Sunday, May 24, 2015

Neomasculinity, Schisms, & The Future

There has been a fair amount of controversy over the past few days regarding a philosophy that has been crystallized into something that Roosh calls Neomasculinity. Some on The Red Pill subreddit have called Roosh a sellout and accused him of simply attempting to profit. Manosphere laureate Rollo Tomasi got in on this act. Others of the MGTOW persuasion have accused the ideas of attempting to get men back onto "the plantation."

Roosh made a video response below:

I'll interject some thoughts onto this whole affair - Neomasculinity, the schisms, and the future that Roosh speaks of. While there was always some underlying tension within the broader cross-section of the net known as the Manosphere, this is perhaps a more substantial earthquake than what we've seen in the past between "The Red Pill" and MGTOW on one side and the philosophy that Roosh is crystallizing on the other.

It is however, helpful to remember that The Red Pill subreddit doesn't necessarily encompass the whole of the belief system. In fact I'd strongly argue that "The Red Pill" is by itself not a belief system at all. The Red Pill is simply a thing - the thing that signifies that you are aware of certain truths that modern, feelings-based society wishes to cover up: namely, that equality is a false construct, and it is questionable how desirable civilization should be in adhering to it. Clearly, some degree of an imposed equality is necessary for the functioning of a just social order, but where should the line be drawn? To those of us who take the Red Pill, it is very clear that the "equality" train has long gone off the rails.

In my mind, the Red Pill was always simply a thing, not a belief system in and of itself. Frost has explained the different Red Pill stages very well on his own blog.

Of course, "taking the Red Pill" will inevitably lead you to see, to some degree or another, the profound sickness and malaise of Western civilization in its current state. How you interact with this fact, and what you intend to do about it, is what will comprise your actions and your belief system.

The tenets that Roosh simplifies as Neomasculinity is one such belief system. I'll begin with my own history to outline some of the value I see in this.

I first became aware of game in late 2009. I suppose you could call this my first encounter with "the Red Pill" as Frost describes above. My realization that being attractive to women was in some respects a skill that could be manipulated of course thrilled me. However, I never really committed to it. I just didn't develop the discipline. I now see why that was.

2009 was, I suppose, the tail end of what has come to be called "Game 1.0" - the behaviors and lifestyles popularized by the early pioneers in the modern field of seduction such as Ross Jeffries, Mystery, and Neil Strauss. However, while this work was innovative and unquestionably established the foundations of all that has come since, like all early efforts, it was imprecise and lacking in something. It was still a child growing up.

It was a child growing up because it focused too much on certain behaviors being a magic pill to cure your problems. Though the old PUA doctrines were not exactly advertised this way, and they did make many mentions of overall self and life improvement in terms of social status, bodybuilding, etc., it did not emphasize this enough, I think. There was also no greater meaning attached to game. The only goal was to maximize your sexual self-fulfillment, which is of course very important to your happiness as a man, but this goal existed in a vacuum and was not connected to any underlying meaning. It was these two factors that I now see as responsible for failing to instill any kind of higher zeal and discipline in me, because they simply were not motivating enough, even with the promise of sexual improvement. I have always been a big picture thinker, and Game 1.0 was only one small part of a whole, a whole that was, in that community, a vacuum.

In the spring of 2013, I found Return of Kings. Although the quality of the overall content and comment section has declined as the site has grown, before 2014, it was a bastion of collected insights and experiences from a wide range of men (albeit with the sprinkling of clickbait). Quintus Curtius' articles were, and continue to be, the foundation of the site's quality, and it was his work, above all others, that started the genesis of my own evolution as a man.

Return of Kings, with Quintus exemplifying it in its highest degree, took the bedrock of what I already knew about game and infused it with higher purpose. The first aspect of this was rediscovering and bringing out your full potential as a masculine man. Game was seen as part of being who you were born to be - a masculine man fulfilling your life's purpose. This was something on the tip of my tongue and that I always knew instinctively from the time I was a little boy, but seeing it in front of me solidified it. This was a truth that politically correct society does not want men to know.

There was also rich content about history and polity - identifications of cultural problems, negative mindsets, and incubating a positive belief system that was motivational for men to act in their natural role to fix the social degeneracy that is blatantly on display for all to see. At once, a world of substantial self-improvement of mind and body was linked with a higher belief system - the striving for beauty, excellence, glory, truth, and a flourishing of life for both yourself and your society. This changed everything. I ultimately became the person I am now, and will become the person I will be, because of it.

A month ago, I read Daniel Lubetzky's Do The Kind Thing, a book which goes over his life's story of how he evolved from a kid always attempting to sell something, to a struggling businessman with big dreams and grit, to the founder of a sprawling business enterprise and how he got rich. I have meant to write a post about the lessons I gleaned from that book, but haven't gotten around to it. One central theme of importance in the book is toward the start, where Lubetzky outlines a crucial motivational factor - that your business be one of social importance. In his own case, he attempted to bring together people in conflict regions through economic cooperation by selling the products they made together. This allowed him to do his part in bringing peace to those regions. It was this higher purpose that motivated him to build his business, even when times were tough. This higher purpose and belief system - that what he was doing was right, motivated him to continue. However, he makes one crucial point:
The purpose does not sell the product. The product sells the product.
When talking about your own life, you are the product. What you get out of it is what you sell, and you need to be high quality to sell yourself. This is most obvious in game, but it is also present in everything that you do.

The social mission of your enterprise and your desire to produce a high quality product fuse in Lubetzky's philosophy - the former motivates the latter. His devotion to his social mission greatly helped him to develop the discipline he needed to become successful in life.

Lubetzky calls this the "And Philosophy." It is possible to get out of many seeming conundrums by realizing that they are not conundrums at all, by thinking with "And" instead of "Or." It is possible to build a profitable business AND have a higher social purpose at the same time.

This is what I saw with the doctrine that people like Roosh and Quintus Curtius were putting forward. It is possible to have a good life, get good with women, AND fight for a world you value - rooted in history, pursuant of an ethos of beauty, and conducive of a society based on "liberty - not license" (credit again to Quintus). It also helps you to fight against a society that engages in politically correct social engineering, which strips people of their inherent characters in order to build a homogenous world of equalist automatons. This is the AND philosophy that has been offered in what Roosh is calling Neomasculinity.

And you know it's the real deal because it does not sell any magic pills like the empty Game 1.0 did. Neomasculinity is nothing in fact new, it is simply a useful simplifier to describe the things that people like me have already been doing. Those that get too caught up in labels, as I have done before, are usually those that are prone to mob thinking.

As for the future? Which will survive in the long run - Neomasculinity, MRAs, MGTOWs?

These things are for the most part dependent on the social, political, and economic environment. Movements and belief systems don't arise in a vacuum. What I think will survive depends in large part on the probability of societal outcomes based on a distribution curve of likely futures that I see unfolding. This will be explained in another post.

I do however think that it is most likely that MGTOW will fall by the wayside and Neomasculinity will be more stable, for a few other reasons besides what I see as the likeliest social outcomes:

1. MGTOWs are overwhelmingly composed of bitter, angry men with nothing positive to offer. They spend 90% of their time bitching about women. While this may be understandable, it is not productive.
2. Most will not reproduce. In the minds of MGTOW, game is somehow "gynocentric" (as are most things regarding masculinity).
3. It is an empty philosophy. To them, anything positive seems to be "gynocentric." Again, they have a need to attack women by "going their own way," revealing that they are, in fact, not "going their own way." Consider this comment below by Jose Martinez:
That is the point though and our objective is to starve the beast. And I am fine with it because all of us who are gen x and millenials never had a future to be a husband, father, and the head of the household to begin with. And you have to understand that women voted in all this shit that men today have to deal with. So you have to ask yourself why should you continue to white knight when they see no problem with men being killed in war and putting themselves in danger the most compared to women? I think it is time for women to get the full equal treatment and let them fend for themselves without our help. That would be the only way to see real change.
This reveals essentially, a "gynocentric" worldview. Instead of building their own world and achieving something like a Homeric hero (something which women will want to be a part of), their goal is to not do something. There is also a blatant and humorous implication that women will be the ones to change things because men are "going their own way," which strips men of their natural leadership role as well as of any agency.

Also, I have a hint for you MGTOWs out there: what we have now is the product of a cross-section of economic, political, and social trends. It cannot simply be reduced to "women voted all this shit in." Women did not "vote in" resource depletion, offshoring, perverse tax incentives, and global Ponzi credit, just to name a few things.

4. They, like feminists, and incidentally MRAs, deny the true nature of the sexes, as you can see by the implication above. To deny that men benefit enormously from the company of good, feminine women is to deny the true nature of men. Consider this absurd comment from Sandman, a popular MGTOW who I responded to in the previous post:
A man needs love from a woman like a fish needs a hook. Love kills a mans creative spirit. I kills his ambition. It's like a tranquilizer. I have never felt more alive then when single and have a purpose in life.
I have heard this comment, almost word for word, from someone else before. Want to guess who it is? Want to guess what ideology it was in service to? It's also wrong (unsurprisingly), but it would take another post for me to elaborate on why.

Anyway, upon hearing further about this "Sandman" character, my initial distrust has increased. Supposedly he wants in the end to buy an egg, hire a surrogate, and be a single father. Apparently, it's fine for the Manosphere to rail against single motherhood, where a child is deprived of his or her father and thus a crucial part of forming his or her identity, but it's alright to deprive that same child of his or her mother. I can only speak for myself, but having a loving mother was very nourishing, even if she did take it a bit too far. This mentality, I predict, will only continue to fuck up the identities of future generations. This information reveals fundamentally that MGTOWs operate on the same "everything goes and nothing matters" mentality as the radical "social justice" left that we are fighting, and they claim to hate.

Neomasculinity however, stands for something more solid. It is, in Roosh's words "a living philosophy" of the "AND" kind that blends individualism with social responsibility and higher purpose. It may be a minority, but as Quintus Curtius often remarks - "minorities can and have achieved lasting change." He is right. This is the most potent minority I've ever encountered. This is why I believe in the end we will be the ones standing.

Update: I have released a video regarding this matter:

No comments:

Post a Comment