Friday, February 22, 2013

The One On the Right is On the Left




"Well, the one on the right was on the left
And the one in the middle was on the right
And the one on the left was in the middle
And the guy in the rear..." - The Man In Black


Return of Kings writer Tuthmosis, recently published a piece entitled: "Liberals" are not the Enemy.

For the most part, he's right, "Liberals" are not the "enemy." Most are simply the useful idiots of the ENEMY.

Same goes for most "Conservatives."

 Especially when you look at the various examples of dissension that tears apart any discussion all over teh Interwebz in any and every forum, discussion board and comment threads. As soon as the old left vs. right game gets going, minds close and truth gets obscured or marginalized and ignored.

DIVIDED into either Team Jackass or Team Pachyderm & CONQUERED and enslaved in mental confinement as bleating Sheeple.

The answer to all our problems will never be found by voting for neither any particular Jackass nor any particular Pachyderm.

Many people have tried to come up with a description or definition to this fringe sector of teh Interwebz...the MAndrosphere. Many argue that we need to "have a big tent" and strive to attain "mainstream exposure" to "finally have a real impact." We need to recruit Team Jackass members, fans and supporters as much as we need to recruit Team Pachyderm members, fans and supporters to our anti-feminist, anti-cultural misandry banner.

These folks mis-understand just what exactly the MAndrosphere is.

I think Novaseeker said it best in one of Dalrock's comment threads (I paraphrase from memory, I don't remember which thread, and I 'aint bothering to go looking for it...): "The Manosphere is a clearinghouse for TRUTH."

aka "The Red Pill."

Many people who find the MAndrosphere discover the topics covered to be eye opening, paradigm shifting and often times, world-view shattering. For some, it is indeed painful.

But hardest still, is for those who come around these parts, with what they think of as a fully developed political ideology based on choosing a side in our Two Party System. It becomes a part of your self-identity. How you define your personal political beliefs is connected to your sense of your personal morality and how you experience the world around you. It's really, really difficult to see the faults in "your team" and very easy to see the faults in the "other teams" ideologies. But even if you do happen to recognize some faults in "your team" the "other team" is always worse, so there!

This is essentially the basis of Tuthmosis argument. I know it, because I had the same perspective for years, just on the "other side of the aisle."

 That is the very essence of our "Two-Party System of Democracy."

"MY guy might be bad....but he's nowhere near as bad as YOUR guy!"

 I came to these fringes of teh Interwebz as a Team Pachyderm, FOXNews watching, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity listening, WSJ-NRO- reading, Neo-Conned "Conservative."

I had almost zero cognitive dissonance when I first began reading anti-feminist polemics, as anyone with two braincells knows, the Feminist vanguard is overtly "left." But it took me a long time to take step back and question my own beliefs and start to recognize that the years of Right Wing mass media brainwashing I'd consumed for years is just as complicit, just as responsible for the current zeitgeist of our Brave New World Order. I already knew the "left" is overtly feminist when I first found the "Red Pill."

But it took literally years of de-programming my mind to finally understand and recognize how the "right" has it's own significant role in covertly spreading and sustaining the ideology of feminism and the current state of cultural misandry.

I've finally come to the real "RED PILL" of modern Western Politics under Democracy:

MY guy is just as bad as YOUR guy, because THEY are not really OURS.





After reading Tuthmosis peice, I felt tempted to once again gird up the loins and enter the fray over at the article's comment thread and try and help him and all the other Team Donkey supporters to see the error of their ways. I'm a veteran Interwebz flame warrior... with well over 10 years experience in debating, arguing and flaming ideological opponents in a multitude of forums and message boards, over a wide range of websites covering various topics and interests.




I thought about for all of a few seconds, then I shrugged my shoulders, and logged off teh Interwebz and went and did something else instead.

It's part of a new, self-imposed policy I've been trying hard to adhere to - no more debates or flamewars on teh Interwebz.

I've come to that position largely after realizing that half the folks one may try to engage and debate with, may in fact be nothing more than cognitive infiltrators, paid shills and false flaggers. After I did the research to write my post about the existence of these agents of subversion, I resolved to avoid any and all online debates with any "unknown" or non-reputable identities on teh Interwebz.

In other words, I'd still happily debate a "Dalrock" or a "deti" or a "Novaseeker" but NOT get into it with "Anonymous" or "GreatTVShowsForMen." (But I did have to give it kudos for a great pun on everyone's favorite ritalin and adderall junky in the MAndrosphere. lozlzolzozlzol.)

Funny thing, is the more I eschewed anonymous debates, the more I found myself eschewing debates with the likes of even the known entities who may have written something I may disagree with. In the last couple of months I've actually typed then deleted more comments than I've actually submitted at a wide number of MAndrosphere blogs.

Meh. Guess years of reading voluntaryist ideology over at Strike the Root has given me new programming:


Whenever someone who holds a perceptual belief is challenged by a different or opposing view, the result is almost invariably that the affronted person becomes even more resistant to change – regardless of how cogent, rational, or objective the case being made might be. Emotionally, they dig in their heels and will go to almost any length from that point forward to defend their self-constructed system, no matter how much cognitive dissonance they must engage in to rationalize it. Very quickly, we find that the old adage, “The man convinced against his will, holds to his opinion still,” holds true. Debating such individuals – and it must be noted this represents the vast majority of society – is not only for the most part fruitless, but worse, it is actively counterproductive.

There is another reason why I believe it to be undesirable for Voluntaryists to argue our philosophy and debate with the uninitiated or those who stand in active opposition to our beliefs – and this stands outside of the fact that we can tend to make enemies, engender animosities, and escalate blood pressures.
---

When statists debate one another – as they do so often on various TV and radio programs for the benefit of public spectacle, to reinforce the psychological conditioning they have so successfully subjected the mainstream masses to – it is of little moral consequence. Both Left and Right advocate the initiation of force against others to mold the world according to their respective and inherently related social and economic goals. Hence, debating is just one more example of this overall philosophy. To wit, it is indicative of a desire to control. “It upsets me that you don’t think like I do. Thus, I aim to change that no matter what,” is the unspoken intent behind such endeavors.

I no longer have that desire to control others. I just want ya'all to leave me alone to do my own thing, and I'll keep my nose out of your affairs. As long as we don't infringe on each other's rights and basic human dignity, we got no problems.

But both Team Jackass and Team Pachyderm got problems with you and I. They both want to infringe on our rights and basic human dignity. Anytime you pick up the sword to fight against one side or the other, you are by association fighting for one or the other.

Quit being a JackyDerm.

Forget this whole RIGHT vs LEFT, Liberal vs Conservative charade. It's all a game of D&D... Distract & Divide.

Life is precious. It is finite. I don’t know about you, but I don’t want to spend however much of it I may have left trying to make my case to those to whom it cannot be made. I have better and more important things to do with my remaining time. I expect you do too, whatever those things might be. Realizing this in itself is another big and indispensable part of being free. Don’t let it pass you by.

10 comments:

Bob Wallace said...

I believe it was Aristotle who first made the distinction between rhetoric (emotion based) and dialectic (a reason-based discussion among two or more people). Personally I have found it takes about five years for the average idjit to change his mind to adjust to the facts. The smarter people do it in days.

Stingray said...

I used to be an avid reader of National Review. I grew up with it in the house. A few years ago someone sent us a link to Vox Populi and that started or brain pull out of the the left vs. right paradigm. It took a bit of time but everything he said and the places he sent us (Denninger, here, and others) made so much sense.

My Dad has since lamented that we are surprisingly further to the right now than he is. We just smile and move on with our day. Minus a comment here and there we will not talk politics with him any more because he thinks we're a bit crazy. Though, every year, he seems to come a little bit more out of the blink and see what we are talking about.

So, thank you. Thank you for the truth.

Sis said...

Whenever someone who holds a perceptual belief is challenged by a different or opposing view, the result is almost invariably that the affronted person becomes even more resistant to change – regardless of how cogent, rational, or objective the case being made might be. Emotionally, they dig in their heels and will go to almost any length from that point forward to defend their self-constructed system, no matter how much cognitive dissonance they must engage in to rationalize it.

I thought this was brilliant insight.

FNG said...

Just please don't stop blogging. We newbies need you

patrick kelly said...

JackyDerm, thanks, I'm stealing the term, good replacement for Replublowcrat.

commenting observer said...

Per Mr. Wallace's comment: it is more necessary to be a sheeple than smart to adjust quicker to facts or changing circumstances.
Sheeple are more likely to be brainwashed fools of the tools.

*** ******** said...

it was sweet watching michele obama thank hollywood for supporting the ridiculous narrative that obama was killed a little while ago and summarily dumped in the ocean.
hollywood was sucking at the teet of power very, very hard this year.

Eric said...

Keoni:
When women got the right to vote here, Dr. Sigmund Freud predicted that it would be the downfall of America. Women really started becoming significant voters during the 1970s---and things have sure improved! NOT

Female 'empowerment' has wrecked everything it's come in contact with: the family, the government, academia, the media and (soon) the military.

Yet, we have dunces like Paul Elam and Dalrock who think that women should run the Mens' Movement too. Look where it's gotten them too, BTW.

The Bitches only belong in the kitchen: let's make sure they STAY there this time!

empathological said...

That's true that being stuck in and limited by the Rep vs Dem narrative is a waste of time. Its also true that those stuck in either side, fully, inextricably, are not very movable.
But there is a third immovable group that is even more frustrating and those are the ones who seem to ALWAYS over do the points you are raising here. I am not suggesting, because I do not know, that you are overdoing it. When folks wear the third way like a badge of honor and actively seek comments that may have an aspect of the left/right traditional paradigm that they can use to put down the comment because they claim the one making it is stuck in the less intellectual and more ignorant belief set of left right, when folks do that, they are actually worse than those stuck in the paradigm. Why? because they are not really thinking. They are reacting with a veneer of intellectualism and in-group-ism by virtue of NOT being in a group.
The nonconformist is the biggest conformist when they use those they see as conformist as what NOT to do or say.
These beliefs, regardless what they even are, must come organically, not reactive to the strawman of left and right that it seems some of the self perceived more clever of manosphere posters use as trampolines.
Its bad to mindlessly walk in one or another ideological sect, its equally mindless to reject an indivisual opinion of someone because it happens to fit one of the ideological sects.....its silly and juvenile.



mukatsuku said...

Don't dismiss the right if you haven't read Moldbug. He shows that Mises (libertarianism) is a subset of Carlyle (Toryism/royalism).

At least read Hutchinson's Stictures on the Declaration of Independence and report back if your opinion of the Sons of Liberty has survived the reading.