"Men are pretty terrible people". That’s the first line of the Guardian article "It's time to do away with the concept of 'manhood' altogether" by Zach Stafford. Yes, manhood is in quotes.
Men probably dominate all these “terrible” statistics because, now and throughout history, they’ve dominated the world. But that doesn’t give them a pass. They are still to blame even if they don’t know better, and it’s high time their dominant position – their entitled ignorance – was questioned and dismantled.
We shitlords often see this tactic: the attempt to shame men into changing their behavior. This is yet another attempt to use language to create an emotional response in the targets (men), or in those who influence the targets (women) to create a cacophony of screeching, which then creates a behavioral response in the targets (men). Uninitiated men will unconsciously fall into the given frame and respond with some form of NAXALT, attempting to prove that not all men are terrible or dominant. Don't do that. By falling into the frame, there is no way to win. You've lost the argument simply by engaging in it. Instead, shift the frame. There are two ways to shift the frame.
The original frame is that of the feminine. In this frame, females, feminine males, and lower-ranking males assault men primarily with Pathos, or appeals to emotion: sentimentalism and moralism. They will use some forms of Logos, though the logic is generally false, which makes it mere sophistry. Meanwhile they will signal Ethos, that they have the moral high ground. Attempts to refute their Logos will fail, and instead will result in renewed attacks of Pathos. The goal of the feminine is to create a full chimpout, where the females are screeching and flinging feces and enraging males (the white knights) to attack the targets. In chimps, as in humans, lower ranking males within a troop compete for the access to females, while simultaneously all the males cooperate against outside males to protect the females. It's a tradeoff. But as outside pressure from competing troops decreases, the pressure within the troop of lower-ranking males against the alpha increases. We live in an age where many males in the US do not believe that there is any outside competition for the females, and so focus 100% of their effort on attacking the alphas within their own group. These are the male feminists, white knights and feminist allies.
To re-iterate the feminine strategy: use words to create emotions which move the group (including the lower ranking males) to attack. Progressivism itself is a manifestation of the feminine strategy. The words themselves have no meaning. All that matters is that they generate an emotional response which creates a chimp-out. It is futile to logically dismantle the sophistry and loaded language of the feminine narrative, because that narrative is simply intended to rally, shame and ostracize. Lies are cheap, but the truth is expensive. It costs orders of magnitude more effort to refute a lie than to tell one.
It is often less costly to shift to the next frame, the neutral (as in neither feminine nor masculine) frame. This is the libertarian frame, where one attempts to create incentives via benefit or to impose economic costs. The neutral frame is that of remuneration, of economic cooperation. Progressive/feminine attacks are generally attempts to shift males into an economic response. Essentially, the feminine is like a child whining to daddy for a toy. Daddy pays them to shut up. This is the real meaning behind any of the feminine attacks: rent seeking. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson use language to weave a narrative to create shame in whites for slavery and Jim Crow. They do not spin these narratives in order to simply seek confirmation, that is, apologies or promises from whites to never do so again. They engage in the feminine attack in order to seek rents, to cause men to switch to the economic frame and pay them to shut up. In 2003, Kobe Bryant bought his wife a $4 million ring 3 days after he was charged with rape. Coincidence? I think not. Race-baiters make it clear that if their wealthy white targets will offer them sufficient economic incentive, then they will call off their screeching hordes and move on to another target.
Often in debate, men will attempt to use logic to argue the libertarian case and to demonstrate why a given demand is simply too costly or illogical from the masculine point of view. This is what we in the alt-right refer to as 'autism'. The autist's arguments are logical and rational, but lack understanding of the social context. It is 'autism' to believe that the arguments offered by the feminine have a logical underpinning. The only meaning to be found in the screeching of the chimps is that they want something; the child cries because it wants something. Figure out what they want, and then calculate the cost of buying cooperation. Sometimes the value proposition is there, and sometimes it is not.
Take GamerGate for example. The SJWs who took over gaming journalism demanded complete submission from the (overwhelmingly male) gaming community, including acceding to the demand to in essence ruin gaming by making games something that no man would want to play. The GamerGate crowd attacked the problem logically and methodically. They exposed the SJWs, and they attacked them at their sources of income: the advertisers. In this case, the GamerGaters had no choice but to wage a propaganda and economic war, because the SJWs were in control of the power structure: the network of journalists and advertisers. To be clear, the GamerGaters did not logically convince the female SJWs to relent; instead they convinced the other males in the group not to attack on behalf of the females. They convinced the other males that the SJWs wanted to ruin gaming, which caused the males to group together against the outside threat. If you look at the men involved in GamerGate, they are not exactly right-wingers.
If it is feminine to use linguistic coercion to rally and shame, and it is neutral to calculate and modify economic incentive to obtain cooperation, then what is the masculine form of coercion? Simple. The masculine form of persuasion is violence.
But isn't violence a priori wrong?
No, that's what the feminine is trying to program into your brain. That is the most blue-pilled thought of them all. Violence is simply another form of communication. The vast majority of language is used to lie. Violence never lies. It is the purest form of communication. A punch to the face simply says "I'm sorry but your terms of cooperation were unacceptable to me. I believe that my interests are better served through conflict. Would you like to re-negotiate terms of cooperation, or would you prefer that we separate?". Haven't you read Might is Right? I recommend it.
As a side note, Hoppe has this idea of argumentation ethics. The basic idea is that by engaging in argument, two parties have implicitly rejected violence. He then attempts to assert the conclusion that both parties have accepted the Non-Aggression Principle. I don't believe that's true. I think that the argument can become a violent conflict at any point, and that engaging in argumentation is an attempt to find an acceptable means of cooperation, but that this does not rule out violence.
Have you heard Trump criticize Republican negotiators for ruling out a shutdown of the government? He uses that as an example of bad negotiation strategy. They ruled out their most powerful play and simply folded. Have you heard similar analyses of foreign policy where military action is off the table? Removing violence from the table in any negotiation is a bad idea. It guarantees that you give away more than you must.
Now, back to the Guardian article by that mulatto faggot.
“Violence is often the single most evident marker of manhood,” sociologist Michael Kimmel wrote in his 1994 essay Masculinity as Homophobia. “It is the willingness to fight, the desire to fight.”
This is exactly correct.
Instead of constantly putting manhood under perceived threat, we must rethink the concept entirely, and maybe – to be so daring – throw it out. Because we have centuries of war, of pillaging, of violence that show us that manhood was never in crisis, but always was central to this mayhem. So we may need to just rebuild everything with the whole concept of manhood excluded.
The essence of this feminine appeal is for you as a man to lay down your best bargaining chip. Why are progressives so intent on gun control? Simply the feminine drive to force men to lay down their best bargaining chip. Why does Natasha Devon think we shouldn't encourage teenage boys to go to the gym? Because that would help them gain their best bargaining chip.
The feminine wishes to redefine a masculine without violence: as a neutered eunuch. It seeks to remove from men the very essence of masculinity and the center of male power. They wish to change us from alpha-male-dominated chimps to scrotum-rubbing matriarchal bonobos.
If I could characterize the essential change to our society in the last century it would be this: feminization. What does feminization look like? Reduction in male violence or threat of violence. Western men are being taught to be completely non-threatening and many are complying. Many but not all.
I have a question for you: Was the duel civilized or barbaric? I believe it was civilized, but the feminine will criticize it as barbaric. The duel was a trial by combat. Its purpose was to raise the cost of being an asshole. Today, anyone can run around telling whatever lie they want, because it costs so little to lie. That is the essence of modern politics. Imagine if we had the duel again. Imagine the amount of lies that could be prevented if men knew that they could face trial by combat for lying in public. If we view all communication as an informational commons, a place that we must keep clean of pollution, then the duel is like chlorine in the informational pool.
Again, it costs orders of magnitude more to refute a lie than it costs to tell one. At least if you believe in argumentation ethics. But accepting argumentation ethics means leaving your best bargaining chip off the table—the chip that modernity is straining to convince you must remain off the table. But you're a better negotiator than that, aren't you?
I say, invest in your masculinity. Go to the gym. Learn how to fight. Learn how to shoot. Understand and accept that the essence of manhood is violence. Understand that violence is the essential form of masculine communication. A man should never be ashamed of his ability to produce violence. Men who are unable or unwilling to produce violence should be shamed, because they cannot bargain as men, only as women or eunuchs.
We must protect our interests. It doesn't matter if faggots and women screech and cry. If the cost of modernity is that we lose our manhood or that we watch our civilization commit suicide, then we should be prepared to drive a harder bargain.