Checking Correia’s List: Intro

It was written some time back, but I’ve just stumbled on this incredible dissection of lefty arguing techniques by Larry Correia.  Although it ostensibly describes nonsense rhetorical techniques for the internet, each of these have their “real life” equivalents.

Online, it can be virtually impossible to “defeat” an opponent, for the moment you corner them, they’ve the option to vanish into thin air much more easily than they ever could in person.  Nevertheless, it’s important to learn how manage the morons you’ll encounter on various sites for two reasons.  Correia describes the first:

I often get people who agree with me posting stuff like “well, you wasted your time on that doofus!” Ah, but you miss the point. You don’t defend your beliefs in the hopes of convincing the willfully ignorant. That’s a lost cause. The willfully ignorant aren’t to be convinced, they are to be mocked. Their flaws are to be pointed out until everyone around them realizes how full of crap they are. Remember that argument is theater, and your performance isn’t aimed at your opponent, but rather at the audience. If you choose to follow the Fisker’s Path, your goal is three fold.

Give ammo to the people already on your side.

Convince the undecided .

Allow your opponent’s to display their petty ignorance to the world.

Your opponent may be a hopeless windbag and your own site’s commenters may already agree with you, but there are lurkers.  In person, I call the person with whom you’re having a discussion your Opponent, but your Target is the person you’re hoping to persuade.  If your Opponent is among the Benighted he could simultaneously be your Target, but if he’s Anointed your Targets will invariably be those quietly listening in on your conversation.  Therefore, there may well be a point to engaging the idiots.

Second, online rhetoric mirrors the rhetoric you’ll encounter in person, on television, and in other media.  Handling internet trolls and obnoxious co-workers aren’t equivalent skills, but they are related.

Correia does a phenomenal job of describing how lefties like to argue.  However, in this post he only obliquely describes how to respond to them.  I’ve no doubt he’s great at it (I just found his site but I’m assuming based on his writing ability), and it wasn’t the point of the article.  Nevertheless, he didn’t do it in detail.

That’s where I come in.

Lefty beliefs match lefty rhetoric, and fortunately there’s a pattern to it.  The items on Correia’s list all derive from their flawed premises and their desire to frame any discussion away from addressing them.  These flaws can be summed up in one word:  subjectivism.

Subjecivism stems from the failure to adhere to the principles of GIA, and it manifests itself somewhat differently according to the specific principle being violated:

G-subjectivism (or moral subjectivism or relativism):  There are no objective moral standards.  Whatever floats your boat.  You feel that way just because you’re white.  Our supposed moral codes stem merely from attempts by the powerful to legitimize their privilege.  It’s not about right or wrong, it’s about who controls the narrative.  It’s not about whether or not a specific action is moral, it’s about who’s doing what to whom.  Your morality stems entirely from your desire to either gain or maintain power.  Philosophical forebear:  Nietzsche.

A-subjectivism:  What matters isn’t reality, it’s perspective.  The words in the Constitution, works of literature, or whatever legislation don’t mean what whoever wrote them intended them to mean, they mean what the reader wants them to mean, how it makes them feel.  Rape or sexual harassment aren’t objective crimes to be defined based on what the accuser does but instead on how the victim feels about them.  If the oil companies pay for a study we can dismiss it out of hand for bias, but the Sierra Club’s facts are objectively true.  Of course you’re going to support lower taxes:  you’re rich.  Try living in poverty for a while and your perspective would change and you’d understand the value of social programs.  Massaging statistics or facts to prove a point is perfectly fine, for facts don’t necessarily supports Higher Truths, and the Higher Truth is Leftism.  Therefore, just like “little white lies” in support of Truth are actually truthful, facts that cast doubt on Truth are actually lies.  Philosophical forebear:  Kant.

I-subjectivism:  Despite our rhetoric of equalism, we believe most profoundly in a hierarchy within humanity.  We believe not merely in a hierarchy of ability, achievement, luck, or stature, but a hierarchy that goes to the very depths of what it means to be human.  The Anointed can be trusted with determining how much we drive, what we eat, and the extent of our health coverage, but the Benighted can’t be expected to know that letting their children live on Doritos or stay up until 2 A.M. on a schoolnight is a bad idea.  Bush bears unlimited responsibility for all the horrible things that happened during his presidency, but you can’t really blame that single mom for getting knocked up the fourth time, the armed robber for not knowing that holding up a store is wrong, or Obama for anything.  White rednecks should be mocked and shunned for their bitter-clinging racism, but black culture bears no relation whatsoever to the poverty in our inner cities.  Corporate barons, Republican politicians, and rednecks both living and dead should be held accountable for everything, impoverished minorities and single moms for absolutely nothing, and the Anointed determine who should be bear what responsibility and how.  The very worth of a human being, whether he should be held accountable for his mistakes, whether he should have to pay more for health insurance or get kicked off his land, it all depends on how the Anointed have determined that society should be orchestrated.  ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL, BUT SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS.  Philosophical forebear:  Rousseau.

When arguing with a lefty, your enemy is subjectivism damn near every time.  Yes, there are honest lefties, still blind but not willfully so.  Nevertheless, even if subjectivism doesn’t infuse their rhetoric, it does infuse their belief system.  On virtually every issue, you’re calling attention to an error in at least one of the principles of G, I, or A, often two of them, and sometimes all three.

To use Larry’s rhetorical examples:

  1. Skim until Offended:  A & I (only the facts that support my indignation count)
  2. Disqualify that Opinion:  I (the opinions of the privileged don’t matter)
  3. Attack, Attack, Attack:  G & I (your inferior worth means it’s okay to say anything)
  4. Disregard Inconvenient facts: (objective truths aren’t true if not “Truth”)
  5. Make Shit Up: (lies aren’t false if they support “Truth”)
  6. Resort to Moral Equivalency: G (there are no moral standards, everybody does it)
  7. Concern Trolling:  G, I, and/or (depends on the motivation of the troll, complicated)
  8. When all else fails, Racism!:  G, I, & A (often requires using all three, but it depends)

Fortunately, just like there are patterns to the errors they make, there are patterns to how to correct them.

The goal of rhetorical sparring should always be to steer the discussion towards one of rational dialectic.  Even if you’re trying to get the troll to run away and hide, you want your readers to know that although you’re able to match him blow for blow with rhetorical bullshit, your goal is to seek Truth.  You insult not because you’re an asshole, you’re just great at self-defense.  You make the effort to be reasonable and extend an invitation to your opponent to do the same.  You won’t take any crap but make every effort to be fair.

You’re never just selling your ideas, you’re selling yourself.  Frame yourself as the benevolent ruler, the man who can admit he’s wrong but almost never has to.  You consider it “personal” only if you’re opponent insists on making it personal, but call attention to your opponent’s lack of maturity as you insult him.

Rhetoric is the sparkly pretty stuff we sprinkle on our own beliefs to make them look a bit more appealing to others.  It’s also the ugly brown paste we smother on the beliefs of our opponents to make them seem less appealing.

But rhetoric is merely ornamental; it’s not Truth itself.  This is both its strength and weakness:  strength because it can easily sway weak minds without needing any actual facts, weakness because it can be swept away if it’s either matched by superior rhetoric or even just exposed for what it is.

For the most effective way to neutralize your opponent’s rhetoric is to simply call it out.  Blow past the nonsensical frame of white men’s opinions mean nothing and call attention to how that frame bears no relation to Truth whatsoever, how not even they really believe it.

At least not the rhetorical crap they use, for they’ll gladly call you on it any time you try to pull it yourself (assuming they’re intelligent enough to recognize it).  To cite Correia’s example of how only women’s opinions on abortion count:  Do they really believe that Sarah Palin’s opinion on abortion counts for more than Joe Biden’s?  That Herman Cain’s views on race matter more than Harry Reid’s?

Bring this up, and just like Correia says, they’ll dodge, they’ll weave, they’ll vanish as soon as you’ve got them cornered.

But if it’s online people read it, in person people listen in.  Dedicate yourself to Truth, make sure your audience knows this about you, de-frame their nonsense, attack and establish your superiority, offer to let up on them if they change.  If they don’t, be ruthless.  If they do, engage in honest discussion to the best of your ability.

Over time I’ll describe how I recommend handling each item on Correia’s list.  No single attack or re-frame will change a mind, but by repeatedly pointing out the difference between rhetoric and dialectic, between their nonsensical insults and your good sense, you can start planting some seeds.

Truth is discerned through the dialectic, but the minds of the average idiot rely almost entirely on rhetoric.  Through recognizing and accepting the latter, you can help bring people to the former.

Posted in Feminism, Politics, Race, Rhetoric, Uncategorized | 18 Comments


Of course, right after writing a couple of Rah! Rah! Time to fight! posts all kinds of other crap comes up that I have to take care of.

This break shouldn’t be too long, I suspect.  I’ll probably be back by week’s end.

Also, quite a few of you have been emailing me your thoughts and suggestions.  I’ll get back to you soon.

In the meantime, enjoy the greatest GIF in the history of the multiverse:

Posted in Oops | Leave a comment


You can define yourself as conservative, libertarian (big or small “l”), neo-reactionary, republican (big or small “r”), or use another term that puts you somewhere on “the right”.  You might even be to the left on most issues but reject feminism.  You can be a traditionalist Christian or secular Objectivist.

But to our adversaries, these labels matter little.  We’re all full of hate, all either power-hungry bastards that like it when poor people suffer or idiots who “cling to guns or religion“.  You haven’t rationally concluded after hours of investigation that decent men are getting screwed, you’re just afraid of losing your WHAM (white heterosexual able-bodied male) privilege.

You’re the enemy.  We’re categorized not according to our specific views on certain issues but on whether or not we’re formidable.  The Koch brothers support gay marriage, but their anti-Obamacare ads seem to be working. so they must be demonized.  Socially liberal but in support of free markets?  Not good enough.  Socialistic in your economics but still pro-life?  Not good enough.

Yes, they’ll tactically retreat, encourage primary voters to vote for the most milquetoast candidate possible, only to treat Mr. Milquetoast the exact same way they’d treat a genuine reactionary after they get the nomination.

We’ve been framed as mean, which puts us into a viciously effective bind.  Be too critical and fall directly into the frame of bitter white-guy who feeds on hate, don’t be critical enough and come across as wimpy, uninspiring, utterly devoid of the alpha traits people seek in a leader.

Some of us don’t care that we’re considered mean and say what we want to say exactly the way we want to say it.  Although this approach can inspire those of us who already agree, it turns off the ignorant who associate everything we stand for with abject cruelty.

Others care too much about the mean-frame.  We water down our message so much we don’t even appear to have one, so worried about how our ideas will be received by others that we become willing to sacrifice our beliefs on the altar of public opinion.

Neither approach works, at least not enough.  The former is more effective than the latter, but it can and does frighten away lots of people who could be on our side.

We’ve got to attack but be smart about it.

Although a Canadian reactionary himself, Free Northerner recently described how he would orchestrate a conservative resurgence here in the States.  I could quibble with some of the details, but he demonstrates some great political instincts.  He knows the importance of aggression and instilling fear into one’s enemies.

He’s correct about his assertions regarding “escalation dominance”.  However, I would argue that our most urgent deficiencies in this regard relate more to our rhetorical inability to “escalate” and less with our willingness to use force.  Yes, both are important.  Nevertheless, thus far our political battles are still fought with words:  bureaucratic directives, court decisions, laws nobody reads, votes, political ads, backroom deals, etc.  Yes, guns are always lurking just beneath the surface whenever government is involved with anything.  Still, we’re not seeing the National Guards of various states lined up against the Army.  Yet.  (We’ll see how that Nevada standoff goes.)

Ignorant and fickle as it is, public opinion still counts for something.  Neither side is yet willing to use the force they’d like because both believe that doing so in the wrong way would push public opinion in the opposite direction.

We’re in the midst of a Cold Civil War, and as long as it’s still “Cold” our weapons of choice are verbal, not military.

Nevertheless, Free Northerner’s basic premise is fundamentally correct in that during our current battles, the left’s “escalation dominance” is substantial.  Is Harry Reid afraid to accuse private American citizens of “un-American activity” or launch whatever accusation might pop into his head about Mitt Romney’s taxes from the Senate floor?  Were they even hesitant to accuse Romney of causing a woman to die of cancer?

They throw out the nastiest attack imaginable, and the response is some variation of “they shouldn’t say that.”  They throw a sucker-punch, and the response is just to claim it shouldn’t have been thrown.  Sometimes the punches are blocked, but even if they are, there’s no disincentive to try again (and again, and again…).  After all, if the worst that’s going to happen is some butt-hurt whining about how mean you are, why the hell wouldn’t you?

Why do they accuse us (and by “us” I mean everybody from soft-right GOP squishes to principled libertarians, conservatives, and neo-reactionaries) of being all sorts of horribly ugly inhuman monsters?  Because it works.  Why does it work?  Because if you insult somebody to their face, and their response is to get defensive, it frames you as the alpha.  You have no fear, and your opponent is weak.

So why not return the favor?  Throw out whatever spurious accusations that might possibly stick, be alpha ourselves?

First, although I think we’ve got to get uglier than we’ve gotten, I believe that certain moral standards must be upheld.  Ethical behavior is not necessarily detrimental or restrictive.  On the contrary it can be a powerful weapon, if it’s framed properly. (But that’s for another post.  For now, I’ll merely assert that I think we can still make loads of progress while maintaining certain standards, and I also reject the mistaken notion that moral=wimpy.)

Second, as I described above, we’ve been framed as mean, so whenever we attack it plays perfectly into their frame.  The media helps with this immeasurably, doing no better to mediate our political discourse than a referee in the WWE.

Yet unless we learn how to achieve “escalation dominance” rhetorically, soon we’ll have to rely on it in the military sense that Free Northerner describes.

In future posts, I’ll elaborate on how to accomplish this in both how we appeal to the masses and for individuals we know in our daily lives.  Some will never be persuaded, but others actually can be if we’re smart about how we present ourselves.

When I discuss how to spread our ideas to the general public, I’ll be referring to Free Northerner’s ideas, some of which fit perfectly into the framework I advocate.

But whether constructing an advocacy campaign or getting your buddy to swallow the red pill, certain rhetorical principles always apply.  Framing (the correct mix of alpha dominance and more humanizing beta traits), disarming your opponent’s frame, claiming the moral high ground, blocking their blows, and inflicting a few of your own.

Sometimes, after winning a bout, the correct response will be to rub it in, to ensure that your opponent is genuinely afraid of attempting another attack.  Other times, you’ll want to be magnanimous (something you can only be from a position of power) and invite the vanquished to re-engage you, only this time in a dialectical quest for Truth, not some bullshit rhetoric war to see who’s got the most clever one-liners.

You can use rhetoric alone to win a temporary ally (or frighten off an enemy), but only through dialectic can we guarantee that they won’t change their mind back the minute they see some cute political ad.

It’s disheartening to observe how effective the forces of lies have framed our politics and culture.  However, when I observe how anemic the forces of decency have been thus far in response, it gives me hope.  Perhaps if we adopt a strategy that isn’t quite so moronic we’ll actually have a decent shot.

Posted in Alpha, Game, Politics, Rhetoric | 11 Comments

Mission for the Manosphere?

In my last post, I described some of the various perspectives floating around the manosphere.  For those of you not in the mood to click, I’ve divided us into exploiters (have a blast before it all goes to hell), avoiders (go Galt or ghost, refuse to participate), and fighters (do whatever it takes to keep it from going to hell).  It’s perfectly possible to have sentiments that coincide with all three, such as a PUA that uses his blog to attack feminism.

We all recognize that things are incredibly off, that we’ve got countless strikes against us.  When we consider our moral compass, insane amounts of debt (governmental, student, consumer, etc.), the sheer banality of our political class and lack of leadership that even seems remotely equipped to recognize (let alone do something about) the struggles ahead, the successful leftist takeover of our academic and religious institutions, our inability to face reality (fiscal, human nature, etc.), and about two dozen other obstacles I don’t have time to list, it seems hopeless.

Even those of us who are fairly certain we’ll personally make it through are pretty much certain that damn near everybody else is doomed.

Some of the decisions we have to make depend entirely on our rational tactical assessments of what’s coming ahead.

Nevertheless, what we believe to be at stake as individual men depends predominantly on whether or not we believe in God.  I’m not accusing my secular brethren of callousness or indifference, but to those of us who believe in a Higher Power, there’s more at stake than whether or not we’ll have enough ammo to hold off the marauding bands so that we can be left the hell alone (although it means that, too).  For those who believe that life doesn’t end when the lungs stop, there’s infinitely more at stake.  Believers in the Infinite aren’t just more inclined to take the longer view, we’re required to.

To believers, traditional gender roles aren’t just a more efficient reproductive strategy that some tribes stumbled onto earlier than others, they’re a Biblical mandate.  All of us instinctively want to leave behind offspring (and the healthy among us hope for them to not have their livelihood threatened by some endangered fish), but believers have been ordered to “be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth“, and that requires something more.

Sometimes believers are more acutely aware of the spiritual struggle underneath what can easily be described in merely socioeconomic terms.  It’s not untrue to claim that our adversaries hope to exploit us economically.  Perhaps it’s even more true that they wish to make us dhimmis.

But not even all believers understand what’s ultimately at stake, the nature of our adversaries.  We see it in terms of economics, they have religious fervor.  Novaseeker:

I think that this is also why the  culture war and the political war have been so generally unsuccessful.  The underlying issue — the underlying morality, the underlying war about what is moral and what is the basis for that — is a spiritual and/or religious conflict, and one being waged with all kinds of weapons as well: artistic, cultural, political, educational, bureaucratic/corporate, etc.  I think this is often missed by many on “our side” of this conflict, because we tend to see the other side as “Godless narcissists”, when in fact they view themselves as the truly moral people who have progressed beyond the morality we have, which they consider to be primitive, obsolete and practically Neanderthal in nature.  In other words, far from perceiving themselves as Godless narcissists, they instead see themselves as morally more advanced, and see our side as being retrograde, backwards, and obstinate in both of these, in moral terms, and therefore, by their own moral standards, fundamentally immoral and evil.

With righteous indignation, they claim the mantles of tolerance, non-judgementalism, and compassion as they hound us from our jobs and polite society for disagreeing with them.  In response, we hope to seem as milquetoast and non-threatening as possible ourselves, assuming that by adopting the “virtues’ of the enemy that the enemy will see us as fellow human beings and maybe throw a little “tolerance” our way, just like they do for the urban drug lords.

Instead they just smell blood, they think we’re weak, that they’ve got us on the run.

And they’re right.

For those of you disinclined to see the spiritual aspects of our struggle, observe the recent dismissal of Eich from Mozilla.  Is that the mindset of those who merely wish to be left alone to carry out their alternate lifestyle choices?  Someone who can agree to disagree?

Quite to the contrary, it’s the mindset of a true believer, a “crusader”, a man who will not be satisfied with your compliance but requires your submission.  At first, gay marriage proponents claimed “we don’t want to interfere with your beliefs, just let us express ours.”  Today, it’s “photograph my wedding, bitch!”

Will it stop with forcing all bigoted homophobic participants in the wedding industry to either suck it up or go out of business?  What about the churches that won’t perform the ceremonies?  Should you really get a tax exemption for homophobia?  Will it be permissible for a secular “homophobe” like Roosh to try to keep gays from commenting on his website?

If their views on “climate change deniers” are any indication, the moment they have the power to make you hurt for apostasy, they will.

Donal Graeme sums up the situation well [emphasis mine]:

What is going on now is nothing more, and nothing less, than a war for the Soul of Western Civilization. A campaign is underway to remove the last (overt) traces of Christianity from what used to be known as Christendom, or what we more commonly refer to now as Western Civilization. In fact, campaign might be too generous. Because by all appearances the adversary has already all but won this war, and is in the process of securing its victory.

Correct, but notice the words in bold.  Despite the dire nature of the realities they convey, it’s not over dammit.  The “campaign is underway”, but it’s not yet complete.  They’ve “already all but won”, but they have not won.  Even if it’s in the “process of securing its victory”, that victory is not yet secure.

And this is why I choose to fight, for despite all they have in their favor, despite the injustices perpetrated by the courts, the fiscal mess that not even Hell could devise, the mindless blather of American culture, the manly women and girly-men, and all the rest, there’s still a chance.

And even if there’s not, I’m acting as though there is.

Despite my immense respect for the manosphere, I think we make the mistake of being simultaneously too pessimistic and too optimistic.

The pessimism is in regards to the current state.  List all the evils out there for me yet again, I know.

But try telling a North Korean that we here in the West with our internet, ability to speak our minds more or less freely, unrestricted legal ability to move or change jobs without government permission, access to firearms (at least in the US and a few other random places), and fairly high living-standards that we’re just dust in the wind with no real control over our own lives.

Watch Mugabe and the White African and tell me that race-based politics has gotten out of control.

Tell the Egyptian Copts, or Syrians who’ve been beheaded with rusty knives, or Pakistanis, Iraqis who’ve been massacred in church, that we’re not allowed to freely express our faith as Christians.

Study up on Stalin’s show trials and then talk about our messed up legal system.

Spend some time in Cuba and then bitch about media censorship.

You get the idea.

I’m painfully aware that anything I’ve listed above can happen here, and I know that if we don’t turn things around and fast they will.  But one thing of immeasurable importance that we’ve got to keep in mind is that even though this stuff could start here any day, it hasn’t started yet.  Okay, maybe it’s started, but really started.  Hell no, it hasn’t.

You might lose your job as a reporter for being to hard on Obama, but you won’t go to the Gulag.  Yes, there’s a difference, and it’s huge.

History is replete with underdogs somehow pulling through.  Aside from countless Biblical examples like Jonah turning around Nineveh to eleven terrified dudes revolutionizing the world, until the surprise attack on Trenton the American Revolution had no chance of succeeding, the Allies in early 1942 had a military advantage virtually nowhere, the 1969 Mets, etc.

Besides, the manosphere is full of some of the greatest minds out there, and our opponents are snivelling, cowardly, feminized weasels.  One of the greatest forces pulling us leftward is the mindset of the young, unmarried, female, and nobody understands how she thinks better than us.  They can ostracize us, but we don’t give a fuck if people like us.  They can get us fired from our jobs, but I bet if we got organized we could arrange it so that any man gets fired for standing up for his beliefs could find another one within days.  They control the levers of international finance, but can they plant a garden?  Shoot a deer?  Survive for more than two days without electricity?  Handle looking bad in front of their friends?

Have you actually seen how quickly these morons can fold when they’re actually confronted directly?

If one of us somehow “scores” a live interview with Candy Crowley, if she makes him look bad, whatever.  If he makes her look like a moron, she’ll feel pain.  She’s got a reputation to protect, something to lose.  All we got is a lust for justice.

They may have all the big guns, but so did the Spanish Armada.

On the other hand, maybe it’s already over.  “Enjoy the Decline”, the poolside seat.

But I think we might want to keep in mind that if the pool’s spewing molten lava, you won’t want to sit there.  Maybe if it gets bad enough you won’t be able to protect your canned goods without facing death on a daily basis.  Think you’ll be allowed to home school?  Live out your faith anywhere besides your church building itself (if even there)?  Sure there were escape routes from Stalin’s USSR, Pol Pot’s Cambodia, and Hitler’s Germany, but a hell of a lot more people thought they could get out in time than actually did.

It could be either totalitarianism or Mad Max anarchy, but both suck, suck hard, suck a lot worse than most of us seem to recognize.  In neither case will there be many peaceful little spots for you to hide away with the kids.  I’m currently reading a book on Stalin’s Russia, and the mindset that starved millions of Ukrainians is sadly not far removed from the mindset of Nancy Pelosi or the Gaystapo.  I’m sure you could protect yourself for a while.  Maybe you’ll find a way to bribe the border guards (you’d be amazed at how practical border fences can magically become when they want to keep people in).  I’d rather it not get to that point in the first place.

(I’m also sure that those of us who survive the next epoch of barbarianism would do a bang-up job of creating a new society out of the ashes.  Let’s just hope it doesn’t take as many centuries for civilization to resurrect as it did the last time.)

So I’m going to fight, even though in Donal asks, “Will we keep fighting, even though we cannot win (by ourselves, at least)?”  Among the reasons I’ll fight is that I don’t believe we’re “by ourselves”, that despite all the crap I’ve been through I’ve much to be grateful for, that as much as we’ve lost, there’s still so much more to lose.

This is why I suspect that the naive Christians among us will be those who stick it out most fervently.  Someday we might have to flee to metaphoric catacombs, but as long as I’m able to stay above ground, I plan on using my admittedly meager voice to speak Truth as well as I know how.

For I know that even if they take my life, they can’t ever rob me of what really matters.  My dignity, my beliefs and my soul don’t depend on any earthly force.

I don’t have all the answers, but I do have a few.  If you’ve got ideas, if you’re in this fight with me, let me know.  We need to become less of an internet community and more of a real community.  We need to use our knowledge of Game to master rhetoric (the same damn thing with different applications and goals).  We’ll never be a herd, but we can start acting more like a pack, get aggressive, change not only the occasional mind of a lonely kid with his laptop but masses of people.

It’s difficult, almost impossible, but it can be done.

At least I have to act like it, for if twenty years from now I find myself in some work camp in exile in Alaska and I knew that somehow this could have been avoided and I didn’t do everything I could to stop it, if I looked back at all the freedoms I have today and how I gave up before I even started because of the Bilderbergers or mainstream media or whatever other excuses held me back, if I cowered before the soft power of today that leads to the iron boot of tomorrow, if I failed to be the man God made me to be…

I could never forgive myself.

Could you?


Posted in Alpha, Culture, Family, Feminism, Politics, Religion, Rhetoric | 19 Comments

Mission for the Manosphere: Background

I’ve previously divided the manosphere into two groups and predicted a schism that I’m happy to declare has yet to occur.  I hope I continue to be wrong on that count indefinitely.

But there’s another taxonomy of sorts that depends less on our sense of morality and more on the tactics we adopt in response to the broken world around us.  With very few exceptions virtually all of us think we’re headed straight to hell in the proverbial handbasket.  From PUA’s to those who detest Game, MGTOW’s to traditional marriage advocates, we know that the sexual marketplace is horribly distorted and that society can’t recover until that changes (not to mention our national debt, vulnerable infrastructure, the totalitarian instincts of much of our government, etc.).  The categories below group us according to what we think we should do in response.

Unlike my previous categorizations, these are more fluid.  It’s perfectly consistent to advocate one approach in one area and another in others.  Even the stronger advocates of one approach tend to respectfully disagree with those who advocate the others, or at least sympathize to some degree.

Merely agreeing on how and why we’re so messed up provides us with a lot of common ground.

In this post I’m merely describing the current manosphere as I see it.  My take on each of these approaches in terms of which is most likely to work and/or most moral will follow shortly.

The first of these approaches is to exploit it.  Exploiters are primarily the PUA’s, those who might prefer that women adopt a more traditional sexuality but who figure that’s not going to happen so they might as well get while the getting’s good.  There may be other ways in which manosphere writers advocate taking advantage of our uniquely distraught society, but I’m unaware of who or how.

The second is to avoid it.  Avoiders are the MGTOW’s, the men who focus on being as self-sufficient as possible, who refuse to get married or have children for fear of either supporting a corrupt system or getting burned by it.

And the third is to fight it.  Most of us are fighters in one way or another, for even writing a blog indicates at least some desire to try to change something about what’s going on, even if it’s to turn a few niceguys into Alphas.  Rare is the blogger who’s completely given up on making some sort of difference.

But there are those who’ve adopted fighting as their primary raison d’être.  These include MRA’s and most of the Christian manosphere.  MRA’s focus on legal and policy issues like reforming child support, whereas Christians focus more on facilitating a moral transformation.  There’s some concrete disagreement between the two; some see Men’s Rights Activism as being too similar to “feminism for men”, and not all fighters support Christian values.  Nevertheless, the differences between the fighter factions are primarily one of emphasis.  In no way do Christian manosphere bloggers oppose automatically awarding children to the mother after a divorce, nor do MRA’s think that women should jerikson their husbands.  Nevertheless, secular fighters typically emphasize legal reform, whereas religious fighters tend towards promoting societal moral reform.

Overall, the manosphere is largely pessimistic.  The vast majority of exploiters and avoiders, as well as a hefty chunk of fighters, believe that there’s literally no way to turn things around in time to avoid utter catastrophe.

Among these pessimists, many concern themselves almost entirely with how to manage their own lives after we turn Mad Max.  They’ve sought out beneficial locations and means of survival through which they think they’ll be able to better manage after an economic collapse.  Stockpiling food, precious metals, ammunition, and other post-apocalyptic necessities are among their priorities.

Others among the pessimists are already making plans on how to resurrect civilization after its current incarnation dies.  Although they may agree with specific policy proposals to forestall impending doom, neo-reactionaries largely eschew promoting policies within our current political paradigms or tweaks and fixes to our present government (at least those I’ve encountered, feel free to enlighten me if I’m somehow reading this wrong), instead favoring broad theoretical prescriptions for how we might best start from scratch after it all goes to hell.  I’m sure that there are other who fall into the “how to best resurrect civilization from the stone age” camp, but neo-reactionaries strike me as the most predominant in this camp.

Yet some remain who actually think it’s possible to change things for the better, or even avoid becoming Somalia’s North American branch.  Indeed, even the most optimistic among us know that the odds are most decidedly in favor of some sort of collapse.  Nevertheless, some insist that every effort must be made to salvage what we’ve got, that with a little Help our efforts might actually accomplish something tangible, that maybe the elderly won’t have to fight autistic children to the death for leftover dog food.

Soon, I’ll examine each of these perspectives in more detail, putting forth my two cents on how I think we can most efficiently proceed.

Posted in Culture, Politics, Religion, Uncategorized | 10 Comments

Gun Shy

Last week was a pretty good one for Alpha Is Assumed.  One of my older posts on the taxonomy of lefties was strongly recommended by science fiction writher John C. Wright in a fantastic essay on The Unified Theory of Madness.  The thoughts of a friend I cited inspired a fascinating post and discussion over at Donal Graeme’s.  I attracted some new readers who informed me that they’re thrilled to have found my blog and are in the process of spending entire afternoons reading as much of what I’ve written as they possibly can.

And of course, in The Red Pill Review by Frost, a new manosphere aggregator ranked this post as # 1 for the week.  As you can see, Frost knows what he’s doing.

This type of thing is nothing for the big blogs, but it means a lot to me.  I love spreading ideas and knowing people are paying attention to them.  When this stuff happens, it leads me to believe that it’s entirely possible that I might eventually not only play a role, but play a prominent role in dissecting the mess we’re in and diagnosing what we should do about it.

I’m hitting a groove and on my way up.

So of course this week I have no desire to write whatsoever.  I’m extra-tired, pressed for time, and want to focus on other things.  Maybe catch up on some housework (there’s always something around here in desperate need of a good scrubbing), or even better:  just chill.

This is a pattern I’ve had for years, and it’s one I can finally attribute to my feminized upbringing.

My parents divorced when I was three.  At first, it didn’t seem to affect me in the slightest.  As my mother was suffering from extreme depression and horrid conflicts with her parents, I was a smiling, outgoing, bundle of joy.  I was about as friendly as a kid could be.  Among my habits was to walk up to girls my age, kiss them, and walk away.

But when I got to be about six, I found myself overwhelmed with bouts of extreme sadness.  I didn’t understand it at the time, but I could tell that things around me were starting to change.  Being “cute” didn’t count for quite as much.  Instead, other boys who were rougher than me got more attention from other kids than I did.  My home life was soft and comforting, so when I encountered almost any sort of threat, I didn’t know how to handle it.  I wanted to “tell on” kids who messed with me, but I didn’t because it would have broken some sort of code, even though I hadn’t the foggiest what that code actually was or why I would have been breaking it.

One part I do remember quite distinctly was that I didn’t want to grow up.

Growing into a man is sometimes scary for a boy, which is exactly how it’s supposed to be.  Ostensibly, I was doing everything right.  The females who were raising me and my teachers had nothing but praise for me.

Yet I could tell that something was seriously wrong.  The rules were changing.  How or why they were changing made no sense, but I knew they were.  Moreover, I knew that I wasn’t going to have anybody around to help explain to me what the hell was going on.

This mess, when to submit to authority and when to challenge it, why kids seemed to like the boys the adults didn’t like, why it felt so wrong to not climb too far up on the tree even though I was scared and Mom didn’t want me up too high either, why the things that Grandma loved me for were made fun of by the other kids, when to make sure I stood out and when to fall back, all of it was something I was going to have to figure out entirely on my own.

I didn’t feel prepared for it, and I was right.  I wasn’t.

As I got older, I got even more confused, but I figured out a way to make things seem just a little bit easier:  hold back.  Don’t draw attention to yourself.  Blend in.  Don’t rock the boat.

You see, the women who raised me believed (as women are wont to do) that the important thing is to be well-liked.  Unfortunately, for me that didn’t work particularly well as soon as I grew out of the “cute” phase.  As a male, what I was supposed to be doing was learning how to gain respect, but I didn’t even know that I didn’t know that.

Other kids bragged about what they were good at and leveraged it for respect (usually athletics), but when I emphasized how smart I was (which meant everything to my family), I was resented for it.  So, I shut up.  I got horrible grades.  I kept to myself, wore bland and unremarkable clothing, didn’t mess with anybody, and perpetually hoped that nobody would mess with me.

I hadn’t been taught that it would be vital for me to hone myself through conflict; I had been taught the opposite, that conflict-avoidance was the epitome of maturity.  If I sought out conflict (which was rare), I needed to learn to “choose my battles”.  If others sought conflict with me (more frequent), there was something wrong with them and I didn’t even need to worry about it, much less win.

They’re just picking on you because they’re jealous.

Fourth through ninth grades were hell, but during sophomore year I found a relatively comfortable niche in which I was largely left alone.  Freshman year I was a D-student, but I turned that around just in time to get nothing but A’s my last three years and get into Smart Kid University.

I finally learned that it was safe to venture out of my shell, but was it okay to go conquer my way through life, kicking ass and taking names?  Not quite.

For the feminized ethic still reigned in me, or at the very least it’s effects.  Don’t rock the boat.  Don’t push too hard.  If you’ve got to fight somebody to get it done, it’s probably not worth doing anyway.  If you’re doing what’s right, it’ll go smoothly.

Don’t make any enemies.

Obviously, this is wrong.  Every great man in history from Joshua to Washington to Edison made enemies.  There are always those who like things just as they are, so if you want to actually change something, some people aren’t going to be happy about it.  They’re might even get pissed and fight you.  As a matter of fact, they might hit you with everything they’ve got, do whatever they can to crush you, mock, belittle, and hurt you however the hell they can.

Yet my people-pleaser programming is embedded pretty deeply.  This isn’t entirely bad.  I’m able to get through to ideological enemies in ways that the more conflict-driven among us can’t.  Anonymous Conservative’s technique for triggering the amygdala to humiliate an opponent is masterful, but I’ve made similarly great strides through the opposite approach of amygdala avoidance.

Still, although I don’t piss off my enemies unnecessarily, when an enemy throws down the proverbial gauntlet and I’ve determined that SMASH! will be the most effective approach, I get an indescribable rush.

But as much as I love such conflicts when they come my way, I still have an aversion to initiating them.  I like it when somebody leaves a snarky or dismissive comment in response to something I’ve said here or elsewhere (no, that’s not an invitation to be a smartass in response to this post), but almost never will you find that I’m the one to start the flame war.

However to get where I need to be, that’s got to change.  I can’t just hope that the radfems stumble onto me here, I’ve got to take the fight to them.

I’ve pushed my way to just behind the front lines in this ideological war we’ve got going, but right before it looks like it’s my time to take a few shots, be nice kicks in and I back away.  I never consciously make that decision, but thus far it’s always been what I’ve done.

For as a child, I was trained to believe that any hit I might take would be more that I could take, that somehow some way most any potential enemy had some sort of leverage over me.  Not only was I not trained to fight, I wasn’t trained that it’s sometimes good to fight.

If I do my job, if I’m being who My Creator designed me to be, I’m going to hurt some feelings, make some enemies, and take some pretty nasty hits in the process.  It’s not exactly how Ace describes in that I subconsciously desire to be caught, I know I’ll be caught.  If I’m saying what I’m meant to say, my enemies will not be content to ignore me.  This is both frightening and exhilarating, but I know it’s what’s supposed to happen.

If I’m man enough to make it happen.  When I go toe to toe, when I get in somebody’s face, I inflict pain.

But there’s still a little six year-old inside me afraid to go into the fight alone, craving the father who’s actually going to notice if I get knocked upside the head and talk me through the hurt and teach me how to keep it from happening again.  I don’t want to stick my head up, to find myself exposed without backup.

My human father’s probably useless, but the other Father’s not.  I got backup.

But I also ask my readers, if you feel so inclined, help me along.  If you see some stupid lefty blogger in need of a smackdown, leave a comment here so I can go there and they’ll get my worst.  I don’t always notice Twitter wars, but if you’re in one and want an ally, tweet me.

And if you suspect that any of my posts might enrage the femmis at Jezebel or whatever other site, post a link to it.  I want those bitches here where I got homefield advantage.

I don’t guarantee I’ll go straight for the throat.  I match respect with respect and give fair warning if it looks like somebody’s about to cross the line.

But if they cross that line, I’ll make them wish they hadn’t.

The goal is to change minds, but some minds won’t be changed; they’ll just have a hissy fit instead.  Yet if their mind is changeable, I’m the man to do it.

So call me on my own crap.  If you see a battle somewhere and want to see what I got, tell me about it.

Internet squabbles are only a warm-up for the real thing, I know.  But the “real thing”, the Grand Battle is where I belong.  It’s time I do what it takes to get there.

Posted in Alpha, Family, Feminism, Politics, Rhetoric | 23 Comments

Jenny, I Got Your Number

Not literally of course, so you don’t need to  get a restraining order or anything.  Even if I had it, I doubt calling would lead to much of a “good time”.

However, in the metaphoric sense I do.  From the looks of it, I’m not alone.

The post to which Dalrock links has a lot of comments, very few of which are flattering to Jenny.  For Jenny blew up her marriage and has subsequently lived up to every manosphere stereotype regarding the modern female, including attention-whoring on Twitter.

Some of the comments on Jenny’s most recent post are what I would consider to be counter-productive.  Typing some variation of DIE BITCH DIE EAT SHIT AND THEN CHOKE ON IT AS YOU DIE FUCKING BITCH YOU WHORE I HOPE YOU GET RIPPED IN HALF BY AN ORANGUTAN FUCK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!! accomplishes very little, and in fact is likely to obscure some of our more rational arguments.  For just like the press will focus its cameras on the weirdest freak at the Tea Party, somebody who’s not already inclined to agree with us will notice the references to fecal and disregard the rest of us making a coherent case.

And against Jenny a coherent case has been made, as anyone with the patience to read through the comments will see.  However, I doubt Jenny is aware of them, for of The 7 Most Common Feminist Insults used to shame and silence critics, Jenny uses about four to defend herself on a prior occasion.  I’m sure she’s gotten a pingback to this post, but I’d be willing to bet my laptop that she hasn’t read to this point; the moment she could tell I’m going to be critical, she’s gone.  Were we a bit more measured in our attacks, perhaps she might be somewhat more willing to listen.

But I seriously doubt it.  The Hamster is exceptionally strong with this one.

I’ve been talking offline a bit with a woman who can be somewhat critical of the manosphere.  She’s definitely on our side in her opposition to feminism and support for natural gender roles, but she finds out vitriol to be somewhat counterproductive.  She’s very big on Christian love, charity, and forgiveness, believing that we can never really know why somebody ended up being a certain way.  She believes that were we more understanding and less quick to criticize, we’d be more effective.

She’s right on the importance of love, of course.  However, although women express love through sympathy and compassion, as men that’s not necessarily how we express it.  One way we demonstrate love for our wives is to hug and kiss her.  Another way is to beat the crap out of anyone who messes with her.

Furthermore, sometimes it’s ultimately not about the specific individual we’re criticizing.  Jenny Erikson’s divorce is about a hell of a lot more than Jenny Erikson.  Can Jenny be convinced to see the error of her way?  I seriously doubt it, but I hope so.

Yet I have to assume that she won’t be persuaded.  The last time I checked, she responded to a grand total of one critical comment at her last post (which has 200+ comments).  I’m quite certain that she dismisses the reasonable criticisms of myself and many others about as quickly as those of the guy who keeps writing about poop.

Her defenders claim we’ve no right to judge her.  In one sense this is correct.  I don’t know the state of her soul; that’s between her and God.

However, I do know that she writes about her divorce a lot.  Even as a quasi-public figure, she could have easily quietly gotten divorced and nobody would have been the wiser.  She might have had to gradually write less about her family and more about the deficit.  Instead, she blasts her personal info to the world, and when you loudly proclaim yourself to be a Christian and then loudly tell everybody about all the things you do that violate Christianity’s tenets, it’s hopelessly naive to assume you won’t get any pushback.

We’re criticized for making Jenny uncomfortable, but consider the alternative.  What if Christian Jenny ditched her husband, aired his dirty laundry for the world, and we said nothing, instead offering to be “loving and supportive” of her broken soul in its time of need?

What sort of example would that have set?  Jenny has fans and lots of readers, many of them female, and I bet quite a few aren’t thrilled about their marriages each and every day.  If Jenny tears her family apart and gets nothing but “support and encouragement”, might not her readers be somewhat more inclined to jerikson their own marriage knowing that she’s got a bunch of warm internet hugs waiting for her on the other side?

Instead, thanks to the manosphere, anyone reading one of Jenny’s diatribes is likely to see that there’s a sizable contingent of us out there who firmly believe that wrecking your kids’ family is wrong.  They might be forced to confront the fact that divorce is emotionally devastating for the children involved, that it’s not all about fun and parties once hubby’s gotten rid of, that divorce violates Scripture, that there are a lot of us out there who will frown on you.  We might not be having exactly the impact we’d like, but somewhere some family might not be jeriksonned into oblivion because of our efforts.

Jenny had the option to avoid this simply by being quite about it.  Instead, check this.  The upshot of the entire article is that following Ephesians 5:22 was a mistake.  She also airs her husband’s dirty laundry, telling the world he has “social anxiety” and about how his moods ruined her precious afternoons.

We’ve got an entire generation of young men who are extremely hesitant to marry because they’re afraid that this might happen to them, that not only will their wives blow up their families but that they’ll subsequently humiliate him before the entire world.  The poor bastard’s going through hell, she’s amplifying it, and in the process she’s helping to destroy the legitimacy of a holy institution that some of us desperately want to save.

I’m going to be critical.

Besides, I have a rather strong suspicion that Jenny being too submissive wasn’t the issue.  Jenny is the type to fight for ten hours to take the family vacation to the beach instead of the mountains, and when she finally gives up credits herself for being able to “submit”.  Can you see the woman who writes this crap as being capable of anything even remotely resembling this or this?  There are quite a few posts up on her blog that were written while she was married.  They won’t remind you of Ruth.

I’d rather leave Jenny alone despite her probable notion that I’m obsessed with her.  She’s free to do whatever she likes, but so am I. If she repents and tries to make good on what she’s done, if she publicly apologizes for the ways in which she’s criticized her husband (yet another reason to not want a “strong, independent, wife” who writes for sites like The Frisky), if she even just shuts up and stops telling the whole damn world about her dating escapades, I’ll leave her alone.  In fact, I might even defend her.

But as rough as things are for any man who gets jeriksonned by his wife, imagine how much worse it must be in the days of social media when your wife’s explorations are broadcast to the world.  I’m beyond certain that her husband wasn’t perfect, but treating him like this is downright vile.

It’s one thing to sin (everybody does), but it’s quite another to broadcast your sin to the world without shame or remorse and encourage others to do likewise.  It’s one thing to feel confused or ambivalent about Biblical mandates, it’s quite another to blame following the Bible for your mistakes when you probably didn’t actually even follow the Bible in the first place.

It’s one thing to know that Jesus loves you (He does), but it’s quite another to use His love as a get-out-of-responsibility-free card.  I know, it can be difficult to reconcile God’s love for us with His insistence that we do things that feel awkward, annoying, or stupid.

But you either keep that struggle quietly to yourself or approach others with it in the spirit of humility.  You don’t brag about how you’re some exception to Christian morality because God loves you.

God’s love and His law are meant to work in tandem.  If you use one to subvert the other, it means you’re trying to turn Truth against Truth.  If you’re fighting God with God, you’re not on God’s side.

Instead, it means you’ve allied yourself with the Enemy.  God bless you Jenny, and God bless your daughters.  I sincerely hope you wake up (or at least shut up), but until and unless you do, I gotta fight you hard.

And fight you hard I will.

On the other hand, at least you’re not a Democrat.

Posted in Culture, Family, Feminism, Politics, Religion | 16 Comments