Has the Overton window divided to form distinct Left and Right factions?
Readership: Sociocultural Anthropology enthusiasts; Those following Boxer’s arguments against Dalrock; Those involved with the American Heritage Girls organization;
“Iron sharpeneth iron; so a man sharpeneth the countenance of his friend.” ~ Proverbs 27:17 KJV
* Section titles taken from the song, Stuck in the middle with you, by Stealer’s Wheel (feat. Gerry Rafferty).
Clowns to the Left of Me*
It’s not often that we see a senator berating a tech giant for not being progressive enough.
PA Pundits (feat. Alexander Hall): Senator Calls To Jail Zuckerberg If Facebook Doesn’t Censor More (2019 September 5)
“Wyden specifically hammered Big Tech, though not for the reasons conservatives would. “Your companies have done practically everything wrong since the 2016 election”, he wrote. He later added, “If you don’t get serious on moderation, you’re going to have a lot of people coming after you. And they’re going to be in a very strong position.”
In other words, Suckerberg’s forbearance of free speech advocates is slowing down progressiveness!
“[Sen. Wyden] has called for better moderation, particularly against “all the hatemongers”, which, to free speech advocates, is a step down the slippery slope to censorship. On the other hand, Wyden mentioned that when “Barack Obama said you had to give up 10 percent of your liberty to have security,” he “wanted to throw a rock at my television set.””
They can dish it out, but they can’t take it.
“In a statement posted on his government website, Wyden said “tech companies certainly need to continue to be far more vigorous about identifying, fingerprinting and blocking content and individuals who incite hate and violence.” Big Tech, he said, should be doing far more to “clean up their platforms” on their own.””
Wyden is acting as the Deep State’s goad to get Big Tech giants like Facebook (FB) (and all of their numbskull users) further down the road towards Big Brother socialism. But Zuck is caught in a conundrum.
“[Facebook’s] business model was built on clicks and virality, which led them to tune their algorithms in ways that actively encouraged conspiracy theories, personal abuse, and other content that was most likely to generate user interaction. This was the opposite of the public broadcasting ideal, which (as defined, for example, by the Council of Europe) privileged material deemed in the broad public interest. User attention is the most precious commodity on the internet, and platform algorithms increasingly determined what users were likely to see or hear.”
Zuck can’t pyle on any more censorship as long as (1) he’s using clicks and data to generate income, and (2) a significant segment of his user base is dead set against both censorship and selling user data. He has to bide his time and wait until a larger piece of the population is convinced that tighter censorship is necessary. Only then can he tighten up his algorithms without a considerable kickback. Meanwhile, the public’s discontent with FB has been rising. Recently, Zuck was called to the congressional carpet for selling user data.
Jokers to the Right*
Meanwhile, over on the other extreme of the political spectrum, Dalrock is taking issue with various manifestations of Feminism within the Church and society, and Boxer’s clan is pointing out how Dalrock’s efforts might be counterproductive – or worse.
- Boxer: The Love of The Censor (2019 August 31)
- Dalrock: Proverbs 31 princesses (2019 September 3)
- Boxer (feat. Derek Ramsey): Embracing Feminist Scouting (2019 September 3)
- Boxer (feat. Chronoblip): Survival vs. Status (2019 September 7)
- Boxer: Manufacture of Consent in Microcosm (2019 September 8)
Just days after Boxer castigated Dalrock in post [1], Boxer’s place blew up after Dalrock wrote an article [2] discussing how the AHG taught a feminist agenda within the church.
Boxer’s primary claim to contention can be summed up in this quote from post [3] above.
“…blogs like Vox Day and Dalrock are really feminist blogs riddled with half-truths.
Dalrock, specifically, spends almost all his time vilifying anti-feminists. Given the choice between attacking a popular activist feminist organization or an anti-feminist organization whose worst crime is not being amazing at teaching theology, Dalrock chooses the latter. When faced with the choice to attack feminist thought policing or embrace it, Dalrock chooses the latter.”
Boxer wants to say Dalrock is a feminist for not properly accepting the AHC.
What’s Up With Boxer?
Boxer has put Dalrock under heavy scrutiny. Earlier this year, Dalrock went after Warhorn and It’s Good to be a Man (IGTBAM), and Boxer has taken him to task in the following posts.
- Boxer: Deconstructing Dalrock (2019 February 26)
- Boxer: Dalrock (The Neverending Screech) (2019 March 14)
We could put Boxer and his crew under the same speculum.
Within these and other posts in his past repertoire, Boxer has called out Christians as fake, bad, hypocrites, etc. He has called out the rejects of society and labeled them as Feminists. This is essentially what Dalrock and Vox do, except for a couple differences.
- Boxer doesn’t accede any faith to Christianity (or any other religion that I know of.)
- Boxer never calls out Feminism within Churchianity (to the best of my knowledge).
- Dalrock has an evangelical approach, not only about Christianity, but also about the Red Pill. Boxer’s place is more of a Red Pill coven for the like-minded.
Whenever Dalrock has a post that manifests these differences, Boxer jumps into the ring with his gloves on, ready to tear into Dalrock. So it seems Boxer is opposed to either (1) the evangelical approach, or (2) Christians calling out Feminist influence within the church, as though this would be hypocrisy, or a subtle form of treachery.
In other words, either he can’t seem to understand, or he’s not willing to address the difference between secular politics and what’s happening in the Church. Hence, he doesn’t see a problem with a Feminist gospel so long as the activities and soliloquies in the Church are coherent with Chivalry (traditional Feminism) in nature.
Or maybe he has an interest at stake there.
So, could Boxer and Derek be converged agent provocateurs, going undercover as abrasive Manospherians to undermine Dalrock’s influence and/or doxx him somehow?
Personally, I believe Boxer, Derek, Necron, Sharkly, et al. are motivated to pick a bone with Dalrock because Boxer, Sharkly, et al. have been ostracized from Dalrock’s comment section in the past, and also because Derek, Necron, et al. are displeased with any blogger who prefers to remain anonymous.
So I would lean against the idea of an organized effort and say, like attracts like.
The Frame
The larger question that Boxer poses is valid enough – whether Dalrock, Vox, et al. might be detracting from the popular support for individuals and organizations that make baby steps towards moving the Overton window to the Right. In other words, is Dalrock et al. conducive, incisive, or divisive?
Under a closer scrutiny of the most recent skirmish, the constitution of the American Heritage Girls (AHG) is central to the argument. Here, Gunner Q offered an informative review of the AHG: Checking the American Heritage Girls (2019 September 8).
I might summarize Gunner’s conclusion by saying that the AHG is better aligned to Christian values, compared to the Girl Scouts of America (GSA), but not totally free from feminist influence. This is “good enough” to be considered a Christian organization for Boxer’s consortium who are in tune with the times, but not good enough for ideological purists like Dalrock.
As a thought experiment, would anyone think that Sen. Wyden might be an undercover member of the Alt-Right, or a controlled opposition, solely based on the fact that he is attacking Glowbowl Big Tech giant Farcebook?
Or would you guess that we are seeing a spokesman for the more extreme Left chastising a leader of the less extreme Left for dragging their feet and slowing the shakedown cruise towards progressivism?
Likewise, would anyone suspect that Dalrock (or Vox) might be a Zi0nist social engineer who helped build the Manosphere, only to then destroy it by fomenting internal bickering, based on the fact that he attacks the doctrine of popular preachers and girl scout organizations?
Or would you guess that we are seeing a mouthpiece for the more extreme Right chastising leaders of the less extreme Right for not being sufficiently Right?
Boxer and company have come to a conclusion reminiscent of the former, by arguing that Dalrock is (1) anonymous, (2) unreasonably, and at times offensively overprotective of his identity and his blog, and (3) intellectually dishonest. He’s got a following that agree with him, including Derek, and Earl of all people. But I am yet to be convinced.
Reasons (1) and (2) are debatable, but perfectly understandable. Concerning (3), even supposing someone is intellectually dishonest, does that necessarily mean that their basic premises and conclusions are in error? Or perhaps it might only suggest that they are less well skilled in Aristetolian logic and debate?
A third possibility is that they are sarcastically/hyperbolically utilizing any number of logical fallacies in order to (1) emphasize the foolishness of the argument being entertained, as well as to (2) captivate the readers and (3) provoke critical thinking with a foolhardy jest.
Although I am no expert in literary devices, I do enjoy toying with them in my writings just for the fun of it, and I have recognized that Dalrock does the same in his work, much to the chagrin of others.
One addendum… Jokers and Jacks to the Right!
The Reframe
As an abstract concept, the Overton Window looks like this.
The question is, why are we now seeing intra-fighting on both sides of the political aisle, instead of inter-fighting?
I suggest the answer might be because the Overton window has now split into a Leftward migrating window, and a Rightward drifting window. Something like this.
FB and the GSA are within the “Politically Correct” Overton window being proscribed by the Left. Meanwhile, IGTBAM, AHG, and to a lesser extent, Warhorn, are trying to stay within a freshly budding Overton window on the Right. Most of the other pastors criticized by Dalrock are floating in the converged, No Men’s Land (pun intended).
Entities in either window must appear acceptable to their public constituencies in order to attract more people, to gain popularity and the financial solvency that goes with it, and/or to avoid persecution. If we play hardball, we might call their stance a pragmatically graceful compromise.
Why must Religious groups compromise? It’s because they’re in a feminized Society, and like FB, to stay in business, they need to connect with the viewpoints of a large number of real people who don’t know how far off the mark they stand.
The AHG tries to offer an alternative program for girls that is closer to Biblical teaching, but they also try to make themselves attractive and identifiable to the larger community, which has already been corrupted through Feminist influence and Churchianization.
IGTBAM tries to spoon feed the Red Pill in micrograms to the wider Christian community. They can’t push milligrams of the stuff, because then they’d be condemned as raycis, misogynistic, phobic, etc., ad nauseum.
But religious orgainizations are not the only ones who must compromise. Fakebuck as well as the GSA know they have to stay within their respective Overton windows to stay relevant and lucrative. Greater numbers of adherents are necessary before the Overton window can be said to shift through continual reeducation and exposure to their respective ideas.
In other words, all these groups are limited by their respective Overton windows – how much people can accept as normal. But at the same time, all these groups contribute to the movements of their respective Overton windows – what people can adopt as relevant truth. Those who actively push the boundaries of what people can adopt as relevant truth might be defined loosely as Evangelicals. It might not be their express purpose, and they may not even be conscious of this, but in the larger sense, their influence has some impact on what people choose to believe as the “norm”.
Dalrock, IGTBAM, the AHG, and Wyden too, are all making efforts to move the Overton window to where they think it should be.
Dalrock and Wyden, on the other hand, are setting the goal post closer to home, and castigating those who don’t line up, rank and file, to the Word of God or the Noo Odor agenda, respectively.
As a point in case, Many of Dalrock’s posts (such as this one with the excerpt following), show that he is conscious of being an “outsider”, hoping for the Overton to budge a bit.
“I know for many of you this really isn’t a bad place. If you are a feminist or a player, this is pretty close to paradise. But if you are like me you very much want to leave. Everyone always asks, why don’t we just build a boat and sail away from here? We could make it to the land of sanity. But it isn’t that simple I’m afraid. Every time it looks like we are about to make it home, one of the Gilligans manages to screw it up.”
In his posts, Dalrock is chastening Warhorn, IGTBAM, and the AHG, but from a wider and more distant perspective, the slow drift of the Overton is the cause of his subterfuged frustration, and not so much the various individuals and organizations subjected to his criticism.
Final Shakements
The respectable constituents of the current bipartisan system are comprised of who’s right on the Left, and what’s left of the Right, with a large number of subfactions revolving around these entities.
Dalrock and Boxer may very well be a trite example, while Zuck and Wyden are only slightly more pertinent. Readers could probably imagine many other examples.
The main point of this essay observes that the Left wing has coherent entities who argue about how far left the Left should be. Likewise, those on the Right are quarreling about how to set up shop.
Moveover, there is very little intermediary talk of agreement between the Left and the Right anymore. Thus, these factions are no longer working together for the common interests. Instead, they are each focused on their respective pet issues, only colliding in the public sphere when a conflict of interest materializes.
Are we seeing a binary polarization within the West? Have the different groupthinks of society become so diverse and disconnected that socio-political sub-cultures are forming between the Right and the Left?
I’m tempted to conclude that the old bipartisan political structure is nearing an end to its useful relevancy, and that an atomized political structure is on the horizon.
Tell us, what’s your shake?
Related
- The Orthosphere: You must fight to keep your beliefs inside the Overton Window (2013 March 10)
- XYZ (feat. David Hiscox): Thought for the Day: There is no Overton Window (2017 November 7)
ArchAngel
caterpillar345
Soup Sandwich
Lexet Blog
Novaseeker
Oscar
Red Pill Apostle
Jack
thedeti
Σ Frame 
That’s a great diagram you have there. I think the middle section – Society/converged Churchianity – is being pulled at from both sides, though mostly from the left, and is narrowing and fraying. I have a strong feeling that at least in the United States, it will snap in two, perhaps as early as next year.
It is not only a graphic view of the Overton window on each side, but also of its perceived reality. This is something that many on the right do not understand: a huge number of people REALLY THINK Trump stole the election with Russian help, that is a foreign agent, that he needs to be impeached for the Ukraine thing – while Biden did nothing wrong over there. They are not just pretending to think these things in order to drive the other side nuts – they really do believe it, and their views are being daily reinforced by their side of the media, whose staff really believe it all too. And I guess a mirror of this is happening on the right.
The Russia/Ukraine business is just an example. One could name dozens of issues – detained child migrants, that pushing incident with that lady, Greta as puppet, global warming – where the US, and perhaps the West, is split neatly in two, with fewer and fewer people populating the middle.
In normal countries political views are distributed in a bell curve, with most people clustered around the middle and fewer people at the extremes. At present the West seems to have two humps on the left and the right, and a deepening valley in between.
This comment is getting too long, I’ll just write an article on it. Just one final thought: I wonder if it all might come to nothing because these days everyone’s too fat to fight. No /s.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Interesting thoughts, Jack.
I bear Dalrock no ill will. Although I do see some of what Boxer criticizes him for. He fires quite often at those just slightly to the left of himself, while banning some of us to his own right, as being nuts or trolls. Sometimes I wonder if some controversies aren’t partly for the purpose of creating traffic. If you pick on somebody who’s larger audience might possibly be interested in your site, you might just pull in some more traffic and even gain some new “regular readers” from the controversy with your own ilk. However, I myself am a zealot. I’m not too calculated. I really believe what I post, and don’t try to tilt my writing in any direction from what I believe. I enjoy your blog greatly, even though I don’t always agree 100%. And I thank you for your help and patronage. Keep up the excellent work. You have my respect!
LikeLiked by 2 people
To be clear, only I (and Necron) made the first point. No one else in the largely anonymous manosphere agrees (go figure). I have specifically noted (on my blog) that it is sinful (for various reasons) for Christians to be anonymous. Critically, I don’t really care where on the (left or right) Overton window sin lies. I’ve also made the secondary argument that being anonymous is antithetical to masculinity. Interestingly, lots of Christians outside the ‘sphere oppose anonymity: it is the ‘sphere’s sacred cow.
The second point is fairly obvious.
The third point is not always true, but it often is. I’ve laid out a number of examples in various posts and comments. I’ve seen no refutations of note. I’d say 75%+ of all my writings everywhere focus on intellectual dishonesty in one form or another. Critically, intellectual dishonestly has very little to do with being on the right or left, in or out of the Overton window. I think your primary objection is that you don’t think he is intellectually dishonest.
I want all Christians to “self-doxx” because it’s the right thing to do. All Christians should repent of sin. I have no other agenda. I’m not interested in doxxing anyone, as I’m no one’s personal judge.
You are entitled to your opinion, but this is far off the mark. Your mistake is thinking I’m concerned with where the Overton window lies. This would be fairly absurd as I don’t often find myself in that window. Enforcing the Overton window is essentially tone policing. It’s quite ironic that the objections to my criticisms are not content-based, but tone-based.
LikeLike
Contrary to the rhetorical questions posed in the post, I’m almost certain you’ve never given it a thought. This is a level of self-awareness that is seldom seen, and it’s comforting to know that you (and Boxer et al.) “failed” this examination. Enforcing the Overton window is much more than tone policing. Only a few have the express purpose of controlling or moving the Overton, and those few who have such consciousness (and the power to execute such a plan) are suspected to be sinister agents.
Agreed. Unfortunately, there are too few people in society who could be regarded as outside observers, or solitary skeptics, but the ‘sphere is full of them.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Derek,
Perhaps here or in a post, you could share, or direct me to, your views on anonymity. I am aware of early Christians hiding in catacombs and using the “fish symbol” as a secret password. I’m also a bit aware of Anabaptist nonresistance, and how they preferred to only celebrate martyrs who did not resist in any way. Some martyrs even wanted others including their families to come die alongside them. I think I would find it interesting to hear your reasoning behind why you think the anonymity of folks like Dalrock or even myself, at this moment, is such a bad thing. I am not afraid to suffer for Christ, I’m just wondering how much merit there is in intentionally bringing that suffering upon myself?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Let’s make make a clarification. He is overprotective of his fake identity first and foremost, above and beyond the message itself. Rather than self-host (theoretically increasing the risk of his identity being revealed)*, he self-censors his content to keep from being banned from WordPress.
You bloggers who don’t self-host are crazy. WordPress could ban and/or doxx you on a whim if it wanted to.
LikeLike
Well, I make some effort to keep track of the Overton Window, but it seems to move a lot with different audiences. There most certainly is a lefty version different from the rest, but I’m not sure there is a real one for the right. And because I’m neither left nor right, but on an entirely different planet, I’m not sure I follow some of this post, Jack. I don’t hang out on any of those blogs. Okay, I read Vox because he does catch stories that interest me, but not because I agree with him very much on anything. His exposition on Game got me thinking, and it’s how I became aware of the manosphere.
But too much of what I see with the other bloggers you mentioned depends on the mainstream of Anglo-American Christian religion. That makes it irrelevant to me, except to alert me to some developments I hadn’t yet seen; AHG is a prime example. It’s just another example of why I left the mainstream. Still, it’s not a waste of time to read your stuff. Thanks for the tour.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Just read through this post. Too much to take in and digest. My take on Dalrock? He’s about as christian as I am. The bible quotes come out the second he could be cornered. He has a good blog overall, and I find most of his insight interesting. He seems to pick on fellow christians (Warhorn and co) more than the very un-christian behavior in his comments section. Typical of christians of his stripe today. Am I bettter? No. But at least I accept my shortcomings.
His peanut gallery of big-shot commenters. They know who they are……..they are the same people who will speak about how ‘holy’ they are and yet notta one of them seems to have read the “book of james” or they apply it in their own way which means, do as I say….not as I do.
For a place that supposedly uplifts men, there is a ton of foul language, gross talk about women, and their evil nature (except their wives of course….you understand) and how we all can just vett a wife like they did….but at the same time be told “nope, none left” by these same commenters and know-it-alls who seem to lecture the unschooled masses in thunderous tones.
His blog is pretty good. His stalwarts in the comments section is probably hurting the great commission rather than helping.
But since I disagree……I must be a chump, a beta, genetically inclined to be a beta (though god loves us all equally….LOL…effing crock)…..
I was banned by him because I called him to do it (dared him). He called my hand, and banned me. No hard feelings to him. His “holier than thou” crew are some of the most wicked and downright prideful people I have ever dealt with…..and it should not surprise me. Most christians behave like this today
LikeLiked by 2 people
Heck if I know what this post is about. I’d agree, however, that the political poles in America are widening, not becoming closer.
What I do know is that Boxer is a snake, and tho the skin sloughs off, it still slinks and lies. Clearly an agent, only question is whose, and I will find out eventually so no sweat.
Same goes for the heel-biters that regularly circulate to demand that other men — whose works far surpass their own, on earth and in heaven — must dox themselves. So transparent, so boring, so painfully jealous.
Dalrock’s been fighting the femarchy for the King for a dozen years. None of his critics are even vaguely in his class, so I’m not surprised to hear a lot of whining and backbiting from wannabe lessers. Nothing new under sun.
Putting Sharkly in with these dorks is ridiculous. I am surprised to hear that Dalrock banned him, as Sharkly’s voice was one of the few there with Spirit attendant. Dalrock’s site is lessened by that decision, and that site needs all the authentically Christian voices it can find, given how pathetic much of the commentary has become. LONG, self-serving, and pathetic.
LikeLike
Thanks ray!
I’d like to reiterate that I consider myself to be a friend of Dalrock’s even though I can only read there now. I have used my time to grow, so it is providential that I was pushed out of the nest to begin to fly on my own.
ray, you and I seem quite different, and how we arrive at our conclusions seems different, yet thanks to having the same Spirit at work in our lives we usually eventually arrive at the same conclusions. My mode just takes longer to get me there. It took me a while to figure out that you were the legitimate servant of our God. My apologies for putting you to the test early on in our interaction.
Perhaps I examine things somewhat like a detective trying to figure out the events, whereas you’re like an eye witness sharing what you witnessed. I was taught and have learned to treat such witnesses with a lot of skepticism, however, your witness has so far been True, leading me to believe you have the greater spiritual gift. I consider you a brother by the Spirit, ray, and those are worth more than gold. Watch and pray with me, ray.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I’m also sad to see Dalrock banned Sharkly, but I think he also banned Boxer (??), both of them weren’t bad over there that I knew of back when I read there more.
LikeLike
Interesting observation, especially the double Overton windows. I agree that fragmentation within the Left and Right is occurring; I suspect the rise of the internet intensifies such fragmentation. It’s very easy to find passionate people and groups who agree with you, and disembodied people on the web–anonymous or not–can more easily be treated dismissively than can three-dimensional people in real life. Of course, this “online” attitude then spills over into offline interactions, so that you have Democrats refusing to maintain friendships with Trump voters.
As far as manosphere writers and commenters go, my own limited, highly unscientific observation is that most tend to fall vaguely within one of four groups:
Actual misogynists who hate women and want to see them totally subjected. A minority of men on the ‘sphere; I don’t think I’ve come across a true misogynist blog, and even most commenters are not misogynists. Still, they do exist.
Men who think that there may indeed be “good” women in the world, but that the system is so messed up that it is foolish to risk marriage or trusting a woman; we appear to be good right up until the moment we’re not, rather like one of those Japanese demons who appear as beautiful girls until they turn into spiders and rip off your head or something. I would categorize Boxer as this type–able to appreciate good qualities in women, and even to respect and like women, but pessimistic and distrustful enough not to want to embark on family life. I like Boxer, by the way, although I think his views on Christianity are wrong.
Men who think the system’s messed up and that feminism is rampant, but who nevertheless have enough confidence in individual women that they’re willing to risk marriage. I would put both Derek and Dalrock into this group, as they would seem to be happily married. They are still capable of some severe criticism of women and of feminism, but have a certain amount of cautious optimism. I like Dalrock, too, though I haven’t enjoyed his blog as much these past few years since he took up arms against churchian feminism and chivalry; I consider his “Interviewing a Prospective Wife” posts to be brilliant, and something to share with my kids when they get older.
Men more concerned with the community of the manosphere than with women or feminism.
My categorization is vague, limited, and certainly arguable, but I do think that men’s experiences with and conclusions about women in general deeply affect their characterization of feminism, the modern world, and the manosphere–perhaps in ways that ultimately lead to increasing atomization.
LikeLike
Ray if you read Dalrock….men like Sharkly are not needed……men who scorn, put down others, talk “tough”, belittle, peddle Game, Frame….and are ready to worship Rollo / Roosh over Jesus is what is welcome there. Also, many men have been run out….many of them Christian……needing help…….the advice given is just like the modern church they bemoan and scorn (except THEIR church). A few guys who are supposedly leaders, with all the answers. Don’t agree?
You’re a cuckservative / beta / gamma / a loser
Hardly Christlike and hardly equipping men.
I know I’m not missing a thing in the comments section. I still read some of his blog posts when they don’t talk about chivarly…..and he’s WAY off the mark there.
LikeLike
Thanks Jason!
I pray that in this time of your life you will ignore the naysayers and grab a tighter hold on God. I can’t imagine what you’ve been through, or the agonizing it would cause, but, I want you to know that even though you may feel like you’re floundering, and wonder about the purpose of it all, I still find you to be inspiring, a good writer, and often a much needed counterpoint. Keep yourself unspotted by this world, cleave to Jesus Christ, and your crown will not fail to be given to you. I know that’s not much comfort for the present, but faith is our only way of being saved from failing the grand test that this life is. …afflicted, mistreated, of whom the world was not worthy… So far you’re still passing quite well, don’t lose heart, continue to run your race with endurance.
Vaya con Dios.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Such a great comment, Sharkly! I told you, you have one of the best attitudes I’ve ever seen online. Very good at encouraging others.
Jason, your older comments there and elsewhere were always interesting and I loved hearing you talk about how you taught the boys in your troop – just sounds like you were a wonderful Scout Master and they lost a valuable leader who truly cared about the boys. I’m so sorry, but at least you stood for what was right, and that in itself was courageous.
I don’t know if jumping on Boxer’s crusade against Dalrock is the right direction, even though I can see how he and Derek have some valid points.
I do wish Dalrock would put more effort into developing better options for the things he criticizes in the real world, because he can see things most people can’t. But of course, there will always be critics, and he’s chosen that role now for almost a decade. They’re necessary, too, but their value can only go so far… because they aren’t doing all the work to make things happen. It’s pretty easy to be a critic of all the anti-feminists doing it wrong. I’d rather enjoy a delicious gourmet meal prepared by a great chef, and have the chance to thank him for his effort, than merely read about the same meal from the point of view of a food critic, no matter how esteemed he is. The gratitude is, and should be, more directed towards the people doing the real life producing/creating. If I’m right, I think this may be part of what grates on Derek and others.
We haven’t gotten to that age yet with our daughter, but if we choose to do something like scouting, the American Heritage Girls really don’t seem that bad, just reading about what they do makes it sound like night and day from the Girl Scouts. If the troop is run by someone more traditional and anti-feminist that has more control over leaving any feminist stuff out, I wouldn’t mind trying to help lead it, or even evolve it into something better. To me, taking personal action helps create more change over time… affecting more families positively than my blog can. Going out and actually contributing to my community, taking responsibility for what I can do myself to make things better, seems more important than writing posts on how an otherwise almost great organization doesn’t measure up 100%. I really think if we wait for things to be 100% perfect, we’ll never make any change at all, maybe even risk getting more progressive as people are discouraged from even trying to make an effort to make things better. I read Dalrock’s post as a discouraging his readers from trying out AHG, so I can see why Boxer didn’t like it.
I’d rate AHGs as being anywhere from 80-90% good and toward Truth, which isn’t bad at all to start with, it’s actually pretty remarkable they’re that focused on Christianity, pro-life, home-making skills, sibling help skills, cooking skills, etc. Add a good leader and you could probably get them up to 90-95%. Girl Scouts are starting at a 40-50% in comparison (and focus virtually on none of those qualities), and therefore aren’t even worth looking at anymore. Nothing is ever going to be 100% perfect, there will always be something to be critical about in even the best organizations and churches. It does seem odd he’s discouraging possibly 1,000’s of men from even looking into AHG. If Nehemiah was merely a critic of how awful the scene looked concerning the state of Jerusalem’s wall, he never would have managed to be an encourager who inspired the men to build it all so well and so quickly. Some people can see something like a broken down wall, and they see the potential it can have if they bring their spirit, encouragement and inspiration to the people there in order to repair it. And some can only see the minute flaws and write it off as a lost cause not worth even trying to fix.
It may be that Dalrock believes blogging online in constant take-down mode against organizations and people who aren’t perfect, and yet are sometimes doing a lot of good to fight against feminism in real life, is perhaps his, “Mission,” in life (and I do believe every man should have a mission). If anything hopefully he’ll consider to make his posts into a book… books will stay around a lot longer than if the overlords finally decide to shut down giant areas of the internet. Web archives won’t last forever more than likely, at least books can potentially last for generations.
Just do your own writing and stories, Jason, it really doesn’t matter that Dalrock is just an esteemed critic, the real work has yet to be done, and it takes people who are on the ground, willing to be criticized and sometimes pushed to do better. I think a lot more people than you’d believe got things out of your comments and old blog than you would’ve expected, and that’s encouraging.
LikeLiked by 1 person
lastmod —
Cheers.
I share some of your criticisms of that site. I made my views concerning Game and PUA known as soon as those systems were introduced to the site — long ago — and many times subsequent. Likewise I’ve commented negatively against many of the people that Dalrock has promoted, including Roosh and Ted Beale. Some of his other favorites too . . . I call them The Group.
I’ve warned Dalrock about his associations. He’s a big boy.
Recently I wearied of them, and haven’t written there for quite awhile.
I have not found Dalrock to be ban-happy and indeed many times he’s shown patience well beyond my capacities. Which ain’t too extensive, come to think. :O)
What I want are strong Christian defenders of not only the Church, but of the men and boys in their own (feminist) nations. And there are very few of these men in the West. Who’s looking out for my little doods? It damn-sure isn’t the U.S. Government, and it isn’t the ‘church’ either.
I look around this nasty old skank of a planet and there Dalrock is, attacking those who are beating down or inverting masculinity, those who are destroyers of fatherhood and sonship. And he does it under a Christian schema, with relevant Scriptural cites. Therefore I back him, with reservations due to certain associations.
Pastor Sharkly, who is plenty tough, is v much needed at Dalrocks, but seeings how they can’t handle that, I’m pleased that the King shuttled him over to LaF, which is quite good. I win again, thanks boss!
LikeLiked by 1 person
What I know is that the advice given by Dalrock, Cane and Deep Strength has helped me get married and has helped me deal with situations while married. The only useful advice I have seen from Boxer was something like, “Don’t bang married chicks.” Which is true advice. But the others give more advice that is useful.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Stephanie.
What I have come to discover in my own “useless” existence on this planet is:
I could feed 5,000. The man-o-sphere will counter “but you didn’t feed 5,001”
*Men, even christian ones base their value on how many women are / were attracted to them. how many liked them, how many were had, how many were *hot and above average.
*All people are pretty much smarter, have done more, been more and are on to better things than I ever will. even in my dedicated ministry to young boys……….i wasn’t doing it right.
*A drug addict like myself will never be forgiven, or accepted. I could be sober for another 15 1/2 years and most men……”well, yeah but you were an addict” for a few years.
*Their frustrations? The world has to stop. Mine? “be a man” / “man up” / “you’re bitter” / “just do this and this, works. foolproof….oh it didn’t work? You’re a beta, not a real man”
*Everyone needs a person to just take a dump on just because. For most things I am that person. I stand up for myself or attempt to defend myself? I am not teachable. “who do you think you are?” and if I do nothing “why don’t you stand up for yourself????”
*there have been times I have said something. The swarm attacks me. Another “popular” guy says the same exact thing and its now “wow, that’s an observation I would not have seen” Jr. High by grown men.
*No one is going to heaven. Not the repentant former party girl, not the former addict, not the sinner…..only THEY are going. Their actions demonstrate this fully….yet they expect the countless swaths of betas and disgusting losers (people like my brother) to sit and take their posturing as truth.
god could give a hoot about our predicament. he “rewards” everything he claims he is against, making me wonder who he really is.
perhaps there once was hope for me, perhaps if I had to do it again I should have not been nice and just shit on everyone around me, including girls….at least I would have been a father, or would have had some good stories to tell in a comments section and be “high fived” for it
Who knows.
The reality is. I will work. I leave people f*ck all alone, not be a drain or burden on society at large and hopefully I’ll get my wish one night and when I go to sleep, I just won’t wake up. Be it tomorrow, twenty, twenty-two or forty years. That wish will come true. Death is certain someday, and the relief I will have of not being around in this uselessness will be the best and greatest quiet no one has ever heard
LikeLiked by 1 person
lastmod —
“god could give a hoot about our predicament. he “rewards” everything he claims he is against, making me wonder who he really is.”
You are one lost bunny, amigo.
LikeLike
and jvangeld…….
What is their great advice?????? DS tells you to get jacked and work out, bench x amount….but looks don’t matter to christian women. Dalrock told me in a personal posting “I don’t know what to tell you, moving to a third world country, learning the language and finding work….and marrying a great christian gal is a good way to go”
So before their great advice……you couldn’t get married.
LikeLike
And you live in a plastic bubble Ray
LikeLike
Pingback: 2019 Sigma Frame Performance Report | Σ Frame
Pingback: Small Schisms and Large Schisms | Σ Frame
Pingback: The more things change, the more they stay the same. | Σ Frame
Pingback: Identity Politics | Σ Frame
Pingback: The Comfortable Danger of Social Catharsis | Σ Frame
Pingback: The History and Current Value of Vetting | Σ Frame
Pingback: Pressing Boundaries to form Trust in Social Interactions | Σ Frame