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.
But Smash
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.
Alpha Is Assumed 
Hey thanks for the link. No one had commented on that
There’s a phase lots of us go through where we become aware and we really want to make ourselves heard in discussion. That phase is normal, but at some point you have to take a cue from Danger&Play or Mentu and either not waste the time struggling to convince someone, or fighting “clean” and spreading good will as you go.
I’ve found that my ability to put salve on the wound is usually correlated to my sense of confidence and outcome independence at the time – trying to win arguments is really a form of validation-seeking on a mix of intellectual and emotional levels.
Pro tip: if you’re in a rhetorical bind, consider “agree and amplifying” your own arguments. If you can present yourself as cartoonishly reactionary, you can end the argument with absurdity and cause everyone to question what you really do believe, which has its advantages over the long run. You don’t want to get painted into your own corner.
The first paragraphs make sense. Regarding the last one, I don’t get in “rhetorical binds” too often, but if I ever did, I doubt your idea would work for me. It might work great for other people, but it’s simply not my style. The closest thing I’ll do is a rope-a-dope where I’ll let them think they’re winning and then blast back.
>Regarding the last one, I don’t get in “rhetorical binds” too often, but if I ever did, I doubt your idea would work for me.
“And yet, when I was trying to get some discussion of solutions going earlier, all you did was try to be funny.
Odd how that works. Odd how you turn to talk of how ‘Solutions matter more than feelings’ when it’s men’s feelings and women’s solutions, but behave as though feelings matter more than solutions — ‘we must convince women with rhetoric over reason’ — when it’s women’s feelings and men’s solutions.
Odd.”
In that case — https://alphaisassumed.wordpress.com/2013/07/29/your-body-your-baby-unexpected-insight/comment-page-1/#comment-1508 it appears nothing would work for you.
But then again, you gave up before you tried honesty, now didn’t you?
Or maybe I “gave up” because I was getting genuinely disturbed. I welcome anybody here to read that thread and come to their own conclusions as to whether or not I “lost”.
Er “No one had commented on that post and I thought I’d lost the magic.”
>Or maybe I “gave up” because I was getting genuinely disturbed.
Yah, “disturbed” in the sense of trying to avoid the psychic discomfort at having your male-exploitive sexist hypocrisy inarguably pointed out to everybody.
Any time you want to explain your blatant double standard, you go right ahead and do so. But every time you post and don’t do so, we all know what it means: it’s another tacit admission on your part that I’m right and that you’re not only wrong, but incapable of facing up to it.
Every year we men go on a fishing trip. Been doing it for over 30 years. Shit, if we couldn’t put each other down, it’d be a very quiet time.
I have always said this, the biggest difference between men and woman is just that. Men can put each other down verbally, and we all laugh at it and stay friends. Women do it, and they smile, but are now sworn enemies forever!
Those putdown contests are fun, but they’re also training, training on how to take hits and give them, knowing how to hit hard but not too hard. And the more you master that, the better you are if and when you decide to go soft on somebody.
This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; for the anger of man does not achieve the righteousness of God.
James 1:19-20
“The enemy’s dead not because he gave in to his anger, but because he was able to suppress it.”
Good line. Feminists and most women in general know that a man’s weak point is his emotions. Anger is one they can have a field day with once an arguement gets going. She can use those emotions against him.
I’ve found the more sniper type route…a scornful look with a calm voice. No insults…just the point I want to get across. Endure whatever hellfire she’ll unleash but her insults and put downs are ignored by you. Use the SAW as a last resort.
There’s a very subtle difference between righteous anger and butthurt anger, the former is on behalf of God, the latter on behalf of yourself, the former can work wonders, the latter just makes people laugh at you.
Yup…eliminate butthurt anger from your life.
Reminds me of 2 things:
1. Sun Tzu said, “Never fight when angry, or just to please your ego.” This has kept me out of endless trouble.
2. Being noticed by the world at large definitely has its drawbacks. I don’t mind their ignoring us while we gather steam, gain (collective) maturity, and leave behind PUA-speak.
Badger: I often read things that leave me nothing to comment on, whether for their completeness, their thought-provoking nature, or sometimes because the response begets a thoughtful article of its own which has no business littering the comments. Since “Yeah!” or similar strikes me as a lame use of someone’s comment thread, I usually just leave it be. Appreciated, just not commented.
Right about the drawbacks. When we’re known but not really known, the other side gets to frame us before we ever make our case. That’s why I advocate making the most of every opportunity we get to frame ourselves effectively, so I see curious (if somewhat hostile) tweeters that we unnecessarily alienate as missed opportunities.
This makes me want to write some posts on rhetoric against feminism.
You are certainly right about being able to frame yourself as an individual who is not angry and bitter, but who can handle himself with maturity and grace. It’s unlikely you’ll be allowed space to make your case in a fair way, so remaining calm and dispassionate while someone unloads on you is very important. Wait until someone gets to the end of their screed, choose one claim of theirs, and ask calmly how they know that. The more “obvious” the better; pressing on that “obvious” claim, you can press on the form of its claim with other relevant examples, and when the contradiction becomes obvious, either your opponent will be made to look a fool or else you’ll be given a space to defend your original claim in that context. Example:
M) Treating men and women differently is not equivalent to sexism.
F) Of course it is! What else explains the income gender gap? Women do just as much work as men, so it stands to reason that they should receive the same pay. Studies find that women make only 75% of what men make.*
M) So women make less because of sexism?
F) Obviously.
M) What about occupational fatalities?
F) What about them?
M) Many times more men die at work than women. If sexism explains women’s lower pay, wouldn’t it stand to reason that sexism explains women’s safer working conditions?
F) Well that’s different.
M) So treating men differently than women isn’t sexism.
F) Well, no…
M) Isn’t treating men differently equivalent to women being treated differently as well?
*Note ever single one of these claims is contentious. Instead of focusing on all of them, pick one that you have a ready counter-example or counter-principle for which would be easy for others to understand. This depends on your context. If I were with a bunch of economics buddies, I probably would’ve focused on the claim “Women do just as much work as men.”
Of course, this assumes that your average feminist can make logical deductions. You should expect no concessions, only a new argument. At that point, you should bring it back to their original argument and ask if they’re giving up that argument.
What you describe is a brilliant approach for a casual party, conversation in a restaurant or coffee house, etc. Regarding the logical abilities of the feminist, that can be framed to your advantage. There’s your opponent (the person you’re arguing against), and your target (those you wish to persuade). Sometimes it’s the same person, but sometimes it’s not. I may be talking to the most Anointed idiot in the world that I know I’ll never convince, but if I make them look stupid, the girl listening in who’s not saying a word may well end up agreeing with me.
Circumstances under which I’d advocate a different approach would include more formal settings (a talk show or debate) or more aggressive atmospheres like a loud party. Sometimes you’ve got to “watch the clock” and not let the other person monopolize the time, not only to avoid a submissive frame, but for the practical reason of being able to get your points across.
But the ideal way to handle most situations is what you describe.
I’m not going to lie here. Having your internal frame set is a great tool you can use, but you almost always have to use “sniper” tactics when you’re on your own. Your best bet is to teach some friends and then stack the deck in your favor in any social setting. Use group tactics on whoever opposes you and they have lost the battle before it even begins.
JoJ is right about the importance of having a wingman. I know it would help me out immeasurably to have someone like that, which is why I have my eyes peeled for any Christian “Beta” guys whom I think could safely and responsibly handle the Red Pill.
Stooges are equally useful. I have a good friend who obstinately refuses to agree with my arguments, but his means of disagreeing are so absurdly fallacious that I appear reasonable by default. Example of one of his common rebuttals: “That’s why I don’t like data. It’s meaningless!” When someone’s theory cannot incorporate the data, they look pretty damn stupid. Of course, that’s why it’s also important to be brushed up on you studies and to have the ability to explain a variety of social phenomena with a single thesis, i.e. having a highly unifying and explanatory account which the competing thesis does not.
Regarding wingmen, both when meeting women and in discussions, I’ve always done better without. It could conceivably work to get women for me, I supposed, but I learned alone and work best that way. In an argument, one of my biggest problems can be an ally who can’t keep up with me. They monopolize time making irrelevant points, set themselves up for attack, etc. If they’re particularly stupi, I’ll use them for a foil and attack them to gain cred with my opponents, but it’s kind of a dick move.
Regarding studies, I take the opposite approach. There are a LOT of ridiculous studies out there that “prove” some nonsense argument, so I’ve found it more advantageous to simply disregard all of them than to get into wars over methodology and who paid for what.
We’re all inclined to support studies that support what we already believe and dismiss those that don’t. Furthermore, sometimes it can take a lot of work to obtain the requisite information to either support or discredit any given study. Either way, study-jousting is arguing the issue, I try to go deeper.
Few people think campus rape is an epidemic because they heard that study saying ¼ women on campus have been raped; they believe and remember that study because they want evidence to support their belief that campus rape is epidemic. That one is easy to refute (it came from a self-reporting study in Ms. Magazine), but sometimes it’s not. So, I go for the underlying worldview, the reasons why they pay attention to some evidence and ignore others.
If I’m talking minimum wage hikes, there are (correct) studies that show they don’t work and others (nonsense) that show they do. But instead of focus on whatever the Cato Institute found in 2010, I spend my time appealing to common sense. If you make something more expensive (labor), aren’t people going to try to get by with less of it? What if I’m desperate for money or just a high school kid who would benefit from a $6/hour job. How are you helping me by not letting me get one? After all, isn’t the minimum wage always $0.
I find this gives me a lot more leverage. Besides, I’m not very good at remembering numbers.
Wingmen are great, but I’m not talking about picking up chicks. Running game with a friend is fun and makes the experience very enjoyable (especially if they know what they are doing). On the other hand, having a friend who actively helps you with social dominance while you focus on delivering the message is a drastic step above regular game. Martel may be good at dealing with a crowd all by himself, but the average guy is not going to find it so easy. I’m talking about the difference between fighting an enemy with twice their numbers on your side, and fighting the enemy when all their generals actually work for you. It’s not a fight in the second scenario, and that is what a team will give you.
Pingback: Crafting Anti-Feminist Rhetoric, #1 | Anarcho Papist
Pingback: Beta Leadership | Alpha Is Assumed
Pingback: Gunshy | Alpha Is Assumed