[tenderman100]

Another interesting polemic from Bill Whittle --"it all comes down to strength and confidence."

[Tuthmosis]

I don't like how he conflates conservatism with alpha behavior and, by extension, beta behavior with liberal philosophy. This is a gross and problematic over-simplification. Some of the most paranoid, scared, pathological motherfuckers are among today's public American conservatives. What's more, he implies that alphas can't be clever and that the clever can't be alpha. Silly binaries.

[tenderman100]

(05-14-2012 11:03 AM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  

I don't like how he conflates conservatism with alpha behavior and, by extension, beta behavior with liberal philosophy. This is a gross and problematic over-simplification. Some of the most paranoid, scared, pathological motherfuckers are among today's public American conservatives. What's more, he implies that alphas can't be clever and that the clever can't be alpha. Silly binaries.

Like I said, it is a polemic and so it does some oversimplifying. Conservatives, for example, have this tendency to pedestalize women, a beta impulse if ever there was one.

That being said, I do believe that the statist, government-centered, quasi-socialist welfare state/identity group/victimhood/anti-business sentiments that infect many modern liberals today IS INDEED quite beta.

In that sense, Whittle is dead on.

[Hotwheels]

(05-14-2012 11:19 AM)tenderman100 Wrote:  

That being said, I do believe that the statist, government-centered, quasi-socialist welfare state/identity group/victimhood/anti-business sentiments that infect many modern liberals today IS INDEED quite beta.

I'm with Tenderman on this.

I find it hard to consider someone "alpha" when they want the state to handle business they should themselves.

[Tuthmosis]

(05-14-2012 11:28 AM)Hotwheels Wrote:  

I find it hard to consider someone "alpha" when they want the state to handle business they should themselves.

I'm not going to win any arguments on this point since there's a pretty strong anti-government sentiment on this forum, but I'll say that they're not mutually exclusive--manly behavior and a strong state. This self-determination, independent ethos is an old American belief that dates back the Colonial era, at least. The resistance to the robust, "maternal" state has been tying conservatives into knots since the New Deal. Guys on the right (mainly in business, who wanted to erode new regulations) have been attacking the active state as feminine for 50 years.

But, I think that a strong state that keeps my roads nice, gives people access to the "American Dream," and keeps the playing field level against big business promotes the sort of hard-working, manly behavior we celebrate on this board. Think the 1950s--in the wake of the much-maligned New Deal. Despite problems, such as racialized discrimination in the big cities (housing), for instance, it was a period of unprecedented individual prosperity. The GI Bill is perfect example of big government done right. Regular-ass dudes got to get an education and furthered themselves. People bought homes in records numbers.

Government can promote manliness or effeminacy. And unmanly government comes from both sides of the aisle (even though there are way more "sides" than two). People don't realize that during periods of so-called "smaller government" (the Reagan era), we actually had the largest growths in government. But government was helping the big guy (multinationals) instead of the little guy, you and me. The so-called "War on Terror" has had some of the most pussy overtones of anything in history.

I want government on my side to take on the power of concentrated capital, foreign threats, disease, and urban blight. I can take care of myself, but I'm just one man. I wouldn't fight 10 dudes in a bar without my homies. Good government is like a group of homies backing you up. Bad government is like a swarm of cockblockers.

Even though it's an imperfect piece, read "A Day in the Life of Joe Middle-Class Republican," it really hits the nail on the head on this myth of "handling things yourself."

[assman]

(05-14-2012 11:19 AM)tenderman100 Wrote:  

That being said, I do believe that the statist, government-centered, quasi-socialist welfare state/identity group/victimhood/anti-business sentiments that infect many modern liberals today IS INDEED quite beta.

In that sense, Whittle is dead on.

(05-14-2012 11:28 AM)Hotwheels Wrote:  

I'm with Tenderman on this.

I find it hard to consider someone "alpha" when they want the state to handle business they should themselves.

I concur.

[Roosh]

Tuth: you won't find a feminist voting for Republicans ever. Also, the SPLC is a hardcore liberal organization.

While I don't equate one ideology with alpha or beta behavior, feminists and their white knights get the bulk of their power from the Democratic party. I'm not a fan of conservative, but liberals are doing more harm to us than they are.

Think of it this way: if there is a "misogynist hate speech" law pushed through, it will be by the liberals, not conservatives.

[speakeasy]

(05-14-2012 11:28 AM)Hotwheels Wrote:  

(05-14-2012 11:19 AM)tenderman100 Wrote:  

That being said, I do believe that the statist, government-centered, quasi-socialist welfare state/identity group/victimhood/anti-business sentiments that infect many modern liberals today IS INDEED quite beta.

I'm with Tenderman on this.

I find it hard to consider someone "alpha" when they want the state to handle business they should themselves.

So does that mean communists are beta? Communist leaders have been some of the most alpha in history. Stalin, Mao, Kim Il Sung, Pol Pot, Che Guevara, Castro, etc.

[Tuthmosis]

(05-14-2012 02:33 PM)Roosh Wrote:  

While I don't equate one ideology with alpha or beta behavior, feminists and their white knights get the bulk of their power from the Democratic party. I'm not a fan of conservative, but liberals are doing more harm to us than they are.

Think of it this way: if there is a "misogynist hate speech" law pushed through, it will be by the liberals, not conservatives.

This is a complicated discussion, but the problem is equating the Democratic Party with liberalism. Today's Democratic Party is hardly liberal. It's some strange amalgamation of beliefs taken from all sorts of places, mostly diluted shit lifted from the political right. Obama, despite what the American Right would have you believe, is hardly a liberal when you look at liberalism as it is--a trans-historical, global ideology. American liberalism died a long time ago, at least on the national scale. Feminism may equal today's Democratic Party. But today's Democratic Party doesn't equal Liberalism. We don't even hear about the true American Left, they're so silenced and suppressed.

Speakeasy hits on a perfect example: Communists. Communists, and their cousins the Socialists, are some of the most ballsy motherfuckers in history. To extend his already good list, Hugo Chavez, Rafael Correa, and Evo Morales aren't fucking around down in South America. It takes seven testicles to do some of the shit they've been doing--whether you agree with it or not.

[Tuthmosis]

This guy was a "liberal." So beta:

[attachment=6221]

[Samseau]

Quote:

Government can promote manliness or effeminacy.

I totally agree with Tuth on this. For a good example of a manly government, look at ancient Rome or Greece. Men could kill their wives if they so pleased, and the government would back them up.



That said, Tuth, you do realize that we live in a democracy, where the majority of men are betas and are pro-women/feminists, yes?

It's in your interest to lower the power of this democracy, because they will take away your rights as a man. Child-support, divorce laws, etc.

[soup]

(05-14-2012 02:33 PM)Roosh Wrote:  

Tuth: you won't find a feminist voting for Republicans ever. Also, the SPLC is a hardcore liberal organization.

While I don't equate one ideology with alpha or beta behavior, feminists and their white knights get the bulk of their power from the Democratic party. I'm not a fan of conservative, but liberals are doing more harm to us than they are.

Think of it this way: if there is a "misogynist hate speech" law pushed through, it will be by the liberals, not conservatives.

I've always thought the puritanical censorship of things comes more from conservatives who would say you can't curse on TV or say bad things about god etc.

[Princeton]

This guy is a complete moron. Is he seriously trying to prove his thesis through fictional characters? (Characters created by the "beta liberal screenwriters" he refers to several times?)

The idea that an alpha male looks and acts like John Wayne is so oversimplified and outmoded. American exceptionalism? The people who cling to these ideas and put a lot of stock in Hollywood-style over the top "alpha" swagger are probably pretty insecure. This guy has fallen victim to the same brainwashing that has chicks chasing these "alpha" fantasy men that they create in their minds from watching too much TV.

Anyway, how does he account for the all of the "liberal" actors, directors and producers who are actually smashing the pussy in real life? (Yeah I guess guys like Alec Baldwin are pretty "beta...") What B.S. What about the alpha rock stars with painted nails who prance around in tight pants? John Wayne is dead. If this guy wants to immerse himself in 1950s caricatures, he should pick up some superman comics.

That being said, yes men in this country have become beta as shit. But it's because they've bought into the lie of feminism. It's not because they're not trying to be Captain America.

[Hotwheels]

(05-14-2012 02:48 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  

This guy was a "liberal." So beta:

Lenin pic

The problem with this is while guys like Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, etc appear to have been or actually were alpha, they used the guise of liberalism and the general apathy of the populance in their rise to power. Into dictatorships. Liberalism was simply the vehicle they used to get to where they wanted to go. Once there they hardly upheld liberal ideals.

For example, would you say Stalin or Hitler considered all races equal? That seems to be a tenant of liberalism....

The vast majority of those that embrace communism, socialism, and liberalism have no desire or ability to rise to such power. Instead, they wish the state to level the playing field for them, versus going and getting it for themselves.

I never meant for my brief comment to be construed as a black and white statement, dividing the parties into cohesive groups. They are anything but. At the same time, the tendencies are there and that is what I was getting at.

It's very easy to pull outliers out in any argument. However, one could easily ask the question; Would Clooney be the liberal nutjob he seems to be if not for his fame and wealth?

Fame and wealth makes it a lot easier to push your ideals onto others, when you do not live as they do.

[Tigre]

Who would you rather have at 2:15:

He picks Woody Allen as the beta, posting a witty observation outside of the saloon.

I disagree with his choice of conservative counterpart. Surely the tea party conservative posts a sign outside the saloon saying "Marauders: do as you will with the town, just as long as you stay the fuck off my lawn".

As others have stated, trying to divide up alpha/beta along political party lines is not a natural fit.

Gotta admit, I had trouble understanding his vocabulary of TV and film characters. I don't have the background. A lot of them I just haven't seen... I think it's a generational thing?

[Hooligan Harry]

How can you be an egalitarian yet believe in the basics of game theory? Game has its basic foundations set in evolutionary psychology and biology, which is at complete odds with the entire liberal viewpoint.

There is no alpha without excellence, and there is no excellence in an equal society.

[T and A Man]

(05-14-2012 11:18 PM)Hooligan Harry Wrote:  

There is no alpha without excellence,

Nikolai Tesla was what we would now describe a MGTOW and probably died a virgin.

So which is he?

[Hooligan Harry]

(05-14-2012 11:42 PM)T and A Man Wrote:  

(05-14-2012 11:18 PM)Hooligan Harry Wrote:  

There is no alpha without excellence,

Nikolai Tesla was what we would now describe a MGTOW and probably died a virgin.

So which is he?

Just another peasant if he stayed in communist, egalitarian Croatia?

[tenderman100]

(05-14-2012 02:48 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  

This guy was a "liberal." So beta:

Yep, you're right. About being "liberal" that is.

That's why you should read this book.



http://www.amazon.com/Liberal-Fascism-Am...778&sr=8-1

In American, the progressivist left wing of the Democratic Party -- the Barney Franks, the Maxine Waters, the Barack Obamas, the Anthony Weiners, and the Hilary Clintons are "soft" totalitarians -- that is they want to do "good" for you.

Having read LF, I think the publisher's weekly blub pretty much hit the nail on the head.

Quote:

In this provocative and well-researched book, Goldberg probes modern liberalism's spooky origins in early 20th-century fascist politics. With chapter titles such as Adolf Hitler: Man of the Left and Brave New Village: Hillary Clinton and the Meaning of Liberal Fascism—Goldberg argues that fascism has always been a phenomenon of the left. This is Goldberg's first book, and he wisely curbs his wry National Review style. Goldberg's study of the conceptual overlap between fascism and ideas emanating from the environmental movement, Hollywood, the Democratic Party and what he calls other left-wing organs is shocking and hilarious. He lays low such lights of liberal history as Margaret Sanger, apparently a radical eugenicist, and JFK, whose cult of personality, according to Goldberg, reeks of fascist political theater. Much of this will be music to conservatives' ears, but other readers may be stopped cold by the parallels Goldberg draws between Nazi Germany and the New Deal. The book's tone suffers as it oscillates between revisionist historical analyses and the application of fascist themes to American popular culture; nonetheless, the controversial arc Goldberg draws from Mussolini to The Matrix is well-researched, seriously argued—and funny.

[Tuthmosis]

(05-15-2012 12:49 PM)tenderman100 Wrote:  

(05-14-2012 02:48 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  

This guy was a "liberal." So beta:

Yep, you're right. About being "liberal" that is.

That's why you should read this book.

That's some insanely delusional, revisionist history if I've ever seen it. He's trying to affix the term "Fascist," with all of its negative associations (mostly generic, by people who don't know what it means) to the Left--when, in fact, true Fascism is an extreme Right movement.

Words have actual meanings. This guy--who is thoroughly unqualified to write this shit--is trying to ignore those meanings and create his own. You're entitled to your own opinion, as they say, not your own facts.

[tenderman100]

(05-15-2012 01:17 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  

That's some insanely delusional, revisionist history if I've ever seen it. He's trying to affix the term "Fascist," with all of its negative associations (mostly generic, by people who don't know what it means) to the Left--when, in fact, true Fascism is an extreme Right movement.

Words have actual meanings. This guy--who is thoroughly unqualified to write this shit--is trying to ignore those meanings and create his own. You're entitled to your own opinion, as they say, not your own facts.

So I take it then you HAVEN'T read the book?

See when most people think of fascism they think of goose steps, concentration camps, the holocaust, unthinking nationalism.

But Goldberg's book, while it takes into account how fascist strains morphed into that particular vision, does a really good job of showing how modern progressivist thinking has, at its roots, some of (NOT ALL!) of the components of fascism.

It was no accident that it was was called the National SOCIALIST Party.

And you know who LOVED Mussolini in the 30s? Key member of the Democratic Party.

When Hilary Clinton writes a book with the title "It Takes a Village" and says that, you know, when you're in the DMZ and getting your license, the TVs should be broadcasting tips on how to raise kids...well, if it doesn't creep you out, it should.

So, no, modern liberals are not "fascists" in the way that Hitler and Mussolini morphed into monsters.

But there is, on the liberal side of the spectrum, a disturbing tendency to "soft totalitarianism" -- telling you what health insurance you should have, what you should eat, and how you should think.

No one can deny it.

[teh_skeeze]

(05-15-2012 01:17 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  

(05-15-2012 12:49 PM)tenderman100 Wrote:  

(05-14-2012 02:48 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  

This guy was a "liberal." So beta:

Yep, you're right. About being "liberal" that is.

That's why you should read this book.

That's some insanely delusional, revisionist history if I've ever seen it. He's trying to affix the term "Fascist," with all of its negative associations (mostly generic, by people who don't know what it means) to the Left--when, in fact, true Fascism is an extreme Right movement.

Words have actual meanings. This guy--who is thoroughly unqualified to write this shit--is trying to ignore those meanings and create his own. You're entitled to your own opinion, as they say, not your own facts.

My understanding of fascism is that the rights and needs of the state supersede those of the individual. I would say that by that definition, today's liberals are more "fascist" than the conservatives. In the end though, it's all about who holds the seat of power (look at the trampling of civil rights by the Bush administration). Conservatives try to push the idea that they are for the individual, but in reality they are for whatever will make their pockets fatter. No matter who gets fucked in the end, as long as it's not them.

[Roosh]

Quote:

Feminism may equal today's Democratic Party. But today's Democratic Party doesn't equal Liberalism.

Agreed, but every now and then the Democrats throw them a bone, like with the latest gay marriage announcement by Obama. I still believe that without Democrats, feminists would have much less power than they have now.

Quote:

I've always thought the puritanical censorship of things comes more from conservatives who would say you can't curse on TV or say bad things about god etc.

They prefer different kinds of censorship. The right wouldn't mind censoring vulgarity, porn, and sex. The left wants to censor "hate speech", racism, and political incorrectness.

[j r]

In regards to politics, its more accurate to say that the Republican party is the party of beta males and the women who stand by them, while the Democratic party is the party of feminist women and the men who support them. I'm not sure why any member of this forum would bother supporting either alternative.

Our national budget is dominated by two categories: defense spending and Social Security and Medicaid. The choice between the D and the R is basically a choice between the warfare state and the welfare state. And at the end of the day, those two things aren't in opposition, but in mutual reinforcement. Most defense spending is just a way of funneling money to defense companies and jobs to congressional districts. I'm generally not a fan of welfare, because it fosters dependence and mostly just acts as an excuse to empower unaccountable bureaucracies, but that's exactly what Republicans do when they support endless war and security theater. If you think some welfare mom getting 20 grand a year is some horrific crime, but invading a country so Halliburton can get paid billions is no big deal, then I suggest that you come to your senses.

[assman]

(05-15-2012 04:15 PM)tenderman100 Wrote:  

But there is, on the liberal side of the spectrum, a disturbing tendency to "soft totalitarianism" -- telling you what health insurance you should have, what you should eat, and how you should think.

Absolutely. Self defense is one example of this. The liberals want to disarm the citizenry. They think the government can best provide for your self defense (which is demonstrably false), and it never occurs to them that the citizenry may someday have to defend itself from government (despite the fact that this is what gave birth to this nation).

The parallel to to totalitarianism is clear - every regime on its way to totalitarianism has instituted gun control. Once the citizenry is disarmed, the government, and those who control it, are unimpeded. Forget about voting - once the citizenry is powerless to effect revolution, "Those who cast the votes decide nothing; those who count the votes decide everything".

(05-15-2012 04:32 PM)teh_skeeze Wrote:  

Conservatives try to push the idea that they are for the individual, but in reality they are for whatever will make their pockets fatter. No matter who gets fucked in the end, as long as it's not them.

Many of us do not consider modern day Republicans to be conservatives. They are just lesser grade fascists. They too believe that more government is the answer to most problems.