Just make sure you've a life outside of this forum.
Politics is part of our life experience, especially in relation to culture, and it can be intense. Its consequences can be real, pressing and deeply affect our personal and collective well-being. We cannot begin to address the malaise men face today without touching politics. Also sharing our varied cultural experiences can be enriching.
The narrowing of interest is not necessarily bad. In fact it can be good in so far as it’s investigative specialization and not dogmatic ideologization. It avoids two pit falls: i) being a jack of all trades and master of none; ii) being locked into a harshly constrained, rigid ideology.
Serious men with great drive instinctively understand that they don't want to squander their energy and time in a vast spectrum of interests, dabbling here and there, but to focus their energy into one field/devote their life to a cause, and accomplish something great with it, or at least something.
The type of men who simply want to enjoy life, dispensing their attention over its vast variety, occasionally contributing some bits here and there by dropping a commentary, are naturally turned off by such focus. It's difficult for these two mindsets to truly comprehend each other.
For serious, driven men, unless you're fully committed to a project, you're not truly participating in life, you're just drifting by and by, forever outside, standing on the sidewalk of life, or perhaps, one foot on the sidewalk and one foot on the road. To live is to engage, to struggle, to fight, with intensity and passion, and only in that is meaning to be found. The variety of discourse is secondary to those men, what matter is action, and good discourse must end in transformative action.
And for those who want to enjoy the view, the vision of such men are limited tunnel visions. Being too absorbed in their causes, they miss the many aspects of life, its endless wonderful complexity, its rhythms, its joy.
And then there are also those who are simply interested, not so much in world-changing actions, nor in enjoying variety, but in studying one specific aspect of life. There is such a thing as knowing a bit of everything but not really knowing anything, and for those men, to truly know something is what matters. They're the scientist type.
Political science is a rich and developing field, with very little settled. It's easy to throw in occasional commentaries, either assuming that our understanding is already correct, or that there is no need to know more. This is understandable for people with little interest and/or stake in it. If you've no interest in something it all looks like a tedious gray mass, and endless and pointless distraction from the real activities of life. But if you have interest in something, the details matter, their truth and falsehood matter, immensely interesting for their own sake. It's a pretty good tell for whether you're really into something.
Discourse become poor and thin when we are too satisfied with our current understanding, too assured of our own views, too ideologically constrained. But having an interest in politics is not the same as ideological overdetermination. Even if the subject is narrow, it can be interesting when done with keen interest and an open mind, when we don't suppose we already have the answer and are ready to challenge our own views.
Though, I can understand and sympathize with the need for an ideology, as well as the lack of inclination for disinterested inquiry. The men of action simply feel that they have no time to study everything in details before taking action - what's of real, critical importance to them. They need a reliable set of principles as a guidelines for practical undertaking, to interpret and change the world, or part of it, for the better. While there is something inherently limiting about ideology itself, not all ideologies are created equal. Some ideology is more conducive to human flourishing and social cohesion than others. Patriarchal nationalism is a good place to start.
Although there is a shift in focus, this forum allows for a variety of men with different dispositions and pursuits to engage in constructive non-mainstream discourses, and that is a great thing. I love the forum as it is now. Sometimes we attract internet keyboard warriors who are neither the 3 types listed above, and just want to whine or show off internet dick, but that's unavoidable, and this forum has less of those than most.
I do consciously avoid repeating either myself or party lines. You don't see me talking about PC, SJWs, feminism, how they're bad, how cishet white-males are being antagonized, etc. because while I agree with those points I don't feel the need to repeat them. No point in going on and on about what's already general consensus.
I'm more interested in determining the exact cause for them. We agree on the symptoms, but the causes and their nature are up to debate. Disagreement is where discussions get interesting. Generally when there's too much consensus the discussion will be boring. It's better to civilly focus on where we disagree and see if we settle it through constructive debates. And there are plenty of debatable subjects, such as: is the West in a decline? Is the current decadence mostly a consequence of periodic stale peace, hence temporary and can be solved with a major war, like with China? Is the current narrative mostly constructed by ideologues or by profiteers? I fancy that those discourses will be interesting and enriching.
Quote: (07-18-2016 08:14 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:
That aftermath, whether triumphant or desolating, will leave this place as something different from what it is now (and has been for some time); and it is possible that in its wake we will see a turn away from these narrow and harshly limited and limiting concentrations, and towards the greater variety of curiosity, humor, anecdote, camaraderie, and exploration that alone allows any company of men -- including this forum -- to liberate its best and truest energies.
I don't think there will be a shift from politics after the election. It has more to do with Roosh's development and general events than the election. The shift to politics has occurred before the election, and Trump rise more or less simply intensified it. My bet is the focus on politics will continue whether Trump gets elected, in so far as the problems elsewhere in Europe has not been solved, and more problems will emerge.