The Manosphere suffers from idealism. It thinks that “if only people just…” that all the problems with dating and marriage would just disappear. In “Is F. Roger Devlin Back?” we examined this concept indirectly:
“If only top-tier men would just stop taking all the good women.”
“If only women would just stop being hypergamous.”
“If only women just…”
Well, here is the ideal essay for idealist Red Pillers:
“I have a plan for GoodThing!”
“Great, let’s hear it.”
“First of all, everybody has to just —”
“Okay, pump the brakes, there, smart guy. How do you plan to get people to just?”
“Well, they should just —”
“Perhaps, but how are you going to get them to just?”
“They should!”
“They will not. They will not just. Never in the history of humanity have they just. They did not just in antiquity, they did not just in the Bronze Age or in the Iron Age.
“The Egyptians did not just, the Hittites did not just, Romans did not just, nor did the Chinese. The Ostrogoths, the Visigoths, the Vandals, and the Huns were united solely in that they did not just.
“Europe did not just in the Dark Ages. The Mongols did not just, nor did the Bulgars or the Cossacks or the Turks.
“The Muslims have never just. The Plantagenets did not just, or the Tudors. Nor did the Royal House of WIndsor. The Spanish did not just in the New World, or the Dutch, or the English, and the natives did not just, either.
“Thomas Paine did not just, and no one just on Punkatasset Hill, nor did they just at Miriam’s Corner.
“Napolean did not just at Austerlitz and Wellington did not just at Waterloo. And the Tsars have never just.
“The South did not just, before or after the Civil War, and the North did not just, either.
“South America has never just at any point in its history, nor has Africa in its lack thereof.
“The Memsheviks and the Bolsheviks and the Marxist-Leninists and the Stalinists and the Maoists and the practitioners of People’s Glorious Revolutionary Juche Idea said they would just, but they never did. Pol Pot did not just when he was executing people for wearing glasses or not having a husband, and Sendero Luminoso never just because they were too busy boiling children alive.
“Otto von Bismarck and the Second Reich did not just, the Third Reich did not just, either, and after that, the Jews certainly weren’t going to just, not that they ever did.
“Some Americans wanted to just, but they didn’t, because they couldn’t, because only a few of them wanted to, and so even the ones who wanted to had to stop.
“The Chinese will not just, the Russians will not just, the Americans will not just, the Martian colonists and Belters of the 22nd century will not just, either.
“Genetically engineered post-humans will not just, Artificial Intelligences will not just, and the Ascended Hive Consciousness of Conjoined Minds at the center of the Lesser Magellanic Cloud will not just, no matter how much they manipulate time and space the way we shape plastic and steel.
“No one will just, perhaps ever again.
“Why? Because it is suicidal to just unless everyone just, and they will not. Don’t you get it?”
“Well, I can see you want, because you are a —”
“No you can’t see what I want! We are not discussing what I want! I want Helen of Troy to return from antiquity in all of her radiant and legendary beauty, and give me a foot massage! I want Jesus, Moses, Mohammad, Siddhartha Gautama, and Elvis Presley to visit Los Angeles in a flying pink Cadillac and announce to the world once and for all if god is real, and if so, which one, and what he, she, or it wants from us.
“It does not matter what I want! I am not the God Emperor of Mankind, with teeming billions of soul desperately eager to hear my slightest whim so they can work to make it real!
“It does not matter if I am a, because we are not talking about what I want. I am telling you FACTS. This is what will and will not happen, regardless of whether or not everyone should, or whether or not I am a, or whether or not it would nice if the moon was made of cheese!
“Don’t you get it? If you want people to just, you need a plan to incentivize them to just, and it has to be something that has NEVER, NOT ONCE, in the history of the world, ever been tried before, because every single thing anyone has ever tried in order to get people to just has failed!
“So what do you have? What is your brilliant scheme, how are you going to get everyone in the world, everywhere, every single living thing to agree to simultaneously just?”
“I’m going to write a comment. Telling them they should. On Twitter.”
“Oh, will you? How nice.”
“It’s going to be three whole sentences.”
(since I copied this essay verbatim, here is a link to his book, which I’ve not read)
There was a follow-up discussion that is particularly enlightening:
Yeah, this desire to make everyone march in formation is very common, especially on the left.
It’s a subspecies of RATIONALISM, the hubris of intellect confident that it can simply FIGURE OUT how to solve everything.
You sparred with [Eric S. Raymond] over it. Libertarians are prone to that.
Which is odd, because the idea of rationally figuring out the one right thing to do and making everyone do it is the most anti-liberty sentiment I can imagine.
It is literally the single rationale used to justify every totalitarian state ever.
ESR is a personal friend, and a great guy. But I am often placed in the unenviable position of trying point out to him that his karma has run over his dogma.
The Manosphere is obsessed with authority and submission, so of course it thinks that problems can be solved with the proper application of authority. But it hasn’t yet realized that the whole house of cards is based on anti-freedom and anti-liberty. The Dalrockian Manosphere is full of leftist totalitarians who are utterly convinced that they are The Good Guys just trying to do The Good Thing.
Lol. These self-proclaimed “leaders”
Because a man made test said they had a personality type that is considered to be “natural abilities to lead”
Because they served in the military, that makes you a “leader” or a college degree deems permission to be a “leader”
Most “leaders” in the Manosphere lead by fear, intimidation, gang-piling / circling like sharks around those who will not “submit”
By funny / cocky / arrogant one line remarks to make you “shut up” (Bill Burr style comedic answers or dare I say, President Trump in some matters)
Leaders are men who step up and own the situation. They make mistakes, but correct them quickly. They take account to the people they LEAD. No, they dont give milk and cookies and excuse ineptitude……but in the end they are the ones who balance the books, fire, admonish, praise and push the goal of said leadership.
Most of the so called men I have met in my life who claim they are “leaders” are not leaders. They are people with family connections that got them into leadership, they have the snappiest and quick witted comebacks, snarky remarks and putdowns. Also….sad but true…..many leaders are deemed handsome on cultural standard and that makes them a “leader” (Gavin Newsom in California for example…..so many women voted for him when he got into politics because he was *totally hot*)
Most leaders today in business, politics, church structure are not leaders, they just have “followers” and remember, the mustached man from Austria had “followers” too 😉
Spot on about “leadership”.
I’ve spoken a great deal about leadership on this blog (and others before).
Mike is the best leader I’ve ever seen. And he has a great deal of humility.
I’ve never seen him brag about himself a single time (though I sing his praises…mostly when he isn’t around, because he doesn’t like it when I do that).
The internet mostly exists now to create advertisement revenue.
The more friction, the more interest (until people become exhausted at any rate, but online the limit for outrage of all types is almost inexhaustible it seems)
Most of what passes for “leadership” is more properly defined as “management.” Bureaucracy produces managers, not leaders. We have lots of managers, but not a lot of leaders.
Leaders are typified by their ability to function effectively in spite of the management class. Leaders get things done.
I always find “leadership training” to be a hilarious contradiction. If you need to go into a conference room to be indoctrinated on how to lead, then you are, by definition, a follower.
Lastmod,
Did you know that Martian Bachelor was at omegavirginrevolt/blackpill blog on a post where people on Reddit were calling White & nerdy/blackpill an incel? Martian Bachelor didn’t know what the term meant, so Paul Murray told him.:
Is that like the feminist state religion’s version of mormon doctrine that unmarried males older than age 27 are de facto menaces to society (as a Sen. McCarthy would have put it)?
While the following guy told him women have no power, but the communists: the Jews, the Masonic order, and the WASP elite do.P
You admit as such and that is your explanation for why it hasn’t happened yet. But the reality is that women aren’t capable of organizing much of anything. You say that women control society and that they are “responsible” for feminism, but anyone can see that this is nonsense. To organize something great, a corporation, a legal system, a political movement, a police force, requires a male mind that very few women can equal. If you understood this you would understand the idiocy of blaming all your problems on women. Women do not run society. They do not lead corporations, they do not command aircraft carriers, they did not build our internet infrastructure, they did not manufacture the lie of the holohoax. The communists: the Jews, the Masonic order, and the WASP elite that has been corrupted by the former two groups(The Bushes, the Rcokefellers, ect), those are the people who command the levers of the economy and society.
Your idea that women are some kind of sacred cow reflects how alone and isolated you must be. I have known many many men and most of them, when they are alone with me, have shared by “sexist” sentiments on the subject of women. It is the Jews who are society’s sacred cow.
Maybe he’s like Einstein in being “not very jewish”. I’ve never read it, but isn’t the bible full of stories about men being done in by whores?
https://web.archive.org/web/20140625204824/http://omegavirginrevolt.wordpress.com/2014/04/27/slaughtering-the-most-sacred-of-cows/
But now to get back to the topic of the post, is this other White & nerdy/blackpill that i always remembered:
https://web.archive.org/web/20140625182041/http://omegavirginrevolt.wordpress.com/the-feminist-time-machine-the-just-world-fallacy-across-all-of-time/
There’s a fallacy called The Just World Fallacy where it is believed that “human actions eventually yield morally fair and fitting consequences, so that, ultimately, noble actions are duly rewarded and evil actions are duly punished”. This is a common fallacy in dating advice because dating advice fails pretty easily. Rather than admit that their advice was a failure, purveyors of dating advice will attack the men who tried to use their dating advice. The attacks on these men will include everything from accusations of “entitlement” to “misogyny”. The idea is that the dating advice wasn’t wrong or a scam, but the men using it were so odious to women that the men deserved to be rejected by women. Why this is a logical fallacy is obvious. Just because a woman rejects a man doesn’t mean that he’s defective, guilty of “entitlement”, or guilty of “misogyny”. Saying that men who get rejected by women must have something wrong with them is like saying homeless people are homeless because something is defective about them. Both concepts are wrong.
The Just World Fallacy can only go so far in defending dating advice from men discovering it’s a scam. Even if a man actually is “entitled” or a “misogynist” now (even though that’s unlikely), that wasn’t the case most of the time he was rejected by women. Even if said man accepts the Just World Fallacy as true with respect to dating advice, the problem is that man will realize that he still got rejected when he shouldn’t have. This creates a problem for the purveyors of dating advice so they will end up invoking the Feminist Time machine.
What happens with the feminist time machine is that a man who realizes that according to the Just World Fallacy should have not been rejected by women in the past will be accused of being “entitled” and/or a “misogynist” in the past even though he didn’t realize it. The feminist time machine says that women could practically see into the future to know that a man would be an “entitled misogynist” in the future so women preemptively rejected him and were right to do so. (This is similar to the plot of the short story and move, Minority Report.) This turns the Just World Fallacy into the Just All of Space and Time Fallacy.
The problem with the feminist time machine is that it is a paradox. The only way it can be made to make sense is if women were intentionally trying to turn a man into a misogynist. Since that is absurd, the feminist time machine is also absurd, but despite being a fallacy it will be used to attack men whose only crime is being unlucky with women.
& in honor of this ”Most leaders today in business, politics, church structure are not leaders, they just have “followers” and remember, the mustached man from Austria had “followers” too 😉”
Some more Martian Bachelor from the omegavirginrevolt post ”Hitler Screwed Up Female Plans For Male Genocide”
It “worked”, but destroyed the cultural infrastructure and made Russian agriculture into a basketcase. Due to previous catastrophes they had insufficient manpower to begin with. Demotivating it was exactly the wrong longterm thing to do.
Gorbichev’s wife had the same thing happen in her family. IIRC it was more like a prison camp death. It was their similar experiences which led to them becoming a pair for life pretty much from the moment they met upon arriving at Moscow U.
I find it difficult to imagine an amerikan version of “Gorby” today meeting his female counterpart at Feminazi U (or at Sluts-r-Us U) and going on to similar great things.
“What happened in this country was that a rigid system was created, and then life was herded into it.”
– Mikhail Gorbachev
In our new and improved system only men are seriously herded, so women don’t see any real problem. Everything’s cherry for them, or at least the whole world seems dedicated to making it so (esp. once they plop out a kid or two), and that’s about the extent of their concerns.
&
This was/is at the website of The Chronicle of Higher Education, read by deans and university presidents all over country:
Who Needs Men?, by Laurie Fendrich (7-16-09)
Nice people. I don’t know about Hitler, but it makes it pretty difficult to argue against the basic idea that “Women want most men dead.”.
If it weren’t for those damned “logistical challenges”…
Who Needs Men? article?
No sooner did I digest the news that 40 percent of American babies are now born out of wedlock (the fathers are now quaintly known in newspaper announcements as “fiancés”) than along comes an article by Sandra Tsing Loh in the current Atlantic revealing that she’s getting divorced. It turns out she’s unhappy with her otherwise happy marriage because of her sex life. With a hefty dose of pissed-offedness, the author excoriates the institution of marriage for failing to sustain romantic and sexual love. (Ultimately, to mix metaphors, she had to go off the ranch to get her ashes properly hauled.) Ms. Tsing Loh offers what she considers the stunning insight that traditional marriage is outdated and tells the rest of us—in considerably more words than Dorothy Parker needed to convey the same message—never to get married.
Whoa! Them’s big conclusions to draw from one particular divorce. But her musings got me thinking. Sandra Tsing Loh’s conclusion isn’t big enough. The real problem is, very simply, the existence of men. What the hell do we need them for anyway?
Granted, men are already here in the billions, and eradicating them would be a logistical challenge. And granted, civilization thus far was built mostly by male brainpower and testosterone. Now, building civilization was no mean feat, but it was accompanied by an awful lot of rape, pillage, beheadings, spearings, burnings-at-the-stake, you name it. Not many of those good deeds were performed by women.
But the building phase of civilization is by now more or less complete. (Nation-states? Check. Constitution? Check. Airliners? Check. Cable TV? Check? Internet? Check. Diet Coke? Check.) We’ve moved firmly into the maintenance and improvement phase, and it’s time for women to take over. They’ve proved themselves superb at keeping things going whenever men went marching off to kill each other. There’s no reason they can’t now be handed the reins of civilization itself. They already hog more than half the educational pie here in America, and are, when all is said and done, the smarter of the sexes.
By cutting to the chase, and getting rid of men entirely, women could care for and improve civilization very nicely by themselves, thank you. OK, a few male geniuses won’t get born. But who needs them at this point? All they’d do is discover some new thing that would make even more pollution or superweapons and end up making us even more miserable than we already are. And we’ve already loaded Mozart onto our i-Pods.
If we did away with men, we wouldn’t have to worry about women like Ms. Tsing Loh being unhappy in marriage. Why, there’d be no more marriage! No more self-absorbed loutish husbands, no more men who can’t sexually satisfy their wives, no more men who won’t take out the garbage or do the dishes or make the kids’ school lunches (like Mom does before she goes off to her 9-to-5 job). And, outside the issue of marriage, there’d be no need for highly-paid male statistician-nerds to track divorce rates, or wimpy education consultants to do studies on wiggly boys in junior high, or philandering politicians to defend the sanctity of marriage. Children (nice, orderly, studious female children, that is) would be happier, too. They’d never again be made miserable by the desertion of a father. And there’d be a reduction in the murder rate of approximately 93 percent.
Men may protest. They’ll say that they’re indispensable to the running of the world. Wrong. Male bodies aren’t necessary. We’ve still got water buffalo for the heavy hauling and robots for more complex tasks (men might have invented them, but women will be great at keeping them oiled). True, no more NFL or NBA, but only men watch that stuff, so it’s two birds with one stone there. Anyway, Candace Parker can dunk. Male minds? A no-brainer (pun intended).
{i wonder if Deti read that article😉. As it sounds like some stuff he has written about what women say that they don’t need MEN at all, yes?}