One thing I find interesting about Western views on the 'Manosphere', etc. is that they tend to be adamant that such things actually are Western to begin with.

I watched a feminist YouTube video making this exact talking point, and at the same time as the word 'Western' was used, it showed the faces of many of these people (e.g. the brothers Tate, 'Myron Gaines' [Sudanese], 'Sneako' [Haitian-Filipino]), none of whom were White bar 'Clavicular'. You hear the word 'Western' and you see only one White face surrounded by dozens of non-white faces belonging to content creators many of whom I have never seen nor heard.

I remember thinking how strange it was, because while it is indeed geographically 'Western', this 'philosophy', in the lay sense of the term, sure as hell has next to nothing to do with White people. Furthermore, it never did, for even when it started out, it was just a different set of non-whites, like Roosh V (Iranian), who were pushing it.

Perhaps this arrest record simply reflects that same kind of widespread thinking: the brothers Tate are 'Manosphere' influencers, therefore must be oppressors, and oppression has become heavily White 'coded'; therefore, the brothers Tate are more White than they are anything else. Likewise, the 'Manosphere' itself must be more Western than anything else by the same faulty reasoning. As someone external to these Leftist mental schemata, I see the Tates as more black than anything else: I vaguely recall Andrew making clear black supremacist talking points and recall them jokingly referring to themselves as 'niggers', which is proof enough that they also see themselves that way.

The video unwittingly goes on to reinforce my observation that 'Manosphere' views, far from being 'Western' in any meaningful sense of the word, are totally a non-white 'philosophy'. It largely focuses on two more obscure Manosphere influencers who are growing rapidly in popularity in their own parts of the world: Andrew Kibe, of Kenya; and 'El Temach', of Mexico.

It became clearer to me that the Manosphere largely originated with black and brown men empowered by the Internet in Western countries. As third-world internet access is growing, these men have simply imported this worldview back to their own ancestral homelands, such that Latin America and Africa, at the very least, are now developing their own homegrown influencers. I recall reading that the Tates are even popular among young men in the Taliban, even though the highly acquisitive, competitive, materialistic, predatory worldview of the Tates is surely incompatible with that of the Taliban's leaders, who are much more ascetic and spiritual, and who would probably view the Tates, Sneako, and the other self-proclaimed Muslims among them as kafirs in all but name.

I don't think that these men do anything beyond mirroring feminism (e.g. replace 'all men are pigs' with 'all women are gold diggers', replace 'marriage enslaves women' with 'marriage enslaves men'), which might be part of why they have become so popular: their arguments already resemble the structure of key feminist arguments peddled by the dominant ideology and mass media, but the roles are simply inverted. They are cognitively easy to grasp because the rest of the argument is one we're already inculcated with from a young age. 'Leftists really say that X leads to Y, but the reality is that Y leads to X', says the influencer, and even stupid people can nod along approvingly because they have heard all their lives that X leads to Y.

Consequently, these people offer nothing to solve the myriad sociocultural problems of today. In fact, I would even say that their worldview is sociologically entirely wrong. For instance, many of them promote a 'pull yourself up by your bootstraps' type of view that is practically the inversion of my own stance on the famous Structure-Agency debate from the social sciences; namely, that humans are overwhelmingly the product of externalities, especially time and place, and only a minority of what they are is within their own power to change, is of their own making.

The feminists, of course, totally misunderstand this 'Manosphere' phenomenon and are totally oblivious as to how they are ultimately driving it. Take the common idea that it is based on mere 'hate' of women. These men do not 'hate' women any more than they hate the other things that they crave, like money and luxury cars. Who pursues money who hates money; who pursues luxury cars who hates cars? The key to understanding them on this point is not that they 'hate' women, but that they simply see the women they fancy the same way they see the cars they fancy: as something to collect and control. It is not 'hate' but simply an animalistic reversion to the harem building of apes paired with acquisitive materialism. It is ugly, yes, but it is not 'hateful' nor even emotional more generally.

Another red flag is the sheer amount of commercialization involved: 'pay X and you will learn this new tip from me', 'pay Y to attend my upcoming speech'. Make no mistake, these men are getting wealthy from proferring false solutions to deep sociocultural problems. I, for one, will not lament their downfall, especially not that of the brothers Tate.

Although it largely went unseen, the manifesto of the recent Montreal shooter, Seth Hatfield, shows that he was completely invested in these problems regarding feminism. Hence his combining of this kind of worldview, peculiarly, with Marxism. He observed that all of this alterativism: just be more confident, just get a high-paying job, just get some surgery to increase your height, just alter this and that and the other about yourself, reassigns to the individual something that is ultimately sociocultural. Indeed, no man thought in this way until recently: that he would marry and have children was practically a given, and not conditional on ridiculous height, fitness, and salary requirements that disqualify almost all men. 'He must be six-foot tall and have a six pack and earn a six-figure salary! 666!'