Mission for the Manosphere: Background

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This entry was posted in Culture, Politics, Religion, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Mission for the Manosphere: Background

  1. Xman says:

    Interesting. Personally, I use the red pill knowledge as a part of my plan of personal development. I’m mainly interested in practical game knowledge, because I live in FSU satellite. Many girls are still traditional. Anyway, I think personal happiness is found through individual effort first. Then, ego 2.0 activities can take it to another level. But top fashion, fitness, game, philosophy, work and free time management must come first. Manosphere writers generally try to change society without truly changing themselves first. I guess many wouldn’t even try to do so if they significantly raised their SMV. Game is just the beginning, the “easy” part, mostly value delivery mechanism. Sure, it adds a lot of value on it’s own, but the house is built on sand if game is the primary focus.

  2. I wanted to write something along these lines where there is a viable way to intersect real reform while keeping the political paradigm. It all boils down the the real, original 13th amendment. Rediscovering the political landscape before adopting the current, and unlawful 13th amendment probably would spark the true nature of the American Republican that dwells inside every American Citizen.

    Wayne Barbuto’s book “It’s not the law” demonstrate how the current 13th amendment was unlawfully adopted and how it’s legal machinations made possible for the government to overturn and reverse the natural balance of power from the Soverign Citizen to the Government. There was a legal (but unlawful) reframing of the Amercian Citizens (Sovereign entities that ruled over the government) to become a citizens of the United States (A corporation that ruled over cits citizen). (that was to create an underclass reserved fot the negroes at the time, but was expanded for all citizens further on).

    There is a powerful paradigm shift possible in rediscovering this Historical apsect of the US, all that by keeping the true Amercian perspective, unlike the monarchical perspective from the neo-reactionaries.

    If there is a way for America to get back to its original purpose, it’s through this fight. If you’r trying to tweak the system without reapealing the actual 13th amendment (and the following ones), you’re fighting a losing battle because your tweaks will be ruled in or ruled out by a corrupted court system.

    • Martel says:

      I’m not sure of the legal technicalities of its passage, but I support the 13th Amendment as written.

      The 14th Amendment however, is a mess. I agree with aspects of it, but it’s confusing, poorly written, and its sections have almost nothing to do with each other. It’s the first part of the Constitution written in legalese, and intentionally or not, it’s facilitated the trasition from a federal government to a national government.

      Also, its authors may have intended for it to grant citizenship to former slaves, but the way it’s worded encourages illegal immigrants to sneak over her to have anchor babies.

  3. theasdgamer says:

    If you want a traditional girl, look where herds of traditional girls roam. You can find those herds at conservative colleges like Hillsdale or Bryan and at churches of conservative denominations. You can find them at NRA meetings and at homemaking circles like knitting, sewing, or cooking. Homeschool conventions are a good place to find them. I’m not saying that all girls at those places are traditional, but you can still find herds of traditional girls there. Also, if a girl has graduated from a conservative college, consider that as an indication that she might be traditional.

  4. What I meant by the question of the 13th amendment is the fact that the congress was called back into session (from leaving the Thirty sixth Congress in march 1861) under an Executive order of the commander in Chief of the US military (under martial Law), not from the lawful process of the constitution. The bankruptcy in 1861 had placed the country under Emergency War Powers which was never repealed since. So all amendments from that point on (13 and up) have been signed unlawfully.

    If the original 13th amendment would be recovered, we wouldn’t have all the BAR attorneys try to bind us in courts since their BAR titles would strip them from citizenship. And courts wouldn’T be under “Commercial Law” but “Common Law”.

    Anyways, “It’s not the law” is a pretty good read in order to understand legal machinations that enslaved the Soverign Citizen of America.

  5. Truth says:

    The first of these approaches is to exploit it.

    Good breakdown – I’m definitely an “exploiter” not only with women but with everything. The “system” as it exists today makes this simply the most effective way to get what you want as easily as possible. So in business I subvert the system to work to my benefit – so while they have things set up specifically to penalize me (a white male), and benefit others. I have a number of businesses which on paper are “owned” by “fill-in-the-blank favored-group”. So if I am going after something, I pull out the business owned by “favored group of choice” and submit a proposal – viola, easy money. To a certain extent that is what I do with women – I’m not going to marry them, or date them – I want to f**k them. I don’t care if they have a husband, or boy-friend – if they do, great! They protect me if they are there since any pregnancies will be blamed on them. That’s fine in my book and useful, so why wouldn’t I use it to my benefit?

    Look women will cheat with or without me – so I might as well use them to my benefit. I’m not going to be suckered into marrying them, I’m using them for what I want. That is what they want when they are young – and that is when I target them the most heavily. Sure they will complain about it – but if they didn’t enjoy it, it wouldn’t work to my benefit as well as it does.

    Fighting against reality is a waste of time and effort – so choose the “path of least resistance” and use it to your benefit. To do otherwise is just foolish…

    • Martel says:

      You explain the exploiter perspective perfectly. I have a response, but I’m saving it for my follow-up.

      For now, my only criticism will be of your very last sentence. Although I disagree with much of what I describe, I find none of these approaches to be “foolish”. There are differening temperaments and assumptions at work, and these lead to varying emphases and errors. Nevertheless, all of these approaches make sense given the underlying premises of whichever approach in question.

      Although I disagree with some of these premises, all have at least some relationship to reality, the underlying A is A. Therefore, although some are erroneous, I find none to be absurd.

  6. peregrinejohn says:

    Well, of course we’re largely negative or pessimistic. We’re in the middle of the chapter in which an energetic and muscular force for good deliberately turns itself into an atrophied dystopia. Momentum is a powerful determiner of the near future, and standing where we stand makes Musashi’s observation about the acceptance of death a tad more literal than we might like. There is an argument going on whether it is better (or possible) to turn the tide before a full collapse or whether encouraging a fall will get it over with sooner and with clearer vision. I suspect that little we do will have any effect on it, and so the argument is academic. To that end, I may as well try to drag things to a tipping point at which a turn is possible. But I always have been absurdly optimistic.

  7. Joe Katzman says:

    Yes, and…the boundaries are fluid.

    I hang out in a lot of places, across a pretty broad spectrum of opinion. The pattern is common, even if the places are not.

    Everyone has their own path. Some will cross boundaries along it.

    The lucky ones cross because they got what they needed to make them ready.

    The unlucky ones are pushed.

  8. Pingback: Mission for the Manosphere? | Alpha Is Assumed

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 )

Connecting to %s