Colttaine, Joker

Correct.

Sandman

Incorrect. I think I watched one of his Odysee videos in its entirety, but found his content unappealing. In the case that this might be a false memory, I just watched one of his latest videos (one that was not about memes like his latest videos overwhelmingly seem to be) and similarly found it unappealing.

In America, the average woman wasn't even voting Leftward of the average man until the 1980s when they finally converged before diverging in the opposite direction. For the overwhelming majority of American history, men were the ones pushing Leftist and liberal views, while women were comparatively conservative. Eventually, centuries of the compounded mistakes of men have led to the current state of women. Women have been the greater let-down to the American 'Right' for only forty years.

Even today, they are not always the greater let-down. In my country, they now support the civic 'nationalists' (the furthest Right you can legally be in this country) more than men do. Men are again the disappointment by refusing to shift Rightward right when women are showing signs of a substantially Rightward shift. I wonder: What are we men doing letting women down yet again?

Has it not occurred to you that were it not for the likes of Charles Fourier, John Stuart Mill, and 'Ashley Montagu' (Israel Ehrenburg), those myriad later hags whom we nowadays associate with feminist literature and thought would only have come around much later, if at all?

Degenerate, weak men have always been the problem. The woman problem is merely a reflection of an underlying man problem: in typical structuralist fashion (the only difference, coupled with Right rather than Left politics), I think it clear that women simply reflect the men around them. Their voting patterns throughout history - and, in my country, today - demonstrate that men are the problem. That the earliest feminist authors were were often men further demonstrate that men are the problem. Women do not shape the world, only men do. They win what men allow them to win.

A New Social Order that brings about anti-'Enlightenment' transformative sociocultural change - one run by the 'tradcucks' that he bemoans - is the only solution. Without that, only extinction lies ahead. What Sandman advocates in his video is not transformative, not counter-revolutionary, it is purely alterative: namely, we just need artificial wombs and other technologies - the stuff of Uncle Ted's greatest nightmares - to disempower women by means of technology.

Using language feminists and consumerists would equally understand and find threatening: We choose Gilead or we choose extinction. There is no room for the American, 'Enlightened' worldview in that future.

different beliefs that make it up

Do you mean to say that the brothers Tate and all those others that I have mentioned are in some way unrepresentative of a 'true' Manosphere? If so, why is it that the overwhelming majority of people who buy into these ideas follow such men whilst those men whose names you have rattled off are indeed obscure even to more intellectual persons? I mentioned Andrew Kibe and 'El Temach' as examples of obscure influencers, but the people that you mention are even more obscure than them, indeed, even more obscure than someone like 'Androgenic' (one of Clavicular's 'friends' and fellow content creators, and much more obscure than Clavicular, Kibe, and El Temach).

How can it be that the people who are representative of the 'true' Manosphere are these largely nameless and faceless men, while the named, widely recognized men are somehow representative only of a 'false' Manosphere? The Manosphere is overwhelmingly the men that I mentioned, not those that you have mentioned. Likewise, the Manosphere's base overwhelmingly follows the men that I mentioned, not those that you have mentioned.

Yes, Sandman is more articulate than those prominent ones mentioned, and likely a better man, but I don't see him as making radically different talking points to the Tates, such that someone who hates the Tates will still find his worldview appealing.

That's like a Nazi telling a Leftist: 'Look, I know that you don't like the brothers Strasser, nor Julius Streicher, but I assure you that Adolf Hitler is different enough that you will find plenty to like if you will just listen to him.'

I don't need to listen to every Manosphere content creator to know what these people stand for. The term obviously refers to a cluster of people united by fundamental beliefs (even if, outside of said beliefs, they may wildly differ on more peripheral things, similar to the Dissident Right), and their beliefs strike me as simply a mixture of inverted feminism (feminism creates these people, these people, in turn, create more feminists, in a perfectly symbiotic way); acquisitive materialism; controversialism; and, at times, even an animalistic and instinctual worldview - 'I Grug, I compete with other Grugs over shiny cars and women' - that harkens back to a time, perhaps a pre-tribal natural state, before man even began to reason or build societies.

You charge me with only knowing what these people's enemies say about them. I charge you, in turn, with willfully ignoring the very big fish to selectively present several comparatively optical, sanitized, irrelevant small fries to paint a curated, false reality.