It’s difficult to deny that there’s a strong conservative leaning to the manosphere. This ranges from anti-state, laissez-faire, libertarian types on the one hand, to a much uglier streak of ahistorical, quasi-scientific white-nationalist sentiment on the other. For our purposes today, we’ll concern ourselves with the former category—and its immediate ideological neighbors. Whatever the case, I can’t count the number of times I’ve read “liberal,” “left,” or “progressive” as a pejorative in a manosphere article, tweet, or forum post.
The rightward lean is thoroughly unsurprising, since much of society’s ills have successfully been pinned on the specter of the so-called liberal (monolithic) left. The capital-L “Left,” the myth goes, is responsible for feminism, for an activist state that unfairly levels the playing field between men and women by force, and who enables and apologizes for a panoply of negative behaviors from women (and indeed men), from obesity to single motherhood to sexual promiscuity. The left shelters the characters we all hold in contempt: weak, white-knighting manginas and bitchy, short-haired feminists.
Truth be told, this isn’t entirely inaccurate. Many of the supporters of those very things describe themselves as liberals or progressives. Historically speaking, feminism originated—and was advanced—by members of the political left. Today’s self-branded progressives and liberals support candidates of the ostensibly liberal faction, the Democratic Party. Despite all that, problems arise when you start to unpack that over-simplified characterization.
There are entire segments of the left that don’t support any of those movements or fit those descriptions. The left is a diverse lot—one that’s become as ideologically fragmented as the right has in recent decades. Subscribing to a feminist, permissive, or castrated brand of politics isn’t an admission requirement to the left any more than subscribing to Evangelical Christianity is one to the right. One problem is that the distinctions between socially left-leaning, fiscally left-leaning, and other three-dimensional configurations have been blurred and flattened into a dismissive cocktail of talking points.
What’s more, many of the people conventionally lumped into the left aren’t very “left” at all. Take Barack Obama—the favorite scape goat of the conservative right. His politics, like those of the Democratic Party writ-large, are anywhere from center to center-right, by almost any historical or global measure. The notions of “right” and “left” have, quite simply, steadily drifted right in the United States over the past decades. Dwight Eisenhower, the famous example goes, couldn’t even get nominated in the Democratic Party today, never mind his own party.
Yet, the average man (and member of manosphere) has, would, and will benefit from wide array of the progressive politics of an activist state. I, for one, like having my seat belts, meat, and drinking water regulated by more than the “invisible hand of the market.” Regulation, of banks and oil companies, for instance—which were steadily relaxed throughout the conservative ascendancy starting in the 1980s—would have prevented, or at least mitigated, a lot of the economic woes that have set America irretrievably back in recent years. The cynical tactic of dismantling federal apparatuses (by de-funding them), allowing them to fail, then pointing the finger at those failures to show how “government is the problem, not the solution,” has successfully convinced a lot of people of the ineptitude of the state. This ignores the idea that the state is only as good as whoever is currently running it.
I don’t like the idea that General Electric pays no income tax and that when I call my credit card a guy in India picks up. I find it increasingly difficult to buy things not made in China. These are, quite plainly, the products of libertarian- and conservative-minded policies in recent decades. Some of these, as we all know, were passed by members of the Democratic Party—like Bill Clinton—who few in the intellectual left would regard as true progressives.
Whether you agree with my politics, or I yours, is immaterial. But, to the degree that, as members of the manosphere, we’re all participating in a form of “politics,” we do need to agree on one thing: a shift away from a wholesale dismissal of the left. If Red Pill Philosophy is the latest version of manospheric thought, and that branch is to mature into a legitimate and intelligent movement—carrying the mantle of a forceful and articulate response to feminism into mainstream credibility—it will only do so by virtue of operating a big tent. Otherwise, we’ll be easily and quickly dismissed ourselves, as little more than another tin-foil-hat, reactionary movement from the extreme right. We’re doomed to a collapse under the weight of our own intellectual incoherence, exclusiveness, or oversimplified talking points. Earlier ideologies from the manosphere already carry the burden of being branded as inactive complainers or deluded bigots, by none other than men predisposed to sympathize with their general world-view.
The left, in other words, isn’t an enemy of the manosphere. Segments of it are, just like segments of the right are. Like attractive girls who push back against fat acceptance, refuse to wear pajamas in public, scorn effeminate men, and take pride in their own femininity, members of the manospheric left are invaluable allies in a war of complicated allegiances. What’s more, the left offers us a set of intellectual tools to build out our beliefs—on matters such as gender and masculinity—into a coherent ideology. Just like the libertarian impulse offers a powerful set of ideas—self-determination, accountability, and suspicion of institutional might—the left offers us protection from the worst abuses of capital, the perils of an impoverished rabble with nothing to lose, and threats to our fair shot in the marketplace. It’s time to drop the dubious catch-all that liberals-are-to-blame.
The left has long—and to a certain degree fairly—been stereotyped for the worst of its members: concave-chested, bearded, skinny-jeans wearing, bike-riding, vegan-food eating weaksters and their skrillex-cut, tatted-up, female-bodied girlfriends. But the left is much more than that. It’s filled with tough, old-school, manly cats with the balls to stand up to corporate abuse, foreign threats, and, nowadays, the corrosive delusions of feminism.
We still exist. And there are more of us than you realize.
Read More: Is Feminism Its Own Worst Enemy?
Arguing or even engaging in politics is pointless.
Indeed. Most of the comments here illustrate that.
Im replying to taterearl’s post because I want my comment to be at the top, so that if it gets replied to ill actually be able to find it later.
I usually like tuthmosis’s posts but i think he is making a huge mistake due to his own ideological blinders. The basic premise of his post is “the manosphere needs to be more accomodating of leftist viewpoints, because if it doesnt we will be labeled a bunch of right-wing nuts and furthermore if we dont allow a ‘big tent’ to be made, we will ‘lose’ because we are not inclusive enough”. This premise is flawed for two reasons:
1. it assumes that if we are more accomodating of leftist viewpoints, we will not be accused of being right-wing nuts. What matters when it comes to what label is slapped on us is not what we are, but what we are portrayed as, and we can be portrayed as right-wing even if we were predominately leftist. Since feminism is a leftist ideology, anti-feminism will be portrayed as inherently right-wing. And in fact, it is inherently right-wing, because feminism is only possible with the backing of a strong, centralized government.
2. It assumes that a ‘big tent’ can only be a good thing. Having an echo chamber for a tent is bad, but it could be equally bad to have a ‘big tent’, if that tent is full of people with different ideas who are more interested in splitting into factions and promoting their narrow view over the main concept. For example, say the manosphere was flooded with leftists like tuthmosis tomorrow. I havent read all the way through it but for the most part this comment section proves that the manosphere is currently mostly right-wing. Do you really imagine that, were we to be flooded with leftists, we would all tiptoe through the tulips together in peace and harmony, focusing on the main manosphere sticking points?
For a ‘big tent’ approach to be successful, setting aside our differences is necessary, but you make your biggest mistake in assuming that this should come from the right-wingers (who make up most of the manosphere) curbing their beliefs to make this a less hostile environment for leftists. Again, Anti-feminism is inherently right wing, because feminism relies on a strong centralized government to be successful. Though we may mock the lispy male feminist who pumps girls egos full of so much hot air, most people will recognize the true enablers of feminism are judges, the police, leftist politicians who support bills like VAWA etc. who are only able to do so because they have the backing of the strong central government that all leftists must necessarily support.
Leftism enables feminism even if particular leftists dont want it to, therefore, it is the duty of leftists who want to contribute to anti-feminism to swallow THEIR beliefs in support of the common cause. Leftists who do not wish do to so will only divide the manosphere into factions and distract us from the central point.
I’m just glad this comment is at the top of the page. What people have a hard time accepting is that nothing is constant but change. People who align themselves with a particular political ideology prove this. The reality is that at certain times certain things will be better. Democracies have their place as well as dictatorships in the overall development of a nation. Things are cyclical. All this ‘side-x vs. side-y’ debate is frivilous. Go get laid.
a much uglier streak of ahistorical, quasi-scientific white-nationalist sentiment on the other.
Aww, it’s so ugly.
Yeah, I stopped reading just about there. That’s exactly the kind of snark that is to be expected from a very biased liberal who is unwilling to even consider the other side’s arguments.
Please op do continue to preach the “good news”; it will certainly backfire and lure even more Whites to our ahistorical, monoracial, Dark Enlightenment.
I’m thinking that’s where your problem originates: you stop reading anything that doesn’t confirm your bias by the first paragraph.
Here’s the kicker: you accuse me of not being willing “to even consider the other side’s arguments,” yet you confess to not reading the other side’s arguments in the line immediately before that. I hope you’re joking.
What’s more, “snark” isn’t a synonym for “something I don’t agree with.” It has an actual meaning, and that sentence in the example above is not an example of it.
One of the reasons why the far left is rightly dismissed by most is because they instinctively reject any argument that they don’t completely agree with out of a comical dogmatism. Interesting to see that the far right is no different.
I read the article, Tuthmosis, and am still struck by the obligatory “white nationalism is baa-baa-baaaaaad” boilerplate. Shoot me.
Hahahahahahahaha
Exactly. How do you know you are dealing with a hard lefty? They think Obama, NYTimes and HuffPo are centrist.
Then who or what is an example of a genuine centrist in your opinion?
The article didn’t mention the latter two, and the healthcare saga indicated that Obama does indeed trend to the center in matters economic more than to the left. Foreign policy, after all, hasn’t changed too much since Bush left office, so there’s a clue.
What you don’t understand is that if Obama tried to get elected in Australia or Europe, he’d be running under a centre-right ticket.
The West is not the world. The vast majority of humankind does not support homosexuality, let alone state imposition of gay marriage.
Most people worldwide would laugh at the notion that the state should be involved in dictating the emasculation of men. And they would be firmly opposed to the involvement of statists in child rearing.
Protip: If you have to go to other countries to find someone more leftwing than you, you’re not a centrist.
No, he would just be further to the left. He wouldn’t have to pretend anymore.
Australia’s more left wing on some things but less on others. White Australia wasn’t that long ago.
liberalism has been destroying society for hundreds of years
For more robust streaks of Leftism you might observe, for example, Otto Strasser.
But then he’s lumped in with Nazis, and that’s so, so unbearably ugly.
If I see another post like this here it will be the last time I visit this site.
if this Stalinist beta posts this apologist dribble again im right behind you
Same here. I wasn’t happy about the whole “everything is amazing” article or Roosh’s stunningly ignorant “HBD” rant.
Solomon,
Sorry to see you go. Bye now.
Oh no!!!!! I will now change the entire mission of this site to not offend this anonymous commenter.
Can I pre-approve articles with you via email or post so that your eyes do not find anything to be disagreeable? Please write me asap in case I have to make changes that are already scheduled for tomorrow. I will also refund all the money you spent to read this site. My apologies.
Tuthmosis, you bitch….you will get used to getting your cries for help answered from India.
If it were one anonymous commenter it would be one thing. Its another if its half your readership. Thats what it looks like, based on the responses to these articles.
Yeah, I don’t think Roosh gives a shit about losing half his audience. He’s where he’s at right now because he didn’t give a crap about what other people think, you think he’s going to change now?
Let’s not forget that Roosh and co. could also get some new readers.
I really doubt Roosh will lose half his audience. If anything more people will come onboard.
@Tuth, i dont really agree with the article all that much, but i enjoyed your takedown on some of the blinkered comments on here. people can’t even take the time to fucking read nowadays
HBD/WN commenters are a funny bunch, they’re all for the manosphere and red pill unless you even slightly disagree with them on their ‘white is right’ theories
Roosh,
You stand your ground. You are right in this. You drag this movement, even if it is kicking and screaming, into respectability, so that all men are included. And that we take and hold the high moral ground.
And the rest of you. I am not your enemy. She is. Get that through you heads. Gender is going to surpass all issues.
This is damn big tent. And the only requirement for membership in these issues are “do you have some balls down there?”.
And if you think you wish to exclude, to hate, because of the color of skin, or whether someone happens to believe in Judicial Review or regulation of markets, or religion, or anything, then you are shooting yourself in the dick.
Let me ask you a question in all seriousness.
How you doing now? How are things going for you on many fronts, economic, social, gender? Winning much?
Separate, divide, fight, exclude, and you certainly will lose.
You’re an idiot.
Roosh you removed your reply to this
If you think they’re not your enemy, that’s because you think that when we’re all the property of the state, you’ll be a relatively privileged property of the state. You don’t much care what happens to the less privileged property, naturally.
History shows that view to be delusionally optimistic. Very few people get to be privileged, and you’re far less likely to be one of them than you imagine.
The State knows far less about what’s best for everybody than you think, is infinitely less capable of achieving even the wrongheaded and destructive good it imagines we all should get, and it has infinitely less reason to really bother trying. In fact, what always happens is that the folks at the top always find reasons to believe that what’s best for them is best for everybody. Meanwhile, somebody’s always getting sacrificed for the greater good.
I think guys like you and Ricky RAAAAAAACIST are pretty funny, though: You’ve got a vague notion that the manosphere is cool, for reasons you don’t understand. Maybe it’s the coming thing! Maybe it’ll be a fad! But to be a fad, you think it’s got to be acceptable to media gatekeepers. Gotta get rid of the stuff that’s holding it back from acceptance on The View and Oprah Magazine, and then it’ll be really popular!
What’s funny, and what you don’t seem to grasp, is that The View and Oprah Magazine already exist. They’ve got that market saturated. The only thing the manosphere has that they don’t is the red pill. That is also the only reason anybody gives a shit about the manosphere. The manosphere exists because the mainstream is full of shit. They’re babbling insane lies at us. If we were happy with the same old insane lies, we wouldn’t be here. We’d be watching network TV.
Maybe you can dilute the manosphere to the point where it’s not 100% valueless, but is at the same time tame and inoffensive enough to appeal to local news lifestyle segment reporters. If you do, that’ll mean you’re selling a product that’s 90% lies. I understand that you feel nothing but contempt for the quaint notion of men helping each other out by sharing their insights about the world, but I personally like it a lot better than selling lies for a quick buck.
Another point worth pondering is that many times in history, people with (initially) very unpopular ideas have ended up winning, and they didn’t do it by castrating themselves and begging to be liked. While you’re off licking boots in just in case somebody might toss you a few pennies, we’ll still be here.
Great reply man, you condensed the same view i have in 1 sweet answer. Totally agree.
topic: does everyone here simply accept the statement of the author that USA or even world politics are drifting right? That totally goes against the supersimple basic indicator of which percentage of GDP is owned by the government. And that percentage has never been higher in the west in all of its history……..
Anyone who thinks that we can get on Oprah or The View is a fucking moron. Even if we expelled anyone who doesn’t believe in open borders, anyone who doesn’t support ObamaCare, anyone who doesn’t support gun control and whatever else, we would still be considered a far-right, reactionary movement. You simply cannot oppose feminism in this country. Even the cosmatarians(libertarians who have leftist cultural views) are more respected than we will ever be.
The View and Oprah will NEVER accept us. Even if we expel anyone who doesn’t support open borders, obamacare, gun control, as long as we oppose feminism we will still be reactionary far-right wackos.
That’s why Ricky Raaacist claims that we only dislike feminism because of “toxic shame”.
Open borders are good for bidniz.
“The only thing the manosphere has that they don’t is the red pill.”
But this counts for A LOT. We know how the world works and how people think. We DO have the ability to turn this thing around because we understand the world as it IS better than they ever will.
There’s no guarantee of victory or even progress, but the recognition of Truth is an invaluable weapon, even in a world of lies. I address this here: http://alphaisassumed.wordpress.com/2013/01/27/are-we-ready/
I know the red pill counts for a lot. I’m here, ain’t I?
That’s what I was saying: The red pill is the whole deal. The only way to make ourselves palatable to media gatekeepers is to get rid of the only value we offer.
And since we do have something of actual practical value in the real world, I agree that we have a non-zero chance of making real headway without compromising.
That’s not to say I don’t feel the odd urge to kick the anti-Semites in the nuts. And while I don’t mind data-driven HBD stuff, the racists who just blindly hate black people are a downer too.
But ya take the good with the bad.
You’re a damn good man, Mr. Walker.
I completely agree that most people will not rise to a level of privilege. What I don’t understand is how that is an argument against the left. Are you implying that left-ism caters to the privileged?
For me politics make sense if people act in their own self-interest. Rich people vote for people who want to keep taxes low for the rich; poor people vote for more subsidies. Whether you like it or not – agree with it or not – it’s a logical behavior. What I don’t understand is when poor people vote for a conservative party which expressly indicates that it will implement policies which favor the rich.
You have these blue collar guys who scream to the rafters about the evils of liberal politics and the glories of a laissez fair market and in the same breath are angered that their blue collar jobs have been outsourced. Guess what? You want your job to stay in your country event though wages are cheaper somewhere else? You’ll have to regulate that. With laws. Enforced by the state. We talk about the feminist rationalization hamster. I think there’s a conservative rationalization hamster as well. It rationalizes “conservative” policies as somehow in their own best interests.
Let me be clear: unless you make a shit load of money or are really lucky you are going to be better off with liberal politics, because, you’re not a special little snowflake, you’re not going to become a dotcom millionaire and policies that are designed to cater to the very few who will rise above the rest do exactly that: they cater to the few who rise above the rest. It simply statistics that that person is probably not you.
Tuthmosis is correct. You can’t have an intellectual debate or come to an understanding with someone who is a blind zealot who won’t listen to you because you’re a liberal no matter how good your ideas.
Fucking this. So many dumbasses on this site don’t know shit about the politics of the last 40 years.
Poor people vote for conservatives and lower taxes, because they don’t want the rich guys to pay, could they become rich them self one day. The American dream I believe.
Or maybe you simply understand the concept that you don’t deserve somebody else’s money.
And if Democratic policies are so damn good for the poor, then why are cities like Detriot that are run by Democrats such shitholes? They’ve run the citie for about 50 years now so you’d think by now there would be some progress.
Am I implying that leftism caters to the privileged?
I’m not implying it, I’m saying it. When you concentrate all the power in one place, with no accountability, the people with the power will help themselves and screw everybody else.
Left-wing economic policies fuck the economy. No private sector, no economy. It really is that simple.
The left promises to steal from the scapegoats and redistribute it to the poor, thereby making everybody better off, but that never, ever actually happens, does it? That’s because “the rich” aren’t sitting on a big pile of gold coins like Scrooge McDuck (didn’t you ever stop to think how maybe you shouldn’t have learned everything you know about economics from old Donald Duck cartoons?). Wealth isn’t a pile of money, it’s the active, ongoing production of goods and services. The left kneecaps anybody who produces goods and services, and then wonders why everybody but the rulers is poor.
Redistribution tends very strongly to make the pie smaller, not bigger. This isn’t a guess. This is standard economics. Now, up to a point of diminishing returns, public infrastructure pays off. Roads and fire departments and (non-militarized) cops are well worth a reasonable outlay. If the pie is big enough, you can even afford to redistribute some to make yourself feel holy or whatever.
But there is a point of diminishing returns. Hiring more bureaucrats when there is nothing useful for them to do is a waste of money. Those people could contribute something to society in the private sector; instead, they’re just getting in the way, while diverting resources from the private sector that could’ve been invested in something that actually benefits somebody.
Eventually, you get to where we are now: We’ve got so many tax-eaters on the payroll that we can’t afford to fix the roads.
What you guys on the left need to do is always remember one simple fact: Whenever you’re talking to a conservative, he’s miles ahead of you. He’s heard every idea you have and he’s seen through it. Our culture is saturated with your ideas. He knows your ideas well, understands your ideas at least as well as you, and has long since written them off for reasons you’ve never thought of. Those reasons may be too sophisticated for you to comprehend, because you have never thought about any of this. You’ve received your opinions intact, undigested, unexamined.
You, meanwhile, are arguing against a foggy strawman caricature of what some idiot on MSNBC imagines we think, and your arguments are goofy, hyper-emotional bumper sticker slogans that don’t make much sense even in their own limited terms.
I have already listened to all of your ideas, and if I am rejecting one, it is because I understand it better than you do and I know that it has been repeatedly shown to be garbage. If you’re too blindly arrogant and pig-ignorant even to listen to what your opponents are saying, don’t get all pissy and bitchy and call them zealots.
The problem is that while the Democratic party USED to be the party of the working man, they threw that out the window more than thirty years ago in exchange for the identity/victim grievance politics that rules today.
Completely coincidental I’m sure, but that’s also when the middle class in the U.S. began its long decline.
To second Walker’s comments, whenever I talk to a lefty, they’re utterly flummoxed by my arguments and it quickly becomes obvious they’ve never heard them, they’ve only heard a caricature of them.
I’ve passed myself off as a lefty many times for shits and giggles. It’s easy for me because I usually understand their arguments better than they do (and they confirm this when I complete their points and they say “yeah! that’s a great way to put it!”) Most liberals couldn’t plausibly pass themselves off as conservatives or libertarians if their lives depended on it. They’d blurt out some nonsense about keeping the working man down and give themselves away within 30 seconds.
“You have these blue collar guys who scream to the rafters about the evils of liberal politics and the glories of a laissez fair market and in the same breath are angered that their blue collar jobs have been outsourced.”
Blue collar guys vote Democrat for the most part. I think only with Obama did some of them switch and vote for the other guy. I know some racist old people who were life long Dems until Obama arrived on the scene. Then they became “independents” or just stayed officially Dem but voted for the Republican candidate these two times. The next election they’ll be voting Democrat again, if they’re still alive.
(And I’m not using the word “racist” lightly here as in “racisss”. I’m talking about old people who grew up during segregation and they are genuinely racist. They are the last of a dying (literally) breed. I have a few in my family, god bless ’em, but the things they say, probably in all innocence and naivety, are so funny they’re sad. They have completely missed the boat on progress and are still mentally stuck in the days of their childhood. One even asked the cashier at Wal-mart if she could “feel” her hair. Gotdamn I was embarrased.)
Excellent post—badly needed sanity in this corner of the web.
Finally someone with the balls to set the record straight on this. Great article and sorely needed wisdom for the manosphere.
Agreed. If we’re not careful the word “liberal” (and its synonyms) will soon become the manosphere’s equivalent of 20-something girls’ Tourette-like use of “creepy”–a meaningless catch-all for anything you don’t like, makes you uncomfortable, or can’t fully explain.
Great Analogy. I’m consistently amazed at the level of political illiteracy of the United States. It’s like we’ve all been brainwashed over the last 30 years by a centrist mass media that promotes a destructive laissez-faire capitalist status quo that they need perpetuated in order to continue to make money off of a dying middle class, or something.
Exactly. Critical thinking is always the superior response, screaming nebulously-defined catchphrases is lazy and an intellectual dead-end.
Like people who are into riding bikes?
What record, and what straight. In the Ike era, post war, what percentage of US activity was directed by the government, vs. now?
And besides, it’s not like the 40s were some sort of mythological “centrist” era. Historically, as in really historically, not “in the decades since Rolling Stone Magazine started claiming conservatives were boring”, what share of activity has been done by the government? 5%? 10 perhaps. But certainly not more.
And, historically, did government run healthcare? Did they run schools? Did the Federal Government of anywhere fight “wars” to prevent burning bushes that gave one trippy visions? Did they come after future income of men who divorced their wives?
In other words, what are you talking about?
The entire “leftist” experiment is at most a few hundred years old. And virtually all the negatives that the manosphere are criticizing only came about in the US over the last 100 years. Perhaps 150 or so, if you include the Federal Government’s meddling in internal state politics (War Between the States/War of Northern Aggression), and meddling in private matters (Sherman Act).
The income tax, the Federal Reserve, direct election of Senators (weakening the intermediary power centers, the states’, influence on Federal politics), female suffrage, prohibition of various food/drink/smoke groups, laws regarding guns, government meddling in health care etc., etc……. All of that nonsense are less than 100 years old. Centrism by any historical standard included none of it.
Now, in the societies that haven’t fallen for any of the above idiocies; lo and behold, divorce rates are very low; taxes are pretty much non existent, fertility through the roof; and, by pretty much any observable measure, their culture and influence is on the rise everywhere. Now, who would have thought that people that behave the way their Creator advised they should, in order to inherit the earth, looks set to actually inherit it? Man, ain’t things complimecated?
… and we have the giveaway line:
“the Federal Government’s meddling in internal state politics (War Between the States/War of Northern Aggression)”
You’re late for your concerned citizens meeting there, pal! Time to organize the burning. Thanks for stopping by.
It’s hard to argue that Conservative Christian males don’t white knight at least as hard as lefty whining hipster manginas. Worse even. They’re all tripping over themselves to pass the new VAWA.
Agreed. I am a Catholic and I battle my co-religionists all the time on this matter.
Nice guys come with all sorts of political leanings.
At least a lot of liberal men are honest with being effeminate….conservative men think they are still acting like men. Which is why sluts can come back to the church and have their pick of men willing to be their golden parachute.
The difference is that manginahood has infested the church, but leftism is the infestation itself.
They are called RINOs.
You should probably put Conservative in quotation marks, but I see what you are saying.
What you are pointing out one side effect of, is that a lot of self described “conservatives”, or “conservative Christians”, are anything but.
My dad was a tough, old-school ballsy man and lifelong Democrat. Naturally I assumed his politics up until a few years ago when it become clear that the Democratic party has no place for heterosexual white males, yet depends on them as foils for liberal’s screeching claims of oppression while demanding they deliver monetary tribute to soothe the wounds of ever-expanding definitions of victimhood, to which every lazy, indolent, ne-er-do-well can claim inclusion to get in on the big cash payout.
This.
Exactly my progression too. Sure there is that old school tough union guy working man Democrat, but he has no place in the version of that party that has been around since Carter. It’s exactly the problem with trying to talk to the older generation of men about these issues. They opened pandora’s box with feminism as part of the package of ‘progressive’ issues that at the time seemed logical for a working man to support, as a political worldview of ‘we’re all in this together’ against an unfair State. It’s hard to make them realize that things have moved on drastically from feminism as the notion that sure, women can work too and I guess they should be paid around as much and we should think about protecting women who are regularly beat up by their husband. They could get away with paying lip service to feminism because their wives were raised under the old system so they’re blind to what they’ve created today.
Anyway, the problem with this article is that the old feminism wasn’t what it appeared to be, and the new feminism has taken it several steps further and is part and parcel of the progressive ‘package’. The author’s efforts would be much better served with arguing reason to the leftists rather than trying to convince us to sign up for that package. He can get back to us when we start seeing leftists stand up to ” the corrosive delusions of feminism.” as he claims they do. Personally, I’ve never seen it.
plus 1
You’re being hyperbolic.
Obama is far-left. He only seems closer to right because those people are actually leftists. Stalin holds Obama’s left hand and Hitler his right. In Obama’s dreams he is giving Stalin head while Hitler ravishes his black ass. No, a government seat-belt does not make such a spectacle more tolerable.
“[Obama’s} politics, like those of the Democratic Party writ-large, are anywhere from center to center-right, by almost any historical or global measure.”
This alone proves this author has no clue what he’s talking about.
On the global scale, he is correct. Obama is considered a leftist here, but his politics would probably register as fairly centrist in most of the rest of the developed world (Western Europe, Canada, Australia, etc).
Only in the USA would he be linked to the likes of Stalin or Hitler. Those comparisons make very little sense.
Technically correct, but missing the point. Here he is a strong pull leftward, and the only reason he’s not doing even more is that he can’t. He’s a radical pragmatist.
His family background, associations with the likes of the New Party, teaching of courses on Alinsky, etc., all indicate that he’s easily the farthest to the left we’ve ever had, with the possible exception of Wilson.
By global standards, France’s Hollande is a centrist. By American “historical” standards, Obama’s a lefty.
“On the global scale, he is correct.”
Only at this moment in time. Historically, say 500 years ago, anyone even opining that some Federal Government should control healthcare, education, the value of pieces of paper, and half the economy would be considered so far off the plantation as to be beyond left versus right; instead being considered just plain crazy. Which is, of course, an assessment that is just as correct today; as we’ll see proven over the next 5-10 generations, if not sooner.
Disagree. American politics HAVE shifted rightward since WWII. Whichever side of the aisle you are on, at least acknowledge this fairly documentable fact. Conservatives howl about Obamacare (not always unfairly– it has its flaws) but remember who else suggested national health care? Richard Nixon. Remember who took on corporate power? Teddy Roosevelt. Both Republicans. I don’t think John McCain would have felt pressured into shifting his positions significantly rightward (as he did when running for president) fifty years ago.
Nixon and Teddy were both liberal Republicans. Nixon introduced the EPA and started affirmative action, and TR openly called himself a progressive.
Fifty years ago was post New Deal and both parties were under a big government consensus domestically with both being largely pro Cold War. If you watch the Kennedy/Nixon debates you’ll see they agreed on almost everything.
No McCain wouldn’t have felt such pressure 50 years ago, but 50 years ago the GOP wasn’t conservative. Goldwater was DESPISED by his party’s establishment, but that era’s what led to Buckley and the foundations of the modern conservative movement.
Prior to that, the last conservative president we had was Coolidge. (Hoover was anything but–Roosevelt mainly put Hoover’s ideas on steriods).
Hitler is a leftist? hahahahahaha ha ha ha… you’re a fucking idiot.
You wrote the article, 7 traits of a male feminist, how many male feminists do you think are liberals? If you answered all of them you are correct. Not all manosphere members are right leaning, but all readers and writers of jezebel are left leaning, it may be difficult to swallow for you but yes liberals are a problem.
Not entirely correct if you consider the number of feminist enablers who are on the right. These men do not call themselves feminists, but their extensive white knighting and general support of the feminine imperative may as well render them as such.
Dalrock goes into more detail about these men on his blog. Many of these religious and/or traditional conservatives are just as hostile to Red Pill thought and just as supportive of the feminine imperative as any self-confessed male feminist.
Tradcons are easier to convince of the dangerousness of the handbasket we have fashioned for ourselves. Dalrock’s blog attempts to make them more red pill aware.
On the other hand, most of the left is incapable of listening to reason. They are avowed feminists and seem to believe that the destruction of traditional gender roles is a worthwhile goal.
For traditional conservatives, white knighting is a misguided (but fixable) attempt to foster traditional gender roles. Thanks to leftists/feminist domination of the media, they can apply pressure on men without violating PC rules. As time progresses, they will come to realize the futility of attempting to shame men fall on the misandrist grenade, and they will start to abandon their white knighting behaviors. For tradcons, feminism is not the goal.
For the left’s leading lights, feminism and the destruction of the family are the _goals_ of their ideology. They will not be persuaded to abandon their raison d’etre.
Manboobery has infected conservativism, but it IS leftism. Important distinction.
Precisely. This is exactly the sort of thing I was alluding to when I said “a war of complicated allegiances.” Feminist and otherwise anti-red-pill action and talk comes from many sectors of the right too. Unless you have these guys recognizing that their right-wing safe-house is just as hostile to their way of life and ambitions, we’ll all sink in the red-pill boat.
The right can be hostile, but not “just as hostile.” Start talking Red Pill at a tea party meeting and you’ll get some crap. Do the same at your local Dem party meeting and get crucified.
@Martel: And if I start talking red-pill at my local church while surrounded by a bunch of traditional conservatives who are concerned about the failure of young men to “man up” the way god intended, divorce laws and other mitigating factors be damned?
You’ll get some shit to be sure, but not nearly as much as you would at some progressive group.
And at church, the Bible will back you up.
I am not a leftist (far from it, actually) but this is a very thoughtful, astute article. As you may recall, In Mala Fide similarly rejected liberal and conservative politics. Any member of the manosphere who denies that an unmitigated market is not a threat to masculinity and traditional gender roles should know that in 20th century the biggest proponents of women getting voting rights, entering the workforce, etc. was “Big Business” and the Republican Party. Meanwhile the Democratic Party (whose constituency of white Southerners and Catholic ethnics would today be considered reactionary) opposed these social novelties in defense of the traditional order between the genders. By the by, some of the biggest critics of the New Deal? Feminists. (http://www.profam.org/docs/acc/thc.acc.051007.new.deal.htm)
Not to say there is anything necessarily wrong with women voting or working, it goes to show what side what we consider to be the forces of conservatism were on during the very early political skirmishes with feminism.
Big business and the Republican party have ironically never been supportive of a laissez-faire economy. Large business interests have always been in favor of regulation, subsidies, and social engineering to protect their market position from upstarts who do not have the means to comply with a bureaucratic maze of costly regulations.
Butler Shaffer’s In Restraint of Trade is free online and provides a good introduction to this concept.
Thanks for the link. Kevin Carson calls this phenomenon “vulgar libertarianism,” where liberty-minded intellectuals and activists (armchair or not) never realize they have become happy warriors for the status quo they claim to despise.
People erroneously associate pro big business with pro free-market. As Adam Smith recognized, businessmen will gladly use the State to promote their own profits, using regulation to strangle the potential competition from smaller business.
Production and achievement are male values. “Caring” for some twat who annually spits out another kids from a different dad is feminine. Leftism denigrates the former and upholds the latter.
Leftism requires that you as a man are not allowed to live for yourself or your own values but must surrender them to the “community”. By its very nature it therefore opposes masculinity.
The Feminine Imperative has infected the right, but it IS the left. Big difference.
“Large business interests have always been in favor of regulation”
No.
Yes. Big pharma supports obamacare. GE likes its tax code nice and complicated so it doesn’t have to pay anything. Taxi companies use local licensing laws to keep out upstarts. The likes of Solyndra love environmental laws. Insurance regulation in the 90’s squeezed out thousands of small health insurers. Hospitals use regulation to keep smaller and cheaper care options from being able to start.
But you said “No” so you must be right.
Are you willing to say that “concave-chested, bearded, skinny-jeans wearing, bike-riding, vegan-food eating weaksters and their skrillex-cut, tatted-up, female-bodied girlfriends” are the enemy? Then the headline of this article should be “A Massive Proportion of Liberals are the Enemy.”
And the rest of that “proportion” has no problem with said enemy.
This is precisely what I’m saying is incorrect. Your views are skewed because you focus on the most vocal–and obnoxious–elements of the left. Jezebel, the blogging manginas, and Barack Obama aren’t representative, or even a majority. Talk to some blue-collar, unions guys in an American city then come back and discuss.
I HAVE. But if they’re decent and have common sense, after I get to know them they switch sides.
Not all lefties are nuts, but most of the lefties in power are. The Democratic Party of JFK is long dead.
They’re part of the problem.
Any non rich, non mormon, who voted for Mitt Romney is stupid.
I think “informed” is writing ironically.
What a load of blue pill bollocks. Sad, I thought I was reading the Daily Beast for a second. I don’t mind hard-hitting analysis from the Left but this read like a Time magazine puff piece.
-I, for one, like having my seat belts, meat, and drinking water regulated by more than the “invisible hand of the market.”
Gag.
-Regulation, of banks and oil companies, for instance—which were steadily relaxed throughout the conservative ascendancy starting in the 1980s—would have prevented, or at least mitigated, a lot of the economic woes that have set America irretrievably back in recent years.
Gag.
-The cynical tactic of dismantling federal apparatuses (by de-funding them), allowing them to fail, then pointing the finger at those failures to show how “government is the problem, not the solution,” has successfully convinced a lot of people of the ineptitude of the state. This ignores the idea that the state is only as good as whoever is currently running it.
Gag me with a stick.
Even a cursory reading of basic economics and politics would disabuse each one of these fallacies. Tuthmosis is a valuable contributor to the manosphere, but as someone who has supposedly taken a red pill this is a surprisingly shallow analysis.
I’d love to see a response other than “gag” to a couple of these “fallacies.” I don’t agree with the article in its entirety, but common sense is on his side more often than not.
You got it:
“Regulation, of banks and oil companies, for instance—which were steadily relaxed throughout the conservative ascendancy starting in the 1980s—would have prevented, or at least mitigated, a lot of the economic woes that have set America irretrievably back in recent years.”
Freddie and Fannie are quasi-governmental entitiies (i.e. NOT free market), and it was these institutions backing loans to people who couldn’t afford them that instigated the housing crisis. Banks were told they couldn’t loose by loaning to the unqualified, and Clinton’s justice department threatened them if they didn’t. When the evil George Bush tried to regulate Freddie and Fannie, Barney Frank and other libs stopped them (it’s perfectly conservative to regulate the government).
“I, for one, like having my seat belts, meat, and drinking water regulated by more than the ‘invisible hand of the market.’”
Then put on your fucking seat belt. You think a meat company’s gonna survive very long if their product is killing people? We still get salmonella scares despite the FDA, and water can be regulated locally.
“The cynical tactic of dismantling federal apparatuses (by de-funding them), allowing them to fail, then pointing the finger at those failures to show how “government is the problem, not the solution,” has successfully convinced a lot of people of the ineptitude of the state. This ignores the idea that the state is only as good as whoever is currently running it.”
If increased govt funding meant better results, the US would have the best education IN THE WORLD (except Luxembourg). We’ve increased funding in EVERY federal program since O took over, and FEMA and every other agency suck more than ever.
A government that does everything does nothing well.
“Everything the NYT says is true… go back to your homes… disperse peacefully… your rulers love you… your rulers love you… they want what’s best for you… I’m ever so glad I’m a beta… I’m ever so glad I’m a beta… freedom is scary… freedom is scary… your rulers love you…”
Fifty times a day during prime time viewing hours, ages 18-34.
And at school, and at most churches, and at your work’s diversity training, and during every sitcom, and in the movie theater…
liberals are a problem thei complete ignorance of economics their naivity make them useful idiots to a cause they don t understand
good news though europe going right wing
ah ah ah. Oh yes, we should like the left because it gave us clean water… because before the destruction of liberty systematically carried on by the left we did not have clean water. We used to drink mud and eat raw fish.
Although it is my fault. I should have stopped reading this ludicrous article when I read that Obama is somehow all over the political spectrum. Yes, the man who has constantly and systematically expanded government, expanded spending, created the necessary premise to raise taxes, taken over one sixth of the national economy and created a completely retarded health care system (meaning: made it even worse), who’s looking to take away the second amendment, the man whose goal is to fundamentally change the US into France, that constantly promise some money to some constituency… is somehow a man all over the political spectrum.
The left is the enemy of the manosphere, because the left is the enemy of biology in all its politically incorrect form. And this is the end of the discussion.
“The left is the enemy of the manosphere, because the left is the enemy of biology in all its politically incorrect form. And this is the end of the discussion.”
Seriously, you need to get laid, brah.
I have no idea if he needs to get laid or not, but he’s right.
Come on… “Worldmusic”? That’s got to be satire, right?
I sure do need to get laid more. Why would I be reading Roosh in the first place? I certainly don’t come here for the political advice.
You need to learn a thing or two about the world that surrounds you.
The problem with Black and SWPL writers is that they’re more susceptible to propaganda.
Propaganda doesn’t work when reality hits you in the face with the facts every day.
Hence, some poor incell who took the Red Pill to get laid, because getting laid was something he wanted but couldn’t have. Now, he still thinks it’s a good idea to have the government regulate the sale of pink slime, Monsanto’s soy-products and corn-syrup. Not to mention using our tax dollars to bailout their bankster pals
FDR himself was tool of the banksters. It was the industrialists who hated him. The producers. Not the usurers.
Let’s get away from politics. There’s nothing good about liberalism. There is no such thing as conservatism.
Some thinkers who are commonly considered to be on the left that I respect are the Strasser Brothers, Malcom X, Pentti Linkola, Ted Kaczynski to name a few.
I also value the works of many thinkers who are grouped on the right. But I’m not a conservative.
Neither left nor right but forward should be a young man’s slogan.
well said
You respect the Unabomber but probably consider me an extremist.
don’t judge me, bro..
Fine, I’ll just judge the Unabomber and pretend that people who respect him have nothing in common with him.
Whether you agree with my politics, or I yours, is immaterial. But, to the degree that, as members of the manosphere, we’re all participating in a form of “politics,” we do need to agree on one thing: a shift away from a wholesale dismissal of the left.
Actually it is quite material. Your two refutations of conservative thinking prior to this kumbaya statement are based on an economically liberal viewpoint. I agree with the socially conservative views of the manosphere as it sounds you do.
Liberals, the Left as you put it, are open deniers of reality and focus on idealism. Your espousal of corporate control and denial of global economics just highlights ignorance of the way the world markets operate rather than illustrating a righteous moral ideology. In this you are being idealistic and delusional. That’s Beta.
Game is about accepting reality for it’s underlying causes, not trying to change that reality, but mold one’s self to be adaptable. I suggest you read the post by Samseau earlier this week about Roman Abramovich. There is an example of an alpha to achieved success in harsh economic reality.
I will not be reading any more of your posts as your ideals reek of Beta.
Seconded. Tuthmosis makes some good posts on the forum, but this is utter delusion. And exactly as you say, delusion is beta.
You need to read about Cultural Marxism to understand why our system has a fascist capitalist economy mixed with a leftist society.
Marxists love money and big companies.
Economic marxism is dead. Cultural marxism is very much alive.
Exactly, the Soviet Union and America have the same roots. But while the former followed economic Marxism and failed miserably, the latter will keep going as long as the productive people (White males overwhelmingly, followed by married White females presumably) are peacefully paying taxes. In the USSR, there was no private initiative, and after redistributing all of the wealth of the Kulaks the Soviet state had no one left to leech off of.
There hasn’t been a liberal in american government since Andrew Jackson. What we have now are authoritarian leftists calling themselves liberals or progressives, and authoritarian pinkos calling themselves conservatives.
Roosh, you have got to get some tighter quality control or you’ll lose your audience. This article is uninformed and incoherent.
+1
Nah, crazy infantile bullshit like this makes lefties on the fence feel more comfortable here. To reel in a lefty, you have to convince him you’re stupid. I don’t mean mildly stupid, I mean animal fucking stupid. Wallowing-in-shit stupid.
Once you say stuff to a lefty that only a severely brain-damaged possum could hope to attempt to believe, he’ll start to trust you, and he just might listen to whatever else you’ve got to say.
Martel has written about this.
I disagree. We need to know allow ignorant views to be expressed so that we can be reminded of how stupid people can be.
absolutely right. the enemy is a shape shifting predator, it cloaks itself in any cover that suits it at the time, it may call it self a neo-con, and the next day a liberal, or a marxist,a fascist, even a racist, it has no limits and no shame,indeed it covers all the bases and is everything all at once, it is pervasive and profits on all fronts no matter what the situation or zeitgeist it plays the game at the highest level. it is the JEW… all other labels are inaccurate, all alternative explanations wrong. the JEW stands above all else, and is almost omnipotent, the JEW rules because it embraces contradiction and observes no law, indeed the JEW sees itself as the law, as g_d, and therefore is justified in its place as ultimate puppet master on this wretched earth.
Eh, it would tough to separate leftism from hipster types, and make no mistake: the manosphere has a hipster-hating problem. It’s a slippery-slope witch hunt bordering on hysteria. A lot hipsters don’t really give a shit about identity politics, believe it or not. Most of them are just trying to score a blow job after a gig in between restaurant shifts.
If it weren’t hipsters, it’d be slackers (90s). If it weren’t slackers, it’d be hippies (60s, 70s). If it weren’t hippies, it’d be beatniks (50s).
Also, I have the sneaking suspicion that in ten years, most of you will be drinking micro-brews and eating artisanal food like nothing ever happened.
Micro-brews and artisanal food is the way it should be. If I haven’t killed or harvested it myself, I should know exactly where my food came from and what is in it. Big ag and the government pushing high fructose corn syrup on the masses will be this country’s downfall. Does this view make me a liberal or a conservative?
I agree that artisanal foods and micro-brews are goods things, and I agree that it’s ridiculous to politicize some of these things like you imply in your last sentence. My point is that is exactly what Roissy (and other members of the manosphere) frequently do with their SWPL/hipster criticisms. It becomes a slippery slope: everything urban-associated gets painted as some leftist agenda status whoring competition, including mirco-brews, but a maybe a much simpler explanation is in order: these people like micro-brews and artisanal food because they taste good?
I went into my local democratic party chapter. I told them I supported an open border, ObamaCare, and gun control. I told them I was a leftist. Then I told them I opposed feminism. I don’t need to tell you what they said. Idiocy.
I don’t support modern Feminism but support decent gun control, universal health care, tighter regulations on exploitative multi-national corporations, higher taxes on millionaires and billionaires, and greater investment in public education. Democrats are sensible on all but one. Tea Party whackjobs and Republitards are dumb on all fronts.
Then you support feminism. You CANNOT be a leftist and be anti-feminist.
@Unending:
That’s nonsense.
It took a small core of anti-slavery Whigs/Republicans to bring about a huge change in the way that political party stood on slavery.
Did the anti-slavery people who changed the Whigs/Republicans from the inside thus actually support slavery for 10 or 20 years? Bullshit. Change frequently takes place from the inside.
That’s nonsense.
It took a small core of anti-slavery people to change the Whigs/Republicans from the inside. You want us to believe that the anti-slavers who worked for change from inside the party actually supported slavery for 10 or 20 years? Bullshit. Change frequently takes place from the inside.
There are a lot of rabid right wing nuts and rabid white supremacist nuts who have decided that this forum is the perfect place for them to come and spread their poison. It’s extremely irritating.
If the forum continues to ignore men’s issues and devolved into racism and ultra-right-or-whatever, then this forum will die.
Dude, I’m black and conservative. Republican politics may be racist but conservatism is not inherently racist.
Dig a little and you’ll find that most Africans (800 million of them) and most Caribbean blacks are conservative.
“Dig a little and you’ll find that most Africans (800 million of them) and most Caribbean blacks are conservative.”
LOLOLOL.
No anonymous, he’s right, at least in a social sense. Most blacks are far more socially conservative than the left in the United states and vastly more so than even centrist parties in Europe. To use two prominent policy examples, they’re anti-abortion in general and have little tolerance for gay rights (arguably the most homophobic nations on Earth are in Africa and the Caribbean).
It is in other aspects of American conservatism (ex: immigration, fiscal policy) that you get more variation.
Actually, the reason is that only these “right-wing-racist-nuts” are able to reject liberal tripe on sex. WE ARE THE RETURN OF KINGS READERSHIP! Purge us, loose half your audience. Simple as that.
Right, because Roosh is a person that cares about what other people think. I doubt he’ll lose any sleep over losing even 90% of ROK’s audience
He meant socially conservative, and he’s probably right. How many black male feminists do you have in the States?
Many social conservatives are the sons and daughters of Jim Crow supporters, and descendants of Slave owners. Black people are liberal not because of Feminism, but because of the tens of millions of extreme white racists in the US, who’s sooner have them incarcerated than get a chance to go to college. Feminism is not the largest black men face.
You’re not very “Informed”.
Blacks are liberal because the New Deal coalition promised to lift them out of poverty. Please stop making yourself look stupid.
You should brush up on it.
+100
Blacks gravitated to the Democratic Party en masse in the 1930s – decades before Nixon’s Southern strategy, when Democrats held the Southern voting bloc – which put them in political coalition with the sons and daughters of slave owners.
Martin Luther King was a Republican when the Republicans were still conservatives.
A few things to bring openly to all.
First, the minor point, saying this is blue pill stuff and beta is a shaming argument. Why it is blue pill and/or beta? I like I want to know the reasoning (because I really do want to hear it).
Second is the arguments made here. One person noted pink slime as an example above but government should take no action on its practice. Another is bank regulation argument, but the counter argument is a rhetorical gag reflex and proclaimed blue pill thinking.
I’ll add one more as a proxy point. The leftist tend to point to things The Love Canal Disaster: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_Canal or The Libby, Montana, or the Valley of the Drums as examples of unregulated action. So I’m honestly asking, what force should exist, if anything, to prevent (or minimize) such incidents?
Those are examples of a leftist principle and a counterpoint that free-market would not always protect from the worst of abuses (it is desirable to avoid spending on safer disposal from a profit perspective). So what’s the counterpoint? Keep in mind this does not vindicate everything leftist holds, just a major tenet of leftist is government regulation and arguments behind. However, if valid, it does mean there is some tenets to examine and take rather than dump wholesale.
What concerns me is the left’s obsession with top-down control. They deeply fear anything that “their side” doesn’t control by force. If anybody, anywhere, is thinking thoughts they disapprove of, they fear and hate that person. One of their key traits is the belief that they are infallible and therefore MUST be given absolute power, without accountability, immediately — and that any resistance to giving the left absolute unaccountable power can only be motivated by conscious evil, or mental illness. They regard their opponents as subhuman, without rights. A left “libertarian” is somebody like Cass Sunstein, who feels that citizens should be only mildly penalized for making personal choices he disapproves of. All leftists are perfectly convinced that they are more qualified to run my life than I am to run my own. In fact, power corrupts, and everybody looks after his own interests first, whether he admits it or not. When powerful people have the power to “help” me, they will generally use it to help themselves — and on the rare occasions when they try to make good on their good intentions, they will screw me, because they will never have the knowledge I have of my own needs and desires, and they will always be seduced by the little voice that tells them that what’s best for them is, fortuitously, what’s best for everybody else. ALL power is subject to that kind of thinking, ALWAYS. See also “What’s good for General Motors is good for America”. The more you concentrate power, the worse it gets. Ask Lord Acton.
Right-wing authoritarians are bad enough, but they’re just pragmatic, self-interested pricks — left-wing authoritarians are ideologically fanatical pricks, who can never leave anybody alone.
Yeah, it’s nice not to have toxic waste. But totalitarian regimes are massively more destructive to the environment than free ones. That’s because there’s no accountability. When you have a one-party state, which controls everything, there can never be accountability. “Yeah, but some of their grass-roots-level useful idiots are sincere idealists!”
So? That and a dollar will buy you kick in the nuts.
You can’t be a leftist without being a malignant narcissist and a pathological liar. Because leftists have an emotional need to believe that they’re infallible, they compulsively edit their past. “The truth”, to them, is whatever serves the left’s interests. A “bad person”, to them, is anybody who gets in the way.
Monsanto only wants to sell me useless shit. You want to tell me what to think and prosecute me for hate crimes if I talk back. You are by far the greater threat.
And I haven’t even gotten into the left’s deranged need to divide people into groups, set the groups against each other, and rule them while they’re distracted by squabbling over handouts. Sickening.
Awesome comment.
Brilliant.
+1, breath of fresh air after the idiotic OP. Thank God the govt makes me wear a seatbelt and saves me from “corporate abuse”. Whew!
The most awesome example of projection I’ve ever read. As far as I can tell, every comment critical of the OP is engaging the favored “leftism” strawman of the commenter instead of the actual post. Way to be the vanguard of “Real” reality, gents.
“What concerns me is the left’s obsession with top-down control. They deeply fear anything that “their side” doesn’t control by force. If anybody, anywhere, is thinking thoughts they disapprove of, they fear and hate that person. One of their key traits is the belief that they are infallible and therefore MUST be given absolute power, without accountability, immediately — and that any resistance to giving the left absolute unaccountable power can only be motivated by conscious evil, or mental illness. They regard their opponents as subhuman, without rights. ”
Don’t you mean the modern Republican party? The level of psychotic rhetoric coming the Right is about 10 times more than the Left.
But some people will believe crazy shit regardless of reality.
There are differences among liberals; some are hungry for power, some feel desperately guilty and want to surrender their own sovereignty. I differentiate between them here:
http://alphaisassumed.wordpress.com/2013/02/04/they-are-not-what-they-are/
@Informed [sic] College Graduate:
OMG YOU GRADUATED FROM COLLEGE I’M SOOOO INTIMINADATED!
You’re a type specimen of the kind of emotionally damaged lefty I was describing when I wrote the passage you quote. Everything you’ve written in this comment section reeks of fear and hatred of the Other, and your desperate, pathetic need to feel superior to somebody, somewhere.
Tuthmosis, what other left-wing policies do you benefit from and support? Affirmative Action? Government hiring? (disclaimer: I consider both Gop and Democrats to be left of center, indeed most Western Post WWI polical parties are left-wing)
Not all left wing but definitely satist, top-down muthafuckrs.
Statist.
Regulation on big banks and exploitative corporations (which were rolled back under G. W. Bush causing the recession), a mandated minimum wage, 40 hour work week, environmental protections (have you seen the smog in China?), lack of starting unfunded wars, legality of interracial marriage, legality of gay marriage (not applicable to me, but morally right), lack of Christian state which many Republicans want to institute. The list goes on..
Excellent article, Tuthmosis! I must say, I continue to be surprised and amused at the pathetic ignoramuses here who claim to have eaten the red pill regarding sex, but still live in a “Blue Pill” world in regards to race & politics. I read the Pajamas Media Blog daily, a right wing/tea party website, and unfortunately, for every one or two coherently written article honestly breaking the state of affairs we are in, there are ten to fifteen flat out bat shit loony toons screeds screaming about how the “Blacks” are taking over, and Obama is a nazi zombi. Its hilarious, and I do laugh myself silly are thier absurdity & pillow pussyness, but its really sad too. But to be honest, there ARE writers on that site who are sublty fighting that narrative as well, and although they get flamed in the comments section (like Tuthmosis is gettng flamed here) they keep fighting. Oh, and you anonymous readers who want to go because of articles like this, leave already. Blogs like PJmedia will welcome you with open arms.
Yes, WNs are the thumbsucking biological commie absolutists of the right and the neocon control freaks are fascisti who seek to control the world’s brown people. But they are are marginal conservatives at best.
Lefties, on the other hand, are feeeeling-laden, nanny state racists who believe that blacks and other pigmented people are pitiable weaklings incapable of achieving amything worthwhile without state support.
The “blue pill” of race and politics is denial of the importance of race? “Blacks” *are* taking over. Just look at Christoper Donner. The man murders 4 people and we are all asking ourselves, “maybe he shouldn’t have been fired.”
The “blue pill” of giving a sh!t about race at all. Any American (Black, White, Asian) who has lived overseas for two years or more can attest to how refreshing it is to get away from the “baggage” of America’s dysfunctional race oriented past/legacy and just “be” in another society. And how “strange” it is to see that other society’s historical baggage play out. Travel in the Balkans, and be dumbfounded by the animosity Serbians, Croatians and Bosnians have for each other even though as an outsider you cannot tell them apart from the other. They are all blue eyed blonds and brunettes! How the heck can an Irish Protestant tell who’s an Irish Catholic? How the heck can a Lebanese Sunni tell who’s a Lebanese Maronite Catholic? They ALL look alike! but they can. You live in parts of Europe and the Middle East long enough, and you get that “difference” is a social construct. Its made up! In Morocco, my friends would scratched their heads every time I brought up race. Every family there would be considered “interracial” by our standards, but they don’t see that way cuz they don’t see skin tone they way we do here. There are dark skinned blacks in the same family as green-eyed redheads, and to them, thats NORMAL. Once you live in a society like that for two or three years, it changes you, and you come back to the USA and shake your head. THAT’S what I mean by Blue Pill of race & politics. If you think or care that Obama is some nazi, you are obviously not getting laid and need to refocus your energies. I’m just here to get pussy, why get distracted by the bullshit media narrative of Obama this, or Tea Party that, or whatever?
I disagree. Have you ever met a liberal who is not a feminist? (I haven’t) How can you say liberals are not the enemy when the singular focus of liberalism is expanding the state at the expense of individuals (ie men)?
I agree with TheRookie, this is not a well thought out argument, but I applaud the attempt of the post. This article sounds like a liberal who is also a member of the mansophere trying to rationalize a conflict in beliefs. I sense from reading Roosh’s blog, there is a similar conflict in his belief’s as well. From everything he writes, he would be a hard core conservative, someone who realizes the value in most traditions. But I don’t think he would ever identify as a conservative or vote Republican. Of course I may be wrong….
I am a “liberal”, in the humanistic sense, and I despise feminism. Feminism is a perversion of humanism, mixing it with Marxist rhetoric and rainbows to get the big steaming pile of ideology; as such, it denies the humanistic impulse to avoid any “protected” classes.
Have you ever met a liberal who is not a feminist? (I haven’t)
Congratulations, you just “met” two. And there are tons of us. Talk to some blue-collar, union labor guys and ask them if they support feminism. Chances are, though, their politics will be left-leaning.
Yeah, for all those people who immediately think leftism means PC multiculturalism, let me introduce you to white working class of Philadelphia!
Even if they’re not feminists, they support a power structure that is feminist, so they might as well be.
@Martel, that’s because no other alternative has been presented to them. Blue-collar guys are trying to hold onto the little they have left, it’s not their fault they only get 2 choices.
I suppose such people may exist but they have no public, political existence. Their representatives are feminists.
As a segment of the left, these blue collar guys are an invisible segment which cannot speak for it or set the left-agenda.
@TradMan, I agree, but the point of the article is the existence of those people, not the political apparatus they feel compelled to support out of economic interest. I’m sure there are traditionalist conservatives who support the Republicans for various reasons (and are, in terms of that party, essentially invisible) but that doesn’t make them neo-cons.
You’re actually not that “anti-feminist” and you’re also not nearly the intellectual you think you are.
Same with Athlone.
IMHO writers in the manosphere who marginalize alt-righters and race realists generally fall into 3 camps and it boils down to their priorities. If you’re non-white, you join the liberal everybody against whitey coalition. If you’re a PUA, you join the rainbow PussyPalooza army. If you’re a traditional Christian, its those magic words from that Bible that make someone you’re comrade.
For some people in my race, the white race, we’re just like all the non-whites. We realize that loyalty to and leveraging our race provides ultimately the only real advantage to survival for ourselves and our children. If you’re not willing to take your own side in this life competition, you will not survive, and that is the self-annihilating position of white liberals. If only one race plays by “the rules” then that race is going to lose. And that is the existential threat facing my race, whose traditional homelands across this planet are under assault by unlimited non-white immigration and constant pressure to accept and embrace assimilation or be banished from respectable society.
This is not happening in Africa or Asia. Nobody is demanding the Japanese import and assimilate, ie. marry and procreate with Haitians. Nobody is calling Africans racist for wanting to stay African. But this is occurring in EVERY WHITE COUNTRY and ONLY WHITE COUNTRIES. Anti-racism is just a code word for anti-white. Being pro-white does not mean hating other races, it simply means behaving as all races behave, respecting and defending their race. Its becoming the new normal. Its not going away by calling every white person with healthy racial attitude a nazi. Liberals are supporters of white genocide. They and their policies are a threat to the continuing existence of my race.
“And that is the existential threat facing my race, whose traditional homelands across this planet are under assault by unlimited non-white immigration and constant pressure to accept and embrace assimilation or be banished from respectable society.
This is not happening in Africa or Asia. Nobody is demanding the Japanese import and assimilate, ie. marry and procreate with Haitians. Nobody is calling Africans racist for wanting to stay African. But this is occurring in EVERY WHITE COUNTRY and ONLY WHITE COUNTRIES. ”
With all due respect, Smiler, this has already taken place for hundreds of years throughout Africa and Asia via Imperialism, Colonialism, and the Missionary Industrial Complex
“this has already taken place for hundreds of years throughout Africa and Asia via Imperialism, Colonialism, and the Missionary Industrial Complex.”
Bullsheet. Black african countries are still almost all black. Indians are not becoming a minority in India. Japan is still ethnic Japanese, with a strict immigration policy. Korea is still Korean.
Any more lies? You are just trying to deny the ongoing genocide against European societies by invasion of other ethnic/racial groups.
If the red pill doesn’t cause you to veer right, one of these will:
-Making over $150k/year while remaining a bachelor
-Losing your career/livelihood for not being politically correct
-Getting targeted by the SPLC
“-Getting targeted by the SPLC”
I think the left used to have a strong case for a red pill audience, but their attacks on free speech with “hate speech” bullshit pretty much eliminates them from any serious consideration in my book.
More than any other aspect of the manosphere, the PUA blows feminism completely out of the water and therefore must be crushed. We need to use this as leverage when we gain prominence. I address this here: http://alphaisassumed.wordpress.com/2013/01/27/are-we-ready/
Yea, I found that whole thing shocking as well. Not just you, no offense, who are harmless at worst. But they also went after father’s rights sites at the time, people who are trying to help fathers be able to visit with their children for Christ’s sake, they thought that this deserved to be attacked. That whole SPLC was probably the last nail in the coffin of my personal identification with the left.
I have been through security investigations complete with cattle-prods and lie-detectors.
I expect next time for them to confront me with “Uncle Elmer” for my postings on the SPLC-targeted Spearhead. Being an Alpha, I will project plausible, amused denial, perhaps gaining sympathy from the inquisitors who may secretly agree with my views.
The SLPC backed off of that pretty quick, I think even the ACLU pointed out they were going too far. Now they don’t mention it much, rather an embarrassment. You are right to call them on it, though.
Political correctness–and its aggressive enforcement by once-proud organizations and traditions like the SPLC–is a miscarriage of left-leaning thought. The deplorable state of the US tax code is the responsibility of not just the left, but also the right, which has gradually and steadily shifted the burden to middle-earning, non-married, non-home-owning people by willfully ignoring shifts in demographic reality. Who leaves the loopholes that allow the Exxon-Mobiles of the world to pay zero taxes, and even get refunds? Whatever the answer is, it’s not a simple “the liberals.”
Yup.
You talking about GE, there, with the taxes? You know, Jeff Immelt? Name ring a bell? Any powerful friends of his spring to mind? No?
“Who leaves the loopholes that allow the Exxon-Mobiles of the world to pay zero taxes, and even get refunds? Whatever the answer is, it’s not a simple “the liberals.”
Hello! Why does the right wing of the “manosphere” see corporations as their friend? Do they dream at night about becoming a big corporate tycoon someday? Do they think its that easy to get in those circles if you’re not born into them or in the ol’ boyz club?
Big business has never been a friend to the little guy. Big business wants to keep mom and pops out of business.
Not everybody on the left is a fan of Morris Dees’ Church of Hate. Take, for example, the late, great Alexander Cockburn:
http://www.counterpunch.org/2009/05/15/king-of-the-hate-business/
Though Cockburn was always an idiosyncratic leftist.
i guess it depends wheter you’re part of the segment: straight, white, male, native. if not, the left is bearable; otherwise i get the anger. the left’s resultante of forces isolates the above group as victimisers.
i think tuth makes a good point on the pre-60s left. they often did some good for whole of society. nobody wants polution, 80hr workweeks, extreme wealth differences and coupled unequal poltical power.
there are some decent progressives out there, who still preach for the common good; most are pc brats foaming about rethuglicans though. anyway, the amount of antifeminist progressives is prolly less than the amount of french non-smoking virgin teens, so it aint worth the effort…
Correct. I’ve put lefties into three categories which I describe here: http://alphaisassumed.wordpress.com/2013/02/04/they-are-not-what-they-are/
kucinich is a good man.
Webster Tarpley had very interesting observations on Obama _before_ the 2008 election. So did Chris Hedges post election. So, I agree partially with the author that some members of the left are worth a listen, with a massive grain of salt.
SOMETIMES the left can be better than the right at identifying problems or bringing them to the fore. For example, healthcare was becoming a total mess, and nary a word from the GOP on how to fix it. Also, there is a humanitarian bent that I do respect: it’s good to care about the poor, corporate welfare sucks, etc.
The problem is twofold. First, even if they’re good at identifying a problem, they’re downright AWFUL at solviing it. Almost always their solutions make the problems worse. This is either sent down the memory hole (the Great Society) or history is rewritten to make it look successful (the New Deal). The reason every program fails is that it wasn’t able to go far enough, and the solution is always even more government.
Second, the solutions by nature require power to congregate in the hands of a few govt officials. What Washington does or doesn’t do affects all of us far more than it should. Way too much power is therefore centered in one city, and the Anointed therefore get to run more and more of our lives.
I strongly support the sentiment in this article, and the myopic who don’t are missing the point: the Manosphere isn’t about politics, per se, it’s about the pursuit of male issues and masculine interests.
Granted, the Democrats have become overtly the Party of Women, but that doesn’t necessarily make the GOP the Party of Men. And neither party (or group of philosophies) can genuinely state that it is taking a male perspective on issues. But my political leanings — which are difficult to pigeonhole — make an appeal to partisanship from either side inappropriate. I’m too much of an ardent supporter of the 2nd Amm. and state’s rights to be Liberal, yet I’m pro-Choice, pro-Gay marriage, and anti-climate change. I’m not Christian. I’m not particularly conservative. I’m a white dude in a southern state who gets along with all of my neighbors, black, white, Indian, Moslem, Hispanic, and Asian.
Yet I’m also a man . . . and there is no exemption from custody or visitation or alimony because of your politics or your race. When it comes down to it, the appeal of the Manosphere is that it is a repository of knowlege and wisdom available for ALL men — straight white Christians and gay black moslems alike. We’re all dudes, and we’re all facing some common issues while maintaining common interests. Who we blame for our predicament is far less important that how we respond. There are plenty of Liberal and even Progressive men who desperately need what we have, and once they understood that despising feminism is not a reputation of the Humanism that underlies the liberal political impulse, but a validation of it, they’d be able to back away from the hairy-legged crowd without guilt.
There is plenty of room for robust debate in the Manosphere, and I don’t discourage that. But don’t destroy what has been built by dismissing those fellow travelers whose views on other issues don’t jive with yours. Whether you’re a libertarian, conservative, liberal or progressive, we’re all dudes, and we can all respect that even if we passionately disagree about other issues. The Manosphere isn’t a conservative place — and I’m not even trying to get on Oprah, here. It needs to be a place of refuge for any man seeking to better himself through sharing the company of other men.
Damn. Now my latte is cold.
this.
“There are plenty of Liberal and even Progressive men who desperately need what we have,”
They’re probably the ones who need it the most.
The problem is that a lot of people define the “Red Pill” as adopting several conservative stances. As it is, the Red Pill doesn’t really have a set definition. Is the red pill simply adopting game, in which case, are we talking Mystery Method or more tactical stuff that gets discussed here? Is the Red Pill simply accepting the hypergamous nature of women? Does accepting the Red Pill also mean believe in HBD principals? A lot of people adopt the latter point, which leads to a hard-conservative line.
A lot of red-pill folks seem to think that female hypergamy (etc.) is biologically determined. In fact, my impression is that’s by far the majority view.
Well, then, if critically important human behaviors can be biologically determined, then HBD starts to look a little harder to ignore.
The thing is, most conservatives aren’t into HBD at all. It’s not a conservative position. They shun the stuff like poison. I used to, myself. Just because the Democrats shriek “racist!” at the GOP all day long doesn’t mean it’s true.
And I’m not sure you can’t be a liberal and believe in HBD: In fact, the standard left-wing view of non-asian minorities in the US seems to be that they can’t succeed without a helping hand from more successful ethnic groups. They don’t like to talk about it, but in unguarded moments, most of the white hard lefties I know will admit to being deeply racist. They want to be nice to non-asian minorities and help them, but they regard the great mass of black and hispanic Americans as hopeless inferiors.
It’s funny, these left-wing friends, they figure I won’t mind hearing that stuff because I’m a “conservative”. Nowadays I think it’s kind of funny and sad, but back when I really was a conservative, I was disgusted! Oh, I was shocked and horrified!
Yeah, I used to give a shit. Now I don’t, one way or the other. Racism is of no use to me. Opposing it is of no use to me either. Outing lefties as racists is pointless, because everybody already knows they are and nobody but movement conservatives is offended by it. And nobody cares what they think.
Let’s cut the kumbaya crap. Gay men are not on our side. They gain much and lose nothing from the destruction of morality and of the nuclear family.
Lesbians are the prime drivers and architects of radical feminism in all its emasculating glory. They want to replace men but haven’t the dicks nor strength nor courage to make it happen so they propel state enforced emasculation of their masculine competitors; competitors who show up their pathetic attempts at masculinity for thier fakery. A naked emperor enforces butt nakedness in his subjects.
Who else but a lesbian would consider penetration during intercourse rape.
The Manosphere IS a conservative/libertarian place because no truly liberal man could ever reject feminism. Most of us are conservative. Most of us are fiscally conservative, anti-immigration bigots. Some have said we can convert liberal men by burying the conservative nature of our beliefs and only appealing as a way to “help men out,” allowing them to learn from our movement without thinking they are anti-feminist. Individual bloggers may attempt that, but I really don’t see what it accomplishes. Teaching liberal men how to get laid more at the expense of us? I thought this was about changing the culture. After all the science this is all based on is sociobiology. It is hate-speech by the liberal’s standards. We shouldn’t tell liberals, blacks, or gays(though I really don’t see what they would want here) that their views aren”t welcome. But they can’t demand that everybody whose a “white-nationalist” be Watsoned.
I side with neither. The left side is weak and the right side is just stupid.
Actually its the other way around
To follow up on The Rookie’s astute comments and the Magellan’s challenge: as funny as Tuth is on Roosh’s forum, economics and politics is not his strong suit.
1. Meat has been regulated for over a hundred years; no Reaganite calls for firing meat inspectors. Seat belts were regulated by state law in the 60’s, hydraulic engineers have been doing a fine job with water purity for hundreds of years. EPA only created after the Cuyahoga River caught on fire.
2. Oil companies have never been deregulated. Banks’ investment restrictions were lifted in the 90s (under Clinton). If Tuth thinks the real estate implosion in 2008 had nothing to do with the Community Reinvestment Act and leftists agitating banks to drop “redlining” to give questionable loans, and the feds pouring gasoline on the whole mess with Freddie and Fannie guaranteeing every loan in sight there is plenty of reading material for him to learn about that recent history.
3. When has any federal agency been “de-funded”? IRS? Those folks will now help run our health care system. EPA? Can’t wait to stop gas fracking and “save us” from too much cheap oil and gas. Only the military looks like it will take one up the ass to “save money” for the progressives to spend on some horseshit “program.”
Tuth, its the “collective” mentality, that Washington (or the Ivy League assholes who run the place) know more than we do that drives conservatives nuts. I do like your pick up stories though.
A-fucking-men.
A much needed article…I’ve been thinking about this issue (hate on everything left on the manosphere) this past month.
Mr lemon, racism is the greatest man issue, racism is so hard and masculine that most of todays soft western males (like you) shun it, the feminists hate the white man more then they hate capitalism, rape, and inequality combined,. The world is race obsessed, as it should be, and in our corrupted culture of the west, racism is its number one hate, nothing gets more bad press more censoring then white racism.
racism is about discriminating in favor of your own kind (extended family) that is what a father does, it is masculine.– a woman adopts babies from china and africa, she wants to mother everything even what is unworthy–that is feminine.
this forum and any mens movement that ignores racism, and embraces anti racism is dead bones, and just more of the same shit you can get everywhere else.
Race is identity. if you reject your true identity and except the feminine philosophy that you are an individual with no ties to biology, then you have swallowed the b̶l̶u̶e̶ Jew pill.
Thomas Sowell is my ally and part of my “family”, Harry Reid is a degenerate fuck. It’s about beliefs, not breed.
Thomas Sowell is one guy. And he identifies himself as black.
“It’s about beliefs, not breed.”-Martel
Really? So that’s why there are black churches all over the USA. That’s why there are Korean churches and Chinese churches in the USA. That’s why there are Chinatowns all over the world. So that’s why jews like Israel? Martel, you need to tell the Koreans, Blacks, Jews and Chinese that “its about beliefs, not breed.” Because they don’t live that ideal in their everyday lives, And neither do most people on the face of this earth. The only people who actually believe that nonsense are naive, clueless Western European types.
“I, for one, like having my seat belts, meat, and drinking water regulated by more than the “invisible hand of the market.”
Idiotic. You accept the status quo on blind faith.
Also, Hayek explained the true source of Smith’s “invisible hand” effect 40 years ago — the communication of economic information via prices. There’s nothing invisible about it any more. Get with the times.
But let’s look at your benevolent State and it’s track record. The State designs and builds all the roads, designs the rules for their use, designs and operates the rule enforcement organization, and dictates the safety designs of all of the cars, and has for 40 years.
What’s the No. 1 cause of death for all age groups under 45?
Traffic. 100 or so dead per day, and thousands more permanently injured or disabled. Every day.
If any private entity had that kind of body count among people who use its property, it would be shut down before close of business on Tuesday. But the almighty State gets a pass, because … no fucking reason.
That’s how much your dear leaders love you. They set up a system that amounts to 4 Sandy Hook massacres per day for 40 years.
How about water? Have you ever compared the quality of State-controlled water supplies against, say, a bottle of Zephyrhills?
The simple reality of social life is that an economic system consisting of more that about 25 people is too complex to control by force. By far. All aggressive force in a complex system degrades its operation. Always.
The only means of efficiently producing ANY economic good is through the clear definition of property rights, and the free trade of those rights between and among individuals.
This is Hayek’s gift to mankind — explaining the information problem to Statist dolts. When there is no clear definition of property -> no markets -> no prices -> no economic information to make consumption and production decisions. Waste follows, inevitably.
Every social system, other than property and free markets, is, by definition, worse.
Red pill men should stand for property rights, which includes liberty rights. Everything else necessarily depends on paternalism and the infantalization of the populace.
The left and the right enjoy the stereotypes because it keeps the sheep distracted and away from the flow of money into special interests.
A man should take pride in his family, his sex and himself.
White men and black men alike are devoid of pride and can’t control their women hence the racial anymosity.
Liberalism/humanism left or right is anti-strength, it’s anti-diversity and it’s anti-human.
Why? Because it’s an idealogy. All idealogies are anti-human in that they seek to intentionally alter the human mind.
Lets move beyond idealogy and focus on who we are and who we can become as men, in our respective racial groups.
Ethnic tensions have FA to do with not controlling women. The notion of there being a White or Black race is also partly ideological. It is comments like yours that make skeptical about this manosphere. It is the insecure who want to control others, able men work with what they find to get a favourable outcome, and no this is not a defence of the Trojan horse ideology we call feminism. There are plenty of societies were women are kept on a leash, in countries such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan were even the most pathetic beta man automatically gets a higher sociolegal mandate and recognition over women who happen to be far more capable and valuable than he is. The results aren’t pretty.
It is true that I generalize.
White and Black are political concepts. But there is such a thing as a European-Cacusian Race and an African race.
Those are not idealogies, but identities.
Alphas control their women. Betas are controlled by their women. It’s that simple.
Control, schmontrol. You sound like someone who has never seen a healthy male-female relationship in his entire life. Healthy men and women in love work together as a team, they don’t “control” one another.
Hardly, while different ‘breeds’ of humans do exist the concept of race has little to do with skin colour or geography. There isn’t one Caucasian European race for starters. I am European and Caucasian, I have a different genetic ancestry and heritage from many others who share my colour, I certainly have very little in common with most men in Finland for instance. I know ‘White’ individuals who had Black great grandfathers or grandmothers.
Oh, you must know very little about Africa too if you think people there are all of once ‘race’ or all ‘Black’. The Amazigh for instance have been living in North Africa for milleniae, many of them are Caucasian, with ”European features’ especially those who live in the mountains.
Leftism is egalitarianism, which is inseparable from feminism. The “manospheric left” are mired in incoherence (or denial) if they fail to understand this. Since the rise of the New Left, it is not possible to be a anti-feminist on the left.
Fiscally left-leaning but socially conservative types, the Old Left, no longer exist in politics. They thrived last century when the main emphasis of the International Left was on economic, rather than cultural, equality. Though I mustn’t exaggerate this economic emphasis: celebration of the Marxist holiday International Women’s Day began in 1911. And the great man himself, Marx, recommended breaking up traditional families using State force.
The internecine fighting between liberal-left factions in politics today is mainly a kind of jostling for position in the hierarchy of victims (do blacks outrank homosexuals? etc.) not ideological fragmentation. The factions all hold their ideology (egalitarianism) in common.
Stimulating article, I don’t agree with most points but it’s good to have your beliefs challenged. The assertion that Obama’s policies are basically center-right by any historical or global measure is very strange. So since we’re not a monarchy or a communist state that makes Obama’s collectivism and racial agitation conservative? Don’t measure our current state by the standards of the rest of the world, but by our own history which records dramatic lurches towards greater government power and unaccountability.
I think that statism vs. anti-statism are far better labels than left and right (Democrats and Republicans). Both Ds and Rs are largely statists that advocate varying levels of government intervention, spending and control over our lives. I wouldn’t lump conservative Democrats with the “left” nor big business Republicans with the “right”.
Basically it comes down to those who think the government is a necessary evil that should be severely restrained within the limits of the U.S. Constitution (and massively cut down in size and strength) versus those who think the government is a powerful engine for social change/control/justice via income redistribution and regulation. Count me in with the former.
It’s the fact that even the most “liberal” of Obama’s policies still requires Americans to purchase insurance from private companies and was introduced into the political discussion by the Heritage Foundation. His foreign policy is a continuation of Bush by the most generous description, and more accurately described as “going further than Bush would have” with respect to drone strikes and the like. Even the federal budget has stabilized, not increased, by comparison to all of his contemporaries. You might quibble about things like Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay act or the end of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, but those are either very minor parts of his presidency or not really conservative/liberal issues (gay rights, like black rights is led by liberals and fought by the douchiest conservatives, but like abortion it doesn’t really fall on the right/left scale).
“Even the federal budget has stabilized, not increased, by comparison to all of his contemporaries.”
“Beyond moronic” is too generous a descrition for this. More new debt in 4 years than Bush’s 8 somehow means the budget is “stabilized.”
In the short term Obamacare helps the insurance companies, but it will bankrupt them soon enough and we’ll go to single-payer, which O said he’d do now if he could get away with it.
Foreign policy is touchy. He’s decided that it’s inhumane to waterboard terrorists so he’d rather kill them, so I don’t know how you’d classify it. More brutal but with less chance to gather new intelligence.
This article is a piece of garbage
Most of the contemporary left are either relatively poor minorities (or only a couple of generations removed from them) who are naturally fans of government handouts, or wretched and spineless middle class, relatively wealthy folks, who live lives of ease and comfort, and think themselves deprived because they “only” have a 55″ TV from 2009, instead of a 70″ from 2013. The latter type have, by and large, very loud mouths, and small minds. They are, however, “cultured,” and usually over-educated.
Rightists tend to be poorer, uneducated non-minorities, who are too proud to actively solicit handouts themselves and instinctively contemptuous of those who do so. There are also religious social conservatives, who may have opinions touching economics and government, but are mostly concerned with opposing the atheistic mindset of the left, which manifests itself in the promotion of hedonism (abortion, gay marriage, smutty TV shows, sex education in schools, etc.) Finally, you have some richer men who primarily favor the American right’s tendency towards lower taxes, and less government interference in their money-making enterprises.
The whole thing is quite a muddle, particularly as there is a widespread and mostly accurate conviction that it is useless to favor any party save the main two. Consequently the parties’ planks are shaped to be opposite one another, and the average man’s “rightism” is no further right than the Republican Party, which is really quite centrist with the exception of some social convictions to appease a major voting bloc. The Democrats are center-left, and the party system is effectively a sham, because the same inexorable policies are mostly advanced whether or not the donkey or the elephant is in power in a given year.
I do think, however, that educated and informed rightism is superior to the policies promoted by the left, as a rule. The leftist orientation results from the abandonment of religious conviction and the consequent belief, explicit or unspoken, that centralized government authority represents the best hope for the progress and health of mankind. The rightist orientation seems more in keeping with reality, seeing government as a necessary thing to accomplish a few specific and worthwhile goals, and not as a substitute parent.
Right, because religion is based on reality. Also, I don’t get how believing in a centralized government follows from becoming an atheist/abandoning religion. You can reject religious convictions and still see “government as a necessary thing to accomplish a few specific and worthwhile goals, and not as a substitute parent”
What Ian said. Seriously, some of the shaming around here of anything not Teabag-approved is identical to the shame-fests which have been Feministe’s and gender feminism’s stock in trade for years. See Roosh’s exchange with that Montreal wanna-be lawyer gal just now; she scolds that he can’t be a real man, likewise anyone here not in the rope line for Galt’s Gulch is scolded as “beta.” Show me the difference. Tedious when they do it; tedious when we do it.
The sexual revolution – encouraged by the left – made your lifestyle possible. You WANT legal birth/fertility control. And you should want the government to pay for it. Really, you do. For everyone. Male, female, condoms, pills, IUD’s, snips, whatever. And you WANT to keep the right to personal bodily integrity – screw who you want to screw (over age16) without going to jail, no forced pregnancies OR forced abortions OR state-ordered sterilizations (which is what you get when you let the state decide such things).
The Teabag Right’s problem today is they are exactly where the Losers’ Club Left went wrong circa 1970-1985: becoming mired in identity politics, stridency, political correctness, echo chamber vs. hard data, and Righteous Stalemate being valued over coalition victories to get things done. So they and the remnants of the radical left shout across the chasm at each other, pump up the volume, and suck out all the air.
And like Ian I am not trying to start or win a left-right debate. I am saying: we don’t want to be fresh out of friends, regardless of political stripe. Evo-psych should appeal to many leftists: it has “evolution” in it. As frequent commenter Mark Minter (no feminist apologist he) points out, red pill thinking IS percolating upwards, infiltrating the narrative. Even Roissy acknowledges how the TV show “Girls” freely uses red-pill principles he preaches on his site. The Red Pill is on the path to victory through greater media awareness. Even the haters help: all publicity is good publicity. Don’t PC it to death now.
+1. Thank you Rev.
One of the main problems is that many of you people identify yourselves and choose your stances by simply opposing those you deem to be in the opposite camp. Both sides are like dogs sniffing each other’s butts in a way. Let’s face it, no one is really left or right wing in all stances. Even the definition of Left and Right has been blurred. It’s about time we did away with political labels, grandiose ideas about the world, society and how things ought to be. What should concern us is that no entity gets too powerful to be benign. Let us all acknowledge that there is no such thing as society, only individuals and families.
A bloke up there said something about being anti global warming, WTF? How can one be against a climatic phenomenon, why do we have to stand for these things being politicised and used as bandwagons by both camps?
I don’t know what happened to my comment so will just say, THIS.
A lot of sensitive butt hurt going on. People are too ideological these days. It seems they are blinded by politics to be incapable of independent thought. There’s crazy and good ideas from both democrats and republicans. Both parties have crossed popular defined “lines” over history on several issues. Dangerous to label like we do. I suppose that was the OP’s point. Seems it went over a lot of heads (those that are shaming – really, threatening to stop reading a blog?). This is probably why we struggle. Incapable of thoughtful debate. Just venom. Ridiculous. So glad I don’t live in America nowadays.
“-I, for one, like having my seat belts, meat, and drinking water regulated by more than the “invisible hand of the market.”
Most of the meat and drinking water, at least in the United States, is, IMO, unfit for human consumption over the long term. Most meat is loaded up with antibiotics and artificial growth hormones, which make you fat and sick. There are plenty of toxic chemicals in water, the first being fluoride, an industrial pollutant which has no business being there.
So how do I get around this? Thanks to the free market, I can buy free-range grass fed beef from my local farmers market which I eat exclusively and I can buy high quality water or a high quality water filter to provide actual clean water from the toxic, regulated water which comes into my home.
I will grant you, government regulation has not messed up seat belts, which were invented in the free market.
Most of that stuff, like GMOs for instance, only got past the FDA because of hacks put in positions of power. That point was addressed in the article, I thought.
To say “hacks” are in positions of power implies that even though the people are corrupt the system is ok and could be again.
The system is not ok, the system is inherently corrupt itself.
The FDA does not answer to the vast majority of people who buy food, it answers only to itself, meaning its own employees. Once in a great while, it answers to Congress, when a scandal becomes to large to ignore.
Who has the incentive to get employees into the FDA? Not you and me, we don’t have the time or money to make sure someone in the FDA is keeping our food safe. The ones who have the time and money are big corporations…because that is an investment that will repay itself many times over when the FDA approves that corporation’s food while locking out small competitors through bureaucratic red tape and regulation.
It is inevitable that the system will be captured by “hacks”.
The rancher I buy my meat from answers to me. If he starts corrupting his food process, he stops getting my money.
Seatbelts were invented in the free market and saw little use until government regulation forced their widespread adoption. They are, in fact, one example of government regulation that is highly cost-effective and carries a massive positive impact on public health.
liberal = enemy
simple enough for ya, trickmosis?
“a much uglier streak of ahistorical, quasi-scientific white-nationalist sentiment on the other”
What’s “ahistorical” about it? It doesn’t agree with your history books.
“What’s more, many of the people conventionally lumped into the left aren’t very “left” at all. Take Barack Obama—the favorite scape goat of the conservative right. His politics, like those of the Democratic Party writ-large, are anywhere from center to center-right, by almost any historical or global measure.”
Just one word sums up the above quote – bullshit!
So much butt-hurt from keyboard alphas.
“Left” and “Right” are pretty much useless labels nowadays.
I like Zombie’s political spectrum:
Axis X = More Govt. Control vs. Less
Axis Y = Human Nature Constructed vs. Innate
Check it out:
http://pjmedia.com/zombie/2010/10/11/the-electric-tea-party-acid-test/
This sums it up. You could say the exact the same thing about the right as has been said in this article. They dont all suck, Just some of them.
Tuthmosis has proven himself time and again on the forum to be a racist and certainly unfit to be a moderator. The guy has the biggest chip on his shoulder in regards to race.
NEWSFLASH: Not all white guys in the manosphere are white nationalist HBD obsessed racists.
As someone who doesn’t hold the same opinions as the OP, I will say this…
Since we only have two parties, we’re all sacrificing some personal view when we vote Republican or Democrat.
If you’re a man who voted for Barack Obama, what I see is this…the cost of the alternative candidate outweighed the value he could provide you OR it was was relatively less than the value that Obama could provide you.
We all come from different economic, cultural, and educational backgrounds, so at the very least, I get that.
What I take from this article is that we shouldn’t view liberals or conservatives as enemies, but as PEOPLE who due to their circumstances have adopted different views from our own. Further political polarization detracts from having a reasoned debate and only decreases your chance of persuading those important few who are not as foregone (closed-minded) as we would like to think.
An ideology is only as useful as it is practical.
Been waiting for a post like this for a long time. You can be a (massive) liberal without believing in the “no more speech that offends” unconstitutional bullshit. Progressives love rights and liberties, hence the ACLU. They are completely at odds with all the feminist claptrap led by harpies like Catherine McKinnon.
Where is the ACLU with respect to a man’s right to due process (VAWA)? Guess what, they are not arguing for repeal; they have certain “recommendations” for a “rewrite.”
According to the “Key Issues” page on their site, they support “Women’s Rights”; family rights or children’s rights (or God forbid men’s rights); “Women’s Rights.”
Seems like VAWA passed with the help of Republicans.
You know reading through the comments here is pretty depressing. Here you have a guy calling for a “big tent” approach to the manosphere and the response is basically to exclude and deny. This movement will fail the same way the tea party movement failed if it can be summed up and dismissed as a reactionary movement of the far right. Men of all political stripes need to be engaged. Do you see women trashing each other over political stripes? No, because they value the female objective over the partisan objective.
Men look increasingly fucking retarded in this movement, because we obviously value our partisan bias and political objectives over the male objective. If it comes down to a choice between putting aside your hatred of liberals and working together as men who can agree the system is broken or living in Orwellian femdom what would you choose?
Wadsworth is the only guy who gets it
Literally the first sentence of the “Debate and Legal Standing” part of the Wikipedia page for VAWA begins
“The American Civil Liberties Union had originally expressed concerns about the Act”
Like all organizations the ACLU no doubt had to change its position due to McKinnon-esque harpies, but they knew it was dubious.
Thank you for speaking up, Wadsworth, and for pointing out the absurdity of the response to this simple call.
We all want roughly the same thing. Let’s worth together, for fuck’s sake.
Most Republicans don’t want VAWA renewed but they have to tread carefully lest they be labelled “misogynists.”
Calling someone a misogynist (just as calling someone a racist) ends all reasoned discourse. Repubs know this so they have to tread carefully. That said, as I commented above, there are _many_ white knight manginas on the traditional right. They are ignorant (willfully?) of the damage they are doing but they are much more likely to come around than are politicians on the left.
That’s precisely why this isn’t a left vs. right problem. The problem is embedded into the culture and is pervasive. You think the liberals can appear misogynists anymore than the conservatives? Liberalism doesn’t mean society bending over the barrel to appease women, it’s just become that for the same reason the Republicans don’t want to appear misogynists. The Republicans might stand up to the feminists slightly more than the Democrats, but both parties are still interested in attracting female voters through male-bashing mangina politics and telling you what a “real man” is.
If we start to dismantle all the blue pill bullshit then both left wing and right wing politics will improve beyond constantly throwing men under the bus for a quick sell. We’re going to need more men working together for this goal, otherwise it will not happen. If we keep tearing away at one another over partisan bullshit we won’t even register on their radar.
@Wadsworth
Good additions to the discussion. You should post more.
Thanks, I’m at this site pretty regularly, but hadn’t posted anything prior to today, but I might try to jump into discussions more often.
leftism has always been the enemy
Easily the worst article to date.
Written by a black guy, just a coincidence i’m sure
Careful, any whisper of race might offend the liberals in our “movement” and we wouldn’t want that.
This comment has been reported to Southern Poverty Law Center. A big black guy will be at your dorm to pick you up in 10 minutes.
Truthmosis for the win 🙂
I think Roosh would be a full-fledged WN if he didn’t have Iranian Muslim background and Middle Eastern features. He is afraid that a WN regime would not treat people like him as well as the current regime treats him, and he does have a point (even though the odds of WNs gaining political power pretty much tends to zero at this point in history). Many of the more extreme flavor of WNs don’t even regard Ashkenazi Jews as White, why would they consider people of Muslim Iranian background with distinct Iranian/Armenian facial features as White? But in fact the WN movement is not monolithic, there are many people who respect people of other races who have accomplished something useful (like Roosh)
you’re likely a WN making this comment (i’m a mongrel half white half indian, we wouldnt get along) but hilariously, i have to agree with you. I think if Roosh didn’t have the background he had, he’d be quite happy on the WN fence
liberalism is the disease and the “red pill” is the cure.
any man who is a committed liberal cannot at the same time claim to be “red pill.”
Your lack of knowledge and understanding presents a problem.
If you believe that all liberals are enemies of the manosphere,
then you must also believe that all conservatives – even the sexophobic, bible-thumping idiots who would ban all birth control & make sex before marriage illegal if they could (i.e. the Rick Santorum types) – are friends of the manosphere.
Seriously? You think Rick Santorum is your friend?
Don’t let the door hit you in the ass on your way out…
The Rick Santorum types are a small part of the right (otherwise Santorum would have won the nomination).
The feminists, on the other hand, are a major part of the Democratic party. Look at how Obama kissed the ass of Sandra Fluke and how he continues to rail on about the “equal pay for women” bullshit lie, the “war on women”, etc. I could go one, but your leftist brain is incapable of even comprehending this fact. So I will leave it at that.
Rick Santorum came in *second* in the race for the Republican presidential nomination. He’s almost certain to run again in 2016 & he will be the front runner at the start for that reason.
The only Republican candidate I could support, Ron Paul, came in dead LAST & will not be running again.
If you believe that all liberals are enemies of the manosphere,
then you must also believe that all conservatives
No.
You didn’t pass formal logic, did you?
Here’s what you’re saying: If lefties don’t agree with us, and conservatives don’t agree with lefties OR us, therefore lefties MUST agree with us, because they’re… not conservatives!
That doesn’t make any sense. Here, try this: The left is bad news for us. The conservative establishment is at best a fickle ally on some issues, sometimes.
Rick Santorum is a big-government statist prick, but his social conservatism doesn’t concern me because it doesn’t harm me and never will. Even if he got elected. Which, incidentally, he won’t.
Right on Tuth, you’re absolutely right. It’s nice to see someone else who sees this and isn’t afraid to say so.
“Yet, the average man (and member of manosphere) has, would, and will benefit from wide array of the progressive politics of an activist state.”
But at what cost?
As a liberal he doesn’t know any other way to get support other than to buy people off with government programs and money.
I love that canard about the Eisenhower or Reagan not being candidates that could win the Republican nomination for president because of how far right the country has become. Imagine JFK trying to win the Democratic nomination with his policies today. Now return to the author’s argument and try to refrain from laughing. Leftists have created an Orwellian existence reinforced by the MM newspeak . Taking the red pill and participating in the manosphere is an act of profound intellectual rebellion against this concerted effort to control your thoughts, language and behavior.
You’re not making a boundary between Orwellian ministry of truth group think and liberalism. You’re defining them as one and the same, but this probably only makes sense in your own head. To the rest of us it’s a non sequitur. Pointing to the collective dysfunction of our society and blaming the liberals is a joke. I realize the democrats are largely dysfunctional, but that doesn’t make liberals the enemy. You think liberalism precludes the emotional awareness and intellectual honesty for self realization as a man? You think the Republican party and their disposability lite are the friends of men?
I don’t stump for either party, but the manosphere has to stop trashing the “left.” It’s dysfunctional and counterproductive.
You have my sympathy that you are unable to grasp the connections between leftist policies and the failure of the american experiment or to construct a pertinent counter argument to the assertions I’ve made.
“Imagine JFK trying to win the Democratic nomination with his policies today.”
He wouldn’t. You’ve just further proven my point: the whole American political spectrum has shifted right.
No, no it hasn’t. Not even close.
Just a quick browse through history should disabuse that notion.
Not even Republicans dare go against the “Great Society”
You’re not an intellectual, in fact you aren’t terribly bright.
Actually, JFK would be too CONSERVATIVE for todays Democratic Party. That means that his party has moved to the LEFT.
Remind me never to let you drive.
Yeah, listen to just how conservative he was! This is JFK defining a “liberal”–and proudly declaring himself as one–in 1960. Nowadays, if he said a mere fraction of this, he’d be called a commie–by his own party, never mind the other side. That means his party has moved to the right, as has the whole country–not to the left as you erroneously assert.
You’re entitled, as they say, to your opinion, not your own facts. Your statements, however convenient, are ahistorical fictions.
Some Highlights of Linked Video Above
“[A Liberal is] someone who cares about the welfare of the people, their health, their housing…their civil rights.”
“I’m proud to say that I’m a liberal.”
“I believe in human dignity as a source of national purpose…and the human heart as the source of national compassion”
“fellow man”
“brotherhood”
“a government that acts…”
“liberalism is our best and only hope in the world today.”
“a liberal society is a free society..it is a strong society…”
“only liberalism can repair our national power”
“fight to eliminate poverty and human exploitation goes on in our day”
“economic liberalism”
“expanding the benefits of our society to our own people”
“It’s 1932 all over again [start of FDR’s administration].”
/discussion.
Lot’s of Foxnewsers on this post. Do chicks actually put out to Republitards?
Lots of manboobs crying for censorship.
Figures you commies would want to censor real men.
Now go back to being some feminist’s beta orbiter.
The above comment paid for by George Soros
Does Fox News ever talk about any other wealthy left-wing benefactors other than George Soros?
Indoctrinated College Graduate, welcome to reality where tradcons are alpha.
@Mark, alphas come in just about every political persuasion.
@По реке
Agreed. The College Indoctrinated One doesn’t seem to be aware of this.
It may be instructive to have a poll to determine the percentages of the Manosphere that lean left, right, center, and don’t give a f…
“Do chicks actually put out to Republitards?”
I googled that question and it took me here;
http://partytravelsexlove.com/2012/11/08/democrat-vs-republican-game/
Good article.
Liberals set up the political racial/ gender spoil system that but a average White men in the cross hair. They are in fact the enemy
Typical.
The commies that run this site won’t approve comments that differ from the party line.
Except there are tons of comments that disagree strongly with the article. Take your victim complex elsewhere.
The irony, you sound like the usual lot who keep insisting that they are being censored by the patriarchy
Fact of the matter is, your all wrong. Discovery beyond the parameters of political correctness is a masculine venture than none of you whiners can currently fathom. This website is weak, the writers especially. Yuppie College Grad, I’m talking to you. My advice would be to go get a real education, out in the wild or something. Besides, the government corporation was recently foreclosed upon by the One People’s Pubic Trust… Big slap in the face for those still stuck in that game!
This article is dildos.
It appears the yard wolves has grown up. Are we finally finished with these colds dead winters.
Educated progressives and sad sack whining repugs (well…thats the way I see them), what brings us together? Getting pussy. Honestly, its like Sunni and Shiite Muslims over here. Same religion, united against outsiders, but left to ourselves we go at each others throats. Maybe its the natural order of things. We will create divisions, no matter what. I had a sweet Serbian girlfriend, nicest chick, until you mentioned the “new” Republic of Kosovo founded by Bosnians, then all rational discussion flew out the window. People suck.
Men, unlike women, don’t herd well. Another difference: real men are open to differing opinions; it’s how intellectually honest debate is done. We may insult one another, but we can be persuaded to change our minds with logical arguments.
I’ll agree, except for the insulting each other part. Real men attack the arguments, not the people.
I don’t like the idea that General Electric pays no income tax and that when I call my credit card a guy in India picks up. I find it increasingly difficult to buy things not made in China. These are, quite plainly, the products of libertarian- and conservative-minded policies in recent decades.
WRONG.
Corporatism is a side-effect of interventionist policies. Big business is by and large rent-seeking, due to the fact that currying favor with powerful regulatory agencies & legislators is a wise business strategy Look at all the volumes of regulations and the loopholes that inevitably follow. Why do you believe that adding more of what we already have is going to fix anything? The cat is out of the bag.
Why offer better products & services than your smaller competitors when you can have the government create barriers to entry, higher compliance costs, and higher operating costs? GE can absorb tax hikes and minimum wage increases – smaller businesses may not be able to. Interventionists don’t consciously desire these outcomes (as far as I’m aware), but their ignorance of or refusal to recognize unintended consequences does not excuse their choices. Don’t complain about outsourcing – that’s your own kind’s fault. Intentions are meaningless, no matter how much you wail & gnash your teeth – you are reaping what you have sown.
Interventionists are directly liable for all the social ills that have been caused by rampant, pathological egalitarianism, and thus men ought to disregard progressivism as a farmer discards chaff.
Yup. Lefties concentrate all the goodies in DC and are shocked, shocked when profit maximizing entities go where the goodies are.
And what you call corporatism wasn’t purely the work of liberals…Republicans and conservatives were helping it along every single step of the way. If you seriously believe that Republicans had nothing to do with it you’re living in a fantasy world.
I sure hope you’re not implying that I believe Republicans aren’t in favor of corporatism, because if you are, you may be delusional. Interventionism is the cancer, decentralization is the answer.
People hating on the author are so blind. It doesn’t matter what your political affiliation is because in the end of the day we are all men. Everyone is different and not everyone is going to agree on everything. I think the author is trying to say that not all liberals believe in feminism. Smart people are going to take principals and both sides and not just one and completely bash the other side.
I can see that quite a few of our Manosphere brethren are indeed misguided lefties and I’m willing to forgive their temporary disability as we battle our common foes.
Welcome, oh benighted lefty brethren. Don your armor and join the battle shoulder to shoulder with the enlightened ones.
You know what’s really blue pill about this discussion? That both sides are arguing talking points from political philosophies that don’t even exist in the real world, which is exactly what the people responsible for all the actual policy that does exist want. We quibble with ourselves about pretty sounding theories like we’re politicians, meanwhile who is looking at the actual people responsible for all the bullshit we aspire to cut through?
Those people don’t care about political ideals, they care about control and power consolidation by the most effective means at any given time. Much of that has been via progressivism, but anyone who thinks that everyone in power would simply throw their hands up and play fair as soon as Libertarian Utopia was instated is spinning the hamster wheel in overdrive.
There’s no such thing as a free market, there’s no such thing as “the real good ol fashion blue collar left”. There’s precisely what we already have. We should be talking about that, not whether Marx or Mises is a better writer of fantasy economics. The red pill is seeing reality for what it is — it’s not a platform to promote your pet social theories, whether they be mainstream or fringe.
True. We are simply advancing the Hegelian dialectic that leads toward less social and financial freedom.
I’ve been done with ROK for a long time – low quality articles written by semi-employed, semi-literates. I just came back to see the comments on this post. I was pleasantly surprised.
“I’ve been done with ROK for a long time – low quality articles written by semi-employed, semi-literates.”
…and yet here you are.
“I just came back to see the comments on this post.”
Sure you did.
Great article Tuthmosis.
I think many of the Australian/NZrs and Europeans wonder why the manosphere is full of chodes embarking on incoherent political rants rather than just rising above it, having fun and picking up.
As a European, I’d agree, except I’ve come to accept this type of behaviour from Americans
Back when I got interested in seduction, I was 20 years old and going through a breakup with a girlfriend, and wanted to learn how to get laid by more chicks. At least I think that was the reason. It could be I just stumbled upon Ross Jeffries’ “Get Laid” Newsletters on the primitive mid-90s Internet and thought they were funny and interesting.
That was almost a half a lifetime ago. The purpose was to bang chicks easily. I read and read and wrote and wrote about “game” and “seduction” on all sorts of internet forums. At no time were politics or discussions about society included, other than what was necessary to understand seduction techniques.
Then something changed. I guess I’m a slow learner, because only recently has it become clear to me that somehow the Men’s Rights Movement (which I have very little interest in or knowledge about) has co-opted the Seduction Community.
No longer is seducing broads and banging chicks about personal pleasure and fun, now it’s some sort of grand statement about mankind as a whole. Specifically, it seems, we are using “game” not to just get a chick’s clothes off, but to completely subjugate the entire female gender.
This comes as news to me. I guess I’m years behind the curve.
Umm.. ok. I didn’t know that my attempts to get laid without jumping through hoops and spending a shit-ton of cash had such political and sociological ramifications. And frankly I don’t really care.
The author describes the climate that gave rise to game and guys like me, even though he gets a bit moral about its application. By teaching you game, I hope that you will avoid a fate that befall many men in America.
Wow ok. What “gave rise” to guys like me was the desire to fuck lots of chicks. That’s it.
Well, perhaps I’ve been running game for so long that I simply don’t identify with “beta males” the world over. As stated before in this blog I have no desire to get married, no desire to have kids, no desire to own a home, and little desire to interact meaningfully with society other than making enough money to allow me to live and bang chicks. And play some tennis too, I love that shit. Super fun and great exercise.
All this hand-wringing seems rather unenlightened to me. Yeah, now’s a bad time to get married and have kids. For many reasons, not just because of “feminism.” But who really wants to do that anyway? Do men really still desire a wife and a family? I haven’t desired any of that … ever.
Furthermore, in reading “manosphere” blogs they all seem to be written by right-wingers. I’m a liberal (bordering on libertarian) white-collar atheist living in a huge metropolis on the West coast. Not exactly a recipe for conservatism. Traditional and, especially, religious values have absolutely zero influence on my life. So no, I’m not going to agree that we should go back to an age where women were barefoot and pregnant. Traditional gender roles suck, because they impose too many restrictions … ON ME. I don’t want to be a breadwinner, I don’t want to be a husband, I don’t want to be a father. And I don’t want to have to pretend to want those things just to get pussy.
Personally, I’d love the feminist movement to become even more radicalized. I’d love it if women slaved away at jobs and my role was simply to look good and fuck great. I’d love that. Are you kidding me? That would be my dream come true. Women hitting on me, chasing me, buying me drinks, driving me around, and having sex with me without any desire for marriage or children or commitment. That’s my heaven. I’m a pimp at heart baby.
>> “Well, perhaps I’ve been running game for so long that I simply don’t identify with “beta males” the world over. As stated before in this blog I have no desire to get married, no desire to have kids, no desire to own a home, and little desire to interact meaningfully with society other than making enough money to allow me to live and bang chicks. And play some tennis too, I love that shit. Super fun and great exercise.”
————-
Fun times until you get hammered with a false DV or R accusation. Or suffer a sperm jacking by a pre-catz feminist who needs your seed more than a fish needs a bicycle. Maybe you’ll then learn for whom the bell tolls and why an “even more radicalized” anti-family court and misandrist laws are not “heaven”.
Problem is this: liberalism is the enemy. It absolutely is.
When the Democrats finally defeat the Republicans for good in this country (and it will happen due to social factors and demographics), they will finally get rid of that pesky First Amendment, and websites like this will be closed down and/or blocked (see the Great Cyber Wall of China created by Cisco Systems) because they will be considered “hate sites.”
In a way, I don’t dread that day since at least the liberals in the manosphere will be hoisted by their own petard, and fools like the author of this article will be stuck having to know-tow to his feminist overlords.
The leadership of the Democratic Party is not synonymous with all liberals. Why do so many find it so difficult to comprehend this simple fact?
I think we can safely say that Tuthmosis has lost hte debate. And he’ll never get to be a SWPL anyway…
Losing a debate doesn’t stop them.
Having a bunch of people dismiss your argument out of hand is hardly losing the debate.
The left wasn’t always such a festering swamp of manboobery. I don’t care what you think of their politics, it’s hard to deny that men like Ernest Hemingway and Fidel Castro were/are extremely masculine. Stokely Carmichael delivered one of the most alpha lines in history:
Q: “What should the position of women be in the movement?”
A: “Prone.”
Yes, blacks can away with saying a lot of things whites can’t.
“Yes, blacks can away with saying a lot of things whites can’t.”
Stokely Carmichael didn’t get away with saying EITHER of the comments posted above. He came under a lot of fire for both, especially “prone”, from within and without his SNCC.
Stokeley Charmichael also said,
“They Head Start, Upward Lift, Bootstrap, and Upward Bound us into white society, ’cause they don’t want to face the real problem which is a man is poor for one reason and one reason only: ’cause he does not have money — period. If you want to get rid of poverty, YOU GIVE PEOPLE MONEY — period.”
So true…but I suppose all that changed starting in the 70’s, by now you can’t get very far in left-of-center circles without getting browbeaten for not kowtowing enough to feminism. The only exception is in countries where leftists are actually responsible for society functioning, because when that happens they still pay lip-service to feminism and women’s equality but in practice men run the show.
I think one of the problems in left-wing ideologies is the fact that their internal logic is one that revolves around equality…sooner or later, the “equality” rationale is usually applied to gender even though it doesn’t make any sense. In political tendencies where “equality” isn’t seen as a necessary good in and of itself, that kind of argument will get laughed out of the room, but in the left, it’s often the first and last word of everything, and that’s why it’s swallowed so unthinkingly.
Pure garbage. Ooo we need liberals because we need bank regulation boo hoo. Yeah if we had deregulated money, e-gold, and Paypal dollars we wouldn’t need any bank regulation. Anyone who says otherwise wants welfare and stimulus and handouts stolen for them by the big gov’t turbo douches. This post was probably written by some government union cop or bureaucrat. (I’d guess factory union guy, but they can’t even read so probably not.) So eff you and your gov’t pension, dickhead. Get a real job loser. Death to all liberals.
This is nonsense! Liberalism is the driving force behind feminism and PC conformity. White nationalists avail themselves of the work of Rushton, Murray, James Watson and even Steven Pinker and Jared Diamond. Whatever one thinks of these men, they were very respectable scientists. Until they ran afoul with the laws of Political Correctness. Maybe there is fault to be found with their premises. But that’s not the reason why they were dismissed. It was ugly, anti-scientific, ahistorical liberalism and its intimidating practices. I wouldn’t mind reading a smart black nationalist’s critique of feminism and society (as long as it doesn’t involve white devils).
I’m not familiar with any of these people, but the point is that the PC movement is led by liberals, but not a liberal issue. As recent executive power arguments have proven, both Democrats and Republicans are hacks that aren’t committed to liberty. True progressives believe in civil rights and liberties (including free speech, which includes things like equal distribution of student fees to controversial student groups), and the only issue you would really have with them is taxation. If you want to have a taxation fight, that’s fine, but that’s not a manosphere issue. Male/Female zero sum game politics trumps Right/Left. The left supports feminism more, but not by a tremendous amount.
Also I’m glad for contraception and abortion and some other feminist issues because it allows me to fuck tons of girls. Some of you seem to just want to turn back the clock to 1950, get married at 22, and live happily ever after. I was under the impression that most “red pill” men wanted to fuck around and revel in female hypergamy, and only avail themselves of the marriage option with a woman in their 20s when they hit 40-50.
“Also I’m glad for contraception and abortion and some other feminist issues because it allows me to fuck tons of girls. Some of you seem to just want to turn back the clock to 1950, get married at 22, and live happily ever after. I was under the impression that most “red pill” men wanted to fuck around and revel in female hypergamy, and only avail themselves of the marriage option with a woman in their 20s when they hit 40-50.”
I know! Its like the hordes of men in India protesting couples holding hands on Valentines Day, an emerging dating culture and love marriage (that means non-arranged marriage). I can’t believe that MEN are against these things. You’d think they’d want to be able to date women and select a wife according to their own preference rather than have their parents pick out someone because they think she’d make a good daughter-in-law FOR THEM, their own son’s preferences be damned.
Roosh: I think it is very telling that 90% of your audience is vehemently against this post – along with most of the other nonsense on this site from your shitty writer lackeys. Probably more, considering many comments – like my earlier post – weren’t “approved.” Once again, maybe you should take my advice and fire these fucking losers because they aren’t producing anything of value that anybody wants. Your posts range from mediocre to amazing, with most of them sitting comfortably in the “Really Good” section. The other people writing on this site? Nearly every one of their articles is complete and utter garbage, with very few exceptions. As I said, this site has quickly turned into a shitty combination of Cracked and Ask (Wo)Men.
IMO there should definitely be a better vetting process for articles. too many coming out daily so not enough checks and balances.
but ROK just like any privately owned website is not a democracy. its a (benevolent) dictatorship, and should be respected as such.
inmalafide made the mistake of allowing too much freedom of speech on the writers front ultimately leading to ferd’s self destruction
as i briefly mentioned in comments further up the page there are a few important points i’d like to make:
don’t agree with the article (besides the tin foil hat stuff) but the headline was obviously very right wing baiting and you can naturally expect an uproar
people are getting confused between the readers who thought the article had a shitty premise (that liberals are not the enemy),
and WN readers who felt ‘upset’ because of the quick comment about the extreme right’s race obsession
and finally leftist non-statist non-pc guys who like the right except when they attack race
this article has got almost as many comments as the ugly feminist ones for fuck sake. are we really going to shoot ourselves in the foot by getting all pissy at each other?
solution/things we can agree on (but are still ultimately at Roosh’s discretion, this is not a democracy, and rightfully so, its a private website):
-take more time and really vet the articles. there have been some great ones and some colossal stinkers as of late.
-the race issue is always going to be a point of division. if you don’t want that kind of topic (HBD) on your site, let your readers find somewhere else to talk about that. right here they can talk with like minded men on points which we can all agree upon (the shittiness of entitlements and feminism), leaving the other points to places those HBD fans can all go gaga over. its not worth the division to have articles constantly stirring this shit up. stop with the articles about race, its enough already
-more rigorous moderation of comments. fuck the people complaining about being moderated, this is not a democracy. its a privately run website, ROK does not ‘owe’ you anything. you are not buying from them
thats about it
Purely out of curiosity – whereabouts on the political spectrum do Americans regard Tony Blair as being situated?
To the left of Obama and the current Democratic party because of his support of traditional labour issues like universal health care, but he’s still a hawk and not as far left as Bernie Sanders.
Where do you guys go to study politics. I’m always lost when the left-right American polity thing comes up, I don’t know what I should read.
Huzza for centrists! I hate Skrillex haircuts but love my VA Hospital
Then who are the enemies?
Feminists – they are on the Left
Wussy hipster douchebags – they are on the Left
Anti-free speech “hate speech” activists – they are on the Left
gun-control activists – they are on the Left
anti-MRA activists – they are on the Left
religious anti-birth control forces – they are on the right but all but non-existent
So if you want to say that the Left isn’t the enemy because there are some sympathetic blue-collar union employees who are completely silenced in the Democratic freak show, you might as well try to sell snow to Eskimos.
Can you be in the manosphere and want big government. We can debate it buy I think most believe that it is masculine to determine your own way by your own efforts, not to need the state to wipe your ass constantly.
Dude, hate speech is legal and constitutional in this country and will be forever barring a constitutional amendment. Even your most hated Supreme Court justice isn’t entertaining the idea of overturning the Skokie case or anything like that. In fact, that’s so controversial as to not get the nominee out of the Senate Judiciary committee. Gun control has nothing to do with the manosphere. Just because some men like guns doesn’t mean it’s a man’s issue. Anti MRA is on both sides of the aisle. Start posting red pill stuff in the comments at NRO and you’ll get flamed to high hell just as much as if you post it on Jizzabel. So we have feminists and hipster douchebags on the left, christian shitbags on the right, and pussy white knights on every corner of the earth. All sides despise our kind. This isn’t a right/left thing.
Amazing thread and the leftist responses are classic. Like Walker said above what drives most conservatives bonkers is the pure infantile nature of the liberal responses. Conservatives must be bad because they oppose meat inspections. Big bankers are bad. WTF? That shit is 60 to 100 years old. This country is way past that. Obamacare is going to consume a fifth of the economy and fuck up the medical system for decades and you are bleating about rich people who suck down government subsidies? Like the electric car and wind barons the DOE loves?
Take if from an old guy. The government doesn’t make anything. It doesn’t fix anything. It’s only an agent of enforcement. You know, the military. Even some leftists, after 9/11, think it is occasionally useful. Once it starts redistributing money it fucks up everything. Housing. Education. Name one thing it can do with efficiency besides drop drones.
Awful lot of discoveries are made at state funded universities and I sure as shit wish that the government would Fix our crumbling infrastructure before a bridge collapses with me on top of it. It also employs a ton of people that turn around and put their salaries back into the economy which is multiplied several times because it is spent several times. If I buy a pie from you for $5, that’s $5 spent into the economy, plus your profit spent into the economy, plus the profit the next guy makes from you spending that money, etc. Every dollar given to a government employee is multiplied as it goes through the economy, but you wouldn’t know anything about that would you? Government is bad because Ronald Reagan and government employees are all lazy loafers who can’t hack it in the real world… except those in the military because… they go through basic training.
The country WAS past “bankers are bad” until we started to repeal all of the shit that was put into place to prevent bankers from being bad. Then they completely tanked our economy and voila, “bankers are bad” is back. You hate the “infantile” responses of liberals; well I hate the intellectually bankrupt bullshit from old ass conservatives who think that an argument is less valid if I use the word “shit” to describe your stupid shit.
But thanks for a bunch of long discredited impractical conservative masturbation that doesn’t touch on a single men’s issue; it was well appreciated and completely relevant to the OP!
“Every dollar given to a government employee is multiplied as it goes through the economy, but you wouldn’t know anything about that would you?”
How many trillions have been spent since 2008? And what is the multiplier for that stimulus? If it is less than one, than your policy has failed.
Google “Broken Window Fallacy”.
If this is so true, then why don’t we send 100% of our money through the government so that it can multiply again and again until infinity?
You are correct about infrastructure and university research though. We need to divert all the welfare state money (both corporate and individual) to these two things plus keeping a strong military, and then give some of it back in bigger tax returns. That would improve America in a few months time.
>> “Name one thing it can do with efficiency besides drop drones.”
Craft inane legislation
Steal our freedoms
Get bigger, and bigger, and bigger…
Trash our finances
Destroy our country
Pee all over the constitution
It’s 60 to 100 years old and still thriving because it was a positive change in our government policy. It’s still progressive, left-wing legislation. That alone should be a clue that the OP has valid points.
A lot of commenters cannot seem to understand he difference between politically left policies and the Democratic party which ostensibly espouses them, or its counterpart on the right.
Liberals are pretty clear about not wanting to live in a totalitarian state (the extreme version of government power), but conservatives seem to be more and more willing to live in Hobbes’ “state of nature” which would be amazingly bad for them and most people. Even large corporations avail themselves of the apparatus of government, from the most basic “use of roads and the postal service” to “the court system protects them from theft and fraud.”
Even large corporations avail themselves of the apparatus of government?
Corporations of any size are entirely a government invention. You think on the Sixth Day God created shareholder membership, or that limited liability entities evolved from nomadic trading to radiate their glory upon the free market?
I am about the farthest thing from a liberal, according to the interpretation many give to that word, but I wholeheartedly agree with Tuthmosis’ thrust, here. What we have in common here is not that we all hang out at Republican conventions (I certainly do not) or that we condemn leftist ideology. What we have in common is that we are men and are opposed to the poisonous doctrines of feminism in theory and practice. Given how thoroughly feminist propaganda has saturated Western culture, there are few enough of us who can agree that it must be opposed, and fewer still who are motivated enough to actually do or say something. We must find our allies where we will. Tuthmosis and I might disagree violently about questions of government, or might agree wholeheartedly, but we would undoubtedly agree when it comes to matters of feminism, masculinity, and the art of smoothly getting girls in the sack. And that is why he and I and all the rest of the men here are on this site, and not on a site dedicated to a political party. Once feminism has been reduced to its proper place as a mere footnote in a history book, then we can worry about bashing the naive liberals, or the greedy conservatives, or what have you.
“”to a much uglier streak of ahistorical, quasi-scientific white-nationalist sentiment on the other.””
What’s the “ugly” part, them being white or being nationalists?
We white folks hit our wall pretty damn early. Our best years are 16-30. After that its all downhill looks wise. People of color age much later. Lucky bastards.
And yes where the communists won, like China, The USSR, North Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, they became pussy mangina states…oh…wait
Tuthmosis is trying to be contrary on purpose. It’s a beta hipster move. Saying Barack Obama is center/center right is laughable and factually incorrect. He’s the most hard core , radical politically/socially/culturally far left prez ever elected . I’m all for a big tent and trying to lure fellas into the manosphere but think impossible for any current modern democrat/progressive/leftist. The end result is who you vote for. Yes there are manly , socially conservative , flannel wearing , callused handed pipe fitter types but we are still fucked cause they vote for Libs/Progs/Dems. Lastly, name one law, regulation or program coming from the Right/Libertarian/Conservative side that has threatened the manosphere??
Wow, so sad. I had real hope for this website, and then I see absolute rubbish like this article.
“It’s filled with tough”
nope
“old-school”
Is ‘anything before the 70’s was sexist, racist homophobic! Thank god we’ve made so much SOCIAL PROGRESS!!’ old school? Really?
,
“manly ”
Is this some “real men are moral, real men look after women blah blah blah” bullshit? You REALLY need to read some Jack Donovan. To call liberals “manly” is to make the word utterly meaningless.
“cats with the balls to stand up to corporate abuse”
If they were aginst corporate abuse they wouldnt support obama!
“foreign threats”
What? The same people who go around calling everyone “islamophobes”?
“and, nowadays, the corrosive delusions of feminism.”
WHAT. THE. FUCK.
Liberals ARE the feminists.
I seriously thought roosh was a clever guy, but given his willingness to apaprently let any old idiot put their shit on his blog, now I’m not so sure.
The author of the article *is* the enemy. He is most assuredly NOT one of us, and he needs to fuck off.
You’re spot on. I may be wrong… feminisms was a force from the bored housewives of the right. Working men’s clubs and unions got destroyed as a consequence (among other things). Maybe for the better.
Part of taking the Red pill, for me, is seeing the reality not just in gender. In the fact that it doesn’t matter if it’s left or right, it’s the same old same old – politicians. In economics, in religion, in the police, in the media (singing to the choir), in health, science and on and on. Reality seems hard to grasp because of self interest, peer group pressure and cash.
I don’t vote any more cause it’s all bollocks and I can’t find an alternative except the Red pill- as it’s called.
This may be theoretically true but……… feminists have a lock on the Democratic Party; The Dems pass, or will tend to pass, feminist tinted legislation; the President will appoint, or attempt to appoint, feminist leaning judges and bureaucrats.
So for all practical purposes Liberals are no friends of the Manosphere.
Liberals are still men. Liberals still have many of the same values and are a fundamental part of the manosphere.
I’m extremely liberal economically. But I’m still an ardent supporter of the manosphere. To be a functional movement, we members of the manosphere need to look past our differences. We have much bigger fish to fry.
This comment suffers from the fallacy that the Democratic party is liberal (and, as I mention in the article, it isn’t). “Liberals” =/= Democrats. You have to think outside of party lines, because the work of the Manosphere doesn’t operate in that binary–and shouldn’t.
Dude, the rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer, jobs are going away, and we’re heading down an economic shithole that conservative politics can’t fix.
Not all of us lefties like feminism. Although I do have to question the high number of racist people here in the manosphere.
I’m right there with you. I’m a liberal, atheist vegetarian who loathes modern post feminism.
Holy deletion of comments.
The huge quantity of comments from before (on this and other articles on ROK) is being ported to the new Disqus commenting system. Word is that the process is excruciatingly slow.
First off, there is no level playing field at all between men and women considering….
A pregnant woman can….
1. Have the baby and hold the father accountable
2. Decide she’s not ready to be a mother and Abort
While a man who got a woman pregnant can
1. Be a father, presuming the pregnant woman allows it
2. But he cannot walk away like the woman can through abortion, and he doesn’t even need to murder a baby in the process
Does anyone really think that’s “equality” or a “level playing field”?
That of course, doesn’t even bother mentioning the farce that is family court, where a man is guilty simply for having a penis.
A) We are not drifting right, as evidenced by shrinking rights for men over the past several decades.
B) We are not drifting right, as evidenced by rising socialism.
C) We are not drifting right, as evidenced by a media that continues to soft-ball questions to the left-leaning spectrum, yet bash anything remotely leaning to the right.
Now, having said that, I am more libertarian minded than a conservative. I have no desire to socially control people like the right side of the equation does. However, I have no interest in socialism or in handicapping men or caucasions, like the left seems to want so vehemently.
“But he cannot walk away”
Yes he can.
Male reproductive rights: they are called “condoms”.
Condoms have a failure rate.
Its negligible. If you’re really stressed about it, wear 2.
2 condoms still do not add up to 1 constitutional or legal right which is already possessed by only one sex. I could put ten condoms on my dick,but what I would like is for the state to acknowledge that I have the right to control when I become a father just like it acknowledges that women have the right to choose when they become a mother.
As things stand, women are the only ones who can be legally considered autonomous in terms of reproduction, and I think that’s fucked up.
Personally I would rather have fuck all to do with women and continue with my stress free 10 hours per week life. In effect shove your condoms up your arse
A condom is not a legal right, that is a prophylactic device. Under your argument, women have no need for abortion,because they have plan B and the monthly birth control plan. Even if that is what you’re arguing, it’s completely unconstitutional to grant rights to one group of citizens alone when the same or an equivalent right could be granted to all citizens.
Other male reproductive rights include keeping your dick in your pants and keeping it out of dangerous women.
IMHO writers in the manosphere who marginalize alt-righters and race
realists generally fall into 3 camps and it boils down to their priorities. If
you’re non-white, you join the liberal everybody against whitey coalition. If
you’re a PUA, you join the rainbow PussyPalooza army. If you’re a traditional
Christian, its those magic words from that Bible that make someone you’re
comrade.
For some people in my race, the white race, we’re just like all the non-whites.
We realize that loyalty to and leveraging our race provides ultimately the only
real advantage to survival for ourselves and our children. If you’re not
willing to take your own side in this life competition, you will not survive,
and that is the self-annihilating position of white liberals. If only one race
plays by “the rules” then that race is going to lose. And that is the
existential threat facing my race, whose traditional homelands across this
planet are being overrun by unlimited non-white immigration and constant
pressure to accept and embrace assimilation or be banished from respectable
society. London is now 45% white for instance.
This is not happening in Africa or Asia. Nobody is demanding the Japanese
import and assimilate, ie. marry and procreate with Haitians. Nobody is calling
Africans racist for wanting to stay African. But this is occurring in EVERY
WHITE COUNTRY and ONLY WHITE COUNTRIES. Anti-racism is just a code word for
anti-white. Being pro-white does not mean hating other races, it simply means
behaving as all races behave, respecting and defending their race. Its becoming
the new normal. Its not going away by calling every white person willing to defend their race a nazi. Liberals are supporters of white genocide. They and
their policies are a threat to the continuing existence of my race.
That was extremely well-written and exactly the reality which is going on today.
Japan might not have as much trouble with non-asians as we do, but they’re quickly becoming overrun with Chinese and Korean immigrants. It’s a first world “suicide slide” issue more than an ethnic one.
Strange that my desire to seduce women has put me in the same “tent” as the KKK.
Yeah because only nazi klansmen care about what happens to white people right? fuck off you anti-white prick.
You’re a very emotional man.
A member of the Cowlitz Indian Tribe in south west Washington state (I served for 9-1/2 years on the tribal council), I am obviously of mixed race ancestry. I mention this to qualify my response — being a “person of color” I do not automatically align against white men. (Both my grandfathers were white men, and both my grandmothers were American Indians.) To the contrary, I am neither a leftist nor a rightist.
The political left and right are both progressive, and progressivism always and invariably leads to totalitarianism. Progressivism is the enemy of both Liberalism and Conservatism.
Conservative principles primarily serve the majority–the statistically normal person–while Liberal principles primarily serve the statistical outliers. (There’s a lot of overlap, hence the term, “primarily.”) Pluralistic societies hold the two in dynamic tension, conservatism holding things together, liberalism propelling growth and exploration.
Progressives masquerade as liberals on the left but there is nothing liberal about progressivism; on the right, progressives are called neocons.
You’d be more accurate in saying “Liberals are not the ONLY enemy”. It’s one thing to hold to the position that both the political Left and Right are responsible for our current mess. It’s another thing entirely to try to absolve the Left of wrongdoing. We tend to defend the ideology we originally held to before “Red Pill”.
Besides, if you’re looking to be thought of as anything other than a “tin foil hat nut,” you’re probably to concerned with what the Left, and it’s culture of self-victimization, thinks. You either believe what you know to be true, or you end up as a pandering “Beta” male, more concerned with being accepted than with doing what you want.
I’m calling for nuance. To lump all “liberals” together is massively inaccurate and deceptive, as it would be lump all “conservatives.” The so-called “culture of self-victimization” is as common on the right (though with a different set of issues) than it is on the left.
“we do need to agree on one thing: a shift away from a wholesale dismissal of the left”
When those in the manosphere refer to ‘leftists’ they basically mean cultural marxists.
When those in the manosphere refer to ‘leftists’ they basically mean cultural marxists.
Right. A lot of white nationalists (who are usually categorized as far-right) have leftist views on free trade
and foreign policy, and even the role of government in keeping
corporations in check and predatory monopolies broken up, minus the
marxist redistributive BS.
Also of note;
http://www.salon.com/2011/01/12/lind_five_worldviews/
DNC abandons White voters
http://www.examiner.com/article/it-s-official-obama-abandons-caucasian-working-class-voters-for-2012
Kind says it all if your White man
thank you Tuthmosis! brilliant essay!
Will not read this article. Fake gods fake kings fake expectations all the worlds problems are a result of conservative greed.
So let me get this straight: you only read things that confirm your pre-existing biases in the headline?
You wrote: “Regulation, of banks and oil companies, for instance—which were steadily
relaxed throughout the conservative ascendancy starting in the
1980s—would have prevented, or at least mitigated, a lot of the economic
woes that have set America irretrievably back in recent years.”
Problem is that the economic woes in recent years were caused by the Community Reinvestment Acts where banks were force by regulators to lend mortgages to poor credit risk that were then bundle into the CMO’s that brought the Banks Too Big To Fail. That came about in 1992 under the Democratic Clinton Administration. The Too Big To Fail banks were created when the Clinton Administration repealed the Glass Steagall Act, which kept Investment banks and commercial banks apart.
And there’s no way the Obama administration can be consider centerist or center right when you consider that they are pushing for more gun control or that they pushed thru Obamacare over the objections over the majority of the American people.
Glass-Steagall was undone by Gramm-Leach-Bliley, a wholesale giveaway to Citigroup by three of the most right-wing politicians in DC at the time. Clinton did, admittedly, sign it. I think we could have survived subprime lending just fine had banks not been able to collateralize the debt instruments and, more crucially, buy/sell default risk on debt they didn’t hold. But that’s a complicated can of worms.
Great start. However, you’d think a contemporary defense of liberalism would use someone else besides a dead 1940s war president and his five-star general, both of whom are beloved by conservatives and have absolutely nothing in common with, say, Harry Reid and the NYT editorial board.
I could have easily used Bernie Sanders, Dennis Kucinich, or other modern examples. Those choices would have been subject to their own set of criticisms.
“The rightward lean is thoroughly unsurprising, since much of society’s ills have successfully been pinned on the specter of the so-called liberal (monolithic) left.”
Hahaha.
Nope,sorry. Take this trope for instance,”Regulation, of banks and oil companies, for instance—which were steadily relaxed throughout the conservative ascendancy starting in the 1980s—would have prevented, or at least mitigated, a lot of the economic woes that have set America irretrievably back in recent years.”
This is what everyone believes. It has successfully been pinned on the right that our economic woes are due to “greedy bankers”,Big Business, and laissez-faire Capitalism. In reality, our economic woes are due to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac being forced, through some of those regulations you like so much, to lend money to low-income blacks that they had no intention or ability to ever pay back. It wasn’t “fair” you see,that black people couldn’t get home loans just because they didn’t have any money or collateral.
RACISM!
And it all started under the Presidency of one William Clinton who, believe it or not, I actually liked until he started working as an apologist for Barack Obama.
“I don’t like the idea that General Electric pays no income tax and that when I call my credit card a guy in India picks up. I find it increasingly difficult to buy things not made in China. These are, quite plainly, the products of libertarian- and conservative-minded policies in recent decades. ”
Imbecilic. Do you mean to suggest that labor unions making our products non-competitive with China has something to do with libertarianism or conservatism? Hahahaha. If it were up to Libertarians,child labor would still be legal, just like it is in China and Thailand. We’d be competitive as a motherfucker. Say whatever you will about the moral implications of that, the economic implications are clear. It is a complete reversal of fact to try to pin this one on libertarians and conservatives.
“Take Barack Obama—the favorite scape goat of the conservative right. His politics, like those of the Democratic Party writ-large, are anywhere from center to center-right, by almost any historical or global measure. ”
So “Punish the rich” with “revenge votes” is a right-wing idea? On what planet? Refusing to prosecute or deport illegal immigrants is a right-wing idea? Maybe exploiting them for cheap labor once they’re over here,but certainly not bringing them over here in the first place. Extreme right-wingers are isolationists. Green Energy investments,conservative or liberal? Might be a clue somewhere in the name “Green Energy”. Which side is the “Green Party” on? Which side of the aisle are PETA,ELF, and all the other eco-terrorists on?
Left vs Right is irrelevant in the MRM because the argument for Men’s Rights is a libertarian argument no matter who is making it. It is based on individual rights to free association without government intervention. No current group of political lemmings are my political allies,because my personal views are anathema to both left and right, but that is irrelevant to men’s rights.The only time dragging left and right into the MRM is productive is in identifying our enemies,MOST of whom are on the left,though,tradcons make things difficult for men as well.
Bro, less than 50% of subprime mortgages came from either Community Reinvestment Act loans or Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae. This was completely due to bankers misrepresenting the value of the loans they were selling thanks to the shadowbanking system.
Do some research next time before you start spouting stuff that reinforces your worldview.
Irrelevant even if true; the major NA bank I worked for was threatened with government lawsuits, IRS audits, and other extortions if we didn’t lend more to minorities regardless of their ability to pay such loans back.
Even though we complied and contributed to the collapse, we still got sued anyway for not lending enough to minorities.
The blame lies squarely at the democrats door. It’s not that this is in the past, it’s that they will continue to do this until their party goes through some kind of revolution where they drop the racist/feminist screed and actually learn to live in reality for once.
But what got banks into the sub-prime mortgage business in the first place? Greed certainly moved them forward, but what pushed them into doing something they’d never done before?
It’s a shame that there’s no political movement which can just accept scientific concensus.
I’d die happy if I could vote for a party who accept the scientific evidence that human-based climate change is real, but also except that every shred of evolutionary biology points out MASSIVE differences between genders and races.
Sadly, I think this kind of consistency in centuries away.
I tend to not hate the player, but the game. Therefore like Jesus Christ and most of his disciples, I blame the jews.
John Dewey was an example of the “old Left” and progressivism of the early 20th century, with an emphasis on democracy and the improvement of the lives of the individual so as to be free from tyranny, oppression, and economic privation. His thoughts on education, alone, are a fascinating read, because they provided a co-traveler to Montessori education and, today, homeschooling as an antitode to the failing public schools.
Contrast this with what I like to call the “kooky Left,” which spawned feminism, etc. This Left took control of the American university system, and political correctness, et al. was soon to follow.
I’ve been a liberal all my life (I’m so Liberal I’m Canadian), but there’s no way I’d ever accept the crap I see from feminism. I have a son. I do not want him growing old in the world feminists want to create.
The author of this article: Another turd in the game punch bowl.
“I don’t like the idea that General Electric pays no income tax and that when I call my credit card a guy in India picks up. I find it increasingly difficult to buy things not made in China. These are, quite plainly, the products of libertarian- and conservative-minded policies in recent decades.”
China has been playing currency wars with the U.S. forever, managing to pin their currency to a specific dollar amount and get away with it. This is what continues to make goods exported from china so cheap. As for the other countries that are big exporters to the U.S. with no such currency war in place; look no further than the U.S. over-regulating it’s manufacturing base for a good reason as to why we don’t manufacture those things here.
The U.S. is at this point mostly a victim of it’s own economic success and what you’re seeing now is a market correction on labor value in an increasingly open worldwide market. You don’t even need to bring U.S. political parties into the picture to describe what’s going on in this economy.
Hear, hear!
Having recently read Coming Apart, it seems many of the problems today are not left or right political problems but social ones. The problem is that secularism has failed to provide the same cohesive social “contracts” that Christianity offered. This was the lubrication that kept the engine running, not any particular government policy.
this is simply flat out untrue.
the left has always been the enemy and always will be. the left today is liberalism and liberalism is communism. communism is fundamentally at it’s core at odds with conservationism which is fundamental at its core in union with the constitution of the USA.
you simply cannot put these two polar opposites in a room and not expect a fight.
liberals are the enemy and they were always the enemy. liberals by their very nature of being liberal do not oppose government corruption because a fundamental part of communism is government corruption. liberals do not oppose large and powerful tyrannical governments because that is fundamental to communism.
now one could say liberals are deluded and do not know this….this might be true, but then that speaks volumes about the quality of your average liberal.
the problem is no one is calling liberals communists anymore. they’ve hijacked the narrative and sold it as progressivism and socialism which sound nicer than communism which we all still remember is what Stalin was a part of and the cold war.
once you understand that liberalism is actually communism and fascism….you understand quite clearly that liberals at their core are not at all even in the same world view as a member of the right conservative movement.
in the same vain it becomes hard to be an atheists conservative because it is usually the morality of Christianity that condemns homosexuality and abortion or murder of infants which is another example of liberals controlling the narrative as they have renamed infant murder to pro-choice and abortion.
so like it or not….conservatives are rooted in Christianity and liberals are rooted in communism which much more rooted in anti-Christianity or atheism. in case you havent noticed there is a very big anti-Christianity crowd from the left who are the same folks that accept all other religions EXCEPT Christianity. folks, the political war today is communism vs conservatism…..communism the body in which the doctrine of Satan resides and conservatism the body in which the doctrine of Christ survives. perhaps these two bodies are not the best preservers in the world, but it is what it is, and it is these two philosophies that are at war.
these are all radically opposing world views at their core.