[philosophical_recovery]

AB is one of the very distinct personalities on the forum that I'm very glad to be able to read. I often don't even need to see the name, his words speak to me in a certain way, and then I go back and check, sure enough, it's him!

Extremely thoughtful, very clearheaded, both deep and lighthearted at the same time. I look up to him in the way that, although I will never be him, he makes me realize, through his writing, that I can find my own voice as well as unique way of looking at the world.

He, as well as a contingent of others here, set an inspirational goal of self improvement and life enjoyment. As MMX2010 said, above, I do not want to disappoint AB, those fellow brightly shining stars, or my fellow men.

[CynicalContrarian]

AB's post on 'subjective intelligence' vs. 'objective intelligence' was quite insightful.
Detailing how many today think with emotion far more than with logic & reason.

[SamuelBRoberts]

"AB's post on 'subjective intelligence' vs. 'objective intelligence' was quite insightful.
Detailing how many today think with emotion far more than with logic & reason."

That sounds like an interesting post. Which one was that?

[CynicalContrarian]

^
thread-49633...pid1085914

(08-10-2015 04:31 PM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  

I wrote up a post yesterday answering Glaucon's question of average intelligence, but it ended up too long and I didn't want to derail the thread.

Briefly:

I was theorising to myself and based on my interactions with friends on various tiers of intelligence that you'd need a certain type of midwitted intelligence to create the perfect Marxist Drones. Specifically, 95-115.

Under 90 and the mind can't process abstract concepts easily, so reality remains objective.

Over 120 and independent thought kicks in. Things aren't taken on faith, and observable facts and evidence influence thought. Reality remains objective.

Between 95-115 and you have a type of intelligence that I think of as being 'University Dumb'. It's a desperately-insecure type of intelligence, so needs to 'prove' it is intelligent at every opportunity. I'm sure you've experienced this. This is the Speaking-In-Buzzwords / Correcting Other's Spelling Mistakes set. Thy r th srt wh thnk rmvng vwls mks txt mpssbl t ndrstn rthr thn bcmng mldly-ncnvnnt t rd.

These midwitted minds can be manipulated to believe reality is subjective, not objective. This is why their reporting always lacks accuracy and verisimilitude, and why, by their forties and fifties, feminists are the most miserable creatures alive, when objective reality finally starts to sink in and they realise that everything they were promised by feminism was false and that high-value men aren't attracted to aggressive, masculinised women who don't want children.

It works like this:

85 IQ - 'A man is looking at a woman'. Objective reality.

110 IQ - 'That man is objectifying that woman without her consent and is therefore raping her and should be jailed'. Subjective reality.

135 IQ - 'A man is looking at a woman'. Objective reality.

This is why all my solid, reliable friends fall into either extreme. You can't manipulate the outliers, which is why Fourth Wave Feminists have abandoned and now demonise the working class: their objective reality means they're not good useful idiots. I'm been observing they're beginning to throw Asians (high average IQ) and gay men (self-interested narcissists) under the bus as well.

If these midwits can create a subjective reality where Roosh's speech didn't happen, to the extent of falsifying evidence of failure, then these midwit minds will readily-accept it, and, as such, it's pointless to try to 'prove' anything to them. Complacency over a 'victory' will make them fight less hard next time.

Instead, I believe their Subjective Reality should always be encouraged to be captured and broadcast as their delusional beliefs are the most effective PR we have to sway moderates. To that end, when infiltrating, it's always worth seeding even more extreme subjective beliefs. Don't broadcast your end belief: the trick to subversion is to drop logic breadcrumbs and let them follow and discover the next one through their own free will, so they believe the eventual idea you wanted them to arrive at was their own. This way they'll fight for it harder. The 'Progressive Stack' concept introduced by subversives to destabilise Occupy Wall Street is one of the best examples I've ever seen of this.

If working in tandem or groups, the polarising effect of groupthink will easily pull them in your direction: note the recent woman 'free bleeding' during a marathon, a Four Chan prank that became reality and has repulsed more moderates than any facts and logic presentation that I ever could have given them.

[Tengen]

(08-10-2015 04:31 PM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  

85 IQ - 'A man is looking at a woman'. Objective reality.

110 IQ - 'That man is objectifying that woman without her consent and is therefore raping her and should be jailed'. Subjective reality.

135 IQ - 'A man is looking at a woman'. Objective reality.

"Before I learned the art, a punch was just a punch, and a kick, just a kick.
After I learned the art, a punch was no longer a punch, a kick, no longer a kick.
Now that I understand the art, a punch is just a punch and a kick is just a kick."
-- Bruce Lee

[AnonymousBosch]

^ I was trying to figure out what CC was referring to.

How do you guys even remember this stuff? If you'd asked me, I'd have said I had no memory of writing that post, but, damned if I didn't.

I'm touched. Thanks again, everyone. I've been up all working night, so I'm heading off to sleep through half the day.

[samsamsam]

(04-13-2016 01:17 AM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  

^ I was trying to figure out what CC was referring to.

How do you guys even remember this stuff? If you'd asked me, I'd have said I had no memory of writing that post, but, damned if I didn't.

That's the point, you probably fart more insightful things than I could ever come up with, not that I am the standard to be measured against. You have always been generous with your time. And you gave me my first set of thoughts to work with when it came to boxing and street conflict (which I preach should be avoided at all cost).

You're the real deal and you don't even know it - so I hate you

[Brendan]

I am a relentless lurker, but I must post to give AnonymousBosch props. The man casually drops gems everywhere. I have a document full of advice from RVF members on what to do to get jacked and he makes a significant portion of it. He's not a one trick pony either, the man has a wide scope of knowledge.

Just look at this:

(05-27-2014 03:40 AM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  

(05-27-2014 12:23 AM)bacan Wrote:  

Women like to feel loved, cared for, and special.. Like in your eyes they are the only girl in the world..

That's what women say they want.

I've been formulating this theory lately, early days yet. I'll ponder it some more:

What women want is men who offer them absolute destruction of their personality.

The first aspect:

- allowing themselves to become a subservient extension of the man's will, which the man in question being dominant, masculine, and enviable by other women, whilst the girl never being entirely sure how he feels for her because sometimes he's nice to her and other times he seems self-interested.

If she's attracted enough, you will never meet a happier woman than one being guided by and attending to a strong, socially-dominant man.

Women who get offended at this concept are stuck in relationships with men they don't respect and are slightly-repulsed by, and always have a suspicion they're settling and could do better. (Hell, any Players know what girls will do for us sexually that they'd be repulsed at doing to their boyfriends).

The second aspect:

- surrendering to wild, animalistic emotion. They want to exist outside themselves, not having to temper or control what they're feeling. They want to not feel, but become fury, passion, jealousy, excitement, hysteria, sex.

For example: girls aren't screaming and crying over boy bands out of actual love for the band, but because it gives them excuse to become pure screaming, crying emotion in a socially-acceptable context, normalised by their friends. They get to exist outside themselves. Hate Reading is a similar concept - I was shocked to realise that the Jezebel crowd are self-aware about it, and know that it's unproductive and destructive, but do it anyway.

The third aspect:

Debasement. If you offer a woman a choice between a good, stable man who could honour her and lead her to grace, or a self-interested man who can offer her ruination, she'll always choose the latter. No girl wants stability - it's 'boring'. And no girl wants to be good. Some may try, but they all lack the willpower to do so. Giving in to their emotions over common sense is a foregone conclusion. Deep down, I suspect they loathe the very concept of virtue because the effort it requires is beyond them, and women crave what is easy. Therefore, they ache to debase and destroy every trace of virtue within themselves with a man they're attracted to.

You can see this reflected by women's current choices in society: strip mall tatts, eating disorders, piercings, fat acceptance, cock carousel riding, acting like men, cutting off their long hair when a guy hurts them. Self-destruction rules the day.

Understanding all that, what makes an attractive man to women then?

A man they can recognise as possessing the power to destroy.

Either meaning:

- their self-destruction, (Junkie, Biker, Bad Boy, Musician, Drug Dealer, Frat Jock, Physically Violent, Criminal).

- being powerful enough to destroy others.

A physically-fit, muscular man is strong enough to harm her enemies, or protect her from reprisal when she seeks to harm others.

A mentally-tough, stoic man won't break or back down under pressure, so can be relied upon to serve his function.

A socially-powerful man, who can use connections, personality and influence to enact her will.

A financially-wealthy man, who can provide her the means to enact her will.

Why do you think some girls suddenly decided, like they always do, that this Rodgers shooter is surprisingly-cute? Destructive capacity. She gets to imagine what a guy who is prepared to kill for his beliefs (read: raw emotion) could do for her...

Only rough conjecture at this point. I'm still turning this theory over in my head, so it's probably a bit raggy, but, I've always been aware women seem more attracted to me when I'm scowly than smiling. (I have a black eye and stiches at the moment from a fight scene where a baton hit my retina and split my eyebrow, and it's been a day game pussy magnet. Yeah, yeah, before you run out and hit yourself - I have a blood blister behind my cornea that might require surgery after three months, if it doesn't go down by itself).

Still, my theory could explain why women always fail at building anything of substance in society, because they're really attracted to tearing things down in a fury of raw emotion the moment things get hard: abandoning struggling businesses; disbanding movements due to infighting; viciously attacking their besties; divorcing husbands they're no longer attracted to; murdering children in their wombs.

The post doesn't give a sense of woman hating. Bosch just recognises what is a significant part in what attracts women to men.

Bosch is one of several men who have inadvertently taught me to stop letting society tell me how to live my life, and actually decide what I want to do with my life. I'm about to turn 23, so I appreciate getting these lessons right as I try to make it in the world.

Bravo, sir.

[Thoroughbred]

(04-14-2016 05:19 AM)Brendan Wrote:  

I have a document full of advice from RVF members on what to do to get jacked and he makes a significant portion of it.

You should drop that shit somewhere we can all get at it.

Heading to AB's profile, clicking though to find all posts and reading threads from there, guilty.

He is the forum member I'd like to meet the most. It's a recurring theme along his posts here that his RL identity needs to remain separate from his RVF one which is fair enough.

One day I hope the proper clearance and can be sorted.

[TigerMandingo]

Bosch, Quintus Curtius, and Scorpion are the squat, deadlift, and the bench press.

They are absolute essentials in an RVFer's quest to improve his intellectual self-defense against all sorts of enemies.

[Killer Joe]

AnonymousBosch is all brain, all brawn. He's an example of a man who has nearly maxed himself out in almost all relevant areas and is worthy of emulation. His extensive knowledge on psychology, sociology and other topics is nothing short of impressive, as is his calm and rational demanor on the forum.

I always look forward to reading AnonymousBosch's detailed, though-out and insightful posts. Sometimes I go to AB's profile and look up his latest posts. He tends to deliver tons on knowledge hidden on a sometimes unrelated thread, so it pays to dig deep.

I honestly hope I can write even a fraction as good as him someday.

Here are two of my favorite posts, explaining why SJW's love wearing "problem glasses" (aka granny glasses):

(09-05-2015 07:56 PM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  

Below is the image that went with it. I posting this to ask a serious question: Can anyone explain WHY those old-lady glasses came back in style, especially amongst fat women?

I suspect it's a style cue that grew out of Third Wave Feminism in the early 1990's, during the previous PC craze, particularly the related Thrifting and 'Zine cultures.

I could be wrong, but I'll try to explain my suspicions:

----

Part 1

Before the internet, Activist Types clustered in Liberal Cities: San Francisco, Portland, Seattle, etc. Privileged Right On Students always seem to feel an unspoken shame over their lack of genuine oppression, so would furiously affect Bohemian Poverty cues.

As such, Thrift Shop Culture was a huge part of that period. Style bibles like the Amok Journal or Re/Search publications - which grew out of the cliquey 70's SF punk scene would offer tribal behavioural cues by prizing the discarded debris of 50's and early-60's culture: trashy movies, easy-listening records, dating and deportment guides, pulp novels.

Progressives are fixated on the 1950's for its idealised depiction of traditional family values. As such, even to this day, they seem strangely-obsessed with subverting a period they have no knowledge or experience with except via their consumption of entertainment media that was designed to ironically-subvert that façade of normality: basically, their conception of the 1950's comes from second-hand sources with a Liberal Bias, which is why they would think I'm lying when I say my grandmother had a high-level career in foreign affairs during that period. They truly believe all women were trapped at home, because that's what the dogma says.

You can see this Reduction Process throughout the 1980's. A band like the Cramps - affecting the 50's rockabilly sound they'd grown obsessed with via Thrifting expeditions - are a classic example of looking for subversive elements behind the facade of 50's normality. David Lynch's 1986 film 'Blue Velvet' would be another - even though it's set in the 1980's - it's mocking 50's idealisation. Stephen King's 1985 novel 'It' is set in a Fifties where a town ignores child abuse and murder.

I suspect the point of this subversion is to train people to think there was never any good in the period, that all values were hypocritical ones, and that everything beautiful was ugly inside. As such, anyone striving to uphold those values was easily-tarred by association: you want things to go back to being bad.

Understanding all this, you can see whilst the relics of the 1950's were Totems of Cool for 90's progressives, to be bought, displayed, worn and interacted with ironically, particularly attention grabbing ones such as Cat's Eyes Glasses: their original fashion heyday was the 1950's and early 1960's, before the sexual revolution.

The 'I Love Mallory' sitcom scene in "Natural Born Killers" is exactly this sort of 90's Progressive Cliché. Wow. An ironic subversion of a 1950's Family Values Sitcom obsessed with murder and incest. How original. This is why I was so, so unimpressed with the recent thread on the 'Clarissa' comic to a heavily-sarcastic degree.

Heh, my Gen X roots are starting to show:



----

So, with the Tribal and Cool Cues firmly in place, how were Progressive Ideas distributed pre-internet? Through the 'Zine Network. These were cheap amateur magazines, generally black and white and photocopied, distributed through the 80's and 90's through music and counter-culture stores. The most famous of these off-hand would be tedious SF Clique Journal Boing Boing, and the Punk 'Zine 'Maximum RocknRoll', (which I'll come back to later), but there were hundreds of them, on all sorts of different topics, but always with a Progressive political angle.

Since 'zine's were usually done by a single author or a handful of people, there was a heavy reliance on pre-existing art from cheap sources: old magazines, books, novels.

This generally-resulted in terrible hand-drawn comics, or cut and paste photographic montages focusing on rawness and ugliness in the music ones, but, interestingly, if a 'zine was Political in focus, you'd usually get Heavily-Ironic Recontextualisation of 50's artwork, particularly anything geared towards status or beauty. How it threatens them so!

Recontextualised artwork here, but the zine author was usually obsessed with mocking the Family Values Normality of The Brady Bunch on the cover.



More 50's subversion from the 90's Queer Punk movement:



Once again, it's easy to see how Cat's Eye Glasses would be valued for their Ironic Subversion Value, and heavily-imprinted in the DNA of Third Wave Feminism.

But how do the glasses become a Visible Style with Fourth Wavers?

(09-05-2015 08:32 PM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  

Part 2

----

It's in this 90's climate that alternative cartoonist Daniel Clowes starts publishing 'Ghost World'.

It's an ongoing series about two teenage girls one who is obsessed with thrift shop retro culture, and are deeply-cynical and emotionally-detached from everything around them. They faux-intellectuals, believing themselves to be much smarter than they actually are, and as life starts taking them in different directions, they start drifting apart.

Enid, the one in the glasses, constantly changes her look with the thrift shop debris of past, but never passionately-engaging in enjoyment of it. Her friend, Rebecca, plays along, but gradually wants to engage with the mainstream world. Note in the above image, how Enid berates her for reading 'Sassy'.

It's a fascinating comic, because it's a detailed-observation of girls of the period, and rather than idealising them, it cuts to the insecurities behind the bluster of girls who believe they can't fit into society because they're too intelligent and unique to do so.

Note this key scene, particularly the final frame:



----

In 2001, the series is made into a movie starring Thora Birch and Scarlet Johansen.

Enid wears Cat's Eyes Glasses in multiple scenes.

Feminists find the film deeply-problematic for the fact that Feminist Characters are mocked, and PC Identity Politics backfire on Enid, costing her her College Scholarship, but are strangely-drawn to it anyway. I suspect it's due to just how cutting the observations of Enid are of: a) not being as intelligent as she believes she is; and b) and suspecting her detachment from society isn't because of her superiority to it, but her mediocrity. It gets to the core of how they really feel about themselves.

Note the scene in the last cartoon panel is repeated in the movie.

But note conversations like this:





There's a telling scene where she adopts a new style believing it makes her seem cool, only to be mocked for it. Note her 'It's obviously....' line at the end, which is classic SJW tactic of moving the goalposts.

As such, this movie has had legs far beyond its original release with Leftist Teenage Girls who are 'Too Smart to be normal'.

A handful of the many style guides I found on the net:







Bringing it full circle: a girl posts this image from a Thrift Shop in Portland. What does she say?

"They remind me of Enid from 'Ghost World'."

Part 3

This current wave of PC Hysteria is so intrinsically-linked to 80-s90's Progressive culture that I feel like we haven't advanced as a society at all. This is a far cry from the flying cars and personal jetpacks I was promised as a kid.

From "I'm So Fucking Beautiful", a 90's Fat Acceptance Zine - and there were multiple ones - notice the forming concept of 'Thin Privilege':



Atheism+? Gamergate? "Your subculture needs to be inclusive and not hurt feelings!" This war already raged through the punk subculture in the late 80's and early 90's. From a 1984 issue of Maximum RocknRoll, bolded for emphasis:

[quote]Quote:

For many people, [b]music is a potential vehicle for social change. Obviously, it has thus far worked much better for the government than it has for positive change. My suggestion is that you mindless violent, fashion-conscious exhibitionist, whose prime motivation is to assert your “manhood,” please just frequent shows that showcase bands with your mentality (need I list some of them?), and allow the rest of us to transcend these ridiculous labels (such as hardcore), as well as your pitiful lifestyles. There would be much more support for a “scene” that valued intelligence, compassion, education, action, and most of all, creative music. I know of many people who would show much more interest (myself included) in something positive and ever-changing, as well as diverse, and free of labels that only serve to stifle and stereotype behavior.[/b]

"Punks are dead. Punks don't have to be your audience. Punks are over."

A different writer:

Quote:

This brings us to the next point—where the scene is headed socially and ideologically...

...For me, the most disappointing trend in punk currently is towards sexist, nationalistic, and otherwise backwards trends. Quite a few of the bands playing this stuff claim that it’s a joke or that it’s all in fun. Well, why aren’t they making fun of white, heterosexual healthy people like themselves (for the most part)? I don’t think that’s funny at all. But even that aside—the people I’m wondering about are the (let’s face it) more impressionable people who are 15 or 16 and just getting into the scene. What kind of values or opinions is this kind of humor going to to instill in them? My only hope is that there seems to be an equal, if not greater number of bands using their music to speak out against things like sexism, fascism, etc. While some will still moan about being “preached ” at, there seems to be more and more people listening to what these bands have to say and at least stopping to stopping to think about both sides of the story. A lot of people seem to be realizing that, gee, women and gays are people too, and that God & Country aren’t all they’ve been made out to be.

"Won't someone think of the children?"

Also, note the final line, highlighting my point from Part 1: the traditional ideas of God & Country are bad things and anyone who values them is a bad person.

You'll notice punk didn't become a force for social change. The power of the scene fractured when it became drearily-PC and only continues today as a small-subculture, rather than taking over the world. Whilst grunge is said to have been the punk explosion going mainstream, bar Nirvana and Green Day, the rest sounds liked an outgrowth of 70's stoner rock. Since it changed to become more inclusive, with the implication it was therefore, better, how did it end up so marginalised and culturally-irrelevant?

This is why I'm so jaded by now: I have heard it all, again and again.

Some images removed.

Source: thread-48284...pid1105285



Another one which I couldn't find (maybe someone can PM me the link), is there one where he details how modern day Australia is just like the first Mad Max movie: bikie gangs, aggressive bogans, bars on houses and business windows, police being overwhelmed and unable to handle the violence to the point where they have to turn police stations into fortresses so that they don't get overrun by criminals.

[aphelion]

AnonymousBosch is one of few representatives of the best of masculine discourse. People like me, I shitpost a lot. AB is a writer and a thinker and it shows in every single one of his contributions.

[AnonymousBosch]

The posts were probably written a year or more apart, but the 'Ghost World' and 'How To Write A Sensitive Rock Song Without Looking Beta' posts are really two sides of the same thing.

A dowdy, snarky Feminist, frustrated by how the world doesn't live up to her standards, watches 'Ghost World' and what does she think?

"How does this movie know me so well?"

Remember the line from "Killing Me Softly With His Song" i mentioned in the other thread?

"I felt he found my letters and read each one out loud"

Girls take style and behaviour cues from bands they're obessed with. Enid simply generated the same kind of obsession: they can't help but want to win her approval.

It's funny how often seemingly-disparate observations come together. It almost makes me think I might actually know what I'm talking about.

[debeguiled]

The AnonymousBosch Appreciation thread is currently being taken up over at the Rational Male:

https://therationalmale.com/2016/05/06/g...bad-girls/

He seems to like this post:

thread-45437...#pid969890

Cleverly, he is referencing the post by Bosch, without ever referring to this forum, by pretending AB made the comment at Heartiste's:

Quote:

Culum Struan requoted a really great thought from an old commenter, AnonymousBosch, on Heartiste’s blog from about a year ago and I thought it might make for some good weekend discussions.

[AnonymousBosch]

(05-06-2016 05:29 PM)debeguiled Wrote:  

Cleverly, he is referencing the post by Bosch, without ever referring to this forum, by pretending AB made the comment at Heartiste's.

Dammit. I can never keep a low profile.

I'm unfamiliar with RM, but, in his defense, he mightn't know the true origin of the post. Admittedly, there have been cases where I've stumbled across people presenting my words as their own elsewhere. I'm not emotionally-invested in protecting my ego enough to call them out. Internet gonna internet.

Here's the rule of thumb: 'AnonymousBosch' is a name I deliberately chose to only use on this forum, and, briefly, ROK. Any other public post you see on any other site is not by me. (Also, it's an obvious pun on the famous Painter, so other people could easily have arrived at it on their own, rather than me being so full of myself to think I'm worthy of imitation).

For example, there's an 'AnonymousBosch' commenting at Vox Day's site who is not me. I've only commented on his site once, under a different name. I was speaking on a very esoteric topic, trying to keep a low profile, but my posts were immediately-pinged for attention by a writer I won't publicly-name.

I very-rarely comment on most sites, and see debating issues in comment threads as waste of focus and energy best applied elsewhere. That's not to say I think I'm in any way superior to guys like Cernovich and Forney who can generate positive, actionable energy for themselves that way: I've come to understand their skill sets and psych makeups differ to mine.

I am only the member of one other public forum, on a topic unrelated to masculinity, and, dammit, a while ago one of you bastards on here directly pointed to one of my posts me on there, not knowing it was me.

[Paracelsus]

All hail the Humungous. That is all.

[cubanlinx]

It's always refreshing to read these posts from a 6'6 jacked af mofo. The guy I hope I sound like when I'm older is an amalgamation of Bosch and my dad. The other thing is the humility of the man, despite consistently delivering extremely quality posts.

[AnonymousBosch]

^ Just clearing this up, I'm nowhere near 6ft6. I recently-mentioned doing a fight scene where the girls watching didn't think it would work because my opponent was much taller than me, until I carried him across the room.

'Lord Humungous' grew out of a couple of pictures I posted of me holding a copy of 'Pantheon' by Quintus, where I was masked, for obvious reasons.

[dog24]

This is how i and probably most of the guys in the forum feel when we write in a thread and then AB casually walks in...

AB is there a way to learn how to articulate ideas like you do?

[Rigsby]

(05-07-2016 05:18 PM)dog24 Wrote:  

This is how i and probably most of the guys in the forum feel when we write in a thread and then AB casually walks in...

AB is there a way to learn how to articulate ideas like you do?

I don't know how he does it either!

I've tried to reverse engineer his methods, and all I can come up with is this rough methodology:

Learn about the history of the world, life, and the universe.

Experience as much of it as you can bear, yourself.

Accept what you went through when you had no choice, as a deep learning experience, that you will draw on, like a well, later in life.

Roll that into one big ball.

Try to tie it all together in to one kind of grand unified theory.

Throw in a few of your own thoughts and musings and personal philosophies as well.

Roll it into an even bigger ball.

Chuck that ball out there for others to catch (if they can).

Refine.

Repeat.


AB doesn't care if we are talking about the Roman Empire or hairclips. He will find a way to segue between the two in a relevant and enlightening way.

"The history of man and the future of hairdryers? No problem, out of my way and let me have at it. I'll be back in a jiffy."

We wait with baited breath. Surely AB has lost it this time. Those are two absolutely irreconcilable points. No man could ever draw parallels between them.

AB comes back a few moments later. Laconic. "Oh yeah, interesting subject, learned a bit myself". We wait. Our breath well and truly baited now. "Go on AB!", "Give it to us!", "Put us out of our misery!".

And AB delivers, as promised. With a little cherry on top. It's that cherry that I like most about AB's writing. It's always pertinent. It always leads to further debate. And it very often seals the argument in an abstract way. It's like poetry. It doesn't just work on one or two levels, it works on three or more, simultaneously.

AB is one of those rare anomalies that are chucked out once every, say, thousand years. And we get the best of him, at other edges of our planet, via the internet, in a system that Roosh created and maintains.

I might feel like I got the shit end of the stick with many aspects of life, but I feel pretty blessed with others.


It's hard for me to praise AB so highly, but credit where it's due. I was that empty shell that AB knows only too well. Yes, the same one that would have betrayed you in a heartbeat, my brothers. Oh, how it hurts. To be so known.

If only I could have had someone in my life to point out to me my deep hypocrisy and weakness, in such a magnanimous way. But I had no one like that, and I had to work it all out for myself. I got there eventually.

But know this - AB has an almost psychic ability when deconstructing and reversing people. It isn't just good copy and a good read. It's that and so much more. The man probably doesn't even know how he does it himself.

Let him have his mystery, the mystic that he is.

[Tex Cruise]

(05-06-2016 07:58 PM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  

'AnonymousBosch' is a name I deliberately chose to only use on this forum, and, briefly, ROK. Any other public post you see on any other site is not by me. (Also, it's an obvious pun on the famous Painter, so other people could easily have arrived at it on their own, rather than me being so full of myself to think I'm worthy of imitation).

Stumbled upon the first video by accident a while back while watching some obscure blues/rockabilly stuff. So, these are both just tribute bands not the real AB?

Which led to this...

[Andreas]

Damn....this thread makes me feel so stupid (not in a bad way though). It reminds me of these moments in school where a friend would explain to me a complicated problem (math 90% of the time) and I would just think 'How the hell did he come up with that kind of reasoning'

@AB Did you always have the ability to break things down so logically and how can you not get bitter at some truths things that you know?

I understand that bitterness leads to nowhere good in life and that expectations play a big part in this but sometimes when I read about the true nature of humans, life feels like a diet biscuit. Plain, tasteless and reinforcement of experiential avoidance (you only eat a diet biscuit once in your life, but dealing with the unpleasantness of our fellow human beings is something that we must expect).

[Wahawahwah]

Apologies for the bump (I just had to).

Bosch’s posts never cease to fill one up with a sense of wonderment. The experiences this man has had, his lust for life, his shrewd observations on vast array of subjects and his openness to always keep changing, adapting, growing is inspirational. Every time I’m overwhelmed, confused or depressed, I go back and read a few of his posts – they don’t even have to be relevant. The sheer clarity and force of his writing often inspires one to get up and act.

So many people stagnate as they grow older – their opinions solidify, they grow arrogant or choose to impose their own morality or mental frameworks on others, consolidate and make do with what they have achieved. But you get the sense that Bosch is constantly thinking, tweaking, tinkering... Also, he is always so generous and empathetic about other people around him – whether it is rushing to the aid of his friends at great personal discomfort, or taking the time out to address half-baked drunken PMs or his willingness to share his thoughts and experiences with the rest of us. Here is a good man who takes life head on, fighting the good fight, and it is a privilege to have access to posters such as him, QC, TLOZ, WIA and others.
Thanks bro.

[AnonymousBosch]

Meanwhile, as Sharkie was blowing smoke up my arse, a mate and I were out in a Rural Australian paddock watching a German Horse Trainer give instruction to her mount.

I nod at the her to my mate. "How does the horse understand her? Horses think in English."

I realise what I just said, but he's already shaking his head: "Christ, you're a dumb cunt Bosch."

You still sensing the wonderment, Sharkie?

[Comte De St. Germain]

^Well if life were a novel then that would be a common trope right there. The genius that can think in complex thoughts but can't tie their shoes. Think you might be tooting your own horn there a bit bud.