The Atlantic blames the Manosphere for mass shootings.

Yesterday The Atlantic published a largely incoherent article blaming the manosphere for mass shootings.

To Learn About the Far Right, Start With the ‘Manosphere’
The sexist world has become a recruiting ground for potential mass shooters.

The article doesn’t even try to tie mass shooters to any manosphere sites.  Instead, it equates antifeminism in general with mass murderers.  Ironically it simultaniously claims that:

  1. By definition being antifeminist is a heretical radical fringe position.  All right minded people today enthusiastically support feminism, and only dangerous and insane people would dare to oppose feminism.
  2. Feminism is not a powerful force in our society.  If you believe it is a powerful force in our society you are peddling an insane conspiracy theory because as feminism teaches us, women are powerless in our patriarchal society.

Finally, anti-feminist ideology has the capacity to become a 360-degree conspiracy theory, similar to the kind of anti-Semitic ideas that flourish online. Feminists are presumed to influence all government decisions, even though women are still underrepresented at every level of elected office. Across the fractured, diverse outposts of the manosphere, “one of the few things they will agree on is a conspiratorial view of feminism,” Murdoch says. “They don’t consider that it was ever a movement for gender equality. They think it was a guise to assert control over men.”

Advertisements
This entry was posted in The Atlantic. Bookmark the permalink.

83 Responses to The Atlantic blames the Manosphere for mass shootings.

  1. TheTraveler says:

    “Tyranny” and “coherence” intersect only rarely, and then only by “law of averages” happenstance.

    These people are dangerous. Mocking them is important to discred them. But keep looking over your shoulder, because incoherent hate-speech venom like The Atlantic is spewing has launched some of history’s greatest pogroms and persecutions.

  2. William of Orange County says:

    Betty Friedan called feminism “the problem that has no name” but no, it’s the ‘manosphere’ that has the problem according to these people. The ‘manosphere’ knows exactly what the problem is, and it is ‘the problem that has no name’

    Why? Because anyone with two brain cells to rub together knows that ‘a problem that has no name’ also has no solution, has no solution because having no solution was the whole point, and has no solution because the people that say so can also say that problem can be anything, at any time, and against anyone for any or no reason at all.

    The problem that has no name isn’t and never was about equality. It’s about power.

  3. cnystrom62 says:

    Men’s rights are human rights!

  4. swiftfoxmark2 says:

    These communist leftovers are so focused on their Utopian visions that they’ll blame anything on the people they’ve labeled as enemies of their grand visions.

    Most normal people ignore them. Unfortunately, we’re headed in a direction where that wont’ be the case anymore.

  5. Novaseeker says:

    The overall strategy, it’s quite obvious, is to associate the entirety of any social point of view that deviates from the “approved narrative” espoused by the SJW-dominated academy and its elite supporters in Hollyweird, Wall Street and DC with the “far right extremists”, “white nationalists”, “white supremacists” and the like, and to tie it all up in a bow with Charlottesville and mass shootings.

    That is, this is an exercise to discredit the entire right, wherever it disagrees *socially* with the SJW left, as being all of a cloth — it is one seamless garment that always includes mass shooters and white racists.

    The “good right” in their eyes (to the extent that they admit that one exists) is the right that cares about things like tax rates and government regulation and the like, while endorsing the social left 100% — think most of what used to be known as “country club Republicans”. Why is this? It’s because the social left is, itself, largely comprised of elites, educationally and economically/financially (relatively recent studies have indicated that the most left part of the democratic coalition is highly educated white professionals — they are farther left on social and race issues than minorities are by a substantial degree) — they don’t care much about economic issues, they aren’t motivated by them. They support leftists economic approaches (higher taxes, more regulation etc) because they are high income people for the most part and are not greatly impacted by them. What they care A LOT about, however, are the SJW social issues because this is the means by which they can justify their own privilege.

    That is, the typical far left Democrat is a highly educated white person with a well above average income. They are the very picture of the “privilege” described by intersectionality theory. In order to assuage their guilt at their own privilege, to make themselves feel like they are “giving back”, to justify their own perpetuation of that privilege in their children and so on, they very openly, vocally and vehemently support every single SJW cause they can in a rigid, lockstep way that is every bit as intolerant of dissent in its social ranks as any 1950s Christian community ever was. And as for the Republicans in their midst, it’s more or less fine if these people disagree with them about tax rates and regulation, as long as they are on board for the SJW social issues — because being on board for those social issues is the litmus test of one’s personal morality for this social class. It is how one demonstrates one’s moral bona fides in a post-religious era. (In fact many, including me, see it as an emergent pseudo-religion of its own, but that’s a large topic for another thread.)

    This is why the entire social right has to be demonized, and in a way that the economic right or the hawk right does not. It’s all about how the elite class (which includes the writers at places like The Atlantic, for certain) perceives its own moral justification for its position of privilege — it’s all around the social left, and the issues embraced by SJWs and intersectionality theory. Therefore the entire social right has to be demonized as immoral, evil and beyond the pale — and the way you do that is by linking the entire social right, all of it, to “white supremacy”, which is a code word for KKK-style white racism. However tenuous the tie, it’s critical to make the association so that the meme spreads that anything that is not SJW-style social leftism is associated with KKK-style racism. Against abortion? You’re a white supremacist (aka KKK). Against unlimited immigration? You’re a white supremacist (aka KKK). Against the excesses of #metoo? You’re also a white supremacist, because some people who are white supremacists read the same blogs as people who are critical of #metoo, so you’re all tied to white supremacy, and therefore you’re all white supremacists and essentially the KKK. And so on.

  6. Phoenix says:

    There’s one good way to begin toward putting a stop to shootings. Stop marginalizing males. Stop hating men and boys. In the not too distant past, more guns and less gun laws existed in the hands of everyday citizens, yet shootings were much rarer. Why? Research. The truth isn’t hard to find.

  7. naturallyaspirated says:

    Feminism can mean so many things, these discussions become pointless. If feminism means respecting women, allowing them to choose their paths in life, judging them on their skills and talents irrespective of their gender, etc. then most of us in the manosphere are feminists. (or at least should be)

    The problem is feminism, for many, has morphed into a gender denying, biology denying, reality denying crazy town of political ideology that is about ignoring any rational differences between the sexes. When those real differences manifest in outcomes (jobs, income, choices, skills, talents) it must be because of the power hungry patriarchy.

    When the manosphere points out this idiocy, we are called antifeminist, when really we are just anti-crazy-town-feminism.

  8. buckyinky says:

    @naturallyaspirated

    If feminism means respecting women, allowing them to choose their paths in life, judging them on their skills and talents irrespective of their gender, etc.then most of us in the manosphere are feminists. (or at least should be)

    Maybe I’m not “in the manosphere”, but you can count me out.

  9. naturallyaspirated says:

    @buckyinky

    Don’t we want our mothers, wives, daughters to be respected, judged on their talents, allowed to choose their paths in life? They just need to acknowledge reality when doing so.

  10. Jason says:

    Number 2 is the amusing one for me. We all know how powerless feminism is because only weak, powerless ideologies are able to get national governments to use their monopoly on the use of force to impose the will of the feminists on the rest of the population.

  11. buckyinky says:

    @naturallyaspirated

    I think what you’re saying is, don’t we want to treat women like men with breasts?

  12. thedeti says:

    A large part of the reason why men are becoming more and more “marginalized” is because the left, and women, keep ignoring, downplaying, and pooh-poohing men’s concerns.

    Any complaint, problem, or grievance men have about dating, mating, sex, or marriage is smacked down, crushed, and shouted down, first with “baby!” then “incel!” and now “evil, malevolent, dark, criminal mind from the underworld”. It’s gone from “immature” to “unattractive small dicked loser who can’t get laid” to “enemy of the state”. “Enemy of the State” first appeared in Stalinist USSR, remember?

    Leftists, statists and communists learned well from Saul Alinsky: The way you defeat an enemy like this is you freeze it, isolate it, polarize it, and start ridiculing it. That’s what they’re doing now with men, and concerns about men not being able to work, earn value, display value, attract women, and have families. Not only are these men immature small dicked losers who can’t get laid. They’re criminals. They’re potential rapists and murderers. They’re evil, malicious, and malevolent. They’re threats to women. Any man who won’t slavishly spout the feminist party line and immediately do and say what we tell him is a threat who must be silenced and eliminated.

  13. Dylan Sexton says:

    Good explanation, Deti. And those tactics work, which is one of the best evidences of divine inspiration when of the fruits of the spirit paul said “against such things there is no law.”

    if a christian truly displays those traits it will be impossible for oppressive tyrannies to reign him in with legalism like they do now to even mild Johnny Fornicators.

  14. Bart says:

    Novaseeker nails it again.

    The more woke and feminist they become, the more extreme and dangerous we are.

  15. thedeti says:

    Dylan:

    The Church is in lockstep with the rest of society on this. There’s no daylight at all between Christians and secular leftists here. The modern Churchian Church stands shoulder to shoulder with leftists on this.

    The language is similar. “Men need to man up and marry the sluts.” “Men need to get married and be husbands and fathers, and if they don’t, well, they need to consider whether they’re even true Christians.” “The REAL Christian man isn’t swayed by outward appearance. If he is overly concerned with how his woman looks, he’s not really a Christian. If he won’t be attracted to the fat girl or the homely girl, well, he needs to check his heart, and he’s probably not really a Christian.”

    It’s the “other” ing that Christians are doing in addition to the shaming. It’s “if you won’t marry a slut, you’re not one of us.” It’s “If you aren’t slavishly doing what your wife says and listening to her (non)burning bush, you are not a real Christian.”

  16. Tam the Bam says:

    “a conspiratorial view of feminism,” Murdoch says”
    M-Murdoch-chan? You’ve changed …

  17. Opus says:

    Allow me to assure readers that Great Britain is entirely devoid of anyone who might be described as Manospheirian for to the best of my recollection we have not had a single mass-shooting since 1987 which atrocity cannot be ascribed to the Manosphere as the Manoisphere did not then exist. It is true that London has a lot of knife-crime and acid-attacks but I do not think that the gun-deprived Blacks and Muslims who so engage in those crimes have ever heard the term Manosphere.

    Let us not forget then that one receives flack when one is over the target – who knew that a few blogs had so much power. In the Cantons of Switzerland everyone has a gun but although I cannot say whether the Manosphere has reached its valleys it does not have regular mass shootings. Mass shootings do seem then to be something peculiarly American. Your first movie The Great Train Robbery of 1903 ends with a shootout as do all your cowboy and gangster movies where the hero saving his wife and child accounts for more dead bodies than in Hamlet.

    I sometimes drank in Major Brookes Tavern which was near where I lived in D.C. – I am sure Novaseeker will at least know of it, for a few years back a disgruntled former employee went in and slaughtered three of the staff. That would be major news for years on end around here but I imagine is largely forgotten in America. Maybe it was a Manospherian. It cannot be just that it is that bit harder to slaughter greater numbers with just a knife or cricket-bat.

    .

  18. TheTraveler says:

    Stalinis works, yes.

    There is one difference though. It’s not hard for mendacipus regimes to label Ukrainian or Estonian nationalists, or for the matter free-speech fellow Russians, as enemies of the state because an authoritarian state controls language (“what the definition of ‘is,’ is,”): it makes ethnic and ideological differences easy to demonize.

    However, men are necessary to bring forth life on the planet. Women need men, if only for that one thing. The cucks will knuckle under, but women (as so often discussed here) will want nothing to do with them. Soy-boy feminist collaborators are weak, unattractive creeps who offer only tainted worship.

    But the men who #resist (lol, couldn’t…um..
    “resist”) create a real dilemma. Make them outlaws, and women will be drawn to them. Men who won’t be bowed will fight back, suffer grievously, and possibly even become legends. The more this happens, the more irresistible they become to women. There’s nothing anyone can do to stop this–it is nature. The feminist cause will be lost the moment they attempt to turn men into actual outlaws.

    Ultimately, feminism is a dead end. Whether its end will be with a whimper, as the USSR, or a blaze of hellfire, like the end of the Pacific war, remains to be seen. But in the end, anything that so ferociously denies and vilifies nature and reality lasts only as long as people are willing to put up with it.

    Even the seemingly-omnipotent monster Stalin was (probably) murdered by his almost-equally savage lieutenants as he planned another 1930s-style mass murder purge. If Stalin and Mao were stopped, imagine what will happen if the feminists take feminism to its logical conclusion, wholesale destruction of men.

    One last thing: feminism can exist only as long as men allow it to do so. Women as a group, especially the unstable ones, are too fractious and chaotic to sustain such a movement by themselves. When men have had enough, reality will clamp down. And the pendulum swing might well leave the purple-haired loudmouths (decent women will have nothing to fear) longing for what they previously derided as the oppressive patriarchy of the mid-20th century.

  19. Tam the Bam says:

    (from Ms Lewis’s silly, superficial and wilfully ignorant piece)
    “Elizabeth Pearson of Swansea University, who researches “counter-jihad” movements, warns against using one of feminism’s new buzz phrases: toxic masculinity. To her, it has become “code for problem men—and they are usually Muslim men or white working-class men. They might be marginalized and disenfranchised. They might be ‘difficult.’” Her fear is that the knee-jerk response to the rise of the far right will repeat the mistakes of counter-extremism and counterterror policy after 9/11 by identifying “a population that then becomes the new problem.” That framing both alienates the majority of nonviolent, non-extreme men and does little to address the grievances, or counteract the methods, that lure susceptible individuals toward the far right.”
    I can’t see Ms Pearson’s Outer-Party career progressing much after that little gobbet of near-dissent.
    Sister-punishers like her will end up in the un-blue-checked GuLag along with the non-apex males. Erased from the discourse.

    One of the sunnier aspects of Brexit (providing it’s ever permitted) is that UK will no longer be able to afford Potemkin “universities” like hers, propounding all the usual rubbish in return for large quantities of debt. Back to technical colleges and apprenticeships for most folk.

  20. vfm7916 says:

    Over the target.

    Work to get out of cities, invest in lead, invest in your family, go to church, and be not ashamed of your manhood. Keep in mind that you will not enjoy the decline. Prepare accordingly, and prepare a next generation.

  21. Lurker says:

    @William of Orange County.

    Betty Friedan did not call feminism “the problem that has no name.” Feminism is the solution to the problem that had no name – i.e. the natural dissatisfaction women in her era felt with the circumscribed and dependent role overwhelmingly expected of white middle and upper middle class women at that time.

  22. elspeth says:

    the natural dissatisfaction women in her era felt with the circumscribed and dependent role overwhelmingly expected of white middle and upper middle-class women at that time.

    This is 100% correct. We now know that the dissatisfaction was simply natural; no matter what their state. It had nothing to do with being in a circumscribed, dependent role. With every succeeding generation, there is a new source of dissatisfaction and more wheel spinning to try and sate it.

  23. Tam the Bam says:

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/the-life-and-death-of-thomas-watt-hamilton-1672323.html
    Opus, the thing that got handguns as well as autos (after Hungerford) banned here was Dunblane, 1996.
    I was still using the latest thing for online communication, AltaVista, and you are correct, the manosphere was unheard of, even PUA was merely a glint in Erik von Markovic’s eye.

    I remember because my own son was exactly the age of Hamilton’s 16 toddler victims, and after that the nursery (=kindergarten) he was at (a few hours a day, to meet other kids, not abandoned!) was more or less fortified; Tall fencing, wire, intercoms, cameras, the lot, having been previously a simple lift-latch on the gate down the inner-city back alley.

    There was also a spree claiming 12 in Cumberland, some rustic going postal with shotties, in 2010.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumbria_shootings
    But again, you are correct, no internet involved, still less manosphere. Just Cumbrians being Cumbrian and yokelly, it would have happened if they were still using oil-lamps and pony-traps (they may well do, I have no idea).

  24. BillyS says:

    Feminism can mean so many things, these discussions become pointless. If feminism means respecting women, allowing them to choose their paths in life, judging them on their skills and talents irrespective of their gender, etc. then most of us in the manosphere are feminists. (or at least should be)

    I would have agreed with you years ago. However I am being forced to believe that the modern situation is an outcome of the entire idea. Women are not just “men with boobs” nor are men just “women without boobs”. They are completely different at the core, however much some may use drugs and surgery to claim otherwise. (Gender reassignment crud.)

    The problem is feminism, for many, has morphed into a gender denying, biology denying, reality denying crazy town of political ideology that is about ignoring any rational differences between the sexes. When those real differences manifest in outcomes (jobs, income, choices, skills, talents) it must be because of the power hungry patriarchy.

    It didn’t morph into that. This result seems built into the process. It was warned of by many ahead of time, but those people were yelled down. Just like with the idea of giving women the right to vote. Though I am fairly radical on that thinking that only landowners should be able to vote.

  25. feministhater says:

    Let it burn. Fuck em!

    I am so done caring about feminists. Let the mass shooters run free. Don’t care any longer.

    They don’t need men.. so be it.

  26. feministhater says:

    Feminism can mean so many things, these discussions become pointless. If feminism means respecting women, allowing them to choose their paths in life, judging them on their skills and talents irrespective of their gender, etc. then most of us in the manosphere are feminists. (or at least should be)

    Bull shit. From first wave to the nth wave, feminism has always been about women gaining rights with no obligations. It’s all bull. Fuck em.

  27. Liz says:

    Though I am fairly radical on that thinking that only landowners should be able to vote.

    What does “land ownership” really mean in the world of easy credit and high consumer debt?

  28. Tam the Bam says:

    @ BillyS
    Though I am fairly radical on that thinking that only landowners should be able to vote

    Interesting idea. Might work in civilised countries.
    Here, that would mean about half-a-dozen hereditary aristocrats and some crofters.

    The Duke of Buccleuch, for example, is a very fine and intelligent fellow, of liberal opinions (most of them are), as is his neighbour Maitland, and their other neighbour the Marquis of Lothian. All cousins of some sort, and more-or-less tenuously related to the Monarch (who is in fact the only true and legal landowner in the island).
    The other 5-million-odd of us (in this country, rather than the other three) would have to go whistle.
    It’d make ballot-rigging a cinch to spot, though.

  29. Dylan Sexton says:

    thedeti:

    we’re in agreement that the zombie church is by and large taken over by oppressive wolves. most of christendom is part of babylon the great. but also didn’t mean to speak along those lines when I merely highlighted the wisdom of the bible’s advice for character traits to put on.

  30. Pingback: The Atlantic blames the Manosphere for mass shootings. | Reaction Times

  31. Scott says:

    Work to get out of cities, invest in lead, invest in your family, go to church, and be not ashamed of your manhood. Keep in mind that you will not enjoy the decline. Prepare accordingly, and prepare a next generation.

    You just described my precise strategy.

  32. Darwinian Arminian says:

    @Novaseeker
    The overall strategy, it’s quite obvious, is to associate the entirety of any social point of view that deviates from the “approved narrative” espoused by the SJW-dominated academy and its elite supporters in Hollyweird, Wall Street and DC with the “far right extremists”, “white nationalists”, “white supremacists” and the like, and to tie it all up in a bow with Charlottesville and mass shootings.

    There’s something else going on here too; All of the “point and shriek” that the left is currently engaging in inevitably ends up being coupled with a strange reluctance to be specific about anything their targets actually did or said. It’s certainly true of this article. I clicked over to read it and while it’s a bit short, I couldn’t help but notice that for all of the author’s griping about the “manosphere,” she seemed to go out of her way to avoid presenting any evidence that the men who populate it even exist. She makes some passing references to “conspiracist tracts” being discussed on YouTube, Facebook and the now-defunct Red Pill subreddit page. But no mention of Dalrock, Rollo, or any of the crowd from ADJ’s 21 convention. Ditto for any of the milquetoast-y MRAs like Paul Elam, who were always eager to cooperate and work with feminists. Even Roissy, who she wouldn’t have had to worry about people being able to find since his recent de-platforming from wordpress, is absent. No offense to the Atlantic, but I’ve seen articles about the Loch Ness monster that provided more verifiable information about their subject than this piece did. It is a piece about nothing, or to be more precise, nothing that you can double-check, follow up on or learn more about after you’ve finished reading it.

    So what to make of this? My own assessment of this is that modern feminists have a problem: Their movement has always been happy to use male concern for the well-being of women to further their own ends, but as of late, the threats that women have to face(in the western world, at least), have been disappearing fast. Rape? It’s currently at a 20-year low. Domestic abuse? Falling, and in homes where the woman is actually married to her partner, it’s at the lowest levels. The supposed “pay gap” was so inaccurate that there was never even a major left-leaning economist who would admit it was valid, and now its disappearing even when you employ the sloppy method of averages that the N.O.W. used to claim that women were only given 74 cents for ever dollar a man was paid. You might think this is all good news — but that’s only because you’re not looking at it from the feminists’ point of view. What happens for them when the problems that they used as a method of getting cash and privileges out of men start to disappear?

    Well, then they’ll just have to make sure that as far as the men know, those problems never ended.

    My guess is that we’re moving into a phase where the lies of the Left are so obvious that they have to create an environment in which a simple agnosticism towards any of their claims will be considered a gross violation of social etiquette. We’ve already seen early signs of this with the Title IX elimination of due process for college men accused of rape, and the use of #MeToo as a tool to inflict death-by-angry-mob on selected targets. If there end up being more calls to deal with the supposed threat from the manosphere, I suspect they’ll take a similar track to what the Atlantic’s article did here. You’ll see a lot of talk about the evils these men engage in on the internet and many more demands for their punishment — all while carefully failing to mention who these men are or what they actually said, at least until after the penalties have been inflicted. Because if they allowed you to investigate their claims a bit further, you might be at risk of learning enough to realize that the feminists are full of shit. Your ignorance is their bliss.

  33. Frank K says:

    Keep in mind that you will not enjoy the decline.

    The only way to “enjoy the decline” is to participate in its debauchery. In the end that will leave one as an empty husk.

    Even though I haven’t “run for the hills” yet, I have definitely withdrawn from the mass culture. I don’t have cable TV, don’t watch broadcast TV, don’t participate in social media, don’t go to the cinema, etc. I even gave up my guilty pleasure of attending the local comic con as it became just too painfully SJW and Woke for me.

    If I watch something on Netflix, it would probably be either a documentary or an old TV show or movie. I remember how Star Trek:TNG felt painfully PC back in the day. Compared to the current tripe it’s almost good. I refuse to pay CBS to watch their new Star Trek shows.

  34. Frank K says:

    This thought crosses my mind: The “womansphere” is responsible for the deaths of about 1 billion children world wide. But as we all know (as Bill deBalsio recently reminded us) abortion is a SACRED right for women.

    It doesn’t occur to any of them that if you foster a culture of death and violence, that you will get death and violence, and not on your terms. They really relieve that we can massacre our children and still somehow have a genteel culture where everything is hunky dory.

  35. Opus says:

    I want to pick up on some of the things that Novaseeker was saying above particularly his last two paragraphs:-

    2016 was the year of both Brexit and your elections. The results – dreadful for the left – seem to have driven the left to both remove their mask of decency and to go over the edge into insanity. After 2016 I was assaulted by my Bank Manager for failing to be on board with gratuitous LGBT, (though amazingly he did not offer me a free blow-job – hmmm – indistinguishable I would say from the queer-bashers of my youth where even as the elite now praise Homosexuals they secretly laugh at them). Hollywood made movies seemingly to piss-off the fans, Corporations like Gillette set out to insult its customer base and so on. I am therefore thinking of my (once) friend. He is not and never has been American; he has no vote in your elections indeed he has never visited your lovely and awe-inspiring country. That did not stop him from saying the most insane things about D.J.T. In England we have an unwritten rule that we neither talk of our religious or political allegiances either at work or play. It is that which enables us to work together and enabled us to become top country. Sure, you can slag off the Prime Minister (but not the Queen) but it is never too serious and any Tory will happily give his own party gip without you doubting his loyalty or how he will come the election, vote. I had not I think said anything to my friend one way or another but what I had certainly not done was insult D.J.T. My failure to do so led to what felt like an attack on me by way of an attack on D.J.T. This happened just as we were parting and so I had no opportunity to respond. A week or two later the same thing happened again and again at parting and being better prepared I enquired what exactly he had against your then future President. His reply, such as it was, was that he could not (not would not) say. He seemed to foam at the mouth but no coherent sound emerged. I was left at a loss to understand but once again I felt as if the attack had been on me (which as we were parting I could not respond too).

    Being unable to obtain an answer I had no choice but to reflect on these strange events and come to my own conclusion and if I was wrong it would hardly be for want of enquiry. I reflected on him. He was certainly far better off than I and lived in white-flight land (I do too of course; it is just that my neighbours are African). He mixed all day with the children of wealthy people and thus those wealthy and influential people too. I slink about what has been described to me as the Crawley end of town (that is to say not very nice). He had heard a little of my life before we had met yet his glossy spin on what I had said seemed to bear no resemblance to reality for I was presented back to myself as a wealthy want-for-nothing person. One day a week he went to teach the Negro children in London. This seemed to him to be very important, yet I felt certain that had that work been cancelled and the opportunity arrived to teach the poor white working-class on the council estate near where he lived he would not have the same motivation. He informed me that his daughter had been (and I think from having seen certain photographs it is not implausible) Raped or at least sexually assaulted by one or more of these black boys yet that did not seem to affect his views of the Negroes (his daughter as a sacrificial lamb?). Naturally (and he was an immigrant from a non-EU country himself) he hated Brexit as much as he hated Trump. It was pointless; it was a waste of time; the country had much more serious problems and so on – I am sure exactly the same argument voiced at the time of your revolutionary war. The conclusion I was forced to come to was that this was the modern version of ‘I’m alright jack’. When my father was flourishing I recall his pretence was that money was never an object (even though my Mother as Paul McCartney once sang scrimped and saved) yet that was nonsense; money was indeed tight, very tight. Likewise now to observe that native Britons and Americans might not all be doing well was something my friend could not admit too. Mr Trump however clearly does observe that fact as does Nigel Farage. This denial then enabled my friend to virtue signal in what in the case of the negroes seems to me to be nothing more than the most patronising form of colonialism in deepest darkest south London – the white mans’ new burden. This then too I think is what is going on with the elite. Exec Summary: If their own people are not doing as well then they would be denied the privilege of virtue signaling. A scapegoat is then needed, in the above case those Emperor’s New Clothing heretics The Manospherians.

  36. Lost Patrol says:

    I am so done caring about feminists.

    But they are not done caring about you. Before I became a manospherian (surreptitiously checking my immediate environs right now, looks ok) I had already noticed a trend in women trying to act more like men. I wanted no part of them and figured they wanted no part of me. My thought was fine, just leave me out of it.

    I learned that benign neglect would not suffice. The comments in this thread show how this is taking shape as a permanently ill-defined litmus test. The requirement is to show ourselves to be fully on board otherwise be a racist misogynist oppressor and maybe one half step away from full blown shooter-rapist.

    Also, being fully on board will not work either. What the last station for this train looks like is anyone’s guess, but we will be coming in way too fast to stop smoothly.

  37. Jon Patch says:

    Just on the side here. Went to the movies the other night on the spur of the moment because I was away solo overnight and didn’t feel like sitting in the room or the bar. I used to love the movies and when I went to the theatre back in the day it seems there were several to choose from that looked interesting. The issue now is that I never even liked spaceships and sci-fi and never liked comic book characters and super heroes and that sort. These themes, along with females doing awesome stuff like making moon landings possible and so forth, are all that is out there now so I rarely go and don’t pay attention to what’s out. Anyhow, I found a gem called “Crawl” now playing and gave it a try. Basically a girl and her dad are stranded in their house during a hurricane flood and a great many GIANT alligators show up to devour everything that moves. The wife and I took a vacation to Miami Beach last Feb. and we did the whole Everglades airboat excursion and it was awesome, so I was ready to suspend all recently-acquired gator knowledge for the sake of entertainment and popcorn. Well I don’t know about y’all, but underwater creatures give the greatest chills of all and this did not disappoint. There were many jump scares and just-barely-making-it-to-safety moments and I truly enjoyed myself. I learned a lot too. This is where the spoilers abound:

    All strong and well-trained men are quickly devoured by alligators, but a young lady can survive a violent shaking attack with a deep bite to the leg without serious injury or even effecting her swimming ability later (but then again she is a D-1 college swimmer). She can also survive a direct bite and more violent shaking on her wrist with no loss of hand and then actually discharge her pistol to kill the beast. She can then later on endure a full gator death roll with her shoulder clamped in massive powerful jaws by using her wits and agility, never losing her cool

    A D-1 college swim girl can swim faster than and out-maneuver a giant alligator, even somehow THREE giant alligators that have managed to triangulate her in open water.

    A giant hungry alligator cannot maintain in a swift levee-breaking current, but a young lady can by clinging to a rain gutter with her fingertips only as the gator is swept away

    Now a dad, on the other hand, can help by staying back and beating on the pipes to disorient alligators while a daughter does the dangerous stuff. He can also offer lots of encouragement and other sage words too. A dad can just get his arm ripped right off by an alligator with ease. Best of all, a dad can save the dog while the daughter saves him.

    Life and art just ooze patriarchy and it’s hard to overlook, but let’s try.

    I enjoyed this movie. I do not write movie reviews for The Atlantic.

  38. Opus says:

    @Jon Patch

    As everyone knows the way to disable a gator is to put your hand in his mouth and pull out all his teeth. Here is s clip showing how this is done but these days one could not have the villains being black. I used to be colour blind but now thanks to the left i notice these things.

  39. Jon Patch says:

    @ Opus
    Thanks for this classic. There is a hot debate right now if there will be a female James Bond. The executive producer says “never” but I’m not so sure. If so, I wonder if she will make men swoon with just a witty quip and shag several men per movie with impunity.

  40. Opus says:

    @Jon Patch

    Live and Let Die was the first Bond movie I saw. I loved it. Apparently the stunt man in the clipped scene was slightly injured when one of the gators did manage to connect teeth to leg. This could never now happen for as we know Brie Larsen does all her own stunts. I presume the heroine in the well titled Crawl also did her own stunts.

  41. JESUS R RODRIGUEZ says:

    Women murder in stealth, both inside and outside the womb.

  42. Otto says:

    @Opus,

    The stunt-man in Live and Let Die was not a Hollywood stunt man. He was a guy that ran an alligator farm/show in Louisiana. His father ran the show before him and was killed by a gator.

    There is a documentary on YouTube about the movie. Lot of fun stuff in it, including how the gator scene was filmed.

  43. Nick M says:

    I see many other mean in groups I’m in on social medias, make fun of men who complain of the high taxes and the welfare state were men who have to practice auto fellatio, and, couldn’t get laid.

    In response, -the guy had no come back- I told him that depending on the state of that welfare state, it varied, mentioning Greece and Venezuela as, any man as means there, any man who has something to trade can now get laid.

    Shaming the Manosphere is just a way to throw shade at men who value family, country, etc…

  44. Hmm says:

    @Phoenix: “There’s one good way to begin toward putting a stop to shootings. Stop marginalizing males. Stop hating men and boys.”

    Now that’s just crazy talk.

  45. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    This is serious. Deplatforming begins with demonization.

    How soon before Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, and WordPress begin deplatforming the manosphere?

  46. locustsplease says:

    Public criticism of the manosphere is great. People who want to know the truth will research and eventually find it. And find the truth honestly the biggest problem is they never talk about the manosphere. There is no such thing as bad publicity.

    I work for myself and every now and then i run into a psycho. They get crazy and i calmly just let them have it. I tell them call the police take a pic of my logo put it online. Because everyone who knows these people knows they are liars and pains in the butt.

  47. feeriker says:

    OT, but of general interest. How much of this alarmism is merely entitled feminists bitching about being held to performance standards (because failure to do so puts human lives at risk)?

    https://i.stuff.co.nz/business/world/114834997/putrid-culture-in-australian-air-traffic-control-could-endanger-fliers-report

  48. naturallyaspirated says:

    The more men find out about the manosphere, the more there is a sliver of a chance for some pushback. My 15 y/o son isn’t reading Dalrock or Rollo, but he’s exposed to people all the time talking about redpilling, memes alluding to feminist absurdity. He already will tell me, outside the presence of his mom, that feminists are crazy and they make no sense. I just accepted all the cultural trends, I had no competing ideas coming across my feed.

    It’s darn near impossible to hide the truth in today’s internet age. When people come across ideas that are hard to deny, well, they have a hard time continuing to deny reality. It’s not all doom and gloom, right?

  49. Hippopotamusdrome says:

    @Jon Patch

    Depicting alligators eating people is racist.

  50. Novaseeker says:

    How soon before Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, and WordPress begin deplatforming the manosphere?

    Already well underway. Roissy was deplatformed. Of course his site had racist stuff on it, to be fair, which was its downfall. But the current effort is to associate all rightist thought with racism, so it won’t be too long, less than 5 years, until they come after all of this really.

  51. Frank K says:

    https://i.stuff.co.nz/business/world/114834997/putrid-culture-in-australian-air-traffic-control-could-endanger-fliers-report

    There is a documentary titled City In The Sky, which is about the airline business. They had a section covering air traffic control and that part did scare me. There are so many flights that in certain regions there is little room for error. The title refers to the fact that at any given moment there are millions of people airborne worldwide.

  52. Frank K says:

    But the current effort is to associate all rightist thought with racism, so it won’t be too long, less than 5 years, until they come after all of this really.

    Of course, the deplatformed can move offshore, or maybe there will be domestic alternatives to wordpress and its ilk. Google will go out of its way to hide them from their search engine, but there are alternatives to Google.

  53. Rpro says:

    Women have always controlled men through sex and reproduction. Feminism was a hostile takeover. Now the guard dogs are castrated or beaten to death with words or poverty. If only the Eves could see thier future.

  54. Pingback: Realizing the divinely ordained dominion of men | Laughing at Feminism

  55. Red Pill Christianity says:

    Dalrock: take it from me, if they are now turning their hatred towards the ManoSphere and Christian men, it is a matter of time until we receive a broadside of malicious and false “complaints”. Back-up the site daily or at least save all articles in Word in your home PC. Tech companies cannot be trusted. A couple nominal or even fake complaints today are enough to get banned (see Heartiste ban a few weeks back).

    To give you an example of the insanity level. Do you know WhatsApp, the little message and call stupid app thing? One of my friends got BANNED from WhatsApp because he broke up with his girlfriend and she got her friends to file complaints against him and he has been permanently banned. No explanation given, they just banned him for “violating terms of service”. I did not even know anyone could be banned form WhatsApp chat app, but yeah, they can ban you from that App, apparently!

    That said…. everything the left hates will now be equated with the usual attack lines: sexism, misogyny, white supremacy, anti-immigrant, racist, xenophobia, anti-science, homophobic, Islamophobic, transphobic, etc.

    You disagree with my tax policy? You hate poor “minorities”, which means you are racist and xenophobic!

    You want to cut funding for studying shrimp running on a treadmill? Anti-science! Misogynist (if any women work in that “project”).

    You refuse to wear a burka? IslamoPhobic!

    You refuse to ban all guns? Murderer. Child killer. Anti-immigrant!

    Pick the topic, you disagree with them, you will be attacked and labeled and slandered. The Left wants our country to go into civil strife. There is no cost too high if they can gain power.

    Expect the leftist attacks to focus on: American citizenship, national sovereignty, Trump, Christ, Christianity, ManoSphere, MGTOW, patriotism, America, nationalism, economic patriotism, low taxes, masculinity, The Bible, Brexit, being pro-Israel, Conservatism, traditional marriage, etc.

  56. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Expect the leftist attacks to focus on …being pro-Israel

    Well, no. Actually, deplatforming seems to have originated from Israel. The plans were drawn up in Israel as early as 2015: https://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Government-anti-Semitism-conference-endorses-net-censorship-403123

    A government-convened international conference on anti-Semitism in Jerusalem on Thursday issued an action plan calling for Internet censorship as a remedy for anti-Jewish sentiment.

    Recommendations coming out of the three-day meeting included the scrubbing of Holocaust denial websites from the Internet and the omission of “hate websites and content” from web searches.

    Convened by the Foreign Ministry and the Jerusalem and Diaspora Affairs Ministry, the Global Forum for Combating Anti-Semitism (GFCA) is a biennial gathering bringing together Jewish community leaders, civil society representatives and diplomats to discuss ways to grapple rising levels of anti-Jewish prejudice.

    Citing the “pervasive, expansive and transnational” nature of the Internet and the viral nature of hate materials, the conference’s final document called upon Internet service providers, web hosting companies and social media platforms to adopt a “clear industry standard for defining hate speech and anti-Semitism” as well as terms of service that prohibit their posting.

    This is not a conspiracy publication. This is the Jerusalem Post.

    In 2016, Twitter bowed to pressure from the ADL: https://www.adl.org/news/press-releases/adl-welcomes-establishment-of-twitter-trust-safety-council#.Vr0qF_IrJWI

    In 2017, Amazon bowed to pressure from the World Jewish Congress: https://www.worldjewishcongress.org/en/news/world-jewish-congress-welcomes-amazon-move-to-remove-holocaust-denial-books-offers-assistance-in-identifying-further-material-3-4-2017

    So, no, I don’t think there’s any danger of “pro-Israel” websites being deplatformed.

  57. Red Pill Christianity says:

    RedPill Latecomer, understand that The left is a globalist movement. Marxism, Communism, Socialism, Feminism, radical environmentalism, Globalism, One-World Govt, open borders movements… it doesn’t matter. You change the country, but the mentality and ideology is the same. You can attend a “global warming” rally in DC, Stockholm, or Syndeny and they all want the same stuff, same fixes, same UN control, support same globalist treaties, same everything. Watch the signs in support of gay marriage, abortion, or open borders in Germany or Ireland or Mexico – the message is exactly the same across the board, the attack son their opponents is the same (i.e. racist, sexist, xenophobic, etc), many times the protester signs are even written in English. The Israeli may have started deplatform movement, but I assure you, they are LEFTWING Israelis. Leftism is global, not local. There is no tolerance of dissent in leftist ideology. It is all conformist and totalitarian.

    Rpro says: Women have always controlled men through sex and reproduction. Feminism was a hostile takeover. Now the guard dogs are castrated or beaten to death with words or poverty. If only the Eves could see their future.

    So what is a logical way to counter this problem? Remove the incentives and the power from the enemy wanes.

    Tell women you do not want to have kids. Refuse to marry and have kids. Seek out foreign women for reproduction. Poof. That tool of control is gone.

    De-criminalize pr0stitution. I am not saying “legalize it”, which is Amsterdam and that is a dirty and corrupt situation controlled by foreign criminal orgs. I am saying de-criminalize so it is all done online and “off the streets”, to keep society looking normal.

    Your GF won’t put out and wants to withhold from you? tell her you are calling Cady over and see how fast she changes her tune! Poof. You just removed the sex control tool women have over men.

    These are rational responses. But some will say “Chris, won’t Christian men suffer over it?” No, they will not, if they are real Christians.

    Weed, cigarettes, booze, and assisted suicide are legal and widely available in my State. And yet I do not smoke, do not drink, and do not want to die. If hookers get legalized, I will NOT go find one, because I am a Christian man.

    Negotiating a better deal in everything in life is all about creating the right conditions in your favor and shifting leverage to your position.

    Example: marriage has become a financial and jail trap for men. Men’s response is to begin pulling out of the marriage market, some reports have 70% of men between ages 20-34 as “not married”. Eventually, marriage will become something that only the upper-middle and rich classes can get engaged in. At that point, they will start looking for causes, many feminists will blame “extended adolescence”, lazy men, etc. But at some point, incentives for men to get married and have kids WILL have to be given to entice men to want to marry and women to have kids.

    Look at Hungary, that is exactly what they are doing. The dudes simply stopped getting married and began to leave to work abroad; and the women there stopped reproducing (thanks feminism)! In Hungary, they had to give incentives for people to marry and have kids again. A married couple can get lifetime of 0% income taxes if that married couple has 4 kids. A free van for married couples who have at least 3 kids. Just to get married couples get $16,000 in loans and if they have 2 kids in their first 2 years of marriage, the loans are totally forgiven. Lower interest rates for married couples to buy homes.

    If cars are not selling, dealers will have to bend backwards to get customers in and manufacturers will have to offer insanely good deals. Remember 2009 – 2011 period for car sales? You could get $6,000 back in cash back and 0% APR for 6 years on a bunch of cars back then.

    The job market is great in most of the country right now. Companies have to pay more for new qualified candidates. That means if you want a raise, the time to have a talk with your boss is now. You, as a qualified employee, have the ability to get a new job. back in 2007-2015 period, the employers paid you below your average wage because the market of high unemployment was in employers’ favor.

    The point in this case is to remove (or at least weaken) women’s tools of power and control over men (sex and reproduction). Take away their leverage and negotiate better terms. There are many ways this can happen… for example a man who has choices and uses Dread to alert his woman of his options and willingness to leave can help shift some of the relationship dynamics in his favor.

    Shifting conditions and negotiating balance can be done locally, nationally, or even individually, in some cases. Ideally, this power balance shift would happen in larger scales to be effective and bring true healing and national benefits, but it can happen on individual level. A man getting married (bad ideas, but still) can negotiate better terms in a number of things, including division of expenses each spouse will pay spouse, what chores to be handled by whom, location couple will move to re-settle at, and other matters.

    Life is all about economics and all about negotiating under right conditions. That is the Red Pill response to that problem, Rpro. It is not that hard when people think about some of the problems created by feminism and social/cultural Marxism, but there are ways to mitigate it and devise strategies around obstacles.

  58. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    RPC, here’s what I think happened:

    Jewish activist groups, the Israeli govt, and Jewish run tech companies, wanted to deplatform all “anti-Semites,” whom they define very broadly. But they couldn’t demand that “only anti-Semites” be deplatformed. So they mounted an “anti-hate” campaign, to draw in POC, feminist, and LGBT allies, for support and to provide cover.

    This has resulted in some collateral damage. Some conservative Jews (e.g., Dennis Prager, David Horowitz) have taken minor hits. YouTube limited Prager’s audience, and Hororwitz temporarily lost his payment provider.

    It might be that, over time, Jews will lose control of what they have let loose (Muslims are especially difficult to control, e.g., Ilhan Omar). Should that happen, Jews will portray themselves as the primary victims of deplatforming. Much as they depict themselves as the primary victims of Soviet Communism (which might not have occurred absent Jewish leadership and support).

  59. Albigensian says:

    ‘naturallyaspirated’ wrote “Feminism can mean so many things, these discussions become pointless.”

    Feminism is best understood as “advocacy for women and girls.” What is considered advantageous for women and girls is promoted; what may be advantageous to others but not to women and girls is disparaged.

    “The problem is feminism, for many, has morphed into a gender denying, biology denying, reality denying crazy town of political ideology that is about ignoring any rational differences between the sexes.”

    Feminism is politics, not science. Therefore the question regarding any belief will always be, “does this advance the interests of women and girls?” and never “is this true?”

    The conflation of “feminism” with “equality” (however that’s defined) is what creates confusion. As a tho0ught experiment, imagine that one has 100 categories, and in these there are 60 in which women have an overall advantage and 40 in which men have an overall advantage. Because feminism is advocacy for women and girls (and not a movement for equality) feminists will naturally go to work on the 40 categories where women are disadvantaged, and will not be satisfied unless there are zero categories in which women are disadvantaged. And, yes, if you oppose this you will be accused of opposing equality (or worse).

    Feminism is what it is, and what it is (as with any political movement) is best understood by what it does. Feminism is advocacy and, as such, it seeks to advantage women and girls whenever, wherever, and however it can. It’s not necessarily anti-male (although some professed feminists all-too-obviously are) but that the welfare of men is irrelevant to it. And therefore if men happen to get bulldozed when feminists build their Road to Empowerment, well, perhaps that’s unfortunate, but, to a feminist “that’s not my problem.”

  60. naturallyaspirated says:

    Albigensian,

    Advocating for women and girls (feminsim) makes logical sense when women and girls are being treated “unfairly.” I would argue that not being allowed to vote, kept from certain professions or endeavors or hobbies solely because of their gender (irrespective of their talents), being abused or mistreated in domestic life (real abuse, not modern pseudo-abuse) is unethical and unfair. Maybe it’s my libertarian leanings, but women should be allowed to pursue their interests as men are, and if they are kept from that primarily because of their gender, without other solid reasons, that is something we should strive to change.

    Once it goes beyond concerns of fairness to blind advocacy for women and girls with no regard for reason or logic, then we should call it the crazy town it is, and call it that clearly. We can reclaim a rational equality based definition of feminism and call out irrational political ideology based feminism, and maybe take the high ground here. At least in theory….

    I worry if we don’t, we are easily categorized as equality denying barbarians who yearn for going back to the caves.

  61. vfm7916 says:

    @RPL

    This is why “build your own platforms” is so timely, because the time is now when this is possible. This is why VPNs, anonymized email, non-US payment processors, non-YouTube video sites like unauthorized.tv, non-Wordpress/blogger/reddit site backups, infogalactic, etc. must be created and more importantly patronized and supported. Give up facebook or converged social media, and make best efforts to wean your women off of it as well. Don’t expose your daughters to it in the first place.

    Dalrock will be subject to deplatforming and demonitization, as will all others in the sphere or who are Christian nationalists. Prepare accordingly.

  62. Novaseeker says:

    women should be allowed to pursue their interests as men are, and if they are kept from that primarily because of their gender, without other solid reasons, that is something we should strive to change.

    It’s not that simple, though. What does “pursue their interests” really mean? It’s contended that one’s “interests” are environmentally-influenced, if not determined, such that boys and girls should not be given different kinds of toys or clothing, or even allowed to kind of “fit in” with what other children of their sex are doing, because to do so skews their interests one way or the other, which then may result in fewer girls expressing an interest in becoming theoretical physicists or system designers or what have you — and this because of their gender, “gender stereotyping” and so on. If your goal is to allow women to pursue their interests, you quickly get to a place where you have to police heavily the period in which such interests are formed such that there is no “gender bias” that effectively prevents certain interests from being formed in most girls, which then later acts as a de facto bar on the entry of adult women into certain fields because they are disproportionately disinterested in them as compared with adult men. In other words, you can’t stop at “pursuing their interests” — it isn’t that simple at all.

    Once you start down the path towards a “rational equality based definition of feminism”, you are inevitably going to run towards various things that are needed, de facto, in order to reach the goal of equality. It is unavoidable. Simply saying that men and women are legally equal but functionally/interest different will never cut it, because society rewards different “interests” differently, and that creates inequality between the sexes. Once equality comes into the picture, you’re inevitably going to get the kind of feminism we have, sooner or later.

  63. Opus says:

    @naturally aspirated

    Your comments on this thread are boilerplate Feminism. Why not out yourself as a male feminist (or even a female one).

  64. naturallyaspirated says:

    opus:

    Hey now, I’m no feminist. I just think if we scream and yell and complain about all forms feminism or rights for women/girls, we risk being labeled radical reactionaries, wanting to go back to “keep ’em barefoot and pregnant, in the kitchen, not voting, not driving, and giving me blowjobs on demand.”

    Some of that sounds good to me, but I don’t think I can make a great argument to advocate for it across the board.

  65. naturallyaspirated says:

    novaseeker:

    That’s where logic and reason, science, observation, and common sense come in. Equality under the law is different than equality of outcomes. Equality of outcomes denies biology, denies preferences, denies that men and women will, by choice, make different decisions and value different things.

    Treating women in a way that allows them to pursue their own interests will result in different outcomes and choices for women vs. men. Either that’s because of “The Patricarchy” and it’s power grab, or it’s because men and women are wired differently and value different things, as a general rule. (exceptions always, of course). I think a good case can be made that the science, the logic, the truth, the common sense observations of parents and families and human beings living with other human beings, support the notion that men and women are, on average, fundamentally different in important ways. (And no, the argument that it’s about what toys we give them and how we cut their hair isn’t the reason. Israeli Kibbutz experiments were quite telling in some of this, here’s just one take: https://www.city-journal.org/html/can-we-make-boys-and-girls-alike-12866.html)

    We MUST continue to make this argument calmly and logically, and watch the absurdity of those who deny it. That’s how this whole issue shifts toward truth and away from crazy town political absurdity. And rather than look like cavemen, we look like the reasonable ones.

  66. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    vfm7916 says: This is why “build your own platforms” is so timely, …

    True, but it’s increasingly difficult in an increasingly monopolized world.

    Can we built our own financial payment processors? What if Visa, Amex, MasterCard, etc. refuse to service “a new PayPal”? Are we to open our own banks and credit card systems (which are heavily regulated by those who hate us)?

    Eventually, we’ll be forced onto the dark web and crypto currency, which are not the best means of reaching many people.

  67. Acksiom says:

    >We MUST continue to make this argument calmly and logically, and watch the absurdity of those who deny it. That’s how this whole issue shifts toward truth and away from crazy town political absurdity. And rather than look like cavemen, we look like the reasonable ones.

    And this will change the environmental conditions — reduced childbirth mortality, cheap reliable ‘safe’ female birth control, the industrialization of women’s traditional responsibilities, and so on, that created the current situation. . .how, exactly?

    “Reasonable” presentation did not prevent the current conditions, so why do you think it can reverse them?

  68. BillyS says:

    Building our own variants should be done when possible, but it is naive overall as RPL notes. This is why we should not just shut up and hide away, though the costs of not doing that will become higher.

  69. naturallyaspirated says:

    Acksiom:

    What else can we do other than continue to fight for truth? Start wars? Hijack broadcasts?
    Burn down academia?

    I’m taking the long view. If you affect someone in a discussion or online post or whatever on this subject, and they affect someone else, and people start to realize feminism has dislodged from logic, from rational examination, then maybe family by family, child by child, things can improve.

    What else are we to do? Isn’t that why I’m here, you’re here, Dalrock has a blog?

  70. American says:

    I was banned from the Atlantic several years ago for refuting their radical leftism. It only took two days for them to get their panties in a wad. The best part was when they told me they were “neutral.” I laughed and laughed.

  71. Red Pill Christianity says:

    RPL, that is true, I am not denying the FACT Israeli lobbies want censorship. I can only imagine living in Israel, literally surrounded by Islamic fanatical enemies on all sides. They employ every tool to try to subdue any threat before any even begins to rise. The issue is that Christians are the best friends Israel has.
    The last time Jews had with Christians were back in Middle Ages, when majority of population was illiterate and fear and suspicion was everywhere due to lack of scientific knowledge (i.e. fears Jews were spreading diseases for lack of any understanding of how diseases spread, etc). These days are long, long gone. In the 20th Century, the German Socialists were labeled by the Left to be “Christians”, in order to denigrate Christianity. Truth is, these people were fanatical Atheists, Socialites, and pagans and they were in charge of Europe in 1930s Europe.

    I can almost assure you, these Israelis trying to ban all “disent” are Leftists. Leftism surpasses all things to these people. Think of George Soros (f/k/a George Schwartz). He is a “secular Jew”, self-described himself in his memoir as a Gestapo informant in Hungary against his own people in the 30s, the “happiest time of his life”. Leftism is his true religion. Leftist ideology surpasses everything, from religion to even someone’s own humanity and personal gain. Virtually all Leftists and Marxists are like that, they are fanatic totalitarians. Their political ideology surpasses everything. Soros has since used his wealth to destroy innocent people who did not oppose him and cause misery throughout the world through his “foundations”, a real tool of Satan himself.

    My beef is not with the moderate and Conservative Jews. I am a strong supporter of Israel for the simple reason that it is a core Biblical tenant and I am NOT an anti-Semite of any kind. What I do not support are leftist Jews, because they are the same people that gave us eugenics, Communism in Europe (look it up Vladimir Lenin, Leon Trotsky, and most leadership in Communist Russia were Jews), speech suppression and mass immigration. They created a monster to later eat them… and then they claim victimhood. It is annoying.

    If you study Biblical history, you will see the Israelites are not very smart. Like the rest of humanity, they make mistakes, BUT they seem to do the same thing over and over again to their own demise.

    Let’s take the tech giants, almost all owned and controlled by Jewish interests, 100% of the major tech companies run by hardcore leftists (and as I contend, Leftist ideology is more important than anything else to these fanatics). They are surprising all dissent and voices and it is causing more anger and even more social instability in the country. They monopolize almost all modern communications, they suppress speech, they mock and block discussions by people with differing religious views, they hurt average people by doxxing them and getting them fire from their jobs for having differing political views.

    Humm… WHERE did we see this happening before? Oh that is right! During the 1920s and early 1930s in the failed German Weimar Republic!!!! Why do you think the National Socialist Worker’s Party HAD to have these massive public parades and demonstrations? Because the Jewish interests LITERALLY owned all national newspapers, all radio stations, all major banks, academia, major positions in the Weimar government, and almost all book/pamphlet printers!! They suppressed all dissent. The Socialists had no way other than public events. When the public heard the message, their already-existing anger turned erupted into the major calamities of the 20th century.

    The 1920s-1930s Weimar Republic was an oligarchy and the overwhelming German population lived in poverty and despair while the elites lived in luxury and wealth. That is why the National Socialists did not have to convince the population to become anti-Semitic. They sentiment was already rampant; the overwhelming majority of the population felt the elites were stealing from them, censoring them, and suppressing their voices. That created anger and resentment nationally. It ended in WWII, a colossal tragedy.

    Just think about America today. You have 1/10th of 100th of 1% of the population controlling most of the disposable wealth of the country while buying up politicians, buying up any competition (creating monopolies), and oppressing the vast majority of the population. The elites also control all major means of communication, finance, media, academia, and more.

    The same “intellectuals” that thought they could suppress the majority in Germany in the 1930s is now thinking they can do it in America too!!! It is as if they are putting a lid on a boiling water pot and keep holding it down while it continues to boil and expand. 😮 It is a recipe for disaster!!!! This is why it is critical for the elites to pass “universal background checks” (national registration) and “Red Flag laws (piss off anyone on Tweeter, a relative, or ex-girlfriend) and your guns are gone forever, unless you can spend thousands on lawyers.

    Interestingly enough, Tucker is the ONLY one on TV actually talking about this. The elites are freaking people out to be able to keep control.

    The elites are distracting Americans with fear and division, because they KNOW what will happen if we all unite to stop the cloptocrats, and lifelong rates (like Lindsay Grahamnesty) in DC work with out overlords in Silicon Valley and Wall Street to steal and impoverish our country for their sake.

    I personally do not mind if Bezos, Gates, Zuckerberg, GoldmanSacchs execs, the Kochs, and others have a billion or $100 billion, AS LONG AS the average person is financially stable AND these elites do not use their wealth to oppress people and buy up politicians, censor and silence people by intimidation and imposing their will and political ideology by force on Americans. That is what my issue is.

  72. Red Pill Christianity says:

    *vfm7916 says: This is why “build your own platforms” is so timely, because the time is now when this is possible. This is why VPNs, anonymized email, non-US payment processors, non-YouTube video sites like unauthorized TV, non-Wordpress/blogger/reddit site backups, infogalactic, etc. must be created and more importantly patronized and supported. Give up facebook or converged social media, and make best efforts to wean your women off of it as well. Don’t expose your daughters to it in the first place.
    Dalrock will be subject to deplatforming and demonitization, as will all others in the sphere or who are Christian nationalists. Prepare accordingly.

    VFM, I agree, Conservaties need to move on this FAST. We already have safe and out-of-US reach VPN and encrypted e-mail services. ProtonMail and ProtonVPN for instance (all Swiss based, encrypted, SecureCore, etc). We are already there in this regard.

    We also have anonymous, search engines like StartPage and DuckDuckGo. Wea lso have cell phones that have good encryption (iPhone, BlackPhone) and all that. We made major strides thanks to the heroic revelations of Ed Snowden.

    The problem is that Google, FB, Tweeter, YT, Amazon, (all big tech) literally controls 97% of the market for things like videos, search, book sales, etc. Yes, we have alternatives like Gab, Parler, and Vmeo, but most people out there do not even know about these services. They are clueless and un-informed and continue to use monopoly services like Google, Andoird, Waze GPS (now owned by Google and steals your info and tracks you) etc.

    The other issue is that Google controls almost all advertising online. That is how the cut off monetizing websites, for instance. Google is now called “Alphabet Inc” because they own so many companies. They are a monopoly in every sense of the term.

    Then you have banking… even when we get new payment processing services that do not ban, thanks to the Dems in 2009 passing Dodd-Frank law, most small banks were shutdown. The major banks like Chase, Suntrust, Bank of “America”, and others just shut down banking services they do not like (like gunstores, ranges, Christian vendors, churches, etc).

    There is no way around it. We are back in the 1900s, when we had monopolies, Robber Barons, and the Trusts (monopolies). They must be taxed like everyone else as well. Our taxcode is over 80 years old, no wonder these monopolies make billions in profits and pay $0 tax. We MUST have regulations and break-up these Trusts, even if Regulation is often imperfect, biased, and problematic. These Robber Barons must be stopped and their monopolies must be broken-up.

    *Red Pill Latecomer says: True, but it’s increasingly difficult in an increasingly monopolized world.
    Can we built our own financial payment processors? What if Visa, Amex, MasterCard, etc. refuse to service “a new PayPal”? Are we to open our own banks and credit card systems (which are heavily regulated by those who hate us)?
    Eventually, we’ll be forced onto the dark web and crypto currency, which are not the best means of reaching many people.

    Yes, this is very true. I met with investors to try and set-up an alternative to some of the monopolies and #1 problem is getting financing to do so. The lenders say “it i impossible to compete with Google”, for instance. They will not lend, so hiring talent to make this happen is very hard.

    Avoid PayPal like the plague. Avoid having accounts in big banks. Payment processing, we already made some strides in that. SecondAmendmentProcessing.com provides credit card payment processing for any business denied by “big tech” and “big banking”. Pass on the info, word of mouth is only way we can help this pro-freedom service to grow. 🙂

    Currency, crypto or not, can be anything. Seashells, ammo, gold, paper printed by a shadowy central bank… does not matter. It is just a means of exchange to simplify transactions. Crypto or not, if two or more parties can meet in person and conduct an exchange using anything, that is trade and the means of exchange is “currency”.

    One final word – I would avoid BitCoin for now. Way too overpriced and volatile.

  73. Acksiom says:

    >What else can we do other than continue to fight for truth?

    Join or establish state NPO alliliates: https://nationalparentsorganization.org/take-action/start-an-affiliate-in-your-state .

    Fund and promote vasal blocking male birth control: https://www.revolutioncontraceptives.com/

    And if I knew of a good link to church reclamation resources, I’d post it. Anybody?
    .
    >Start wars? Hijack broadcasts? Burn down academia?

    The fact that these are the first places your mind goes makes you look like a collectivist moby. Really, that’s the best you can come up with? Random acts of violence? You betray your ignorance and inexperience.

    >I’m taking the long view.

    Sure, if by ‘long’ you mean ‘idle ignorant incompetence’.

    >If you affect someone in a discussion or online post or whatever on this subject, and they affect someone else, and people start to realize feminism has dislodged from logic, from rational examination, then maybe family by family, child by child, things can improve.

    Except, of course, for how changes in technology created the environmental conditions that allowed the current female chauvanist model to flourish and dominate.

    You still haven’t addressed that point. Talk didn’t prevent the current situation, so why do you think it has any chance of correcting it?

    We’re in this situation because the technology changed. Pretty words only change things when the underlying socioeconomic conditions finally allow for change. History is very clear on that.

    Answer the question — “reasonable” presentation did not prevent the current conditions, so why do you think it can reverse them?

  74. Excellent comments, as usual.

    Also, this perfectly illustrates Dalrock’s maxim: “Feminism is the assertion that men are evil and naturally want to harm women, followed by pleas to men to solve all of women’s problems.”

    Two thoughts:
    1) Feminists will, of course, blame men for the violence. See Dalrock’s law above. But….
    2) The real danger will be America slide into sexlessness. Absent immigration, demographic decline is inevitable. Want a peak at the future? Look to Japan: “A survey of Japanese people aged 18 to 34 found that almost 70 percent of unmarried men and 60 percent of unmarried women are not in a relationship…. Moreover, many of them have never got close and cuddly. Around 42 percent of the men and 44.2 percent of the women admitted they were virgins.” https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/09/16/national/social-issues/sexless-japan-almost-half-young-men-women-virgins-survey/

    At core,feminism is simply the urge to scratch Eve’s curse to “rule over her husband” (the core of AWALT). Individually, this leads to dysfunction: witness the stereotypical unhappy feminist in a time of unbridled material abundance and safety who is taking more anti-depressants than men. At a societal level, proper households are not formed and society begins to wither and collapse.

    Men are ordained by God to rule (in the household and in society). It is no license to be a tyrant, but is a great responsibility. It is God’s ordained system; Satan’s rebellion (to be “free” of rules and proper hierarchy), simply leads to disorder and death.

    Adam abdicated his responsibility, and look where that led. Giving women political power (“power over men”) will lead to similarly tragic outcomes. Women are uniquely gifted in persuading men with their words and actions. Adam’s weakness (and all men in general – AMALT) is the itch to allow your woman to lead or to follow her frame.

    Sorry if that is painful to hear in today’s “rational” world. But, I’m more and more convinced that men are uniquely qualified to exercise power. The rush of women into various fields is not the beginning of something great, but the beginning of the end. The flip side of Eve’s curse is that her rebellion will eventually be put down by her “husband” (mankind).

    The real question is how much damage is allowed before proper order is restored?

    Individually, you can mitigate some of the damage (RedPill and all…), but you should seek out a like-minded community. Those God-fearing souls (like the Amish, Mennonites, and other Consevatives groups like Orthodox and Catholics) will fare the best in the coming collapse.

    As for the other liberal Christians (United Methodists, Anglicans, Episcopal, and now Southern Baptists)? Remember reading about the Great Apostasy (2 Thessalonians 2)? That is, that there will be a “great falling away from Christ” before the End Times? About how many “Churches” will eventually align themselves with the Antichrist? Well, Feminism is a great vehicle for that “falling away.” Quite poetic, if you remember Eve’s original sin, and how that connects the Old with the New.

    We fight the same battles, over and over again. There is “nothing new under the sun” (Ecclesiastes 1:9). Stay True, Brothers. Christ Prevails. In suffering there is deliverance. Keep the faith.

  75. naturallyaspirated says:

    >Answer the question — “reasonable” presentation did not prevent the current conditions, so why do you think it can reverse them?

    Good points. Still….laying out the issues, pointing out inconsistencies, formulating arguments can be a helpful starting point to convince people to take action (in some of the ways you suggest, and many others)

  76. BillyS says:

    RPC,

    “Conservatives” haven’t conserved a single thing of value. They will not change things no matter what they claim to do.

    It is highly likely only a major system shock can change things and that will not be nice to live through at all, no matter how much some here think it would be better. It will be worse, but only that shock will allow the common people to revolt against our modern rule by elite.

    An obvious kind or emperor can be overthrown. The true rulers today are much more behind the scenes and far harder to see and thus impact. That makes for a very unstable situation, even though the elites think they can keep it under control.

    Even Tucker Carlson was saying how honorable Rachel Maddow was (she used to work for him I believe) when she is as scummy as any other journalist. Clearly no one who really saw everything clearly could stay around like Carlson does, but even he has some huge blindspots. That makes change a very difficult thing to do without massive problems.

  77. wodansthane says:

    @Magnus. Thanks, the stats were enlightening, the quote from Ecclesiastes, timely. Tough times don’t last, tough people do.

  78. Pingback: Word from the Dark Side – civil war and everyone calm down | SovietMen

  79. Pingback: Scrapbook – Dark Brightness

Please see the comment policy linked from the top menu.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.