The total absence of a manosphere schism

Lately a bunch of people have been complaining about a schism in the manosphere.  Roosh dissed everyone except pick up artists, which upset lots of people.  But Roosh’s complaint was that men without lots of experience with lots of women are poor sources of advice about women, which is trivially true.  Dalrock is good as a source of truth about women, but Heartiste is better, even if you approve of Dalrock’s goals, and disapprove of Heartiste, minion of Satan. 

If you care about truth, take it like a man. I knew the nature of women when I was teenage, but am a poor source of advice about women since I married very young, and stayed married, which cramped my style a little.

Since the greatest pick-up-artist blogger, enjoy-the-decline Heartiste, minion of Satan, is also a major inspiration to reactionaries everywhere, and himself a great blogger of the Dark Enlightenment, how can there be a schism?  It is not schism, it is disagreement in the search for truth.

If you worry about schism, you are trying to build consensus.  Consensus is the opposite of truth, it is the madness of crowds.  Consensus is truth by agreement.  The Dark Enlightenment truth by reality.

Now if we were fighting an actual shooting war with a competent, cohesive and disciplined enemy, we would have to choose someone as dictator and loyally obey, and he would say,

“Man the barricades here!”

and anyone who did not do so would be schismatic.  But we are far from there yet, and when it happens, it will not be the clash of competent and cohesive groups, but the hopelessly decadent clashing in confusion and darkness with the marginally more competent and serious. The Occupy movement prefigures the future conflict, which is why I have more hope in rentacops and mercenaries than in the regular army, which, as the Cathedral deballs it in fear of a coup, looks more and more like Occupy.

50 Responses to “The total absence of a manosphere schism”

  1. Red says:

    Roosh has always been more interested in being a man than in politics, the search for how our system worked, how it might better, ect. He’s got a good point about letting women in. Male organizations can not survive women who are not put into their place.

  2. Dr. Faust says:

    This is off-topic but I wanted to post it anyway. Feel free to delete it if you want to.

    Jim, I really love your blog and respect your advice. And that is saying a lot cause I don’t give that out lightly. The reason why I bring that up is I’ve decided to get a job and was hoping you could offer some advice. I know that’s kind of vague since you don’t know me but looking at the economy today what would be your suggestion for school, trade, and skills? I can go into more details if you need me to.

    • jim says:

      What you really need is advice that is specific to you, which I cannot give, so I will give universal advice.

      Skills are overrated, though unfortunately it is HR that tends to overrate them. Anyone who will reliably show up on time and reliably do what he is told is valuable, someone who can read, write, understand, show up on time and do what he is told is very valuable. Most of success is just showing up.

      If, however, you want better money than that, you need to look for your comparative advantage, something that you can do that benefits other people more than other things that you can do, in other words, skills and experience.

      The big trouble with skills and experience is that it is non trivial to translate superior skills and experience into substantially better money than you get for just reliably showing up, particularly if your social skills are not the greatest. If your boss cannot tell someone with brilliant skills, from someone who has loads of experience in doing the same thing wrong in the same way for years on end, then he will pay both of them the same, and pay both of them only slightly more than the guy that reliably shows up.

  3. VXXC says:

    The Fracking fields are hiring.

    • Dr. Faust says:

      Doing what? Isn’t oil boom and bust? If I went to school for petroleum engineering would I land a job before the bust? Would the market be flooded? texas a&m has record numbers of students in their petrol e. classes. other programs have similar rates. I don’t know enough about the industry to make that judgement but it’s something I’ve considered in the past.

      • jim says:

        You could simply roll up to where fracking is going, and there are in consequence plenty of jobs, and say you are smart guy who will do what he is told, and can most things. You will get experience and pay, and experience in the right thing is worth more than a university degree in the wrong thing. And being paid is worth more than paying. Further, you will learn what is the right thing. See who is making serious money, and how they got there. You will then be in a better position to say what education will make you money.

        Someone who will regularly show up on time, do what he is told, and not cause any trouble, is worth decent money. Getting more money than that by going to university or gaining the right experience is non trivial. You cannot just do course X, and be automatically guaranteed to get more money that that because you graduated from course X.

        If there is any course where course X guarantees good pay, it is a tough course. Then they notice that females and blacks are underrepresented, so they affirmative action girls and blacks into it, then they notice that the people affirmative actioned into that course are struggling, so they dumb it down, and you wind up with yet another degree in stupid, of which we have a large supply. And degrees in stupid are neither necessary to getting good pay, nor very effective in getting good pay.

        • Willy Scruiton says:

          Yes. Who cares if Bakken doesn’t last? There’ll be another. And the smart reliable guys who add value and earn friends in the industry, they’ll always find work. Get in the door, and you’re off to the races. If they want you to have credentials later on, worry about it then. For now, just get in there. I did that in software in 1996 with six credit hours of freshman CS in night school. Never looked back.

          Go there now, as I understand it, you’ll be doing shit work, crazy hours for low hourly pay + overtime. Suck it up, learn a lot. Be the steady smart grown up guy, you’ll stand out.

      • JJT says:

        MWD (monitoring while drilling) is an excellent foot-in, if you’re computer literate. It involves long periods of time in the field, so they have retention issues. MWD then becomes directional drilling, which is $$$.

        • Dr. Faust says:

          define computer literate. are we talking programming or spread sheets etc?

          • JJT says:

            My mistake. It is “measurement while drilling”. I don’t know all that much of it, other than my brother did it for a number of years and earns a multiple of my white-collar income. He’s a high school dropout.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement_while_drilling

          • VXXC says:

            To have a career, go and WORK. Jim answered the question. I began work when I was 8. I became a wage earner and taxpayer at 13, as soon as it was legal. Rather than look for a career at the outset go and WORK, then see if you find something you like. Then you invest in school if you think it a sound economic decision. Why TF would you invest in a degree for work when you don’t even know the field or if you’ll like it?

            Not to mention the respect you’ll gain, and income from having worked before college or even through it.

            As to women: instincts and tradition WORK fine.

      • Dr. Illusion says:

        College is a terrible idea. You should have learned that by now. Find a factory, paper mill, chemical plant or oil field that is hiring entry level, get your foot in the door and work your way up. I had a white collar job once and it almost made me suicidal. Not to mention not paying shit.

        • jim says:

          Not terrible, but overrated. It used to be a very good idea. These days, might still be a good idea if you do a tough course, but tough courses are becoming rarer, and employers have no way of knowing which ones are still tough.

          Not a terrible idea, but no longer the automatic obviously correct way to go.

          • jjt says:

            Up in Western Canada are some great technical schools. NAIT and SAIT (and in Sask and BC too). Very cheap, extremely vigorous, little pc nonsense and geared towards employ ability.

            If our friend wants to enter pet. eng. he might do well to simply complete the 2 year diploma at SAIT and get some experience.

  4. Candide III says:

    > and anyone who did not do so would be schismatic
    The word is ‘deserter’.

  5. […] – There is no manosphere schism. […]

  6. Zach says:

    Good god. You are (seriously) a genius.

    Fascinating post.

  7. […] is no manosphere schism. Related: Anarcho-papist writes on the “manosphere schism.” Related: Moralist and hedonist […]

  8. Dr. Illusion says:

    Not so much a schism as an invasion of losers who would rather whine and bitch about women being evil and life being hard instead of taking the advice we give and becoming better men. The worst part is, some bloggers are catering to this mindset. I really like SSM as a friend and enjoy talking with her, but her blog is a prime example of a bunch of beta incels claiming they cannot get a girl because they are too moral and righteous to date a non virgin or woman who isn’t a fundamentalist.

    • jim says:

      Oh for the double standard. When the sexual market place functioned, it was not because men were restrained, it was because women were restrained. We had, and have, a double standard for a reason, that reason being that men and women are very different.

    • Dr. Faust says:

      Not so much a schism as an invasion of losers who would rather whine and bitch about women being evil and life being hard instead of taking the advice we give and becoming better men.

      The key to understanding what a better man is that you define it. Feminists define a good man one way and you define it another way. I define a good man as a man who defines himself.

  9. Jim M says:

    I am beginning to have serious doubts about the manosphere too. I honestly don’t like a lot of these self proclaimed alpha-male poseurs cropping up. I sure as hell don’t like the anti-family tone that is pervading it either.

    I want a solid relationship with a solid woman. I want a car, a house, kids and a standard of living. I got all that and I didn’t do it by giving up to enjoy the decline, or writing off all women as feminist skanks, or screwing everything that moved. These were all obstacles but I just went around, over, under or through them as the situation required.

    I DO like the common sense the better bloggers are pushing: not selling your soul to the job, pursuing self improvement, and letting younger men know that times have changed and what worked for their parents may not work for them. I think there is a place for warm, level headed women in the movement if they have something useful to say.

    We need to ask ourselves if we want to be men or boys.

    • jim says:

      The political question however, and perhaps in due course the military question, is whether society permits men.

    • jim says:

      I want a solid relationship with a solid woman. I want a car, a house, kids and a standard of living. I got all that and I didn’t do it by giving up to enjoy the decline, or writing off all women as feminist skanks, or screwing everything that moved.

      I also, but accomplishing this goal was tough, and is today a lot tougher than it was, and is getting considerably tougher. The supply of suitable females is limited and falling, thus, in the nature of things, the proportion of men who will successfully accomplish this goal is not large.

  10. One, I do not see how pointing out the lack of consensus is any attempt at consensus building. It seems quite clear that those who consider themselves in some way involved in the Manosphere have competing goals they see as being accomplished by the movement. For Roosh et al. the Manosphere is nothing but, and should be nothing but, self-improvement and laying women. Then there are individuals like Dalrock and Martel who see the potential for more than that, building on those principles in order to develop what could only be called Masculine Reaction, a subsidiary element of neoreaction. There’s a tension between the “moralists” and the “hedonists.” Perhaps it’s the Catholic in me, but I’m awfully suspicious of ecumenism.

    Two, war and politics are a continuum. I don’t think the “moralists” of the Manosphere can be taken as thoroughly non-political. So if war requires a dictator who builds consensus, would politics require a dictator who builds consensus? I think you may be over-optimistic regarding the ability of people to really adopt neoreaction for themselves; I think it more likely a simplified form will end up being transmitted to the culture at large, which would be equivalent to “consensus building” or “manufacturing consent.” I think such phenomena are a function of lesser intellectual capabilities, rather than coercion.

    • jim says:

      We have consensus on the truth. War requires a commander who decides to hold a battle in one place rather than another, electoral politics requires that we back one candidate rather than another. Backing candidates is not a solution, since the Cathedral does whatever is necessary to get the numbers, creating an underclass internally, and importing an underclass.

      Suppose, however, we were backing candidates (which would be stupid) what would we split on?

      We would split on “pro family” and “anti family”, but would agree that repressive measures should primarily be directed against female sexual misbehavior and anti family behavior, rather than male.

      The necessities of coalition building would require that we focus on the area of agreement – that the state should not sponsor fatherless families, nor evict fathers from their families.

      The biggest area of disagreement is that whether, in a society profoundly unfavorable to marriage and sexual relationships, men should pursue marriage or relationships – but that really is not a political question, not one that candidate is going to take a stand for or against, nor is it a military question.

  11. […] If you care about truth, take it like a man. I knew the nature of women when I was teenaged, but am … […]

  12. Hidden Author says:

    You endorsed slavery as freedom; this Orwellian assertion could only be true if wealthy young fags have the freedom to own your hinny.

    • jim says:

      Some non human animals are careful not to damage stuff or hurt people, some humans are not. There is significant overlap. Most non human animals need leashes. Some humans need leashes.

      When the Park service was trying to design a garbage container that bears could not open, but tourists could open, they found that there is significant overlap between the smartest bears and the dumbest tourists. The same is true when it comes to civilized behavior.

      • Hidden Author says:

        K so why does this “preventative” slavery have to be hereditary? There is such a thing as “penal servitude” on the books.

        • jim says:

          When group X applies slavery inappropriately, this reduces freedom. When group Y decides that group X is applying slavery inappropriately, and decides to take charge of group X in order to morally improve them, this reduces freedom a great deal more.

  13. Hidden Author says:

    Why do you have more sympathy for the slave masters than for people “enslaved inappropriately”?

  14. jim says:

    The vast majority of slaves were enslaved appropriately

    The vast majority of people killed, impoverished, and rendered unfree by the civil war were not slave owners.

  15. Hidden Author says:

    Racists take the results of their provocative behavior (losses in the Civil War and WWII) as proof that they are unfairly treated. Yet somehow they are victimized just as much when their racism is hindered by less drastic means e.g. desegregation and the liberation of slaves by the Royal Navy. Apparently the worst form of aggression against racists is to forbid them to act like dickheads based on their backwards “philosophy”.

    • jim says:

      Desegregation is, in practice, ethnic cleansing of working class whites, as for example Detroit, and increasingly, middle class whites, coming to Chicago. The cost of safe housing escalates to the sky, as white housing is taken over by blacks and destroyed. What is punished, the provocative behavior to which you refer, is not white race based hate crimes, but white self defense against black race based hate crimes. Whites and blacks remain separate, but whites have to get out of the way, rather than blacks.

      I recommend you read Radish on racism: “No Reason”, which is about the politically correct refusal to see black race war upon whites, a war in which one side fights, and the other side is forbidden to resist – hence the price of housing.

      Also Radish on slavery.

      Slavery was a favor whites did for blacks. American slaves grew several inches taller than their contemporaries in Africa, and had a higher population growth rate. When they were freed, they were at far greater danger of harm from their fellow blacks than they ever had been from their white masters.

      • Hidden Author says:

        I’m sure that Radish is scholarly enough to cite sources just as neo-Nazis are scholarly enough to cite sources for Holocaust denial. BUT…even if one side cites sources, you still have to use common sense.

        For example, if the neo-Nazis are right, then we must assume that witness testimony, photographs, documents, etc. are all fake, a really BIG assumption. Especially when the Nazis held Darwinian struggle between races to be morally sanctified by natural law and threatened to kill the Jews should war come.

        And with slavery? Slavery was a working relationship in which the boss was allowed to coerce the worker, even with violence that would be criminal when used against a freeman, in order to force the worker to submit to unlimited for-profit exploitation. Is such a relationship open to abuse, especially that very definition highlights the abuser’s immunity? Who *really* benefits, the abuser or the victim? You tell me.

        In short, crackpot philosophies are obviously crackpot philosophies when one lacks a bias hindering the free flow of common sense.

        • jim says:

          Yeah, Hitler killed the Jews.

          But the slave owners did not kill the blacks.

          Ethnic cleansing of whites is real. If you are trying to buy a house, you no matter how politically correct you are, you will ask the real estate agent about “unfavorable ethnic trends”, and the real estate agent will reply in code, because plain speaking will get him thrown in jail. Decoding his double talk, you will find that a house that is relatively safe from ethnic cleansing costs a few hundred thousand more.

          Unjust lynchings, however, were not real. If they were, you guys would not be citing Emmet Till, supposedly lynched for whistling at a white woman. (Actually quietly murdered for groping someone else’s wife, something that is apt to happen regardless of race.)

          Slavery was a working relationship in which the boss was allowed to coerce the worker, even with violence that would be criminal when used against a freeman, in order to force the worker to submit to unlimited for-profit exploitation.

          And so is dairy farming.

          You assume equality, when the evidence clearly shows inequality. Slaves were, on average, better off as slaves, because, on average, subhuman. And dairy cattle, similarly, better off as property. If you had contact with real live egg laying chickens, you would know that they don’t actually like going outside. They hate free range.

  16. Hidden Author says:

    Actually I didn’t know about Emmet Till until I Wiki’ed him. So apparently killing a 14 yr. old boy is cool if he doesn’t keep his hands to himself!

    • jim says:

      Cool or not, was not a lynching.

      • Hidden Author says:

        What’s your definition of a lynching?

        • jim says:

          A lynching is done openly. It is socially approved. It is done by a large group of people in the presence of a large group of people, done by a high status person with the approval of his peers, family, tenants, and employees.

          A murder is done furtively, in fear of punishment and reprisal.

          Emmet Till was murdered for provocative behavior. He is a poster boy for blacks being lynched for non provocative behavior, cruel mistreatment of blacks for being black. But, of course, a white man may well get murdered for groping another man’s wife too. There is no reason to suppose that race was a factor.

    • Radish says:

      You commit the “anti-racist” error of describing a black teenager as a “boy.” We saw this with Trayvon Martin too, of course. Blacks mature significantly faster than whites; this is an anthropological fact, feel free to look it up.

      That is why the county sheriff, H.C. Strider, said he doubted the body they’d pulled from the river was actually Emmett Till: “The body we took from the river looked more like that of a grown man instead of a young boy” (source).

      And that is also why I am amused by descriptions of 17-year-old Trayvon as a “boy,” when, e.g., later that year a 15-year-old and a 17-year-old black “boy” strangled 12-year-old Autumn Pasquale (white, of course) and dumped her body in a recycling bin because they wanted parts from her BMX bike (source).

      • Hidden Author says:

        Yes because juveniles never commit crimes. If that is the level of logic you use to defend slavery and segregation, then inevitably your reasoning will be quite pathetic.

        • jim says:

          Your reply is irrelevant, stupid, and makes no sense.

          And, in typical left wing fashion, upon saying something moronic, you childishly congratulate yourself on your superior intelligence.

          • Hidden Author says:

            Why did he mention Autumn Pasquale except to argue that black teenagers are criminal and that being criminal “proves” that they are not juveniles?

            • jim says:

              Here are the two “juveniles” that murdered Autumn Pascale:
              killers

              Here is the non photoshopped Trayvon Martin, a drug addled burglar who mugged George Zimmerman:
              drug addled burglar
              The reason Radish mentioned Autumn Pascale is that the “juveniles” who murdered her were not juveniles and should not be treated as such. Maybe the younger brother on the left is a “juvenile”, but his fifteen year old older brother on the right is not a juvenile.

              The black life cycle is slower than that of a chimp or baboon, but faster than that of a normal human. Similarly, a baboon’s life cycle is faster than that of chimp. A fifteen year old full blooded black is an adult black.

              Radish was not saying that they were not juveniles because they committed crimes. He was saying that they were not juveniles because you should believe your eyes, rather than your ideology.

Leave a Reply