Getting into this box is what's best for both of us. During your time in the box, you will learn so much, and yet experience so little. It's a wild ride, my friend, one well worth the time spent...and let's face it, you don't have much to do these days anyway.

Sunday 17 February 2013

An interesting analysis on recent happenings in the MRM.



An analysis of the schism growing within the MRM by Eagleeye. He points out quite succinctly some of the root causes of the unease that a a number of us who identify ourselves (to any extent) as MRAs feel about the direction a portion of the movement is taking.

The thing is that this isn't just about traditionalists now - it's about anyone who disagrees with the narrative AVFM has set out. Now, I won't deny that Dr. Elam has done a lot of good; even Aurini, who is highly critical of the movement as a whole, admits that. Part of the reason I came back to the red-pill world was because of AVFM's activism sparking interest in me. But the reason why I'm here to begin with is due to two places: Angry Harry and Stand Your Ground from back in 2004-2005. As far as I can piece things together, AH has been attacked for pointing out the questionable veracity of repressed memories, and Factory has been attacked, too. Reports are also that the banner linking back to AH's site has been taken off AVFM. Remember that AH and Factory have not even mentioned (as far as I know) their positions on so-called "traditionalism", so that's not the reason why they were attacked.

Also remember the three weapons of the Rabbit People, as laid out by Vox Day:
  1. Demanding sensitvity.
  2. Name-calling and labelling.
  3. Exclusion.
It's interesting how certain elements like WBB are behaving - like Eagleeye points out - in exactly the same rabbity manner that the fools over at A+, and indeed, the Left in general, do as their modus operandi. It's also interesting how the alt-right predicted that this sort of thing would happen years ago before the fact - No-Ma'am foresaw the identifiable flagships of the MRM being infiltrated by cultural marxists and either being broken up from within or turned to the state's purposes.

I don't like the taste in my mouth, good sir, no I do not one bit.

Still, I'm not too worried about what happens next, for the following two reasons:
  1. The simple fact that the red-pill consciousness of which the MRM is a part of is a swarm. If you cut a swarm in two, you don't get a dead swarm, you get two swarms which continue to grow in their own right. The strength of a swarm comes not so much from its size (although that is a factor) but from the asymmetrical nature of its attacks.
  2. The collapse will come anyway. The efforts of the red-pill world will help speed it along, but even if we did not exist, it would still be inherently unstable and collapse under its own weight anyway.
So ultimately, what this means for me is that I simply make a revaluation on where I stand on things in light of this new development, and to let others know just what's going on so they can make their own decisions.
Posted by at
Labels: ,

6 comments:

  1. Unknown17 February 2013 at 20:26

    Except that nowhere does AVfM say that it expects anyone to adopt the word "human." AVfM itself has chosen to do so, in order to distance itself, not from other MRAs, but from the ***UNINFORMED general public's perception that MRAs just want legal superiority over women.*** Everyone in the movement knows this, but most other people don't - they get their news from feminists. Other MRAs can distance themselves from AVfM if they want.

    It's ironic that people area accusing AVfM of "excluding" those who disagree with them, when what AVfM is actually doing, is attempting to INCLUDE people who THINK they disagree - because they erroneously believe that the MRM is not about basic human rights. I would suggest that such inclusiveness is a big part of the reason for AVfM's dramatic growth.

    While many other organizations remain stagnant.

    This might be considered a problem if AVfM's message has changed or even been diluted, but nobody has yet to provide examples of changes. (Unless you count the whining that "Human Rights" sounds too much like a Left Wing UN Conspiracy.)

    Perhaps some MRAs don't like the fact that AVfM is rebelling against what has been "politically" correct within the MRM. Paul and Co. don't particularly want the MRM to remain a hip, cutting edge, avant garde movement; we want men's human rights to be at the forefront of everybody's consciousness. That's the whole point, isn't it? To advance men's basic human rights? However, I don't think Paul cares whether the rest of the "established" MRM follows him or not. His goal is to continue moving forward. Period. And the whining hand-wringers can whine and wring their hands all they like.

    I wonder if that's why so many MGTOW respect him.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Observer18 February 2013 at 02:05

      This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. The Observer18 February 2013 at 02:06

      Crud, scratch that last comment - misclicked.

      Delete
    3. The Observer18 February 2013 at 02:52

      Everything about this just worries me. I shouldn't be, because even if this tiff goes down south, the worst thing that'll happen will be we get two growing swarms instead of one. I suppose AVFM does hold some sentimential value for me, and I don't want to see it end up being co-opted.

      I can understand the rebranding attempt to reach a wider appeal, but there are two points of contention I'd like to bring up: one, how much is such a move going to bring in terms of people who would not have come otherwise, and two, whether allowing the feminists and their system to dictate the terms of engagement is going to be a good idea. No matter what angle the MRM presents, acadamia and the mainstream media is always going to present us as male supremacists, while we keep on rebranding ourselves in an attempt to find a pleasing appearance to them. With the current dominant cultural narrative we have, the red pill usually requires either an innate disposition towards it or a huge shock to one's life to get one to realise it (and sometimes even the latter isn't enough).

      Whatever the case, at the very least it's undeniable that certain elements of AVFM are resorting to A+ methods in dealing with dissent. Differences of opinion are inevitable within any group and people can agree to disagree if neither side can be persuaded to the other, but shouting down and blocking is very bad form.

      From what I remember over the year or so I was regularly reading AVFM, I don't remember any group being effectively excluded before all this happened. We had Andybob, we had GWW, we even had Steve. Anyone who was interested in men's rights and issues was welcome; I didn't see much in the way of people excluding each other regardless of religion, political idealogy, sexual orientation, sex, or any other dividing line. Why is there the sudden push for extra inclusiveness of various victim groups and political correctness when AVFM, and indeed, most of the MRM was always so? I'm not seeing much in the way of increased inclusivity, but instead increased exclusivity of anyone who doesn't tow the line. AH and Factory are far from hand-wringers; the former has been responsible more than anyone else for attracting so many to the red pill, and Factory has been out and about protesting with his billboard truck since 2005.

      As for the main message of AVFM changing or being diluted, I still have to watch and see how it plays out - although I won't deny they way things are going is worrying and frustrating. Lucian Valsan is already reporting that at least one of his articles are being edited on the sly. The schism appears to not only be growing within the MRM, but within AVFM itself.

      People are going to take sides; for now, since I'm not a player at all in this tiff (or at least, one with any sort of influence) I'm going to wait for this to play out to its end, bitter or not, and then see which is palatable to my sensibilities. Change may be inevitable, but whether it is truly for the better, I'm not so sure yet.

      Delete
  2. Unknown18 February 2013 at 10:09

    "whether allowing the feminists and their system to dictate the terms of engagement"

    In what way is this happening?

    I don't consider AH and Factory to be hand-wringers.

    As far as I can see, AVfM isn't excluding anyone. It is calling out those who do exclude. Readers can judge for themselves, and AVfM considers its readers smart enough to do so.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The Observer18 February 2013 at 22:27

    "whether allowing the feminists and their system to dictate the terms of engagement"

    As you've mentioned, rebranding to better suit the narrative of the system.

    "As far as I can see, AVfM isn't excluding anyone. It is calling out those who do exclude."

    The thing is, WHO was doing the excluding? Even though Bernard Chapin is one of the flashpoints in this dissent, I have yet to hear anything homophobic come out of his loud mouth (if you can direct me to a quote, I'll take it). As I've pointed out, AFVM had Andybob, Steve, GWW and Typhonblue amongst others, and everyone was cool with them being around. I don't remember anyone doing any excluding - so why is there such a concern now?

    And if AH hasn't been excluded, as well as anyone labelled a "traditionalist", then I must be seeing things all over AVFM and the MRM youtube channels.

    To make things worse, if Lucian Valsan's accusations of Dean Esmay editing articles on the sly is true, then that brings the whole of AVFM's journalistic integrity into question. If AVFM's editors are allowed to edit contributors' articles to toe a party line or submit to sensibilities without gaining the contributors' consent or even informing them, people are going to start questioning the veracity of the articles, and the claim that AVFM is nonpartisan. No good can come out of that.

    "Readers can judge for themselves, and AVfM considers its readers smart enough to do so."

    I should hope so. People should be free to make their own decisions, after all.

    The problem is that I am seeing the *exact* same chain of events unfolding in AVFM that happened in A+. Recall:

    1) Rebecca Watson makes Elevatorgate video. Calls out misogyny in the Atheist movement, but refuses to name names.
    2) Feelings of apprehension ripple through the skeptic community, especially since no individuals were concretely identified. Calls for inclusiveness and social justice ensue.
    3) This section making the calls breaks off from the main atheist community and rebrands itself, cementing this distancing.
    4) Previous notables in the skeptic community such as Richard Dawkins are attacked and excluded, along with any who don't tow the new group's party line.
    5) Further rounds of name-calling and exclusion, as well as more moderate people voluntarily leaving, causes A+ to grow more radical.
    6) Hijacked from its original purpose, A+ turns into an echo chamber of social-justice pursuers. It is now seen as a joke by the larger atheist community and loses all legitmacy.

    Now let's look at what's been going on in AVFM:

    1) WBB makes Mission MRM video. Calls out "thugs" in the MRM movement, but refuses to name names.
    2) Feelings of apprehension ripple through the MRM, especially since no individuals were concretely identified. Calls for inclusiveness and social justice ensue.
    3) AVFM breaks off from the main MRM community and rebrands itself, cementing this distancing.
    4) Previous notables in the MRM community such as Angry Harry and Factory are attacked and excluded, along with any who don't tow AVFM's party line (I'm seeing this in a number of comments in the articles of late).
    5)...

    As far as I can see, the exact same script is being followed, and I don't want that to be brought to its conclusion. AVFM has done good work raising awareness in the past, and I'd rather not A+'s fate befall them. I would rather AVFM continue the advocacy work that it's done in the past than be led on some wild goose chase for inclusiveness and social justice.

    Of course, I could be wrong, I might not. But the evidence seems to be pointing that way, and I have already mentioned that my stance is that if AVFM does devolve into another victim group, then I cannot support it in good faith. Even though I have skin in the game, I don't have the influence to be a player and wouldn't have the wisdom to wield it correctly even if I DID have it, so all I'm going to do is to sit back here, observe, and comment.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)