That's why I focus on purely systemic arguments. The humans in the system are abstract. It doesn't matter if they are moral or not, they respond to systemic incentives. So if they're acting immorally according to you, why is the system incentivizing degenerate behavior instead of moral behavior?

Can you entertain the idea that someone several orders of magnitude more powerful than 1995 Bill Gates might have more effective control over the government?

> There's an overlap in the venn diagram, sure. But it's much smaller than what you think it is.

If the overlap is small, you'll have to explain why there are no major left wing manosphere personalities. Everyone on the left I know and follow who are fighting for men's rights and fighting misandry (a fight I've joined) does not consider themselves "in the manosphere".

> They are not competent or resourceful enough to take control of a government.

They definitely have resources -- more than a few billionaires were responsible for that.

But taking over the government, apparently, does not require competence. All it takes is a thirst for violence, a willingness to break the law and constitution, the backing of major corporations and the richest person in the world, and for enough good people to do nothing.

The capitalism you grew up with is dead, the arguments for and against it are old and stale. That nature of what it is has changed. It's metastasized, devolved into something else entirely as the middle class is evaporating, the lower class is continually squeezed, billionaires become trillionaires, people are lighting warehouses on fire citing low wages as the proximal cause, and the President is ordering automatic SS registration as he threatens total civilization destruction.

This shit is not working and it's only going to get worse.

The men in his cabinet like Hegseth and Kennedy try to appeal to the testosterone laden (and deficient) crowd. Women like Bondi and Noem also tried their best manosphere impression, but of course in classic manosphere fashion, both women were booted out of the cabinet first.

To the extent that the military believes, as its leader does, that they are not operating under "stupid" rules of engagement, and their purpose is "maximum lethality" with a policy of "no quarter" for adversaries, the US Military is currently a defacto manosphere army.

In your view, what would a manosphere leader legitimately challenging an incumbent government apparatus look like?

Imagine saying that about, I dunno, the field of computing.

Elon Musk takes effective control of government functions by bribing incoming President, uses power to close investigations into his driverless car technology that is currently running amok on city streets causing death and destruction: not technology related, off topic and uninteresting. Downvote and flag.