Roosh was kind enough to ask me to respond to Tuthmosis’ post, “Liberals” Are Not The Enemy in an effort to be “fair and balanced.”
First of all, Tuth is to be commended for attempting to bring nuance to the discussion. He is correct to say that there are segments of the left that don’t support the emasculating feminist creed so common among the leftish/progressive wing of the political spectrum (though, ironically, feminism is great for game; more on that later). Tuth is the poster child for this fact.
So Tuth, and others in the manosphere who are left-leaning are not the enemy. But liberalism IS the enemy.
Why is liberalism the enemy? And by liberalism I mean the Social Democratic Welfare Entitlement State as exemplified in Western Europe and, increasingly, the United States.
Simply this: it is an insidious philosophy. And not JUST because it is largely aligned with the feminist movement – though that’s clearly a black mark against it. No, liberalism is insidious because it depends upon extracting from you individual freedom in exchange for what the State thinks is a “better” outcome.
It also depends more and more on “revenue extraction” – taking more and more of private wealth to reallocate it to the “less fortunate.” And because there is no end to the “good” that can be done, there is no end to the “need” to extract more and more money. The end result? State level bankruptcy. See Greece, Spain, Italy—and perhaps inevitably, the United States.
Liberalism claims to be about “social good” and “social justice.” Nice sounding phrases, and they had some real meaning decades ago when prejudice and discrimination were rampant. But they are so vague and hollow now that they are unhelpful at best, and useless at worst.
Modern Social Democratic Liberalism depends on the State and government to provide services to you like healthcare and regulations that ostensibly are designed to make life “fairer” and “more just.” Because providing services and regulations for YOUR benefit is the overarching principle of Social Democratic liberalism. As a consequence, this principle provides cover for all sorts of impositions of your life because such impositions are “good for you.” Some may INDEED be good for you, but guess what? Many of them are awful.
To do “good” for you the State requires central planning —which is at the heart of Social Democratic Liberalism. Organize and manage health care, for example, or manage outcomes in any kind of economic activity. But central planning at worst inevitably fails, or at best, causes huge disruptions.
Why? Because central planners are ALWAYS working with incomplete information. Individuals acting freely are much more efficient in terms of both personal and economic relationships. We’re already seeing these disruptions with Obamacare. The law’s requirements don’t go into effect for a business until it reaches 50 employees. Guess what incentive that provides? Don’t grow. The law also requires health insurance for full time employees. Guess what incentive that provides? Make employees part time. And we’re seeing that now.
Bottom line? Government should be minimalist and limited. This principle was at the heart of what prompted the U.S. founders to construct a republican government.
Government should (1) provide a basic safety net (because, yes, some WILL fall through the cracks by no fault of their own); (2) provide an environment of security against violence, both internationally and domestically; (3) support a judiciary that resolves disputes according to law arrived at in a republican fashion; and (4) protect private property while making sure use of such property doesn’t harm others.
And that is it! That is government’s role. No more. No less.
Government should not be doing stuff like Title 9. Government should not be doing Head Start. Government should not be providing health insurance, let alone health care. Government should not be in the energy venture capital business. Government should not be doling out favors to select business sectors. Government should be as small as possible.
So, how does this apply to game? Simple. Modern Social Democratic Liberalism is invariably feminized and mangina oriented. Alas, Tuth and the lefties in the manosphere are outliers in the context of mainstream Social Democratic Liberalism—they are the exception that proves the rule.
Social Democratic Liberalism, in its quest for the smoothest egalitarianism, eschews the reality of biological sex differences. It exalts the hamster. Independent male actors—i.e., guys who run game—are an anathema to it. All this in addition to the rot the philosophy induces because of its anti-individual liberty inclinations and its inclination to assume that there is tons of money available to “do good.”
Of course, feminism is, ironically, great for game. The logic is simple. Feminists want to be like men, so they are willing to fuck like men at the drop of a hat. Of course, the reason they do it is because they are “exploring their sexuality” (a hamster phrase if ever there was one). Men do it because we are men.
Social Democratic Liberalism is insidious and reprehensible. It is the enemy.