Wednesday 26 June 2013

The macho posturing of pseudonymous (or anonymous) bloggers and commenters


One thing I find particularly repellant is macho posturing of pseudonymous (or, even worse, anonymous) bloggers and commenters; who - behind the facade of unidentifiability - 'pull no punches' in advising others (typically in graphically obscene language) to stick-their-necks-out, be bold, explicit and confrontational; and for such characters even to build-up themselves (their pseudonymous selves) as some kind of example of a 'dominant male'!

I guess some of these may be Leftist provocateurs, hoping - like Mao - to 'Let a thousand flowers bloom' in order to identify, and lop the heads off, any reactionaries.

But some, I suspect, are genuinely unaware of the slimy, grandstanding cowardice of their behaviour.

Therefore, if you are a pseudonymous web presence, and there are indeed good reasons why pseudonymity may be necessary (and I mean Good, not just expedient, reasons); then be aware that this fact precludes as illegitimate any systematic attempt to present yourself as (ahem) a 'tough guy'.



a Finn said...

Possible alternative explanations:

... or care little about status, and feel that some things must be said.

... or care little about status, and reflect the slimy reality (this is for them the normal way to be in liberal society).


Anyway, the root problem in the West is Europeans hypersensitivity to status, the constant competition concerning status, the all-devouring importance of status. Then status is of course the universal (root) explanation for everything, the meaning of everything, always invoked in every situation as an explanation, motive, reason for anything etc., and can't be otherwise. This is a reduced way of existence, as referred to in Ecclesiastes 9:13-18.

Part of this is because Europeans are predisposed too much to individualism (and thus stealth collectivism; after all, what else the dominant males do than have power over others, power over "non-important" massess, whether they are psychologically and physically dominant and/or politically and economically dominant). Europeans are not only individualists, they worship individualism as a false idol, and thus concomitantly collectivism. Liberal system provokes and augments this situation.

Part of this is because liberal system's fundamental meaning is to compete everybody against everybody in just two dimensions, power and money, which are in reality the same thing. Stalin and Mao get the splendid house and everything else with their orders (power), and Bill Gates with his money. I and the rest of the Western populations are in direct competition with Bill Gates, big international bankers, the powerful bureaucrats etc. What these people do and say have direct and real unattenuated consequences to me and everybody else. In a sane world there would numerous and perhaps radically different niches which are only selectively, specifically rationally selectively, in interaction which each other, selecting the good and useful influences, and selecting out the bad influences. Instead of a few plutocrats and bureaucrats controlling and winning everything, there would countless of different kinds of winners in all kinds of niches. Now there is in reality only one global niche. It is no wonder that there are hypercompetition and hypersensitivity for status among Europeans.

Continued ...

a Finn said...

Part 2.

Recently a Finnish leftist blogger started to write very abusive posts about me. That is his usual style, very aggressive, constantly vying for psychological dominance, trying to beat everybody else into submission with his words (strong narcissistic and negativistic features in his personality). Fairly smart. Everybody else avoided him or if not possible, tried to be conciliatory with him, even if they had competitive debates with him. He has a small uncritical and sycophantic following. I confronted him again and again tenaciously. In the end he tried to avoid conflict with me, so that the mad, intelligent and dangerous dog doesn't bite anymore. The following things became clear during the debates. At the root of his opinions are 5% of he just vaguely and instinctually can't see any meaningful differences between humans. Cultures, religions, moralities, crime rates, qualities or anything else that humans do or are, are to him less important extensions humanity, unimportant points (and as if humanity and what they are and do in their rich diversity can be separated), which he expects will easily and permanently be dominated, cajoled or manipulated into line with leftism when given enough time. Humans might have "wrong opinions and ways of living", but "wrong opinions and ways of living" have been "corrected" before. His inability to discriminate between different things is complemented by his power incentives. Thus he can't properly understand my criticism against immigration or saying something about HBD realities. Thus e.g. facts about immigration turned in his mind into a purely moral debate about absolute good and evil, and he couldn't understand that there would be any other reasons for saying facts than some kind of underlying evil motive, which should be supressed by any means necessary, domination, lying, double moralities, manipulation, logical incongruities, etc. 5% of it is uncritical deference towards leftist intellectuals, and this deference is blended with his perceived practical self-interest (e.g. that he is in disability pension). 90% is pure striving towards dominance status, this drowns everything else, inundates his whole psychology. That he thinks he is dominant validates his 10%, validates everything to him, no matter how vague or unsupported by facts the claims are. The 90% inflates a weak, uncertain and insecure starting position into an aggressive and dominating total confidence, and reduces facts into a mere moral questions, which are decided merely by dominance. He can not see or hear anything else from under his status competition, he is blind and deaf. His intelligence doesn't function outside the the limits of his status vying. His intelligence will tell any fairytale or any lie to validate and strengthen his dominance position. This is in line with leftist philosophy which tells him that at the center of politics is performative personal will (act of personal/individual will), which decides morality, which decides everything else, including facts about reality. Hence the individual wills competing globally for the highest status is in the same way at the center of leftism and liberalism, to the extent these political strands can be differentiated from each other at all.

And this is the pathetic and sorry picture of the present day European man, (almost) all that is wrong with him.

Valkea said...

Me being a mad dog, it is just a show for the said purpose. In reality I am a nice and gentle person. ;)

The Great and Powerful Oz said...

I'm not a tough guy, I'm just trying to avoid having my life damaged any further by insane women and their hangers on.

I have also taken some seminary classes with the thought of becoming a minister so that I maybe I can help and provide a bit of comfort to folks in pain. Since I started my part-time studies I have come to realize that not only would the school kick me out if they found out about my conservative leanings, the Ministerial Fellowship Committee almost certainly will not grant me fellowship because I am not a narrow minded, uptight, intolerant liberal.

My studies have deepened my faith while driving me away from the church.