Comments on: A Note on the Manosphere

By: John Glanton

John Glanton — Wed, 01 Apr 2015 03:34:30 +0000

Welcome to the site. I’d encourage you to stick around, if you’re so inclined, and see for yourself what to make of the culture of this blog. It’s difficult to give an official answer to that sort of inquiry because the writers here aren’t exactly a monolithic bunch. Bryce and Hadley are crazy younglings, the former of a crazy theo-philosophical bent and the latter of a crazy political theory bent. Dampier is an erudite and savvy man of the world. I’m a dime-store Jeremiah. And to boot there are some newer guys on the site that even I haven’t had the time to hash out yet. Frankly I don’t know how we all ended up here in the first place.

By: John Glanton

John Glanton — Wed, 01 Apr 2015 03:21:55 +0000

“Where you went out the back door of that house there was a stone water trough in the weeds by the side of the house. A galvanized pipe come off the roof and the trough stayed pretty much full and I remember stopping there one time and squattin down and looking at it and I got to thinking about it. I don’t know how long it had been there. A hundred years. Two hundred. You could see the chisel marks in the stone. It was hewed out of solid rock and it was about six foot long and maybe a foot and a half wide and about that deep. Just chiseled out of the rock. And I got to thinking about the man that done that. That country had not had a time of peace much of any length at all that I knew of. I’ve read a little of the history of it since and I aint sure it ever had one. But his man had set down with a hammer and chisel and carved out a stone water trough to last ten thousand years. Why was that? What was it that he had faith in? It wasn’t that nothing would change. Which is what you might think, I suppose. He had to know better than that. I’ve thought about it a good deal. I thought about it after I left there with that house blown to pieces. I’m goin to say that water trough is there yet. It would of took something to move it, I can tell you that. So I think about him settin there with his hammer and his chisel, maybe just a hour or two after supper, I don’t know. And I have to say that the only thing I can think is that there was some sort of promise in his heart. And I don’t have no intentions of carvin a stone water trough. But I would like to be able to make that kind of promise. I think that’s what I would like most of all.”

By: Jay

Jay — Tue, 31 Mar 2015 02:41:55 +0000

Would the author of this post be so kind as to define “civilization building”?

By: SpecialFester

SpecialFester — Tue, 31 Mar 2015 02:33:00 +0000

Just found this site from a web search leading me to the article about “The War for the Soul of the Internet”. Needless to say it’s a refreshing change from the condescending, progressive, pandering on major media sites by limp-wristed ninnies in horn rimmed glasses, or alternative niche blogs that although offer a reprieve from the relentless social justice poison, are always infested with pimpley teenage Limeys who masturbate to Dawkins.

I’m definitely curious to learn about the culture and community of this blog. Right away I have some questions, I see sharp criticism of PUAs but not for the reasons I’d expect (that it’s shallow, boring, and philosophically bankrupt), but not a peep about the female nature of which it’s such a biting indictment?

Also I see a lot of “society for the sake of society” attitudes or at least that’s what it seems like at first glance? I realize this is a conservative blog but give me a nation worth sacrificing for and I would entertain the idea of there being merit in that, but these men OWE NOTHING to the drain circling society that gave us a 14 trillion dollar debt and this god awful bellowing about “privuhlige” from every talking head, pampered princess, and career academic encountered. For all their personal shortcomings, the men of the Manosphere are being VERY rational when they talk of rethinking lifestyle altogether and demand a justification for corporate grind and family life. Besides, if this crop of failure-to-launches turns into a permanent trend like Japan with their “grass-eaters”, we found the surest way to dismantle a century’s worth of New Deals, Great Societies, and a military-industrial complex that sends a WWII sized army after 2-bit despots in the desert and loses to goat herders.

By: Gordian

Gordian — Mon, 30 Mar 2015 17:44:26 +0000

Read Aristotle’s Ethics, especially the section on courage. No better statement can be made. Remember, the Greeks and Romans defeated the Celts in the long run, not the other way around.

By: jay

jay — Sun, 29 Mar 2015 09:45:51 +0000

”The uncivilized man has strength, but no honor; violence, but no courage. ”

Pray tell. How can a man uncivilized in his ways succeed against other men if he has not courage. How is the group to maintain its cohesion and strength without honor?

Uncivilized man has masculinity but it is a masculinity that is undisciplined and spent on ill. Of course Civilization is to tame masculinity, discipline, it channel it and even enhance it as a result of that discipline rather than diminish or destroy it and that I agree with. But to say they have no courage or honor is simply incorrect given how it plays out.

By: Bjørn Vosskriger

Bjørn Vosskriger — Sun, 29 Mar 2015 03:02:22 +0000

The manosphere causes tens of thousands of young men to start to question the narrative they are being spoon-fed by society. They might not know how to structure the world, their lives, or even their relationships with women, but they definitely realize that “something” is deeply, deeply wrong. Some of them will then go on to the dark side of EvoBio, HBD, and other naughty disciplines. Then one day they find themselves doing deadlifts, reading Hoppe, and writing for Social Matter.

Bjørn

By: John Glanton

John Glanton — Sun, 29 Mar 2015 02:16:22 +0000

Got no clue where you’re getting this idea that it’s Jews or “tattooed” strongmen.

If you want to argue about one of my assertions, feel free.

If you want to argue about one of Donovan’s assertions, read him.

By: Scott

Scott — Sun, 29 Mar 2015 00:21:09 +0000

It was a question. A strawman is an argument composed of statements.

The Jewish population rewards intelligence, not masculinity. That’s why they figure so prominently in the sciences, humanities, law and finance. If their culture put a high premium on masculinity, they wouldn’t be as intelligent as they are.

Jews bred scholars, not warriors. That’s why they’re so rich and successful. If there’s a tradeoff (I haven’t studied this, only observed) then.

Most of the traits valued by the neomasculinity writers (physical strength, courage, assertiveness) are good, but they not ends in themselves. They are valuable to the extent that they have utility in warfare. They are traits that make men good cannon fodder. Why doesn’t he value conscientiousness and rationality?

We need good men to lead us, not musclebound men with tattoos who aren’t afraid to die.

By: John Glanton

John Glanton — Sat, 28 Mar 2015 18:08:35 +0000

Far be it from me to cast aspersions on our swarthy cousins to the south, but I hear some of those coyotes are somewhat unsavory characters. I’m sending an e-mail to the address associated with your commenting account. If that works, we can avoid their services entirely.