems to be:

1. Pick a fight on Twitter
2. Claim a great victory
3. Plug "Gorilla Mindset" at the end

I haven't met him in person and haven't read every single of his forum posts, but his blog just doesn't live up to the hype. It's supposed to be this excellent, mainly self-improvement blog, but his articles on his "New? Start Here" section (which are supposed to be the best, or at least the most representative of what your blog is about) are not only not his best but are actually kind of weak. Victor Pride on the other hand has a killer mission statement and 20+ kickass articles on his corresponding "New? Start Here" section.

Mike's blog is disorganized; the only sort of index is the "New? Start here" section and he doesn't have the rest of his articles classified by topic. Trying to view his old articles is a mess. You click on the next page button at the bottom and it will still show the same latest 5 articles but with a different full article at the bottom. Using the search function is even more complicated, because it shows you the full article instead of just the thumbnail, meaning you have to click next page in order to view the next article, until you get to what you were looking for, if ever. Now Victor has a full index; just go to "Featured Topics" on the right side and you can see all of his articles organized by topic. And when you click on "Next Page" at the bottom you will see the next 10 articles.

Victor vastly outclasses Mike. Victor Pride focuses on his business and blog 100% of the time, and doesn't pick fights. He doesn't take shit and strikes back when attacked, but doesn't waste time with bullshit and petty arguments. Also, he stays on topic with his motivational and making money themes and hasn't drifted toward jumping on the social and political commentary bandwagon.

[Samseau]

I think the criticism of Mike's website in need of a cleanup is true. He gives a lot of good info to newbies but he has a ton of buried posts on his blog that are tough to find. But this criticism is friendly and I bet Mike appreciates this feedback.

The other criticism I see of Mike continually is that he is just picking fights with SJW's and doing lots of politics. I'm not so sure why this is a bad thing? Fact is, most SJWs have been shitting all over people's lives for the past 6 years and Mike is tapping into that rage and making a good buck off of it. Why is this a bad thing? I think it's great and Mike is helping a lot of men find their balls again. Is Mike "over-doing it"? I have no clue but I don't think Mike is the kind of guy who will beat a dead horse. Once SJW's have been mocked enough that no one takes them seriously anymore, I'm sure Mike is more than talented enough to start a new project.

I notice a lot of guys here are dismissive of politics or anyone who engages in politics. This attitude is bullshit nonsense. Politics are essential to living as a good man. A man who cannot stand in front of his peers or lead his people isn't the best version of himself he could be.

[Quintus Curtius]

^^^^

Very true, Samulus.

Thinking that we're "above" politics was one of the reasons why the playing field was abandoned to the SJWs. And they took over completely.

Personally I am giddy with delight when Mike rips into the SJW rats. It's a source of real satisfaction because finally these people are getting a small bit of the same medicine they've been dishing out against others.

And it sure as hell is entertaining, because he sets traps for these dorks, and they fall right in. And then he just swarms all over them.

Look at the takedowns of Sam Biddle, Dean Obeidallah (priceless!), Seth Rogen (priceless!), and Shaun King.

Be honest: it's grade A entertainment, hilarious, and satisfying.

Every man has a role to play, and he's great at what he does.

The bottom line is that someone needs to do it, and Mike is good at it, so more power to him.

[Killer Joe]

(12-11-2015 03:29 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

I think the criticism of Mike's website in need of a cleanup is true. He gives a lot of good info to newbies but he has a ton of buried posts on his blog that are tough to find. But this criticism is friendly and I bet Mike appreciates this feedback.

The other criticism I see of Mike continually is that he is just picking fights with SJW's and doing lots of politics. I'm not so sure why this is a bad thing? Fact is, most SJWs have been shitting all over people's lives for the past 6 years and Mike is tapping into that rage and making a good buck off of it. Why is this a bad thing? I think it's great and Mike is helping a lot of men find their balls again. Is Mike "over-doing it"? I have no clue but I don't think Mike is the kind of guy who will beat a dead horse. Once SJW's have been mocked enough that no one takes them seriously anymore, I'm sure Mike is more than talented enough to start a new project.

I notice a lot of guys here are dismissive of politics or anyone who engages in politics. This attitude is bullshit nonsense. Politics are essential to living as a good man. A man who cannot stand in front of his peers or lead his people isn't the best version of himself he could be.

(12-11-2015 03:54 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  

^^^^

Very true, Samulus.

Thinking that we're "above" politics was one of the reasons why the playing field was abandoned to the SJWs. And they took over completely.

Personally I am giddy with delight when Mike rips into the SJW rats. It's a source of real satisfaction because finally these people are getting a small bit of the same medicine they've been dishing out against others.

And it sure as hell is entertaining, because he sets traps for these dorks, and they fall right in. And then he just swarms all over them.

Look at the takedowns of Sam Biddle, Dean Obeidallah (priceless!), Seth Rogen (priceless!), and Shaun King.

Be honest: it's grade A entertainment, hilarious, and satisfying.

Every man has a role to play, and he's great at what he does.

The bottom line is that someone needs to do it, and Mike is good at it, so more power to him.

There's nothing inherently wrong about talking about politics and social issues. But it's not within the scope of a self-improvement blog. Some of it here and there, yes, and even necessary I would say, but overdoing it eventually the theme drifts so far from its original purpose that it becomes a waste of time to read. I go to Danger and Play to get some inner game knowledge and instead I get something about Donald Trump or Mike humblebragging about how he's so virtuous and far above the SJW he mocks. It's kind of like watching the History Channel expecting to see a WWII documentary and instead seeing some shit about pawn shops or ice truckers.

Also, for a guy that vaunts constantly about the "gorilla mindset" and taking the high road he sure loves to lower himself down to the SJW's level and waste time trolling them, with the added bonus of plugging his books.

I love mocking SJW's and fucking with them as much as the next guy, but this is just a transparent book-selling scheme.

[Wutang]

Mike's a great marketer so I'm sure that when he jumped on the Gamergate wagon and started heavily trolling SJWs he knew what sort of business benefits it would bring him and I'm sure that was a motivation but I do think that he also truly does want to fight back against the SJW/PC culture we see today. I know long before Gamergate was a thing he was already posting here and the thoughts and ideas he was expressing here is pretty much the same he does now. It's not like he just all of a sudden developed these ideas to capitalize on the current backlash against SJWs. I should add that he pretty much ever did any sort of self-promotion on here and for the longest time I had no idea he was even the guy behind Play Dangerously.

[renotime]

(12-11-2015 03:29 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Politics are essential to living as a good man.

Philosophy and personal ethos, not politics.

[Samseau]

(12-12-2015 02:04 PM)renotime Wrote:  

(12-11-2015 03:29 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Politics are essential to living as a good man.

Philosophy and personal ethos, not politics.

"Man is a political animal."

- Aristotle

[AngloHispanic]

What Aristotle called "politics" is very different from what we refer to as politics (unsurprisingly). What he calls politics would be closer to what we would call "civic activity", "public duty" ; what we refer to as politics today is deciding who is in charge of the State and what that person/s can legitimately do (very different from civic activity although some old-fashioned people might still think they are the same or similar).

Im not convinced that political activity should really be a main focus of antileftist effort at this stage - winning hearts and minds should, and the politics will follow ("politics is downstream from culture"). Getting too obsessed with politics before we have even spread our seed in the hearts of many men is putting the cart before the horse and actually threatens our efforts in the long run.

[Samseau]

That's not true Anglo. Politics is always relative to the city and state a person resides in and Aristotle talks about this extensively, including the forms of government such as democracy. He may even discuss representative democracy. You got that from one of your "progressive" philosophy professors. Too bad I've read a ton of Aristotle and know it's bunch of crock. Do you need me to bust out my Politics and school you? Gotta run to the gym.

[AngloHispanic]

You cant school me, because that would require that I recognize you as an authority, which I dont.

If you have something constructive to tell us about Aristotle and how his political theory can help us define the role of politics in our struggle, then do so.

[Samseau]

I originally said politics are essential to a good life.

Translation provided by the Oxford World Classics. First page of Politics:

Quote:

Observation shows us, first, that every city [polis] is a species of association, and, secondly, that all associations come into being for the sake of some good - for all men do all their acts with a view to achieving something which is, in their view, a good. It is clear therefore that all associations aim at some good, and that the particular association which is the most sovereign of all, and includes all the rest, will pursue this aim most, and will thus be directed to the most sovereign of all goods. This most sovereign and inclusive association is the city [or polis], as it is called, or the political association.

Now, in Aristotle's time, the "most sovereign of all goods" is now known as the 'city-state' but Aristotle's logic, as I've underlined above, states that the association directed towards the most good is the one most sovereign of all goods.

In the USA, the most sovereign of all goods is national politics at large; therefore for an American man to live the best life possible he must affect the associations with the greatest sovereign of goods which are national politics.

Therefore, the very first page of Politics refutes what you said about Aristotle talking merely about "Civic Life" when he is clearly talking about that with the greatest sovereign power of associations and their goods.

Moreover, my original rebuttal to renotime of man being a political animal stands; one cannot separate his philosophy and personal ethos from his politics.

[AngloHispanic]

(12-12-2015 07:23 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

I originally said politics are essential to a good life.

Translation provided by the Oxford World Classics. First page of Politics:

Quote:

Observation shows us, first, that every city [polis] is a species of association, and, secondly, that all associations come into being for the sake of some good - for all men do all their acts with a view to achieving something which is, in their view, a good. It is clear therefore that all associations aim at some good, and that the particular association which is the most sovereign of all, and includes all the rest, will pursue this aim most, and will thus be directed to the most sovereign of all goods. This most sovereign and inclusive association is the city [or polis], as it is called, or the political association.

Now, in Aristotle's time, the "most sovereign of all goods" is now known as the 'city-state' but Aristotle's logic, as I've underlined above, states that the association directed towards the most good is the one most sovereign of all goods.

In the USA, the most sovereign of all goods is national politics at large; therefore for an American man to live the best life possible he must affect the associations with the greatest sovereign of goods which are national politics.

Therefore, the very first page of Politics refutes what you said about Aristotle talking merely about "Civic Life" when he is clearly talking about that with the greatest sovereign power of associations and their goods.

Moreover, my original rebuttal to renotime of man being a political animal stands; one cannot separate his philosophy and personal ethos from his politics.

I will agree that Aristotle did define "politics" as that which is of highest concern of man (male man, not "human" man, let's not forget). I won't (and didn't) argue with this.

What I will argue is that what Aristotle is talking about is the governing of a City State, which had no more than 50.000 inhabitants (of which only a fraction could vote and participate in politics, which of course changes completely what is meant by politics).

The USA has around 400 million people - which would've been unthinkable to an ancient Greek. I sincerely doubt that Aristotle would've expanded his notion of what is right for the inhabitants of a City State (polis) as being right for what is right for the citizens of a mega-gargantuan country around 800 times larger than Classical Athens! Especially considering the limitations he put on what the ideal size for a polis was, and the perils of going over that size (which America has done, many, many fold).

From the internet encyclopedia of philosophy:

Quote:

Notice that Aristotle does not define the political community in the way that we generally would, by the laws that it follows or by the group that holds power or as an entity controlling a particular territory. Instead he defines it as a partnership. The citizens of a political community are partners, and as with any other partnership they pursue a common good. In the case of the city it is the most authoritative or highest good. The most authoritative and highest good of all, for Aristotle, is the virtue and happiness of the citizens, and the purpose of the city is to make it possible for the citizens to achieve this virtue and happiness. When discussing the ideal city, he says "[A] city is excellent, at any rate, by its citizens' - those sharing in the regime – being excellent; and in our case all the citizens share in the regime" (1332a34). In achieving the virtue that is individual excellence, each of them will fulfill his telos. Indeed, it is the shared pursuit of virtue that makes a city a city.

and

Quote:

What would be the characteristics of the best city we could imagine? First of all, we want the city to be the right size. Many people, Aristotle says, are confused about what this means. They assume that the bigger the city is, the better it will be. But this is wrong. It is certainly true that the city must be large enough to defend itself and to be self-sufficient, but "This too, at any rate, is evident from the facts: that it is difficult - perhaps impossible – for a city that is too populous to be well managed" (1326a26). So the right size for the city is a moderate one; it is the one that enables it to perform its function of creating virtuous citizens properly. "[T]he [city] that is made up of too few persons is not self-sufficient, though the city is a self-sufficient thing, while the one that is made up of too many persons is with respect to the necessary things self-sufficient like a nation, but is not a city; for it is not easy for a regime to be present" (1326b3). There is an additional problem in a regime that is too large: "With a view to judgment concerning the just things and with a view to distributing offices on the basis of merit, the citizens must necessarily be familiar with one another's qualities; where this does not happen to be the case, what is connected with the offices and with judging must necessarily be carried on poorly" (1326b13).

It seems to me that Aristotle would be closer to advocating for a "political organization" on a moderate scale (a community, in other words, not being a citizen of a megastate) as the best, and participation in that as the highest good, as it subsumes all other goods (i.e. is sovereign, as he calls it).

And I would agree with this. I don't think that participation in mass democratic politics should be a key focus at this stage in the struggle, I do not think it will have the effects most of us are looking for. Note that I am saying key, not that it should have no room at all.

And, bringing this back to Mike Cernovich, I think that his incursion into Politics is about showing the power of the techniques he uses (mindset, in a word) in defeating enemies and in maintaining autonomy and control. I do not think he is particularly interested in politics as the highest good (i.e. as something good in itself) but as just another arena within which to showcase the awesome power of "right thinking" and "right habits". That is what it seems like to me, at any rate, obviously I can't see into his soul to tell for sure!

[AngloHispanic]

Also, Samseau, if you want to respond may I suggest we start a new thread. This is an interesting topic but I think we are now derailing this one.

[Samseau]

You didn't quote any Aristotle, just a bunch of know-nothing professors. Look at what Aristotle actually wrote.

"It is clear therefore that all associations aim at some good, and that the particular association which is the most sovereign of all, and includes all the rest, will pursue this aim most, and will thus be directed to the most sovereign of all goods."

The most sovereign of goods in our time is the National Government. In Aristotle's day it was the city-state, which is where he therefore focuses his discussion. But it is obvious given his logic if he were alive today he would have applied his analysis at the National Level for achieving good political ends.

Feel free to start a thread, but you should quote the actual Aristotle and not a bunch of professors with a hidden agenda if you want to be taken seriously. If you can't quote the original text then you have nothing.

[AngloHispanic]

(12-13-2015 06:28 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

You didn't quote any Aristotle, just a bunch of know-nothing professors. Look at what Aristotle actually wrote.

"It is clear therefore that all associations aim at some good, and that the particular association which is the most sovereign of all, and includes all the rest, will pursue this aim most, and will thus be directed to the most sovereign of all goods."

The most sovereign of goods in our time is the National Government. In Aristotle's day it was the city-state, which is where he therefore focuses his discussion. But it is obvious given his logic if he were alive today he would have applied his analysis at the National Level for achieving good political ends.

Feel free to start a thread, but you should quote the actual Aristotle and not a bunch of professors with a hidden agenda if you want to be taken seriously. If you can't quote the original text then you have nothing.

You call them know nothing professors when you are ... Who exactly? You dont have an agenda but they do? You get to say what is valid and what isnt when talking about interpeting an ancient text, when your interpretations are themselves weak and full of holes?

Your blind arrogance and lack of manners is what is hard to take seriously.

You're begging the question regarding what is the most soveriegn of goods. It is not obvious at all that it would apply to the modern State.

[Easy_C]

^^^^Relevancy fallacy.

Credentials are nice, but in reality they have all of jack shit to do when you're discussing a topic or discipline. Experiences gained are worth listening to but it's important not to confuse wisdom with logic.


Second: You got caught red-handed fabricating quotes and are trying to divert the focus of the conversation. You also know exactly what you're doing. The best way for you to save face would have been to own up to it and admit that you used a bad source.

[Samseau]

Also,

Quote:

It seems to me that Aristotle would be closer to advocating for a "political organization" on a moderate scale (a community, in other words, not being a citizen of a megastate) as the best, and participation in that as the highest good, as it subsumes all other goods (i.e. is sovereign, as he calls it).

Given that Aristotle understood something could be too great of scale to function properly does not mean he would not have advocated non-participation within National Politics. Moreover, the entire original Federal system of the USA was designed to have power delegated to increasingly smaller units, from National > State > County > City/Town. The idea was to give as much power as possible to the smaller parts so they could govern themselves effectively while disputes went up the power ladder to be resolved.

Of course, in today's world it seems like everything is handled at the national level even for things that shouldn't be, like gay marriage, drug legalization, or gambling.

[AngloHispanic]

(12-13-2015 07:14 PM)Easy_C Wrote:  

^^^^Relevancy fallacy.

Credentials are nice, but in reality they have all of jack shit to do when you're discussing a topic or discipline. Experiences gained are worth listening to but it's important not to confuse wisdom with logic.


Second: You got caught red-handed fabricating quotes and are trying to divert the focus of the conversation. You also know exactly what you're doing. The best way for you to save face would have been to own up to it and admit that you used a bad source.

I disagree entirely that the opinion of a professor is worth jack shit. I wonder whether you have ever used credentials to judge the trustworthiness of somebody to a particular task? Obviously not watertight and disagreement is entirely acceptable (it is not gospel) but that it is worth jack shit is an exaggeration.

Show me where Ive fabricated a quote - i clarified where the quote was from.

[Killer Joe]

I just bumped up this thread to say I have mad respect for Mike and for what's he's doing.

I made some strong criticisms in the past and some of them still stand, but ever since he stopped focusing on starting petty and immature Twitter fights and doubled down on serious journalism, his site's quality has gone way up.

[Seth_Rose]

Michael Savage mentioned Mike and his article on Michelle Fields in his opening monlogue on today's show. I'm on my phone so can't post link.

This is big and glad Mike is getting this attention. Savage has millions of listeners but isn't like establishment media figures.

[John Michael Kane]

Mike on The Rubin Report, talking Trump, travel, politics, Gorilla Mindset, etc.

Thank you Mike for all the posts on TRT. Thanks to Victor Pride and you, I got my T tested and turned out it was really low. I'm reading up tons and taking up the banner of my own advocacy for my health. There's a lot of quackery out there with TRT, and you helped cut through the B.S. Thank you so much.