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?
Alpha Is Assumed 
The manosphere’s mission traverses various fields of human existence. A confluence of crises (education, politics, health, economic, identities, to name a few) are symptoms of a crisis in masculinity. Waller Newell, from Carleton University in Ottawa, Canada, has provided an in depth best analysis of such a crisis; for instance, he states that the crisis is expressed in the art form unique to our age, the movies. In particular, men have no role models, and have to choose between being Edward Norton, or Brad Pitt (the names might not be right since, to be honest, I have not watched the movie). Regardless, the choice of masculine role models has been reduced to servile betas, or outlaw alphas. In relation to positive law, both these choices are disastrous. In the long term, western civilization (the backbone of which is masculine labour) will not be able to sustain itself. Newell makes this sort of argument in “The Code of Man.” It is impressive, because he is still “plugged-in”.
I am trying to study under him. Below I will post a short essay on the mission, to give you guys a taste of Newell’s understanding of the current situation. Apologies in advance if I make little sense. The concept is hard for me to grasp. For those who wish to reach the heights, you will have to attempt to understand what follows. Word of warning. Many concepts are disconnected. I write nothing by accident:
“This short essay will begin the attempt to answer this simple question: What are we doing? When I say ‘we’, I mean the men and women involved in the red-pill movement, and derivatives thereof. Some say we are involved in a process of self-improvement, the purpose of which is first and foremost personal well-being, and second the social rewards that come from our efforts in self-improvement. In contrast to political movements of the world for social change that have defined the past three or so centuries, starting with the Renaissance and the generosity of the Medici family, followed by the Age of Enlightenment, the American and French Revolutions/experiments, and continued forth in the various communist movements, most notably in Tsarist Russia; and the national socialist movements in Germany; the civil rights movements, women’s suffrage, etc, this red pill community seeks first change of self, which we recognize to be more or less the supreme entity of being (for each of us, self is supreme), rather than change others. Rather than complain about how unjust society is, and demand that others change so that the and rather than seek to change and adjust every nook and cranny, we change ourselves.
In the same way that Copernicus had the audacity to argue that the earth revolves around the sun, according to the testimony of reason, rather than the sun revolving around the earth, according to the testimony of our senses. We are experiencing a generational shift of proportions not seen since the Enlightenment, a turning, once again from our senses to our rational faculties. But instead of a turning in how we conceive the movement of planets, this turning involves a shift in our conception of self.
In order to capitulate the nature of this turning in finer detail, we must from recapitulate where we came from, not as human beings as homo sapiens, but as moderns. Modernity is a mentality. An attitude. Where did our mentality come from? Other men have been able to express this mentality very concisely. The following quote comes from Canadian political philosopher, Charles Taylors’ “A Secular Age”, which is a description of the mentality, nay, the animating principle, that began the modern age:
‘The starting point is [not heirarchy and command, but] rather a race of equal
individuals designed to enter with each other into a society of mutual benefit.
Gradually this normative order turns into a blueprint for a kind of society the reconstruction aims at. These rational, sociable beings, meant to live together in respect for each other’s life and liberty, are also meant to preserve themselves by industrious exploitation of their natural surroundings. Properly carried out, this exploitation leads to economic growth. The right to property both follows immediately from this exploitation of nature, and also makes possible improvement and hence economic growth.
And so what emerges out of this reflection on Natural Law is the norm of a stable order of industrious men in the settled courses of their callings, dedicating themselves to growth and prosperity, rather than war and plunder, and accepting a morality of mutual respect and an ethic of self-improvement. This order seemed to be more than just a good idea; it was the rational, and God-given, way of living. To aim for this is not to follow a whim, or a particular preference; it is to head to where things were destined to go, a terminus ad quem in which everything is in its proper place.
This is the natural order of things, not in the sense that it is at work in history – … – but rather in that it is the reasonable, even providential goals of our efforts.
These efforts can now be conceived as taking place over a long time horizon. We are at the birth of the concept which now goes under the name ‘development’.’
In a sense, we are continuing what was begun in the Renaissance, that is, the drive to assert ourselves on nature, to master it technologically so that we may satisfy our passions and live in comfort.
How can we do this? Should we do this. I would argue that a look at the constitution of the physical universe demands that we engage in this mastery of nature. We are parts of a whole. We exist and live on a planet situated in a solar system, which part of a system which we call the Milky Way Galaxy, which is one of many galaxies that exist in a universe, the natural extent which is unknown to us. The universe is, in the classical Newtonian sense, is a mechanistic whole made up of elementary particles with mass. The laws of physics apply equally everywhere to all matter. These particles move, i.e. displaced over space, in three dimensions over time. From an inertial frame of reference, all particles have velocities and accelerations. Having acceleration all particles exert forces on other particles and in turn have forces exerted upon them. These patterns have been detected and cognized by human minds within the past 350 years with increasing precision. The aim of this pattern finding is in order to make law-like generalizations, whence it is possible to predict physical phenomena and consequently control it. In a universe, we control external nature. We make new inventions, ‘we have constructed an environment in which we live in a uniform, univocal secular time, which we try to measure and control in order to get things done.’ All efforts of control were directed outwards, towards the external world. External processes were to be quantified, analyzed, understood, made predictable, and rendered to our wills in order to facilitate our naturally occurring desires. This attitude towards things was transferred over to people. In a word. People were viewed to be perfectible, not by their own efforts, but by the efforts of an enlightened ruling elite. Thus, all political movements presume that change can be instigated by controlling specific variables of an external nature.
How then, is this turn necessitated? What made our civilization great was the human mind. The world which resulted is the one in which we live. Yet, it is incomplete. This incompleteness is felt, but rarely is it verbally articulated. In academic circles, especially at the graduate and post-graduate level, this feeling of incompleteness has (for almost a century) been identified as ‘the malaise of modernity.’ Robert Pippin articulates:
‘The invitation to be modern is simply an invitation to blind oneself to human concerns, as
they are experienced by humans; instead, to impose, wilfully, a mathematical order on
everything, resulting in a floating, sterile world, whose inhabitants are incapable of understanding such things as the ignobility of adultery, and whose political and social authority stems exclusively from their power to produce the best weapons (the floating island itself)…The modern project can be best assessed by attention to its historical consequences, by asking whether it can fulfill its extravagant promises. [It is] an act of massive hubristic will, but its implications, presumably more and more visible in modern life, are ultimately disastrous, even nihilistic…Modernity looks to be thoughtlessly committed both to extending mere biological life indefinitely and purposelessly, and to a constant, anxious, preparation for the obliteration of life. In social terms, modernity promised us a culture of unintimidated, curious, rational, self-reliant individuals, and it produced, so went the later charge, a herd society, a race of anxious, timid, conformist ‘sheep,’ and a culture of utter banality.’
We are doing what our fathers could not do, and what our contemporaries, with their lack of self-awareness, their fear, their incapacity of assessing what is good for them, prevent us from doing. We are making ourselves into ‘a culture of unintimidated, curious, rational, self-reliant individuals.’ The social conditions provided for us make the time ripe for this change. All of history, with an uncountably infinite set of causes has culminated to this point. Yet it is up to us to turn this cause into an effect. We are engaged in an act of pure creation; the thing that is being created is a self. A masculine self. By the laws of thermodynamics, energy can neither be created or destroyed. It can, however, be organized in any manner that is beholden to rational principles. This spirit of control, which was directed outwards towards a mechanistic external universe, is being directed inwards, towards our passions, impulses and desires, the sum of which constitutes the concentrated point of rational awareness, the self. So instead of seeking to control the constitution of atoms, by building atomic weapons in order to destroy, we seek to control ourselves, so that we may create ourselves. The same order our fathers, grandfathers, great-grandfathers, and so on back, imposed on physical nature is now in the process of being imposed on human nature. The human mind is again behind the scenes, although its object of concern is rotated inwards towards itself, and the constructs which make its existence possible, i.e. the human body. Thus, we have the turn.
Further questions exist. The questions that I want to answer are these: what is it about the external world and the internal world that allows each to be ordered in accordance to the designs of the human mind? Why is it that the nature of things, including human nature, seems to demand that human beings order them in a specific way? A possible solution is that both systems, external and internal, require a flow of energy. Matter is, after all, energy. There exists both gravitational potential and human potential. This potential is stored energy, without reality, but with the possibility to be real. Humans make their potential actual by means of action. Action requires motion, or work. In physical terms, work is defined in terms of a change in kinetic energy, or half the mass times velocity squared. Velocity is a type of motion. The same laws that govern human nature govern nature, yet the manner in which each law is applied differs. In the case of physical nature, no will is necessary in order to transform potential energy to kinetic energy (as when an object falls to the ground, moving from higher potential to lower potential; conversely, moving from lower kinetic to higher kinetic). All things are automatized.
The sum of human and physical potential energy is stored in the laws of mathematics. Mathematics as a discipline goes beyond concerning itself with mere quantification. These laws demand that this potential energy become actualized (one need only look at the nature of the line integral and its essential relationship to the concept, and act, of work). Of course, humans are more than just an aggregate of forces and energy. We are biological organisms, with corresponding needs and desires that must be satisfied for the preservation and maintenance of that biological construct. The human world is not purely deterministic. Consciousness as an animated entity is beyond quantification. There is an element of freedom that comes with being human, and with freedom comes autonomy. In effect, we are attempting, successfully I might add, to reconcile the old philosophical debate between free will and determinism.
Let us not get ahead of ourselves. This ‘turning’ is in no way unprecedented. It is rational. Being rational, any man, in any period of time, could have access to this understanding. We are engaging in a process that has traditionally been called ‘Bildung.’ *Bildung is the mission for the manosphere.”
‘In accordance with the frequent transition from becoming to being, Bildung (like the
contemporary use of the German word ‘Formation’) describes more the result of the
process of becoming than the process itself. The transition is especially clear here because the result of Bildung is not achieved in the manner of a technical construction, but grows out of an inner process of formation and cultivation, and therefore constantly remains in a state of continual Bildung. It is not accidental that in this respect the word Bildung resembles the Greek physis (physis means nature, as opposed to nomos, convention). Like nature, Bildung has no goals outside itself…In having no goals outside itself, the concept of Bildung transcends that of the mere cultivation of given talents, from which the concept is derived. The cultivation of a talent is the development of something that is given, so that practicing and cultivating it is a mere means to an end. [Cultivating ‘game’ is the means to a further end, getting laid.] Thus the education of a grammar book is simply a means and not itself an end. Assimilating it simply improves one’s linguistic ability. In Bildung, by contrast, that by which and through which one is formed becomes completely one’s own…
Man is characterized by the break with the immediate and the natural[, i.e. his desire to be part of group in order to have his desires satisfied] that the intellectual, rational side of his nature demands of him. ‘In this sphere he is not, by nature, what he should be’ – and hence he needs Bildung. [Bildung is a ascension to a universal, and] rising to the universal is not limited to theoretical Bildung and does not mean only a theoretical orientation in contrast to a practical one, but covers the essential character of human rationality as a whole. It is the universal nature of human Bildung to constitute itself as a universal intellectual being. [In common terms, the human mind models itself on the mathematical model, perhaps the mind of a long deceased god, in accordance to which the laws of physics, mathematics, chemistry, biology, human history, etc. are beholden.]…
To recognize one’s own in the alien, to become home in it, is the basic movement of spirit, whose being consists only in returning to itself from what is other.” [Hans Georg Gadamer, Truth and Method, pgs. 11 – 13]
Above all things, we strive to reach a state of perfect self-understanding faithful the ultimate commandment: ‘Know Thyself.’ This does not end with us, however. Society must change. It will change. If some of us are without hope, let this be your hope. Your constant and relentless attempts at self-improvement are beyond your own well-being. Your efforts at reforming and controlling yourself are foundational acts upon which the greatest civilization the human species has ever seen will emerge.'”
TL;DR if you don’t read this, you are a spectator. It’s okay. Such is your choice. Live with the consequences.
There’s a lot there to take in, but at first glance I agree with it. Thanks.
Both the Spearhead and Free Northerner have outlined plans for fighting, just in the past week. I recommend you go check them out. They both have pretty similar ideas which I think are awesome and I support. As part of my continuing fight, I am still on the gun control thing which has escalated in the past four months dramatically. I have spoken to a major pro2A organization at length, worked on a strategy outline for them, and have in the past couple of weeks been “sending it around” to some sympathetic (and I would say superiorly intellected) manosphere guys whom I thought would be excited about the messages therein. Gun control is a front in the war against masculinity and the war against masculinity is necessary to move our society towards socialism vis a vis progressivism. I feel pretty confident I have have logical sequence nailed therefore I feel like I am really fighting/contributing by focusing on the gun control. I’d love to have you on board even if you are willing to commit only a small % of your posting time to it; say the word and I can send you my material. I am not requiring anyone post it or distribute it verbatim, it is intended only to introduce the idea of merging Red Pill, r/K selection theory as a strategy to fight gun control. In other words: take the ideas and use them as you please. Let me know and I will send you the information on email.
Welcome back, Mina! Sounds interesting. Send away. My email’s in the sidebar.
I’ve briefly checked out Free Northerner’s ideas, and they sound decent. I haven’t made it to the Spearhead yet, but I will.
Oh, as being as you’re more plugged into this than most, is anyone doing anything to try to overcome our federally orchestrated ammo shortages?
Thanks.
Yes, ordering online from MT and hoarding. 🙂
Why wait:
http://www.the-spearhead.com/2014/04/07/using-the-fireteam-as-the-model-for-political-activism/
Thanks infowarrior, that’s exactly right. Thanks 🙂
Speaking of the Gulag, I strongly recommend Solzhenitsyn’s Gulag Archipelago. It’s a major investment of time if you go for the three volumes (Solzhenitsyn personally condensed it into the one volume abridgment) but it’s worth it. It’s true that we don’t have to worry about labor camps today, but he has a lot to teach us about being mentally and spiritually tough when the world is going mad.
That’s on my list. I just finished Rybakov’s “Children of the Arbat” and read the first chapter of “Fear” (part 2 of the trilogy). It’s a fascinating portrayal of the mindset required to survive in such a warped environment. The book I’m reading now apparently focuses on the purges and is way more horrifying than the first.
But Archipelago sounds incredible, too. I’m sure I’ll get to it eventually.
Martel,
You’re calling for activism, ie, the ways and means used by the Left to climb to social-cultural-political dominance. I suggest starting here: http://www.returnofkings.com/27956/the-8-stages-all-movements-go-through .
The 1st step is the acceptance that the activist method isn’t exclusive to the Left and it can be applied just as effectively for other causes on the social-cultural-political spectrum.
The best advantage of activism is that it’s tested, established, and proven. The Left has already programmed America and the West to respond in predictable and productive ways to the activist method. Others can learn to use the ways and means set up by the Left to trigger the same cues. The how-to literature for activism is abundant and the track record speaks for itself. Folks just need to learn how to think like activists and, together, undergo the crawl-walk-run process of doing it competitively in the social-cultural-political arena.
The competition for normative social dominance of the American community will be fierce. The Left will not give up conquered territory without a fight. They will go into counter-revolutionary mode to stigmatize, marginalize, and eliminate the threat of social-cultural-political competition. Becoming activist is not a guarantee of victory; it merely places you in the arena to begin competing for the soul of America versus the highly capable activists of the Left who already have an enormous head-start.
That’s a great article.
Part of what I find so frustrating is that the knowledge is out there regarding how to build a movement, manipulate reactions, etc. Alinsky was a pioneer of evil, but a pioneer nonetheless. Combine his insights with modern technology and the even deeper insights of the manosphere, and it’s a dynamite combination that has an outside shot of actually working.
Unfortunately, the power brokers and those with $ seem more interested in the stale methods that only work occasionally. Or they just don’t want to rock the boat.
You’re correct that the left will fight back, and fight back hard. Thus far, whenever the left hits hard, the right backs down. We need to grow a pair. This stuff’s just too important.
Just for the Manosphere? Don’t forget you’re just one stripe of reactionary.
I suggest that anyone who believes ObamaUSA is ten years away from GulagUSA learn Russian, Chinese, Persian or Spanish. The whole thing with Cuban refugees getting free shit in America to spite the ruling Communists may go down soon in the opposite direction. Plus, learning languages is great fun.
To certain lefties, I’m a reactionary just for disagreeing with them.
However, by self-described reactionaries, I’m not one. I agree with them in lots of ways, but not in others.
So I’d like to be able to label “us” more broadly, but whether I use libertarian, conservative, reactionary, or the right, it’s going to leave some people out who could be allies or include some folks that others don’t want to be associated with.
I therefore picked the most narrow group I could. Besides, whether reactionary or not, the manosphere’s knowledge of Game means infinite rhetorical potential. Others may follow, but I think we’ve got to take the lead.
I appreciate the rhetorical strategy, though I think you’re confusing neoreaction and ‘reactionary’ as a historical phenomenon, i.e. reactionaries everywhere and at anytime are those people who favor a return to the status quo ante. Disagreeing with leftists and preaching Biblically-inspired tribalism puts you solidly in the reactionary camp as far as I can tell! Or maybe using ‘reactionary’ to describe anyone opposed to totalitarian progressivism is just an idiosyncrasy of mine. Eh. Godspeed anyhow, I’m trying to encourage you, not argue over minutiae.
It’s a matter of perspective. If you don’t fight the system, you may end up in a worse situation later. But if you fight it, you’re guaranteed to end up in a worse situation, and you may not even succeed. In fact, it may end up being counterproductive. Every system needs visible, easily targetable enemies. Do you want to give that to them?
You’re entirely correct that it’s a gamble, but I’m thoroughly convince that if we don’t fight we’ll lose.
True, we might lose even if we fight. It’s true that you’re more exposed if you throw a punch than if you just prepare for blocks, but if you never throw a punch, you’ll never get in a hit.
I don’t want to “give them” a target, but I’ve no reason to believe we all won’t be targets sooner or later regardless. If we don’t give them targets, they’ll take them.
I get your perspective, and I respect it. I just don’t see how we’re ever going to get anywhere if we don’t go on offense.
hoellenhund2: “Every system needs visible, easily targetable enemies. Do you want to give that to them?”
So don’t give that to them. It’s like any competition: you’re supposed to be trying to win, not volunteering to be a plot device for your competitors’ historical narrative. The key is understanding the game – ie, activist social movement – and learning how to play the game to win.
It can be done. These guys used activism to defeat campus leftists in a supposed stronghold of the Left: http://columbiamilvets2005-2006library.blogspot.com/2006/02/press-release-anti-military.html and http://columbiamilvets2005-2006library.blogspot.com/2006/01/milvets-response-to-prof-de-genova-apr.html .
Pingback: Steadfastness is an act of secular subversion. | Dark Brightness
The biggest mistakes emerging writers make, even if they may be professionals:. It continues to be considered being a burden as mostly students don?ft actually look forward to take action. http://is.gd/lcbIpI