[DjembaDjemba]

If 3 guys are competing for the same woman; the man with the tightest game, lifestyle and bankroll will have the upper hand.

What do multiculturalism and liberalism have to do with access to "x" colour poon?

[The Pumpkin King]

I think one connection that people are missing is how the manosphere and red pill blogs formed strictly online. Most of us ended up on here due to the internet being one of the last true places for freedom of speech. No one can honestly deny the liberal narrative of the mainstream media, granted fox news is just as bad and on the opposite political spectrum, it's rare to see any positive images or discussion of conservative views. Anytime I hear a discussion involving something about right-wing politics it always comes down to the old white man religious stereotypes. So I think part of it is due to the fact that conservatives are ignored just as much as red pill ideas in the mainstream. Just take a look at how the media focuses on making fun of a right wing speaker for sipping water, honestly, who gives a shit. This isn't to say that the GOP has been doing itself any favors either. Most people are shocked that I'm white, live in the ghetto, and mix and match political ideas from both sides.

[DarkTriad]

(02-22-2013 04:40 AM)ElJefe Wrote:  

(02-21-2013 11:33 PM)xsplat Wrote:  

This is transparent bulshit, and the ONLY reason it is ever put forward is as a socialist agenda for the underdogs who don't want to compete.

Look, I'm working hard to build an empire. You know why I'm doing it? Take a guess.

Alphas outproduce the fuck out the so called "productive betas".

There is more than one kind of alpha - they are not all street thugs. Most people compete financially and productively in order to get alpha status - especially as they age. And for players we compete harder and better knowing we'll get hotter and younger girls that way.

This whole concept of alphas being unproductive thugs is the most stupid, self aggrandizing beta fuel I've ever come across. It's a beta meme that deserves to be brutally killed.

When I said alpha, I meant someone who spends all their time fucking and seeking out the next opportunity to fuck, ie. the Heartiste definition.

Except that's not the Heartiste definition, not even close.

[xsplat]

(02-23-2013 01:57 PM)DarkTriad Wrote:  

(02-22-2013 04:40 AM)ElJefe Wrote:  

(02-21-2013 11:33 PM)xsplat Wrote:  

This is transparent bulshit, and the ONLY reason it is ever put forward is as a socialist agenda for the underdogs who don't want to compete.

Look, I'm working hard to build an empire. You know why I'm doing it? Take a guess.

Alphas outproduce the fuck out the so called "productive betas".

There is more than one kind of alpha - they are not all street thugs. Most people compete financially and productively in order to get alpha status - especially as they age. And for players we compete harder and better knowing we'll get hotter and younger girls that way.

This whole concept of alphas being unproductive thugs is the most stupid, self aggrandizing beta fuel I've ever come across. It's a beta meme that deserves to be brutally killed.

When I said alpha, I meant someone who spends all their time fucking and seeking out the next opportunity to fuck, ie. the Heartiste definition.

Except that's not the Heartiste definition, not even close.

Yes, it's a strawman definition of alpha, that creates a circular logic where the alphas are by definition the less valuable members of society.

Where the reality is that women are more attracted to men with greater financial means, and greater financial means tends to come from contributing more to society.

Sure, there is not a direct correlation to income earned and attraction, but there is a correlation. And working to buy that beemer in order to attract hotter women is a prime motivator for aging men to remain productive - and to increase production. The will for pussy access is the will to be more alpha and is expressed through greater production.

So it's transparent beta-aggrandizing bullshit to pretend that the sexually successful are also social leeches. That's just a feel good ideology to make the betas seem like the unrecognized Peter Parker underwear heros of the world.

[ElJefe]

(02-23-2013 02:06 PM)xsplat Wrote:  

(02-23-2013 01:57 PM)DarkTriad Wrote:  

yada yada

yada yada

The title alpha/beta is unimportant, you're getting caught up in a straw-man argument about what you think I said instead of trying to think through what I am actually saying. Nitpicking does not undermine my point.

Scoring girls can be done through various approaches, not least the amount of time you dedicate to that endeavor. The top dogs will always attract, but for 90 percent of men they have to work for it,a and that means going out, meeting people, approaching and what have you. Further, if you're spending time trying to get new girls, you're NOT spending your time raising and providing for the next generation. This is not a hard concept to understand.

It stands to reason, therefore that if more men spend more time gaming, they spend less time fathering. Does this have negative consequences?

I think it does. You can disagree, but there is a plethora of evidence fatherless homes are handicapped in more ways than one (vs. a home with two parents).

By undermining the institution of marriage, you encourage men to spend more time gaming, and less time settling for one woman. By de-stigmatizing other living arrangements than monogamy, you ensure that the men at the top accrue a larger share of women to the detriment of men at the lower end of the scale, which is EXACTLY what we're seeing in several Western countries - men at the bottom becoming increasingly marginalized. Fifty years ago, there was a role for almost all men, and the labor participation rate was almost 100%. I don't know the exact figure for the US today, but in most Western countries that share has plummeted.

I'm not disagree with you that charismatic men who can swoop easily can be good for society.

I'm talking about a liberal agenda that includes undermining marriage that is bad for society. That's my point.

[xsplat]

(02-25-2013 07:50 AM)ElJefe Wrote:  

I'm not disagree with you that charismatic men who can swoop easily can be good for society.

I'm talking about a liberal agenda that includes undermining marriage that is bad for society. That's my point.

E.J. posted a comment on my blog here "The desire to increase ones’ sexual options can and does lead to increased productivity in men, and often times creates more value for society as a whole. There is a very whiny, sour-grapes meme that perpetuates in the Manosphere, that basically says “we betas are the good guys. All those guys having free sex will be sorry one day. Society will collapse and everyone will be sorry they didn’t give us virgin wives! Productive betas build society, we deserve more sex!” It’s mostly loser logic. So-called “alphas” actually employee virtually everyone in the country, one way or another."

Maybe I'm not taking the time to read what you are saying correctly, or maybe I'm lumping you in with similar schools of thought. But if so I can't see it.

The same motivation to productivity exists for betas as it does alphas. Exists for people of low sexual orientation as it does for those with high sexual orientation. Pussy. Guys who want to fuck more girls are motivated to produce economically even MORE than guys who only want lifetime monogamy.

You are only thinking in terms of younger guys who go clubbing to get one night stands. That's not really how older guys do it, though, is it? Even today guys work on status in order to get that extra side piece or two.

[ElJefe]

I suspect we actually agree on the content, but are discussing technical details.

[Wadsworth]

I think this was one of the most important articles I've seen written anywhere in the manosphere.

At the most fundamental level, conservatism is about personal responsibility, and liberalism is about social opportunity. The conservative wants citizens to be personally responsible for their own lives, and the liberal wants to ensure citizens have all the opportunity to live to their fullest potential. Both of these are vitally important. Because of its nature, liberalism is more easily piggybacked by the feminist agenda than conservatism is. As a result, alot of people in the manosphere believe that conservatism is the answer, and that feminism can be beaten by "defeating the left." In reality, this is a gross oversimplification of a complex system, an oversimplification that has the unfortunate side effect of creating a split in the manosphere. Liberals truly are not the enemy, I don't think many red pill liberals like the fact that mainstream liberalism has become the bastard child of unopposed feminism and a complete disregard for the importance of personal responsibility.

Conservatives dislike Sandra Fluke because she represents a woman who refuses to even be responsible to the extent that she'll pay for her own bloody birth control, and red pill liberals dislike her because she represents the fact that feminism has utterly coopted liberalism.

Red pill liberals and red pill conservatives are on the same team when it comes to feminism. Can't we just acknowledge that feminism has become a force of destruction and agree that personal responsibility and social opportunity are both important?

[Wadsworth]

(02-20-2013 06:07 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

http://www.returnofkings.com/5915/libera...y#comments

Quote:

You know reading through the comments here is pretty depressing. Here you have a guy calling for a “big tent” approach to the manosphere and the response is basically to exclude and deny. This movement will fail the same way the tea party movement failed if it can be summed up and dismissed as a reactionary movement of the far right. Men of all political stripes need to be engaged. Do you see women trashing each other over political stripes? No, because they value the female objective over the partisan objective.

Men look increasingly fucking retarded in this movement, because we obviously value our partisan bias and political objectives over the male objective. If it comes down to a choice between putting aside your hatred of liberals and working together as men who can agree the system is broken or living in Orwellian femdom what would you choose?

Best comment IMO

ty

(02-20-2013 07:35 PM)Rah Wrote:  

Liberals are not the enemy, conservatives are not the enemy, but why hold on to identifying with labels that are divisive by definition? I salute the intent of the article (unity), but as long as you stay within the colored lines other people define for you in the public consciousness, there will be division.

I agree. Personally I think both the conservatives and the liberals are right, they both have partial truths to offer that are very important. I'm anti-feminist first and foremost, partisan politics are of lesser importance. I value resistance to feminism more than any partisan ideology.

[Tuthmosis]

(03-01-2013 11:59 PM)Wadsworth Wrote:  

I think this was one of the most important articles I've seen written anywhere in the manosphere.

At the most fundamental level, conservatism is about personal responsibility, and liberalism is about social opportunity. The conservative wants citizens to be personally responsible for their own lives, and the liberal wants to ensure citizens have all the opportunity to live to their fullest potential. Both of these are vitally important. Because of its nature, liberalism is more easily piggybacked by the feminist agenda than conservatism is. As a result, alot of people in the manosphere believe that conservatism is the answer, and that feminism can be beaten by "defeating the left." In reality, this is a gross oversimplification of a complex system, an oversimplification that has the unfortunate side effect of creating a split in the manosphere. Liberals truly are not the enemy, I don't think many red pill liberals like the fact that mainstream liberalism has become the bastard child of unopposed feminism and a complete disregard for the importance of personal responsibility.

Conservatives dislike Sandra Fluke because she represents a woman who refuses to even be responsible to the extent that she'll pay for her own bloody birth control, and red pill liberals dislike her because she represents the fact that feminism has utterly coopted liberalism.

Red pill liberals and red pill conservatives are on the same team when it comes to feminism. Can't we just acknowledge that feminism has become a force of destruction and agree that personal responsibility and social opportunity are both important?

[Tex Pro]

(03-01-2013 11:59 PM)Wadsworth Wrote:  

I think this was one of the most important articles I've seen written anywhere in the manosphere.

At the most fundamental level, conservatism is about personal responsibility, and liberalism is about social opportunity. The conservative wants citizens to be personally responsible for their own lives, and the liberal wants to ensure citizens have all the opportunity to live to their fullest potential. Both of these are vitally important. Because of its nature, liberalism is more easily piggybacked by the feminist agenda than conservatism is. As a result, alot of people in the manosphere believe that conservatism is the answer, and that feminism can be beaten by "defeating the left." In reality, this is a gross oversimplification of a complex system, an oversimplification that has the unfortunate side effect of creating a split in the manosphere. Liberals truly are not the enemy, I don't think many red pill liberals like the fact that mainstream liberalism has become the bastard child of unopposed feminism and a complete disregard for the importance of personal responsibility.

Conservatives dislike Sandra Fluke because she represents a woman who refuses to even be responsible to the extent that she'll pay for her own bloody birth control, and red pill liberals dislike her because she represents the fact that feminism has utterly coopted liberalism.

Red pill liberals and red pill conservatives are on the same team when it comes to feminism. Can't we just acknowledge that feminism has become a force of destruction and agree that personal responsibility and social opportunity are both important?

But how are you going to fight feminism if it is one of the pillars of the modern liberal movement?

Another guy on here said he was a progressive but also against feminism. That is like saying "I am a Nazi but I am against Hitler." Kind of odd.

That said, the manosphere is naive if they think that they will ever stop feminism. The fact is that feminism, if it ever is "defeated," will be defeated from within due to its own internal inconsistencies, and not because the manosphere had anything to do with its downfall.

[Tuthmosis]

(03-02-2013 12:24 AM)The Texas Prophet Wrote:  

But how are you going to fight feminism if it is one of the pillars of the modern liberal movement?

Tell me: what's the "modern liberal movement"?

(03-02-2013 12:24 AM)The Texas Prophet Wrote:  

Another guy on here said he was a progressive but also against feminism. That is like saying "I am a Nazi but I am against Hitler." Kind of odd.

   

[Wadsworth]

(03-02-2013 12:24 AM)The Texas Prophet Wrote:  

(03-01-2013 11:59 PM)Wadsworth Wrote:  

I think this was one of the most important articles I've seen written anywhere in the manosphere.

At the most fundamental level, conservatism is about personal responsibility, and liberalism is about social opportunity. The conservative wants citizens to be personally responsible for their own lives, and the liberal wants to ensure citizens have all the opportunity to live to their fullest potential. Both of these are vitally important. Because of its nature, liberalism is more easily piggybacked by the feminist agenda than conservatism is. As a result, alot of people in the manosphere believe that conservatism is the answer, and that feminism can be beaten by "defeating the left." In reality, this is a gross oversimplification of a complex system, an oversimplification that has the unfortunate side effect of creating a split in the manosphere. Liberals truly are not the enemy, I don't think many red pill liberals like the fact that mainstream liberalism has become the bastard child of unopposed feminism and a complete disregard for the importance of personal responsibility.

Conservatives dislike Sandra Fluke because she represents a woman who refuses to even be responsible to the extent that she'll pay for her own bloody birth control, and red pill liberals dislike her because she represents the fact that feminism has utterly coopted liberalism.

Red pill liberals and red pill conservatives are on the same team when it comes to feminism. Can't we just acknowledge that feminism has become a force of destruction and agree that personal responsibility and social opportunity are both important?

But how are you going to fight feminism if it is one of the pillars of the modern liberal movement?

Another guy on here said he was a progressive but also against feminism. That is like saying "I am a Nazi but I am against Hitler." Kind of odd.

That said, the manosphere is naive if they think that they will ever stop feminism. The fact is that feminism, if it ever is "defeated," will be defeated from within due to its own internal inconsistencies, and not because the manosphere had anything to do with its downfall.

I think if feminism has proven one thing, it's that it is resistant to its own internal inconsistencies and hypocrisy. The manosphere will grow, and once men decide they've had enough of this bullshit, feminism will start looking like two pair against a straight flush. They'll try to push us off our hand, but I've never met someone who'd throw a straight flush away.

Liberalism isn't about society bending over the barrel for women, it merely looks that way because it's been coopted by a women's advocacy movement. Your comparison with the Nazis is a bit of a strawman. Hitler rose to prominence within a cultural framework that didn't provide any real resistance, in much the same way feminism has in the West. Liberalism and feminism have a relationship that's more comparable to 1920s and 1930s Europe and Hitler. I wouldn't have needed to be anti Europe to become anti Hitler just like I don't have to become anti liberal to become anti feminist.

[Tex Pro]

(03-02-2013 12:36 AM)Wadsworth Wrote:  

(03-02-2013 12:24 AM)The Texas Prophet Wrote:  

(03-01-2013 11:59 PM)Wadsworth Wrote:  

I think this was one of the most important articles I've seen written anywhere in the manosphere.

At the most fundamental level, conservatism is about personal responsibility, and liberalism is about social opportunity. The conservative wants citizens to be personally responsible for their own lives, and the liberal wants to ensure citizens have all the opportunity to live to their fullest potential. Both of these are vitally important. Because of its nature, liberalism is more easily piggybacked by the feminist agenda than conservatism is. As a result, alot of people in the manosphere believe that conservatism is the answer, and that feminism can be beaten by "defeating the left." In reality, this is a gross oversimplification of a complex system, an oversimplification that has the unfortunate side effect of creating a split in the manosphere. Liberals truly are not the enemy, I don't think many red pill liberals like the fact that mainstream liberalism has become the bastard child of unopposed feminism and a complete disregard for the importance of personal responsibility.

Conservatives dislike Sandra Fluke because she represents a woman who refuses to even be responsible to the extent that she'll pay for her own bloody birth control, and red pill liberals dislike her because she represents the fact that feminism has utterly coopted liberalism.

Red pill liberals and red pill conservatives are on the same team when it comes to feminism. Can't we just acknowledge that feminism has become a force of destruction and agree that personal responsibility and social opportunity are both important?

But how are you going to fight feminism if it is one of the pillars of the modern liberal movement?

Another guy on here said he was a progressive but also against feminism. That is like saying "I am a Nazi but I am against Hitler." Kind of odd.

That said, the manosphere is naive if they think that they will ever stop feminism. The fact is that feminism, if it ever is "defeated," will be defeated from within due to its own internal inconsistencies, and not because the manosphere had anything to do with its downfall.

I think if feminism has proven one thing, it's that it is resistant to its own internal inconsistencies and hypocrisy. The manosphere will grow, and once men decide they've had enough of this bullshit, feminism will start looking like two pair against a straight flush. They'll try to push us off our hand, but I've never met someone who'd throw a straight flush away.

Liberalism isn't about society bending over the barrel for women, it merely looks that way because it's been coopted by a women's advocacy movement. Your comparison with the Nazis is a bit of a strawman. Hitler rose to prominence within a cultural framework that didn't provide any real resistance, in much the same way feminism has in the West. Liberalism and feminism have a relationship that's more comparable to 1920s and 1930s Europe and Hitler. I wouldn't have needed to be anti Europe to become anti Hitler just like I don't have to become anti liberal to become anti feminist.

Keep dreaming.

Feminism is now part of liberalism. I don't see it letting go of it now. The manosphere is small and has no real influence. On the other hand, feminists do actually have liberals by the balls and are pushing through plenty of laws that support their cause. I prefer to look at what is actually happening and not some theoretical argument about what might happen.

[Tuthmosis]

A western, well-known, modern liberal on rape allegations, for example. Yeah, he's an enemy.

[tenderman100]

(03-02-2013 12:42 AM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  

A western, well-known, modern liberal on rape allegations, for example. Yeah, he's an enemy.

Here's a reality.

Disgusting beings like George Galloway CAN make sense from time to time.

That doesn't absolve him from being a disgusting person, generally.

[Wadsworth]

(03-02-2013 12:40 AM)The Texas Prophet Wrote:  

(03-02-2013 12:36 AM)Wadsworth Wrote:  

(03-02-2013 12:24 AM)The Texas Prophet Wrote:  

(03-01-2013 11:59 PM)Wadsworth Wrote:  

I think this was one of the most important articles I've seen written anywhere in the manosphere.

At the most fundamental level, conservatism is about personal responsibility, and liberalism is about social opportunity. The conservative wants citizens to be personally responsible for their own lives, and the liberal wants to ensure citizens have all the opportunity to live to their fullest potential. Both of these are vitally important. Because of its nature, liberalism is more easily piggybacked by the feminist agenda than conservatism is. As a result, alot of people in the manosphere believe that conservatism is the answer, and that feminism can be beaten by "defeating the left." In reality, this is a gross oversimplification of a complex system, an oversimplification that has the unfortunate side effect of creating a split in the manosphere. Liberals truly are not the enemy, I don't think many red pill liberals like the fact that mainstream liberalism has become the bastard child of unopposed feminism and a complete disregard for the importance of personal responsibility.

Conservatives dislike Sandra Fluke because she represents a woman who refuses to even be responsible to the extent that she'll pay for her own bloody birth control, and red pill liberals dislike her because she represents the fact that feminism has utterly coopted liberalism.

Red pill liberals and red pill conservatives are on the same team when it comes to feminism. Can't we just acknowledge that feminism has become a force of destruction and agree that personal responsibility and social opportunity are both important?

But how are you going to fight feminism if it is one of the pillars of the modern liberal movement?

Another guy on here said he was a progressive but also against feminism. That is like saying "I am a Nazi but I am against Hitler." Kind of odd.

That said, the manosphere is naive if they think that they will ever stop feminism. The fact is that feminism, if it ever is "defeated," will be defeated from within due to its own internal inconsistencies, and not because the manosphere had anything to do with its downfall.

I think if feminism has proven one thing, it's that it is resistant to its own internal inconsistencies and hypocrisy. The manosphere will grow, and once men decide they've had enough of this bullshit, feminism will start looking like two pair against a straight flush. They'll try to push us off our hand, but I've never met someone who'd throw a straight flush away.

Liberalism isn't about society bending over the barrel for women, it merely looks that way because it's been coopted by a women's advocacy movement. Your comparison with the Nazis is a bit of a strawman. Hitler rose to prominence within a cultural framework that didn't provide any real resistance, in much the same way feminism has in the West. Liberalism and feminism have a relationship that's more comparable to 1920s and 1930s Europe and Hitler. I wouldn't have needed to be anti Europe to become anti Hitler just like I don't have to become anti liberal to become anti feminist.

Keep dreaming.

Feminism is now part of liberalism. I don't see it letting go of it now. The manosphere is small and has no real influence. On the other hand, feminists do actually have liberals by the balls and are pushing through plenty of laws that support their cause. I prefer to look at what is actually happening and not some theoretical argument about what might happen.

Do feminists not have conservatives by the balls? Why then did VAWA just pass with Republican support? Why are the conservatives just as eager and willing to bend over the barrel to appease feminism? If feminism is truly now part of liberalism, then why on earth don't the conservatives simply oppose it more? Perhaps equating feminism and liberalism is a gross simplification of reality?

[Tex Pro]

(03-02-2013 12:50 AM)Wadsworth Wrote:  

(03-02-2013 12:40 AM)The Texas Prophet Wrote:  

(03-02-2013 12:36 AM)Wadsworth Wrote:  

(03-02-2013 12:24 AM)The Texas Prophet Wrote:  

(03-01-2013 11:59 PM)Wadsworth Wrote:  

I think this was one of the most important articles I've seen written anywhere in the manosphere.

At the most fundamental level, conservatism is about personal responsibility, and liberalism is about social opportunity. The conservative wants citizens to be personally responsible for their own lives, and the liberal wants to ensure citizens have all the opportunity to live to their fullest potential. Both of these are vitally important. Because of its nature, liberalism is more easily piggybacked by the feminist agenda than conservatism is. As a result, alot of people in the manosphere believe that conservatism is the answer, and that feminism can be beaten by "defeating the left." In reality, this is a gross oversimplification of a complex system, an oversimplification that has the unfortunate side effect of creating a split in the manosphere. Liberals truly are not the enemy, I don't think many red pill liberals like the fact that mainstream liberalism has become the bastard child of unopposed feminism and a complete disregard for the importance of personal responsibility.

Conservatives dislike Sandra Fluke because she represents a woman who refuses to even be responsible to the extent that she'll pay for her own bloody birth control, and red pill liberals dislike her because she represents the fact that feminism has utterly coopted liberalism.

Red pill liberals and red pill conservatives are on the same team when it comes to feminism. Can't we just acknowledge that feminism has become a force of destruction and agree that personal responsibility and social opportunity are both important?

But how are you going to fight feminism if it is one of the pillars of the modern liberal movement?

Another guy on here said he was a progressive but also against feminism. That is like saying "I am a Nazi but I am against Hitler." Kind of odd.

That said, the manosphere is naive if they think that they will ever stop feminism. The fact is that feminism, if it ever is "defeated," will be defeated from within due to its own internal inconsistencies, and not because the manosphere had anything to do with its downfall.

I think if feminism has proven one thing, it's that it is resistant to its own internal inconsistencies and hypocrisy. The manosphere will grow, and once men decide they've had enough of this bullshit, feminism will start looking like two pair against a straight flush. They'll try to push us off our hand, but I've never met someone who'd throw a straight flush away.

Liberalism isn't about society bending over the barrel for women, it merely looks that way because it's been coopted by a women's advocacy movement. Your comparison with the Nazis is a bit of a strawman. Hitler rose to prominence within a cultural framework that didn't provide any real resistance, in much the same way feminism has in the West. Liberalism and feminism have a relationship that's more comparable to 1920s and 1930s Europe and Hitler. I wouldn't have needed to be anti Europe to become anti Hitler just like I don't have to become anti liberal to become anti feminist.

Keep dreaming.

Feminism is now part of liberalism. I don't see it letting go of it now. The manosphere is small and has no real influence. On the other hand, feminists do actually have liberals by the balls and are pushing through plenty of laws that support their cause. I prefer to look at what is actually happening and not some theoretical argument about what might happen.

Do feminists not have conservatives by the balls? Why then did VAWA just pass with Republican support? Why are the conservatives just as eager and willing to bend over the barrel to appease feminism? If feminism is truly now part of liberalism, then why on earth don't the conservatives simply oppose it more? Perhaps equating feminism and liberalism is a gross simplification of reality?

They did oppose it for as long as they could. It only got half of Republican votes in the House. It got all the votes of the Democrats. 100% > 50%.

What you said does point to a problem that I have already pointed out: the manosphere isn't going to stop feminism.

Hell, the Republican party may not even be a national party 10 - 15 years from now, so it does make sense to put more emphasis on the liberals and their support of feminism since they will be the ones carrying out their dirty work in future.

[Tuthmosis]

@Texas Prophet: What do you mean by "liberals," the Democrats? Others?

[tenderman100]

OK, here we go.

First, as everyone on this board knows, I am not a troll. I offer good stuff, good insights about game, about women. Tuth I think probably doesn't like my politics in general, but he's given me likes from time to time.

Second, I have received warnings from Roosh when I have STARTED political threads, and since I value the forum, I will never start a political thread again. I may find such decisions arbitrary and unfair, but it's Roosh's forum, so I respect his decision.

Third, and most important, is this:

Modern Social Democratic Liberalism, as practiced in the West, is completely incompatible with game as we practice it.

Really, it is THAT fucking simple.

Why? For two reasons.

First, modern Social Democratic Liberalism depends on the State, on the Government, to provide services to you. Healthcare. Regulations that ostensibily are desgned to make life "fairer" and "more balanced." Because this is the overarching principle of Social Democratic Liberalism, it provides cover for all sorts of impositions of your life because such impositions are "good for you." Some may INDEED be good for you, but guess what? Many of them may totally suck.

Second, central planning -- which is at the heart of Social Democratic Liberalism -- at worst inevitably fails, or at best, causes huge disruptions. Why? Because central planners are ALWAYS working with incomplete information. Individuals acting freely are much more efficient in terms of both personal and economic relationships.

Bottom line? Government should (1) provide a basic safety net (because, yes, some WiLL fall through the cracks by no fault of their own); (2) provide an environment of security against violence, both internationally and domestically; (3) support a judiciary that resolves disputes according to law arrived at in a republican fashion; and (4) protect private property while making sure my use of such property doesn't harm others.

And that is fucking IT! That is government's role. No more. NO less.

Government should not be doing shit like Title 9. Government should not be doing Head Start. Government should not be providing health insurance. Government should not be in the energy venture capital business. Government should not be doling out favors to select business sectors. Government should be as small a possible.

So, how does this apply to game? Simple. The modern Social Democratic State is feminized, mangina oriented. It eschews the reality of biological sex differences. It exalts the hamster. All this in addition to the rot in induces because of its anti-individual liberty inclinations. Its inclination to assume that there is tons of money available to "do good."

It's insidious, and reprehensible. And those of you who are in your 20s and 30s, your life will be WAY worse off because of it...unless it is stopped. But it won't be, alas. It will win, and those of you who think the Social Democratic Liberalism is the shits, be careful what you wish for.

[Beyond Borders]

(02-22-2013 02:12 AM)Huck Finn Wrote:  

@gmanifesto

"I didn't really mind because I always smacked the sh*t out of them and curb stomped them, but it is good to see varying view points."

I have never seen a line on the internet that is so deserving of an internet badass meme, congrats.

Really??? I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt, but this post makes it difficult to take anything you say seriously...

[Blaster]

(03-02-2013 12:40 AM)The Texas Prophet Wrote:  

(03-02-2013 12:36 AM)Wadsworth Wrote:  

Liberalism isn't about society bending over the barrel for women, it merely looks that way because it's been coopted by a women's advocacy movement. Your comparison with the Nazis is a bit of a strawman. Hitler rose to prominence within a cultural framework that didn't provide any real resistance, in much the same way feminism has in the West. Liberalism and feminism have a relationship that's more comparable to 1920s and 1930s Europe and Hitler. I wouldn't have needed to be anti Europe to become anti Hitler just like I don't have to become anti liberal to become anti feminist.

Keep dreaming.

Feminism is now part of liberalism. I don't see it letting go of it now. The manosphere is small and has no real influence. On the other hand, feminists do actually have liberals by the balls and are pushing through plenty of laws that support their cause. I prefer to look at what is actually happening and not some theoretical argument about what might happen.

Philosophically, feminism was part of liberalism. Now, either you consider that mainstream feminism has warped liberalism, or that mainstream feminism is no longer appropriately considered part of liberalism. If you were in a Muslim theocracy, then odds are a lot better that feminist and liberal philosophies match up well. If you're going strictly by philosophical definitions, the aspects of feminism that most men take issue with are not really liberal. It's pretensions are a frequent source of vexation for intelligent men who are trying to find common ground for legitimate discussion with feminists. "Feminism is the radical notion that women are people" and all that bull.

The so-called liberal ideology of the US democratic party is a lie. The two major US political parties have no single guiding philosophy beyond winning votes and maintaining their own relevance. Overwhelmingly, US political parties are defined by what they do to get candidates elected and what they do to facilitate passage of arbitrary legislation for its members. Bullshit like "love humanity but hate humans" or "hate humanity but love humans" are just half-assed attempts by pundits to retroactively attribute motivations to actions a party has already taken and says nothing about the force of its ideological motivations.

If you're going by the interpretation of liberals that means "people who prefer voting democrat," then we're really not talking about philosophies or ideologies at all. In that case it's far easier and more productive to discuss this in terms of the actual power feminists have in within the democratic party rather than whether they have "liberals" by the balls.

If you're talking about liberalism as a philosophy then it's no use talking about how dominant feminists are in the current democratic party, because calling democrats ideological liberals is really a stretch.

I also wanted to address:

Quote:

The manosphere is small and has no real influence.

The manosphere is small, in fact while I believe it will continue to grow I do not think it will ever become powerful as an entity. But that's not important. The "manosphere" itself is not important beyond its right to exist (free speech). It does not need recognition. What's important are the ideas. If the ideas generated in the crucible of online debate known as the manosphere get co-opted by mainstream media and politicians, that sill counts as influence even if no one is willing to give guys like Roosh the credit they deserve.