Wednesday, October 30, 2013

Uneasy Quiet.

I've noticed an increasing usage of manosphere terms in the mainstream media, particularly the terms alpha and beta male. The local left wing feminist rag will frequently use the terms and  has increasingly critiqued "player behaviour" all of which makes me think that the manosphere is being noticed by the mainstream press.

This is not a good thing.

The message of the manosphere is at total odds with mindset of our left wing baby boomer overlords and their thought police, the Media, Arts and Learning Establishment, a.k.a The Cathedral. I imagine that the reason they have not directed their energies to this section of the internet is simply because it was too small and too un-influential to matter. Yet the media is quick to pick up on trends and the usage of manosphere terminology in the press would seem to indicate to me that they have been taking notice.

Then there was the saga with the ABC story on the manosphere and its abrupt withdrawal.  Firstly, the story seemed to be a typical Cathedral hit job. As expected, they seemed to focus on the MRA groups, the most beta like group associated with the manosphere. What the ABC was trying to do here was classic psych-ops. Pick a loser and make him a representation of your enemy so that concept conflation occurs. i.e manosphere = MRA. The whole idea is to form a psychological association between the loserdom of MRA's and the concept of the manosphere through Pavlovian conditioning.
Next time the average Joe hears about the manosphere, a notion of "loser" is generated in his head and this psychological state makes it easier for the Cathedral to convince Joe that the manosphere is for losers and its ideas are not worthy of consideration.

The fact that they assigned two very junior "journalists" to the task tells me that ABC thinks that the manosphere is of only trivial importance and that a low level hit job was enough. What concerns me however is why they pulled the story. Something's not right.

Factual inaccuracy has never been an impediment to the mainstream media, especially when it comes to small easy targets.  So the fact that the reporters got certain facts wrong doesn't sound like a plausible reason to pull the show.  People love "battle of the sexes" stories so arguments based on viewer interest are implausible.  I suspect that the reason they've pulled the show is because they want to rework it and put a more senior person on the job. I think a lot of heat is coming the manosphere's way.

It interesting to note as to why the media is doing a story on this in the first place. Why should a bunch of guys yakking on some internet forums be of any interest to the media whatsoever? I mean there's plenty of other more interesting stuff out there.

I'm not being hyperbolic here nor do I have any enthusiast delusions but it's my personal belief that Game is the first coherent practical attack on the liberal establishment which has the possibility of reaching out beyond intellectual circles. It places conservative metaphysics (a.k.a the red pill) at the service of the sex drive, essentially linking ideology with reproduction.  If it didn't work it would be another intellectual curiosity, the fact that it does makes it unstoppable.

What the liberal establishment hates is the not the sexual hedonism associated with Game but its "red pill-ness" it's this latter feature which undercuts the Cathedral's liberal foundation of lies. Lies about men and women, lies about race, lies about economics, lies about the family, lies about love.  Game is essentially the use of truth in pursuit of sex.  Just as the experience of abject poverty pushed many a man to the cause of Socialism so does success with Game push men towards Conservatism. "Success with women is more disillusioning than failure" is more a metaphysical statement as much as it is a statement of fact. The "opening of the eyes" to reality is what the liberal Taliban hates.

The other issue which infuriates the Liberals is how Game is spread. They have no control.  Whereas traditionally, the Cathedral, by having a monopoly on media control could police what the public got to see, the internet totally bypasses the mechanism. The internet has become a sort of underground press where freedom of speech, both crazy and sane is beyond Cathedral reach and thus dangerous ideas can ferment there. 

This is why I think the manosphere is about to get a lot of heat. The preparatory work has already been done. Emily's list (Google it) has stacked the political establishment. Women with second and third rate feminist academic "qualifications" stack the Cathedral. The SPLC's has issued its fatwas, all it takes for the Cathedral to decide that enough is enough in order for them to start persecuting "hate groups". The trads, with their usual capacity for self destruction, will be with them.

Some practical advice:

1) Do not talk to the media. You don't need them. The manosphere is growing and that is why they are talking to you. They can read your blog. If you want to improve your exposure then concentrate on you writing, put up more posts, concentrate on presentation, link to other bloggers. Every blog post can be seen by the whole world. You have a bigger reach than the New York Times.
2) If you're still that stupid and want to talk to the media then make sure you have a recording of the conversation. Video preferably. YouTube and Vimeo are your friends.
3) Do not do interviews. See the recent Gavin McInness interview. Three against one. One of whom just happens to be a professor of a Law School. It was not an interview, it was a set up to take Gavin down.
4) Do not say anything stupid. I know a lot of guys like to make inflammatory comments just to get some controversy and traffic going, but it can and will be used against you. Most people do don't subtlety.
5) Disassociate yourself from obvious nut jobs. It will be guilt by association.  Gates of Vienna blog is not my thing, but the poor bastard there was in deep shit because Brevik used to visit the blog and quoted it.
6) The Left is beginning to engage in false flag operations. Beware of any new and extreme members to your blog. Once again, guilt by association. Ban any idiots mercilessly.
7) Roosh V is living overseas. Think about it.
8) Should you get libeled by the Cathedral. Sue. Sue mercilessly and vindictively. Bleed the bastards for every cent they have and they have a lot. A retraction is not enough, since once the shit is thrown some of it always sticks. You may be innocent but your employer may not want the attention.

Good Luck.


OffTheCuff said...

I remember a while back when HUS was mocking some guy (was it 3rd Millenium Men?) for blowing some sort interview with HuffPost, insisting that that the "sphere" will never gain mainstream exposure if they had such bad representation.

My response was: who the hell wants mainstream exposure? That's the last thing I want.

Your article sums up my thoughts entirely. Don't interview. If you are crazy and decide to anyway, record everything and publish the context.

mdavid said...

I agree with much of what you say. It's certainly a dangerous world out there.

Where I somewhat disagree is the implication that liberals are as unified against game as you seem to suggest. Liberals know feminism is a serious weakness in their ideological household; you can see this in the comments on Huff. Men have been abused too hard, and feminism will be the crack in the dam.

Homeslice said...

More likely, they dropped it because there are no facts about the manosphere. What is the success rate of game? Who knows. How about interviews with the central players? Not possible, they are hiding their identities. What is game anyway? There are about 47 different interpretations.

The media will portray guys in the game community as losers? They are losers. Do wealthy people attend get-rich-quick real estate seminars? The same goes for game.

If anything, it should be taken as a mercy that they dropped the piece.

Anonymous said...

I agree. Many manosphere figures are promoting the "no such thing as bad publicity" angle, but to me it smells more like the start of an identification -> polarization -> vilification -> marshall broad social forces to regulate/eradicate process.

Candide III said...

Should be emailed to the highest-visibility 'sphere bloggers. If the 'sphere is in Cathedral's scopes it will be hit, but we can try to limit the damage.

Desiderius said...

Something is afoot.

The media in some cases have actually been doing their jobs these past few days. 60 minutes on Benghazi, Obamacare, etc...

We'll see if it lasts.

Novaseeker said...

Gavin did make a mistake there -- you will never be given a fair hearing by the priests and priestesses of the Cathedral, and it was simply vain to think otherwise.

I suspect, though, that the sphere is seen as a kind of curiosity more than anything else. While some of the core memes have found their way into the common parlance, the actual impact of the sphere is still fairly minimal. It's not like the establishment is really concerned about a small group of guys who talk about techniques for getting laid more often, never mind MRAs, whom no-one takes seriously (nor will ever -- it's an oxymoronic expression for most people). I think there are some feminist activists who would like to take down some people in the sphere, and I expect that will happen, but in general the Cathedral sees the sphere as a gnat, to the extent that it sees the sphere at all.

I don't expect there to be Stalinist purges in the months ahead, therefore. Good judgment is always needed individually, but otherwise things will pretty much progress as they were for the manosphere.

If I were the Cathedral, I'd be much more worried about the dark enlightenment/neo-reaction sphere than I would about the manosphere, to be honest.

Mari said...

There is nothing in the neoreaction to worry the establishment. The neoreaction, after all, is just another group of would-be policy wonks.

It is quite obvious from what they write *and how they do so* that they just want Megan McArdle's job. To be the slightly edgy one at the cocktail party. Or the slightly edgy professor like Glenn Reynolds. They have no higher aspirations.

The Social Pathologist said...


Liberalism is a broad church but the most doctrinaire of them seem to be against Game. The problem is that most doctrinaire seem to be in charge at the moment.


If anything, it should be taken as a mercy that they dropped the piece.

I would of been happier if they ran it. Something's not right.


but to me it smells more like the start of an identification -> polarization -> vilification -> marshall broad social forces to regulate/eradicate process.

That's the way I see it.


Something is afoot. Even the most stupid liberal has to question himself when reality slams him in the face. I think Obama is on the nose with many on the left for simply not living up to his expectations. Many of his supporters are morons who honestly thought he was going to bring a better gov to the U.S. I suppose when the reality of policy hits them they sort of start to question things.


Gavin did make a mistake there -- you will never be given a fair hearing by the priests and priestesses of the Cathedral, and it was simply vain to think otherwise.


I think the sphere has reached a criticality. A lot of people are reading it, the fact that a lot of people are using its terminology appropriately (even amongst its detractors) means that the concepts are gaining traction. I certainly don't think it is high on the Cathedral's "to do" list but I'm getting the impression that it isn't happy with what is going on.
Several articles in the local press have tried to reframe alpha along feminist lines. I think the pushback from the Left is about to begin.

The problem with game is that it is a wide portal to the dark enlightenment. On its own the dark Enlightenment is nothing and is considered by the mainstream as heretical. But if the people who are extreme are giving you good advice on how to get laid (especially if all the mainstream advice you have been given has been crap) then you're much more likely to be sympathetic to their arguments. That's it's real danger. If Game were all about getting laid the left wouldn't worry about it, what incites the left is the transformation of the mind that comes with the acceptance of Game.

Bryce Laliberte lays it out.


Game is about both personal transformation it more than just wonkery.

UKFred said...

@If the MSM are using the terms coined in the manosphere, then we must be getting some of its minions to think on manosphere terms. TSP is right in that game is a change in attitude more than anything else, and that change in attitude brings with it a change from blue pill to red pill thinking. Even if it were a one on one interview, people must be aware that the interviewer will be connected by earpiece to one or more people off camera to provide support and to make it appear that the interviewer is not a complete bozo, so anyone agreeing to an interview will always be outnumbered. Your advice to be careful is well worth heeding.

Asher said...

It is quite obvious from what they write *and how they do so* that they just want Megan McArdle's job. To be the slightly edgy one at the cocktail party. Or the slightly edgy professor like Glenn Reynolds. They have no higher aspirations.

Yeah, this is too true. If you look at every protest movement in the past century every single one of them has been subverted by the elite. Sometimes I wonder whether or not committing to dark enlightenment requires vows of poverty or, even, chastity.

A lot of comment sections at alt right sites just look like the same old contests for bragging rights.

Jonathan said...

One word: Excellent