Being partially right is more dangerous than being all the way wrong. The way that merchants have traditionally subverted peons' social movements is by joining them (either in crypsis or via proxy), loudly stating certain things that are correct, then using nepotistic referral arrangements to take control of the movement and ensure that it never accomplishes anything that is either harmful to merchants or sustainably good for peons.
This is how our universities were stolen--by giving merchants prominence in history, humanities, and pharmaceutical/medical/social science while the bankers were saying correct things about those disciplines, we allowed them to self-refer their marketing network into a force powerful enough to drown out all other voices. As a result, we got feminism, chemotherapy, and microaggressions.
That's what tumors like Aurini, Cernovich, (((Roosh))), and Vox Day are--by inclusively marketing themselves as the alternative to feminism, and saying a lot of accurate (and immemorially obvious) things about feminism, they are channeling peon generational anger into a crusade against women, children, and families, rather than in ending the wars, tearing apart the Sanhedrin, and cutting off Israel.
Just a few years ago, those lying scum were all advocating for homosexuality as being part of the "manosphere," encouraging black men to pick up white women, and encouraging white men to ditch white women in favor of (1) sterile couplings with "Asian 10s" and (2) more money for VR sex and video-game retirement.
Now all of a sudden they're pretending to be pro-Trump nationalists. This is what it feels like to get merchant-ed. Merchants did not win the twentieth century by saying, "We are merchants, now do this." They did it by infiltrating each peon spot of resistance and co-opting it to their own purposes.
Let's look into one of the marketing networks brought together to manage resistance. We've talked about some of this before, comparing it and other pyramid schemes to internet porn self-referral networks. We've also repeatedly addressed the ways that this technique was used before the internet. Consider again the way western universities were taken over: by buying an academic journal, then collectively plumping the reputation of that journal, the journal becomes a means to launch careers and stifle ideas. We understand with ease now how the media echo chamber creates selective awareness of, and ignorance of, certain news stories, e.g., robber shot by police, elderly woman burned alive, young girl fed to alligators. Now take yourself back to the late 1800s, and see tenured professorships at institutions of higher learning being based upon community support, colleague votes, and nationwide publishing impact. By taking control of a few journals, merchants can publish chosen articles by chosen scholars, which are then taught and cited by members of the referral network, making them part of the established narrative. Ability to be published affects name recognition and career decisions, so that those not in the group are first published rarely, then published only in smaller publications, then passed over for promotion, then eventually never hired, then eventually never educated, while those in the group are constantly citing one another's work, critiquing one another's work (equally good at driving attention to it), proposing new projects based upon preferred older work (which are then heralded by the foundational professor's work), justifying grants based upon it, et cetera.
When does the NHS consider a study worth funding? Who deserves an endowed chair? Who should be cited by the Times or NPR or your local "First at Five"? What is serious and what is not serious? To whom should judges rely upon as expert sources when deciding whether a physician or a detective or an attorney exercised due diligence? Who should a screenwriter or costume designer consult about appearance or dialogue or mores covering the time period in question? Many people aren't aware of how truly powerful universities are--many people don't realize that, in cases of surgical malpractice, a physician's life or death decision will be evaluated, independent of a jury's fact-finding mission, and utterly removed from jury review or that of the public, based upon what some respected professor published regarding due diligence in a hypothetical surgical scenario. The same holds true in dentistry, law, insurance, banking, and even architecture. Standards that determine whether or not rape or murder or billion-dollar fraud or unnecessary extraction are "actionable" in a court are evaluated in light of "the academic literature" on the subject, e.g., what some "professor" opined on the subject. Western law, from provincial case law to constitutional amendment to international treaty, is processed based upon the selected works of prominent professors, who achieve degrees and promotions and tenures and social standing based upon how thoroughly referred-to they are by other professors. The unelected bureaucracy of lifelong civil employees in the City of London and Washington, D.C., is part of a better-known silent deep government; the professoriate is even better hidden in plain sight, and even more innocuous in its indirect fabrication of governmental reality.
There's an easy counterpart in Hollywood. Why does 1990s Julia Roberts earn so much? Because she's in demand. Why is she in demand? Because she's so recognizable and understandable after having been in so many movies. Why is she in so many movies? Because she's in demand. Why is she in demand?
...why is Paris Hilton famous? Why do Kim Kardashian's opinions reach millions? Why is George W. Bush U.S. President?
This is part of why innovation, both scientific and artistic, fled universities and entertainment media and politics over the course of the twentieth century, driving the nadir ever lower in a gloomy age without cures or frontiers or discoveries. Self-referral networks, like the jealous cousin-marrying incest underlying the merchants' path here (theirs and their pet royals, from whom Harry and William and Dubya and Hillary are all loathsomely descended). We know how these paths work, with This Year's Top-Selling Christmas Toy becoming desirable because it is promoted, which makes it expensive, which get news coverage, which makes it harder to get, which makes it more desirable, which makes for more exciting news stories, which World Cup Olympics Black Friday.
Why the Networks Work
The schemes work because they are always partially true at the beginning. The first professors to infiltrate western universities did serious research. They later coupled that research with bullshit about central banking and the necessity of European war, but they initially garnered attention by cross-promoting serious works: histories, diseases, technology, et cetera. Plagiarized, yes, but still substance. Consider the way it was done in America: the industrial north destroyed the south at the behest of various merchants and agitators, not only to make money destroying the south, but to produce the obscene fortunes and habits of the American Gilded Age. This foul triumph--the robber barons gorging themselves on the Caribbean, South and Central America, the southern United States, poor immigrants, women and children, et cetera--produced people who made easy and partly-justifiable targets for criticism a generation later. Seeing hobbled eleven-year-olds working in Gatsby's mines for a penny a day was an obvious wrong.
Now, this wrong was caused by merchants. By Gatsby, in part, but his ilk were just Obamaesque tools, talkers and kissers of asses--primarily the wrong was caused by the maneuvering that set the central bankers of New York on their insane crusade around the globe, smashing the Confederacy, then South and Central America, into giant plantations of evil Vincente Fox bastards ruling over hordes of starving, blended negro-indios. But it was a wrong. The reason that Woodrow Wilson's tyranny was able to happen--the reason that the Fed, FDR, and Stalin would later burn the globe--is because gullibly good people, seeing those hobbled preteen mine-workers in the Gilded Age, were tricked just enough to turn the revolt against the merchants who had caused the problem into a revolt against "wealth itself" or "our culture itself." The merchants had, of course, set it all up, and they cared not for the children they had originally put into those mines, nor about the historical esteem of the robber barons whom they first extolled, then crucified (yes, metaphor), then later again extolled, but they recognized that those hobbled mine-kiddies were useful.
We've talked about this before with the way that western patriarchy was used to create a similarly-silly, annoying image--the smug cad who debases respectable women--which feminism could be partly-correct capitalizing on to justify a planned overreaction. Remember that, as we go forward: these things work because they are partly correct.
Tools for Identifying a Merchant Network
Using our historical model, we should be able to figure out what's happening now. We've seen feminism, race-denialism, and other such ideatic tools run a particular course, and we know that those things originated from Semitic merchants. The course that those things took was roughly identical: Semitic religious texts propertized women; Semitic religious texts condemned sexuality to realms of paranoid hypocrisy; and, Semitic religious texts propertized, deemed worthless and loathsome and subhuman, and called for the extermination of all racial outsiders. Through both non-Semitic and Semitic fronts, these ideas were pushed into Europe, Asia, and Africa, where they transformed society. In Europe and Russia, where written records are available, we see healthy communities with relatively egalitarian but generally segregated sex roles turned into chattel marriage; we see the laboring poor turned into wage slaves or outright serfs; we see those same healthy, growing, family-based communities led by warrior-lords, and not caring about private consenting adult homosexuality, become subjugated to incestuous fag-nobles who rape children while developing a weirdly keen interest in a couple percent of discreet adult perverts.
The results, over hundreds of non-internet years, are major intra-European wars, the deaths of countless millions over the nuances of the Semitic death-god's potential rebirth and parentage, the granting of tax-farmer status to Jews, the rise of a different Semitic death-god and the beginning of the jihad to invade Europe, and the importation of Africans into the New World.
These effects were positive to the merchants, because without them, we wouldn't have dreamed up any of the stuff we see now--just like Wotan never would've recognized nor permitted the (((YHWH))) insanities that trailed in Charlemagne's wake.
We've learned some things over the years. Let's talk about how to identify the next one of these networks.
Firstly, the network should be self-referential. In the internet, as in Hollywood and newspapers and professoriates of old, we should see network fronts referring to one another in order to generate mutual interest and the appearance of popular support and consensus.
Secondly, the network wants money. In part, this is basic avarice--making money off whatever it is doing is part and parcel. This is also because putting a price on something creates the illusion of value--a trick that still works on Europeoids even after all these years. A lot of the operatives being used to front these schemes are semi-independent, and they actually need the money, because they sense how expendable they are. So, we should see ads.
Thirdly, the network will offer promotional materials. Physical or digital goodies should be used to spread the message. We should see junk being sold, like Joel Osteen's Bible commentaries or Hubbard's/Rand's fiction--easily duplicable mixed metaphors that serve to vindicate supporters through an evocation of shared ideas and ideals, without requiring difficult novelty or complex gradations that could detract from the reverence directed toward the group's explanatory model. Libertarians, for example, both can't and don't want to deal with the complexity of sophisticated and/or intrinsic cultural or ethnic networks, just as capitalists both can't and don't want to evaluate the colossal socialized marketplaces necessary to produce low-threat trading games. To preserve the beautiful integrity of a preferred theory, adherents' opponents must always be reducible to simple, previously understood forms, which can be reflected upon for reassurance. This is why mass-evangelists, a thousand years later, still need to blame their newcomers for insufficient passion, and sell yet another ghostwritten biblical commentary to solve the problem.
Normal people who actually care will sometimes paint a painting, play a song, or write a book, and such normies might also want to profit off of, or share, such work, but when we're dealing with fabricating cultural consensuses--the kind that have big bank money behind them, at some level--the proportion of shameless marketing should be high. The less-intelligent masses who need to be caught by these ideas require a hard sell. Bandwagon approach; giving a sample and then hinting that mysterious secrets are hidden deeper within--that sort of crap.
Fourthly, we should see lots of hypocrisy. It isn't actually hypocrisy to them, since the underlying philosophy of all of this is self-interest, driving even the merchants behind them. But, like any shameless power-hungry politician, we should see network members being willing to adopt different positions at different times, when necessary to attach themselves to something popular. This doesn't necessary reveal that the network has no principles, but rather, that its principles are more important than what it claims its principles to be. (E.g., feminism's recent embrace of European sex slavery reveals feminism to not be anti-male or anti-family, but rather, anti-Europeoid. Feminism claimed to care about rape, then devoted its efforts to fighting minuscule percentages of wealthy white college date-rape, while ignoring dozens of thousands of cases a year of violent black-on-white rape. This was easily glossed over as background noise, understood--like prison rape--to be an acceptable happenstance, far less important than a drunk college girl, until occupation forces began publicly street-raping and enslaving non-intoxicated women and children in the E.U. Mainstream media feminism was not actually hypocritical, but completely logical in its use of a certain rationale being used to accomplish a certain goal.)
Fifthly, the network should share enemies who are themselves self-referential. This is another situation where the internet makes it a degree easier to perceive the ways that these types of elite-backed cultural movements are set up to fight one another for show. A group of personalities who strongly support one another, and who regularly contend with a different distinct group of personalities who strongly support one another, is a dead giveaway. Like finding a cairn on a hiking trail, such a sight is indicative of deliberate planning. Groups of self-referential networks who speak loudly and often about their "intellectual adversaries" promote not only themselves and their message, but the counterpart message that the groups' originator(s) have designed for those who find one group's message unlikable. Think "American humanitarianism v. Muslim nationalism." Neither one is good, and each "side" can use the other side as a means of advertising for and acquiring new members and funding, as well as justifying the existence of sacrifice and hardship. When a network's faces drone over and over about how bad the other network is, they're doing a service to their partners in crime: anyone who doesn't like Person A has a strong chance of concluding, "Well, Person A hates Person B so much that Person B must be the person for me." Party politics isn't stupidly obsessed with personalities rather than "issues"--the point of the exchange is to cause a choice between, say, Tory and Labour or Chevy and Ford.
We should also see other aspects of "cult"-style behavior, such as shared terminologies (being adopted by people who mock everything mercilessly except for their fruity new metaphors, which are weirdly off-limits), hierarchical deference to a guru, censorship of dissenters, and appeals to timeless normatives that aren't actually timeless (but that less experienced people believe are timeless based upon wishfulness blended with pop culture). Let's stick with the stricter network markers to start.
Several years ago, the "men's" internet thing became a thing. Almost out of nowhere. It had been a background thing since there had been internet, like all other things, filling up countless listservs and chatrooms and boards and chans etc., but several years ago it got an infusion of cash and became, almost instantly, mildly professional. Popular open-access sites were suddenly flooded with "fans" of particular gurus, who had the time and funding almost simultaneously to break away from the semi-public fora and establish private, self-referential nexuses for shaping this new "men's internet culture."
Some of the linchpins of this operation--the Reality Kings and Brazzers of this sub-genre of media manipulation, if you will--set up a network identical to the one described above. The characters Aurini, Roosh, Clarey, Cernovich, Adam, Anonymous Conservative, Heartiste, Vox Day, and a few others appeared as movement gurus. The idea behind the scheme was that these were ordinary, everyday men who realized something was wrong, used their gumption and hard work, and made themselves independent internet marketers with a message who were able to work from home, bang hot chicks, replace the media, and teach you how to do the same. Arrayed "against" them--ready to say ridiculous things in counterpart to drive traffic to Scheme Maleside--were the characters of Scheme Femaleside, among them Anita, who because of Gamergate got her marketing credentials leaked enough by actual people that she sort of quit for a while.
The network should be self-referential
Scheme Maleside began this way and continues to be to this day. Aurini is more sales-focused, so he doesn't use a traditional blogroll, and he updates less often than the others. He isn't a primary source for opinion-shaping; rather, a secondary one for confirmation and the appearance of consensus. The Aurini site pushes many products, including free introductory podcasts, manly fiction by the named operative, and along the right side, a "bookshelf" link connecting consumers to books released under the names of Roosh, Adam, Aaron, Anonymous Conservative, Jack Donovan (the less-popular but still effective homosexual member), and Matt Forney. On the left side of his page, the independent masculine character from Canada has a link to buy some manly herbs, along with a hat:
Did I accidentally post a picture of the hat twice? No; that second hat is from a different website, from an independent masculine character from America, who operates "Aaron Clarey," or Captain Capitalism. In theory, he was just a simple economics whiz who realized he could make a lot more money selling his opinions online than by doing a traditional job, and besides selling you books about how to manage your money (which presumably don't warn their readers not to buy things like that), he can teach you how to be a blogger who makes money by cross-linking with other websites.
See, anyone can do it, as long as you pay to learn how, but only if you have an opinion about why feminism sucks. To prove it, Captain Capitalism links back to Aurini, as well as more than one openly-Roosh-hosted site, more than one openly-Vox Day-hosted site, and many, many smaller sites that sell supplements and workout advice. Like Aurini, he has a twitter and podcasts and books for sale, and references via Amazon.com to the same group of authors who also have supplements and books to sell.
Captain Capitalism chose his partners wisely, since Roosh links back to him:
...as well as to another of Roosh's own sites ("Return of Kings," which we looked at earlier for proof that most young women have sex with great danes out of sheer horniness), Cernovich, Vox Day, Heartiste, and Forney; Cernovich sells his own books, the same workout tips and supplements via proxy, and uses the promise of free lists of other "books men should read" in order to collect e-mail addresses while pushing a couple classics mixed with his partners' offerings.
On his self-named site, Vox Day currently only links to Cernovich and one of the publishing companies that puts out the works of all of the Scheme Maleside authors, but on his "Alpha Game Plan" site, he's more generous, spreading around the links to two different Rooshes, Dalrock (a peripheral Christian-targeted agent), a couple smaller facades, and Heartiste. Adam Piggott, a smaller fish, links to the book of his own that Aurini graciously pointed people towards, then throws in the same Captain Capitalism ("Aaron Clarey") product that Aurini had up in the same space only a click ago. For humble independent bloggers throwing off the chains of the office and changing the world by working from home explaining why feminism is bad, these pros manage to not only print and layout and format their own paperbacks (easy) and kindle editions (easier), but also to have available audiobooks (just a little more expensive).
The cairn has a level foundation on graded ground. We won't continue on with the pictures, but the meshing of message and product is immense. The plausibility of this happening on its own is nil, while the public claim would be, "We were all so cool we realized we liked the same stuff so it happened naturally." What dismisses that argument is the suddenness with which this all began, the commonality and abruptness of the offerings (transitioning from a dozen repetitive sock-puppets on reddit to a private website linking to multiple audiobooks and friends-with-audiobooks and joint seminars in Newark in less than a year), and the dearth of consistent philosophy discussed below.
The network wants money and the network will offer promotional materials
Everything is for sale. The philosophy is a ruse for selling dick-growth pills, dick-hardening pills, muscle powder, and a sense of brotherly camaraderie via repetitive, banal tomes on "self confidence." The personality-managers and layout designers crafting these sales networks betray their integration not merely through similar layouts and coordinated news & commentary releases, but by engaging in low-level professional tactics of salesmanship--not at the interpersonal level (e.g., car dealer), but at the structural level (e.g., car dealership owner's nephew's PR firm). They invest in freebies, pump target audiences for tiny commitments and contact information, then leverage shared lists to push increasing sales and involvement. They rent venues and hold events and shake each others' hands for professional photographers. It's a changeable ruse. Switching from "girls suck so just fuck sex dolls and play Call of Duty" to "real men are responsible fathers" isn't a moral or philosophical problem for them, since all they want to do is ply the audience for sales.
The network appears hypocritical
Even worse than the above, Scheme Maleside is a changeable ruse with a deeper purpose: pushing ideatic socio-structural products that have, as of yet, barely been presented to target audiences. It's quite possible that the content-generators and personality-managers think they really are just trying to sell dick-pills and dating advice, and dismiss the hypocrisy they commit within the scope of that assignment as "just business." And to help them feel better about themselves, there's always, "Yeah, it's not exactly spontaneous, but if I help someone get laid/married or feel better about himself, I guess I'm sort of an unsung hero, and everyone has to lie at their job anyway."
None of this is to "expose" these salesmen as salesmen to uphold them as "of bad moral character" or "just interested in a buck." Rather, it's to identify that the network is not the philosophical ally of those people who believe it speaks for them. Remember how this all began? Feminism--this was how early feminism looked. Against a backdrop of centuries of the battle of the sexes, women with strong financial backing suddenly appeared, in a coordinated manner across several cities, nations, and newspapers, urging women to buy certain clothes, attend events, handing out free pamphlets, and mentioning friends with slightly different approaches to the same essential material. Concurrently, the male Anita Sarkeesians and Jennifer Lawrences of the time played their part, loudly declaiming the suffragettes as irresponsible and outrageous--thereby ensuring more attention, more coverage, legislation, barren women bleeding to death in cubicles, and Title IX sports programs.
What we're focusing on here is the changeability of the network's "philosophy," because to do so can help us predict its ultimate course, and the reasons that this portion of the media network is using "men's issues" stuff to motivate the citizenry. So let's talk some specifics.
Most of the "player" characters are easy, and we've looked at them before. The pick-up artist facades spent years aggressively and completely promoting philosophies that are the inverse of what some of them now advocate, and the near-inverse of what the rest of them advocate. This seeming schism between then and now makes them either lying salesmen or incompetent dolts who shouldn't be able to match up with one another, let alone with certain parts of their referral network. Anonymous Conservative, for example, only sells his own book, but maintains an extensive blogroll linking to all of the PUA others--a seeming irony, considering that Anonymous Conservative's philosophy is supposed to be about how r-selected irresponsible mating/parenting and short-term pleasure-seeking is the definitive civilizational negative, while the people he linked to originally were all about having as much casual sex as possible, avoiding being tied down by marriage or fatherhood, and not paying child support to dumb bitches. Anonymous Conservative the persona has its own problems, given that "he" purports to be a staunch Christian, yet he exults in the idea of the poor dying off and the weak being slaughtered by the strong. (He wasn't always a Christian, and his Christianity changes every so often.)
Vox Day the mestizo from Mexico and Italy, and Roosh the transnational player, built their brands up on teaching men how to evaluate themselves for scoring with different kinds of women. Roosh the bearded Semite in crypsis became popular for describing raping stupid European girls who said no when it was too late, and both he and Vox encouraged black men to game white women in certain ways, while encouraging white men to game Asian women in other ways. You wouldn't know it now, from looking at Roosh's current offerings:
Yes, Roosh is now a fervent nationalist, supporter of family and fatherland, defender of European virginity against the Semitic hordes. Vox the mestizo demands that Trump build a wall to prevent mestizos from taking advantage of white women. Even polka-dotted-pajamas Cernovich is starting to see how his formerly homoerotic lifestyle of men excluding women to work out together with the silverbacks all day might be amended to include strong heterosexual unions for above-replacement-rate fertility to save the West.
What are they driving toward? At each stage of this disgustingly hilarious and hilariously disgusting years-long process, these clownish pawns have had a few good things to say to sweeten the sauce. They've all complained about the Duke Lacrosse rape hoax, and the problems with western family courts, and, increasingly now, the problems with western welfare states, and they often did so accurately, the way early feminists could reference anecdotal spousal abuse or incompetent chauvinist tycoons. In the Dark Ages, we saw part of where the Semitic religions were crafted to lead us, and in Rotherham, we've seen part of where both Yahwehism and feminism were crafted to lead us. In each case, too, we saw inside those movements the partial truths glossing over the nasty, profiteering changeabilities beneath. Where, now, will this new dick-pill-based philosophy lead us, and what dark secrets are its masters hiding? The smirking hand-shakers themselves likely know not, anymore than the suffragettes planned to have Arab child-brothels in London or transvestites showering with little girls in Des Moines. Yet the methodology being employed again is so similar to last time that a darker future likely waits at the end of this particular road.
What will it be? And a hundred years hence, what new changeable philosophy will a well-coordinated band of facades begin presenting to us as a means of change?