[Aer]

There has recently been much ado in the manosphere about gaining influence with such a disorganized base. Since I really enjoy breaking down the fabric of politics and sociology, I've decided to come up with a theory on how to easily gain followers and then bolster our base in one specific tactic, entrenched with modern information dissemination.

This would be what I like to call information tidbits. We do this often here at the forum, spouting small facts to each other, further bolstering our beliefs in that true equality and happiness lies with traditional gender roles. Sure, that's great that we talk amongst ourselves in our beliefs, but we need to apply moreso to the general public, the silent majority of men who are disaffected as we are but have no real outlet aside from the faux-masculinity of football sundays and occasional weightlifting (not a knock on lifting, avid lifter myself).

So here's where my theory comes in; the use of social media. Most of us have a good amount of facebook friends, twitter followers, etc etc. What I've recently been doing is posting innocuous things that people wouldn't bat an eye at, but laced with devious truth. This is what I like to call the tidbits.

I'll give you a few examples.

A few days ago, I posted a picture of my mom during the Christmas season with me as a child. In the comment section, I put as such;

"So happy to have my mother around as a child, she loved me more than her career"

36 and counting likes. Devious as shit.

Another example-

A few days ago I tweeted a return of kings article (http://www.returnofkings.com/20073/the-o...tter-world) with the comment:

"The guys who post this are seriously crazy, but this is hilarious".

Eh, no favs or comments, but I have a good amount of followers.

Once again, innocuous humor wins the day.

It's the small things gents. I could go into a long winded rhetorical didactic about Anthony Downs' information costs issue, but I'll sum it up in one sentence.

People don't usually go out of way to get new information, they tend to stick to their common streams of information and branch out from there.

I'll be attempting to formulate the rest of the Endgame theory when I get some free time, it probably involves coalescing around a figure of power. Centralizing, as you would say.

[Walderschmidt]

I like where this is going. Continue, good sir.

Wald

[Aer]

Part II: Utilization of a Norm Breaking

While we may have just witnessed this on a small scale, what Tuthmosis just accomplished in gaining attention is astounding. It really allowed the manosphere to gain widespread attention. I will compare this, albeit on a much smaller scale, to Rosa Parks in the Civil Rights Movement. Her actions were not merely whim, but orchestrated in large part by the Montgomery Improvement Association. They were planning on using this moment to rally the base around the cause, which it succeeded very well in (note the Montgomery Bus Boycott).

What we need, however, is not a moment to rally the base, but a norm breaking paradigm shift. What Tuthmosis did was systematically very good in grounding us together against feminists (note how all factions within this forum seemed to agree that the outcome was beneficial regardless of personal views), but now we need the paradigm shift.

Staying the course of describing the Civil Rights Movement, this would be the bombing of MLK's house. It garnered national attention because of the vitriol behind it, and the cause in which King was standing for. Without the backstory, the media would have just reported it as an act of revenge or vendetta. But the story behind it was just too interesting.

Now, get this straight, I am not advocating for violence in this situation, as it only plays into our opponents hands (feminists crying out against violence against women, testosterone etc etc). What we need to do is stay the course, and be ready to react properly if a situation like this does occur (god forbid). Hopefully it will be much more minor, but hear me out:

Much like King, we cannot use violence. In some aspects, we are very similar to the blacks in Montgomery in 1955. We are viewed as dangerous to both the system and to other people. In utilizing nonviolence and even verbal nonviolence, our detractors will have nothing to say. They will use violence (in this case, verbal violence) against us, and it will play to our benefit.

Utilize this mantra. Reply with sarcasm and laughter. Anger only allows the opposition to grow.

[Walderschmidt]

(12-02-2013 11:58 PM)Aer Wrote:  

Much like King, we cannot use violence. In some aspects, we are very similar to the blacks in Montgomery in 1955. We are viewed as dangerous to both the system and to other people. In utilizing nonviolence and even verbal nonviolence, our detractors will have nothing to say. They will use violence (in this case, verbal violence) against us, and it will play to our benefit.

Very true.

The massive hamsterbating response to Tuth's article with all its vitriol puts lie to the claim that men are more violent than women. When one lie falls, so will others.

In contrast to us, our detractors look like the very monsters they claim most men to be.

Wald