Friday, May 24, 2013

Nihilists vs Civilizationists

It's been interesting to see the blog comments devolve into a sort of petty war between what appears to be some flavor of MGTOW on one hand and a loose alliance of pro-male married women and traditionalist men on the other.  Based on some comments I've received from some leading Game bloggers, this dynamic has appeared on other blogs as well.

To a certain extent, it is something that was always inevitable.  To give one example, whereas Roissy and I obviously respect each other despite our different purposes, those who incline more towards his "fiddle while Rome burns" perspective are considerably less able to view those differences in the abstract than Roissy, while those who are more focused on saving civilization from itself, (or at least preserving the seeds of civilization as the fire sweeps through the forest), are considerably less able to view the fiddlers with the same sort of equanimity that I am.

What both camps have in common is a diagnosis. Where they differ is the prescription. This is why they are not functional allies in the long term.  Their immediate objectives and priorities have nothing in common and  their perspectives are fundamentally different. However, it should be kept in mind that neither side created the problem to which both are reacting, and it should be recognized that both have important roles to play before the course plays itself out.

It is the MGTOW who will ultimately destroy the Female Imperative society by removing its foundations.  The traditionalists tend to allay the destructive effects of the irrational while the hedonists exacerbate them.  This is why the MGTOW incorrectly tend to look on the traditionalists as white knights and useful idiots in the service of the Female Imperative.  They erroneously conflate the traditionalists who are simply doing what they have always done with the feminized Church and the female-biased State.

By withdrawing their services, their seed, their paternal support, and their economic surplus from the women and children of society, they render that society unsustainable.  They are responding rationally to the disincentives which that society has presented them. Theirs is a perfectly legitimate response to a society gone mad.  More than that, their response is a necessary one, it is part of the pendulum swing that is required before society can return to sanity and stability.

However, the hedonistic, self-centered MGTOW will never be able to build anything lasting or replace the society which they quite rightly hate.  They must rely upon the civilizationists to do that; without the traditionalists still stubbornly working, marrying, and having children despite all of the societal disincentives for doing so, there will be no eventual recovery from the chaotic, barbaric morass into which the equalitarian-corrupted West is rapidly sliding.

This is why the accusations of lotus-eating on the one hand and white-knighting on the other are both misplaced and ill-considered.  Both nihilists and civilizationists are necessary to the process of first destroying, and then replacing, FI society. One need not agree with the other to respect and understand his - or her - role in the necessary, desirable, and, I would argue, inevitable, process.

353 comments:

1 – 200 of 353   Newer›   Newest»
Jack Amok said...

By withdrawing their services, their seed, their paternal support, and their economic surplus from the women and children of society, they render that society unsustainable.

This is where I disagree Vox. They aren't rendering that society unsustainable. It's already unsustainable, with or without them. That whole charade is coming down whether MGTOW or not. Legions of White Knights can't stop it, and legions of MGTOW can't hasten it.

But anyway, I was pondering the different reactions too. Specifically, Nate's comment "Fucking Gammas" made me think. I felt the same thing, something I'd register as not exactly frustration or disgust, but made of a little of each. Exasperation maybe.

And there you were, Mr. Equanimity. Or perhaps just Mr. Too Busy to comment, not sure which.

I think it's the difference between Sigma and Alpha. Sigmas are outside and can view the turmoil with some detached interest. Alphas are supposed to provide some leadership though, and so have a reaction akin to "I'm supposed to make something out of these misfits? This is what I have to work with? Bloody hell I've got to shape these sad sacks up."

Ultimately, I think MGTOW can be a useful first step for a man though. Certainly better than continuing to beat his head against a brick wall. But it's not a solution itself, there has to be something beyond it. So good for anyone if they've realized it's a sucker's game and don't want to play. But there's another step still to take. Nobody gets full credit until they take it.

And remember I'm an engineer, so, there's no partial credit in my world. The bridge stands up, or the bridge falls down. And lordy, one fell down not too far from me tonight.


Anonymous said...

Well said, Vox. I have no problem with civilizationists doing what they want to do and what they feel is right. They are 'fighting the good fight' according to their principles, and more power to them for that. What I and many other MGTOW seem to have a problem with is when the traditionalists try to shame others into becoming their cannon fodder in complete disregard for the risks, to which I can only give a huge razzberry and a hearty "Fuck You."

Alphas are supposed to provide some leadership though, and so have a reaction akin to "I'm supposed to make something out of these misfits? This is what I have to work with? Bloody hell I've got to shape these sad sacks up."

lmfao. Jack, you're no alpha. You're a scared delta or beta at best.

Apollo said...

@Jack Amok

You could say that thing are currently unsustainable partly because men have already started to go their own way. And you could also say that things are going to crash a lot sooner and the crash is going to be a lot more significant and the process of rebuilding is going to be a lot different if more men GTOW than if they dont.


Civilisation needs mens active involvement, and thats only going to happen if men are incentivised to be involved. And what better way to make this clear to everyone than by providing an opportunity for them to see first hand how men react when the proper incentives are not present. I think its a necessary lesson so that when its time to rebuild, things get rebuilt right.

Anonymous said...

Laughable, you might as well try to put chains back on blacks. It's not going to happen. Women have tasted freedom and they won't go back to chains willingly. The only survival is through adaptation, and before its all through, the mgtows and the traditionalists will have been ground down under the wheels. The old order will burn and a new one will rise. Game is the way forward. Despite his affected hedonism Roissy longs for the old order. He would rather have patriarchy, romance and the blue pill than the stark truth of the red pill. He's still fighting to keep it down, which is why his posts are laced with bitterness. His dream of Rome burning while he lounges like Nostradamus poolside is just a fantasy. Things will change for sure,especially some fundamental structures like the traditional family unit, but new structures will form. It will mostly be a grind, for him as well.

Roundtine said...

When all is said and done and order is restored, if a "Roissy" is still around (quite possibly no one living today will see this day), he will be hung from the nearest lamp post. In the meantime, I wish him Godspeed.

Toby Temple said...

Fucking anonymous bitches....

On topic..

Despite being necessary, the Nihilists will dwindle while the Civilizationists will thrive.

The true useful idiots are the Nihilists since they are the once that provide the insidious and hard reality check for the FI crowd.

Adaptation does not necessarily mean evolution. It can be devolution or the downright abandonment of what is considered "modern" for what is considered "primitive" or "barbaric" due to necessity.

Jack Amok said...

Civilisation needs mens active involvement, and thats only going to happen if men are incentivised to be involved. And what better way to make this clear to everyone than by providing an opportunity for them to see first hand how men react when the proper incentives are not present. I think its a necessary lesson so that when its time to rebuild, things get rebuilt right.

Absolutely, civilization needs men involved, but...

ours is so screwed up that even when men try to make it work their efforts are wasted. That's why I don't think MGTOW is actually making a difference. Go your own way or do the job assigned to you by the Matriarchy, either way nothing productive is going to happen. That's the cosmic irony of it all - playing the game they want you to play doesn't even get them what they want. Crazy Spinster Cat Ladies aren't bitter and lonely because men suddenly started going their own way and refusing to marry them. They're bitter and lonely because they proactively ran off all the men who were interested in them. Hell, even when they had husbands, they were generally bitter and lonely. Feminists make themselves miserable. It has nothing to do with how much support men are giving them If anything, a marriage strike gives them something else to blame it on besides their own unpleasant personalities.

As far as the economy, a feminist-dominated economy isn't going to be functionally different than an economy where all the men have checked out and are home playing XOBX. It doesn't matter whether men are working or not, when the economy is restricted in the way ours is, nothing very useful is going to get done.

None of the trends in decreased economic productivity, family formation, or social cohesion started with men refusing to participate. They started with men refusing to lead. Participation isn't meaningful. Leadership is.

100 sheep led by a lion will beat 100 lions led by a sheep.

Or 50 lions led by a sheep. Or 300. The number of lions don't matter if the sheep is in charge.

Don't worry about whether you're adding to the sheep's army. It's not going to win anyway.

Figure out how you can join the army led by the lion.


Apollo said...

@Toby Temple

Despite being necessary, the Nihilists will dwindle while the Civilizationists will thrive.

if youre referring to reproduction here, then yes, Nihilists certainly will dwindle, you certainly cant build a society with them. Although, from their perspective, this is a moot point as they probably wont care too much what happens after they are gone, and they will at least have a better chance at enjoying their life without the added stresses of being responsible for maintaining civilisation.

The true useful idiots are the Nihilists since they are the once that provide the insidious and hard reality check for the FI crowd.

Not following you, how exactly will "Nihilists" act as useful idiots?

Apollo said...

@Jack Amok

I think it all makes a difference.
The type of men who might be willing to lead and generate real economic growth if they saw the benefit in it but chose not to because of a lack of incentive would have the biggest impact obviously. But there are also lots of follower men who in different circumstances might be contributing to the tax base, working in their community and raising good future citizens who now just... wont. A society needs worker bees too dont forget.

SarahsDaughter said...

By withdrawing their services, their seed, their paternal support, and their economic surplus from the women and children of society, they render that society unsustainable.

The blue pill gamma was GHOW too, he was not chosen by the women he was attracted to. He was never contributing his seed or paternal support. There is no difference with the red pill gamma, except perhaps some economic surplus - yet even then, they still get taxed first before buying their x-box games. The red pill gamma, however instead of being content GHOW has found his way into the comment sections of multiple blogs to sit and blather about how he's GHOW. The worst ones being the Christian MGTOWs who are proselytizing against marriage. The ones with turrets who must.blurt.out.how.evil.woman.are (See Mack PUA) are easy enough to laugh at.

This new creation of late I've found quite amusing. It's the Sharia MGTOW - "Woman, know your place." - As all the women bust a gut laughing at these bitter rejects.

Anonymous said...

Jack, a feminist economy *is* one that runs off all the men. They do not need to marry the man who repairs the generator, or the man who mines the coal that fuels it. They just need them to do the job that keeps the lights on. However, the only reason the men are mining and maintaining is to support a wife. If they realize that no wife is forthcoming, why not work as a paper pusher or a waiter instead of doing something productive. They can make a comfortable pad to live and sleep, and play games or read books. No risk of life or limb in a mine or a turbine, just peace and quiet. The men could sustain it, because most of the truly vital tasks are in areas where women have no interest. Without a valid reason for the effort they put in the system, they stop offering.

If in a healthy system, x is the amount of workers in a vital position for maximum efficiency and the pool of workers equals y, when a is the number of operating workers and b is the number of workers abstaining, b needs to be as close to zero as possible, or y needs to increase, which increases x. If you increase b, the system becomes less efficient, and it becomes a downward spiral when y equals a plus b, and only a can increase y, which increases x. Basically, x minus a must be zero or less for best results. The more you increase the result, the worse things get.

The Shadowed Knight

Toby Temple said...

Although, from their perspective,..

Irrelevant. A lot of losers think that they won.

Not following you, how exactly will "Nihilists" act as useful idiots?

They provide part of the harsh reality check that will wake up some, if not all, of those in the FI crowd.

Civilizationists are generally inept in doing this.

VD said...

The blue pill gamma was GHOW too, he was not chosen by the women he was attracted to. He was never contributing his seed or paternal support. There is no difference with the red pill gamma, except perhaps some economic surplus - yet even then, they still get taxed first before buying their x-box games.

You're wrong. Gammas often ended up with women retiring from the carousel. They're much less inclined to do that anymore. Moreover, not all MGTOW are gammas, but are deltas and betas as well.

The difference is that the delta or beta isn't posting angrily on blogs, he's simply not marrying the woman with whom he is living. MGTOW is a gradient.

This new creation of late I've found quite amusing. It's the Sharia MGTOW - "Woman, know your place." - As all the women bust a gut laughing at these bitter rejects.

And this is supposed to be support for the pro-male, pro-civilization position? When you are openly aligning yourself with the Jezebelles and other feminists.

Sharia, or some Western form of it, is a real risk. History is clear. If women will not be complicit in civilization, they will be broken to it.

Anonymous said...

Increasing the alpha threshold causes men who would be betas or deltas to become the new gamma or omega. By tearing their positions down, you remove normally productive family men from the pool. The artificial increase in and change of metrics of the alpha threshold is making a mockery of the SMP. No, the gammas and omegas are not doing anything different. The former betas and deltas are changing. Dropping down the SSH because they had their legs cut out from underneath them turned them into marginally productive, disinterested actors in a play, who do not care about the audience. In a sort of inverted apex fallacy, the focus is on the lowest, smallest section, instead of the most common sections. No one cares about gammas because they are miniscule in number and diminutive in effect. Watch out for the betas and deltas; they are the backbone of the system.

The Shadowed Knight

Markku said...

MGTOW is looking even more attractive if it puts me on the opposing team to SD.

Apollo said...

Irrelevant. A lot of losers think that they won.

Pretty relevant to them Id imagine, as well as to anyone else who is trying to understand this phenomenon, and why these people act the way they do. To a civilisation builder, not reproducing makes them a loser, but the nihilist doesnt care about what happens after he dies, he cares about maximising his utility in this life. To him, slaving his life away for the benefit of others without getting proper recompense is "losing".

They provide part of the harsh reality check that will wake up some, if not all, of those in the FI crowd.

Civilizationists are generally inept in doing this.


Ok, i was hoping for a little bit more than for you to just repeat yourself here. Let me restate what I believe youre saying and you can correct me if I misinterpret. Youre suggesting that Nihilists act as useful idiots by, I assume, acting as a cautionary tale for those in the "FI crowd" (Forget It?) who Ill again assume are apathetic, lazy people who might be future nihilists?

The problem I have here is that this doesnt seem to fit the definition of useful idiot, which is someone who unknowingly furthers the agenda or goals of some external agent, often a manipulator.

ar10308 said...

SD,

"It's the Sharia MGTOW - "Woman, know your place." - As all the women bust a gut laughing at these bitter rejects."

http://alphagameplan.blogspot.com/2013/05/be-strong-horse.html

Seems to me that Sharia generates the tingles.

I suppose that's what you, Carolotta and Sigyn feeling for me...

SarahsDaughter said...

You're wrong. Gammas often ended up with women retiring from the carousel. They're much less inclined to do that anymore.

Okay, this makes sense.

The difference is that the delta or beta isn't posting angrily on blogs

Which must be why I've, perhaps mistakenly, believed most MGTOWs to be gammas.

And this is supposed to be support for the pro-male, pro-civilization position? When you are openly aligning yourself with the Jezebelles and other feminists.

It absolutely is support for the pro-male, pro-civilization position. I am not aligning myself with the Jezebelles and other feminists, the "woman, know your place" mentality is proving the feminist position. It is not possible for pro-civilization minded women to submit to men whose message and morality is so fundamentally different than their husband's and Christianity.

Women who have come to understand their nature and the inherent failings of feminism are choosing to speak out and help other women to understand it as well. Having this message drown out by the wailing of "know your place" men is not helpful, thus your accurate assessment that we are not functional allies.

There is an insistence here (by the gammas) that anytime a man agrees with a woman, he is a white knight. So women do what they must to defend their own position. When told to "know your place" is it your position that she should succumb to said gamma? This would distinguish her as not being a jezebel or a feminist?

Is it your preference that women do not contribute on these subjects here? By all means, if it is, I'll oblige.


Toby Temple said...

Pretty relevant to them...

Again, irrelevant.
This is not about perspectives. This is about what is.

To a civilisation builder, not reproducing makes them a loser, but the nihilist doesnt care about what happens after he dies, he cares about maximising his utility in this life. To him, slaving his life away for the benefit of others without getting proper recompense is "losing".

You err on how you define a Civilizationist.

Let us break it down:

Do you think an alpha can never be a Civilizationist and will always be a Nihilist?

Ok, i was hoping for a little bit more than for you to just repeat yourself here. Let me restate what I believe youre saying and you can correct me if I misinterpret. Youre suggesting that Nihilists act as useful idiots by, I assume, acting as a cautionary tale for those in the "FI crowd" (Forget It?) who Ill again assume are apathetic, lazy people who might be future nihilists?

You are wrong on everything. FI = Female Imperative

realmatt said...

What Would Chesty Do?

ar10308 said...

I think the attitude of most MGTOW is expressed well by Rorschach from the graphic novel/movie, The Watchmen.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARDhJ2dpuYU

"This city is afraid of me...I have seen its true face. The streets are extended gutters and the gutters are full of blood and when the drains finally scab over, all the vermin will drown. The accumulated filth of all their sex and murder will foam up about their waists and all the whores and politicians will look up and shout "Save us!"... and I'll look down and whisper "No." They had a choice, all of them. They could have followed in the footsteps of good men like my father or President Truman. Decent men who believed in a day's work for a day's pay. Instead they followed the droppings of lechers and communists and didn't realize that the trail led over a precipice until it was too late. Don't tell me they didn't have a choice. Now the whole world stands on the brink, staring down into bloody Hell, all those liberals and intellectuals and smooth-talkers... and all of a sudden nobody can think of anything to say."

VD said...

I am not aligning myself with the Jezebelles and other feminists, the "woman, know your place" mentality is proving the feminist position.

To which I recall your attention: "all the women bust a gut laughing at these bitter rejects."

When told to "know your place" is it your position that she should succumb to said gamma?

No. But do you similarly take Socrates's admonition "know thyself" to be succumbing to Socrates?

This would distinguish her as not being a jezebel or a feminist?

I have no idea what you're talking about here. The answer was no.

Is it your preference that women do not contribute on these subjects here?

Women are as welcome to comment here as men are. I do recommend that women try to avoid conventional female rhetorical tactics here, however, as they tend to be both distracting and ineffective.

Apollo said...

Again, irrelevant.
This is not about perspectives. This is about what is.


Thats just nonsense. The nihilists exist with us in society and their perspectives affect the decisions they make, and those decisions have impacts on those around them, e.g. us. Thats just as much a part of what is as anything else. Maybe in the future, once they are bred out of the population, them, and their perspectives wont matter, but we are not there yet. Here and now, its relevant.

You err on how you define a Civilisationist

The definition of a civilisationist Im using in that particular example is someone who considers one of their main goals in life to reproduce and who wants their society to be condusive to effectively raising those children, and providing them with the same opportunities when they reach adulthood. Some of these civilisationists could be alphas (although I dont see the relevance of that particular point here, or why you felt the need to focus on it)

That definition is entirely consistent with what I said above.

FI = Female Imperative

No wonder I didnt make the connection, in this context that makes even less sense than what I assumed you meant. How exactly are the "nihilists" unknowingly serving someone elses goals here? Some MGTOWs even state countering the Feminine Imperative as one of their own goals in going "on strike". You dont qualify as a useful idiot if you are knowingly achieving your own goals...

Desiderius said...

One the fever, the other, the cure.

Toby Temple said...

Thats just nonsense. The nihilists exist with us in society and their perspectives affect the decisions they make, and those decisions have impacts on those around them, e.g. us. Thats just as much a part of what is as anything else. Maybe in the future, once they are bred out of the population, them, and their perspectives wont matter, but we are not there yet. Here and now, its relevant

The civilizationist will survive without the nihilist. The nihilist needs the civilizationist.

As Vox stated, the hedonistic, self-centered MGTOW will never be able to build anything lasting or replace the society which they quite rightly hate.

Nihilists would win the battle from time to time, but they are losing the war.

Some of these civilisationists could be alphas (although I dont see the relevance of that particular point here, or why you felt the need to focus on it)

Correction: Some of the civilizationists ARE alphas. There will always be a leader.

This is how your definition of civilizationists fall short.

He is not always the worker. He is not always the slave.

No wonder I didnt make the connection, in this context that makes even less sense than what I assumed you meant. How exactly are the "nihilists" unknowingly serving someone elses goals here? Some MGTOWs even state countering the Feminine Imperative as one of their own goals in going "on strike". You dont qualify as a useful idiot if you are knowingly achieving your own goals.

The utter destructiveness of the lifestyle of the nihilist is quite a powerful testament on what society should strive against which effectively serves the goal of the civilizationists. And if the nihilism is shown to have been caused by the current society(FI society), it further serves the civilizationists.

SarahsDaughter said...

I'm sorry my laughter aligns me with the Jezebels and the feminists. Empathy is an attribute that often escapes me.

In Rollo's post, Consumer Confidence he states: "the nuts and bolts of being a man is to produce more than you consume."

In highlighting this post you state that this: "cuts to the core of what it is to be a man"

If this is true of the MGTOW:
By withdrawing their services, their seed, their paternal support, and their economic surplus from the women and children of society, they render that society unsustainable. They are responding rationally to the disincentives which that society has presented them. Theirs is a perfectly legitimate response to a society gone mad. More than that, their response is a necessary one, it is part of the pendulum swing that is required before society can return to sanity and stability.

And what Rollo defines as being a man is true, doesn't the recoil women and men, who agree with Rollo's definition, have towards the MGTOW make sense?

Of course, not agreeing with someone and contempt for them are two different things. And, I admit, I struggle with the latter. To know my place in discourse with a MGTOW, using this definition would be to equate knowing my place with someone less than a man.

I don't have contempt for children, perhaps using that perspective I might find empathy for the MGTOW.

ar10308 said...

All you fools calling yourselves "Civilizationists" need to look at the Drudge Report for 30seconds and then come back and explain to me why this "civilization" is worth saving and how exactly you plan to achieve that when everyone with money and power are actively working to subvert and replace you.


SD,
"In Rollo's post, Consumer Confidence he states: "the nuts and bolts of being a man is to produce more than you consume.""

How else can a MGHOW afford sports cars, guns, steak and beer and whiskey worth drinking?
Just because a MGHOW is not dumping money into a butthexted woman and her progeny doesn't mean he isn't producing more than he consumes.

Markku said...

All you fools calling yourselves "Civilizationists" need to look at the Drudge Report for 30seconds and then come back and explain to me why this "civilization" is worth saving and how exactly you plan to achieve that when everyone with money and power are actively working to subvert and replace you.

Exactly. There is not just one generic "civilization", but rather, we are talking about a specific civilization. The one you see on Drudge Report.

SarahsDaughter said...

If a single man can afford sports cars, guns, steak, beer and whiskey, his tax burden is large. He is then providing paternal support to the masses of butthexted women and her progeny. Unless he is gambling with not paying taxes, he is propping up the system he desires to crash.

whatever said...

We don't seem to like the evil and vile "civilizationists" even though they are "pretty nice guys" with a "point" who "built civilization". Few things. The animals built nothing. They aren't nice. They don't help. Let's look at their words:

"Thats just nonsense. The nihilists exist with us in society and their perspectives affect the decisions they make, and those decisions have impacts on those around them, e.g. us. Thats just as much a part of what is as anything else. Maybe in the future, once they are bred out of the population, them, and their perspectives wont matter, but we are not there yet. Here and now, its relevant"

So, they want us to die. In fact, anyone who can't get with the current insane program "should die". It is this kind of nuance, combined with their incessant shrieking that I need to pay their bills, that "builds" civilizations.

No. It isn't. It has never built any civilization. Infested civilizations? Sure. Plenty. Like rats.

Markku said...

I don't have contempt for children, perhaps using that perspective I might find empathy for the MGTOW.

Man up and marry the sluts. That's a novel approach.

Toby Temple said...

All you fools calling yourselves "Civilizationists" need to look at the Drudge Report for 30seconds and then come back and explain to me why this "civilization" is worth saving and how exactly you plan to achieve that when everyone with money and power are actively working to subvert and replace you.

Let us say no one saves "this" civilization. When it is completely destroyed, what happens next?

After the fall of Rome, did the west died with it?

whatever said...


Let us say no one saves "this" civilization. When it is completely destroyed, what happens next?

After the fall of Rome, did the west died with it?


Now, now. "Builders of Civilization" lack the intelligence to understand such complex thinking. That's what makes them "Builders of Civilization".

MrGreenMan said...

The following is for those who claim to be Christians:

SD (quoting Vox herself):
In Rollo's post, Consumer Confidence he states: "the nuts and bolts of being a man is to produce more than you consume."

In highlighting this post you state that this: "cuts to the core of what it is to be a man"


This starts to wander beyond the Biblical understanding of "Christian libertarians" and into the favorite subject of the secular feminist - defining and redefining masculinity into a Marxist frame.

I've heard feminists for all my life try to come up with their own definition of manhood because the classical Christian answer - son of Adam, created in God's image, slave to sin, freed and redeemed by Christ - is insufficient for a world and those who would reject Jesus Christ. (Women don't like to own daughter of Eve, created in God's image as a helpmeet for man, slave to sin, freed and redeemed by Christ, either.)

Did the Seventy sin when they went forth without money and relied on the Holy Spirit to provide? Were they not men?

See how Paul accepted donations as well as used the work of his own hands to pay his way, depending on the season. Was Paul not a man when he accepted the love offerings of his congregations?

Did Jesus sin by not continuing the carpentry business? Was the Son of God not a man during his ministry? Did Jesus sin by not having a wife and children? Heaven forbid you would conclude that.

Did Jesus not tell the rich man to sell it all, take up his cross, and thereby not become a net producer but a life-long witness?

When we send missionary men and we write them monthly support checks, do we make of them eunuchs worthy of your contempt and bitterness as children?

This definition of men as their economic role leads toward the feminist conceit that has a Marxist origin: people are only valued for the amount of tax revenue they provide the central government to play with. The sleight of hand of Christian feminism has been played - men are defined by their economic role, there is no male or female in Christ where we are all equal as sinners needing a savior, we shall be like the angels who are neither given nor take in marriage, therefore, women are also defined by their economic role; it relies on first accepting that men are first and foremost cogs of an economy.

It looks like we've got some Marxism that's crept in through its favorite flavor of the day, feminism.

I like western civilization a bunch; it has done marvelous things. It has done a lot of good. But, if it shall last a thousand years, or if it shall be replaced with a salt pillar tomorrow, it is the LORD's will. We know it will land on the ash heap of history at some point. Don't let yourself make an idol of it.

Markku said...

When it is completely destroyed, what happens next?

Then all that power structure that emasculated husbands is gone, and we start building civilization again, now that we have the tools for it. The true hedonists may have to hang from trees, as someone pointed out.

Many of us will be too old or too dead for it by then, but such is life.

Wendy said...

So, they want us to die. In fact, anyone who can't get with the current insane program "should die". It is this kind of nuance, combined with their incessant shrieking that I need to pay their bills, that "builds" civilizations.

Acknowledging that the MGTOW will die without passing on any genes isn't the same as wanting them to die or saying they should die. You're probably reading too much in there.

Apollo said...

The civilizationist will survive without the nihilist. The nihilist needs the civilizationist.

As Vox stated, the hedonistic, self-centered MGTOW will never be able to build anything lasting or replace the society which they quite rightly hate.

Nihilists would win the battle from time to time, but they are losing the war.


True as far as it goes, society cannot support multiple generations of "Nihilists", and they do require Civilisationists (or at least their civilisation to spend their life in) but how does any of that make the Nihilists or their perspectives irrelevant now, where they currently have what they need to survive?

You mention battles and wars, but if the war is surviving multiple generations, then youre still failing to understand that to the Nihilist, the battle is all there is. They dont care about what happens after they are gone, remember? The war can rage on without them... or not. Whichever.


Correction: Some of the civilizationists ARE alphas. There will always be a leader.

This is how your definition of civilizationists fall short.


Oh whatever, now youre just niggling over trivial semantics. What I meant was that any individual civilisationist could be an alpha, but not all of them are. So some civilisationists are alphas, leaders, all around top blokes and definitely not slaves. Not in dispute. (Although again, I still dont see why the issue of "Just how Alpha are those Civilisationists?" suddenly somehow became relevant.)

Just because I mentioned that not slaving away for others was a primary consideration for the nihilists doesnt necessarily imply that all civilisationists are slaves.

The utter destructiveness of the lifestyle of the nihilist is quite a powerful testament on what society should strive against which effectively serves the goal of the civilizationists. And if the nihilism is shown to have been caused by the current society(FI society), it further serves the civilizationists.

The nihilists do more damage to the civilisationists agenda than they provide benefit in this scenario, so useful idiot is probably not the right term. "Hey thanks for showing us the benefit of not being selfish guys, its just a shame you had to almost destroy our society to do it!". Its like a neighborhood youth demonstrating to you the benefit of having comprehensive car insurance by breaking all your windows. A term like cautionary tale (or similar) seems more appropriate.

Toby Temple said...

You mention battles and wars, but if the war is surviving multiple generations, then youre still failing to understand that to the Nihilist, the battle is all there is. They dont care about what happens after they are gone, remember? The war can rage on without them... or not. Whichever.

How many times must I say it? It is not about perspectives. It is not about what the nihilist nor the civilizationist perceives as the winning strategy. The only thing that matters to both is the end game.

For the nihilist, its death. For civilizationist, its rebirth.

The nihilists do more damage to the civilisationists agenda than they provide benefit in this scenario, so useful idiot is probably not the right term.

War is not won without sacrifices.

Apollo said...

@whatever

So, they want us to die. In fact, anyone who can't get with the current insane program "should die". It is this kind of nuance, combined with their incessant shrieking that I need to pay their bills, that "builds" civilizations.

Nope, not even close to what I meant. Never said anyone "should die" (despite your baffling and misleading quoting of that term), nor did I imply it. Your reading comprehension skills suck.

VD said...

I'm sorry my laughter aligns me with the Jezebels and the feminists. Empathy is an attribute that often escapes me.

Yes, because you're female. Women are solipsistic, not empathetic. Your behavior is entirely consistent with the theory of Game; despite your intellectual position of being pro-male, you still sneer scornfully at the lower ranking men while clinging proudly to your chosen man.

I invite you to think through your reaction to the embittered gammas. Unlike the cat ladies to whom you compare them, they never had a choice. They didn't choose their place in the hierarchy, it was assigned to them.

Let us say no one saves "this" civilization. When it is completely destroyed, what happens next?

No one will. Either it will be conquered by an existing one or a new one will arise from the ashes. It is my hope that the civilizationists will be able to aid in the latter task. The alternative will be a cruel, male-dominated, and aristocratic society.

Stickwick said...

All you fools calling yourselves "Civilizationists" need to look at the Drudge Report for 30seconds and then come back and explain to me why this "civilization" is worth saving and how exactly you plan to achieve that when everyone with money and power are actively working to subvert and replace you.

Being in favor of civilization doesn't necessarily mean being in favor of this so-called civilization. This civilization is not worth saving, even if it were possible. This civilization isn't even civilized; what we are seeing is a zombie civilization propelled by the momentum of what it was when it was alive. It will cease to exist one way or another.

I don't know either side of this 'petty war' well enough to determine the traditionalist position and whether the MGTOW have an entirely valid response to it, but it's not obvious to me that the traditionalists want to save this walking-dead civilization. Perhaps someone can clarify. Is it accurate to say that traditionalists want to preserve the worthwhile elements of the old, living civilization? You know, like monks working quietly in their enclaves to preserve ancient knowledge for future generations who would use it to build something great? If not, if traditionalists want to try to save the zombie and resurrect it, I can better understand the position of the MGTOW.

VD said...

And what Rollo defines as being a man is true, doesn't the recoil women and men, who agree with Rollo's definition, have towards the MGTOW make sense?

No. MGTOW produce what they need to consume. They are men who lack incentive to produce more.

You don't seem to understand that most men don't recoil from MGTOW. They understand, and to some extent, even admire them. Women recoil from them because they are rightly terrified of what will happen if all men go that way.

And so, like you, they resort to the same shaming tactics that work so well on themselves, and to which more and more men are increasingly immune.

Most men simply don't buy the "man up and do X" arguments from women anymore.

Nate said...

Please.

MGTOW not new or novel. there have always been self-centered navel gazing men that are unwilling to contribute.

In fact now we have whole generations of self-centered navel gazing couples that are unwilling to contribute.

Hard to imagine anyone even noticing the disaffected MTGOWs not contributing when the couples are contributing either.

The problem I have with the MTGOWs is not their willingness to check out though. I understand it completely. My problem is the fact that they are for the most part the gammas of the red pill world. Look at the perception of shit testing from their side. "Reality is mean! I don't like realty! Reality should change for me!"

MTGOW: The politics of Losers

whatever said...


Nope, not even close to what I meant. Never said anyone "should die" (despite your baffling and misleading quoting of that term), nor did I imply it. Your reading comprehension skills suck.


Oh that's not what you really meant! Your not like that! I'm just misinterpreting your all too clear madman raving!

No. I'm not. I got it just fine.

Nate said...

"lmfao. Jack, you're no alpha. You're a scared delta or beta at best."

He didn't say he was or wasn't sugar tits. He implied I am.

Anonymous said...

This is all ridiculous and will never come to fruition as long as the male libido continues to rage. Men are only cooperative when it is evidently self serving thus MGTOW will never gain enough traction to matter, and Christian fundamentalists will never be able to cull enough women for it to matter. Hedonists, with the given situation, are playing the most +EV script because I only see society getting more femcentric, or at the very least staying put.

Josh said...

In one sense, the traditionalist vs mgtow conflict reminds me of what Steve sailer has written about the Obama coalition vs Romney voters: the fringes vs the core.

ar10308 said...

Nate,
"Look at the perception of shit testing from their side. "Reality is mean! I don't like realty! Reality should change for me!"

MTGOW: The politics of Losers"


That's rather contradictory. MGTOW have acknowledged that in reality they will probably lose, but will live on their terms regardless.

Those that cannot accept reality are the Civilizationists that somehow rationalize that the underpinnings of civilization still exists.

MGTOW know they are on borrowed time and expect the collapse.

Anonymous said...

In addition to my last comment, if the male libido was all of a sudden diminished tomorrow it would take about a month before the world started to drastically change, but this is the most powerful male driving force in history, and it will continue to be, thus nothing will change.

Let's not forget who ignorantly sanctioned the feminist script and allowed women to gain power...men.

Toby Temple said...

MGTOW know they are on borrowed time and expect the collapse.

Much like Satan.

Nate is right. MTGOW: The politics of Losers

Nate said...

"Man up and marry the sluts. That's a novel approach."

This. This is why we mock MTGOW as gamma. MTGOW's almost never fail to come across as bitter losers in these threads. The "gamma" thing is entirely related to the fact that the whiney MTGOW bitches can't help but let their anger seep through.

Women aren't all sluts. They never were. There are literally millions of chicks out there that would make awesome wives for you people if you would grow a pair of balls and start acting like a man for once in your life.

And that's all game is.

Nate said...

"Those that cannot accept reality are the Civilizationists that somehow rationalize that the underpinnings of civilization still exists."

So long as men and women are living in stable families and raising children well... then the underpinnings of civilization still exit.

Drama queens... I swear to God...

ar10308 said...

"Nate is right. MTGOW: The politics of Losers"

Before you can define losing, you must define winning.
I'll wait.

Apollo said...

How many times must I say it? It is not about perspectives. It is not about what the nihilist nor the civilizationist perceives as the winning strategy. The only thing that matters to both is the end game.

For the nihilist, its death. For civilizationist, its rebirth.


I dont know what "it" youre talking about when you say "its not about perspectives", but I certainly dont think the issue of perspectives is irrelevant to this discussion.

You talk about "the end game" as if its something shared between the nihilist and the civilisationist while failing to understand they are playing two completely different games. The "one life and then death" perspective of the nihilist and the "many generations to follow me" perspective of the civilisationist are diametrically opposed and result in completely different value systems and priotities in life.

War is not won without sacrifices.

Ok. Seems like a non sequitor, but ok.

ar10308 said...

"So long as men and women are living in stable families and raising children well... then the underpinnings of civilization still exist."

And that is happening less and less. Maybe if the women weren't Bernankified they'd be worth investing in. Bernankification destroys true value.

Oh well. Lololololzlzlzlzlzlzlz

Markku said...

There are literally millions of chicks out there that would make awesome wives for you people if you would grow a pair of balls and start acting like a man for once in your life.

Millions out of seven billion is about one in a thousand, which is about what I'd expect. And as I've said before, MGTOW is not a vow. It's just what one expects to happen by default. With 1:1000 ratio, that's being single, although it could turn out otherwise. The expectation would be different only if you expect to man up and marry the sluts.

Josh said...

Perhaps the MGTOW are unable to look at the world outside of binary. So either all women are on pedestals or all women are sluts. Either everything in the west is fine or it's all doomed.

Markku said...

Out of three and a half billion, that is. I can counting, you know.

Nate said...

"
Before you can define losing, you must define winning.
I'll wait."

Being able to achieve the goal you set.

Nate said...

Example: I wanted to marry a hot blonde virgin and have a big family in a castle on a hill.

So I did.

Toby Temple said...

Before you can define losing, you must define winning.

Winning is not being desperate and hopeless.

I'll wait.

You're welcome.

Josh said...

Silly Nate, Virgins don't exist! All women are sluts!

Nate said...

Several of them existed. Well... they did until I got around to them.

Toby Temple said...

@ Apollo..

You talk about "the end game" as if its something shared between the nihilist and the civilisationist while failing to understand they are playing two completely different games. The "one life and then death" perspective of the nihilist and the "many generations to follow me" perspective of the civilisationist are diametrically opposed and result in completely different value systems and priotities in life.

Of course it is not shared by both. One side will lose while the other will win. It is never going to end in a draw.

One will be hanging from a tree while the other will be very old surrounded by people who love him or be buried by the people who love him.

It does not take much mental effort to know which of the 2 won in the end.

Different T said...

"Sharia, or some Western form of it, is a real risk. History is clear. If women will not be complicit in civilization, they will be broken to it."

Could you offer an explanation for your use of "risk."

"So, they want us to die. In fact, anyone who can't get with the current insane program "should die". It is this kind of nuance, combined with their incessant shrieking that I need to pay their bills, that "builds" civilizations.

No. It isn't. It has never built any civilization. Infested civilizations? Sure. Plenty. Like rats."

As the posters here represent ideas that are likely the "greatest hope" for christianity, there is little need to trouble yourself.

Joe Blow said...

Assuming the MGTOWs and PUAs win the day, we can look forward to something like post-Roman civilization - close to a thousand years of living in shit up to our armpits, lands occasionally ravaged by outsiders who are marginally less devolved than ourselves and marginally better organized. Perhaps Muslims, perhaps well organized reds, hard to say. Either way the west will be utterly fucked, as the destruction of what's left of it, with no plan going forward, will leave us adrift, and there's no indication that the non-western world, still quite happy in its traditional predatory outlook, will be content to lie back and let us rebuild. Not when there's resources to plunder.

On the other hand I'm not sure traditionalists will save us. Churchians in particular put an awful lot of faith in institutions, most of which have been captured as a result of the left's Long March Through The Institutions (h/t Antonio Gramsci) and to the extent they keep blindly supporting these institutions, they are supporting the same intentional neo-marxist destruction of traditionalism that they now decry. Ironically enough the PUAs are footsoldiers in the Gramscian Army; MGTOWs can be viewed as conscientious objectors. They aren't exactly helping.

What's to be done? I'm not sure.

What I am doing is trying to model appropriate behaviors for the Captain of my household, and trying to raise a son who can be what some have recently taken to calling a "black knight" - somebody who is disruptive of the matriarchy, but also conscious of traditional values; in the church but distrusting of clerics; in society but aware of how its institutions are failing.

I do not see another way that a man of good conscience can act under these circumstances. And yes I'll be shopping for some country land and stockpiling ammo within a few years. I do not see this decline ending in anything other than disarray. A Weimar Republic-type disarray is the optimistic side of what I see, total collapse is the other extreme, with disrepair, dictatorship and decay resembling that in a distopian novel being the most likely outcome.

I don't have a major beef with the MGTOWs or PUAs, and in truth, the revolution will need shock troops. The problem is like most revolutions, we haven't really thought about what to do next, and revolutions that end with the storming of the Bastille (rather than the formation of a new, carefully thought out and ordered liberty-advocating government) tend to end quite badly.

Josh said...

Before you can define losing, you must define winning.

Marrying pretty feminine southern women who want to be housewives and stay at home to take care of babies.

Toby Temple said...


Josh: Silly Nate, Virgins don't exist! All women are sluts!

Nate: Several of them existed. Well... they did until I got around to them.

There! That is proof that Nate is the source of MTGOW's hate and scorn.

It's all your fault, Nate! Its all your fault!!!

Josh said...

Could you offer an explanation for your use of "risk."

Oh God. Not this again.

Apollo said...

Oh that's not what you really meant! Your not like that! I'm just misinterpreting your all too clear madman raving!

No. I'm not. I got it just fine.


Id recommend trying some books with pictures, they provide a good starting point to help you learn to read, because the pictures can provide "hints" when things start to get a little difficult. Dr Suess is a good choice. When you can manage those you can move on to some teen fiction. They use slighly longer words, and theres generally no pictures, but its still fairly lightweight fare and the books are fairly short, so it shouldnt be too intimidating. Once you can get through those perhaps try your local newspaper - these are normally fairly forgiving with the language they use because they try to cater to a large population who are generally not highly ecucated.

Maybe then you'll be ready to come back here and comment without coming off as an illiterate idiot.

Nate said...

Well ok... sure.. if you're going to define "slut" as "woman that Nate has, or could, fuck" then sure... pretty much all women are sluts.

But that's a pretty hardass definition of the word.

Josh said...

Assuming the MGTOWs and PUAs win the day, we can look forward to something like post-Roman civilization - close to a thousand years of living in shit up to our armpits, lands occasionally ravaged by outsiders who are marginally less devolved than ourselves and marginally better organized.

We need an encyclopedia...

Joe Blow said...

And the irony does not escape me that both the Gramscian neo-Marxist revolution and our own counter revolution hope to employ PUAs and MGTOWs as footsoldiers. As Gramsci pointed out, one uses the criminal and the lunatic to overthrow the police and psychiatrists. After they have served their purposes they can be eliminated; there's no need to let criminals actually run your new utopia. The difference between us and the Gramscians is that they think their revolutionary feminism and leftism will destroy western civ and result in a new leftist utopia; we know that destroying the rotted institutions they have co-opted for the purpose of leftist revolution will result only in chaos and there will be no utopia after this, only hell. The only real question for us is whether we try to save Western Civ from itself and try to pull it back from the brink, or whether we gamble on letting the revolutionaries (and the PUAs and MGTOWs are only a small contingent in that vast army) destroy the thing. If we manage to pull it back from the brink, if we fundamentally, preserve the West, it will not be fixed and in all likelihood we will only slow its decay. That may not be a bad outcome though for most of us and our offspring. Byzantium lasted nearly a thousand years past the end of the Roman Empire, albeit at great cost, and in a much debased form compared to the Roman Republic. Pluses and minuses, right? In history's great sweep, we can criticize Byzantium's split from Rome, but Byzantium and its preservation of Greco-Roman civilization cannot be entirely disregarded because the Byzantine empire did manage to provide a much better life for its citizens, in law, order and commerce, than the life enjoyed by the former Roman citizens b/t/w 576 AD and roughly 1400 AD (and realistically until 1600 AD).

Tough choices.

ar10308 said...

"Several of them existed. Well... they did until I got around to them."

The fact their father didn't perform their duty of either requiring you to marry them or ending your life demonstrates how far this "civilization" has fallen.

"One will be hanging from a tree while the other will be very old surrounded by people who love him or be buried by the people who love him."

I can't tell if you're a tyrant or a moron. You'd hang a person for being a nihilist?

I suppose you are both.

"It does not take much mental effort to know which of the 2 won in the end."

In the end, you lose, because you have something to lose and it will be taken from you. Unless you plan to live without civilization, you will not survive without it. MGTOW are far better prepared to survive austerity of food and essential resources.

Marky Mark said...

This is a really good post and I think it does define the two different camps. But as heartiste/roissy says... "what's good for the individual isn't necessarily good for society" and I think that's true.

Toby Temple said...

I suppose you are both.

I suppose you're scared of me now.

You'd hang a person for being a nihilist?

And I'll make it look like a suicide.

MGTOW are far better prepared to survive austerity of food and essential resources.

Wait! MGTOW are farmers!?

stg58/Animal Mother said...

I wanted to marry a hot redhead virgin and live on a castle on the top of the hill. I also wanted lots of sons. Looks like I've got all of it.

I also am winning.

Apollo said...

@Toby Temple

Of course it is not shared by both. One side will lose while the other will win. It is never going to end in a draw.

One will be hanging from a tree while the other will be very old surrounded by people who love him or be buried by the people who love him.

It does not take much mental effort to know which of the 2 won in the end.



Those are certainly not the only possible, or even most likely, outcomes for either group. The nasty "swinging from the tree" end for the nihilist requires society to be some way through the collapse before they die of other causes (like old age) for a start, and it also presumes that they are acting as enough of a Net negative to society for their death to be worthwhile, and that there arent many more in line before them (bankers, politicians, feminists, etc). Maybe also the nihilist decides to help support society when the moochers and leeches are gone and he can actually make a contribution and his efforts can bear fruit.

And maybe the civilisationists kids stick his ass in a nursing home and stop visiting when they cant, or dont want to support him any more. Wouldnt be the first time that happened.

Maybe both have good lives, maybe neither do. Theres no objective reason why one must win, the other must lose and no draws are possible.

ar10308 said...

I suppose you're scared of me now.

Only your tyranical intentions.

And I'll make it look like a suicide.

The hot brass at my feet and lead in your body would make that a difficult sell.

Wait! MGTOW are farmers!?

How can a MGHOW call himself a MGHOW if he isn't prepared to live without Monsanto? You don't have Heirloom seeds stashed away for a hungry day?

Nate said...

"The fact their father didn't perform their duty of either requiring you to marry them or ending your life demonstrates how far this "civilization" has fallen. "

Oh how awesomely glorious it is to hear the bitter whining of the MTGOW... girls like to sleep with Nate! Mean Nate! Girls are bad! Nate is Bad! I'm taking my ball and going home!

Eric Cartman, MGTOW said...

Screw you guys, I'm going home!

Toby Temple said...

Only your tyranical intentions.

You're so nervous now you can't even spell right.

The hot brass at my feet and lead in your body would make that a difficult sell.

Says the guy hanging from a tree.

ar10308 said...

"girls like to sleep with Nate! Mean Nate! Girls are bad! Nate is Bad! I'm taking my ball and going home!

If you weren't a solipsistic woman you'd realize I was indicting the father's of the females, not them or you.

And you shame like a Feminist.

Solipsisim and shaming. Huge Schwyzer, is that you?

Nate said...

"How can a MGHOW call himself a MGHOW if he isn't prepared to live without Monsanto? You don't have Heirloom seeds stashed away for a hungry day?"

You moron. Do you really think single men are the only preppers out there? Mormons have been prepping since before prepping was cool.

And so have a lot of us.

The Scolds' Bridle said...

It all comes down to productivity and excess wealth.

This is what make social engineering and feminist/socialist redistribution possible, at least at the current levels.

Here's the problem: The feminine imperative can be as easily served living in tents as it can in McMansions. Women are notorious for their lack of vision and ability to see cause/effect.

If women ran the world, we would still live in caves because any technological tinkering or inventing by men would be seen as "foolish nonsense" and that man would be ordered back to the hunt or to the field.

As long as 'alpha f--ks, beta bucks' still works, it does not matter how much regression we experience in quality of life, rule of law, or access to technological comforts.

Women want alpha seed, and they would rather have their children grow up in Thunderdome and be born of an alpha, than grow up in exquisite suburban comfort and be from beta seed.

It has taken me a couple years of reading the sphere to finally realize the implications of alpha f-x, beta bux. It is far baser and more biologically driven than I could have ever imagined.

Even the women who capitulate and train themselves (or are trained) to desire a beta male (vox beta) are still biologically the same as their sluttier sisters.

It all comes down to powerful fertility impulses. It's the lowest biological urges taking over, while the rational part of the person tries to invent high-minded reasons for those urges.

ar10308 said...

"You're so nervous now you can't even spell right."

Ah, punctuation criticism. The first sign that you're losing an argument and have to resort to petty ad hominems.

"Says the guy hanging from a tree."

Men with the ability to defend themselves from lynch mobs don't get hung in trees.

You should stop threating people with violence for not behaving as you wish they would. They might take you seriously.

The Scolds' Bridle said...

In other words, "alpha f--ks, beta buckskin tents" will probably work just as well.

Nate said...

"You should stop threating people with violence for not behaving as you wish they would. They might take you seriously."

Perhaps you shouldn't take every comment so personally. Then again.. being a gamma MGTOW its obviously difficult for you.

The hanging comment didn't necessarily have to be about you personally. IT was a collective statement about the nihilist hedonist that could well be doing a lot more harm that merely minding his own business.

Myrddin said...

One in a thousand is not bad odds considering:
1) Maybe one in a hundred men actually learn game.
2) Most of these are content to pump-n-dump sluts.

Toby Temple said...

Ah, punctuation criticism. The first sign that you're losing an argument and have to resort to petty ad hominems.

Says the guy who felt....

Men with the ability to defend themselves from lynch mobs don't get hung in trees.

You should stop threating people with violence for not behaving as you wish they would. They might take you seriously.


threatened.

Bwahahahahaha!!!

ar10308 said...

"You moron. Do you really think single men are the only preppers out there? Mormons have been prepping since before prepping was cool."

You took a simple question as a personal attack; solipsism rears its head again.

"And so have a lot of us."

Hope are you aren't too attached to that house then.

Nate said...

"If you weren't a solipsistic woman you'd realize I was indicting the father's of the females, not them or you. "

of course you blame the father in your actual statement... but like all MTGOWs... you really hate the girls. Those mean mean girls.

And its not shaming. Its mocking. I don't have a problem with you doing your own thing. I don't have a problem with you checking out. In fact... its not even new. Hell Jesus His own bad self spoke on it. So did Paul.

The problem... is your woman hating bitchy whining.

Josh said...

This might be the first time I've ever seen Nate accused of being a feminist.

Outside of my sociology class where he was praised for being a courageous and sensitive husband bravely standing up to the patriarchy and male privilege for letting his wife work and staying home to raise the kids...

Toby Temple said...

And he pays his wife for her work.

Nate's a pimp.

Josh said...

Can the MGTOW start acting like men, and not like drama queens?

Y'all ain't doing a very good job of arguing your case.

ar10308 said...

Toby,

"And I'll make it look like a suicide."

You're threatening to put people in trees and make it look like a suicide. Who are you? Eric Holder?

There is something wrong with you.
And you certainly don't represent civilization. Civilization doesn't put people in trees and make it look like a suicide. That is tyranny.

Markku said...

He's a Catholic fanatic. They're like that.

Mina said...

"I'm sorry my laughter aligns me with the Jezebels and the feminists. Empathy is an attribute that often escapes me.

Yes, because you're female. Women are solipsistic, not empathetic. Your behavior is entirely consistent with the theory of Game; despite your intellectual position of being pro-male, you still sneer scornfully at the lower ranking men while clinging proudly to your chosen man."

Insightful.

Josh said...

Who's a Catholic fanatic?

Toby Temple said...

He's a Catholic fanatic. They're like that.

Who? Me?

Markku said...

Toby Temple. Although I'm only about 75% sure that I attach his name to the correct debates. I could be wrong.

Anonymous said...

toby, you're coming across like a female

you're puerile and defiant tone has convinced me you are probably in your teens, at least as far as emotional development goes

you're a joke

(captalization and punctuation omitted because you are not worth the effort, little boy)

:)

Markku said...

I get a strong negative reaction to the handle, and that's my best guess as to why.

ar10308 said...

Nate,

"Says the guy hanging from a tree."

"The hanging comment didn't necessarily have to be about you personally. IT was a collective statement about the nihilist hedonist that could well be doing a lot more harm that merely minding his own business."

I've met a lot of people from the South. None of them were illiterate, but I guess the stereotype is there for a reason.

Toby Temple said...

Markku. Is that the wrath of a calvinist? Hehehe..

I am not a Catholic. I was, yes. But left it 12 years ago.

Markku said...

Markku. Is that the wrath of a calvinist?

I indeed already started thinking that it was actually about those debates.

Daniel said...

I'm laughing so much right now. Somehow, this entire schism (not individual conflicts, necessarily, but the identification of the groups) has escaped me. And I read here almost every day.

Can there be a third category of the Bemused, Befuddled Kids of Inter Necine Game? I've always been partial to The Thrill is Gone.

My ignorance knows no bounds. Don't forget that feminism itself had such a schism in the late 1800s between the spiritualist sexualists (free love, free divorce, treason against men) and the civilizers who wanted to establish a "better" society of gradual improvement. They both agreed on the core passion (female dominion) but one was idealistic and one was political, and they fought each other like hell by the end of their relationship.

Obviously, it didn't hurt their movement any. Despite the internal strife, those ladies certainly wouldn't deny that they've gotten their way.

Perhaps the Civilizationists are really anticipating the civilization to come, and are living in it, and they fear that the MGTOW are set on destroying their civilization, not the one most of society is currently under (which - everyone agrees - is decidedly not civil.)

But bankers will hang before the competing wings of resistance ever get along. God bless you both.

Markku said...

So, yeah, shouldn't have said anything until I was sure. Mea moderata culpa.

Apollo said...

"The hanging comment didn't necessarily have to be about you personally. IT was a collective statement about the nihilist hedonist that could well be doing a lot more harm that merely minding his own business."

The original hanging comment was in response to a comment of mine, and it never ocurred to me to take it as anything other than a collective statement. Sometimes people talk about things in the abstract, and if in doubt it is generally safer to assume they arent threatening you unless theres good reason to believe otherwise.

Even if Toby was actually threatening me with a lynchin' however, in terms of pure evil Im still ahead on points after apparently calling out in support for nihilist genocide earlier in this thread.

Toby Temple said...

You're threatening to put people in trees and make it look like a suicide. Who are you? Eric Holder?

No. I am Toby Temple.

There is something wrong with you.
And you certainly don't represent civilization. Civilization doesn't put people in trees and make it look like a suicide. That is tyranny.


I am an avid fan of Niccolò Machiavelli.

If by hanging you and your lot will bring forth a new a glorious civilization, why not?

Toby Temple said...

Even if Toby was actually threatening me with a lynchin' however, in terms of pure evil Im still ahead on points after apparently calling out in support for nihilist genocide earlier in this thread.

Genocide is not my thing. But I love hangman.

Logos said...

I like this post, which echoes a comment I made on a previous post about how we all agree on the problem but differ as to the solution. But there's another, non-utilitarian consideration that some other commenters have mentioned. This society has proven itself thoroughly unworthy of my blood, sweat, and tears, so I no longer care whether a particular strategy has the desired effect on it. As a man who finds himself confronting depravity, I turn my back on it, keeping to myself and the civilized remnant. I will not cast my pearls before swine. If others of you are happy as pigs in slop, good for you. I feel no urge to attack you, yet you feel the urge to attack people like me, which shows insecurity rather than strength.

Markku said...

Even if Toby was actually threatening me with a lynchin' however, in terms of pure evil Im still ahead on points after apparently calling out in support for nihilist genocide earlier in this thread.

I made approving reference to the comment (without remembering who made it at the time) and what I was thinking about is that while the hedonists are the useful idiots for us who dream of an eventual new civilization, they'll probably behave in such a way when it actually arrives, that it will result in them hanging from the trees.

I didn't think of it as specifically going after those people afterwards, I just thought about how things will go under their own weight.

Apollo said...

@Toby Temple

Genocides the in thing now dude. Hanging is so 1800s.

Toby Temple said...

I did an Agree & Amplify.

The poor gamma thought I was threatening to hang nihilists.

So I played with him.

And since nihilists are those who opted out, what are the chances that they will be so desperate in the future that they will do the ultimate act of opting out, SUICIDE?

Josh said...

Suicide's not very chill, dude.

Toby Temple said...

Genocides the in thing now dude. Hanging is so 1800s.

I thought burning at the stake was the trend in the 1800's...

And genocide needs a lot of resources. I may need to start learning how to paint then write a book about some final solution...

Apollo said...

And genocide needs a lot of resources

You can get by OK with one or two big ovens..…

Josh said...

I have some slightly used ovens for sale, that only barely smell like charred brony...

Josh said...

Okay, I've been thinking about the thought processes of this bitter subset of MGTOW.

It looks something like this:

Feminists are bad
Girls are feminists
Therefore girls are bad

Also
Guys who like girls are bad
Guys that girls like are bad

Cheddar man said...

"What Would Chesty Do?" - realmatt

IMO, Chesty Puller would order his marines to beat the female imperative out of women. Problem solved, western civilization saved.

Markku said...

I like hanging for its honesty and openness. I mean the sort where you leave them hanging, like "hanging from trees" implies. It sets an example, and everybody can see whom the society has decided to kill, and draw their own conclusions about whether it was justified. If you are not just about who you do it to, you'll quickly have a revolt in your hands.

But it will be only a small and localized revolt because it happens so quickly. If you do your killing in secret, you'll be able to create an elaborate totalitarian system before it comes to that point, and that's going to mean a lot more drama.

Toby Temple said...

And you can easily make it look like suicide.

Orion said...

"The only survival is through adaptation, and before its all through, the mgtows and the traditionalists will have been ground down under the wheels. The old order will burn and a new one will rise. Game is the way forward. "

Yawn. You need to spend another few decades reading history (preferably not written by Women's History types). There is no "new system" on the rise. This is the same crap civilization goes through every time it is collapsing, just a different key. When civilization returns again it will be at base much like it has been for the entire history of mankind when things were on the rise. SD is making the same mistake thinking that the new "normal" will survive this.

Personally I have no problem with either camp, MGTOW or Civs. I belong to the second, but since my vision of civilization says I have no claim on another at the most I have a little regret they aren't in my camp. At the very least I know THEY aren't my enemy and at most when SHTF I hope they will see the time has come to rejoin the Civilization camp. Because the truth is that is where they started out, helping build things and producing a bit extra.

As the Feminists and women who believe in (though they say they don't support) the current failed corruption of the Civilization are dunked in the cold waters of reality start to wake up, the MGTOWs are who they will have to make amends with. The Civs already have their nitch carved out and have no need for them (or room under a system of monogamy).

facepalm said...

What nihilists? What civilizationists?

Guys who are getting laid have options. They are not nihilists. They are mostly well adjusted and happy with the situation. Many of them have kids if they want, but often not in traditional family units. They are not cynically, bitterly, darkly peering out from their poolside lounger waiting for Rome to start burning.

The "nihilists" are all on the internet, pretending to be awash in pussy while lamenting the passing of the old order, typing from their crappy apartment rented with their best buy paycheck.

The "civilizationists" are the churchy losers who lament that women don't have to like them for being dutiful worker drones and pump out two kids for them so they can live a mundane middle class existence and go to church twice a week hoping beyond hope that it will all be worth it in the next life.

Being an obedient drone with 2 kids and a secretly disappointed wife does not mean you're pulling for civilization. There is no moral prize for that. You're just a cog in the machine doing what is expected of you, don't make a virtue out of it.

Matthew said...

If Nate is an Alpha, then he does have a strong solipsistic streak. My understanding is that this is part of being Alpha. Indeed, he's shown in it in these comments. I say this as a long time member of the Ctrl-F Nate Club.

Nate, ar10308's statement about some MGTOW keeping heirloom seeds was clearly not intended as a claim that no one else was doing so. He was responding to a charge of being a feckless grasshopper. You took it as a claim to be better than everyone else. A boast, which coming from an inferior, said in the presence of an Alpha, is an intolerable breach of the social hierarchy. Sometimes rank can blind you.

Anonymous said...

So we agree that geno/democide is going to be a necessity? Excellent. You can take a Great Leap Forward after the Glorious Revolution because you have a Final Solution to the oppressors in your midst. What could possibly go wrong?

Not all the Nihilists are hedonists, and some of the Civilizationists are. So if this comes down and you win, we can expect to be killed off? You are going to make enemies out of your friends, and drive them into the arms of your actual enemies. You are still not offering any compelling reason for them to join you. The whole issue is that return on investment for supporting civilization comes up short, and what you are doing is making it worse. I believe that many of the MGTOW could be brought back in if it was worth their while. Instead, you are resorting to the same tactics and attitudes of the people who brought this about the first time around. Any wonder why they look at you with suspicion? If it looks, talks, and acts like the FI, it could very well be the FI. Even if it is not, the last time someone started talking that way, we got chewed on. Once bitten, twice shy.

If you manage to cobble together something fictional from the scrap heap of today, the MGTOW would wander back in and get to work. They are not opposed to civilization, just the way this one is run. When you go on rants about how they will not be welcome, and they will be swinging from trees... Then they are better off collaborating, and putting an end to your rebellion. Then they go back to sitting around while *you* twitch at the gallows of the state.

The Shadowed Knight

Dr. Faust said...

"This is all ridiculous and will never come to fruition as long as the male libido continues to rage. Men are only cooperative when it is evidently self serving thus MGTOW will never gain enough traction to matter, and Christian fundamentalists will never be able to cull enough women for it to matter. Hedonists, with the given situation, are playing the most +EV script because I only see society getting more femcentric, or at the very least staying put."

Since you understand male nature so well explain Japan's grass eaters.

Brad Andrews said...

VD,

> Unlike the cat ladies to whom you compare them, they never had a choice. They didn't choose their place in the hierarchy, it was assigned to them.

That is not always accurate, as Nate notes. Many of them refuse to change and deserve the relationship results they get.

The deck may be stacked against them, but they still could have a strong chance at doing well if they would put their efforts toward achieving a worthwhile goal rather than just focusing on their own comfort.

I do see many as in the role of the grasshopper in the summer. A winter is coming where they will have no one to look out for them. Does their life plan always include a death before they are no longer fully capable of self-care?

It is not surprising that some of you cannot realize that those who thrive on the destruction of civilization may be in some danger when civilization does rebuild. We are not anywhere near there yet, but many of the antics that celebrate fiddling while Rome burns would not be tolerated in a rebuilding civilization. No personal insults necessary, that would just be the point.

This is likely why you always have some strong-arm something come from a lack of order, it is the only way to change things.

On a side note, Paul and Jesus were going the Father's way, not their own way. I have yet to read of a MGTOW or GHOW that was pursuing God's purposes on this earth more than anything else. That makes the comparison invalid, though perhaps I have missed some.

otiswild said...

However, the hedonistic, self-centered MGTOW will never be able to build anything lasting or replace the society which they quite rightly hate. They must rely upon the civilizationists to do that; without the traditionalists still stubbornly working, marrying, and having children despite all of the societal disincentives for doing so, there will be no eventual recovery from the chaotic, barbaric morass into which the equalitarian-corrupted West is rapidly sliding.

When the incentives change, MGTOWs will change if it is to their benefit to do so.

Dr. Faust said...

Kids are future tax stock sold into slavery to support the social security of the old. MGTOW is not as destructive as the PUA who sires a bunch of children and doesn't raise them. The product of single mother spawn is less productive and more degenerate than that of married couples. Single mothers are generational destruction. It's moot at this point though, nothing can keep social security from destroying America.

If the MGTOW wants to go to the extremes of misanthropy he doesn't become celibate but an omega male, living off disability and producing as many children as possible without supporting them. Thus, not only does he not produce anything he actively produces future misanthropes.

facepalm said...

Yawn. You need to spend another few decades reading history (preferably not written by Women's History types). There is no "new system" on the rise. This is the same crap civilization goes through every time it is collapsing, just a different key. When civilization returns again it will be at base much like it has been for the entire history of mankind when things were on the rise. SD is making the same mistake thinking that the new "normal" will survive this.

Oh, just a few decades of reading, I'll get right on that and get back to you.

There are lots of problems that need to be dealt with, i.e. obesity, demographics-immigration, banking, etc. But lumping them all together and declaring an inevitable collapse is just wishful thinking. If they aren't dealt with, it's possible, but the pendulum will probably swing back over before that happens.

One thing that "traditionalists" (really, just a euphemism for churchy betas couching their failure in "traditional man" red herrings) want that isn't going to happen though, is putting women's "liberation", such as it is, back in the bottle.

What "traditional men" commenters are really after is the "traditional" leverage society used to provide them with to snag a woman without having to put in the actual work to understand them and deal with them on their terms. These guys will have to adapt or fail, and most of them are so hard headed that if they finally do decide to make an effort they will already be way behind everyone else.

tz said...

Nihilism doesn't quite describe it. There is a "tuning out" - the fiddling while Rome burns (and blame it on the Christians), and there is grabbing flammable material and contributing to the conflagration.

PUAs saving off their sperm and getting vasectomies? No wonder Syphilis and Gonorrhea are growing like wildfire.

In Atlas Shrugged, there were a few characters that instead of going Galt, wanted to set up their own local empire of force.

The problem with "going Galt" is that without some kind of shield, the nihilists will want to annihilate those who refuse to follow - the feminists are militant, but the nihilistic side of the manosphere resents not merely whom they call "white knights", but also their "ladies" (and those would be the few women I would use the term for today).

At returnofkings there was one man with a story that he specifically hunted virgin church women.

And just because you are happy doesn't mean you are NOT a nihilist. They may have their harem, and kids here or there (with child support checks?). But are the kids going to be happy? Or are they just things? More commodities. Gluttons are very happy and enjoy eating, and not only gourmet food, many just love quantity from fast food joints. The results are visible both in their appearance and the morbidity and mortality.

I'm not sure if solipsism is the problem so much as narcissism.

It is easy to figure out people don't think the same as you do, but then the question when this is discovered, is who is closer to reality in his thoughts? Do you value truth or pleasant illusion more. Also you can realize people think differently, but either not care, or use that for manipulation, not education or reform.

That is where the split is. The nihilists work the system, figuring out how to use the lies, the civilizationists hold fast to the truth and reject the system.

I would note Carthage had Molech, and our society is not so much civilized as practicing a different barbaric paganism. Feminism is secularized Molechianism, just as Welfare is a secularized Charity. And both purposes in the secular realm are petty - at least the Carthaginians and even the Aztecs thought their murders pleased the gods that would bestow good fortune from all the spilled blood. For both feminism and welfare, it is merely a matter of insipid convenience.

Switching off the main topic, in another place, a woman had an unfortunate experience with this culture:

Stupor stupidity

Dr. Faust said...

I don't even believe that MGTOW needs to be named. To be named is to be a target. It's not a movement in a political sense but a reaction to misandry and the washed up, fattened up, bitched up sluts running rampant. Every welfare mother, every person on social security, is an ally to the misanthrope. What the manosphere does is provide an explanation for why everything is failing which points a finger at feminism, big government. Little girls are greed and lice and everything vice.

Nate said...

" Little girls are greed and lice and everything vice."

There you go.

MGTOW dipshittery distilled.

Josh said...

ALL WOMEN ARE BAD!

Anonymous said...

facepalm, the women's liberation is paid for by the work of men, extracted by force. Without all of the social welfare programs and laws forcing hiring, feminism dies. That is the problem; men are being robbed to pay for the fantasies of some overgrown princesses. The only way they dictate terms to us is if they have guns to our heads. Remove those guns, and the negotiation changes drastically.

The Shadowed Knight

Beefy Levinson said...

"He's a Catholic fanatic. They're like that."

Did someone call my name?

It was Catholic fanatics - the Benedictine monks - who preserved the seeds of civilization the first time it collapsed.

Retrenched said...

*Bulids strawman*

*Burns strawman*

"I win! Woohoo!!!"

- Every Internet debate, ever.

Anonymous said...

Nate, you see a different side of women than most. Entitled, spoiled, arrogant bitches is the attitude many women put off, because they do not want to sleep with us. You have what they want. Your experience is going to be different. Not all women are bad, but enough that we wonder is it worth even bothering?

Should I bother, and is the juice worth the squeeze? That is the MGTOW "dipshittery" distilled.

The Shadowed Knight

Josh said...

Maybe if you were more like Nate, you would see the side of women he sees?

Isn't that what the sphere was about, game and becoming a man?

ar10308 said...

Nate doesn't realize that come the fall, those like him will first ones targeted by the underclass.

All the charisma he can summon isn't going to stop the mob of angry brown people who used to mow his lawn from tearing down that which he holds dear. By then, it'll be too late for him to try to incentivize the MGTOW to fight for him.

He mocks and castigates when he should incentivise and motivate. Which makes me think he isn't all that Alpha, just a controlling Beta. The Alphas I have known have always been able to give a person a very good reason to do what they wanted them to do because they understand what motivates people.

Josh said...

Why so serious, ar?

stg58/Animal Mother said...

MOAR WOMENS!!

LESS WHINES!

Josh said...

All the charisma he can summon isn't going to stop the mob of angry brown people who used to mow his lawn from tearing down that which he holds dear. 

1) Nate probably has enough firearms to occupy Paris.

2) We're not going to see that kind of violence in the suburban/rural South.

Wendy said...

All the charisma he can summon isn't going to stop the mob of angry brown people who used to mow his lawn from tearing down that which he holds dear. By then, it'll be too late for him to try to incentivize the MGTOW to fight for him.

Perhaps his charisma won't do much, but his ample arsenal will.

Anonymous said...

I'm a stubborn idiot. Therefore, is there a way to get this blog's posts delivered to my e-mail inbox? (I hate RSS).

Anonymous said...

Are the Nihilist the immoral ones here?

ar10308 said...

"2) We're not going to see that kind of violence in the suburban/rural South."

If things get bad enough, they will. Where do think people are going to go when the food runs out in the cities?

Hell, they left the cities to go to the suburbs for random home invasions after MLKJr was shot.

Josh said...

Where do think people are going to go when the food runs out in the cities?

Do you realize that a large number of people in the ghetto have never actually been more than a few miles away from the ghetto? Are they really going to travel 30+ miles on foot to steal from heavily armed white folk?

MackPUA said...

The problem with people like Sarahs Daughter & the rest of the man up clueless traditionalists ...

Is the fact even if they reproduce, all their men will always end up dying in wars & dying in coal mines ...

Instead of actually reproducing ...

Traditionalists have always been a group of inbred rednecks

As all their men usually ended up dead from slaving away for their parasite wives ...

This is why vox is correct MGTOW is a necessary part of a much fairer & SUCCESSFUL strategy for a new way to build civilisation, which actually supports men & their rights

The traditionalist way of building a civilisation is NUTS

Sending all the men to die in wars & coal mines

While the traditionalist women have sex with the postman & the hunky plumber, while the men die on battlefields & coal mines ...

Proves traditional marriage is just another way to filter out beta men, while the women stayathome having sex with the hunky sewage workers & dustbin men ...

Whats even worse men arent even biologically monogamous

Men are polygamous

Marriage doesnt even satisfy a mans biological imperative to go forth & multiply & bang tons of hot chicks ...

All marriage does is tie a woman who expects a man to die & slave away in factories & cubicles

WE NEED A NEW SYSTEM WHICH RESPECTS MENS RIGHTS

WE NEED A NEW SYSTEM WHICH RESPECTS MENS BIOLOGICAL IMPERATIVE

Fuck the traditionalists & their men dying in coal mines nonsense

Thats all traditionalists want, millions of men to die for their privileged stay at home women ...

Fuck You

Jack Amok said...

All you fools calling yourselves "Civilizationists" need to look at the Drudge Report for 30seconds and then come back and explain to me why this "civilization" is worth saving...

Who said anything about saving that civilization? The one I want to save is already gone, so the only choice is to build a new one on the wreckage.

...and how exactly you plan to achieve that when everyone with money and power are actively working to subvert and replace you.


I dunno, maybe by replacing them first?

Look, here's where I think the disconnect is. The Nihilists only see two choices, support the Matriarchy or lay down. Both of those options suck. So find a third. Make a third.

Josh said...

This is why vox is correct MGTOW is a necessary part of a much fairer & SUCCESSFUL strategy for a new way to build civilisation, which actually supports men & their rights

He actually said that MGTOW were incapable of building a new civilization. They can just tear down the current one.

Orion said...

@ (Anonymous?)Facepalm
"There are lots of problems that need to be dealt with, i.e. obesity, demographics-immigration, banking, etc. But lumping them all together and declaring an inevitable collapse is just wishful thinking. If they aren't dealt with, it's possible, but the pendulum will probably swing back over before that happens."

You sir are an optimist. Check out Vox's other blog regarding world wide economics. It isn't a question of if a collapse will happen, it is more a matter of how deep the hole will be that needs to be climbed out of. With the government collapsing all of those issues you site will be addressed one way or another. Recovery will depend on how close the solutions adhere to reality.

Obesity? No Nanny state to reallocate resource which will be in short supply. I expect some starvation to occur and definite belt tightening. Illegal immigrants? We already see some of them leaving as work becomes scarce. Banksters? Many may just flee the country with their ill gotten loot. A chunk of those that don't will be defenestrated - some forcefully. Unfortunately, I wouldn't bet on a Republic in the near term, at least not the entire country. The big picture will be pretty bleak short term.

Different T said...

"Which makes me think he isn't all that Alpha, just a controlling Beta."

That is not saying nearly enough.

In a post regarding arranged marriage on Vox's other blog, Nate related how he would be arranging marriages for his daughters as he considers females too short-sighted, ignorant, emotional, and weak to correctly choose. Then in a comment yesterday, in order to mock, he relates:

"Oh the unfairness of it all! That women should dare attempt to decide for themselves who is worth being with and who isn't! Oh the humanity!"

in order to recieve applause from females and his followers. As he claims female choice to be undesirable for his daughters, these comments are clearly not for the purpose of "understanding reality."

It is a simple feedback loop. Nate boosts the female id by claiming they have a "GOD given instinct to find the strong" (appeal to magical female intuition) and they reciprocrate by agreeing that he is a "bad-ass mother fucker." Simple female emotional mutual masturbation.

In other words, he is perfectly willing to compromise principle for gratification, AKA lack of integrity.

Those who desire to emulate Nate should understand this.

Jack Amok said...

Apollo:

You could say that thing are currently unsustainable partly because men have already started to go their own way. And you could also say that things are going to crash a lot sooner and the crash is going to be a lot more significant and the process of rebuilding is going to be a lot different if more men GTOW than if they dont.

But I don't say that. I don't think MGTOW matters at all, because the system is already so screwed up that the men staying and contributing to it are not making a difference. A local story from last night illustrates it.

Last night a bridge on Interstate 5 fell down just north of me. It was kind of old, undermaintained, and too small for the size and weight of modern loads. A trucking company filed for an oversized load permit with the State, gave them the dimensions, and got approval to travel over the bridge.

The load was too big. It hit the bridge, took out the crossbeam, and the bridge collapsed into the river sending a few cars with it. Luckily a separated shoulder seems to be the worst injury.

There are plenty of men, capable men, still working in the construction field. That bridge could have been better maintained, could have been strengthened, or replaced. But the feminist-inspired folks running things mis-direct all the effort.

I drive past a roundabout construction project every day on my way to work. It's insanely expensive, has dragged on for years, and when (if) they ever finish it, it won't solve any transportation problems. The men working on that could have been working on the bridge instead. At the very least, if they'd worked in the department issuing permits they would have known how to use a tape measure and could have figured out the truck wouldn't fit.

But they weren't. The women (of both sexes) would rather have an oh-so-stylish European roundabout with pretty flowers planted in the middle than a bridge that doesn't fall down.

That's why I say it doesn't matter.

Which doesn't mean anyone should try to support the status quo. Just that nobody should feel like they're striking a blow for justice by going on strike. That's just laziness seducing men into thinking they're doing something without actually requiring any effort.

It's the Keynesianism of social reform.

Anonymous said...

Josh, what he sees is a lie. I judge people by how they treat their social inferiors, people who have no power to make the rudeness cost anything. Those women are showing their true quality; dropping the mask towards the men that cannot give that for which they are looking. The illusion is remarkable, but what it hides is revolting if you see past it. Not all women are like that, but a good enough portion are, in reaction to the current reality.

The Shadowed Knight

ar10308 said...

Josh,
"Do you realize that a large number of people in the ghetto have never actually been more than a few miles away from the ghetto? Are they really going to travel 30+ miles on foot to steal from heavily armed white folk?"

Do you recall the events of Hurricane Katrina? Because that is exactly what happened. Towns shut down and barricaded roads so ghetto people wouldn't infest the town.

Anonymous said...

MackPUA, if we try and fulfill the Male Imperative, we get the USA, because then the Female Imperative has to escalate. What is happening is the Male and Female Imperatives interacting without control. Both sexes need to make sacrifices to get civilization, not just women. It is a joint effort, men build it, maintain it, and women perpetuate it, create its future.

The Shadowed Knight

feral1404 said...

I am very conservative in the ethical, moral sense - not the political sense. My wife is also very conservative and feminine - the daughter of military and law enforcement - and regardless of what your personal feelings about those two occupations are, they inarguably breed more family-oriented women than the Lena Dunham - Amanda Marcotte types. My choice of wife was intended for the creation of a solid nuclear family, as it has always been known.

My boy (due in August - God willing he is healthy and strong - he seems very much so now), will be a conservative, homeschooled masculine PRIMITIVE (my emphasis) of the first order. He will be smart enough to avoid the bureaucracy, yet clever enough to thrive in it. He will be a Harrison Bergeron who avoids the shotguns.

He will judge men by their actions, not their words or skin or religion (although I will teach him that some stereotypes are strong indicators of predictive behavior - and to watch for them very carefully).

My wife and I have already decided that he will not be a white knight, nor a slack-jawed liberal consumer - but a free man and an alpha, in as much as we are able. He will know guns and be as much a physical weapon as what he may carry with him.

Now I'm no deluded fool: all of this may not come to pass through a thousand ways. We may fail utterly, but this is our clear intent and purpose, by God.

If he grows well and follows that prescription for life, I would will that he keep what I consider to be this form of traditional civilization alive in his heart, to pass to his children after. It's necessary, in my opinion, to fight in this fashion on civilization's behalf. It's all a good father can do.

On another note: the lotus-eaters and pool-side Roissy's and MGTOW's have their own agenda, and I respect that. But when civilization DOES eventually fall, I hope they realize that like any other animal, they will also have to fight to survive like everyone else. They will not be spared simply because they don't care about the outcome. To paraphrase the saying: you may not care about the end of civilization, but the end of civilization certainly cares about you.

Black Poison Soul said...

Interesting, I wrote a bit about this a couple of days ago: basically that MGTOW had the means to destroy the FI and the socialist safety-net that benefits women.

Daniel said...

I imagine that, when he was a boy, Vox had two separate ant farms that he lovingly tended. The farm with red ants was slow to generate, but over time became a complex of diminutive and intricate pathways. The farm with black ants took off like a rocket, but its wider passage ways were direct and utilitarian.

Every day, he would ensure that the ants' respective supplies of sugarwater were tended, and that their bases were stable, to prevent unnecessary collapses, and he would watch with wonder as the the little societies developed and moved in harmony.

Then one day, using special industrial tubing, he connected the farms, and placed a single container of sugarwater between them. And they waged war on one another.

And that was a lot more fun.

Chent said...

@Sarah's Daughter

The ones with turrets who must.blurt.out.how.evil.woman.are (See Mack PUA) are easy enough to laugh at.

This new creation of late I've found quite amusing. It's the Sharia MGTOW - "Woman, know your place." - As all the women bust a gut laughing at these bitter rejects.


Why should we care about your laughs? Why do you think we are giving a damn?

Anonymous said...

Chent, it is scorn and mockery to impress her will upon us; laughter is a weapon she uses to put people in their place. It is the threat of loss of status and respect. It does not work because you cannot take something from someone who has nothing.

The Shadowed Knight

tz said...

What brand is your big TV you watch sports on?

Samsung Perhaps?

" Little girls are greed and lice and everything vice."

I must steal that. Although when said out loud, it could sound like vise, as in clamping on.

There is reason for caution. MGTOW would include those whose own way coincides with the narrow way, i.e. feminist ave. Or in an ellipse (I was going to say circle, but like electrons, there are beta orbiters). But in any case the more accurate term would be MGTWW (Wrong Way). Following instead of leading would be the most egregious example.

Brad Andrews said...

You all seem to care an awful lot about what others think of you if you are supposed to be going your own way. I would suspect you want just as much validation as anyone else, based on your actions.

Anonymous said...

Brad, of course we want to have human connection. Men need women, and women need men. We have not shut off our need for interaction, but the cost is too damn high. Going their own way is because validation is unavailable.

The Shadowed Knight

Brad Andrews said...

That's not the norm per what is posted. Women are pond scum and those men that want to work something out with them are worse than pond scum according to what is often posted.

MGTOW is inherently a solo-focused endeavor, is it not?

Anonymous said...

That is the general idea, yes. When you are the only one that will look out for your benefit, you have to spend less time looking after everyone else. Your focus becomes your own needs and wants.

The biggest point of contention between traditionalists and walkaways is the traditionalists claim that we have a responsibility to the larger part, that we owe our effort to someone else. They are demanding we shift our focus from ourselves, and refocus on society, while we crumble from lack of care. We do not care about you maintaining society, but we resist virulently the imposition of the cost onto us. You can do whatever you want, and so will we. Do not dictate to us, and we will leave you alone. Our efforts and aims are our own, and no one may direct us against our will.

The whole point of the MGTOW is to force the resolution of the sexual war. Why fight in the trenches when you can nuke them from a distance. Once they cannot rob us to finance the illusion of liberation, then we can negotiate. MGTOW is designed to bleed women until they come to the bargaining table. We are miserable, and we want to fix it. Unfortunately, we are the only ones talking. We want the same things as traditionalists, but they are fighting us because they do not like our methods, so self defense becomes necessary. Once we can all talk it out and hash out what our expectations are, we can negotiate a peace. Until then, we wait for them to grow tired of war.

The Shadowed Knight

Ioweenie said...

VD: "Most men simply don't buy the "man up and do X" arguments from women anymore."

What influence from women was/is effective? How did the feminist BS get bought and sold (not FI Gone Wild; FI that might actually have sensible bio basis)?

Daniel: "But bankers will hang before the competing wings of resistance ever get along"

Let's drink (a Guinness) to that.

PS. This is way better without the womyn. Go ants go.

Anonymous said...

Seriously, fuck all bankers. I would be glad to hang the lot.

The Shadowed Knight

ioweenie said...

*(not FI Gone Wild; FI might actually have sensible bio basis)?

Not looking to discuss/dissect FI, which might have an actual reality -based basis. FI Gone Wild is the effect of FI/feminism sold into culture and law. My question is what caused the feminist BS to have such appeal to men? What were/are the selling points that need to be resisted?

Frankly, as a female, I'm content to "do nothing" for the "cause." Speaking only for me, doing nothing is what I do best.

Brad Andrews said...

TSK,

I would probably not be opposed to that except that I do not see disengaging from society as an option for serious Christians. We are called to reach out to others, including both spreading the Gospel (not churchianity) and truly caring for others.

Many discount that with a wave of the hand, but I cannot, nor can I say absolutely nothing any more than I can stand by and say absolutely nothing about the crud going on in society today.

Saying that a man needs to be involved and attempting to make an effort to find a good wife and continue the species is not the same as saying "man up and marry those sluts" even though it gets accused of being that way.

We will have a mess if most followed your path. This society may deserve to die, but one built that way would also die. Looking out for others because of an inward drive, not outwardly forced, is a key part of success in life.

We have never had a perfect society on this earth and it seems like many are complaining that it isn't perfect so it deserves to burn. Even the oft-example Paul actively kept seeking to reach the culture, even though he ultimately paid his life for that attempt.

woere said...

"Either it will be conquered by an existing one or a new one will arise from the ashes."

What extant civilization could conquer the dying West? Does a civilization even exist with enough cultural cohesion to really challenge the West? Does China count as a civilization? Maybe Islam eventually if that's a civilization? As a Catholic I naturally expect the Catholic Church with its world-wide network of clergy and hierarchical patriarchy to be enormously influential again, eventually. I expect all of Protestantism ultimately to fall by the wayside. I'm sort of a MGTOW, but I'm interested in working to advance the Catholic Church.

Loki of Asgard said...

What extant civilization could conquer the dying West?

None. The new one will rise from the ashes.

...Headed by men such as I, who do not recoil from shedding the blood of those who would "go their own way" rather than the way that is settled for them by those who understand civilisation.

The yoked oxen must all go in the same direction, after all.

Brad Andrews said...

I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for that one. Biblical integrity still matters to many.

Anonymous said...

Good post, Vox. Couldn't agree more.

Tom Bell
Magnolia, Tx
I am a human being, not anonymous

Loki of Asgard said...

And AR, you may leave my consort out of your fantasies. You had her pity, not her affections; you have since lost even that.

Anonymous said...

In Thailand, it isn't expensive to seek advice professional to create a Will. He should preserve on practicing utilizing sample assignments.

Feel free to visit my webpage ... usługi detektywistyczne warszawa

Gilgamesh said...

Too true. The devil is the real builder of civilization. Wherefore he was able to offer all the world's kingdoms to the Lord, and it was the world's greatest civilization which crucified the same.

woerue said...

"Biblical integrity still matters to many."

"Now, friends," Onnie Jay said, "I want to tell you a second reason why you can absolutely trust this church--it's based on the Bible. Yes sir! It's based on your own personal interpitation of the Bible, friends. You can sit at home and interpit your own Bible however you feel in your heart it ought to be interpited. That's right," he said, "just the way Jesus would have done it."

Loki of Asgard said...

And yet, I fear, should someone be so ill-mannered as to respond with an equally bigoted remark about pederast priests and getting thee to a "nunnery", Woerue would cry foul. Then would commence the endless round of calling one another bogey-breath and poo-face.

Such is civilisation: the forbidding of men to settle their differences as men ought--with immediate and lethal bloodshed. Infantilises one, it does.

Anonymous said...

Loki get out of your mom's basement and get some fresh air.

Anonymous said...

Why should I work to prop up a society that puts me at every possible legal disadvantage and confiscated 78% of my pay? So Sahra' s daughter won't call me names.... no thanks.

Ton

Anonymous said...

Brad, I am not stepping out of all mankind, just this sociogeographic subset. After I complete my personal and professional education, I am expatriating. I will build another shining beacon for liberty in the wilderness, erecting it somewhere with a culture firm enough to provide a stable foundation. It will be based of Christian principles, because those are most conducive to civilization flourishing. That will be my life's Work.

It will not be built based off of the go their own way model, because it will not be spending all its time and effort to ensure that men are miserable. Build up the weak and make them better instead of tearing them down. I care about others in my own way, but I cannot care *for* them while they are trying to gut me.

No, I am still invested in civilization, just not this civilization. It needs to die with the shreds of dignity it has left. Perfection may be unattainable, but that should not stop us from at least trying to reach.

The Shadowed Knight

Anonymous said...

Well, talk about stepping onto a firing range to admit to MGTOW on this thread.

I'm fine with assuming the title, but I think the characterizations thrown around here are hard to define the individuals who live the lifestyle.

I'll admit there are those that hate women. I'd encourage you to think about the reality that misogynists are made, not born. I think most males come imbedded with the flaw that makes them desire to be of use to a woman, and to earn her gratitude. It takes a few formative experiences to retrain that bit of basic instinctual socialization.

That being said, some men just don't find the rewards offered by society (fatherhood, a loving, loyal spouse children, societal standing) to be of sufficient motivation to strive for. I think most have seen the end product of throwing one's self into this activity, and the wasteland of failed outcomes that it produced. Many do not believe that marriages will last. Many do not believe their children will remain theirs, and will potentially be held hostage for a support payment. Many look at the promises made by our government, and do the math, and realize the lies, and that this cannot continue.

Some reduce their income. Some actually double down and focus on becoming financially independent. Some abstain from relationships. Some simply decide that they won't marry. Some elect to prep. Some do not. They choose their own way, and refuse to conform to societal expectations, where it puts them at risk, or where it is not to their benefit.

Why feed the beast? Why toss your chips at Vegas in hopes that you will win, when knowing that if you lose you perpetuate the system? If you understand it is a system that is a business of breaking up families, of promoting misery for children, why would you roll those dice?

America has an epidemic of homes that are no longer intact with both parents. Highest in the world. What does this system do to protect or hold up fatherhood as an ideal? What sort of social shaming is there for women who permanently damage their children by breaking their marriage for trivial reasons?

MGTOW is immune to shaming. Those who hate women will continue to hate them. Those who have done a cost benefit analysis and come up understanding women are a depreciating asset with a net negative return will not update their spreadsheets. Men who have been burned by the system will not forget their experiences at your caustic chastisements.

We are a species that adapts to our environment. MGTOW is simply self preservation in a hostile environment.

Anonymous said...

You puddles of cock snot are a joke. Such bad ass internet dudes but I don't recall anyone by any of your handles down range with me

Ton

Chent said...

Chent, it is scorn and mockery to impress her will upon us; laughter is a weapon she uses to put people in their place. It is the threat of loss of status and respect

Ah, this! Well, not impressed by your efforts, Sarah's Daughter. Keep trying and maybe someday I will give a damn about it. Well, maybe not but laughing is good for your health. It produces a lot of endorphines...

Brad Andrews said...

TSK,

It doesn't sound like you are in the strict definition of the MGTOW mold. I have no problem with those who build something (anything worthwhile ultimately for the Kingdom of God) somewhere. It would be those that just disconnect and look out for themselves that are going to be the problem for society.

Even then, it is the more predatory PUA types that are actively hostile to society, as they seek to tear it down and stopping that just because society is now better will not necessarily be an easy thing, even if things did change, since their "free lunch" is build on a decaying society, not a strengthening one.

I am not sure I expect your plan to work well TSK, as I think "American" will be a bad thing to be in many other countries in the not so distant future and no other country can seem to forever avoid the same problems, but hopefully it works out for you.

SarahsDaughter said...

Why should we care about your laughs? Why do you think we are giving a damn?

I confessed I lack in empathy. This necessarily means I hadn't considered your feelings about my laughter.

What you can take from my comments is what Vox accurately assessed: "Yes, because you're female. Women are solipsistic, not empathetic. Your behavior is entirely consistent with the theory of Game"

My honesty about my reaction toward the MGTOWs I see represented in the com boxes of various blogs is confirmation of what observers of game theory have been expressing in millions of words.

I have been invited to think through this reaction:

I invite you to think through your reaction to the embittered gammas. Unlike the cat ladies to whom you compare them, they never had a choice. They didn't choose their place in the hierarchy, it was assigned to them.

And, I honestly have and will continue to do so. In order to do so, I must remain cognitive about my innate reaction and willfully choose another. This isn't impossible and I suspect there are a few women around these parts who have been able to. Challenge accepted.

Consider, however, that many women feign acceptance and express kindness/tolerance from one side of their mouth and contempt from the other or at least observable behavior that contradicts their expressed kindness (Yet another true game observation).

This is the exact thing I've heard complained about the most. That female family members and friends and feminist church teachings fed men bullshit about "just be yourselves," "you'll make a great boyfriend/husband to someone someday." "Be a nice guy." "You're such a great friend, why can't I find a good guy like you"

It is my hope that you, who are GYOW, understand that unless a woman has gone through the very contemplative process I've been invited to do, they do not find a natural empathy towards you. And, they will lie about it. Of course, to the hardcore MGTOW, this is inconsequential, they could care less what a woman thinks or says regardless if it is in support or against them. But a few, I've noticed, still want to reject the fundamentals of game theory and the innate nature of women in a belief that this can be rooted out and/or a hope they'll find one who isn't like that (a young virgin, a woman in a third world country etc.)

Vox again correctly assessed that: "Women recoil from them because they are rightly terrified of what will happen if all men go that way."

Though I'm not positive this is applies to all women, it sure is my reaction as a mother who desires to be a grandmother. And, I honestly do not know how to not have that reaction.

Chent said...

Chent, it is scorn and mockery to impress her will upon us; laughter is a weapon she uses to put people in their place. It is the threat of loss of status and respect

Ah, this! Well, not impressed by your efforts, Sarah's Daughter. Keep trying and maybe someday I will give a damn about it. Well, maybe not but laughing is good for your health. It produces a lot of endorphines...

Anonymous said...

After going over a few of the articles on your web site,
I truly like your way of writing a blog. I bookmarked it to my bookmark webpage list and will be
checking back soon. Take a look at my website
as well and let me know your opinion.

my homepage: ra dickey

Nate said...

Different T

That's cute. You conflate two statements on two totally different topics to then dream up a contradiction in your own obviously limited mind.

how impressive. Really.

Subject One: What is more likely to produce the best possible outcome for my daughter's future family.

Subject Two: What MTGOW hate about Women.

There is no contradiction, because these statements are talking about two different subjects.

What you're experiencing is a common problem amongst mid-wits as they think they know what the smart people are saying... when they actually don't.

Playing gotcha games with someone 2 or 3 SD above you in the IQ world is not a good idea son.

Desert Cat said...

I wonder if it is possible for any woman, however "red-pill" to ever fully escape the gravitational field of the Feminine Imperative.

Desert Cat said...

All you Christian defenders of 'civilization' might do well to question whether what you defend is what God has decreed.

After his fall, Adam was commanded to earn his bread by the sweat of his brow, extracting his keep from the land. Except for that tiny minority of the population who are farmers, most have found one device or another to avoid this dictate.

In fact, all of civilization gives the obvious appearance to be an attempt to ameliorate the effects of the fall and the curse by purely human efforts.

There is a school of thought (out there? maybe...) that believes that the tools of civilization were taught to mankind by the fallen angels and their offspring. (Gen 4:20-22, various Apocryphal texts and mythologies).

So you think to save civilization by your own hand? Was it for this that Christ died? Do you not know that it is written of Him that He alone will obtain salvation in the day of wrath?

4 It was for me the day of vengeance;
the year for me to redeem had come.
5 I looked, but there was no one to help,
I was appalled that no one gave support;
so my own arm achieved salvation for me,
and my own wrath sustained me.
6 I trampled the nations in my anger;
in my wrath I made them drunk
and poured their blood on the ground.”

Isaiah 63

Yet you will achieve this by your own puny arms and the laughter of your women?

It is also written:

Come out of her, my people,’[b]
so that you will not share in her sins,
so that you will not receive any of her plagues;


Are you quite sure that which you strive to uphold is not that which God intends to destroy?

Do I know this? No. But no one has stopped to question whether this 'civilization' we (used to) have is actually worth defending in the great scheme of things...

Anonymous said...

Brad, I think we would agree on a lot if we sat down and talked face to face. When I first learned about game, I planned to cad about until I was in my early thirties and then find a good woman and settle down. I decided against it because it would be immoral, and however tempting it is, I would be in the wrong. I read articles talking about running game on church women, or preying on virgins and I am disgusted with the attitude. Were the sluts in every town and city not enough that you had to defile the innocent?

My plan is not to be seen as "American." It is to be "husband, friend, son-in-law, family, that man who helped me." I will make my Work my identity, not the land of my birth. Whatever happens, I am guided by this mantra; faith endures, for this, too, shall pass. That which I build will someday burn, but I can still do my part to be a carpenter and not an arsonist.

SD, that you are willing to reexamine your prejudices and biases speaks to your character. I have judged you more harshly than you have deserved, but now, you understand that nothing I could have done would have reached you, correct?

I understand the dynamic between men and women, and how to take advantage of it. I can make it work, hell, I could make a go of it here if I cared enough. I do not, so another marriage minded young Christian man goes off the market without taking a wife off alongside him. The market for your daughters is not going to be pretty after years of this trend continuing. While you are reevaluating your attitude towards the lower status men, consider taking some of them in and mentoring them. If you continue to laugh, when your daughters cannot play because the man team is sitting on the sidelines and only the pickup artists are willing to join the game, then those men you mocked will have the last laugh. I have already made my choice, but others may not have.

The Shadowed Knight

Different T said...

"Subject One: What is more likely to produce the best possible outcome for my daughter's future family.

Subject Two: What MTGOW hate about Women."

No.

Subject 1: The utility of arranged marriage based on your view that women are too short-sighted, ignorant, emotional, and weak to correctly choose a mate.

Subject 2: When other posters state something you disagree with, you attempt to mock them based on your assumption that women do not choose them. Transitive property yields: you attempt to mock them based on your assumption a short-sighted, ignorant, emotional, and weak females do not choose them.

The purpose of this interaction is to help other posters differentiate frauds such as yourself.

Anonymous said...

Different T is correct on this, Nate.

You are arranging marriages for your daughters based on the fact that they have poor judgement. They have poor judgement because they are women. Their poor judgement renders them incapable of selecting a quality man. Women are incapable of selecting a quality man. You are preventing them from attempting to decide for themselves who is worth being with and who is not based on their poor judgement.

Then you criticize men based on the fact that women--using the poor judgement you assume--did not choose them. Given the fact that women make terrible decisions in regards to men if left to their own devices, not being chosen is the result of a terrible decision on a woman's part.

That is not a coherent argument. It does not take several standard deviations of intelligence or gotcha games to pick apart your twofaced arguments.

The Shadowed Knight

redlegben said...

TSK, I am SD's husband. You are actually a son-in-law I could work with. I wasn't sure at first. However, you seem to have a building mentality in mind. All you need is a mentor. You have to choose wisely. Don't discount Nate's advice. The male builders aren't the same as the male defenders of FI.

We all need mentors. My father is mine. His FIL was his. It isn't always a perfect relationship. I can tell you have a base level of morality that keeps you from going rogue. You need to submit to a man or men that have what you want.

FantasticSprite said...

I am a Civilizationist and am 100% aware of the disincentives for everything from marriage and working hard to reproduction and family. Still, I do it anyway. Tradition is a part of it, but it's also like Vox says, I'd rather try and save some small fragment of our culture, or what remains of it in this degenerate age. Game theory is something us Traditionalists need in order to survive in an increasingly hostile environment. There's nothing wrong with MGTOW -- indeed, I understand fully why they respond the way they do.

Traditionalists are not White Knight Gammas. Traditionalists despise the Feminine Imperative in our culture as much as anyone. Sometimes it can be hard to tell Civilizationists from your average married Gamma or Delta shrub. They live in the same neighborhoods, and have many of the same jobs. The test is reflected in their wives: where others marry frumpy working women who've fucked a few dozen alphas and are used up, Traditionalists do not. They marry hotter, younger women. Much of the time, they are Alphas. They could take plenty of other hot women home, and they certainly flirt with a lot of them. It keeps their wives loyal and interested. They selected this one in the interests of raising a stable, traditional family, but if they want an affair, they could easily have one. They don't take shit from their neighbors. And most importantly, they don't take orders from their wives.

Divorce and the Feminine Imperative may still get them, in the end. And they'll lose money if it happens. But they'll also have a newer, hotter, younger woman before the ink is even dry.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 353   Newer› Newest»

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.