Open Thread: Next Steps

Well gentlemen, as we round the New Year we at AKC have begun planning for what 2018 holds in store for our little site.  We’ve made some great strides in just under a year since this site’s creation including:

  1. The Kingstream
  2. AKC Apparel
  3. AKC Forum
  4. Nearly 200 articles posted here
  5. Over 1000 subscribers

But we are far from putting this site on cruise control.  For 2018, we are hitting the accelerator and plan on beating our 2017 accomplishments.

As such, we want to hear from you guys what you’d like to see from us in 2018 whether it’s more livestreams, new releases on the AKC storefront, or something completely different we haven’t done yet.

Let us know in the comments below!

Author: Jak

Jak, married and father of three, seeks to help the Red-Pill Community take its next step past the petty cynicism and ineffectual anger. While he recognizes that men are significantly handicapped by the modern legal system and culture, he doesn't accept that traditional marriage is untenable in today's social climate. Rather, men must be willing to adapt to this new world by implementing new tactics and approaches to maintaining a balance of power. Jak is here to provide you with these lessons.

200 thoughts on “Open Thread: Next Steps”

  1. As such, we want to hear from you guys what you’d like to see from us in 2018

    Send all registered users vouchers for free booze. That’d bulk up the numbers a bit.

    1. Jeez one guy above mentions hookers and now I see free booze.
      I’ve been told before that I am a bad influence…

    2. Murdoc,

      Courtesy of AKC, we’ll provide you with unlimited access to the following:

      Chicks
      Booze
      Guns
      Firetrucks

      Let’s hear your plans

      1. I can give you my plans….

        Hot chicks? – Bang ’em!
        Booze – drink it!
        Guns – fire ’em!
        Firetrucks – jeez, I dunno, crash ’em?

      2. That’s more like it. Finally, the recognition I deserve.

        For my part, I plan to get laid, get drunk, shoot stuff, and drive everywhere with the siren on because that would be so cool. I’ll make you proud.

  2. What would I like to see in 2018? A couple bags of unmarked $100 bills with non sequencial serial numbers on my door step.
    Disclaimer- I couldn’t figure out how to spell sequencial.

  3. A way of the warlord homework assignment to bring a friend to the site. Or hookers and coke. Either works

        1. You are a bona fide Fender purist for being able to see past everything else to the pickups…

        1. Thanks, Buzzkill…now I’m curious!
          I enlarged the picture as much as possible, it looks like a credit card to me, I don’t know what an EBT card looks like for comparison, though.

    1. Soooooo…..he’s taking calls from guys while in his bedroom.

      That’s not creepy at all. Nope. Not even a little bit.

        1. Well I do hear that Gay Game is a great way to get chicks. Looks like he’s trying it out!

      1. I just listened to a couple of audiobooks. For a good laugh, check out Carrie Fisher reading her own book Wishful Drinking. Her life was a disaster of her own making, she fully admits it, and then milks it for all it’s worth. Very witty. She’s got that old alcoholic woman voice too.

        At the very least, her book is more entertaining than her scenes in The Last Jedi. Christ did she ever lose her acting ability. Say no to drugs, kids.

        1. I don’t know what she was using, but I always think of that vocal tone and sloppiness as Meth Voice.

          1. I thought it was just cigarettes and booze voice, just 50 years of it. The first time she spoke in The Force Awakens, I was like “Why the fuck is Princess Leia being voiced by Kris Kristoferson.”

      2. Part 1; clueless Indian dude who admits he is a 5 out of 10 who is having a hard time bedding 8s.
        Part 2: Don’t bring your Ukrainian unicorn back to the USA
        Part 3: It’s really hard to daygame and pointless if the girls you daygame aren’t interested in you from the get-go (Kind of contrary to the PUA tactics of his guest writers) .
        Part 4: He takes a piss
        Part 4a: He realizes that his political stances and attacks on the left really accomplished the big 0, as in zilch.
        Part 5: Ukraine wasn’t all that it was cracked up to be and maybe he should have moved to another state in the USA. Jim Johnson gets banned from the chat room
        Part 6: For New Years Eve, get drunk, on the cheap, at home and prowl the streets looking for easy drunk girls to take back home.
        Part 7: A proud Jewish-American calls and tells him how Orthodox Jews think actually choking a chicken (not figuratively) is a morally superior act.
        Part 8: A Mexican White supremacist calls in and trolls him

        https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/ffaccc65fbddb2702d943ed9b82454a664165141b00b91f21291fb4aa1de655c.jpg

        1. you forgot the Pt1 Indian 5, wanted to bed white girl 8s… Roosh was right what he told him though.
          you also missed the Swedish troll, he was quite funny actually (if indeed Swedish)

          1. Unfortunately yes but I was designing a jig thst aligns a torsional coupler at the same time so I didn’t waste my life completely . Roosh keeps telling everyone to buy his bang books but I fail to be convinced that a guy who talks to a stuffed pekingese can teach me about women.

  4. A weekly series on great men of history would be nice. I knowr writing something like that every week or every other week takes expertise and would need great commitment but it is just a thought.

        1. His was forced to commit suicide from what I remember. He was asked to join the putsch against Hitler and refused, but he also kept his mouth shut… so he was given a “choice.”

          Rommels son was the mayor of Stuttgart and used to hold a monthly luncheon for newly arrived American soldiers starting their tour. I knew a guy who went to one and he was quite impressed with him.

      1. If I were to do something like this I would do it in a chronological order, starting with ancient times :).

      1. I would love to be but I will have to start my compulsory military service starting next month for 6 months. I won’t have access to anything there, unfortunately.

    1. “A weekly series on great men of history would be nice.”

      Would Pierre Francois De La Brioski be included?

  5. Gun and Scotch giveaways. Always works for my Scotch drinking club.

    1. I used to belong to a rod&gun club where they would do a gun giveaway once a week and the annual dues was $25.

      AKC….take notes.

    1. Yes. Live streams and call-ins.
      Would be fun to hear our voices.
      I sound a little like Louie DePalma from “Taxi”.
      And look almost exactly like him.
      Just tanner and taller…

      1. Slim you need to put the label of that hooch you drink as your avatar picture, maybe a picture of a working girl but i suspect the booze would be easier!

        1. Great idea.
          Done!
          My avatar is now the Mighty Old Crow!!!
          Thank you MAL!!!

          FYI, I actually agree with good old PJC on this.
          Posting pictures of hookers is rude.
          So I went with the crow.

          1. YES nice!
            was just reading a guitar forum, the topic “what do you drink while you play” and one of the guys said ‘old grand dad’ i immediately laughed and thought of you, i didnt actually know it was a real drink until you mentioned it the other day we were talking whisky

            1. Haha. OGD was my goto drink from 19 – 25.
              Then I went through a phase (of which I am not too proud) where I went for more expensive (overpriced!!!) stuff like Johnny Walker Black/Gold, Remy Martin, El Tesoro, etc..
              I eventually came back to my senses and settled on sensibly priced spirits like Smirnoff, Seagrams, and, of course the Crow. Every now and then, I even go “retro” and get some Richards Wild Irish, Mad Dog 20/20, and, when I can find it, Thunderbird…”What’s the word? Thunderbird!”

              1. classic! you crack me up,
                how much is JW BL in the US? here it ranges from $49 -55 for a 700ml bottle & around $80 for a 1L.
                yep the Gold is a bit more expensive here at around $140 for the 700ml, never seen a 1L of that here.

                1. Same here. About $50 per liter.
                  Used to be $35-40 back in the 90s.
                  Also, I remember when Jameson’s was cheaper than Bushmill’s. Then Jameson’s started a bug advertising campaign and it became more expensive. I always preferred Bushmills, but even more so when it was cheaper then the competition.

                    1. yeah here too, have been eyeing up some Kahlúa so i can make some “the dude” esk white russians for the holiday break!
                      its summer here and i dont really do whisky in summertime

                    2. Whoa, Summertime?
                      You’re in Oz???
                      I always thought England?
                      If Oz, good for you!
                      Always wanted to visit.

                    3. thats where i am John, yeah its quite a way from anywhere (except Oz) i guess thats why alot of wealthy Americans & Europeans are buying land & property here, are they expecting something we should know about?

                    4. Those doing that are bankrupt. Not financially, but morally and intellectully and they think they will escape the coming collapse buying property and transfering their wealth to NZ. They won’t.

  6. I’d like to see more conspiracy theory on this site. I mean taken seriously, not taking the piss out of it. Heh, don’t you guys believe in the Matrix?

      1. unbeliever! You’d sing a different tune if only you realized that dark forces are plotting to ban you from this very site! I can’t prove it, but the telepathy rays are rarely wrong

        1. first Dunkirk, now we have that Churchill flick with Oldman- what do you make of these pro-Brit movies? doesnt fit the narrative, or does it in your opinion

              1. Sorry reposted as it looked like my ip was blocked for some reason

                I’m not sure what you describe challenges orthodoxy? I know some have criticised Dunkirk by asserting that what happened should be seen as mr Hitler pulling his punches. I am not expert on the history of the period and would be loathe to advance an opinion.

                1. ah, okay. I came across la rouche’s peeps on an nyc street yrs ago, wanted to sell me his books(nope) okay, take it for free if you give us your email(hell no)

        2. Let other websites handle that. A huge reason why people like AKC is because we don’t have articles constantly talking about ((Da Jews)).

          1. Da Jews. They sound like regular Italian guys. Out of interest are you implying if you leave out one set of parentheses it isn’t anti-semitic

            1. I was just doing what ROK does. But anyway as far as what is going on I think TFM’s theory on it is the best explanation . It’s a cycle. When a society reaches a certain level of prosperity feminism and degeneracy seems to ramp up as well. Then said society is either destroyed, conquered, or realize that that stuff is poison and get rid of it.

              1. Not sure what / who TFM is. Certainly prosperity can lead to malaise and degeneracy, but ideology can play a part as well – much of left ideology is consciously transgressive and nihilistic for instance. To the extent that that ideology may be nihilistic for instance the threat of society’s destruction etc may be a goal rather than a deterrent. Most people are more level headed, and the more people from all walks of life who recognize the poisonous nature of such movements the better. All I’m saying is that simply avoiding such stuff is not in itself a solution, even if focusing on basics, frame, family etc may be important in its own right

                1. so where do you stand, you know, on anything? years later, still dont know what you believe

                  1. I stand on the cracks in the pavement. It’s a variant form of OCD.

                    I’m sure its all deleted now but I’ve written volumes on what I believe on that other site. I suspect you just inclined to fit people into convenient procrustean boxes that may be easily named. But if we are dealing with complexity on one side then why should we not be dealing with complexity on the other?

                    1. No, actually, I have the same questions. You seem to want to straddle the middle and be above the fray, or at least that’s what you project. Meanwhile, you also seem yourself to have a buried nihilistic streak that I can sense. Don’t give us the “cracks on the pavement”, be straight forward and direct, where do you stand?

                    2. I’m not sure whether I have a nihilistic streak. I imagine we all do to some extent, though unlike some I do not wear it as a badge of honour. Its not so much a question of remaining above the fray though, but recognizing that in the midst of blood and guts battle one may lose perspective. There is the danger that one may fixate upon a single thing and lose sight of everything else, which is the accusation which sometimes nonetheless is thrown my way. But insofar as I might be a nihilist it is no more than that I like to evaluate things carefully and when one evaluates one cannot help but wither the object of scrutiny to some extent. But that is not in itself a hostile or nihilistic act. Beyond that there is no straightforward and direct. As I say I stand on the cracks in the pavement, the interstices, observing wryly

                    3. Oh, you have a nihilistic streak, it manifests whenever you attack (with finesse of course) those who breach your comfort zone. No offense intended, just from observations over the year(s).

                      Nature, the universe, has no place for observers, that role is artificial and not in accord with reality. One takes a side, or at least more nuanced, one has a set of beliefs that one adheres to, that is in accord with one’s own desires and nature at least to some degree. Your own nature bleeds through on occasion, no matter how much you may totter on the cracks of the pavement. I’m simply interested in where you finally profess to actually stand, for deep down, it is not on the cracks.

                      As to nihilism, yes we all have some element of wanting to destroy for a purpose, but as a philosophy it is for the weak and those without power over themselves, it is a crutch for one’s own failures, a form of hedonism in its own way. Destruction without creation is death worship.

                      Where do you stand Michael?

                    4. “As to nihilism….. as a philosophy it is for the weak and those without power over themselves…….Destruction without creation is death worship”

                      Well you’ve asserted your diagnosis and I’ve humoured it, but its not really an identity I recognize. Philosophically you’ve described something akin to kicking a cat for no good reason. I would also note that you have left open the potential respectability of kicking said cat should one have a mind to creating a new even bigger and better cat in the process, yet in considering me a nihilist you seem to exclude me from having any such nobler or godlike purpose.

                      Fair enough, but still I am not sure the basic analysis is just. It seems to me you are giving me a choice, a somewhat forced choice: either I must accept that I am motivated by nihilism, and moreover nihilism that is without purpose, except as an expression of weakness and powerlessness, or put my cards on the table with the consequence that I can then be placed into a convenient box.

                      As I say I think that is a forced choice and one I do not really recognize. My interest here is precisely what I’ve said it is: not to intervene (too much) in violation of the prime directive, but to observe something of genuine interest. The will to understand if you like. And if that withers a little in the process where’s the harm?

                      BTW the psychological distinction between being an actor and being an observer is one most people would acknowledge. To the extent that I agree with you though would relate to the degree to which observation is itself a form of action. First and foremost we orient ourselves to the objects of our consciousness do we not and insofar as I am engagé in that respect I see myself as orienting myself to the behind the scene-ed-ness of things. I like to peek in other words. Not that I’m suggesting that you are just so many naked ladies or anything.

                    5. You mentioned nihilism first. I’m simply noting that nihilism is the weak way out. You don’t have to choose it. The other “choice” is open to anything, and you surely do not come from a point of neutrality. What are your beliefs Michael? There is no prime directive outside of science fiction. Understanding objectively is fine and well, peeking sure but one does not lose one’s beliefs by peeking, and you are not objective (who is?). You say you wish to understand but never fail to cast aspersions at many of us as somehow part of a cabal (please, you do, it’s not up to debate) or some silly conspiracy (which speaks to an underlying belief on your part). You seem to be motivated by something less “pure”. I simply want you to cut through the sophistry and state flat out your beliefs independent of what you may or may not desire regarding “us”.

                      Mind you, I’m all for walls of text, but if used to obfuscate and throw up smoke screens, they are pointless. Plus I’m pretty good at cutting through the chaff to get to the wheat.

                    6. As far as I can tell it was you who mentioned nihilism first when you said that I seem “to have a buried nihilistic streak that I can sense”. Well I’ve been at pains to point out that while I acknowledge we may all have such a side that I don’t really recognize that description of myself. In other words I am leaving open the possibility that I might be wrong but that I don’t think that you are right.

                      As for neutrality, I have never claimed to be neutral. I am the one arguing that ‘we’ – at ROK, but also at AKC – insofar as I am permitted to use that pronoun – should not eschew politics because it is always relevant to manosphere issues. It is AKC that by virtue of its policy of avoiding politics at all cost appears to seek to be posturing as neutral. I am the one saying everything is always political, yet you accuse me of pretending to be neutral.

                      As for my beliefs, I have spent years explicating my beliefs – you already know my beliefs though you claim you do not. Disqus has probably wiped most of them from record and memory but the walls of text I wrote were never cynical. If they were guilty of something – beyond being purple and prolix – it was of being unduly earnest. I have stated my position, my beliefs, and my preferred approach endlessly and I see no reason to repeat to you what you already know. As for applying labels and boxes to myself why on earth would I do that, when to do so is always to reduce the matter – or person – at hand, to make them more manageable, and they and their arguments easier to compartmentalize, to oppose or dismiss.

                      When you say I seem to be motivated by something less “pure” it is you surely who are being mealy-mouthed. I did not say I was attempting to be objective, or could hope to be so, but that I wish to understand, and that I distance myself from strong conclusions the better to evaluate what I am observing. You say I cast aspersions as you guys somehow being part of a cabal or some silly conspiracy. Well I have never cast aspersions, nor would I ever dream of using the term cabal, but I have noted, and have endlessly noticed the sheer strangeness of what happened during the flight from ROK, and have noticed that en masse you regenerated like Dr Who into a different body, one which in all things eschews the political, the conspiratorial, at all costs. I wasn’t about to bring that up again. You did that. I don’t actually come here to cause trouble but to have a little fun, see what the old gang with their great knowledge, excellent repartee but strangely apolitical – or rather anti-political – views are up to. You’re the ones getting pissed and losing your cool. I’m interested in what you guys get up to, what motivates you and underpins your psychology. I want to know what your idea of the good is, and note I said your idea, not what you think other people’s should be. Maybe we are opaque to each other then, but I’m not the one going around imputing dark motives.

                    7. “I am the one arguing that ‘we’ – at ROK, but also at AKC – insofar as I am permitted to use that pronoun – should not eschew politics because it is always relevant to manosphere issues. It is AKC that by virtue of its policy of avoiding politics at all cost appears to seek to be posturing as neutral.”
                      That isn’t quite accurate, though I can follow your logic as to how you came to that conclusion. However, if you were a consistent reader of our posts, it’s pretty clear where we stand politically. You won’t see any leftist sites pushing traditional marriages with men being the head of the household, nor would you see them promoting masculinity as we do.
                      Also, this question has been asked and addressed by me personally on multiple occasions. The reason we do not get into politics is because it’s a slippery slope that leads to endless articles griping about feminists, antifa, the latest Hillary scandal, and God knows what else. Our goal isn’t to be a news outlet or gossip magazine. Our goal is to give men tools that they can actually put into practice in their own daily lives, not pontificate about lofty ideals that are great to fantasize about, but can’t be acted upon by a lone individual.
                      Personally, I find the need to bring up politics everywhere as rather silly. Our mission is improving men and their marriages. How will espousing my political beliefs help achieve this mission? I’m sure you don’t mean it this way, but it strikes me as very similar to the Progressives who want to inject their politics and multi-culti diversity quotas into all forms of entertainment (comics, video games, sports, etc.).
                      If you do want to have regular discussions on politics, we have a politics section on our forums for our readers to discuss whatever comes to mind. But as it stands now, I don’t see the value added to our site by having regular politically-based articles. Sure, we’ll occasionally touch on a current event to illustrate a point we’re making, but that’s as far as we’re typically going to take it.

                    8. ” if you were a consistent reader of our posts, it’s pretty clear where we
                      stand politically. You won’t see any leftist sites pushing traditional
                      marriages with men being the head of the household, nor would you see
                      them promoting masculinity as we do.”

                      thanks for your response. I’ve tried to get across that I appreciate that and think that as an approach I consider it right minded as far as it goes. My understanding is that the site aims to provide guidance and inspiration re. family-life, frame, psychology etc as fundamentals that can be built upon. I’m not knocking that, or coming here to attack articles that limit themselves to such a purpose.

                      It’s entirely up to you and your contributors how you go about defining your purpose and remit. On the other hand I continue to be mindful of the circumstances in which this site arose, or at least developed, circumstances that didn’t strike me as particularly live and let live; not with respect to yourself – you’ve been admirably neutral about everything – but certainly with respect to your regulars. Leaving aside the issue of the bans etc, which have been addressed previously at some length, from the start it was clear that there was an ideological element to this exodus, and while I fully appreciate that for every person who likes talking politics there will be one or more who may dislike it, or some aspect of it, I’ve been somewhat surprised at how across the board this has been. It’s like a party line almost. I think that’s my main ‘beef’ – if as an occasional visitor I’m entitled to having one: it’s not just the articles in other words but the fact that the commenters can write 500 odd comments without going off script on this issue so to speak: it feels kind of disciplined, too much so. It’s not that I want to inject politics (let alone my politics) into everything, just that on the one hand we have a site – ROK – where politics has featured quite heavily – and suddenly this one which might as well be its diametric opposite. It seems to me almost like trying to determine (and limit) in advance what amounts to relevant context for any given issue. In a sense that’s the same criticism that has sometimes been made of ROK. If you can say that sometimes politics or a particular type of politics is or should be consider irrelevant to a particular issue then similarly maybe you should be able to say well actually that’s interesting as far as it goes but there’s a broader context that may need to be considered. That just doesn’t seem to happen here. Anyway I didn’t mean to write reams of opinion. As I say I appreciate the site for what it is, I just think things could be loosened up a bit. Just my two pennies worth

                    9. I can respect that. We’ve never told anyone that they can’t discuss politics either in the comments sections or the forums. Really, the only place we limit the political discussions is on the articles themselves. What our commenters want to discuss in the comments section is really up to them and to date, we haven’t banned or deleted any commenters/comments.
                      There are quite a few discussions on politics on our site, but it isn’t as frequent as it would be somewhere else like ROK. It’s just my speculation, but I think that’s due to 2 primary reasons:
                      1) We don’t provide the catalyst to bring up politics in our articles. If you’re on a site talking about racial issues, politics, human rights, etc., all day, then yes, the discussions are going to steer more towards those issues.
                      2) The commenters come here with different expectations. Whether they just want to get away from the political talk for a while or they “self-censor” while they’re here, who knows, but there’s no real expectations that we have for our readers about what they can or can’t discuss.

                2. We aren’t avoiding the problem we are just not making the problem our focus . We are instead focusing more on the solution which starts with men taking up the task of being the patriarch of their family again. And from there you can work on your community and so on and so on. I see no point in beating the dead horse of the latest degenerate Hollywood movie or the latest story of how feminism caused some problem. Most of us understand that and instead we are focusing on the greatest thing that feminism has ruined, the family.

                  1. I have no problem with the emphasis or even the approach – maybe it is part of the solution – but if feminism say has ruined the family then how does it help to avoid discussion of feminism or any other relevant factor as causative of the situation we find ourselves in. It’s like saying X destroyed Y, lets only talk about Y so we can rebuilt it. What happens when X attacks once more? Again, I agree avoiding obsessing about such things is fine, and probably healthy, but avoiding the politics of the thing seems like sticking ones head in the sand

                    1. I personally see no problem with this website not having articles dedicated to feminism or any of that other stuff. It’s good enough for me to just mention it somewhat in an article with the article itself focused on something else. There are plenty of articles, podcasts, videos, etc in the manosphere on feminism and the radical liberal stuff that someone can look at so I see no need for it here. I doubt a person looking at this site is only looking at this site

                    2. well there’s also the site’s rationale to consider. If you guys withdrew from ROK etc because of the heavy or controversial politics assuming you continue at least to share some of the same commitments then there might be considered to be an implied need to explain how a more limited purview (focusing on self-improvement, building family etc) would serve as a substitute. If as you suggest you’re not trying to do quite the same thing and it isn’t AKC’s purpose to compete at that level then how does AKC fit in within the wider spectrum of manosphere sites? Which other sites are you guys going to which would better reflect the wider politics beyond family / self-improvement? What I’m saying is I’m not sure you can be an alternative and not an alternative at the same time.

                    3. “If you guys withdrew from ROK…”

                      We were purged. Some of us engage in political discourse, some do not. If the topic isn’t to ones particular taste, people scroll over it. No one is compelled to contribute.

                    4. I guess, but it was certainly an odd thing. Why purge people who are apolitical and neutral? What was that all about? Re. political discourse, lattacku points out that JJ’s latest article is a little political but generally speaking it has always seemed to me as though for both the article writers and the commenters its as though politics were taboo. It’s like there was some kind of en masse damascene conversion on the road from rok to akc

                    5. Open mystery, but GoJ asked the ROK site ownner via email and got a rambling reply IIRC. I don’t know, but really don’t care enough to pursue it.

                      Politics isn’t taboo, but I have said my piece over the last 2 years at ROK and occassionally here. And as I can only speak for myself, I would say the pulse here is “small government, lower taxes & pro freedom” types. However some do not fit that bill.

                    6. sure, “small government, low taxes, mo’ freedom’ might be the political disposition of people here, but unless that extends to an analysis of the current sorry state of things, and why we are all in this pass that won’t amount to much. It’s the old principle – for what its worth – of the red pill, seeking to look things in the eye so to speak. That might mean looking at one’s own personal psychology and failings or whatever, but it also means looking at the broader externals

                    7. Sure, but the only true thing you control is yourself and you need to be the example of what you preach instead of pontficating on “what needs to be done.” Action at the personal level (you, family, community) is all the reach you have in a finite amount of time. The “broader externals” is not within your scope.

                    8. no-one disputes the virtue in principle of being an example of what you preach. I’m not sure either it’s a question of ‘what is to be done’ which is a phrase I associate with violent revolutionaries rather than thoughtful actors. But where do you get the idea that ‘action at the personal level” is all the reach that we have. Do we live in some totalitarian system I am not aware of? Why are the “broader externals” not within my scope. Quite aside of how external reality may arrange itself to think that way is surely to violate a fundamental of psychological health which is to assume that in all things one has a capacity to act upon the world should one choose to do so. Whether you realize it or not you are preaching learned helplessness outside of the confines of the domestic. Would you have men limited to the kitchen so to speak? I seriously think you guys need to rethink the fundamentals of your ideology.

                    9. I find your answers subjective at best and the rest of you post is all over the place. Are you under the influence or on presciption meds per chance?

                    10. lol. Most answers are subjective aren’t they insofar as they reflect peoples opinions?
                      But sure the responsibility for clear communication falls to the communicator so let me see if I can make clearer what I was trying to say:

                      Firstly, we are in agreement in principle that one should seek to be an example of what one preaches i.e. I acknowledge the validity of one of the main goals of the site, although I continue to question whether it is sufficient given the wider political context we have discussed. Masculinity is everywhere under attack and I’m not sure how being a good father, husband, etc addresses that situation however necessary it may be.

                      As for the rest of the post you consider to be my drug-addled ravings: “what is to be done” is the title of works by a number of revolutionaries including Chernachevsky, Malatesta, and Vlad Lenin himself. By referencing them I am suggesting the plans of often violent revolutionaries might not be the most appropriate model for action

                      I then take issue with your suggestion that ‘action at the
                      personal level” is all the reach that we have” and that the “broader externals” are not within out scope and ask why that would be the case unless we live in some
                      kind of totalitarian system unbeknownst to us? Unless you are a conspiracy theorist who believes the world is secretly run by some unassailable totalitarian power (which it isn’t) why would it be appropriate to adopt the mindset of battery hens in a factory farm?

                      Limiting oneself in such a way is necessarily harmful to psychological health and is likely to reflect a core belief of helplessness. “Learned helplessness” is a concept from social psychology that describes how after enough negative feedback or discouragement people / animals will simply not even attempt to try to change their situation. If I were to be more charitable I would assume that you are arguing for a reality oriented approach that seeks to acknowledge that there will always be limits on the scope we have to act in the world, but still why this insistence on setting our sights so low? You are effectively confining men to the domestic realm, just as once that was the realm we were obliged to go beyond. Isn’t that precisely what feminists want?

                    11. interesting article, although my reflexive would be to say, one doesn’t necessarily have to rise to national or international prominence to have an influence. On point though with respect to managing expectations

                    12. I think my personal gripe with the political stuff is that it’s constantly in my face. On top of that it seems that most of the manosphere that I have seen only discuss and complain about the problem without any practical solutions.

                    13. sure, one can get sick and tired of hearing about something or other, but the issue should be whether it’s relevant, or in the right or wrong direction (and of course it need not be entirely one or the other). People often like to moan more than they like practical solutions, which may not be constructive, but equally raising issues within the wider discourse may be important as well. You can’t address an issue unless it’s first articulated

      1. Nah.
        It’s a toast. Cent’ anni.
        It is meant to wish luck.
        If we are together in 100 years, it means we all had good health, survived, and presumably thrived for 100 years.

  7. OT: The next James Bond is going to be a woman, because everything good and masculine and cool must be utterly ruined. Fuck this SJW world.

        1. Meh, not sure about that.
          Long hair & boobies.
          Would get in the way during the physical scenes, I think.

          1. The real girl would have both of those and be 5’1” and weigh 95 lbs, and then punch out 6’3” dudes with one hit.

              1. I’m actually trying to figure out what kind of Jedi mind trick you played on me to somehow make me defend tranny James Bond…

                    1. I swear on Faeg Scale of 1-10, with 10 being Elton John, you’re coming in at like 15, you boner-smoker…..

                    2. Oh, look who finally forced himself away from a face full of dicks like a fat girl getting crowbarred away from a dessert buffet. Just in time for some projection, I see.

    1. Knee will be pissed off, he’s a Bond fiend

      wonder if Sean Connery double face palmed hearing that news?

      1. Well, they had a Black Human Torch.
        And a black Alexander Hamilton (at least that is what I heard).
        So a James Bond with a poontang is not so far fetched in these ridiculous times in which we live.

        1. odd the playwright chose Hamiltion as his subject- he was pro-strong border control and limited immigration…

Comments are closed.