Schism

I know the pieces fit ’cause I watched them tumble down
No fault, none to blame, it doesn’t mean I don’t desire to
Point the finger, blame the other, watch the temple topple over
To bring the pieces back together, rediscover communication

Tool, “Schism”

 

That which unifies the Manosphere is it’s fundamental belief in A is A (A) regarding inter-sexual relations.  We reject the fantasy-world of “just be yourself”, the After-School Special in which the dorky nice guy gets the girl because she felt sorry for how badly her jock boyfriend beat him, and the idea that we can invent new identities for ourselves and reform our institutions in ways that ignore biological reality.  Although feminism has successfully built a fragile facade of some sort of gender revolution, the Gods of the Copybook Headings have already eaten away at it.  Nice guys get less action than ever, marriages built on “mutual submission” end in violent custody battles, “empowered” cougars haunt the local watering hole hoping to snag some dude to trick her into feeling like she matters for a half hour or so.  Our inner cities, no longer lag behind the rest of our civilization, they are the new frontier, for today’s Detroit and Newark are tomorrow’s Peoria and Des Moines.

“…And the words of the prophets were written on the subway walls and tenement halls.”

Yet we’re not fully unified in our conception of A.  Aside from a small faction that likes things the way they are, from PUA to hard-core fundamentalist, we mostly believe that a natural family structure would serve us best.  Nevertheless, we disagree on what we can do about it.

I agree with Anarcho Papist’s categorization of the Manosphere, but among those who “rail against the Cathedral”, I draw somewhat a finer distinction:

The Hedonists:  The “poolside seat” view of Roissy and others who might like to see our society go back to something more traditional but doubt it could ever happen.  It’s too late.  Women shouldn’t be sluts, but they are, so you might as well get while the getting’s good before the grid goes up and we’re have to trade .45 shells for canned food (or vice-versa).  I would also put the MGTOW’s who either want to screw every woman literally but will never marry, or those who merely want to screw them figuratively and have nothing to do with them into this category.

The Moralists:  The “we’ve got to save it” group that sees the same facts as Roissy & co., but believes that there’s a chance, albeit slight, that we might be able to turn things around, or at least make marriage a viable option for certain individuals.  Into this category I’d place most of the Christian Manosphere, with Vox Day as it’s most prominent voice.  I’d also put here the MGTOW’s who would love to marry but have given up.

We all agree that man need Game, but the Hedonists think it should be used to bang as many women as possible, the Moralists that we need it to secure a happy marriage.  Indeed, there are those who want a wife eventually but don’t want to remain celibate until the magic day, but those are the basic categories.

The Moralists disapprove of the Hedonists not only because they don’t like their personal morality, but also because the more women who ride the carousel, the fewer quality women remain.  The Hedonists discount these complaints as naive on two counts.  First, “she was gonna get it somewhere no matter what I did to her”.  Second, “you expect me to not get laid so that I can set myself up for the death-trap of modern marriage?”

Ironically, despite the standards of the Moralists, the Hedonists appear to be developing a stronger purist streak.  Roissy is a notable exception in this regard, but Game was developed by the Hedonists, and when Game is used for anything other than hedonism, they get pretty damn upset.  Game is about pussy:  end of story.  There’s no point in paying any attention to any woman you don’t want to bang, and it pays off to treat all of them like crap anyway.  To see it otherwise is to contaminate the very concept of Game.  The less you see her as a person, the more she’ll want you.

(Unfortunately, in most of the West, on this last point they’re usually right.)

The Hedonist believes that there’s nothing left to save (or perhaps nothing worth saving), so what the hell are the Moralists doing frequenting the sites of women?  Don’t they know that the seemingly sweet Christian commenter would probably give it up for Virgle Kent if she thought she could get away with it?

To the Hedonist, there’s no point in dialogue; interaction with the mainstream will merely sanitize our beliefs while doing nothing to change the culture at large.  Roosh:

And when the spotlight was moved onto this side of the sphere, who did it shine on? A married woman named Dr. Helen. She made the media rounds to cash in on a book which “borrowed” the ideas we have been masticating on for over five years. You’d think there would be outrage, but there was congratulations instead. She was looked on as a savior who may help us get more traffic to our blogs, a trailblazer that would bless us with exposure in the Huffington Post and The Atlantic. How sad is it for a community to decry white knighting but seek one in a married woman? I will never let a woman speak for me or the community I’m a part of, and the only way to ensure that is not to be a part of one where men are rushing to munch the carpet of an elderly woman in her 60s.

Apparently, there’s no point whatsoever for people of either gender who don’t frequent The Rational Male to understand why marriage has become such a raw deal for men.  Fuck the message if the messenger isn’t one of US.

As one who’s glad that Dr. Helen is getting so much exposure, let me counter that I wasn’t looking for any sort of White Knight, I want to win.  I don’t care if Dr. Helen, Rollo, Jimmy Carter, me, or some cartoon about a warthog gets our points across to the masses; I believe in Truth, and I want it spread.  I’ve been fucked over by feminism, raised by a single mom who loved me but made countless mistakes, taught to stifle my own best traits and weaken myself.  I’m angry, and I admit it,

But it’s not about my anger, it’s about living the life I was made to lead and helping others to do likewise.  I refuse to denigrate Sunshine Mary for fighting false rape accusations or Stingray for promoting feminine submission because they’re fighting for things I believe in, even if they don’t have an identical agenda.

Can they creep in and alter things?  Yes.  There’s a feminine tendency to invade male spaces and change them for the worse.  Dr. Helen and Stingray may share this tendency, but so far, they’re not acting on it, and if they do, we’ll just shut them up.  I’m pretty sure that every Manosphere-friendly blogger would gladly stay away from any blog that tells them they’re not welcome.

But in the meantime, along with Roosh and the other Hedonists, they’re fighting feminism, too.  Apparently that’s not good enough.

This time, it’s not the religious kooks who are the true believers.  Not unlike the feminists who claimed that they only wanted women to be whatever they want to be as long as it’s not a scummy housewife, we’re now being told that Man is to live life on his own terms, as long as he doesn’t get married.

Roosh:

Don’t read the writings of men who don’t get laid. If a man can’t solve the challenge of getting his dick wet, he’s a poseur and internet warrior. He’s a bloviator, a troll. Don’t read the writings of men who don’t know how to walk up to a woman and start a conversation. Don’t read the writings of men who lavish attention on female commenters, because if he was getting laid in real life, he wouldn’t even notice them. Game is an obligatory pursuit for the Western man in 2013, and if he is not pursuing it, he’s not someone worth listening to. He’s weak and scared. He needs to talk to women instead of spending hours a day nurturing his beloved manosphere personality. His world view, contaminated by a lack of female intimacy, will lead you down the wrong path. These fools have tainted a community of men that exclusively stood for getting laid and spreading truth, but now rushes to pardon obvious fakes like Minter.

Was Mark Minter a hypocrite?  Yes.  So the fuck what.

Earlier in the post Roosh says “Bitterness is not a substitute for experience.”  True, but with all of Roosh’s experience, read the above paragraph and tell me it’s somehow alleviated his bitterness.

I don’t want to go here, for I’d rather emphasize what we have in common.  After all, we’ve got some pretty formidable enemies out there and I want all the allies I can get.  Roosh has some amazing insights into human nature, and I know that he understands the good that Woman can be.

However, I’m coming to the conclusion that the secular nature of the Hedonists is going to lead to an inevitable fissure.

I don’t have the time to prove it here, but Man is wired to believe.  Those who don’t believe in a Savior often look for human equivalents, and those who don’t believe in an other-worldly Heaven keep trying to make one here.

Dogma is not merely a religious phenomenon.  As much as I admire a lot of what Ayn Rand had to say, Objectivists will often spout out “Ayn Rand says…” with as much certainly as any Christian quoting I Timothy.  Anarcho Papist:

In the beginning there was Game, and men saw that it was good for getting laid. But then many noticed the apparent contradictions between feminism and Game. And thus the Manosphere was born.

And that’s their doctrine, getting laid.  Sure, oppose feminism, but all that really matters is your mastery of the Goddess Poon.  Decry any mainstream recognition for our ideas if it’s a woman who gets noticed for it.  Judge men entirely based on how often they “get their dick wet”, and if you disagree, then obviously you can’t get any yourself.

Full disclosure, I liked a lot of what Minter had to say before his “fall”, but he reminded me a little too much of what Roosh reminds me of lately to take him too seriously.  I doubt his marriage will work out, but I hope it does.  To me, he’s a bit of a hypocrite.

But to those who care far more about “getting laid” than “spreading truth”, Minter wasn’t just “an obvious fake”, he’s an apostate.

Sorry, guys.  I love a lot of your work.  I got Why Can’t I Use a Smile Face? in the mail last week and I look forward to reading it.  You’ve got some incredible insights, and I’ll get as many of them as I can until I’m banned or have to pay to read your posts online.

But I don’t see your “something purely masculine” having any more success than Operation Ann Arbor did in The Game.  You’re becoming close-minded, insular, and exemplify a bitterness that I don’t want anything to do with.

And I can’t help but think that in twenty years, I’ll be doing far better by your standards than you will by mine.

This entry was posted in Alpha, Feminism, Game, Politics, Rhetoric. Bookmark the permalink.

49 Responses to Schism

  1. Emma the Emo says:

    “Dogma is not merely a religious phenomenon. As much as I admire a lot of what Ayn Rand had to say, Objectivists will often spout out “Ayn Rand says…” with as much certainly as any Christian quoting I Timothy”
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVygqjyS4CA heheh

    “Can they creep in and alter things? Yes. There’s a feminine tendency to invade male spaces and change them for the worse. Dr. Helen and Stingray may share this tendency, but so far, they’re not acting on it, and if they do, we’ll just shut them up.”

    If the manosphere appeared, despite the mainstream message being feministic, can’t they do it again, if some females distort the message? It’s not like you weren’t thought of as “those misogynistic bitter guys” in the mainstream already. Make woman-free sites, start new ones?..

  2. donalgraeme says:

    Emma, I think the concern is the possible manipulation/perversion of the message. Shutting a place down isn’t the end, as you suggest it can be re-opened elsewhere. That has actually happened already with a few sites. Of a greater concern (to some) is the hijacking of the message by females to serve the feminine imperative.

    As for this schism, it was inevitable. The manosphere was unified in its infancy because it was beset at all sides by foes, and because the internal disagreements and arguments were of lesser concern. Now that the manosphere has developed for a while, it has grown enough that the fear of the foe without is less than the disagreements of the foe within.

    • Emma the Emo says:

      The truth survived in worst conditions already, I have faith in its robustness. However… I myself see a lot of misconceptions in typical MRA beliefs, and some of them were heavily promoted by certain women. So I can’t say Roosh is unreasonably worried here. But other spaces have women and didn’t turn into just another form of feminism. I dunno what the difference is. Perhaps lack of “pat yourself on the back for being a victim” mentality (stuff women can relate to), or not letting them impose their frame.

      • Emma the Emo says:

        I think maybe manginas are the biggest danger, but they only start acting up when women are around. Non-manginas don’t.

      • Martel says:

        I’m find with calling out message corruption, but never getting paranoid.

        For example, we’re told never to get relationship advice from a woman. Fine, but if no Red Pill men were available, I’d rather go to you or Sunshine Mary for advice than some of the dumbass males I know.

    • Martel says:

      Perversion of the message is a legitimate concern. However, there’s no need to drop verbal nukes just because of the possibility of such a perversion. And, the best way to prevent such a perversion is to rationally argue against it. Some places/sites will invariably end up more perverted than others. That’s just the way it goes. We don’t have some Jim Jones to keep us in line, which is a good thing.

      • …that’s their doctrine, getting laid. Sure, oppose feminism, but all that really matters is your mastery of the Goddess Poon. Decry any mainstream recognition for our ideas if it’s a woman who gets noticed for it. Judge men entirely based on how often they “get their dick wet”, and if you disagree, then obviously you can’t get any yourself

        the hotel sign is flickering
        and beckons from above
        the master of my own domain
        i sow the seeds of love

        “Work makes free,”
        they’re telling me
        I’ve got no place to start
        oh, how do i escape you
        little fuhrer of my heart?

        fallacies, fallacies
        run for you, dead for me
        all your lies won’t set you free

        Dr. Helen and Stingray may share this tendency, but so far, they’re not acting on it, and if they do, we’ll just shut them up

        my girls all call you Yoko
        say yer gonna kill the band

        I’ll be calm and clear, but if I have to repeat myself…

        excuse my attitude
        here comes the hammer!

        I insincerely apologize for this comment, it’s ridiculously late here and I’m easily amused enough when I’m fully awake.

    • donalgraeme says:

      In case I wasn’t clear, I don’t happen to believe that “perversion of the message” is likely or a guarantee if women are involved. That doesn’t bother me, I happen to agree that “the Truth will out.”

      • Martel says:

        I didn’t take it that way. As for me, I think women can only pervert things to the extent we allow them to, and it’s possible to have them around yet also keep them under control. (I’m not saying you disagree.)

      • MargeryM says:

        @Martel: but perhaps a set and stated perimeter is needed? There’s putting something back in line and then there is preventing it from venturing out of line to begin with. Maybe I missed it but I haven’t seen a real discussion as to what and where women should be contributing and what is off-limits. I think it would be beneficial to all of us if we actually knew where the line was.

      • Martel says:

        @ Margery: I doubt we’ll ever have an exact line, but the guidelines seem to be that y’all should remain feminine, communicate through humility (as opposed to shrewishness), recognize that there are some things you can’t know, and do what you’re told 🙂

        There will always be some dudes who will lash out needlessly when simple statements would work. I won’t do that. I’ll be calm and clear, but if I have to repeat myself…

  3. Schism is to an extent inevitable, for the reasons you clearly outlined.

    But, for now, in the same spirit you seem to have in the close of this post, I think it’s worth maintaining what truce there is between moralists and hedonists. From a purely selfish standpoint, we don’t want the newly awakened to come in with a frame that is hedonistic by default. That’s what’s happened to me in 2005, and it sucked. What if it was Cypher who woke Neo up, rather than Morpheus?

    The other reason is that I don’t think the two groups are valueless to each other. We’re smart; they’re smart. Dalrock’s last post on legitimacy was dynamite, and even if I’m still not quite satisfied on the reason for it (sorry Donald), it’s something the hedonists missed. I expect further breakthroughs on the hedonistic side that will be news to me.

    • *Donal. Phone, autocorrect, yada yada.

      • Peregrine John says:

        I’ve been trying to elucidate something along this line for a while, now, without a lot of success. As I said in an earlier comment thread, and our host led this article with, the primary thing about both “arms” of this awakening is a recognition that there is a truth that is coherent, and explains and diffuses the so-often contradictory web of lies some call the Cathedral or the Matrix. Reality is a singular noun, and beware any plural usage. It’s absolute, if theoretically impossible to fully apprehend. Whatever of it you have, you have. But what one does with this knowledge is really up to the individual, whether to use truth to short cut Matrix programming (PUA), try to bring down the Matrix (Dalrock, et al), flee the lies and mayhem (MGTOW), or whatever.

        The programming of the plugged-in tends to herd people along a limited set of paths. A view of reality affords many more options; but we needn’t object to others’ paths, so long as their goals are in the service of spreading knowledge of reality.

    • donalgraeme says:

      Sorry for what?

  4. Interesting analysis on an interesting phenomenon. I offer four commentary points:

    (1) Evolution happens and IS. The Manosphere produced a marriage (or at least an engagement): that’s an offline societal building block! That’s an advance! Whatever change is to come to the ‘sphere, let it. What is strong will come to the fore. Ecology makes might makes right.

    (2) I dispute this: “Man is wired to believe.” However, I will concede most men are wired for faith to fill in their ignorance. I hope evolution is fixing that. The division between the Hedonists and the Moralists presumes faith that is blind to mask fear of reality’s spotty disregard for individual merit on individual results. I belong to neither faith group, but I am with the Hedonists for now, knowing that the solution is the problem. Feminism will kill itself. Enjoy your life, position yourself to take, and do what you can in the aftermath. I think Roissy is with me on that. If he should survive to the pool closing, it think he would act wisely and unilaterally.

    If I could identify with a subgroup of my choice in the Manosphere, it would be the Philosophers. I consider Frost and Aurini to be in that group, and not many more. I read somewhere, maybe from Frost, that there has never been a crowd of phisophers. Sad but true. Red pill is not faith in faith: it is faith in self. It is dealing with facts and doing your best ‘in the field’ without guarantee and pursuing mastery. Roosh appears to be leaning on his hindbrain mastery when he needs, I think, for his sake not mine, the forebrain mastery that is to be a philosopher-king. I thought or perhaps hoped that was his implication in RoK, as in return of philosopher-kings, but maybe not.

    (3) The Manosphere must get political or die. People in it must know what government and culture they want, and want it with self-mastery. If the Manosphere must shatter to get that philosophical-political red-pill reality culture, great! A few people who can fill a political void of the future to my liking as a useful brother in first concerns are worth more to me than many people who can get laid and show me the ropes. However, the latter is a stepping stone to the former for those evolutionarily fit to take the next step. I think we need to be communities offline with a unifying culture offline, because in isolation we are too easily picked off of suffocated. The MM-Kate engagement should have been celebrated, as well and the philosophical building blocks MM gave us to consider, and reconsider and red-pill.

    (4) Though ‘A is A’ is very important, in fact fundamental, I think it means nothing without ‘I am I’. Those without ‘I’ never grasp ‘A’: they can’t. ‘I’ is the very first ‘A’, the core of the fundamental. In my opinion, the uniting red-pill principle of fact is fact means nothing without self is self, and not a fungible unit of the collective, not a unit equal to women or to men or to any else. It seems to me that ‘faith’ is antithetical to actually solving our problems. Women are emotionally anachronistic per gene evolution. We harmonize with that fact of fail.

    I believe religion will be emotionally anachronistic per meme evolution, and it’s dated now. The fact that religious conviction yields mortal fruit has everything to do with community resources of fellow believers here on earth, and religion is an effective political and cultural bonding agent, but it is weak compared to philosophy. Until there is a crowd of philosophers, religion will be a contender for arranging society. However, religion must evolve to keep up with the times, or down, and in these times a step forward is to be accomplished with X steps backward and X+1 steps forward. The ground is ripe for I am I, which is why the Nu Wurld Odor is doing so well and is so hell bent on destroying rival systemic thinkers who can’t be turned with faith.

    “Free government is founded in jealousy, and not in confidence.” –Thom. Jefferson

    • Martel says:

      Point 1: Yes, and evolution is an uncontrollable phenomenon. I think that’s what bothers some people. You can start out as the leader, but if your followers out-evolve you, it doesn’t help your ego much. Some people accept this, others fight it. People still regard Mystery as a pioneer, but he’s not considered the guru he used to be. He seems fine with that. I’m not so sure that Roosh would.

      2. You may be more in the Hedonist camp, but like Roissy, you’re obviously still an ally. You disagree over what can be done, but you’re not tearing into those who disagree with you. If some of us are a bit too idealistic for your taste, you’ll try to rationally convince them to act differently. This puts you into the healthier of the Hedonist camps.

      3. We will need to get more political, and this requires evolving. “Don’t read any sites by anyone who doesn’t get as much pussy as me” doesn’t help that process along. We all have different strengths and stuff we emphasize. If somebody emphasizes something more than we’d like, we shoud just go to another site–not try to destroy it.

      4. I agree on the primacy if I, which in long form I call “I am what I am”. However, I see no contradiction between it and my faith, for under my belief system we are each held accountable as individuals and rewarded accordingly. My I incorporates biological self-interest as well as one’s beliefs and ideals. I is an end in itself, but it’s also where A (what is) and G (what should be) meet. I’d love to have an entire blog on just this stuff, but I have to have a job.

      If philosophy can be as effective as you claim, it’s only lived up to its potential a mere handful of times throughout history (if that). I have no problem with philosophy, but thus far I’ve seen philosophy without religion go off the rails far too often for me to think it could ever suffice. I concede I haven’t thought through every possibility, but people as they are (A) crave more than the coldly rational and seem to always seek an ideal (G). When secular philosophies try to provide that ideal, they become destructive and every bit as dogmatic as any religion.

      But if it can be done, it’s folks like you who would do it.

  5. Just Saying says:

    “The Hedonist believes that there’s nothing left to save (or perhaps nothing worth saving)”

    Hmmm… Obviously I self-identify as a Hedonist – not because I think there is nothing worth saving, but because I see no point in wasting my valuable time, effort, and money on something that the very people I would be trying to help would vilify me for. So why bother? Isn’t it better to enjoy them, and move on to the next one in line? It isn’t that I think the ones I’ve enjoyed are “worthless” but that there are plenty more, and I am male with a different set of evolutionary directives. Why should I bother with women who are screwed in the head – other than to be sure that their bodies follow suit? How is it in my best interest to do so?

    I have at least 5 children (that I know of), all being raised by men who think they are the father – the mother did what a woman should, ensure the best genes for their child, and took advantage of a fool to raise, feed, and educate the little rug-rat. It doesn’t really concern me – once I blew my load, I was done with her – the rest was up to her. It was in my best interest not to saddle myself with such a woman – but other men may see themselves as lucky to be with her. That is their choice.

    Society is changing – one only has to look around to see it. Is it for the better? I really couldn’t care less – as long as I can turn it to my advantage in some way. To me, that is all that I care about for a simple reason – it is the ONLY thing I can control. I don’t waste time pissing in the wind – I do what benefits me. It is that simple – if it were beneficial in some way to try to “fix” things, I would try – it isn’t… So why would I bother? I’m not insane… I am eminently pragmatic…

    • JS123 says:

      Perhaps for now, but you’re living on the civilization built by the moralists. When they are replaced by those who only seek immediate self-interest, you will lose the benefits you now enjoy. Maybe it won’t be in your lifetime, so party on dude, but the future belongs to the moralists. Cooperation with others benefits the cooperators more than screw-thy-neighbor self-interest.

      • Martel says:

        And we need to recognize that “screw thy neighbor self-interest” =/= actual self-interest. Unless we’re just tailless monkeys, in which case, whatever.

  6. Stingray says:

    I read Roosh’s article yesterday and I was rather surprised by it. I vividly remember reading a comment that he left a couple of months ago (though I cannot remember where it was) where the manosphere going mainstream was being discussed. I read his comment 4-5 times because it surprised me so much. He stated something along the lines of, it would be best for the women to take it mainstream for the exact reason Vox and so many others have stated. People are more willing to listen to a woman at this point. (I admit, maybe he was being sarcastic and I missed it).

    Dr. Helen and Stingray may share this tendency, but so far, they’re not acting on it, and if they do, we’ll just shut them up.

    And I will be forever grateful for this.

    • Martel says:

      You may indeed have read the comment correctly, and he may well have simply changed his mind.

      I understand disappointment in Minter, or even a bit of anger. It makes sense to think he’s making a mistake (although to me the jury’s still out). However, to be as virulently angry about it as Roosh indicates to me that there’s an underlying intense emotionalism beneath the (sometimes) rational veneer. I could easily see him violently taking opposite sides of an issue depending on his mood at the time.

      Then again, you may have read it wrong.

      Still, “going mainsteam” may seem great before it happens, perhaps when in the back of your mind you suspect that YOU may be the one to do it. But then, instead of you (didn’t he get interviewed by some mainstream magazine?), it turns out to be some CHICK?!?!?! It’s one thing to make the noble point that a woman should do it, but then when it actually happens…

      • I understand disappointment in Minter, or even a bit of anger. It makes sense to think he’s making a mistake (although to me the jury’s still out). However, to be as virulently angry about it as Roosh indicates to me that there’s an underlying intense emotionalism beneath the (sometimes) rational veneer.

        To paraphrase a comment I left elsewhere… sounds like Roosh has pedestalized, not Minter, perhaps, but the religion that men must remain single and bang as many women as possible, and Minter is the high priest who got caught in a scandal.

  7. MargeryM says:

    I wish I had something more intelligent to say than “wow, great post!” but that’s all I’ve got currently. You hit on things I have been struggling to organize and give form to in my own mind while reading all of this of late.

    What I keep coming back to is that most seem to feel a schism is a bad thing. Why? I see it as being of benefit.

    • Martel says:

      You follow a humble comment with an intelligent comment. That’s what I like to see!

      I’m ambivalent about schism. On one hand, I know that certain things are left behind, that a smaller yet more cohesive group can act more nimbly. On the other hand, we need numbers, and I continually keep my eyes peeled for areas of agreement with almost everybody (which is why I can be so persuasive).

      Rollo, SSM, Roosh, Donal, Virgle Kent, and all the rest of us agree on some very fundamental concepts that the rest of the West currently denies. It would be great it we could work together on that stuff at least. But the disagreements might simply be too much. Only time will tell.

      But optimally I’d rather we have our civil war AFTER we beat back feminism on at least a couple of counts.

    • infowarrior1 says:

      @Martel

      Yeah. If I may elaborate on the thought process of roosh and those who agree with him. To have to rely on women to stand up for you evokes a sense of shame in men. That men the stronger sex has to rely on the weaker sex.

      But I believe that women being the masters of the covert power of social manipulation makes dr helen fit for the job of being the agent on behalf of the men in influencing the narrative. Men are more better at changing the social order by withdrawal and overt force.

      • Martel says:

        That makes sense, but things are what they are. Until I’m prominent enough to take on Piers Morgan and all the manboobs myself, our best advocates are probably going to be women.

        But I think to a lot of us, progress won’t be good enough. We’ll either take the whole damn thing over or let it all go to hell. I might get there eventually, but I’m not there yet.

  8. Ton says:

    Peoria and Des Moines doesn’t have the demographic group to turn into Detroit or Newark. Yet

    • Martel says:

      If Peoria and Des Moines lose their Western civilizational underpinnings, it won’t take long at all for it not to matter.

  9. Ton says:

    LOL liberals are always the same

    Peoria and Des Moines is full of the people who created Western civilization. If the West goes away and the those towns demographics don’t change, they will forage a perfectly imperfect working and civil society that fits their needs as Western civ use to.

    Detroit and Newark use to be filled with those kinds of Western civilization creating people and were impressive centers of production and jewels of civilization (if you want to call city living civil). A new people poured into those towns and the civilization building people fled.

    The only way Des Moines will turn into Detroit is if the people of Des Monies are replaced with the people who created modern Detroit

    • Martel says:

      That doesn’t explain the crap in places like Manchester.

      Unfortunately, the people who built Western Civ are dead and gone. I may be descended from some damn great men, but the extent to which I deserve their inheritance depends on what I do.

      I’m of the “Lord of the Flies” view of human nature. It takes dozens of generations to build a civilization but only two or three to tear it down. Good blood counts for nothing if you’re never taught right from wrong, if you buy into the mental poison that things are great just because we’re us, if you surrender your right to protect yourself or speak your mind to the State, if your think that prosperity is your birthright and doesn’t have to be fought for each and every generation. Some beliefs are superior to others; those who adhere to them prosper, those who don’t fail.

      I believe in the superiority of Western Civilization and the necessity of adhering to its precepts. That’s not liberal, at all.

      • donalgraeme says:

        I’m of the “Lord of the Flies” view of human nature. It takes dozens of generations to build a civilization but only two or three to tear it down.

        Same here. I am writing a new post, ETA undetermined, about the subject of the decline/fall/collapse/whatever. Ace did a couple of posts lately about the subject and it got me thinking enough that I had to put my thoughts down.

        But the essential point is that it is not only easy for civilization to quickly collapse, the natural predilections of the human species will naturally lead civilization to quickly collapse unless active steps are taken at all times to suppress them.

      • Martel says:

        Which posts by Ace? And please let me know when you finish yours.

  10. I don’t see how roosh has much to stand on. He’s already said he’s tired of the game, where those of us focused on both multiple facets of ourselves AND molding a corner of society to live in have a lifetime of work cut out for us.

    Bitterness and burnout are all the hedonists have shown over the long run

  11. The Navy Corpsman says:

    Wait, there is a cartoon with a warthog? Why does NO one tell me these things?

    The Navy Corpsman

    • Martel says:

      Yes. It’s theme is the Ramones song. The hog (Eric) travels through time with a giraffe and a female squirrel in a flying bus that shoots lasers and leaves rainbow for exhaust. Their quest is for Mayan treasures that an evil frog named Trevor spread throughout time and space.

      There’s plenty of zany humor appropriate for five year-olds, but the squirrel (Squirrely) is a symbol for unconstrained femininity, with cleverly hidden hints that only adults understand. Everybody compliments her on her tail, she’s always distracted in her quest for nuts, etc.

      Some see Eric as a symbol for the futility of attempting to be a moral Alpha male, but I think the jury’s still out. He definitely has moments of Alpha (like the time he devoured an entire pack of bedouins), but whenever he’s around anything female that even remotely resembles a pig, he gets wobbly.

      However, in the last episode of season 3 he told a Siberian guinea pig to stuff it after she tricked him into taking the trans-Siberian railway to Moscow instead of his magic bus. When he got back, you could tell his heart was broken, but I think he finally swallowed the red pill.

      Most of the marriage stuff was in season 2 when they tricked the Han dynasty into letting them into the civil service. The giraffe (I can never remember his name) took a concubine (of course they didn’t call her that), but the reasons he eventually declined marrying her reminded me of some stuff I’ve read on the Private Man.

      Good stuff. You should watch it.

  12. Pingback: Lightning Round – 2013/08/14 | Free Northerner

  13. Pingback: Don’t Fight, Win (Part I) | Alpha Is Assumed

  14. A repost of my comment from Anarcho Papist …

    You guys have no idea how screwed you guys are … you guys are about to be swamped by manginas & blupillers … lmao

    Roosh & the pickup & game communities are making a strategic move to distance themselves from the trainwreck the moralist communities are about to become …

    I for one am going to enjoy seeing your moralist communities devoured by mangina’s & blue pillars

    Precisely because the moralists thought themselves above the savagery of us masculinists ….

    BWAHAHAHAHA

    I for one applaud Roosh & the gaming & pickup communities for running like hell away from the coming trainwreck of mangina’s & blue pillers

    I suggest you moralists do some serious thinking & do the same …

    I dont think you guys will …

    Which makes the whole scenario even more hilarious … I’ll bring popcorn & watch you guys crash & burn

    Good times …

    Moralist communities devoured by mangina’s & blue pillars, exquisite, poetic justice

  15. Pingback: The House upon the Sand | Alpha Is Assumed

  16. Pingback: The Quiver | Alpha Is Assumed

  17. Pingback: At What Price Knowledge? | Donal Graeme

  18. Pingback: Han Solo & the Dark White Knight | Alpha Is Assumed

  19. Pingback: Malcolm’s Lament | Alpha Is Assumed

  20. kona coffee says:

    I rarely leave a response, but i did a few searching and wound up
    here Schism | Alpha Is Assumed. And I actually do have a few questions
    for you if it’s allright. Is it simply me or does it look as
    if like some of the remarks look like written by brain dead folks?
    😛 And, if you are writing at additional online social sites, I’d like to keep up
    with anything new you have to post. Would you make a list of the
    complete urls of all your communal sites like your linkedin profile, Facebook
    page or twitter feed?

    • Martel says:

      The only other media platform I’d like connected with this identity at present is my twitter handle of Martel2112 If “Martel” writes for another site or something, it will be announced here. Until then, my ouevre is all here. Hope you like it.

  21. Pingback: Mission for the Manosphere: Background | Alpha Is Assumed

  22. replica rolex watches
    Good day! I simply wish to give you a huge thumbs up for your great information you’ve got right
    here on this post. I will be coming back to your blog for more soon.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s