Sep 132012

My last post has certainly stirred the pot.  Bill Price over at The Spearhead provided a thoughtful response.  Ankle-biter, Matt Forney, decided to call me a “perma-virgin” which anyone who reads this blog knows is absurd. Elsewhere I have been called a false flag operation:

Just like those knotheads RooshV and Krauser talk about sex because they never have really have any; PMAFT blabs on about false flags because he’s probably a false-flagger himself.

The only time I talk about false flags is when someone accuses me of being one or makes the stupid comment, the the MRM is filled with them.  At least if you combine false flag and perma-virgin, maybe something starts to make sense.  None of this is insane as what Nestorius said about Paul Elam:

It appears the Paul Elam is a Mason, and that he is getting paid for his website (as one commenter at Roosh’s blog said).
In fact, it is expected that the Masons will be leading an anti-feminist movement. Feminism is the thesis and men rights movement is the antithesis out of which they will create the synthesis.
One thing that is very suspicious about AVfM is that it is full of sophistry and nonsense. The titles attracts you and make you believe there is content while there is none.

On the other hand Jack Donovan is a Satanist (therefore a Mason) and a homosexual. He doesn’t hide the fact that he is a Satanist: Therefore, Donovan is clearly a dis-info agent. I never could understand how a homosexual is teaching men about manhood?!

One should always be careful that there will always be infiltration in every field, and the “manosphere” is a wide field which the Masons could use to indoctrinate clueless people out there.

I’m a false flag and a perma-virgin.  Paul Elam is a Mason, and a member of the Illuminati, and on the government’s payroll.  What brings up all of these ludicrous accusations?  (They’re connected more deeply than just being absurd.  There have been previous conspiracy theory based accusations that the MRM was recruiting sexless/virgin men, and that the “elite” is recruiting virgin men.)  This isn’t due to a MRM vs. Game fight.  There is something else going on.  What is telling is how when Roosh originally said that the MRM is dead, men like John Rambo and Peter Nolan, neither of whom are gamers, jumped on the bandwagon.  In fact this is part of a pattern we have seen elsewhere.

John Rambo spams the MRM in an attempt to make the MRM about his foreign women BS.  He failed and now attacks the MRM.

Peter Nolan tried to turn the MRM into an arm of the Freeman on the land conspiracy theory.  He failed and now attacks the MRM.

The Manhood 101 idiots tried to turn the MRM into peddlers of their BS.  They failed and now attack the MRM.  (They spend most of their time attacking Paul Elam since he did the work in fighting them off.)

Susan Walsh tried to turn the MRM (and the larger manosphere) into an arm of her Game 2.0/Man Up 2.0 scheme involving fake empowerment of men so that men would become chumps who would marry women after they were done riding the cock carousel.  She failed and now attacks the MRM (and the larger manosphere in her case).  In addition, she also called the idea that I am working for the elite (i.e. I’m a false flag) compelling.

White Nationalists tried to turn the MRM into a movement of racists and anti-semites.  They failed and now attack the MRM and accuse the MRM of being run by the Jews.

Traditionalist conservatives tried to turn the MRM into an arm of traditionalism (along with all of the misandry associated with traditionalism).  They failed and now attack the MRM.

You can see a pattern here.  Some individual or group decides to come in and co-opt the MRM so that MRAs will become the personal army for their pet cause.  They start by pretending to agree with the MRM about feminism.  Eventually (or in many cases quickly) the MRM recognizes what they are and wants nothing to do with them.  Then these individuals and groups turn on the MRM when they realize that their attempt at co-opting the MRM has failed.  Paul Elam is often a target at this point since he runs the most visible MRM internet organization.

The same thing happened with Roosh, Matt Forney, etc.  What they are is not gamers.  Matt Forney says that they are “paleomasculinits” (so even he admits that they aren’t just gamers), but what they really are is just guys selling self-improvement and lifestyle BS.  It doesn’t just involve game.  It includes diet BS, exercise BS, etc.  They came in to the MRM thinking that they could sell their self-improvement and lifestyle BS, but that didn’t work out.  They turned on the MRM and now attack the MRM.  They’re especially pissed because the existence of MRAs provides a competing option to the books they are selling.  MRAs are unintentionally a threat to their income so we get a lot of crap from them about how the MRM is dead.

What is going on in all of these cases is not an MRM vs. game fight (although that does happen from time to time).  It’s a fight between the MRM and every individual and group that wants to co-opt the MRM for its pet cause.  The good news is that they have all failed.  This is the real reason why there is so much venom against the MRM.  In many ways, this shows that the MRM has been successful to a degree.  We wouldn’t see so many attempts to co-opt the MRM if there wasn’t something worth taking over.  This also means that we need to be vigilant against future attempts to co-opt the MRM since as the MRM grows, the number of individuals and groups who want to co-opt the MRM will only increase.

  24 Responses to “It’s Not The MRM VS. Game. It’s The MRM VS. Those Who Try To Co-opt It”

  1. Matt Forney and all the other cage-rattlers will stop when they get sleepy. The MRM needn’t trouble itself with the titterings of children.

  2. Excellent post, it really summed up what has been on my mind about this issue. I don’t think the MRM will be co-opted, because there’s no such unified movement to begin with, but certain figureheads of the pick-up industry and men’s rights groups will probably be co-opted, and lots of clueless betas will follow them. After all, there’s a lot that feminists and the powers that be can offer if you parrot the party line: book deals, mainstream media exposure, your own column in some chic newspaper, juicy contracts in general.

  3. So what’s that make me? I’m part of the MRM and qualify as a PUA. Anyone who can’t see that Game and Men’s Rights are intertwined is missing the forest for the trees.

    • It makes you the same thing as me. Game is really not the issue here. It’s more about trying to sell lifestyle/self improvement BS.

      After all it’s not like Roosh and the rest of them are game experts. Roosh’s entire “game” consists of hitting on drunk chicks when a bar is closing. And he can’t even make that work in DC. They’re not experts in game so this really can’t be the MRM vs. game if those representing the game side aren’t well versed in game.

  4. Some traditionalists are still trying. I don’t see them going away until the community grows way larger.

  5. I still LOL when I think of when a commenter at S Walsh’s blog said some guy started having more money when he went MGTOW. and how that meant he must be getting paid by Illuminati, and Walsh called it “intriguing”

    • I know. It’s hilarious. I have to wonder what causes these people to dig such big holes. Do any of these people think that calling someone a paid member of the Illuminati is a convincing argument to sane people? Or that calling it intriguing won’t be regarded as the words of a nut?

    • Having more money when you go MGTOW is an absolutely normal thing….
      How blind do people have to be to see that …….?

  6. I left the following comment on Matt Fourney’s “We come not to praise the MRM, but to Bury it” blog post:

    The thing about generalisations are that they become stones thrown in glass houses. If I were to invert the generalisations of the MRM around and throw them back at the PUA community then I could easily argue that the PUA community are naively being architects of their own destruction by being a broken condom away from being trapped by the system, where the subsequent children become weapons to be used against them – especially when you consider that the PUA goal, when you look at the writings of the likes of Vin Dicarlo, is quantity over quality.

    And that’s the problem. Rather than actively setting themselves apart from the system, the PUA movement thrives in it, using the psychological and sociological trap which has ensnared men from the dawn of time – namely manhood being equated to sexual prowess. It’s like a prisoner in a jail who decides to “live it up” on the inside – eventually you’re going to wind up in solitary.

    The MRM, much like modern gender writers such as Tosh, Hagemann and Dudink recognises that the value of men has only ever been based on their ability to protect, provide and reproduce – and it says no more.

    It’s far too convenient and not to mention fallacious to suggest that men who are MRAs or their supporters are just whiner losers who refuse to better themselves.

    I’m a survivor of child abuse almost entirely at the hands of women and a male survivor of domestic violence. I have a passionate interest in the way that the very attitudes towards violence and rape against women which are violently opposed in our culture get a free pass and are even encouraged in the case of men.

    At the same time I’ve found a wonderful woman whom I dearly love and am engaged to, while working towards my doctorate at university. Logically, if I weren’t trying to better myself, then why would I be at university? If I had just given up on women, then why would I be with my fiance? Also does any of that change the scars I have and will probably always have? Does that change my empathy for any man still in that situation and the depravedly sexist manner in which the system does and will treat them?

    It’s tempting to say that PUAs reject the system, however that can only happen when PUAs recognise that the prison which they, along with the rest of the male ppopulation are in, is a prison, rather than a frat house. While I’d love to see it happpen, I don’t like that chances of it.

  7. Powerful words–well said.

  8. I firmly believe that Paul Elam is a lizard Alien who lures unsuspecting MRA’s into his Lizard lair where an assortment of recently hatched lizardy Elamites feast on their delicious brains.

    (Tsk, if only we had listened to David Icke, we could all be lotus eating….)

    On the other hand, as I recently posted on The Spearhead, you could follow the musings of Bill Write on The Spearhead’s “Jewish Problem”. This steaming offering appeared courtesy of Google Alerts.

    Isn’t it wonderful that we can pick and choose from such a diverse array of conspiracies in the MRM? Radical Feminism?……what are you talking about?……..Bueller?…….Bueller?…..

  9. Looks like this faggot coward forgot to report on Paul Elam’s LIES:

    • That link is a disjointed mess that I can’t follow. Could you let me know what the crux of the argument is in the link you sent? That Paul Elam and that place once time had an argument?

      • YBM, I can explain this. The Manhood 101 morons are pissed that they couldn’t take over the MRM. Paul Elam, since he is the most visible face of the MRM, gets the brunt of attacks from the groups that tried to co-opt the MRM. Paul Elam also did a lot of work dealing with the Manhood 101 morons so he gets a double whammy here.

        • As soon as I saw the $20/month program offering shit I had a feeling I wasn’t getting the whole story. Thanks.

  10. Interesting post!

    Shame that AVFM has fallen to game co-opters.

  11. I suspect you’re right about that, but the anti-activism affliction is common enough among conspiracy theorists that it doesn’t matter.

  12. I definitely see your point on this.

    I was thinking about it, and Rob Fedders is already a has been. The more visibility the MRM gets, the more men join up. With more men in the MRM, Fedders becomes even more useless.

  13. “This is precisely why I have always opposed trying to form some sort of “movement” to try and effect political change.” is a pretty clear statement against any sort of activism. Activism is all about forming a movement for political change. Is HL the John Kerry of the manosphere? He was for activism before he was against it.

  14. “This is precisely why I have always opposed trying to form some sort of “movement” to try and effect political change.” is a pretty clear statement against any sort of activism.

    I suspect that what Dave (aka Hawaiian Libertarian) is mostly “against” is the formation of a formal political movement, which would more than likely entail the use of the tools of political movements such as membership lists, written policy platforms, and public identification of those who identify as a part of that movement. The larger problem, as I see it, is that the formation of a movement also provides a “target” for the (still dominant) media to focus attacks upon. No policy platform could ever be designed which would not leave open avenues of attack by which to use that very platform to generally discredit the (thus identifiable) Men’s Movement.

    Those who would be effective on an open political front MUST be circumspect, reserved in their approach, and “inclusive”. I think of Glenn Sacks and Fathers and Families (who’s efforts I financially support).

    But, despite their best intentions, and some key victories (albeit typically small ones), they simply cannot hope to prevail against a what has become established as the status quo. another complementary form of attack is needed so as to open a second front against the feminist-directed anti-male establishment.

    As I see it, we face a powerful, deeply entrenched, well funded and well organized enemies (both leftist gender-feminists and their willing and supplicating allies in the media and Men’s Movement infiltrators like “The Good Man Project”; as well as the female pedestalizing neo/pseudo-Christian/Christofeminist right and the Churchian support network). What we must do in face of such odds is to engage in a form of irregular, Guerrilla warfare.

    Doing so necessarily, of course, entails surprise tactical strikes (as opposed to head-on charges), and keeping largely out of view (i.e. keeping up our individual anonymity).

    But, there is another aspect of successful Guerrilla warfare that typically goes unmentioned or outright forgotten – the effort to change the hearts and minds of those who we would fight for. One of the reasons that the Viet Cong was so successful was that they could effectively win over the locals of a village – mostly just by addressing the actual needs of those locals. The US forces could move into that village as part of a “clear and hold” operation, driving the VC troops out; but such tactics merely served to galvanize in the hearts of the locals their loyalties to the VC who had not occupied so much by show of brutal force as by befriending the villagers. The nightmare for young US soldiers was that they were sent in to subdue a village and its inhabitants by force (oppressing them), which often lead to the development of a willingness by formerly peaceful villagers to take up the cause that the VC had introduced to them.

    As I see it, this is not unlike what we need to be doing with (especially) young men who we have personal contact with. We need to let them know that there are other men (including older, more established men) who care about them in their struggles within a system which has become increasingly stacked against them. We need to let them know that we are seeking not only to inform them of the pitfalls they are facing (which really should be no secret tot them, but many need to have the scales torn from their eyes first), but also that we are willing to partner with them as part of a larger nebulous “shadow” movement to begin to tear down the apparatus which has been erected to control, oppress and enslave men.

    Beyond just influencing those who we would normally have some level of contact with, we can invite more men to make contact by getting the same massage out in ways that will engage the curiosities of those men who “know” that something is wrong, but cannot quite piece it all together in their minds. Yes, I am referring to and endorsing the urinal poster campaign. I’ve done a bit of it myself. Just presenting the existence of an alternative point of view can garner interest, even if it is not much more that planting a seed. [Personally, I keep hoping for a comprehensive “Introduction to the real issue of men” site as a starting point for interested minds that they could be directed to, but I do understand that any such site is ripe for being co-opted by those with personal (financial) agendas.]

    I have to say that I do not understand the level of hostility I see n the recent in-fighting amongst those who I would see as being natural allies. And, I have found if quite disheartening. Yet, I still believe that we all can refocus ourselves to find enough common ground to go about the work of both striking blows and winning hearts and minds.[/$0.02]

  15. Excellent,EXCELLENT comment. Yes!

    “But, there is another aspect of successful Guerrilla warfare that typically goes unmentioned or outright forgotten – the effort to change the hearts and minds of those who we would fight for. One of the reasons that the Viet Cong was so successful was that they could effectively win over the locals of a village – mostly just by addressing the actual needs of those locals. The US forces could move into that village as part of a “clear and hold” operation, driving the VC troops out; but such tactics merely served to galvanize in the hearts of the locals their loyalties to the VC who had not occupied so much by show of brutal force as by befriending the villagers. ”

    We must provide a clear contrast,feminists put young men in jail for non-payment of child support,MRA’s spring them and force the court to reimburse them. By battling for men’s rights in the scattershot,but personal method you speak of, we win lifelong converts indebted to us and invested in the success of the MRM as a whole, we also attract many more looking for perhaps their one shot to avoid the pitfalls of modern masculinity (false rape accusations,false sexual harassment lawsuits,a society comfortable with domestic violence directed against men and even baby boys).

    It is clear that it will take centuries of constant agitation to warm people up to the idea of giving men a deal HALF as good as that given to women. But just because we cannot do what we’d like to do is no excuse for not doing what we can do. The sense of right and wrong I was born with, and had reinforced by my male peers and loved ones,will not allow me to ignore this travesty.

    We are the rescue team. Nobody’s coming to save us.So,we have to be the change we want to see in the world. And the change I want is for everybody to use whatever they have,every loophole, every chink in the armor, every 200 year old legal byline, to make sure that men and boys are not marginalized or minimized before the government and/or society. To hit misandrists over and over and over for anything they can,in order to promote peace,order,and justice until the noble goals of our enlightened Western philosophers stand over the beaten,bloody and broken corpse of sexism.

    Like you,I also think we men should attempt to seek common ground. We must stop measuring the worth of our ideas or contributions to society by the number of notches on our bedposts. Not only is that a failed model for masculinity (the pussy cartel owns these guys lock,stock,and barrel),it has no place in the debate over the social and legal futures of men. Ideas about sexual superiority are divorced from anything except establishing a place in the pecking order. The MRM is not about rearranging the pecking order, it’s about getting the “peckers” to start pecking at some of our problems-and a shortage of pussy is not one of them these days.

    So you’re some kind of smooth ass Casanova with all this pull with the ladies? Why aren’t you convincing female lawmakers to work on our behalf sometimes instead of always on the behalf of females?

    You’re a proud 40 year old virgin GHOW with plenty of time and money to spare? Why aren’t you standing in front of the White House/Parliament/whatever with a sign?

Leave a Comment. (Remember the comment policy is in force.)

Cheap Jerseys Wholesale Jerseys Cheap Jerseys Wholesale Jerseys Cheap Jerseys Cheap NFL Jerseys Wholesale Jerseys Wholesale Football Jerseys Wholesale Jerseys Wholesale NFL Jerseys Cheap NFL Jerseys Wholesale NFL Jerseys Cheap NHL Jerseys Wholesale NHL Jerseys Cheap NBA Jerseys Wholesale NBA Jerseys Cheap MLB Jerseys Wholesale MLB Jerseys Cheap College Jerseys Cheap NCAA Jerseys Wholesale College Jerseys Wholesale NCAA Jerseys Cheap Soccer Jerseys Wholesale Soccer Jerseys Cheap Soccer Jerseys Wholesale Soccer Jerseys
Translate »
%d bloggers like this: