rooshvforum.network is a fully functional forum: you can search, register, post new threads etc...
Old accounts are inaccessible: register a new one, or recover it when possible. x


"Evolve The Definition"
#26

"Evolve The Definition"

Quote: (08-28-2018 01:26 AM)Donfitz007 Wrote:  

Some men aren't built for war.

Some vets live worse off as civilians than as vets (atleast in the ranks they're respected for their actions instead of judged and villainized for them here)

I have ALOT of resepct for the military but let's face it. A VAST VAST VAST majority joins for the benefits, To get a sports car (popular meme) the "free" schooling, and the almost guaranteed job. Many have no Interest in serving the country, seeing violence, or fighting. The military is filled with SJW's, liberals, feminist, weaklings. Now when you go up in tiers that's when you get people who actually want to fight and stuff.

Now am i calling the warriors who commit suicide losers and weaklings? NO NOT AT ALL. However im not going to lie and say every guy in the military is a strong spartan.

Roughly a century ago they discovered something: that only about 30% of soldier would shoot-to-kill, the remaining 70% would deliberately miss their targets. In response to this, the militaries of the world replaced the bullseye with a silhouette of an enemy soldier. Doing so trained the recruits to reflexively fire and any advancing enemy.

These days, 70-90% of soldiers shoot-to-kill... and PTSD is through the roof.

My personal belief, from my earliest time in the military, is that dehumanizing the enemy is non-soldierly. I myself did what I could to recognize that - any potential enemy I would shoot at - would be one of the best members of his society, and that I likely had more in common with him than with my own country people. Nonetheless, I would put every effort into making sure he went home in a casket, to a weepy girlfriend and grieving parents.

Most men cannot handle this. Most men are emotional thinkers. "Wait, the enemy is like me? Then how can I fire upon him?" They lack the thinking to reason through the ethics of their profession. Yes, the enemy is like you, and yes, it is morally good and seemly for you to kill him. So instead, the propaganda is instilled to dehumanize the enemy combatants, which works for the duration of the war, but afterwards the horrific memories - the implicit realization that they killed a bunch of human beings - will haunt them for the rest of their lives.

I remember during Basic Training, prior to our introduction to the Padre, one of the Master Jacks lectured the unit that: "There's another word for soldier: murderer. Have fun with your religion." An overly cynical view, and technically incorrect (killing in battle is not murder) - but nonetheless and open eyed understanding of what it means to be part of the Infantry.

You're there to kill people and save lives.

I'm pretty sure that guy didn't have to worry about PTSD in his future.
Reply
#27

"Evolve The Definition"

Quote: (08-28-2018 07:38 AM)Echovoid_52 Wrote:  

Some of the toughest, most alpha duds end up putting a bullet in their heads. If you wanna call them “weak” fine, but the whole “some men arnt made for war” thing doesnt work for me. Anyone can break under harsh environmental conditions provided the circumstances. And no amount of cheesy, romantic war films made by Clint Eastwood/ Mel Gibson can prep you for the real terror that is war.

Im starting to think you're a woman or a troll.....I literally said, in my last statement "Now am i calling the warriors who commit suicide losers and weaklings? NO NOT AT ALL."

Yes war can break anybody down......but when you put a weak guy in the military for the wrong reasons that weak guy doesn't get stronger he breaks........
Reply
#28

"Evolve The Definition"

I’m neither or a troll or a woman. Just a guy who’s been lurking around the manosphere for 2 years now, agrees with most of their ideals/rhetoric, but goes full on Trigglypuff when he sees “toxic masculinity” isn’t a real thing because depite understanding that a lot of today’s boys are soft Soylents raised by single mothers, that was not my upbringing at all.
Reply
#29

"Evolve The Definition"

Dirty fag filth in that video.

I think that people need to be vigilant about the way weirdos try and change language to brainwash us. Aldous Huxley and co were right.
Here's some examples of bullshit words and phrases:-

1)"politically correct" - politics that suck up to fags, feminists and the like are not "correct". 2+2=4 is "correct". Politics is about different ideas. And frankly feminist mass immigrant pro faggotry is completely incorrect, not correct.

2)"toxic masculinity". Its trying to brainwash us that masculinity is toxic. Imagine if people used the word "toxic blackness" or "toxic Americanism", there would be uproad. If I go around randomly punching people that isn't "toxic masculinity", its being a cunt. Masculinity is never toxic. What IS toxic is a male acting like a joyboy or a woman.

3)"leftism" ( in relation to red pill topics). The left never liked mass overimmigration, fags or feminist bullshit.
The Establishment invaded left of centre parties in Europe to discredit them and to have a stranglehold over them.
Left v Right should/did refer to economic matters. Hillary Clinton or Harriet Harman/Margaret Hodge (the latter 2 are British) speak for left wing voters about as much as Osama Bin Laden does. They aren't leftists, they are just Establishment scum, just like Soros and co.

4)"Social Justice Warrior". They're not about "justice", they are greedy, self serving cockroaches. That Argento woman is a good example, Clinton another. Justice never came into their perverse excuse for an "ideology".
Reply
#30

"Evolve The Definition"

A few bits and pieces about that video and the suicide of Daniel Somers:

(1) According to that asstastic MSM article, 70% of veteran suicides are 50+. That's not Gen X or indeed Gen Y. Summers is actually an outlier, he's more than 20 years too young on the averages. Which wars did all these late Baby Boomers fight in that caused them PTSD? Desert Storm, 100 hours of bombing in essence?

(2) What area did Somers serve in? It's not mentioned in the video, but Wikipedia tells us he was in the National Guard, then uplifted to Iraq where he served in something called the Tactical Human Intelligence Team. Given he is said to have served "over 400 combat missions" and was eligible for two Purple Hearts, the odds are he was part of a bust-down-fucking-doors team designed to scare the fuck out of the local populace. I say that because this, too, would be out of the ordinary: the studies indicate pretty clearly that PTSD hits hardest and with most prevalence in rear areas like artillery or support, not, as you'd think, in frontline infantry.

This is not me making this shit up, fucking Sebastian Junger himself in his book War sets it out plain and simple:

Quote:Quote:

The Navy study compared stress levels of the pilots [who have to land on tiny aircraft carrier landing strips] to that of their radar intercept officers, who sat immediately behind them but had no control over the two-​man aircraft. The experiment involved taking [cortisol] samples of both men on no-​mission days as well as immediately after carrier landings... Radar intercept officers lived day-​to-​day with higher levels of stress -- possibly due to the fact that their fate was in someone else's hands -- but on mission days the pilots' stress levels were far higher. The huge responsibility borne by the pilots gave them an ease of mind on their days off that they paid for when actually landing the plane.

The study was duplicated in 1966 with a twelve-​man Special Forces team in an isolated camp near the Cambodian border in South Vietnam... There was a serious possibility that the base would be overrun, in which case it was generally accepted that it would be "every man for himself." The two officers saw their cortisol levels climb steadily until the day of the expected attack and then diminish as it failed to materialize. Among the enlisted men, however, the stress levels were exactly the opposite: their cortisol levels dropped as the attack drew near, and then started to rise when it became clear that they weren't going to get hit... "The members of this Special Forces team demonstrated an overwhelming emphasis on self-​reliance, often to the point of omnipotence," they wrote. "These subjects were action-​oriented individuals who characteristically spent little time in introspection. Their response to any environmental threat was to engage in a furor of activity which rapidly dissipated the developing tension."

Specifically, the men strung C-​wire and laid additional mines around the perimeter of the base. It was something they knew how to do and were good at, and the very act of doing it calmed their nerves. In a way that few civilians could understand, they were more at ease facing a known threat than languishing in the tropical heat facing an unknown one.

I'd also add Nassim Taleb's insights on volatility to this: Navy pilots had a variance in their stress - high on mission days, low on non-mission days. Radar operators did not, the stress was constant - and human beings are not built to deal with chronic, continual stress.

Action according to logic or training also can be empowering even if it itself purposeless. The illusion of control over your circumstances too, as Junger goes on to mention:

Quote:Quote:

The division between those who feel in control of their fate and those who don't can occur even within the same close-​knit group. During World War II, British and American bomber crews experienced casualty rates as high as 70 percent over the course of their tour; they effectively flew missions until they were killed. On those planes, pilots reported experiencing less fear than their turret gunners, who were crucial to operations but had no direct control over the aircraft. Fighter pilots, who suffered casualty rates almost as high as bomber crews, nevertheless reported extremely low levels of fear. They were both highly trained and entirely in control of their own fate, and that allowed them to ignore the statistical reality that they had only a fifty-​fifty chance of surviving their tour.

That aside, it's the sections of his suicide note that are telling in this. I'll highlight the important parts:

Quote:Quote:

The simple truth is this: During my first deployment, I was made to participate in things, the enormity of which is hard to describe. War crimes, crimes against humanity. Though I did not participate willingly, and made what I thought was my best effort to stop these events, there are some things that a person simply can not come back from.... To force me to do these things and then participate in the ensuing coverup is more than any government has the right to demand. Then, the same government has turned around and abandoned me....

Is it any wonder then that the latest figures show 22 veterans killing themselves each day? That is more veterans than children killed at Sandy Hook, every single day.... And for what? Bush's religious lunacy? Cheney's ever growing fortune and that of his corporate friends? Is this what we destroy lives for?...

The fact is that any kind of ordinary life is an insult to those who died at my hand. How can I possibly go around like everyone else while the widows and orphans I created continue to struggle? If they could see me sitting here in suburbia, in my comfortable home working on some music project they would be outraged, and rightfully so....

[N]ow I am free. I feel no more pain. I have no more nightmares or flashbacks or hallucinations. I am no longer constantly depressed or afraid or worried.

I am free.

What's the common factor to all of those quotations?

The focus on self to the exception of all else. The inability to see one's self as insignificant and just part of the machine, which was something the armed forces didn't have to work on that much in previous wars because men already knew that lesson from brutal reality and the essential random nature of life. The need to get away from one's ordinary life.

Above all, the need to feel like one is in control, that one is the protagonist of one's own movie.

The Last Psychiatrist on this, and it is worth reading it very clearly and understanding its implications for this case and indeed for the entire Western military:

Quote:Quote:

Marshall McLuhan once said, "if everything around you is a nail, then get a really strong hammer." So the psychodynamic hammer: if narcissism is the exertion of will towards the maintenance of ego-- trying to get everyone to see you the way you want to be seen, and to get them to act the way you need them to act-- then a narcissistic injury would be the discovery of the limitations of your own power.

If the Americanized culture of the past two generations has deliberately encouraged narcissism as a positive personality structure, then we can expect higher rates of PTSD than in WWII not because the physical stresses are more severe-- in fact, they are most often less severe-- but because the discovery of the limitations of our own power shock us more deeply than it shocked them.

Typically, avoidance and flashbacks are the proxies for the diagnosis of PTSD, but these are drawn from experience with soldiers from a different time and a different culture. Today, the primary symptom of a traumatic reaction to the discovery of powerlessness wouldn't be fear but rage. Hence, new onset domestic violence is more sensitive than nightmares. "Being there" (suddenly staring off into the distance) more specific than reliving the traumatic event.

It follows that a PTSD soldier at home would be much less traumatized by a terrible car accident than by the suspicion that his wife is cheating.

I'm not saying soldiers are narcissists; but that's the culture we were taught from the day of our birth. The military should have made an effort to understand the psychic vulnerabilities of the culture it was recruiting from, and adjusted its training to anticipate those vulnerabilities.

More broadly, a nation that chooses to go to war-- for good reasons or bad-- should train its population to be more selfless, to establish as obvious that each person is merely part of a far more important whole, and to incentivize displays of that thinking with explicit rewards.

If it cannot do this, if it can't institutionalize this, it shouldn't go to war, most practically because it will not win.

[Image: i%20am%20your%20father.JPG]

I wasn't so young 30 years ago that I shouldn't have known better.

After Vader tells Luke he is his father, he implores Luke to join him, "together we can rule the galaxy!" etc.

I remember thinking, why doesn't Luke just lie? Why doesn't he just pretend to join Vader, and then light saber him in the head or poison his rebreather later on? Instead, he jumps like a Stoic.

Short term yes, long term no. Turns out Lucas/Campbell was right and I was wrong. In extreme scenarios, for example torture or being a prisoner of war, lying and pretending gives short term gain but accelerates your mental breakdown. People who have survived have done so not by toughing it out-- me vs. you-- but focusing on something they considered more important than their own survival. "This hurts, but it's far better than bowing down to them."

In the language of learned helplessness: there is a vicarious learning in watching yourself apparently break down and give them what they want. Furthermore, it reveals the limits of your power: I had no other options but acquiescence.

The military's immediate problem is that this advice must now be learned in adulthood; there hasn't been 20 years of practice. It is not reflexive; narcissism is. I hope it requires no elaboration that the people we are currently fighting have exactly the opposite circumstance.

Many of the solutions propose themselves, but with respect to the military, and any organization that rises or falls on the tenacity and relentlessness of its members, Lord Moran offers this generally unpalatable perspective:

Leadership only concerns me when it hastens or delays the using up of a soldier's will power. But discipline runs through this part of my book like an undertone. Men are everywhere demanding whether a discipline which was designed for the illiterate is still suitable for an army with considerable number of thinking men in its ranks. I have turned over in my mind whether it is possible to relax that discipline without impairing a soldier's efficiency as a fighting man, and I can only find one answer...

The answer is no.

Somers, in short, thought too much, and did so only because he was raised by a narcissistic generation to think that way. It's all very noble to think you can be a moral, thinking soldier, but the psychological reality indicates pretty clearly otherwise. Because with the arrogance of presuming that you can be a moral soldier comes the crippling fact that you have very little power to actually act on your morals, the simple rationalisation that you are not the main character in your own movie. This is one of the most potent reasons why many WW2 veterans protested they were just doing their jobs when they were accused/lauded for their murder/heroism (depending on who won.) They might not have understood it, but that was a potent psychological tool for getting through the conflict - the comforting belief that you are just one cog in a larger machine.

Remissas, discite, vivet.
God save us from people who mean well. -storm
Reply
#31

"Evolve The Definition"

Quote: (08-28-2018 02:23 PM)Echovoid_52 Wrote:  

I’m neither or a troll or a woman. Just a guy who’s been lurking around the manosphere for 2 years now, agrees with most of their ideals/rhetoric, but goes full on Trigglypuff when he sees “toxic masculinity” isn’t a real thing because depite understanding that a lot of today’s boys are soft Soylents raised by single mothers, that was not my upbringing at all.

"Toxic masculinity" isnt a real thing. You've just bought into the leftist psyop.

Some men, like some women do bad shit.

Why is there no such term as "toxic femininity"?

What is it when a postpartum depressed woman like Andrea Yates drowns her own 5 children in a bathtub? What about Jodi Arias murdering her boyfriend for dumping her?

What about Asia Argento having sex with an underage boy?

These are just a few examples of the thousands upon thousands of anti-social behaviors committed by women that are analogous to those committed by men but the term "toxic femininity" doesn't exist.

Why not?.... Wouldn't that only be fair and accurate?

Because there is no war on women

The term "toxic masculinity" is an instrument of weaponized language. With it the progressive left / commies / SJW's, etc. can take any and all anti-social acts committed by any person who happens to be a man and denigrate all men by attributing the act to their maleness rather than the individual's pathology who committed it.

Stop spewing nonsense here.

Either wake up or fuck off.

_______________________________________
- Does She Have The "Happy Gene" ?
-Inversion Therapy
-Let's lead by example


"Leap, and the net will appear". John Burroughs

"The big question is whether you are going to be able to say a hearty yes to your adventure."
Joseph Campbell
Reply
#32

"Evolve The Definition"

Quote: (08-30-2018 11:46 AM)PapayaTapper Wrote:  

Quote: (08-28-2018 02:23 PM)Echovoid_52 Wrote:  

I’m neither or a troll or a woman. Just a guy who’s been lurking around the manosphere for 2 years now, agrees with most of their ideals/rhetoric, but goes full on Trigglypuff when he sees “toxic masculinity” isn’t a real thing because depite understanding that a lot of today’s boys are soft Soylents raised by single mothers, that was not my upbringing at all.

"Toxic masculinity" isnt a real thing. You've just bought into the leftist psyop.

Some men, like some women do bad shit.

Why is there no such term as "toxic femininity"?

What is it when a postpartum depressed woman like Andrea Yates drowns her own 5 children in a bathtub? What about Jodi Arias murdering her boyfriend for dumping her?

What about Asia Argento having sex with an underage boy?

These are just a few examples of the thousands upon thousands of anti-social behaviors committed by women that are analogous to those committed by men but the term "toxic femininity" doesn't exist.

Why not?.... Wouldn't that only be fair and accurate?

Because there is no war on women

The term "toxic masculinity" is an instrument of weaponized language. With it the progressive left / commies / SJW's, etc. can take any and all anti-social acts committed by any person who happens to be a man and denigrate all men by attributing the act to their maleness rather than the individual's pathology who committed it.

Stop spewing nonsense here.

Either wake up or fuck off.

And weaponized language in many cases is a perfect example of something magicians have been doing for years. It is called 'magician's choice,' or, more technically, Equivocation.

Wikipedia Entry on Equivocation

Quote:Quote:

Equivocation (or the magician's choice) is a verbal technique by which a magician gives an audience member an apparently free choice, but frames the next stage of the trick in such a way that each choice has the same end result.[1] For example, the performer may deal two cards to the table and ask a spectator to select one: if the spectator chooses the card on the left, the performer will say something like "you keep this card, I'll take the remaining card". If the spectator chooses the card on the right, the performer will take that card. Thus, the choice of which card to use is really made by the magician.

SJWs are only pretending to have a free and open debate, but just like the magician, they always arrive at the same conclusion: BadMen.

Even using the term 'toxic masculinity' means you have surrendered the debate to them, and all that is left is determining exactly where it is raising its ugly head now.

Man kills wife? Toxic Masculinity.

Wife Kills man? Battered Wife Syndrome. Still Toxic Masculinity.

That is why framing is so important and choosing what terms you are willing to use is so important.

Which is just the long version of saying I agree with Pap the Tapper.

“The greatest burden a child must bear is the unlived life of its parents.”

Carl Jung
Reply
#33

"Evolve The Definition"

Don't waste your time, im pretty sure Echovoid_52 is a woman, or a gay guy.
Reply
#34

"Evolve The Definition"

Quote: (08-28-2018 02:23 PM)Echovoid_52 Wrote:  

I’m neither or a troll or a woman. Just a guy who’s been lurking around the manosphere for 2 years now, agrees with most of their ideals/rhetoric, but goes full on Trigglypuff when he sees “toxic masculinity” isn’t a real thing because depite understanding that a lot of today’s boys are soft Soylents raised by single mothers, that was not my upbringing at all.

Go lurk some more.

This is the gender-analysis of that text above:

[Image: attachment.jpg39895]   

Women write differently, but who knows - maybe you are this - a low-T male version who "goes full Trigglypuff" over a topic.

[Image: leekp6ovq9fz.png]

No Red Pill guy would call himself full Trigglypuff over anything. You go full Dracul, Rambo, Conan the Barbarian - heck even Stalin. But you don't go full Trigglypuff!!!!!

We around here may disagree on all kinds of topics, but not on this one.
Reply
#35

"Evolve The Definition"

Quote: (08-30-2018 10:55 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  

Somers, in short, thought too much, and did so only because he was raised by a narcissistic generation to think that way. It's all very noble to think you can be a moral, thinking soldier, but the psychological reality indicates pretty clearly otherwise. Because with the arrogance of presuming that you can be a moral soldier comes the crippling fact that you have very little power to actually act on your morals, the simple rationalisation that you are not the main character in your own movie. This is one of the most potent reasons why many WW2 veterans protested they were just doing their jobs when they were accused/lauded for their murder/heroism (depending on who won.) They might not have understood it, but that was a potent psychological tool for getting through the conflict - the comforting belief that you are just one cog in a larger machine.

When I served in the military I did only some harmless stints of real-life action securing a border and grabbing a few illegal trespassers. But I got some special training and later looked into the mindset of the best soldiers. Turns out that the best one is that which simulates the psychopath. Essentially you are the equivalent of the mafia killer who slaughters an enemy on the afternoon and then goes home to dinner to his family while happily singing a tune. When you are in that murderous state, then you better see it as purely business and something apart from your core personality. They don't specifically train soldiers to do it, because they are still relying on 150+ year old psychological models with some added hope that various societal conditioning can help along with it.

I also came upon that personality split technique when looking into some training that secret service killers are supposedly getting.

The veteran suicide issue frankly has likely other manifestations that hardly anyone talks about except on sites like Rational Male. The divorces among the soldiers and veterans are through the roof. Many men get assraped by the divorce complex and their wives, some take their lives. That over 50yo men do it is no surprise, since they cannot dig themselves out of the hole. The 7 army values are great in a military unit fighting an enemy, but when you are fighting in your relationship with your wife, then we know that Conan the Barbarian or John Pimptongue is the better choice of core values. We could talk about other issues with it, but this goes into more details. There are entire population groups out there that don't have anywhere near as many PTSD cases and there are also reasons for this.

I wonder how often a soldier gets shocked out of his mind because he came from some believing Christian family in Nebraska and thought that taking part in Desert Storm was just serving his people and protecting the USA. The mafia killer has no illusions about what he is doing. And neither does the ISIS fighter. Their ideologies are mired in the real world and not in some flag waving videos of honor and valor.
Reply
#36

"Evolve The Definition"

As a supporter of the faggot acceptance movement, I don't understand why these people are so ashamed of not being masculine. If I can accept them for what they are, why can't they? Why can't they love themselves? Why do they want to redefine the word instead of blossoming?

Why?

[Image: japanese-grumpy-cat-angry-koyuki-moflicious-22.jpg]

That's not how we do things in Russia, comrade.

http://inspiredentrepreneur.weebly.com/
Reply
#37

"Evolve The Definition"

Quote: (08-30-2018 01:34 PM)Simeon_Strangelight Wrote:  

When I served in the military I did only some harmless stints of real-life action securing a border and grabbing a few illegal trespassers. But I got some special training and later looked into the mindset of the best soldiers. Turns out that the best one is that which simulates the psychopath. Essentially you are the equivalent of the mafia killer who slaughters an enemy on the afternoon and then goes home to dinner to his family while happily singing a tune. When you are in that murderous state, then you better see it as purely business and something apart from your core personality. They don't specifically train soldiers to do it, because they are still relying on 150+ year old psychological models with some added hope that various societal conditioning can help along with it.

I did a little research on the topic of split personalities and seeing it as a business or what not, but do you have any articles or books you could reference?
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)