Roissy, another typical gnostic god-man of our time

I’ve just heard that Roissy’s identity has been revealed. I’m not going to provide links or anything, as it’s not something I want to get into here, except to note that it revolves around a very nasty (on both sides) personal conflict between Roissy and a blogger named Lady Raine. I only mention the subject because two days ago I had an exchange about Roissy with a reader, which I quote below.

Why do I call Roissy a gnostic god-man? Because he fits the gnostic pattern to a “T”: (1) He says the whole of modern society is a vast, complex conspiracy and sexual power structure designed to keep down beta men, meaning your average guys who are the backbone of society. (2) He has acquired the knowledge of the inner workings of this power structure and conspiracy, which is hidden from most people. (3) He has developed and teaches the techniques which enable the oppressed beta men to overcome this conspiratorial universe and become its sexual masters, or at least to compete on a more level playing field with the alphas. (4) His techniques involve the complete inversion of ordinary morality, the replacement of normal human behavior and relationships by Roissyist techniques of manipulation and contempt. (5) His followers worship him for his epistemic and pragmatic mastery of contemporary reality.

The analysis of Roissy in terms of the gnostic paradigm shows once again how gnosticism is a (perhaps the) key concept of the modern age, manifesting itself in a wide variety of different forms that range from Communist collectivism to Randian individualism, from Nordic-worshipping Nazism to white-hating multiculturalism, from man-despising feminism to woman-despising Roissyism, but always following the same basic pattern of rebellion against the divine and natural order and its replacement by a gnostic dream world, with the gnostic seer as its master and god.

Here’s the exchange from two days ago:

Dylan wrote:

I noticed you have a sizable section on Roissy. I’ve been reading it, but even at this time, I’m pretty lost on exactly what the big deal with him is- why he garners such immense popularity, why he’s even so strongly associated with the general hereditarian blogs.

I get the general impression he mainly writes on sexual politics through a generalized hereditarian lens, and to other degrees interracial relationships, but that’s about it. Could you sum up exactly what he’s all about and why he’s so popular? …

I should make clear I’m not a white nationalist, or a racialist, or even a hereditarian. There’s some aspects of this debate I’m uncertain about, but I’m strongly of a middle ground outlook, you could say.

His popularity genuinely amazes me, though. From what I can gather, his blog is unbelievably more popular than any hereditarian blog out there. He garners hundreds of comments within such a freakishly short time. And the content of the comments differs little from many other relationship blogs. It’s rather obnoxious to even read, honestly.

Also, what, exactly, does “game” refer to?

LA replied:

Look, I’m criticized by Gamers for not understanding Game and Roissy, so I’m not the person to ask what Game is. We did have it out pretty completely in the discussion last summer.

I focused on the issue for that ten day period when we were discussing Game intensively. I decided Game was, at best, nowhere and I’ve barely thought about it since.

I was not aware that Roissy talks a lot about hereditarianism. However, even if there is an interesting sounding subject that I hear about at his blog, I don’t go there, because he is evil, as I have said several times. Reading him and his commenters gives me a bad feeling. A lot of HBDers over at Mangan’s like him.

Dylan I. replied:

Personally, I haven’t seen Roissy say much about hereditarianism either. Now that I think about it, he’s said extraordinarily little about it overall. I guess I just got that impression due to the huge popularity he has amongst hereditarian blogs.

I wouldn’t say Roissy and his blog are “evil”, but they do have a very arrogant, hedonistic mindset to them. I’m quite “liberal” on a number of sexual topics, but his outlook is pretty degenerate.

LA replied:

“Personally, I haven’t seen Roissy say much about hereditarianism either. Now that I think about it, he’s said extraordinarily little about it overall. I guess I just got that impression due to the huge popularity he has amongst hereditarian blogs.”

That’s really interesting. Why would the HBDers/ Darwinians like him, even though, as appears, he’s not particularly one of them himself? I would say that it’s because of his ruthless reductionism. For Roissy, everything comes down to (excuse the vulgarity, but we’re talking about Roissy here after all) how hard an erection various women give him. That’s reality for him. For Roissy, the hardness of his erection has the same metaphysical significance that the genome of the German race has for Nazis: it is the source and criterion of all value. Women that turn him on the most are the most valuable; women that turn him on, but not the most, are much less valuable. And women that don’t turn him on are human garbage.

That’s the world of Roissy. Darwinists, materialists, and HBDers find it bracing to read someone who is so consistent in his reductionism and rejection of any moral sense. John Derbyshire, for example, is one of his unabashed fans.

- end of initial entry -

January 8

Tina A. write:

Roissy Is confused, terminally, about the difference between ends and means. Per Kant, we are to treat all humans as ends in themselves; he inverts this and quotes Darwin as his justification. But he also consciously admits to deception as his M.O. That is because, although he will never admit it, morality evolved too. Women worth bedding don’t want to bed with degenerates, because they represent a looming negative in the form of abandonment.

Steve N. writes:

I think you pretty much have him nailed. There are plenty of secular rightists (and not a few HBDers) who recognize the societal benefits of religion and are not therefore in a rush to remove it or sthe natural restrictions it places on society (I’d put Moldbug in this camp: who in fact views secular liberalism as by far a greater danger than traditional Christianity); but Roissy ain’t one of ‘em. He’s basically conceded the ground to the Left, and taken up the (entirely logical) nihilist position, basically saying, “So if that’s the way it’s going to be (partriarchy is dead), then I’m going to game the system and get what I (my baser instincts) want.” I think if he thought patriarchy had any chance of returning, he’d work for it, and sing a correspondingly different tune.

I find this alone in his favor: He is utterly anti-PC and anti-feminist. He drives liberal Crime-Think Meters to 11.

LA replies:

If Roissy urged that all women be reduced to sex slavery, that would drive liberal Crime-Think meters much higher than 11. Does that mean we should find anything in his favor? The fact that an evil person offends the left is not a reason to praise him. I don’t agree with the view that the enemy of my enemy is thereby automatically my friend.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at January 07, 2010 11:38 PM | Send