[vinman]

(06-02-2014 04:43 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  

(06-02-2014 04:39 PM)vinman Wrote:  

I have to go with Tuth on Roissy. I've got skin like concrete. I don't have an immediate butt hurt response to racial issues. I can look at these things dispassionately and come to my own conclusions. But after reading his articles, and then the comments sections I finally said enough of this stuff, and I never looked back.

Where were you in 2008?

Do you have a blog that dates back several years?

Were you actively linking to and engaging in the making of the "manosphere" as it was happening?

You (and Tuth?) seem to not get that Roissy is not Chateau Heartiste.

We old timers remember when Roissy got stalked and outed and then went to Citizen Renegade and then to Chateau Heartiste.

That's history we saw with our own eyes.

You'll hear guys talk about pre-2009 Roissy, and that's for good reason. CH and Roissy are not one in the same.

Then maybe I'm all fucked up, and I appreciate the correction. I came across Roissy at Chateau.

[MikeCF]

(06-02-2014 04:42 PM)frenchie Wrote:  

We can include Roissy. However, one of you guys will have to write about him using your real name on RoK. No pseudonyms.


I cannot stress this enough.

The Weekly Standard did an article on him.

Roissy was also quoted in another publication - a UK one, I believe.

No one needs to link to ROK.

ROK is a new magazine and if anyting would be attacked as a biased source during the undoubtedly lengthy and forthcoming Wikipedia editing wars.

There are "objective" (yea, I get the irony of that statement) sources that discussed Roissy.

[MikeCF]

(06-02-2014 04:45 PM)vinman Wrote:  

Then maybe I'm all fucked up, and I appreciate the correction. I came across Roissy at Chateau.

Yes, that's why I went off of lurker mode.

That's a common misconception.

Some Googling will reveal that many people stopped reading CH after Roissy left/handed it over and it became more political.

Ask Forney, Roosh, or any of the guys and they will get the "pre-2009 Roissy."

(There may be reasonable disagreement over the year. Maybe it's pre-2010 Roissy. But none will deny that there was a shift at the site and that Roissy transformed into something else.)

[MikeCF]

"Sexual marketplace" is another concept that Roissy introduced.

So many concepts that you guys take for granted either originated with or were popularized by Roissy.

That's the sign of a true thinker...No one gives him credit because his concepts were dispersed so widely that people forgot where those concepts came from.

[Tuthmosis]

(06-02-2014 04:26 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  

I'll briefly come out of lurk mode to address that.

I'm not denying that Roissy made contributions. As far as I can tell, I'd attribute hamster to him as well--for instance. But your reading of what the Manosphere is is considerably narrower than how I, and many others, would define it. The Manosphere is more than just this particular corner of the web, especially between such a fixed period of time. The era of the DC Crew (Roissy, Roosh, et al) ended in circa 2009 or 2010--having lasted three years, if that. That's when Roosh began to grow as an independent figure in the community and no longer constituted a unit with the rest of those DC guys.

So to say that the DC Crew, and Roissy's slice of it in particular, is the Manosphere is excessive. For one, the "game" community was as instrumental--in not more so--for spreading it the masses. Loath as we can be to admit it, guys like Mystery and Style (and their less-famous products) were key to Game 1.0, and to the true foundation of the Manosphere. The fact that Roissy inspired you to write doesn't mean he inspired all of the dozens of commentators and contributors around the web.

I read Roissy all through his prime years and into his transition to the "Chateau Heartiste" avatar. His commentary was astute for a time, but he never struck me as foundational.

[Samseau]

I've always thought of Roissy as the Voltaire of the manosphere. He wasn't the originator of most of his ideas, like Voltaire, however, Roissy did get the message out as a man of letters, like Voltaire. Roissy also distilled prior manosphere knowledge into an easily digestible format (5 seconds of alpha > 5 years of beta) like Voltaire did.

Prior to Roissy you had the Book of Pook and Bonecrackr, the former being focused on self-improvement at the SoSuave forums while the Book of Bonecrackr was seen as the ultra-sexist condemnation of American women that most of us no longer even see as controversial.

Roissy took those guys, combined it with evolutionary psychology, and put it all together for everyone to see. So in my opinion the importance of Roissy is huge. He's easily the biggest American intellectual in the last 100 years or so, and has more impact on the lives of men than anyone else. Over time, Roissy's ideas continue to grow with power and influence and there seems to be no stopping the influence of Roissy.

Without Voltaire, there would have been no Rousseau (who was a younger sidekick of Voltaire) or Enlightenment in France. Without Roissy, there would have been no Roosh (who was a younger sidekick of Roissy) or manosphere movement on the Internet.

[Nick]

(06-02-2014 03:51 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  

(06-02-2014 12:58 PM)Dagonet Wrote:  

Can't Roissy's importance be mentioned as part of a citation from an acceptable source? This does seem pretty crucial to me. You can't deny the Manosphere sprung up around him and Roosh, essentially. If you're detailing the history/formation, this is a lynchpin.

(06-02-2014 03:37 PM)heavy Wrote:  

Roissy (perhaps the best and most articulate writer out there)

Let's be careful not to overstate the importance of Roissy. I see him as a relatively short-lived and limited contributor to the Manosphere who became obsolete--by choice, it seems--several years ago. While he arguably deserves mention, and made important statements during his two or three years of relevance, he isn't a face on the Mount Rushmore of the Manosphere. The Manosphere certainly didn't "spring up around him."

Furthermore, there are risks to citing him (apart from whatever restrictions Wikipedia places) given his hard turn to bizarre racial and political territory in the last several years (e.g., his preoccupation with something he terms "racial cuckoldry").

Roissy, while once an astute commentator, has hurt the Manosphere as much or more than he's aided it--arming the opposition with some of its only potentially valid criticisms of movement.

Totally disagree with this. I can't remember reading a more articulate, and brutally incisive writer than Roissy. His ideas have been deeply influential. Roosh, Rollo, Roissy, that's where it started. Samseau nails it above.

How to cite him in the Wikipedia article is one issue, of course you can mention him, link to his site etc. How the leftists at Wikipedia and other editors manipulate this is another issue. Denying his importance though because you don't like what he's written about race is off-base. Spitballs at a battleship. What "valid criticisms"?

[MikeCF]

(06-02-2014 04:53 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  

I read Roissy all through his prime years and into his transition to the "Chateau Heartiste" avatar. His commentary was astute for a time, but he never struck me as foundational.

Who was more foundational?

I don't want to reveal trade secrets, but there was once a group of writers who discussed these issues in a private venue that existed before ROK.

Here's a hint of who was around:

https://twitter.com/EvilPatriarchy/following

I was one of them. Roissy was as well.

I've shown how Roissy introduced several key concepts that people have used (hamster, sexual marketplace, dark triad, etc.), so this isn't a blanket appeal to authority.

If someone is more foundational than Roissy, maybe I missed it. I don't know or see everything.

But I'd sure like to see some documentation.

[Samseau]

Yeah, I want to call out the guys who attack Heartiste. Link some posts of his that are overly racist or you've got no argument. I don't find his shit offensive at all.

[MikeCF]

(06-02-2014 04:55 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Roissy took those guys, combined it with evolutionary psychology, and put it all together for everyone to see. So in my opinion the importance of Roissy is huge. He's easily the biggest American intellectual in the last 100 years or so, and has more impact on the lives of men than anyone else. Over time, Roissy's ideas continue to grow with power and influence and there seems to be no stopping the influence of Roissy.

This is correct.

Roissy made game something intellectuals found interesting.

Indeed, that's why Tyler Cowen went after him so cattily.

Most of the serious thinkers (Rolly/Rational Male, the Singularity2050 guy) would not be here were it not for Roissy.

Without Roissy, the "manosphere," if it even existed, would be a bunch of silly PUAs.

Indeed, it's ironic that some now want to say the manosphere is more than just "us" and that we gotta include the PUAs....even though we all worked so hard to distance ourselves from the PUAs.

[Tuthmosis]

(06-02-2014 04:26 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  

Roissy is the Aristotle of the manosphere.

(06-02-2014 04:55 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

I've always thought of Roissy as the Voltaire of the manosphere.

[Samseau]

(06-02-2014 05:04 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  

(06-02-2014 04:26 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  

Roissy is the Aristotle of the manosphere.

(06-02-2014 04:55 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

I've always thought of Roissy as the Voltaire of the manosphere.

Can you name a single manosphere blog or website that hasn't read Roissy?

[Dagonet]

There are definitely a few different strands that evolved separately and have now coalesced into what we call the Manosphere, but the heart of it-- the game bloggers who have turned somewhat political-- emanated from Roissy. Myself included. He was the first blog I found that introduced me to the others and inspired me to start my own blog.

Many of the groups and writers you're including in the "Manosphere" have been lumped in within the last 2-3 years. The core of the Manosphere is more like 6-7 years old and all revolved around Roissy. Even Roosh owes him a great debt for creating the intellectual framework for what came later. Not to detract from Roosh's contributions either. I see them as two pillars, one of theory and the other practice, which set the tone for everyone who has followed.

[MikeCF]

(06-02-2014 04:59 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Yeah, I want to call out the guys who attack Heartiste. Link some posts of his that are overly racist or you've got no argument. I don't find his shit offensive at all.

Can we stick to history?

I myself was disappointed to see Roissy go from dropping philosophy and maxims to feeding red meat to his readers. Lots of "old timers," were, too.

THere's enough political crap out there. Roissy offered something unique before the politics.

Whether he's racist is not here nor there, anyway.

We're talking about Roissy in D.C., not Cheateau Heartiste, or Citizen Renegade.

[MikeCF]

Some more history from you, as it was written. (Note the year.)

http://www.crimeandfederalism.com/2010/1...roosh.html

The Rise of Roosh


There are a collection of smart, male writers you'll never hear about. Vacillating between being ignored and loathed, these young men focus on the art of picking up women. Yet what they write isn't about merely meeting women: It's writing about culture. If you want to understand people, look at whom they date.

When I linked to a pick-up artist's blog (In Male Fide, a daily read), Rob commented:

I read through the entire link. The whole thing, including responses from both sides, reveal just how sick and myopic this culture really is. The narcissism and self-centered justifications involved in the writing would certainly cause [a guy to drink].

Rob gets it, and his reaction is why I read these blogs. Culture is destiny, and dating reveals what truly matters in culture. If a woman says she wants a "nice guy" but cock-chases an asshole, we know what the true culture is: As the economists say, we have a revealed preference. What is modern culture?

Unknown to most people over 40, younger men are checking out in record numbers. For most of American history, a man who worked hard could find a stable mate. Now-a-days a man can work hard for years, only to be ass-raped in divorce court.

I know zero men who refuse to marry because gays are getting married. I know several men who will not marry because of feminism: These men have been scared straight by watching their buddies lose everything in divorce court. Yet conservatives want to "save" marriage by attacking gays instead of family court. Futility, thy name is Sarah Palin.

Also, many women are earning their own money. Because of this, many are unwilling to "settle" for a beta male. Instead, they cock-chase alpha males. An out-of-work band member is more valuable than an Internet engineer. Women have revealed their preferences, and men who want to have sex have been paying attention.

What is the future? Who is the future? Roosh is the future.

Who is Roosh? He's a guy who sleeps in his dad's basement, doesn't work a real job, saves enough money to travel, and still get laid more than 90% of rat-race-running American males. Some call him a deadbeat. I call him a magnificent bastard:

Roosh or what ever his name is, is a natural result of feminism. The more matriarchal a society becomes the more guys will behave like Roosh. Guys like Roosh have always been around but in few numbers. But because in America marriage is such a raw deal for guys and women have no accountability, a lot more guys behave like Roosh.Especially young guys. It is a new phenomena that is really under the radar. In my opinion when guys behave like this in mass you will have a third world country. Women hate the behavior guys like Roosh exhibit but do not want to deal with the root causes. Until American women are willing to face the face that is looking at them in the mirror, most guys will become players like Roosh in the future.

Young men, in every culture, have always been the most productive members of society. Rome was not built in a day, and it was not built by women. Roosh had an advanced science degree, and was working in a legitimate, humanity-advancing career (medical research). He realized he could have more fun and have more sex by not working.

He also realized that if he got married, he'd risk everything he had ever worked for. Marriage 2.0 [It seems the blog where this list originally appeared has been taken down - Ed.] provides:

No-Fault Divorce (i.e. unilateral divorce, with no recourse for other spouse)
No-Fault Alimony (i..e she cheats, he pays; the party breaking/violating the contract gets paid)
66-75% of all divorces are filed by the wife (CDC data; Google it) – cha ching!
Presumed mother-custody in most state’s family courts (goodbye Daddy, hello ATM)
Presumed guilty until proven innocent DV laws (now widely used as the “opening chess move” of divorce – once the husband is removed from the primary residence he never comes back, and she gets the primary residence in the asset split; you have 27 minutes to leave the house after the initial phone call. Also known as the Federal VAWA Legislation).
Decriminalization of Adultery (you can run a brothel and still get primary custody of the kids, plus alimony!)
Lobbying by the National Organization for Women against Shared Parenting bills in many states. (NOW is no longer about equality, it’s now about a zero sum game for resources. Children are cash-cows, and NOW will be damned if they allow Shared Parenting to stop the cash-flow. Divorcees of the world unite! :-)
Lifetime Alimony (One NJ Appellate Court recently upheld a lifetime alimony sentenced rendered for barely an 8-year marriage. Their argument was that now in these days of short-term marriages being the norm, 8 years was pretty long, and as such probably deserved to be treated as a long-term marriage. Brilliant!)
Fathers Are Optional Parents (States are enforcing payment-obligations by non-custodial parents with an iron fist, however they are completely ignoring the visitation-rights of NCP parents. If you are going to police one parents obligation to pay, why not police the other parents obligation to allow the Dad to see his kids?)
One Sided Alimony: Ok so ex-spouse B got used to a certain standard of living, so we will make ex-spouse A pay alimony. Fine. But how about the things ex-spouse A got used to? Shouldn’t we have some sort of reverse payment by ex-spouse B in the form of weekly cleaning, a hot meal 7 nights a week, and “romantic companionship” services? How come one spouse is on the hook to provide something that the other was used to during the marriage, and not vice versa?
Paternity Fraud (If you missed the 2 year window to catch that your kids aren’t really your kids, you are SOL in most states. What’s worse if your cheating wife divorces you, and you can bring the DNA tests to court, and you will still be forced to pay 18-23 years of child support for these kids who are some other guy’s spawn). In most fraud crimes, once the crime is proven, the guitly party gets punished. However in the topsy-turvey world of Family Courts, it is the innocent party that gets punished. No one to this date has ever been legally punished of perpetrating Paternity Fraud to this date. If you are going to be a fraudster, this is the best kind of fraud to pull off.
There are civilizations where men "check out." There are even civilizations within the United States where males do not involve themselves in their communities and families. We don't call these places "civilizations," instead relying on euphemisms like "urban areas," or the "inner city."

Soon enough, most of the United States will be an inner city. Enjoy your life today, because it's not going to get any better tomorrow.

You could try to reform it. That'd require taking on the National Organization of Women. Are you really going to argue in support of alimony reform laws?

You're too big of a pussy to offend a woman by saying something politically incorrect, and probably live in fear of your wife's wrath - which can be inspired by nothing more than a stray remark at a dinner party. Reform won't happen. This Is The Decline.

And so the only rational response to an irrational world is amoral hedonism. Let the pick-up artists roll.

[MikeCF]

(06-02-2014 05:05 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Can you name a single manosphere blog or website that hasn't read Roissy?

I sure can't.

[MikeCF]

(06-02-2014 05:05 PM)Dagonet Wrote:  

Many of the groups and writers you're including in the "Manosphere" have been lumped in within the last 2-3 years. The core of the Manosphere is more like 6-7 years old and all revolved around Roissy. Even Roosh owes him a great debt for creating the intellectual framework for what came later. Not to detract from Roosh's contributions either. I see them as two pillars, one of theory and the other practice, which set the tone for everyone who has followed.

Correct. I remember when Roosh was D.C. Bachelor (on a blogspot) writing about stealing drinks because he was too poor to drink.

Now look at him - he has his own web empire.

He's come a long way and his cultural commentary has gotten deep.

Roissy was the original intellectual, though, and I don't think even Roosh would dispute that.

[The Beast1]

(06-02-2014 04:45 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  

(06-02-2014 04:42 PM)frenchie Wrote:  

We can include Roissy. However, one of you guys will have to write about him using your real name on RoK. No pseudonyms.


I cannot stress this enough.

The Weekly Standard did an article on him.

Roissy was also quoted in another publication - a UK one, I believe.

No one needs to link to ROK.

ROK is a new magazine and if anyting would be attacked as a biased source during the undoubtedly lengthy and forthcoming Wikipedia editing wars.

There are "objective" (yea, I get the irony of that statement) sources that discussed Roissy.

Excellent, http://m.weeklystandard.com/articles/new...ame?page=3

Roissy can be included. That article is an excellent source of information.

[Truth Teller]

I'm (obviously) relatively new to this. Can someone explain what the differences between Roissy and Chateau Heartiste are?

[Tuthmosis]

(06-02-2014 04:58 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  

I don't recall you even being around back then.

Your argument seems to be "I was around, am more experienced, and unless you have a blog as old as mine, you don't know what you're talking about." Evil Patriarchy--which I was fully aware of--was for guys operating a blog. I've never operated a game-related blog of my own.

I've been a serious student and practitioner in this universe for a long time. I'm not even convinced that, apart from your various blog ventures, you've been at it longer than me. But that's immaterial, and a distraction from the discussion at hand. The fact that I don't agree that the Manosphere "sprung up around Roissy," don't have interest in operating my own Manosphere blog, and don't think it's wise to define the Manosphere so narrowly doesn't mean I--nor anyone else who believes those things--don't know what I'm talking about. I don't understand your sudden Deus-Ex-Machina call for credentials.

I'll repeat this again: I've never said Roissy deserves no mention or citation. I'm saying it will bankrupt the genealogy of the Manosphere if you're to simply trace that one branch backward and call that whole thing the Manosphere, while unilaterally declaring Roissy the-political-philosopher-of-your-choice of the Manosphere.

Exaggerating his importance does exactly that.

[MikeCF]

(06-02-2014 05:14 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  

(06-02-2014 04:58 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  

I don't recall you even being around back then.

Your argument seems to be "I was around, am more experienced, and unless you have a blog as old as mine, you don't know what you're talking about." Evil Patriarchy--which I was fully aware of--was for guys operating a blog. I've never operated a game-related blog of my own.

I've been a serious student and practitioner in this universe for a long time. I'm not even convinced that, apart from your various blog ventures, you've been at it longer than me. But that's immaterial, and a distraction from the discussion at hand. The fact that I don't agree that the Manosphere "sprung up around Roissy," don't have interest in operating my own Manosphere blog, and don't think it's wise to define the Manosphere so narrowly doesn't mean I don't know what I'm talking about. I don't understand your Deus-Ex-Machina call for credentials.

I'll repeat this again: I've never said Roissy deserves no mention or citation. I'm saying it will bankrupt the genealogy of the Manosphere if you're to simply trace that one branch backward and call that whole thing the Manosphere.

Exaggerating his importance does exactly that.

Everyone here know I'd be the last one to call a guy out for being anon, so there's no need to go there.

I haven't seen any facts from you.

I have linked to sources discussing the importance of Roissy.

I have given my opinion. Since I'm not anon and actually was writing during the time that the manosphere rose up, people can evaluate whether I am a credible source information.

Where are your sources showing other people are more important?

Like Samseau asked, "Who in the manosphere has not read Roissy?"

If everyone can be traced by to Roissy, than calling Roissy in D.C. anything but foundational is historically inaccurate.

[Tuthmosis]

(06-02-2014 04:58 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  

Who was more foundational?

Like it or not:

   

[MikeCF]

(06-02-2014 05:12 PM)Truth Teller Wrote:  

I'm (obviously) relatively new to this. Can someone explain what the differences between Roissy and Chateau Heartiste are?

Roissy in D.C. ===> Citizen Renegade ===> Chateau Heartiste.

Roissy in D.C. was a single-authored blog. (Many here know his real name.)

Then his site disappeared (for various reasons that I'd rather not discuss openly).

Then it came back as Citizen Renegade and focused more on red-meat conservative politics.

Then it was handed over (I believe it was sold, though I can't prove it, to some RSD guys) and became multi-authored as Chateau Heartiste.

Whether Roissy still writes there is a mystery.

But Roissy in D.C. was something entirely different from Chateau Heartiste.

[Truth Teller]

(06-02-2014 05:22 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  

(06-02-2014 05:12 PM)Truth Teller Wrote:  

I'm (obviously) relatively new to this. Can someone explain what the differences between Roissy and Chateau Heartiste are?

Roissy in D.C. ===> Citizen Renegade ===> Chateau Heartiste.

Roissy in D.C. was a single-authored blog. (Many here know his real name.)

Then his site disappeared (for various reasons that I'd rather not discuss openly).

Then it came back as Citizen Renegade and focused more on red-meat conservative politics.

Then it was handed over (I believe it was sold, though I can't prove it, to some RSD guys) and became multi-authored as Chateau Heartiste.

Whether Roissy still writes there is a mystery.

But Roissy in D.C. was something entirely different from Chateau Heartiste.

Thank you. This thread has inspired me to investigate the thread on Roissy's archives.

[MikeCF]

Here's Captain Capialism in 2012:

http://captaincapitalism.blogspot.com/20...phere.html

Allow me to introduce:

Roissy (arguably the Godfather and creator of The Manosphere)
Rooshv
[cut]

----

So this isn't just my opinion. This is what guys who were around since way back when were and are saying.