How Creating Outgroups Manufactures Outrage

In this article, I’ll use the Return Of Kings meetup outrage as a way to take a look at human behavior, especially when we encounter people we disagree with. More specifically, I’ll use it as a way to talk about in-groups and out-groups. Recently, throughout the Return Of Kings media blow up, we witnessed the behavior of people at their finest when leftists, feminists, and social justice warriors attacked ROK readers. They threatened violence, death, and directed their most toxic venom at Roosh himself. You saw the worst of human nature up close, with full endorsement from the media machine.

When Can You Trust The Media?


Give me my social media suppository

Suppose there was a case where a feminist writer had a large online presence, sold many self-published books, and had thousands of followers. This feminist is a firebrand who gained notoriety for writing things like “Men must submit to women,” “Men are weak,” and promoted a way of thinking that women should always lead men. For anyone who isn’t a fan of hers, all they’ve ever heard are the most extreme segments of her writing.

The media later reports headlines along the lines of “Pro-Castration Feminist To Hold Rallies Worldwide.” Journalists claim this feminist writer is now promoting the castration of men based on a satirical article she wrote. Articles are released claiming she is holding meetings in dozens of cities centered on the idea that it should be “legal to castrate men on private property.”

Most of us would think she was insane, some of us would read the article, and a few would want to draw the worst conclusions from it. Some of us might say things like, “Yeah, she says it’s satire but this is how they actually think.”

Of course, the media would not treat this feminist nearly as horribly as they treated Roosh, and the masses would not be triggered the way they were as a result of the ROK meetup announcement. But I’m not talking about the sheep, the media, or feminists. I’m talking about you. About us. We would not react in a violent rage, and we wouldn’t threaten violence to anyone, but many of us would be angry. If we had the full endorsement of the machine to behave in any way we wanted, the way feminists currently do, it is possible that we might also act differently when we encounter a provocative article online and are fully encouraged by the machine to vent our rage.

How To Identify An Out-group

ingroup outgroup photo

But who has the hotter chicks?

Now, let’s talk about descriptions. While reading about the outrage (and trolling on Twitter), I noticed something interesting about the words leftists used to characterize us:

  • “These guys all think women owe them something”
  • “Typical rapist bro”
  • “Another loser pick up artist”
  • “They all even speak the same”

What is the most common thread linking these sorts of comments together? “These guys are all the same.” For them, we are an indistinguishable bro-y, rape-y, douche-y mass. This is exactly how an in-group identifies an out-group.

We think the SJWs who are poisoned by a false ideology are all indistinguishable. For them, we follow a worthless philosophy and are indistinguishable. We see their idiocy and they see the same in us. We see collapse at the end of the progressive tunnel, and they see something equally terrible if we return to patriarchy. Engaging one of them and saying their progressive beliefs are wrong would be like them engaging you by saying your neomasculine beliefs are wrong.

Is The Out-Group Worth Hating?

MRA Bingo

Full disclosure: I’d probably fuck a fembot

One of the principles of in-group versus out-group behavior is that the in-group applies stereotypes to the out-group. This means that we personally and carefully evaluate people who are in our in-groups, and generally and hastily assess people in the out-groups. To put it another way, we treat in-group members as individuals, and respond to the out-group as members of a class or category.

We more often notice the differences between those who are in our in-groups. For members of the out-group, we emphasize their similarities. For an historical example, think about World War II. To the American in the 1940s the Japanese were shifty and treacherous individuals, not to be trusted. For the Japanese, the Americans were hypocritical and uncultured because the American missionaries and salesmen, who the Japanese had the most contact with, seemed to have flimsy ethics and bad manners.

To take a relevant example, to members of the ROK community, all SJWs seem to look alike and seem basically indistinguishable from one another. We all know the markers: Short hair, neon coloring, overweight, etc. These are stereotypes for a reason.

Still, this is exactly how leftists see us. As soon as you classify yourself as a supporter of masculinity, patriarchy, or traditional values, you are no longer a complete human being with unique thoughts, feelings, and opinions. You are a member of the out-group.

If you try explaining to them that you are not a monster, but a man who just thinks maybe something is wrong with society, they don’t hear that. All they hear is, “I am a member of the out-group. I believe in crazy things that will oppress people. I might also hate anyone who doesn’t look like me or think like me.”

If you don’t believe me, try to flip this. Imagine that you are having a conversation with a girl, and suddenly she tells you that she is a major feminist, read all the literature, and thinks there is something wrong with society. At that point, she starts telling you what she thinks would help. Would you listen to her?

Can A Feminist Feel Love?

SJW Bingo

These can all be replaced with the lower right square

A second principle of in-group versus out-group behavior is group signaling. For social identification, it is just as important to show disapproval of the out-group as it is to affirm the values of your in-group.

We saw a ton of this during the ROK outrage. All over social media and protest groups we saw people posting things to show their friends that they disapproved of rape, which is a very courageous stance to take. The ROK protestors were attempting to gain status among their peers by showing them that they are against whatever the media tells them ROK stands for.

This type of group membership thinking is so ingrained, that we even believe only our in-group has certain capabilities for thoughts and feelings, whereas for the out-group, their capabilities have a more limited range. Depending on the out-group we will assign one set of capabilities but not others. For example, we might assign to a group capabilities like planning, manipulation, and cold logic but not the capability for others like pain, desire, or sadness. For another out-group, we might attribute to them the ability to feel love, empathy, or happiness but not the capability for planning, manipulation, and higher-order thinking.

Look at how one feminist describes a related idea:

A few articles have been making the internet rounds recently about horrifying discoveries that seemingly normal men were actually part of the “manosphere.’

Seemingly normal. It’s as though we have in our minds a list like “human qualities” which we attribute to our in-group, but out-groups can only have a few of those traits, but never all of them. That group can only think, that group can only feel, but we can do both. The out-group cannot be capable of feeling the entire range of thoughts and emotions, otherwise we might mistake them for being human.

(c) Wellcome Library; Supplied by The Public Catalogue Foundation

Put your beliefs to the test

But why does any of this matter—why should you care that you are an out-group to your out-group? Three reasons. First, by temporarily adopting the other position, you will strengthen your own argument for why neomasculinity is truly a better philosophy than leftism. Second, you will be able to more quickly identify true believers in leftism and not waste energy trying to convert them. Third, you will more clearly know what you are up against by subjecting your own beliefs to rigorous examination.

As strongly as you hold your beliefs, the leftists hold theirs equally strongly. But if you have the benefit of understanding this, it is to your advantage.

Read More: How 4Chan Discredited A Culture Of Outrage

77 thoughts on “How Creating Outgroups Manufactures Outrage”

  1. How come no one here writes about San Fran hedge fund manager Tom Steyer? Fundraising organizer for “#” movement? He’s just using “#blacklives” to eradicate traditional media for venture funded SF-based social medias. Using liberals, blacks, and millions to crush old media outlets and make profits for his people via social media growth. Google and wiki this guy.

  2. The other day one of my coworkers told me a joke. It goes something like this: Pancho Villa takes this town inhabited mostly by women. So one of his captains goes out to the town square and starts addressing the populace. He tells them,”By the decree of our general Villa, all the women will be raped.” One of the women asks, “All of them?” The captain says,” All of you.” “Even my grandma?” “Even your grandma.” At that moment the woman protests “But you can’t do that! She’s old and frail!” Just then, the grandma gets up from her rocker and tells her granddaughter with a bit of a devilish smile”Honey, the man has spoken. We are ALL getting raped!” BADUMP PHISH!!
    I told this joke to my mother, who by the way, is both a grandmother AND a great grandmother. She just burst out laughing.
    I cannot imagine doing this to the average American, and definitely not to feminists. I would be accused of being “pro rape”, and being in favor of raping poor little grannies. And this one goes for Roosh. Next time you write satire or anything with a hint of sarcasm, have a sarcasm sign ready just in case. These people are satire deficient.

    1. The majority of them know what satire is and knew the article was satire. They also knew that most people wouldn’t read the article so they could frame it however they wanted. They are wilfully disingenuous for the sake of the Narrative. They lie. That’s all we need to know.

      1. If you look at how the media machine and the 48hr news cycle works .. one outlet writes an article and journalists at 500 others copy and plagarize that news item until the same story with almost no changes or research is rehased and rewritten and now appears on google news etc. With 500+ links available as if all the journalists and media establishments worldwide have throughly researched and cross checked it from top to bottom…
        Whereas in reality its more like a game of chinese whispers.

      2. They might in fact be doublethinkers. Both knowing that it is satire, and at the same time being fully convinced that it is serious.

    2. Showed this joke to my mother and she burst out laughing as seems to me that the “majority” or the masses are indeed satire deficient as they take everything way too seriously or look at everything from an extremist”s point of view.The fact that the media often paints Roosh as well as us as “promoting rape culture” and other neglible nonsense isnt really helping matters. TLDR;people need to start using their brains instead of just buying into media nonsense.

  3. Feel like I understand leftists better after having been one for years. But I do not understand the leftists of my generation who could not change after having seen over the years how the left has changed from the party of civil liberties and free speech.
    I still do not think I was wrong to be anti-George Bush in 2000 and 2004. With the damage the Iraq War did to our country.
    I never thought I would hear a leftist support making our medicine a corporate cartel to which we have no choice but to pay. That violates everything the left claims to stand for. I think the only issue where I have moved right is guns. In the 90’s. I was not aware of 2nd amendment as a civil rights issue. Listening to Alex Jones woke me up there.

  4. Perhaps MRA or neo-masculanists come across as drones to a leftists, but the difference is in what we are arguing.
    We are mainly calling for resistance against incursion and subsequent subversion of traditional white institutions; to allow these institutions to flourish unfettered by socialism. The sjws are about pushing their way into organizations, initiating the exodus of, well, people like me.
    Do I other people who do this to me? Who cares. They have an ideology that contributes to my risk exposure. And I definitely would rather live my life free of pc but it has spread to virtually every corner of western culture.

    1. Difference is that they use violence and threats against anyone disagreeing with them. First thing they do is try to get you fired. We don’t do that. Even if we could, it’s not our nature.

    2. >We are mainly calling for resistance against incursion and subsequent subversion of traditional white institutions
      The author just got done talking about how we create “others” to tribalize against; how feminists/mainstream do this with masculinists and then assassinate our character. Now YOU are doing the same thing by trying to create an outgroup of non-whites. That’s why I keep saying- GTFO out of the manopshere; you don’t belong here, and you fracture our group into warring tribes within the manosphere by race.
      Neomasculinity is the answer; take your race adversarialism elsewhere.

      1. The Damaging Effects Of Jewish Intellectualism And Activism On Western Culture

        “At a deep level the work of the Frankfurt School is addressed to altering Western societies in an attempt to make them resistant to anti-Semitism by pathologizing gentile group affiliations.”
        “The envisioned utopian society is one in which Judaism can continue as a cohesive group but in which cohesive, nationalistic, corporate gentile groups based on conformity to group norms have been abolished as manifestations of psychopathology.”
        “Jewish interests are also served by the Frankfurt School ideology that gentile concerns about losing social status and being eclipsed economically , socially, and demographically by other groups are an indication of psychopathology. As an exceptionally upwardly mobile group, this ideology serves Jewish interests by defusing gentile concerns about their downward mobility.”
        “…an important goal of Jewish intellectual effort may be understood as attempting to undermine cohesive gentile group strategies while continuing to engage in their own highly cohesive group strategy.”
        “Institutions that promote group ties among gentiles (such as nationalism and traditional gentile religious associations) are actively opposed and subverted, while the structural integrity of Jewish separatism is maintained. A consistent thread of radical theorizing since Marx has been a fear that nationalism could serve as a social cement that would result in a compromise between the social classes and result in a highly unified social order based on hierarchical but harmonious relationships between existing social classes.”
        “In the long run, radical individualism among gentiles and the fragmentation of gentile culture offer a superior environment for Judaism as a group evolutionary strategy,”
        “People in individualist cultures, in contrast, show little emotional attachment to ingroups. Personal goals are paramount, and socialization emphasizes the importance of self-reliance, independence, individual responsibility, and “finding yourself”. Individualists have more positive attitudes toward strangers and outgroup members and are more likely to behave in a prosocial, altruistic manner to strangers. Because they are less aware of ingroup-outgroup boundaries, people in individualist cultures are less likely to have negative attitudes toward outgroup members.”
        “Jews, as a highly cohesive group, have an interest in advocating a completely atomistic, individualistic society in which ingroup-outgroup distinctions are not salient to gentiles.”

  5. I don’t see the point of giving SJW:s and feminists the benefit of the doubt as they are not rational individuals but ideological fanatics. You can’t put yourself in the shoes of a crazy person and try understand why they think and act as they do because they are not like like you. It’s not a mere difference of view were talking about here. It’s about rationality verus irrationality.
    But to be fair you can improve your rethoric and exploit logical weaknesses in their arguements to make them look as fools to third parties and perhaps in turn strengthen our position. But don’t expect the crazies to change.

    1. It’s like manna from heaven when I am able to systematically and ruthlessly eviscerate all the fallacies and logical weaknesses of those inveterate imbeciles.

    2. Here’s the perspective of an old(er) man. I went through a brief leftist period when I was in my late teens. I quickly realized that feminism and leftism hated whites, and men, and so thought to myself there was no point in it. It’s funny that their reaction was to shove me out the door as an example to others (and themselves). I was an ostracized “loser” in their eyes. They didn’t want to hang out with me. It is like a cult, but not a particularly empowering one. Most of the men I know from my youth who stayed in it are and were treated like dirt by women and the state. They basically were cravenly collaborators, hoping for some breadcrumbs from the death camp table.
      That “exit” process, or the “red pill” as put by moderns, is what most young men go through at some point. Eventually, there’s little benefit in drinking the cool aid and mostly a liability. It’s a sign of wisdom as to how quickly the man is weaned off of it. The smart ones (I count myself amongst them 🙂 do it in early 20’s. The dumber ones in the 30’s. Some it takes until their 50’s to accomplish.
      Another factor is testesterone. Begging for sex is common and even PUA’s engage in clowning to get laid. So blue pilling is popular with insecure men who feel a need to get laid at all costs. But as one grows older, the throbbing urge of getting sex at all costs is diminished. Getting married and having kids ultimately generates a sense of self-esteem and inner strength. Men generally become more conservative as they grow older. Men who go from conservative/red pill to leftist male feminist in their 40’s? They must be severely messed up.
      Keep in mind that the reason the establishment elites want to eliminate white males is because white males are wising up and the clock is ticking. The challenge is to replace the red pill men with third worlders even if the third worlders are far worse and less controllable than the red pill men. A lot of it is driven by short term profits.

      1. What happend to you is an extremely common occurence in the west. And it’s not exclusive to the anglosphere either. One could even say that the majority of men in the west will go through the same process regardless of what country they live in. But what has changed post 2000 is that the misandry expressed towards men 35 and older has gone down the ages to male teens and lately children. Most of them not equipped to deal with the harpys praying on them.
        On the positive side men and boys are waking up earlier and will not fall into the same pitfalls previous generations have. Hence the decline in marriges and relationships outside of purely (sexual ones) as they don’t benefit men anymore. The same could be said in regards to mens failing allegiance to their oppressive nation states. Why should white men risk their lives in wars abroad for a system that hates them and treats veteran’s and heroes as scum.
        The elites fear white men more than anything as they know we could topple them if we were to come together in unison. Just think of the French revolution, the fall of the Sovietunion and the reunion of east and west Germany regardless of the oppression endured.

        1. Even back in 1984 (ironic year), I found that the misandry on college campuses was pretty obvious. Posters were around everywhere going on about the latest “men are rapists” rally, special programs for women (none for men), and the particular college campus I was on (penn state) has the most bitchy women imaginable (either they were ambivalent about men, man haters, or drunken fraternity sluts.)
          The beta male blue pillers didn’t stand a chance. It was amusing in a way. I saw a guy lavishing 6’s with praise and helping them do their homework and do their unpleasant shifts at the college jobs for them and the women treated them like dirt. I used redpill game (of the time) to call them out on their BS and… they liked me. Not that much, but they liked me a lot more than those guys.
          Keep in mind the USA has stunk for men for quite some time going back to the Titanic and Birkenhead where the men drowned while the ‘ladies’ rowed away complaining the men weren’t going to pay the bills anymore. The USA and Britain have always had the worst attitudes towards men and it’s super poisonous here.
          It was hard then, and now, for young men to deal with this. With prostitution illegal in most places in the states and with the media and culture pushing men to get laid (even on RoK where obsession over PUA is endemic), it can be emotionally difficult for a young man whose emotional understanding of himself isn’t yet fully developed. It’s like giving a 4 year old a BB gun.

  6. Finally a writer on here gets it. We have to get into the mind of those who opposes us to better know how to deal with their outrage. We can’t look at other social groups and automatically view them as baseless enemies. There are multiple viewpoints to every argument, and feminist/white knights/anti-manosphere groups stereotype us the way we stereotype them. Find out what makes them tick and we can use logic and their own ignorance to persuade them to become allies and dissuade the weaker groups and members. For neomasculinity to thrive we need allies within other social groups. I’ve seen it happen during the Gamergate run last year and I think it can be done again amongst the feminist and anti-manosphere SJW groups.

  7. “A second principle of in-group versus out-group behavior is group
    signaling. For social identification, it is just as important to show
    disapproval of the out-group as it is to affirm the values of your in-group.”
    Thoughtful article – it’s good to know there are some male psychologists left.
    In / out groups are as old as time (one can’t have society without them) but we’ve come to see them differently in recent decades, particularly since tajfel came up with social identity theory: the mere fact of group membership appears to change our perception, even where factors like shared interests, history etc are taken into account, and I think one of the notable things in the ‘pro-rape meet-up’ media storm
    was how cynically realizations like that were played on.
    A great deal of leftist / progressive politics quite cynically tries to incentivise in-group membership by telling us the kinds of things, the kind of behaviours and ultimately as a consequence the kinds of identity we must strive to avoid. I think we understand this pretty well, but generally still underestimate how deliberate and strategic are attempts to create out-groups to dis-identify with, so that everybody knows what is beyond the pale, who you don’t want to be, what kind of identity will cost you socially, personally and financially should you dare to ‘take up’ such an identity.
    One of the big ideas in progressive thought / cultural studies etc is the idea of the ‘Other’. If you want to understand latter-day progressive / marxist thought you have to understand that SJWs see society in terms of those who have dominated society from within the in-group – namely white-heterosexual (dead white) males – and those who have always and forever been in the out-group – namely women, racial minorities and gays etc. This latter out-group represents the perennial ‘Other’ for them. The woman as representing body instead of mind, the arab as representing the exotic oriental etc. In many ways though what SJW / progressive politics tries to do is to turn that on its head, by making white heterosexual men the new ‘Other’: penalising, shaming, basically shitting upon them in any way possible.
    That though is the automatic status. So long as you know your place in the new world order scheme of things and you make the right noises, and ingratiate yourself with feminists and gays etc you can still be part of the in-group (as in the social-signalling referred to in the article).
    But someone, some group has to be in the Out group. Some group has to take up the new Other position, or worse be completely cast-out into the zone of the non-person. And this is where stigmatisation comes into it. One of the main ways in which this is done today, is through efforts to portray a position not only as stigmatic and beyond the pale, but as inherently violent and extremist. That’s why it was necessary not merely to reject the ideas being bandied around on this site, but specifically to label them as pro-rape and a threat to the wider moral community
    Girard also has a great deal to say about how this happens, and describes how societies renew their cohesiveness by periodically sacrificing those selected to perform the scape-goat function. Once that person or group is sacrificed in the (media) ritual of slaughter, the people feel renewed and refreshed. The scapegoat of course takes upon its self the collective (patriarchal) guilt of the community. Obviously though, since there must always be in/out groups once the community is brought together through the sacrifice, then the whole process of out-grouping, othering / sacrificing must begin again.
    One of the most bizarre things though is that because of the ideology of SJWs / progressives described above, even though they objectively occupy the in-group position, as the ones with all the institution power, public support etc, they still insist on seeing themselves as being the ‘out-group’, the oppressed, the Othered, the silenced etc. The degree of disconnect here is staggering. It is nothing short of calling black white, or white black. So we may objectively constitute an out-group, stigmatised and few in number but in the progressive universe we are somehow representative of the all-powerful oppressive force that is patriarchy.

    1. ” even though they objectively occupy the in-group position, as the ones
      with all the institution power, public support etc, they still insist on
      seeing themselves as being the ‘out-group’, the oppressed, the Othered,
      the silenced”
      Liberals believe media in the US is biased towards right wingers, LOL. There is no point explaining them.
      I think you identified a key point difference between r-selected leftists and K-selected right wingers. The right winger types : libertrarians, nationalists, white separatists, etc. openly talk about how they will throw people out of helicopters and how “all kikes will be gassed” etc. They have no qualms against getting and holding power.
      Leftist want the same thing, but must feel victimized to justify their lust for power unlike right-wing types who feel no shame in taking what is theirs.
      It’s like Lenin vs Hitler.
      Lenin : you are the victim of the bourgeois, liberate yourself, you are justified
      Hitler : you are a member of a superior race, do not justify yourself to weaker life forms
      Even though Hitler mentioned german victimhood from jews and communists, he argued not from the position of a victim, oh my God save me from the bully ! rather from the position of a ruthless warrior : We must struggle to live, those who do not wish to struggle don’t deserve to exist.
      Basically, Christian morality vs Nitzschean morality.

      1. The left disguise and dress up their psychopathy. The right tend to wear their hearts on their sleeves. I’m not sure I’d identify the former position with Christianity, although in fairness much of modern egalitarianism / progressivism begins in christian / judaic social utopianism. Niezsche condemned christian “slave morality” in this sense, but people like Chesterton put up a pretty good defence against that idea, but I’d note that many rightist groups are as likely to be christian or religious as they are to be nietzschean or anything else. People bend ideas to fit their pre-occupations, and if you encounter Nietzche today in study it will probably be within the progressive or feminist literature.
        Re. Lenin / Hitler, both end up ‘othering’ & scapegoating in order to create a demonised outgroup. Although Hitler made no bones about it, I’d say both parties here lacked an awareness of the processes involved as described in the article etc.

        1. I agree that there is some truth that the utopian christian vision has a say, but it is true that Nietzsche oversimplified the issue and there are indeed counterpoints to his position. But that is the conventional way of naming them , Nietzschean morality stands in opposition to “Christian slave morality”
          “and if you encounter Nietzsche today in study it will probably be within the progressive or feminist literature”
          Nietzsche knew how to be ambiguous and thus please two sides : feminists and nazis. Quite a feat.

        2. Nietzsche certainly seems to have had it in for what he saw as Christian morality / moralism. His philosophy is difficult to pin down generally, but that has also meant it could be used for purposes beyond his own. I’m not quite sure what he would have made of his legacy in the twentieth century and beyond. I don’t think he would have been happy about it

      2. “The right winger types : libertrarians, nationalists, white
        separatists, etc. openly talk about how they will throw people out of
        helicopters and how ‘all kikes will be gassed’ etc. They have no qualms
        against getting and holding power.”
        That’s because most of them are really leftists. Putin doesn’t need to operate that way. A handful of billionaires, that may happen to be “Jewish,” might have unfortunate things happen to them, like randomly dying of exposure to polonium, but there’s no need for the nationwide purges and genocide that are trademark of the Left (fascism, communism, etc). An alpha wolf leads the wolf pack with the minimum amount of violence, just enough to establish and maintain dominance.

        1. “That’s because most of them are really leftists”
          Depends on what you define leftists as, they clearly have different thought patterns and beliefs. One believes in equality the other in tribalism and traditional gender roles.
          ” Putin doesn’t need to operate that way. A handful of billionaires,
          that may happen to be “Jewish,” might have unfortunate things happen to
          them, like randomly dying of exposure to polonium, but there’s no need
          for the nationwide purges ”
          I agree, reactionaries are often hysterical and have this “day of the rope” fantasies, which are somewhat immature way of thinking. Putin indeed takes a more mature approach, but I wouldn’t dismiss all reactionaries because of the more ridiciolous members.

  8. One could make spare money hiring out as a professional racist. Many SJWs need victimizers so you could offer services such as posting racist graffiti, KKK robe appearances, fecal swastikas, and other pranks. This would provide fuel for SJW meltdowns while shielding them from scrutiny over who staged the alleged incidents. Would also work for homo-phobe and misogyny victims etc.

    1. Is the Facebook “Black Lives Matter” Insult a Hoax?
      Rumors are afoot that Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg himself or one of his stooges staged the incident to provide him a platform to feign moral outrage over the existence of racist employees. Some are questioning how a person of Zuckerberg’s intelligence could fall for such an amateur hate prank and are claiming that he intends to use it as a foil to purge certain white male employees. While such speculation is premature, analysts are closely watching the unfolding drama to see if it marks a new trend in corporate undercover operations. The results of Facebook’s internal investigation of the crime are eagerly anticipated.

      1. Encorpera Survival Tip # 37 : The “anonymous” Employee Rumor Control Board is under video surveillance.

    2. Or be the token conservative at their social gatherings. A few years back somebody put up a website, It offered a range of black persons to attend your class reunion with you, grace your dinner party, accompany you to the corporate banquet. “Impress your liberal friends!”
      They got 23 inquiries. “I need three black people for–“

      1. That’s a total ripoff of my idea for an app called Cloud BlackFriend.
        And itt’s what all corporations do when they feature black stock photo models on their websites, as if those people work there.
        At one division of Encorpera where I worked there was one black guy out of thousands of employees. After I got laid off I saw that he was featured prominently on their corporate web page along with some other off-white employees doing the “diversity team” photo.

  9. Great article and food for thought. After giving it some thought, though, I don’t much care if leftists are stereotyped or dehumanized. Everywhere leftism has been tried throughout human history, it has been an abject failure. When everything is permitted, the system breaks down. People who can’t arrive at this conclusion on their own aren’t worth bothering with other than to defeat them.
    As gray as the world is on occasion, there is still right and wrong, and trying on the wrong to see how and why the lovers of wrong think (or in this case, don’t think) the way they do is a waste of time.

  10. Excellent article. It’s this capacity for introspection and analysis of our opponents that will make Neomasculinity (and indeed the whole Manosphere) a cultural and political force to be reckoned with once we get our shit together.

  11. This comes down to the question : How do you know you are on the right side ?
    For example : equality vs patriarchy, multiculturalism vs tribalism, 9/11 truthers vs mainstream theorists, white nationalists vs jews, Hitler haters vs holocaust deniers, etc.
    Both sides believe they are right. How do you know you are on the right one ?
    That is a very good question that must be explored, however I have developed my method, and it goes like this
    1) interest 2) proof 3) morality
    Simply put : who benefits from a narrative ? what proof do they have ? what is their moral code ?
    For example leftists : benefits minorities and gives status to liberal virtue-signalers, based on ideas of equality and narrative of white male patriarchy, believe in liberal deontological morality (racism is bad in and of itself , just like sin)
    Shitlords : pro white, straight, male , believe in inequality and believe violence done by Europeans was mostly justified and when it wasn’t it’s not their job to pay for crimes of past, consequential morality ( racism is good if it helps us survive as a group, if we don’t stop virtue signalling the west will fall, we must deport immigrants to keep order, etc . [morality of survival] )
    Outside of facts (which are often matter to interpretation still), you have questions of interest and morality which are subjective, meaning not good or bad in and of itself.
    That is to say, there is no good and bad, just my side vs their side, r vs K. The problem is, we live in a world of limited resources and for one strategy to succeed the other has to fail. For r-selected people they need free shit right now and no limits on morality, for K-selected guys we need stability, opportunity, moral code.
    Ultimately there is no good and bad, just us vs them, just like in many wars. But you can’t sit on the fence, such is fate.
    The question is who will win : feminists and invading hordes or identitarians. I’ll pick the latter, not only because I am one, but because K-selected guys win the end.

    1. While I think your post is well thought out, this —-> “Ultimately there is no good and bad, just us vs them, just like in many wars. But you can’t sit on the fence, such is fate.” leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
      Why it does, is because it is too close to this —-> For a virtuous person, violence and war are never justified. It is always better to be a victim than to fight, or even to defend oneself. But ‘oppressed’ people are allowed to use violence anyway; they are merely reflecting the evil of their oppressors. which was thought up and written by Franz Fanon – noted Marxist “intellectual” radical, revolutionary and one of those “critical theory” people…
      It also bears similarity to this —-> There is no truth, only competing agendas., which was and is a hoary old Stalin-era ideological warfare meme thought up and launched at us decades ago, and is now repeated ad nauseum like it was Holy Writ handed down from the Almighty Himself…
      Sorry to disagree, but yes, good and evil and righteousness and honor – these things and many others DO exist and are quantifiable, tangible things.
      To obscure right action with the nebulous fog of “there is no good or bad” is worse than dangerous – it is literally gaslighting those who are not yet aware. Which makes me wonder at your ultimate intentions…

      1. ” Why it does, is because it is too close to this —-> For a virtuous person, violence and war are never justified.”
        Never implied that
        ” It also bears similarity to this —-> There is no truth, only competing agendas.”
        Truths can be found in science. If politics are based on some scientific truth, then fine. The problem with this is to have the last say on that scientific truth. For example, is global warming a real threat ? I could claim no, leftists can say yes. At the end of the day we both will end up believing one of us is right, and the other is wrong.
        Politics aren’t science, they are opinion, and ultimately are a war by a different name. r and K fight politically, before they fight physically. In politics, the law of the fist has always and will always have the last say. But until the fight goes out in the open, it masquerades as “democracy”.
        “good and evil and righteousness and honor – these things and many others DO exist and are quantifiable, tangible things.”
        Good and honor are philosophical concepts, not physically measurable things. Leftists and reactionaries have different understanding of what “good” is. How can you measure good ? You must invent your own standard to do that, which is a matter of your opinion.
        “To obscure right action with the nebulous fog of “there is no good or bad””
        Good and bad do not exist as empirical concepts, such as gravity. They are a philosophical concept. A valid one in my book. But then again, me and leftists have different books.
        ” it is literally gaslighting those who are not yet aware”
        Aware of what ?
        “Which makes me wonder at your ultimate intentions…”
        I guess I’ve neem caught, might as well go clean . I am a Hasbarat troll, guilty.

        1. Never implied that
          Never said you did – I said: “Why it does, is because it is too close to this” then proceeded to cite chapter and verse from Franz Fanon, notorious Marxist and why your remark sounded eerily similar…
          At no point, did I say “You said this, but really meant this”… merely that what you were putting down, I wasn’t picking up and why.
          As far as your ‘global warming’ analogy is concerned, it is merely playing the equivalency card, attempting to divorce reality from anything other than “science”.
          There are 3 sides to everything – your side, my side and then there is what really happened. This last bit is what is commonly referred to as “truth”. It exists whether you believe it or not, or even if you are aware of it or not. Truth does not care about your feelings or your opinions. Or mine for that matter.
          “Good and honor are philosophical concepts, not physically measurable things. Leftists and reactionaries have different understanding of what “good” is. How can you measure good ? You must invent your own standard to do that, which is a matter of your opinion.”
          Spoken like a true Cultural Marxist playing the moral equivalency card.
          Good and bad do not exist as empirical concepts, such as gravity. They are a philosophical concept. A valid one in my book. But then again, me and leftists have different books.
          I’m not going to debate you as to whether good and EVIL exist and are observable phenomenon, and therefore measurable using any metric you choose to use… If you can observe it, then it exists. While not a force of nature like gravity or dark matter, they exist because sentient beings exist.
          Aware of what ?
          For starters, aware of you taking sentence fragments of mine and attempting to get traction off the bit you chopped off and chose to use. If you’re going to quote me, then quote the whole sentence – otherwise, you’re cherry-picking and running into the whole ‘taking things out of context’ thing…
          When I mean “aware”, I mean the individuals who read what you write and are completely pig-ignorant of Marxist “intellectuals” and the resulting ideological warfare that was launched at us for half a century. They are completely unaware of people like Fanon, Gramsci, Barran-Wallerstein, etc, and how it compares to what you’re writing.
          I call you out for parroting Stalin-era ideological warfare memes such as “There is no truth, only competing agendas” , and instead of saying “Oh, hey you’re right! Marxist intellectuals DID make that up out of thin air and launch it at us! Americans have always been weak when it comes to ideological warfare..”, instead you launch into some off-the-subject nonsense about science, etc, which has Jack Sh*t to do with the subject we’re talking about – and Jack left town.
          That you yourself are completely unaware that you are playing the role of a good little cultural Marxist memebot by repeating such bilge is not completely outside the realm of possibility – which shows how effective our ideological enemies methods were and are.
          NB Edit: I find it startling that you parrot Marxist intellectual scribblings, then make a distinction between yourself and “leftists”.
          You are either breath-takingly ignorant, or are an Agent Provocateur.

  12. The difference between the leftist r-selected side an the masculine K-selected side is that one is honest about their desires, while the other isn’t
    To put it simply, the masculine right is honest about their desire : let’s bring back patriarchy, let’s deport migrants, let’s create ethnic homogeny, etc. More extreme sides might even go “gas the kikes, throw liberals from helicopters !!!”
    The left is not capable of honesty. Unlike the masculine right that openly states it’s intentions, liberals must pretend to be about something else.
    Instead of saying, we want males to be slaves, they say the want “gender equality”, instead of saying they want whites to disappear, they say they want multiculturalism and “diversity”, but only in white nations.
    The masculine right : open pursuit of their goal, Pinochet style
    The SJW left : totalitarianism with a smile, pursuing tyranny while pretending to be about “equality”, insane amount of doublethink.

    1. That’s a very excellently articulated and cogent point that did not occur to me-you are indeed correct; ‘Masculine right’ is open and honest and has a measure of integrity and purity (whatever your perspective may be it is eminently more honourable in its candidness) whereas the ‘Socialist Jihadi Wanker left’ is replete with subterfuge, obfuscation, manipulation and downright lies.

  13. I would say a good article over all. Thing is this “In or Out” group is nothing new and seems to be rather vague.The “In or Out” group concept has been already addressed Hegel. You have a Thesis and an Anti-thesis. We could say we are the Thesis. The Media/culture fosters the Anti-thesis in order to create a synthesis.It keeps going and steered towards the left.

  14. “Imagine that you are having a conversation with a girl, and suddenly she tells you that she is a major feminist, read all the literature, and thinks there is something wrong with society. At that point, she starts telling you what she thinks would help. Would you listen to her?”
    Please don’t waste your time doing this. Most of us want to be fair and reasonable, but you have to understand there is a difference between men and women. There’s no point in expressing empathy and trying to see it from their point of view, they are incapable of doing the same and won’t respond to logic. Sometimes there is such a thing as simply a right and wrong way of thinking, rather than two different viewpoints or groups of thought.

    1. I probably would listen just to humour them, offer a rebuttal in a measured and sensible manner and then wait for the ensuing and inevitable meltdown.

    2. Empathy with women won’t engender appreciation. The notion that we have all this much in common against our “oppressors” is complete bullshit. Pandering is even worse. Please don’t. Thanks.

  15. “Engaging one of them and saying their progressive beliefs are wrong would be like them engaging you by saying your neomasculine beliefs are wrong.”
    Not… quite. My reply would not be emotional outrage, but rather… “Why?”. And they would be unable to explain their position, and fly into emotional outrage.
    These people are mentally ill. They are literally brain damaged. We are not the bad guys.

        1. But what if I comment about how you all are a bunch of filthy misogynistic filth who promote rape culture.
          Did you see this SJW ? I’m a good boy, I dindu nuffin.

    1. Therein lies the difference between the two modes of thought- the neomasculine school when challenged would take such and proceed to articulate reasons and ask further questions to provide responses to address perceived inadequacies in a logical fashion whereas the ‘progressive/regressive’ mode instantaneously combusts even under the most innocuous questioning.

      1. This to me is evidence of hypnosis/brainwashing of the progressives/regressives.
        There isn’t any way to prove to a victim that he or she has been victimized, is there?
        Serious question. If there’s a way? I’d like to know.

  16. An interesting piece, and was starting to have the consciousness-altering effect of inducing sympathy within my mind towards…. ‘them’…. until I recalled the actual real-world shoddy behaviour and clear lack of morals I, and I would guess most RoK readers, have experienced from ‘those’ infected by their belief-systems.
    Still an interesting ride, and as Sun Tzu says, know your enemy and know yourself – one hundred battles no defeats…

  17. A good piece, and it got me thinking.
    Whilst I do genuinely think its good for everyone to think about how they are being perceived by others, I think there is a subtle addendum that I would add to this – the whole us vs them, neomasc vs feminism thing – looks different when looked through the eyes of a religion person.
    A reason I side with neomasculine thought is that it co-incides with Biblical teaching. To me (and most other religious people, whether they realise it consciously or not) it works according to the very laws and foundations of the universe. Therefore to me, “our side” has objective reality and truth behind it; it whereas SJW/feminist philosophy is anti-truth; it is not based in reality and works against the teachings and workings of this plane.
    Therefore its not necessarily about subjective vs subjective,
    but about objective vs subjective.
    Whilst we may sometimes think of the thought expressed on here as a movement, its really just a preservation of the ways of old. Most of the articles on here embody the traditional philosophy; that has been time tested and proven. More than that, these traditions descend from God himself.

  18. The best description of liberals I’ve
    come across yet…..feel free to share it:
    By John Hawkins
    1) You justify your beliefs about yourself by your status as a liberal, not
    your deeds. The most sexist liberal can think of himself as a feminist while the greediest liberal can think of himself as generous. This is because liberals define themselves as being compassionate, open minded, kind, pro-science and intelligent not based on their actions or achievements, but based on their ideology. This is one of the most psychologically appealing aspects of liberalism because it allows you to be an awful person while still thinking of yourself as better than everyone else.
    2) You exempt yourself from your attacks on America:
    Ever notice that liberals don’t include themselves in their attacks on America? When they say, “This is a racist country,” or “,This is a mean country,” they
    certainly aren’t referring to themselves or people who hold their views. Even
    though liberals supported the KKK, slaughtering the Indians, and putting the
    Japanese in internment camps, when they criticize those things, it’s meant as an
    attack on everyone else EXCEPT LIBERALS. The only thing a liberal believes he
    can truly do wrong is to be insufficiently liberal.
    3) What liberals like
    should be mandatory and what they don’t like should be banned:
    There’s an almost instinctual form of fascism that runs through most liberals. It’s not enough for liberals to love gay marriage; everyone must be forced to love gay
    marriage. It’s not enough for liberals to be afraid of guns; guns have to be
    banned. It’s not enough for liberals to want to use energy-saving light bulbs;
    incandescent light bulbs must be banned. It’s not enough for liberals to make
    sure most speakers on campuses are left-wing; conservative speakers must be
    shouted down or blocked from speaking.
    4) The past is always inferior to the present: Liberals tend to view traditions, policies, and morals of past generations as arbitrary designs put in place by less enlightened people. Because of this, liberals don’t pay much attention to why traditions developed or wonder about possible ramifications of their social engineering. It’s like an architect ripping out the foundation of a house without questioning the consequences and if the living room falls in on itself as a result, he concludes that means he needs to make even more changes.
    5) Liberalism is a jealous god and no other God may come before it:
    A liberal “Christian” or “Jew” is almost an oxymoron because liberalism trumps faith for liberals. Taking your religious beliefs seriously means drawing hard lines about right and wrong and that’s simply not allowed. Liberals demand that even God bow down on the altar of liberalism.
    6) Liberals believe in indiscriminateness for thought:
    This one was so good that I stole it from my buddy, Evan Sayet: ”
    Indiscriminateness of thought does not lead to indiscriminateness of policy. It
    leads the modern liberal to invariably side with evil over good, wrong over
    right and the behaviors that lead to failure over those that lead to success.
    Why? Very simply if nothing is to be recognized as better or worse than anything
    else then success is de facto unjust. There is no explanation for success if
    nothing is better than anything else and the greater the success the greater
    the injustice. Conversely and for the same reason, failure is de facto proof of
    victimization and the greater the failure, the greater the proof of the victim
    is, or the greater the victimization.”
    7) Intentions are much more important than results: Liberals decide what
    programs to support based on whether they make them feel good or bad about themselves, not because they work or don’t work. A DDT ban that has killed millions is judged a success by liberals because it makes them feel as if they care about the environment. A government program that wastes billions and doesn’t work is a stunning triumph to the Left if it has a compassionate sounding name. It would be easier to convince a liberal to support a program by calling it the “Saving Women And Puppies Bill” than showing that it would save 100,000 lives.
    8) The only
    real sins are helping conservatism or harming liberalism:
    Conservatives often marvel at the fact that liberals will happily elect every sort of
    pervert, deviant, and criminal you can imagine without a second thought. That’s
    because right and wrong don’t come into the picture for liberals. They have one
    standard: Does this politician help or hurt liberalism? If a politician helps
    liberalism, he has a free pass to do almost anything and many of them do just
    9) All solutions must be government-oriented:
    Liberals may not be as down on government as conservatives are, but on some level, even they recognize that it doesn’t work very well. So, why are liberals so hell bent on centralizing as much power as possible in government? Simple, because they believe that they are better and smarter than everyone else by virtue of being liberals and centralized power gives them the opportunity to control more
    people’s lives. There’s nothing scarier to liberals than free people living their lives as they please without wanting or needing the government to nanny them.
    10) You must be absolutely close minded:
    One of the key reasons liberals spend so much time vilifying people they don’t like and questioning their motivations is to protect themselves from having to consider their arguments. This helps create a completely closed system for liberals.
    Conservative arguments are considered wrong by default since they’re
    conservative and not worth hearing. On the other hand, liberals aren’t going to
    make conservative arguments. So, a liberal goes to a liberal school, watches
    liberal news, listens to liberal politicians, has liberal friends, and then convinces himself that conservatives are all hateful, evil, racist Nazis so that any stray conservatism he hears should be ignored. It makes liberal minds into perfectly closed loops that are impervious to anything other than liberal
    11) Feelings are more important than logic:
    Liberals base their positions on emotions, not facts and logic and then they work backwards to shore up their position. This is why it’s a waste of time to try to convince a liberal of anything based on logic. You don’t “logic” someone out of a position that he didn’t use “logic” to come up with in the first place.
    12) Tribal
    affiliation is more important than individual action:
    There’s one set of rules for members of the tribe and one set of rules for everyone else. Lying, breaking the rules, or fomenting hatred against a liberal in good standing may be out of bounds, but there are no rules when dealing with outsiders, who are viewed either as potential recruits, dupes to be tricked, or foes to be defeated. This is the same backwards mentality you see in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, except it’s based on ideology, not religion.

    1. Hey, great read. Can you cite the sources regarding liberals supporting kkk and slaughtering of native Americans etc…

      1. I guess I could have added it wasn’t mine but I didn’t want to take away from the original author. It is not my work, I just did what the man allowed me to do and shared it. These people would rather cut their own throats than to be proven wrong. I can’t stand progressives. I am an anarcho libertarian at my core. I have my MRE supply and everything else I’d need to make it 6 months til the “zombie” hordes kill themselves off. I just wish they would hurry up and get the party started before I get too old. HA! I re-posted on at least 5 different alternative news sites. As for the kkk, that is just something anybody that knows what the real history about them originates from. Democrats from the south. There is more to it than that, but that is just my opinion on it from what I already know. I don’t care to play the race game in any discussion now that I have gotten older, that is just a distraction.The Native American thing was just there. I don’t really agree with all that part but they did get wiped out for the most part. They fought each other before any Anglo people tried to move in on them. It is human nature to kill that which you don’t understand or don’t relate to. I can’t prove my heritage but I relate more their past than my English/German heritage. My great great grandmother didn’t sign the Dawes rolls so I am just plain old evil whitey. I’ll never have a full beard but that does not get me freebies and perks like documented native heritage people. Real scary how this uniparty system has become. I don’t recognize my own country any more. It is just a freak show at this point. I’d move but this is still the safest place for an American. We allowed our own government to make us the bad people in their name by our own apathy and inaction.

      2. KKK were democrats. But that was before the early 60’s, and the Dixiecrat thing.
        “slaughtering of native Americans” – Andrew Jackson was a Democrat
        He supported the Indian Removal Act, that’s my guess.
        Before the 1960’s, the parties were opposite. The Republicans were liberal, and the Democrats were conservative. Lincoln was a Republican and abolitionist, after all. Then they switched sides.
        It is a little disingenuous. It is basically a move Republicans do to prove that “democrats are the real racists!”.
        Hope it makes sense.

    2. what a fucking post!
      edit: that number 6 – ive been searching for a long time for a way to describe that. its so dead on its scary

  19. In-group vs out-group dynamics are nothing new. Whites in America did it to Blacks and others to justify their racial hate. Some white males of the old-school in-group justified their superiority and dominance by spewing frivolous nonsense such as Ni**ers are uneducated, violent, can’t control their sexuality, lazy, less than human, etc. What was bad was that white male dominated in-group had a governmental machine to further their dominance and denied blacks basic human rights (See e.g., Dred Scott:
    Now in increasing instances white males are the outgroup and in this instance the feminazis and their supporters are the in-group. And apparently white males HATE the discrimination and carnage that in-group vs out-group dynamics can cause. I don’t agree with in-group vs out-group dynamics particularly when it results in violence and when it’s based on people being intellectually dishonest. But to see white males squealing about being part of the “out-group” all I can say is Irony can be sweet sometimes.

    1. Of course you have no evidence of your assertions in the first paragraph. What is claimed without proof may be dismissed without proof. Compared to other groups in the US, Blacks are far less educated, more ignorant, less intelligent, more violent, more criminal, have far higher rates of promiscuity and STDs, overwhelmingly more likely to rape white women than white men are to rape Black women, less productive (largely due to being lazier), and are farther in genetic distance from some other human populations than bonobos are from chimps or Neanderthals were from modern humans. Black Africans and Europeans have no common ancestors for about 200,000 years, over which period non-African groups have more rapidly evolved due to their need to adapt to different environments while the African environment was much more stable.
      Blacks’ inferiority to the civilized races is not reduced by environmental interventions, which have been tried; their inferiority is genetic. It is evil to give preference to the worse over the better or even to treat them as if they were equal. There is no human right for inferiors to make decisions for their betters, by voting or any other way. Nor is there a human right to force one’s company on others who do not wish to associate or do business with you, while on the other hand the right of free association (or disassociation) is a human right. The ruling left asserts the right to exclude and discriminate against White men – a group which has contributed more than ten times as much to the advance of civilization as all other groups combined – while preventing these White men from doing the same, even though they have better reason.

      1. People like you would have been better off as nothing more than a blow-job (that she spat, not swallowed); you contribute nothing but frivolous nonsense to humanity.

  20. Read a great quote the other day. Forget who wrote it first.
    “Rape is such a horrible crime that innocence is not a defense”

  21. No one truly wins an argument but a good ear and an open heart and mind will do wonders to your soul. Don’t convert them, listen to them and give them time to elaborate. Soon enough they’ll realize the holes in their arguments.
    See I’ve made many feminist cry during pick up but it doesn’t bring me a great deal of satisfaction to win them over rather; I’d have them think things through and see reality for themselves.

  22. That mechanism is as ancient as mankind, and it is a sign of advanced humanity to always keep this in mind and check your own reality map from time to time, even though you are still at war with the “others”, which is a hard task. Indeed, sometimes if you argue with members from the opposite camp, one feels they are living in some parallel universe, and they might think the same about you. That can certainly be confusing, and it is not bad to wonder now and then if it’s actually you who is the dumbass or has lost touch with reality. Unfortunately, to be able to do that you paradoxically need to be intelligent and grounded in the first place… I am sure many of you have encountered idiots who think you are an idiot, but are unable to even spot merely a glimpse of their own monumental idiocy. And the dumber they are, the more convinced they usually are. Intelligent people on the other hand always question and doubt themselves, and that sometimes makes them bad fighters.
    The good lack all conviction, while the worst are full of a passionate intensity, as Yeats put it.
    That being said, let’s not be all too “fair” and sceptical of ourselves. There is objective truth out there (think rather of facts than metaphysical truth) apart from group fighting dynamics. If we would believe otherwise we could cease fighting as well and sit down under some Bodhi tree. Also, I still wait for an article like this to appear on a site of the SJW/Feminist/Lefties camp. Sooner hell freezes over. Usually those guys are as fanatically convinced of their righteous cause as they are dumb and driven by naked nasty resentment. I maintain that this is a post-judice, not a pre-judice… so, for my part, it seems obvious to me where the superior insight lies.

  23. Good article, Mr. Berne. This seems obvious, but it bears reminding. It’s easy even for some who are honest and level-headed to slip into a war footing when being constantly attacked. Especially when the attackers you encounter seem to share a hive mind.
    I think I’ll link this in my next blog post.

  24. The difference between us and them is that their followers are unwilling. Feminism has been controlling the education system for the last 4 decades and I have seen this up close. Having managed to infiltrate that system to the point of obtaining a PhD, I can assure you that in order to survive, I had to conceal my thinking at all times. At times i would doubt my self but I would always resolve to not let them break me.
    What is your typical Feminist? The one who WAS broken. The weaker one. The one who was driven to forgo thought itself. Broken and rebuilt. No longer a man or a woman but a robot. Programmed with responses such as “that’s sexist”.
    How would you prefer to be grouped with?

  25. I am a feminist. (Relax, I’m not here to fight). I have read many articles and comments on this site. Why? I am here to understand you. I have been visiting this site since the Roosh outburst but have not commented for fear of inciting a reaction from your community. We do not all judge without understanding. Some do take the time. To start, I do not have short hair, I am not overweight. I look like any girl you might pass on the street. I’m even pleasant like a girl you might be friends with, though I doubt we would ever be friends as we have polarizing beliefs. This is a very reasonable article. You’ve considered both sides, you’ve rationalized why each party feels the way they do respectively. The problem is that this is one of the first truly reasonable articles I have read (although still filled with incorrect assumptions. You judge us as your own “out group”). As a female, I obviously cannot support your beliefs because most of them tell me I should be a submissive, naive, innocent little woman who puts her man ahead of herself. If a woman choses to do so, great for her. I am not that woman and so cannot relate to your beliefs. Nor would I encourage other women to do so. It’s not that you think differently. It’s that you APPEAR to spread hatred that would damage 50% of the population. Some of the comments on these articles are particularly violent and filled with hate. So I know at least some of you are perpetuating violence against women (see what kind of reaction I get to this post). But you claim to be your everyday, average man. But what I see is a bunch of men that are a danger to me. Forgive me if that’s not true but I don’t know what else I should see. Life before feminism was not a pleasant one for females. I wonder if you care about that. I wonder if you care about the women in a neomasculine world. Are they happy in your world? I can’t imagine that. In the end, you can believe what you would like. As can I. And as long as we don’t cross paths, we can all live in peace (mostly). But your beliefs are no more correct than mine are. And as they tend to place women as lower class citizens and encourage men to treat them as such, don’t be surprised when women, even the ones that don’t identify as feminists, have something to say about it. I have to stand up for my rights to be an independent human being. The same way you do.
    Also note, my comment is far from an emotional outburst. And I’ve read many offensive things on this website that could incite one. Now let’s see what kind of response this gets from your people.

    1. Individuals are free to decide their ingroup. So it is not an incorrect assumption for me to say any particular person or set of people are not a part of my ingroup.

  26. I read his article and saw his video. He seemed pretty serious. And the rest of his articles about women didn’t help his cause.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *