Western masculinity has been denigrated, and it’s going to get worse before it gets better. For example, a new work coming out by Rosalind Wiseman, Masterminds & Wingmen: Helping Our Boys Cope with Schoolyard Power, Locker-Room Tests, Girlfriends, and the New Rules of Boy World typifies the prevailing paradigm. Kyle Smith’s “Batman in Love“:
Early in the book, Wiseman advises parents that, when driving around a vanload of surging, joshing, insult-swapping teen males who call each other offensive names, you should immediately pull over and admonish the lot of them with a dose of sudden-onset sensitivity training about the unacceptability of politically-incorrect terms (even if it’s not your son who uttered the offending words!).
Although a few of us have been fortunate enough to have been raised without such “guidance”, many haven’t been so lucky. We’ve been taught to value cooperation, sensitivity, caring, all the while stifling our natural instinct to tell somebody to shut the hell up when they’re being an idiot.
So we take the Red Pill, we learn the error of our programming, and we reject it. No longer are we sensitive males, subverting our own interests to those of the Greater Whole. What we want, we get. We say what we think. Banish all this feminized nonsense to hell.
It’s time for a new phase of our development. To quote Captain America in The Avengers, “Hulk, SMASH!”
And dammit, it feels good to smash, especially when you’ve been the one getting smashed for years yourself. Feminism has held you down, smash that ugly feminist! You’ve been burned by being too nice to chicks, smash ’em! Some dumbass lefty spouting on about Gaia, smash him! You’re no longer the pussy you were.
Undoubtedly, there’s a time for that, there are moments when smash is the operative word, times when nothing else will suffice. Smash is soldier with his SAW blasting away the enemy, bullets spraying in all directions as his teeth almost vibrate out of his gums as he grits and yells and kills whatever the hell he wants.
I’ve fired a SAW. It’s fun.
However, we forget that sometimes the sniper can be just as deadly. His skill involves less adrenaline and more surgical skill. Breathe. Relax. Aim. Squeeze.
One shot, one kill.
The enemy’s dead not because he gave in to his anger, but because he was able to suppress it.
Anger always tells us that something’s wrong. Only when it’s properly managed can it be used to make things right.
Sometimes Smash Not
There’s a certain thrill that comes with standing your ground in a dialectical debate with an entitled princess or an overt feminist and watching their heads explode as they’ve never really been challenged before on some article of faith they are trying to peddle to polite society. However, it usually comes at the cost of a major vitriolic dustup that wins you no points in the end.
It wasn’t exactly dialectic, but Roosh got a similar win over the Feisty Woman. Her initial tweet wasn’t exactly diplomatic, but Roosh’s reply was:
Girl, get off my nuts. I don’t want to sleep w/ you. Your prattle has no meaning to me.
Did Roosh have every right to respond this way? Yes. Was Roosh’s reply emotionally satisfying both to Roosh and his fans? Yes. Did he “win” the debate? Considering the ignorant diatribe on her part that resulted, yes.
But he helped to turn an enemy of feminism into an enemy of the Manosphere, too. Obviously, Feisty has submission issues, and she’s not exactly the sweet type of women we’re attracted to. Nevertheless, she’s somebody who occasionally makes some sense, and now she hates us.
I admit I piled on a bit, myself (every so often a man’s gotta barrel-fish), but by then it was over. We won. Her comment thread was inundated with put-downs, some incredibly insightful, and as of this writing she hasn’t posted anything else since.
Was she a lost cause? Perhaps, but we’ll never know. Does it even matter if people like her agree with us? Yes, and no.
On one hand, Truth is Truth no matter who believes it. We’re equally right no matter what she (or anyone else thinks). Also, just like in the world of pick-up, if any one person’s opinion matters too much, you won’t persuade anybody.
On the other hand, as right as we are, we’re losing. It’s possible that we’re going the way of Mad Max no matter what we do, but if there’s a chance that we might be able to salvage something of Western Civilization, smashing the crap out of fellow anti-feminists isn’t going to help.
As ridiculous as some people are sometimes, they all have the vote, they all have friends and little spheres of influence. Some people will never get it, but others can if we approach them right. When our default is smash and we treat everybody who disagrees with us the same way, we’ll merely alienate potential allies. Our opponents can be categorized, and it’s important we learn which type of opponent is which.
My default is to assume that everyone I discuss this stuff with is one of the Benighted, a person who disagrees more from ignorance than malice. If they show me they’re Anointed or hit below the belt, smash. If they don’t, even if they’re a little out of line, my job is to persuade. I win, but getting them to agree with me is far more satisfying than making them cower in a corner (okay, maybe not “far more”, but it’s not about what I want, it’s about advancing Truth).
And when I do a bit of ripping, I put a little salve on the wound, even if I don’t want to sleep with her; raising her up after cutting her down simultaneously demonstrates dominance and benevolence while legitimizing your point of view. Besides, truth spreads one moron at a time.
Yet we can’t forget the importance of a dominant frame. You’ll find that those who are best at the soft touch tactics of persuasion are often those who can really make somebody hurt when they let it rip. I’ve made my opponents cry on more than one occasion.
Some time back I wrote a post on a way to manipulate an opponent into seeing you as an ally. However, if you turn up the volume a on that a bit, you can frame any subsequent softness on your part to your advantage.
Observe Chad In the Company of Men:
Does he smash? Hell yes, but he smashes third parties. This simultaneously makes his audience feel like members of his “in group” and frightens them into not wanting to be the subject of his ire when they’re not around. Nobody’s directly insulted, but everybody knows that this guy can make them look like fools if they get on his bad side.
If you use such a technique against a third party that you know your discussion party dislikes (i.e. Karl Rove, everybody hates Karl Rove), you combine Chad’s frame with one of ideological alliance. You use smash to drive somebody into your corner instead of farther away.
After you’ve manipulated yourself into a position of leadership through fear, you can be the nicest guy in the world, make your points calmly and compassionately, and nobody will think you’re a wimp. Instead, what would be seen as weakness to somebody who started out that way comes across as benevolence.
Rhetoric and Game
Our society is feminized beyond reason. We know how to dominate women, and women are ostensibly feminine. Therefore, we should be able to dominate our masters.
However, shut the hell up is only one of many tools at our disposal; it’s one we can’t forget, but neither is it one on which we should rely too much.
Like I asserted in my last post, there’s a deeper layer of control, of devotion, that comes from being both feared and loved.
As kids, they may have stopped us from putting each other down in the car, we may have been made to play nice when we needed to bash heads. However, when you know how to bash heads, when you’re not afraid to bash heads, when everybody around you knows you’re able to bash heads, being a sweetheart can get you a lot of what you want.
This works with individual women and with Woman in the aggregate. We’ve got the tools. Let’s learn how to use them.