It’s PLEDGE DRIVE time again! If you’re a fan of this blog, please help fund its continued existence by clicking the button below. THANKS!
By David Futrelle
In 1941, writer Dorothy Thompson invented what she described as “an interesting and somewhat macabre parlor game” called “Who Goes Nazi?” The idea was simple: the next time you’re at a party, or some other social gathering, take a look at those around you and try to guess which ones would, “in a showdown … go Nazi.”
You don’t do this out loud, of course, unless you really want to be punched.
The game feels as relevant at this point in history as it was when Thompson wrote her classic Harper’s essay explaining the rules of the game and offering a series of descriptions of the assorted social types she thought would (or most definitely would not) turn into literal Nazis when the chips were down — from the bank vice president who “has risen beyond his real abilities by virtue of health, good looks, and being a good mixer” (definitely a Nazi in embryo) to the downwardly mobile editor who manages to be intellectual without being a snob about it, about whom Thompson remarks that she “will put my hand in the fire that nothing on earth could ever make him a Nazi.”
Thompson’s portraits of these assorted social types, and her theories about who would and wouldn’t go Nazi, are a little too pat for my tastes; she basically thinks that nice people are immune to Nazism while mean and bitter types are drawn to it like moths to a lamp.
“Kind, good, happy, gentlemanly, secure people never go Nazi,” she wrote.
They may be the gentle philosopher whose name is in the Blue Book, or Bill from City College to whom democracy gave a chance to design airplanes—you’ll never make Nazis out of them. But the frustrated and humiliated intellectual, the rich and scared speculator, the spoiled son, the labor tyrant, the fellow who has achieved success by smelling out the wind of success—they would all go Nazi in a crisis.
Not far from the truth, I think, just a little oversimplified.
Still, the game itself is genius.
Over the last couple of years, for obvious reasons, Thompson’s article has been resurrected and passed around on social media, and several writers have proposed modern updates of her famous game, from the “office edition” to one focused on media figures. The only trouble with playing the game now is that so many of those who would have gone gone Nazi in Thompson’s day already have, in ours.
While the original game is still worth playing, let me propose an alternate version that might be even more entertaining for readers of this blog: Who Goes Red Pill?
Think of the various people you’ve recently met — in real life or online — and try to figure out who among them is most likely to embrace the toxic misogynistic ideology that unites the otherwise disparate groups that make up the manosphere, from MRAs to MGTOWS to incels to PUAs. What personality traits do they exhibit? What behaviors are obvious (or not-so-obvious) tells?
Are they NiceGuys (TM) stewing in aggrieved entitlement? Do they like South Park maybe a little bit too much? Do they get suspiciously angry about female superheroes? Are they fans of Pewdiepie, or Joe Rogan, or Jordan Peterson? Do they complain that women are sexually harassing them by wearing yoga pants? Do they know more than Chris Hansen does about age-of-consent laws? Do they describe themselves as “equity feminists” or “egalitarians?”
The game is a little trickier than it might at first appear. Some of these Jordan-Peterson-loving NiceGuys have already swallowed the Red Pill (and sometimes have even embraced the even more nilhilistic Black Pill), thus disqualifying them as candidates for the game.
Others may exhibit several seemingly obvious tells — but their flirtation with the Red Pill may end up being little more than a passing phase. I’m not sure I quite understand just what makes one person a Red-Pill-swallower and another a Red-Pill-spitter-outer. But maybe you do.
Share your own thoughts below as to what personality types you think are most drawn to the Red Pill (or to Nazism, if you’d prefer to play the original version). Let the games begin!
It never fails to annoy me when dudes like iron cthulu act like sexual or romantic frustration is an issue only for men. That issue is pretty damn universal, and no, it is not a political issue that needs solving on a systemic level when men can’t get laid, or get dumped or whatever.
Yes!!! Funny though that when a *woman* as an individual exercises agency to DO something about that issue in her life and exchange frustration for fulfillment and doesn’t act entitled about it (because she’s without the power to act entitled anyway) THEN I’m sooooo mean and uncaring and such a slut and not a good friend blah blah blah. Only about 1 in 100 guys I see are physically attractive to me but I used my creativity to find my way to one.
Thus making men generally pathetic.
@StaceySmartyPantsTwiceRemoved
Good for you. If only more people could be so creative to get what they want without harming others in the process.
Of course, when it comes to angry misogynists I shudder to think what “creativity” would mean for them. Maybe it would mean what Heartiste said, which ranged from idiotic to abusive.
Then again, as shown time and time again, conservatives are not very good at originality or creativity.
@Naflgar
Thank you! My BDSM group isn’t exclusively femdom but we’re more oriented to that and we like that the group is more about the women and what we want rather than the kind that really just caters to men’s fetishes without it being mutual (like some pro dommes I guess. And I apologize if I sound like I’m shaming women who choose that area of sexwork and don’t mean to). So in our group the only cis guys not part of a couple allowed in have to be *hot* by the women’s standards. (Fuck any incels who think that’s not faaaaaaiiiiir.) But cishet guys who are physically attractive enough and also kind and masculine are really really rare so it’s not like I just walk in and they’re lined up. And to be allowed to take one as a slave I have to meet qualifications that take effort like designing outfits and knowing about a real whip and safety and writing scenes that are like little one act plays. I mean I LOVE it but the fulfillment isn’t just handed to me which is what whiner incels and PUA creeps say happens for women.
They’re impeaching him now.
Majority of House members vote for first article of impeachment
A majority of House members have now voted “yes” on the first article of impeachment, but it is not official until the end of the vote is called.
The vote is currently 219-164.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2019/dec/18/trump-impeachment-vote-today-live-latest-news-updates-democrats-house
Trump becomes third president in US history to be impeached
The House has passed the first article of impeachment against Trump, abuse of power, by a vote of 230-197.
Donald Trump is officially the third president in US history to be impeached by the House.
The members will now move on to the second article of impeachment, which is obstruction of Congress.
@Surplus
I know, and future generations will know that Donald Trump was impeached. They will also know that the Republicans were spineless, with not a one of them breaking party formation (with the exception of Justin Amash, who left the party beforehand).
Maybe they’ll even know that Tulsi Gabbard voted “present” rather than voting to impeach. More evidence that Gabbard is gearing up to be a spoiler candidate.
Second article of impeachment passes
The House has now passed the second article of impeachment, which is obstruction of Congress. The final vote was 229-198, with only Democratic congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard voting “present.”
Trump has been impeached on both abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, and the two articles will now taken up by the Senate in a trial to determine whether he should be removed from office.
It is widely expected the president will be acquitted by the Republican-controlled Senate, but the importance of this moment cannot be understated.
A majority of the House of representatives has declared that Trump has abused his power and obstructed Congress, and he will go down in history as only the third US president to ever be impeached.
@Surplus
If I didn’t already think Tulsi Gabbard was preparing to run as a spoiler to re-elect Trump, I would now. She refused to vote because she thought it was too “tribal” and “partisan.” Between her endorsement of Narendra Modi, her anti-LGBTQIPA+ work, her appearances on Tucker Carlson’s white nationalist show, and now this, it’s pretty obvious what she’s actually doing.
@Surplus
Both Trump and the GOP in both parts of Congress has gone berserk now. I almost expect a civil war to break out regardless of the outcome.
I’ll be looking into bunkers if anybody needs me.
If I didn’t already think Tulsi Gabbard was preparing to run as a spoiler to re-elect Trump, I would now.
It’s fair to dislike her (I don’t really like her, though like Yang I think she sometimes brings an interesting perspective to the table), but she’s not going to do this. She’s trying to position herself as a new kind of Democrat, though I admit I’m not quite clear on the details. Maybe the Congressional equivalent of the anti-woke left? We’ll see.
@Aaron
Maybe she isn’t, but I think she’s seriously harming the party, has a sketchy history, and might be doing the harm deliberately. I mean, she hangs with Tucker Carlson more than any liberal media and she openly attacks various further left individuals.
@Aaron
Bullshit. Clinton’s* “Third Way” crap is a huge part of how we got here to beggin with, and Gabbard’s horseshit isn’t any newer now than his was then.
*President Clinton, though Hillary was certainly an advocate for it at the time and hasn’t changed positions significantly since then.
Er, what? First of all, I’m not endorsing Gabbard’s politics, only noting something she is trying to do.
Secondly, Gabbard may be many things, but she is sure as hell not synonymous with the Clintons, except insofar as she’s trying to establish a different kind of politics on the national stage. But so is Bernie Sanders. And so was Trump.
What she’s trying to do is kiss up to white supremacists, as Naglfar pointed out.
Trying to be a “new kind of Democrat” who works with Republicans to pass Republican legislation is what Clinton did. That’s what you’re saying Gabbard is doing. Thus the comparison.
,
Except that she’s doing no such thing; she’s bringing nothing to the table that hasn’t been there for decades.
An FDR-style populist without Roosevelt’s political clout and savvy. Not actually new.
.
In what way? Trump is Nixon, but louder and more petty.
@Yutolia
Jesus Christ that was uncalled for. Merry Christmas to you too.
@Viscaria
A man is left penniless, living out of his car, and unable to see his children anymore because the family court fucked him over.
Besides the point for the purposes of this post. It’s one of the things that causes men to take the redpill. That was the question I was answering.
@Naglfar
You understand that words aren’t always used literally right? Like the phrase “I’m gonna kill him” doesn’t actually mean you intend to commit murder? You should understand that the word “rape” in this context means to royally fuck someone over.
@Weird
Again, I was answering a question about who it is that goes redpill. It doesn’t matter if you think the reasons are justified ones. Irrelevant.
@StaceySmartyPantsTwiceRemoved
Hi Stacey! Wow you’re reading an awful lot into my post.
Who’s saying it’s your problem? I was answering a question about who goes redpill. You’re being obtuse.
I don’t know what you look like so I couldn’t say.
@Weird
I’m talking about those who DO.
None of this has anything to do with my post. I’m talking about what makes people adopt the redpill ideology. It’s a system of beliefs about how the world works. What they do as a result of adopting those beliefs is a separate issue.
@weirwoodtreehugger
Did I act like that?
Oh, please. Nobody uses the term “divorce rape” other than manurespherians. If you were speaking from a non misogyny sympathetic position, you’d have said something more along the lines of “men who’ve gone through a difficult divorce.”
Yes. See above.
I’m not new here, bub. Don’t even bother trying.
@IronCthulhu
Divorce isn’t rape dingus; and trying force blatant and deliberate false equivalence is to trivialize actual rape itself.
Divorce is Divorce. Rape is Rape.
Even if, supposedly, a man is left penniless, living out of his car, and unable to see his children anymore because the family court, as you so put it “fucked him over”; all it is a Divorce.
Rape is a term to response to an unwanted and non-consensual sex act.
A divorce is the legal closure of marriage.
Because news flash: words mean things; and you and your ilk are turning words into prolapsed additives devoid of actual meaning.
Thing is though that you and your ilk refuse to admit is that:
a.) men typically do much better financially after a divorce as opposed to women mostly because men often continue to work and don’t have as many costs, whereas in contrast women who don’t start working suffer financial penalties)…
…and b.) comparing losing an arbitrary amount of money, and child visitation hurdles to an actual sexual assault is a fucking terrible and intellectually dishonest thing to do.
Besides, aren’t you Manosphere types also alwyas the ones saying how you guys hate paying child support and alimony for these kids you supposedly want to see yet don’t want to actually care for and want to force women to have when you don’t want to take responsibility to care for those kids you had a hand in making and had the easy and safer part of the job in making in the first place?
The intellectual dishonesty and bad faith coming from you is palpable.
Lmao, he really thinks he did something, there.
@IronCthulhu
Saying “not my problem” is a figurative way to say it’s not the problem of any particular woman or women in general that a man experienced romantic or sexual frustration (meaning that’s no justification from him or anyone holding harmful ideas like redpill ideas.
Because, like YOU say in your spainly way
So figurative language should be ok.
Sooooo lucky you could explain to me that not all language has to be literal!
@IronCthulhu
I’m sorry but you can only use the words divorce rape if the divorce leaves you with a bleeding asshole and a bitemark taken out of your skin like my rape did to me. If it doesn’t maybe don’t use it then
Because obviously whether or not leering is ok depends on whether I meet your beauty standard.
If you had ANY idea how idiotic you are for going down the road of whose beauty standards and body type standards I might happen to meet and way exceed (even though I don’t care about them but look the way I do because of what *I* happen to fucking want myself)
Well, of course. Not completely new. (I think Sanders’ approach is actually quite a bit different from FDR’s, but I agree that there are also some similarities.) But a politics that hasn’t been seen on the national level in a long time, and which is out of joint with, or even to some degree opposed to, both major party establishments.
Eh. First of all, no, I did not say that. What I said was that I’m not entirely sure what sort of politician Gabbard is trying to be. It’s true that she seems at least somewhat sympathetic to some Republican ideas.
But she also supported Bernie Sanders in 2016, and has repeatedly expressed admiration for him over the past four years or so – hardly something a Clintonian “triangulator” would do. And in her foreign policy she is an isolationist, which goes against the orthodoxy in both parties. (Though admittedly under Trump the GOP has become somewhat less interventionist.)
An isolationist Democrat who supported Sanders in 2016, but hangs out on Fox News and has a (somewhat, relatively speaking) socially conservative record? I don’t know. Again, nothing is completely new, but that seems pretty idiosyncratic to me.
So again: her views are eclectic, and at this point I don’t have a strong read on exactly what her endgame is. But it’s not particularly helpful to align her with the “Third Way” because she, like, agrees with the GOP about some stuff.