I don't know if the advice for men is valid on several levels. How do you deal if the pressure is to much to hold in, not all of us remain stoic if we have cancer, I also doubt that we have a 50/50 conservative men/women parity, what do you do when the "conservative" woman turns out she only had a phase and now leaves with half your stuff and maybe your kids?
The idea that stoicism demands you don't tell anyone that you have terminal cancer until you suddenly drop dead without warning is retarded. That's just pride.
You can still be stoic and tell people relevant information and limits about yourself, you just need to hold yourself with nobility and not be a whiny bitch about it.
Walsh is deep in that awkward middle ground of emotional resilience, he can keep it together if he slams the door and keeps the fire in the other room, but he can't comprehend the pinnacle of stoicism is being able to walk through the firey crucible if needed and still stay calm. So all his advice always seems to focus on ways to avoid the door instead of conquering the fire.
Or maybe we can actually make an effort to legislate away the disproportionate societal power that we have spent the past 100 years giving to women who never earned and didn't deserve it.
The social contract between men and women has been utterly shattered over the past century, and Matt Walsh doesn't have an answer for it. His message to men is simply that you just need to keep fulfilling your end of that contract when the other party has no incentive to honor theirs, and is in fact incentivized to do the opposite. This apparently is "masculinity". Just let yourself be used.
I only listened to it once but I seem to remember him addressing what to do and how to screen for Women. Just be based on the first date and they'll screen themselves.
Walsh is pigeonholed as a tradcuck because he consistently classifies men choosing to spend their efforts anywhere other than endlessly wading through a sea of mediocre pussy hoping to knock someone up, as giving up.
So he (as in this video) would call you pathetic and weak for even considering the possibility of joining that 40% it's your own fault that you didn't just mold your own conservative princess out of clay.
Walsh is pigeonholed as a tradcuck because he consistently classifies men choosing to spend their efforts anywhere other than endlessly wading through a sea of mediocre pussy hoping to knock someone up, as giving up.
If this is what you got out of that interview, you've got something seriously wrong with your reading comprehension.
But regardless, that is pretty much a direct transcript of the part of the conversation where he describes why he hates MGTOW.
"A man's primary purpose is to be a father", "not wanting to wake up next to a woman over everything else is giving up" and constantly deluding himself/lying to the audience that there's a conservative woman waiting out there for every single conservative man to hook up with without compromising his principles. Those are his foundational arguments, and they range from dogmatically oversimplified to flat out delusional and wrong.
I know the anti video game stance of Walsh isn't popular here, but it's addressed in the video, video games shouldn't be the defining aspect of a Man's personality. And I agree.
The essential problem with Walsh's stance on video games and anime is that he's shooting at both scenes, but mostly hits the people who actually have a healthy relationship with those things. Also, he lacks the intellectual curiosity to try to understand something incongruent with his worldview.
Other than that, I don't have a problem with his take.
Because the idea that the hobby is defined by a tiny number of degenerate weirdos who obsess over the thing doesn't stand up to inspection. It's an ad-hoc rationalization to explain away Matt's initial thoughtless dismissal of something he's simply not interested in or had icky feels about. Who outside of aimless children and game developers define their personality around games? Even my friends who are still way too obsessed with consumer culture have jobs and families and go to church and do other stuff. People who don't have those things probably wish they did, and if they indulge too much in digital entertainment it's as a coping mechanism.
Great now when is Matt Walsh going to stop defending jews and their leading roles in many of the movements that he is complaining about? What he does is the
equivalent of combating enemy soldiers at our shores but attacking those who point out what country the enemy soldiers are coming from.
He's so weird to get a handle on. Even within the same interview.
On the one hand in this interview he goes off on how countries that can't exist without the USA propping them us shouldn't exist. Then Tucker interjects "like Israel?" and Walsh was all "no no no, I don't think Israel is propped up by the USA, they would be fine without us".
Then at the end of the same interview he's talking about the destruction of the family unit and how nobody wants to talk about it because if you do you have to start noticing who is encouraging that destruction. He puts "noticing" out there on repeat and always just barely stops short of explicitly saying who, in a way that's very reminiscent of JQers trying to stay in the lines, but without ever actually Qing any Js.
It's probably a cop out to avoid angering his masters, but I agree with him. I think that's the message we should be telling conservative philo-semite voters. Israel doesn't need us. They've grown into a first world economy, with a world class military, hosting many of their own defense contractors, and they run one of the most powerful and infamous global intelligence agencies. They have nuclear weapons, and they are willing to use the Sampson Option if they are threatened. Israel is not in any danger from its neighbors. It's time to cut them loose and let them take care of themselves, while we take care of our people.
But actually then it sounds like I agree more with Tucker and both Walsh's setup and answer don't make any sense.
Sure, but that defining aspect used to be working hard to raise a family. Raising a family is now only limited to a select few and comes with more downsides than upsides, including ZERO commitment from the average woman.
Most men who see the forest for the trees (and who aren't simps) understand that they would rather work hard and enjoy their hobbies; they lose nothing in return.
Certain unstable retards who are inclined to fixate on single phrases get upset when he talks about how men shouldn't sit around playing video games all day. It's almost exactly the same as when leftists fixate and obsess over something, except the guys who do it here think they're being really subversive if they use Hebrew words and racial slurs.
I'm honestly pretty impressed that he didn't back down or hedge on the Shiloh thing whatsoever.
I don't know if the advice for men is valid on several levels. How do you deal if the pressure is to much to hold in, not all of us remain stoic if we have cancer, I also doubt that we have a 50/50 conservative men/women parity, what do you do when the "conservative" woman turns out she only had a phase and now leaves with half your stuff and maybe your kids?
The idea that stoicism demands you don't tell anyone that you have terminal cancer until you suddenly drop dead without warning is retarded. That's just pride.
You can still be stoic and tell people relevant information and limits about yourself, you just need to hold yourself with nobility and not be a whiny bitch about it.
Walsh is deep in that awkward middle ground of emotional resilience, he can keep it together if he slams the door and keeps the fire in the other room, but he can't comprehend the pinnacle of stoicism is being able to walk through the firey crucible if needed and still stay calm. So all his advice always seems to focus on ways to avoid the door instead of conquering the fire.
Then you join the 40% of Men each generation who historically don't get to pass on their genes.
Or maybe we can actually make an effort to legislate away the disproportionate societal power that we have spent the past 100 years giving to women who never earned and didn't deserve it.
The social contract between men and women has been utterly shattered over the past century, and Matt Walsh doesn't have an answer for it. His message to men is simply that you just need to keep fulfilling your end of that contract when the other party has no incentive to honor theirs, and is in fact incentivized to do the opposite. This apparently is "masculinity". Just let yourself be used.
I only listened to it once but I seem to remember him addressing what to do and how to screen for Women. Just be based on the first date and they'll screen themselves.
Walsh is pigeonholed as a tradcuck because he consistently classifies men choosing to spend their efforts anywhere other than endlessly wading through a sea of mediocre pussy hoping to knock someone up, as giving up.
So he (as in this video) would call you pathetic and weak for even considering the possibility of joining that 40% it's your own fault that you didn't just mold your own conservative princess out of clay.
If this is what you got out of that interview, you've got something seriously wrong with your reading comprehension.
.... It's an audio interview.
But regardless, that is pretty much a direct transcript of the part of the conversation where he describes why he hates MGTOW.
"A man's primary purpose is to be a father", "not wanting to wake up next to a woman over everything else is giving up" and constantly deluding himself/lying to the audience that there's a conservative woman waiting out there for every single conservative man to hook up with without compromising his principles. Those are his foundational arguments, and they range from dogmatically oversimplified to flat out delusional and wrong.
I know the anti video game stance of Walsh isn't popular here, but it's addressed in the video, video games shouldn't be the defining aspect of a Man's personality. And I agree.
The essential problem with Walsh's stance on video games and anime is that he's shooting at both scenes, but mostly hits the people who actually have a healthy relationship with those things. Also, he lacks the intellectual curiosity to try to understand something incongruent with his worldview.
Other than that, I don't have a problem with his take.
Because the idea that the hobby is defined by a tiny number of degenerate weirdos who obsess over the thing doesn't stand up to inspection. It's an ad-hoc rationalization to explain away Matt's initial thoughtless dismissal of something he's simply not interested in or had icky feels about. Who outside of aimless children and game developers define their personality around games? Even my friends who are still way too obsessed with consumer culture have jobs and families and go to church and do other stuff. People who don't have those things probably wish they did, and if they indulge too much in digital entertainment it's as a coping mechanism.
Great now when is Matt Walsh going to stop defending jews and their leading roles in many of the movements that he is complaining about? What he does is the equivalent of combating enemy soldiers at our shores but attacking those who point out what country the enemy soldiers are coming from.
what would you have him do and say, while becoming more effective at messaging?
Maybe he shouldn't say things like "im not going to dignify that with a response", when he was confronted about the fact that jews lead a lot of transgender movements https://truthpodium.org/watch/matt-walsh-exposed-gatekeeping_jpWg7kbb4vfJRgR.html . Maybe he shouldn't do things like call the guy Magnus Hirschfeld who opened the first transgender clinic a "German" when he was jewish https://files.catbox.moe/4zfsbj.jpeg
He's so weird to get a handle on. Even within the same interview.
On the one hand in this interview he goes off on how countries that can't exist without the USA propping them us shouldn't exist. Then Tucker interjects "like Israel?" and Walsh was all "no no no, I don't think Israel is propped up by the USA, they would be fine without us".
Then at the end of the same interview he's talking about the destruction of the family unit and how nobody wants to talk about it because if you do you have to start noticing who is encouraging that destruction. He puts "noticing" out there on repeat and always just barely stops short of explicitly saying who, in a way that's very reminiscent of JQers trying to stay in the lines, but without ever actually Qing any Js.
It's probably a cop out to avoid angering his masters, but I agree with him. I think that's the message we should be telling conservative philo-semite voters. Israel doesn't need us. They've grown into a first world economy, with a world class military, hosting many of their own defense contractors, and they run one of the most powerful and infamous global intelligence agencies. They have nuclear weapons, and they are willing to use the Sampson Option if they are threatened. Israel is not in any danger from its neighbors. It's time to cut them loose and let them take care of themselves, while we take care of our people.
But actually then it sounds like I agree more with Tucker and both Walsh's setup and answer don't make any sense.
Sure, but that defining aspect used to be working hard to raise a family. Raising a family is now only limited to a select few and comes with more downsides than upsides, including ZERO commitment from the average woman.
Most men who see the forest for the trees (and who aren't simps) understand that they would rather work hard and enjoy their hobbies; they lose nothing in return.
Certain unstable retards who are inclined to fixate on single phrases get upset when he talks about how men shouldn't sit around playing video games all day. It's almost exactly the same as when leftists fixate and obsess over something, except the guys who do it here think they're being really subversive if they use Hebrew words and racial slurs.