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:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 353 of 353
Jack Amok said...

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

Nate, I think you're misdiagnosing the problem. It's not a lack of IQ. The stuff you and I are saying is perfectly comprehensible to someone with an IQ in the 80's.

The problem with these Spectrum kids is their OCD. They're stuck on the argument about whether a man should knuckle under to the Feminist Imperative or not and they can't make the context switch to any other subject. So they don't even realize we've moved on are are talking about something else.

Should a man kow-tow to Feminist scolds? No, next question. What should he do instead?

Well, they're still back on square 1. To them the only choices are White Knighting or MGTOW because they can't unstick their brains from the first question. They filter everything we write through that lens.

I imagine from their perspective they must think we're totally batshit crazy because they think we're debating a different subject than we really are. It's like a novel where some horrible printing mistake got the even numbered pages out of order. They're going from page 3 to page 28 to page 5 to page 30. No wonder they're frustrated.

Bottom line, don't argue with Spectrum kids, that usually gets them really agitated. Better to try and redirect them to some structured activity, preferably a highly repetitive one. That typically calms them down. I think it must satisfy their OCD needs, because after a while doing something structured and repetitive, they're usually a lot calmer and more receptive to new ideas.

SarahsDaughter said...

A little story to relate: the truth of the FI

I got home from the gym and went to take a shower. The water was cold and never warmed up. I got dressed and asked my husband to check out what was wrong. Two hours later I was taking a hot shower.

Later on, in lieu of this conversation regarding the FI, he asked me what was going through my head when I first realized there was no hot water. I responded honestly and said, "I knew you'd fix it."

He then asked, "What did you think was wrong with it?" I said, "I thought the pilot light was out on the hot water heater."

He's a kind man and didn't laugh too much...we have no gas going to our home. Thus, there is no pilot light to the hot water heater. However, the only hot water heater problems I've ever had in my life have been due to pilot lights being out. It was the only thing I could think of. I'm not a dumb girl. Though my IQ is at least 3 SDs lower than his. (Roughly 120) Had I not had him around, I would have had to call a plumber. Or, focus solely on this issue instead of the myriad of things I had on my mind and "to do" list.

My concerns (all at one time) were: scheduling my son's driver's test, planning my daughter's birthday party, making a list of items I needed for the cake I wanted to make my husband for his birthday, where I would purchase gift certificates for the men who helped us put up our pool, what was for dinner tonight, when we had to leave for swim practice, what errands I could run during swim practice, I need hair spray, ice cube trays, and a new stopper for the sink, I need to test the chlorine level in the pool, crap...those seeds I started need to be planted, our cat is still missing - I should drive around looking for him, etc. etc.

What I'm trying to say is - what may look like the FI - "fix my problem for me" - might actually be allocation of jobs I am simply not equipped to do, not while being able to do the rest. The "rest" may never seem consequential but never the less, it is what women do. All the time, every day.

Toby Temple said...

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.

Yes, because arrange marriage is a new trend. Women have always chose who they marry.

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.

Now this is just plain stupid. Where did that conclusion came from?

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

Child, please. You are not in the position to make such a claim. The owner of this blog knows Nate personally. So does Josh and several others among the Dreaded Ilk.

You can make the claim all you want. It does not change the reality that has been established.

So midwit, know your place.

Jack Amok said...

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.

You made a good choice. One of the things about immoral behavior is it's often very habit forming. There aren't many meth addicts who set out to get addicted. They all thought they could stop whenever they wanted.

The other thing is, cadding until your early 30's and then settling down - there's a good chance of bailing on the "settling down" part. Most guys are just hitting their SMV peak year in their early 30's. However good the cadding was a 28, it's almost always going to be much better at 34. Walking away from it then would be tough. Like an alcoholic who started out on rot gut trying to quit just as he's starting to drink top shelf stuff.

I could make a go of it here if I cared enough. I do not.

Nobody can make you care except yourself. And nobody can make you not care except yourself as well. Not caring is a choice, and one you make. But like cadding about, or any other vice, you'll find it's hard to give up once you make a habit of it.

Which is why I'm so scornful of that decision and so hard on men who make it. I see no virtue in it, and see nothing to celebrate about it. You won't be proud of that decision decades from now either, but by then it will be too late.

Despair is a sin. Like all sins, it's very seductive. Feigned indifference is just despair wearing a not terribly effective disguise.

Anonymous said...

Decades from now, I will be married in another country, with a new network of friends and a new life. I will be happy and busy and I will not be second guessing a decision I made so long ago when I could be doing something useful.

I have not lost myself in the depths of despair. We are doing the same thing; building a civilization. You are doing it in a different spot than I am, is all.

The Shadowed Knight

Apollo said...

@Jack Amok

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.

i dont think MGTOWs are wise to make a decision to withhold their effort from society purely to "stick it to them". Any such consideration should be based on what they want from their life, not what they want to do to society.

Regardless, if enough men choose to do so, it will be a contributing factor to societies decline. You cant have all the productive people from society stop producing and not think its going to have an impact, even if there are other factors that are also contributing to that decline (and I agree with you that the messed up approach to economics and societal design and structure, e.g. socialism, equalism, etc, will also play a big part.)

Roundtine said...

Are Mormons contributing more to the wider society or their own society? Are the closed Orthodox Jewish communities in NY contributing to the wider society? Are the Amish contributing to society?

One can build and remove support at the same time.

Different T said...

Now this is just plain stupid. Where did that conclusion came from?

In response to a comment Nate disagreed with, he posted: "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!"

The owner of this blog knows Nate personally. So does Josh and several others among the Dreaded Ilk.

This may be the weakest appeal to authority yet.

You can make the claim all you want. It does not change the reality that has been established.

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

Other posters can possibly learn from your mistake.

Toby Temple said...

This may be the weakest appeal to authority yet.

This may be the biggest display of reading comprehension problem.

So you claim to know Nate more than anyone else here?

Go ahead and make a fool of yourself then.

Other posters can possibly learn from your mistake.

As I stated before, know your place.

Anonymous said...

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.


Nate, you are pretty amazing man. I scrolled up looking for anything that would demonstrate your standard-deviations-higher IQ and found insults and appeals to authority-YOURS.

In the portion I posted above you've done exactly what you later accused someone else of doing (when you showcased your IQ).

It was not claimed that even a slut CANNOT make a good wife. It IS claimed that the odds are not in favor of that outcome.

Women are not all sluts.....true

There are women out there that would make good wives....true

Some good wives were sluts....true

Sluts yield higher potential for marriage problems, statistically....true

Virgins are statistically more likely to remain married and to have well ordered and happy marriages....true

These are the facts, all inter related but not mutually exclusive.

You bemoaned that something was "a strong definition of slut". Maybe. But you need to step outside your super duper awesome awesomeness intellect and see that if someone wants to write from a frame that uses the way they define slut, you cannot refute what they wrote based on your definition of slut. You can argue definitions but in this case its a bit fluid, which is good because its men who are doing the choosing to marry or not based on the definition and preponderance of the existence of those women thus defined.

Further, you decry broad application of the term slut....because you do, then, you tell MGTOW that they necessarily hate women, are whiners and gammas, etc. I wonder if you are not challenging a definition there as well, and not functional things.

You have not made one solid point, and your reasoning mode is self contradictory.

I suspect its emotionally driven due to having a daughter(s). I get that. I have them too. So, if my or your daughters ended up with a high N count, will we see them as sluts? I guess its possible, but we likely will rationalize away from the term. perhaps you are applying that rationale more broadly than just inside your brood.

Anonymous said...

Should a man kow-tow to Feminist scolds? No, next question. What should he do instead?

This is good.

Well, they're still back on square 1. To them the only choices are White Knighting or MGTOW because they can't unstick their brains from the first question. They filter everything we write through that lens.

This is a little bit good. I can see the thinking you describe manifest in lots of posts from the GTOW side. I agreed when SD said that its ridiculous that anytime a man agrees with a woman he is called white knight.

Two problems. If a woman is trying to act like and alpha male, which she does, then it precludes a man agreeing, necessarily. Its a very big shit test. See the reference to IQ with the small qualifier that its lower than RLB.

Secondly, what you guys are doing is falling under the spell of some imaginary alpha so that you can get you summa dat alpha-ness.

Watch Brad, he in particular is under the spell of the biggest bully in the room, all the time. You guys want to be bullies, conflating it, as RLB does so subtly (cough).

I have yet to figure out why you all give a living shit about what a small group of men are doing or not doing. This debate is like me thinking I can convince someone that they like the taste of some food that they do not like. Its pointless, but it does bring the weaknesses of both sides to the fore. Why do that?

Finally, whats up with references about who knows the blog host and who doesn't? That sounds silly.

Loki of Asgard said...

My consort has asked me an interesting question, and I confess I am at a loss for an answer that does not reek of sentiment.

She wishes to know why she should care about the travails of men whose lives do not touch her own. Her husband is a case entirely different from theirs, beyond the grasping reach of the feminists; the balance of power will be utterly changed by the time her children will marry. We will be well settled in the times to come, even having power.

The fates of other men mean nothing to her, for all practical purposes, so why should she exert herself for any of you? Why should she not "go her own way", which is to say, my way?

Why indeed should any woman exert herself on your behalf?

Different T said...

So you claim to know Nate more than anyone else here?

No. In fact, after this exchange:

@Nate

Is your authority regarding your daughters' marriage based on the average males' superior rationality or something more fundamental?

-----

It never occurred to me that my authority needed a source. I just have it. Always have. Always will.


and

@Nate

Would arguing about your superior logical abilities with your daughters strengthten or weaken that position.

-----

I don't argue with my daughter... or my sons. I lay out the plan. If there are questions about the plan... I answer them. I then execute the plan.


it was posited Nate had great potential. However, the subsequent exposition of his lack of integrity and self-esteem issues has led to a negative re-evaluation of that position.


As I stated before, know your place.

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

As you exhibit deference and offer defense to Nate, you may evaluate your own.

Toby Temple said...

lack of integrity and self-esteem issues

Again, KNOW YOUR PLACE.

Those words of yours are nothing but ramblings of an ignoramus.

Josh said...

Wait, Nate has self esteem issues?

I think our aspie friend is projecting.

Aspie gonna aspie.

Different T said...

"Wait, Nate has self esteem issues?"

Yes.

Nate said...

"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."

Again... These are two different subjects.

One topic is the best plan for my daughter. And no.. its not actually just about women either. While everyone likes to talk about how incapable 18 year old girls are when it comes to picking a life long mate, if you go back to the discussion, you'll note that I also favor arranging the marriage of my 4 sons as well. Because an 18 year old male isn't particularly capable of making intelligent life long decisions either.

The second topic was shit-testing. It is about behavior after the coupling has taken place. Shit testing is about the female reassuring herself that she is still following the strong horse. I simply have no patience nor even a hint of charity for the idiot men that want to complain about it. One may as well bitch about hormones or periods. It is, and always will be, female nature. If you can't deal with it... go away.

Different T said...

Again... These are two different subjects.

No, they are not.

Shit testing is about the female reassuring herself that she is still following the strong horse.

Again, this is not correct. You continue to try to force a wide array of behaviors into a neat little box. You continue to re-interpret all behavior so that it fits into your narrow view.

It is unlikely posters want to continue the "shit test" debate; though if they do, it can be accommodated.

I simply have no patience nor even a hint of charity for the idiot men that want to complain about it.

To what posts does this refer? Again, your projections are not only erroneous, they are false.

It is, and always will be, female nature.

This seems to imply there was a disagreement regarding "shit testing" being female (and as you also pointed out, male) nature. To what posts does this refer?

Josh said...

Again, this is not correct

Then correct it.

Different T said...

This was missed upon first reading of your response:

The second topic was shit-testing. It is about behavior after the coupling has taken place.

and is obviously a self-serving falsehood, or do you actually believe "shit tests" do not occur before the coupling as well.

Different T said...

Then correct it.

You have been informed how to proceed. Attempt to formulate an answer to "What is the value of an asset that must be spoon-fed."

Additionally, why did you ask me "What are your views, what are your solutions?"

And then completely ignore the response of "If you mean on a personal level: cultivate integrity, honesty, loyalty and learn to evaluate others so as to attain and exhibit proper deference."

Toby Temple said...

and is obviously a self-serving falsehood, or do you actually believe "shit tests" do not occur before the coupling as well.

~facepalm~

You are still not tall enough for this ride.

the league of baldheaded men said...

The MGTOW are just the logical outcome of the victory of feminism. They're the losers, the victims, with their "OK, so if that's the way you want it, see how you like it when I play the game consistently by your own rules!".

It's basically a female mentality. Does not befit male supremacy at all.

Different T said...

You are still not tall enough for this ride.

It is not clear if other posters find your incessant appeals to authority impressive.

However, if they are meant to influence my posts, they are unnecessary.

Anonymous said...

Nate, I have to apologize. I was wrong. I incorrectly remembered that second point as a shot at MGTOW. As it pertains to fitness testing, I am in agreement. Therefor, I retract my previous statement.

The Shadowed Knight

Jack Amok said...

I have yet to figure out why you all give a living shit about what a small group of men are doing or not doing.

I don't give a shit what a small group of marginal contributors do. But, going back to Should a man kow-tow to Feminist scolds? No, next question. What should he do instead?, more and more men are walking down that path. More and more men are realizing the old plan doesn't work and are asking "what do I do instead?"

Gammas Going Their Own Way don't matter. Betas matter. Too many Betas decide to sit on their ass and act like the overgrown children feminists treat them as, then it's going to be somebody else building on our ashes.

So I don't give a shit what these guys are doing. I'm just pointing out how pathetic and delusional they are.

Finally, whats up with references about who knows the blog host and who doesn't? That sounds silly.

You asking me? I don't think I've referenced Vox at all. I've never met him, though I recently discovered we do have one acquaintance in common. To my knowledge, I've never met any of the other regular posters.

Anonymous said...

Health supplement experts, software freelancing India is the
new best decision. I looked for a way to timepiece the games without buying
a other TV.

Stop by my web blog ... detektyw warszawa

Anonymous said...

Nate,
You're a piece of human excrement on the level of Mark Driscoll.

Let's examine why:

-You're "arguments" in this thread can be summed up with this phrase: "You gammas are pathetic whiners who have Autism!" They are so filled with ad hominem attacks that they wouldn't pass a 11th grade persuasive writing class.

-You've lived life on Easy-Mode. You're at least in your 40s, so you had an easy SMV/MMV compared to what young men face today. You also live in the South, which is a much easier SMV/MMC than the Northeast. Same with goes for economic factors. WHILE you castigate young men for not being equally successful in a much more hostile environment.

-You're solipsistic. That has been proven. That makes you a woman. A solipsistic male is more pathetic than any gamma.

-You've had to claim your intelligence as a reason people should listen to you while showing no evidence of having a superior intellect. Show, don't tell.

-You can't understand how you've contradicted yourself. Saying that women qualified to chose their own mates then turning around and saying that the measure of a man is whether a woman has chosen them or not is a genuine contradiction.

-All evidence points to you being a bully with low self-esteem. You insult and castigate those you think your inferiors, you're easily offended via your solipsism and you have to continuously state how awesome you are but providing no proof.

In summation, you haven't used logic. You have used emotion as your weapon. You are shit-testing (another female behavior) the men who disagree with you. So far you've been called out and nuked by a number of men, now it is time to stop. We know you are shit-testing so that you can get your gay tingle going as we repeatedly nuke your feral hamster. Stop before it becomes even more apparent that your need to be sexually dominated by men are what drive you.

Anonymous said...

Nate,
I see that since I started typing my response TSK has conceded my 5th point. I'll concede that one as well since I wasn't present for it and was using his integrity on the topic.

The rest remain.

Josh said...

We know you are shit-testing so that you can get your gay tingle going as we repeatedly nuke your feral hamster. Stop before it becomes even more apparent that your need to be sexually dominated by men are what drive you.

BAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Josh said...

You've lived life on Easy-Mode.

Straight White Male: the lowest difficulty setting there is.

Josh said...

Nate, ar10308 is refusing to sleep with you.

Don't cry too much.

Josh said...

You have been informed how to proceed. Attempt to formulate an answer to "What is the value of an asset that must be spoon-fed."

So you are incapable of showing that it is incorrect.

Why should anyone continue to indulge you? You have nothing to offer this discussion.

Different T said...

So you are incapable of showing that it is incorrect.

It is understandable that you do not see the relationship.

After asking "What are your views, what are your solutions?", you were freely given an answer you have no right to. Your response to this charity was to continue to "shit" on this thread in a disrespectful and uncivil manner and "wipe your ass" with the charity.

Why should anyone continue to indulge you? You have nothing to offer this discussion.

As most of the discussion is between members of the "dreaded ilk" (a very inappropriate label to say the least) who are mentally and emotionally fully invested in their view, there may indeed be little reason to continue this discussion. Is there a way to know if lurkers are reading?

Nate said...

Interestingly... I'm not in my forties. And I haven't castigated anyone for failing at anything other than saying, "Don't be a pussy" which is not castigation in my opinion.. its advice on behavioral changes. Granted its not said in the kindest manner. I do so worry about hurting feelings.

anyway... I'm really devastated by your cutting appraisal. I suppose I'll have to sit under the palm tree by the pool and sip the margarita the hot blonde brought me and try to figure out how to live the rest of my life.

See son... you shouldn't listen to me because I'm intelligent. Though I am. I think you should listen to me because I'm not in my forties... and I've been there and done that and continue to do it every day.

Anonymous said...

Damn browser...sorry if this ends up triple posting, if this doesn't post I'm giving up...

******************************

While I appreciate both sides of this debate, one thing I would like to bring up, is that the ‘civilizationist’ role is *much* harder today that it used to be.

When you old timers (Nate et al) :-P were growing up, the economy was far more conducive to providing for a family.

The intensity of work and working hours have shot upwards relentlessly, and pay (adjusted for real inflation) has zoomed downwards along with job security while prices have exploded. The machinations of the federal reserve, women in the workforce, big business/corporate culture, government regulation, and illegal immigration, combined with massive degree inflation, has made it *very* hard to support a family, especially without working yourself into an early coronary.

The few people I know who have kids work so hard that they never ever get to actually be with them – what is the point of having a family that you are never part, nothing but a sperm donor and a walking ATM? Plus, you don’t even own your kids…the government does. Good luck raising those little ones in a traditional manner when big brother via CPS comes to take them away from you because your neighbors are weirded out by your traditional lifestyle and call CPS on you.

AS a father, you are unlikely to know your children – statistically you have a very high chance of losing them via frivorce (and recall that most of those men were so sure their wives loved them and were sweet traditional women who would never divorce – never in a million years did they see it coming), and even if you dodge that bullet – today’s recession-addled workplace is so vicious you will be too tired and too overworked to be part of the family that you are supporting.

I am MGTOW, albeit involuntarily and not happily so. It is nigh impossible to find a non-slut, traditionalist girl, even in the churches. For every trad chick, there are a million sluts, so the odds are simply not in your favor.

No amount of ‘manning-up’ can counter societal and economic reality. It simply is as it is – that doesn’t mean that I like it.

qwert_Magyar

Nate said...

Qwert... where do you live? Have you considered moving somewhere where there are plenty of chicks that want nothing more than to stay at home and raise your kids?

The fact is I really don't have a problem with the vast majority of MGTOWs. As I told Different T... its not new. Jesus himself spoke of it... and Paul wrote about it as well. My problem is with the minority of MGTOWs that bitch on these boards and make the rest of you look bad.

Anonymous said...

Another point...this debate started over a post on Dr. Helen's book 'Men on Strike'.

She describes many of the things that I am writing about, and many of the injustices against men in our deeply misandric culture.

Maybe you civilizationists should try reading the book that the post is about and try and see things from the other perspective.

If even one-tenth the effort that is put into telling men to man up and hit their heads against the brick wall of modern secular progressive feminazi culture was brought to bear on getting women to 'woman up', things would be a lot different.

qwert_Magyar

Mina said...

She wishes to know why she should care about the travails of men whose lives do not touch her own.

Loki: VD answered this already yesterday near the top of page 1 of the comments.

His insight may or may not apply for Signe but it struck me as likely to be mostly true for most women.

Mina said...

"Don't be a pussy" (Josh and Nate) - I am not in my 20s, 30s or 40s any more and I can say with exuberance: Simple and True!

Nate said...

"If even one-tenth the effort that is put into telling men to man up and hit their heads against the brick wall of modern secular progressive feminazi culture was brought to bear on getting women to 'woman up', things would be a lot different."

Mate... its your choice to live there. Move to southern alabama. Move to Mexico or COsta Rica. There are plenty of women out there that want nothing more than a stable home and a husband that doesn't hit them or cheat on them to much.

Nate said...

The Shadowed Knight:

I appreciate you taking the time to correct and acknowledge that. Most men are not capable of such these day. Thanks.

Different T said...

Maybe you civilizationists should try reading the book that the post is about and try and see things from the other perspective.

Both Vox and Nate consider themselves well-verse in economics from an Austrian perspective. They are already aware of the situation you described in your first response.

Vox's reply to this is "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."

"If even one-tenth the effort ... was brought to bear on getting women to 'woman up', things would be a lot different."

No they would not. That is the point.

Brad Andrews said...

RLB, finding that mentor is one of the hardest things in life in my experience. I haven't found one yet and it is a bit late. I suppose I had some through my wide reading and intake of the Scriptures, but no human males stepped forth for that role.

====

So the basic idea here is that women have all the problems and men are just fine? Do men have no flaws? The civilizationists seem to find them, but most of the MGTOW put the responsibility solely on the female. That is not good for future society.

Civilization is not inherently evil. A large powerful centralized government likely is inherently evil, but men must be organized to some extent to survive, even if it is at the family level.

Anonymous said...

Mate... its your choice to live there. Move to southern alabama. Move to Mexico or COsta Rica. There are plenty of women out there that want nothing more than a stable home and a husband that doesn't hit them or cheat on them to much.

Hi Nate

I am living where I live due to family reasons, but I would definitely like to move elsewhere. However, sometimes these tales of vast paradises of feminine foreign women who really love men and are not slaves to the FI seem to good to be true. I am not in any way saying that you are lying, mind you, it's just that I can't help but be skeptical given the pervasiveness of lefty prog-tard culture.

Also, since you are an intelligent man with a good grasp of economics, I am wondering what your thoughts are on the econ part of my posts.

qwert

Anonymous said...

Both Vox and Nate consider themselves well-verse in economics from an Austrian perspective. They are already aware of the situation you described in your first response.

i find it amazing that if this is the case, that they seem to make no allowances for how much harder things are than when they were growing up and establishing themselves.

It is a *very* different world, and it is not fair to judge a very different situation by the same standard.

qwert

Different T said...

They do not care. Again,

Vox's reply to this is "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.

Mina said...

"If even one-tenth the effort ... was brought to bear on getting women to 'woman up', things would be a lot different." No they would not. That is the point.

I think I have a good case study on this. Yesterday I went on a nice long trail ride with a young girl from the stable down the street. She will be a Sr in HS next year. I love riding with the kids and do it all the time (pony club mom and coach...)

Anyway - she is a "cowgirl-up" kind of girl, real down-home and country. Likes to shoot shotguns at the gravel pit. Has a cute horse and knows how to ride. When I quizzed her about her cute boyfriend, she went on and on about what a good guy he is, smart, and loves her. He is heading into the fireman program like his dad and his dad before him.

I mentioned "sounds like he'll be wanting to settle down a start a family soon, then!" and she says ... "ha ha - I need to finish college first!"

When I asked why she had NO idea. To me, this is the problem: these young girls who should be thinking about settling down with nice boys like her boyfriend, are country kids, living in farm country .... why do they think they are required to go to college first?

Honestly I think I was the very first person who asked her why that was, then went on to explain (briefly, being mindful of the 17yo attention span) that not all people really need college to be successful in life; there's lots of good to say about being a good wife to a good man who will soon be a fireman and spending her days cooking, taking care of kids and riding her horse. Not to mention the $$$$thousands in loans she won't be saddling herself with all to pay for a job she'd probably hate and would be not all related to what she did in school.

When we parted I could see the wheels were really turning ... I hope I was a good influence on her. She's really nice kid.

My point is, of course, maybe the girls just aren't being given any direction about "womaning up". The schools, their friends, and probably their parents have all bought this "be independent, get a college degree and have a career" way of thinking and they project it onto the kids. Maybe if they had someone (like me) suggesting that this is not the only way to proceed in life, they'd be more open to seeing that was true.

Brad Andrews said...

@emp,

>Watch Brad, he in particular is under the spell of the biggest bully in the room, all the time.

Not sure who that is. I have been insulting at times by anyone that I could think you might be considering for that role. I am pretty much who I am. I seek to stand on truth, no matter what it is or where it is.

Believe what you will though.

Anonymous said...

Honestly I think I was the very first person who asked her why that was, then went on to explain (briefly, being mindful of the 17yo attention span) that not all people really need college to be successful in life; there's lots of good to say about being a good wife to a good man who will soon be a fireman and spending her days cooking, taking care of kids and riding her horse.

Your doing God's work out there...wish there were women of your caliber in my generation...

qwert

Different T said...

My point is, of course, maybe the girls just aren't being given any direction about "womaning up". The schools, their friends, and probably their parents have all bought this "be independent, get a college degree and have a career" way of thinking and they project it onto the kids.

American mass media reaches, directly and indirectly, even the "country kids, living in farm country." A large part of "going to college" is finally acting on what was not available while living in farm country or in their father's home (given that increasingly unlikely assumption).

Maybe if they had someone (like me) suggesting that this is not the only way to proceed in life, they'd be more open to seeing that was true.

It is, at the least, unlikely to be detrimental. The larger question, though, is what happens if the female perceives herself to be "unhaaaapy."

Doom said...

Okay. That... makes some sense. I was dancing here, and dancing there, and couldn't quite put my finger on what was happening. Between wanting the thing to burn itself out and yet wanting to make an exception from the civil fire, I couldn't quite make sense of some things. That post explains it.

The deep and dark side certainly does want the fire to rage and all to be consumed. Fire stompers are only delaying. That includes one part of me. Those waving the flames, although I still think there are different camps even in that group (those who are doing it for the eventual outcome versus those who simply like to watch it all burn), are my other side.

Rabbits, really, versus... my old self. Then again, back when I was wholly on the side of the flamers, I was there mostly as a bull among sheep. I simply followed the herd, if to mutual destruction. It is only in waking that... I see... and want a little clump of... sheepdom, graze land, whatever. Not sure it's possible, not the old way anyway.

Although, if I am half what I think, I can still do it. If I can figure out how to click just enough beta into play but keep the killer alpha instincts on hand for instant fire suppression. Tricky. The beta stuff sort of sucks, honestly. I'm... thinking on it.

Anonymous said...

Nate, a man is only as good as his word, and so he needs to take responsibility for his mistakes. I was in the wrong, no shame in accepting and acknowledging that. Not many men may do that, but that is because we live in such a fallen time. I damn well intend to be better than that.

Brad, women are not writing or enforcing the laws that are the reason many of them are stepping out, men are. Without the cooperation of those men, the entire thing would come down around the ears. That is part of the reason behind the Civilizationists as White Knights attitude; if you are willing to support the system, you are consenting--however unwilling--to the system that is pushing them out. From their view, it is tacit approval of what is being done to them, so you share the responsibility. How many men would lose their children at the hands of a bitter divorcee is not a single male policeman would stand for it?

Mina, you may have saved that girl. She could go her entire life with that little voice inside her that says, "Why not love and care for my man and my children?" supporting her decisions. All because of a conversation she had all those years ago.

qwert, life is not fair. Sometimes you get a raw deal, and you have to grin and look up at life through the dust in your eyes and spit out some blood. No sense complaining about how life is not pulling its punches. No, you get to your feet, scream your defiance to the land and the sky, and you hit it so hard you will never be forgotten. Take the beating life gives you, then carve your name into time with your own two hands and your will as a man. If you want anything, you have to grab life by the balls, and make it do what you tell it to do.

The Shadowed Knight

Anonymous said...

qwert, life is not fair. Sometimes you get a raw deal, and you have to grin and look up at life through the dust in your eyes and spit out some blood. No sense complaining about how life is not pulling its punches. No, you get to your feet, scream your defiance to the land and the sky, and you hit it so hard you will never be forgotten. Take the beating life gives you, then carve your name into time with your own two hands and your will as a man. If you want anything, you have to grab life by the balls, and make it do what you tell it to do.

Never said life was fair.

But as I said in my first post, no amount of 'manning up' will change the reality of things. No amount of fist pumping gung-ho attitude will change the reality of things - most men will no more be able to be 'civlizationists' than they could lift up a house. No matter gung-ho you are, you just can't do it.

qwert

Different T said...

most men will no more be able to be 'civlizationists' than they could lift up a house.

Could you offer more commentary on what you mean here?

Loki of Asgard said...

His insight may or may not apply for Signe but it struck me as likely to be mostly true for most women.

Indeed, it does not apply to her, for she is "complicit in civilisation": mine to come. What she cannot fathom, nor can I, is why she should concern herself with yours.

Anonymous said...

Could you offer more commentary on what you mean here?

Due to the awful societal, legal, and economic conditions that I touched on in my first post, most men won't be able to find a wife and also obtain a sufficient level of economic production and security to support a family in the first place, and in the rare chance that they could, be able to find such work, it will be such long hours and so brutal that they will be too tired and overworked to be a part of the family that they are supporting, and would just be a sperm donor and ATM to such a family.

qwert

Desert Cat said...

Loki of Asgard said...

My consort has asked me an interesting question, and I confess I am at a loss for an answer that does not reek of sentiment.

She wishes to know why she should care about the travails of men whose lives do not touch her own.


Loki, is this a rhetorical question?

She should not. And likely does not, as do not nearly all women. Solipsism is a defining feature, after all. Her (earthly) universe encompasses and ends at you, her Lord.

Something something about a woman's place, etc...

Retrenched said...

If women have a right to refuse to date gammas or omegas, don't men have a right to refuse to marry sluts?

If women can have standards regarding who they want to date or marry, can't men have standards of their own as well?

Nate said...

Qwert
Its a good assessment though my own is significantly darker... in terms of economics. I myself see total economic collapse sometime in 2016.

The good news is... in times of economic collapse society tends to turn back to its conservative roots.

Nate said...

As for it being harder now than it was then... I have a buddy that is down here from Seattle. He is settling down with a nice southern girl... after waiting years to bother to see if it really was to good be true. He found I wasn't exaggerating at all. Josh on this very blog, is recently married. I suspect he's around your age. He's a typical 20 something. So again... how hard can it really be? I have two friends that are doing it.

Ya know if you look at all women and all you see are whores... then odds are you're seeing several good options... but you're blind to them because of your bias.

Or... if it really is that bad... then family be damned.. your primary responsibility is carrying on the family name.

The future belongs to those that show up for it.

Josh said...

MGTOW seems to be primarily a Yankee problem.

Anonymous said...

Vox, did you lock Spacebunny in a closet? Always enjoyed her comments, esp. on this subject.

Tom Bell
Magnolia, Tx

Markku said...

Please tell me there's something more relevant to Loki's message in this thread than what I think this is about... Because if Vox's comment to SD is now somehow about we asking Sigyn to care about low-status men, then this is almost a farcical example of solipsism.

Anonymous said...

Josh, on HUS, she has a map of teen pregnancy, with much higher rates in the South. This could be for several reasons, but it could have something to do with easier access to sex in the South. That would mean that Southerners would be more likely to go the PUA route than MGTOW, if they go the destructive route... Since Yankees are not getting laid, they could be dropping out at a higher rate. Hmmm...

Of course, getting statistics on men intentionally avoiding notice and stepping out would be difficult. It would be an interesting theory to pursue.

The Shadowed Knight

Seven Dials said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mina said...

The good news is... in times of economic collapse society tends to turn back to its conservative roots.

yep - that's why the smart women who were taken in by the "strong, independent gggrrrrllll power" earlier in life ought to be figuring out if there was ever a time to link up with a strong man and "know her place" - that time is now.

Seven Dials said...

What is it exactly that MGTOWs aren't doing and Civilisationists are makes the crucial contribution? A MGTOW surgeon can set your son's bones as well as civilisationist surgeon, a MGTOW engineer maintain the main water filters as well as anyone else. Heck, a PUA sysadmin can do just as good a job as a Flying Ninja Assassin Husband (aka "Civilisationist"). MGTOW <> Ghost / Minimalist. MGTOW <> "hates women" either. I am, and I like women. I just don't want to share my quarters with one. Or with you. I'm selfish like that these days.

The only thing a MGTOW doesn't do that a civilisationist does is get married, have and raise children. Which is not so important in post-modern capitalism. Post-modern capitalism hires Polish and Spanish young people to do that. Also East Indian immigrants. The jobs requiring serious decision-making and technical skill can and are done by anyone with the chops - even well-educated white men. Your local corporate behemoth does not need your children. That's why it ships the jobs where they ain't. As far as the lawmakers and employers are concerned, MGTOW = civilisationalist. It's a difference without a real consequence.

Vox is dead right about the agree-on-analysis, disagree-on-policy bit. MGTOWs like me ask "you wouldn't take a marriage-sized risk in your business life, why would you do it in your personal life?". Traditionalists like Athol Kay and Ian Ironwood answer "because marriage isn't business and a man takes foolhardy risks which he mitigates with Game". The others answer "well, then, the rules / women need changing".

Married Man Game is for a handful of people. It's the rest of those poor shlubs who got married and then walked all over by a woman with a very clear idea of marriage-as-business-deal-with-divorce-when-it-becomes-unprofitable, who need help from legislation. Some women don't have that view, but then they don't divorce when the partnership turns into a liability. Sometimes that is loyalty and sometimes it's enabling: depends on the circumstances.

Better change the rules, the actual laws. We need to cover a lot of cases, with batshit-crazy-malicious-divorce at one extreme, and starter-marriage-didn't-work-let's-call-it-quits at the other.

The politicians can't change the rules until we tell them what we need changed. And then tell them that we will only vote for those who do change those rules.

Brad Andrews said...

TSK, not doing anything about a fire, per someone else's post, is just as reprehensible as building something that deserves to be burned.

I can no more rejoice in destruction, even if it is a logical result, than I can in any other sin. Sin and destruction are both evil, wherever they arise.

====

As to the argument some men can never make enough to support a family: I would say a lot of that is because they are not creative in how they train themselves. I know my own field of information security has plenty of opportunities, though it takes some effort to master what you need to know. A smart individual could start in it after making some connections (mostly by attending infosec meetings (such as a DefCon group) and could get something over time by proving competence. It would take time to do that, so most will not even try.

Yes, it is hard, but that is not a valid excuse.

My big concern is what I will do since I am not that "hands on" if things really fall apart. My brain works well, so I would work something based on that if that was the only direction.

Jack Amok said...

i find it amazing that if this is the case, that they seem to make no allowances for how much harder things are than when they were growing up and establishing themselves.

Oh, I absolutely make allowances for it being harder. I've never criticized a man for failing if he's made an honest effort. I might critique him, as a way of helping him (or perhaps myself) learn from what went wrong. But I won't be contemptuous of him the way I am with men who won't even try.

Besides, I'm not even entirely sure it's harder for a guy in his early 20's now that it was for me. Yes, yes, the culture is worse and women in their twenties tend to be spoiled princesses, but...

They were that way when I was 20 too. They're at the peak of their SMV, it's sort of natural for them to be a bit full of themselves. It might be marginally worse now, but a 20 year old guy paying attention today has the Internet and the information about Game at his disposal. I think that's a big leveler. I didn't have that. I kinda lucked out in that I always had enough self-confidence and self-respect to unknowingly do the right things with women, but I had no idea why anything worked, and no clue what I'd done wrong when it didn't. You younger guys have information I never did. You might have a marginally harder task, but you don't have to rely on luck like I did. I think that gives you a big advantage over my 25-year old self.

As to the economy, yeah, the Obamaconomy sucks, stinks, blows. But, here again, a 25 year old guy has one advantage today I didn't have at his age - he knows it's rigged, he knows the banks and the stock market are sucker's bets. He knows he can't count on lifetime employment, 401ks, etc. I squandered part of 10 years (not all of it, I still built a lot of skills and relationships, and cashed out with some money, just not as much as I should have if I'd known better) trying to make something work that, in retrospect, was doomed. You younger guys know that going in. You - if you choose to make use of the information - are better informed and can therefor get started on the right track sooner that I did.

Bottom line, things may be marginally harder for you, but you are far better informed that we were. We didn't have Athol, Roissy, or Cappy Cap. You do. Don't discount the power that gives you.

Desert Cat said...

Seven Dials, I was pondering along those exact lines while I was away from my computer working on my latest remodel project. WTH is with the notion that breeding is the only contribution to civilization that a man can make?

It seems to me that MGTOW's with their greater available time and resources will be on average more likely to produce civilization-enhancing innovations. Isaac Newton anyone? Anyone??

Those of you berating MGTOW's as being all Gammas consider this: the Sigma is just as likely, if not more likely, to go whichever way suits his own interests than the lowliest Gamma worm. At least the Gamma still cares what you think, protestations notwithstanding. The Sigma is absolutely not incentivized by your shaming language and could truly not give a fuck about it.

Jabari said...

Josh, on HUS, she has a map of teen pregnancy, with much higher rates in the South.

Careful here. That map is of teen _births_, not teen _pregnancy_. There's a huge difference between those two things.

(I'd imagine that abortion is FAR more common in Yankee States...)

Also, that study does not take race into account, at all.

Lastly, her post title says "OOW Teen Births", but there's nothing that I could see in the article justifying the "OOW" part of that title.

Anonymous said...

He knows he can't count on lifetime employment, 401ks,

Exactly the stuff you need to build a family in today's economy.

Bottom line, things may be marginally harder for you

You would call all that stuff I listed above only 'marginally'!!!!!! That's like saying if you have two runners, one is unencumbered and the other is carrying 200 lbs, that the second one has it 'marginally' harder.

Knowing you are screwed isn't always good enough to counteract the screwage. In this case, it isn't even close.

You still won't be able to support a family just because you realize that likely will not be able to...

I would still love to see the proposed way forward for your average youth of today. So far, all I am seeing amounts to 'you don't have so bad, so man up!'

That isn't going to ameliorate the effect of the Obama depression on the ability to support a family, now will it?

qwert

Loki of Asgard said...

Not "low-status men", Markku; any men save me.

Indeed, I only asked the question for a bit of fun. I have already an answer readied for her; I led her to the question. So logical she is, but how easily logic turns to my purposes!

With little effort now, I will eradicate that mannish charitable impulse of hers, and turn all her mind and soul toward the good only of me and my heirs, at the expense of others. I shall indeed transform her to the solipsistic creature you name her, erase all the "progress" she made from sojourning here and at Vox Popoli. Thank you for your assistance, of course.

She will not return to this blog. I am afraid I must forbid it. I have grown weary of hearing her weep for you "men", who do not deserve charity or mercy, who in fact reject it and refuse it to others.

...And, to tell the truth, such sentimental twaddle as "rights" and "justice" make me faintly nauseous. You cannot imagine how I loathe hearing her speak those words. They are unfit for the tongue of a queen.

Loki of Asgard said...

It seems to me that MGTOW's with their greater available time and resources will be on average more likely to produce civilization-enhancing innovations.

Yes, time and resources are the only factors in "innovation". This is why most inventions are produced by retired athletes.

Desert Cat said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Markku said...

She will not return to this blog. I am afraid I must forbid it.

It would be refreshing to see a woman for once do what she says she will, even if it perhaps needs to be caused to happen by a man.

If that is indeed what will happen.

Desert Cat said...

Two key words there were "on average". Nice spin into a non-sequitor.

Anonymous said...

Jabari, I was aware of all that. The panracial aspect of it makes it nearly useless for anything but the most macro level analysis. All that I was saying was that easier access to sex could mitigate the MGTOW phenomenon in the South, leaving Yankees with a higher occurance. Just one hypothesis, I can think of a couple more off the top of my head.

Destruction is not evil, Brad, it is amoral. If it helps, think of it as demolition; clearing away the old and broken to make a place for the new. Fire can be used to heat your house and forge tools, but it can be repurposed to burn your house down and torture you. It is all in the application and the intent of the user. Destruction is the flip side of creation, and both are very masculine powers.

qwert, I have to with Jack on this one. Look at the incredible power the internet has laid at our fingers. We have a repository of the worlds collective knowledge at our beck and call, and we all know that knowledge is power. Yes, the economy is worse. As are the laws, society, people, etc, ad infinatum. Not everyone can excel, but the power to do so is more widespread than at any other time in history. The situation is far from ideal. It is incumbent upon you to rise above the crowd. Take advantage of your strengths, and cover your weaknesses.

The Shadowed Knight

Nate said...

"Josh, on HUS, she has a map of teen pregnancy, with much higher rates in the South. This could be for several reasons, but it could have something to do with easier access to sex in the South. "

Without accounting for race in these studies they are utterly worthless.

The South also happens to be where black folks live.

Never the less... one can enroll at Ol' Miss and find red-shirt miss americas there looking for nothing more than a husband.

As for the economy... it sucks. so come to lower alabama where we actually have one. Unemployment in AL is 6.5%. We have AirBus opening up a monster manufacturing facility... we have hyundai... we have Tyssan Krupp and other chemical plants and steel plants. We have freaking Austel.

We build things that people buy. We have a word for that. We call it an economy.

Jack Amok said...

You would call all that stuff I listed above only 'marginally'!!!!!!

I did call it "marginally" harder. Do you have reading comprehension problems?

It's never easy. No generation of men ever had a cakewalk. Some had it easier than you, and some actually had it harder. Can you believe that? Harder than you have it! Yeah. Even the fucking crybaby Boomers, who probably had it as good as any generation of men ever has, had to worry about being drafted and sent to war.

I had it marginally harder than the Boomers. You have it marginally harder than me. My Great Grandfather earned his living freezing his ass off fur trapping in the Canadian Rockies. He had it marginally harder than you.

Tribesmen in New Guinea - the ones Jared Diamond thinks we have a lot to learn from - they have about a 5% chance of being murdered any given year, and only about 40% of them have children that make it to adulthood. You want to trade places with one of them?

He knows he can't count on lifetime employment, 401ks,

Exactly the stuff you need to build a family in today's economy.


For the love of...

How do you know that's the stuff needed to build a family in today's economy? Someone told you? Someone trying to sell you a wageslave job and a 401k plan? And you believed them? Fuck you are gullible.

No, you don't need those things to build a family. The people who want to control you want you to think you do, but they're con men. How many generations of men had 401k programs? Two? You're the third? Geez, that leaves just a few thousand generations who somehow managed to do it without a 401k matching program. Damn, how did they do it? Musta been magic.

And up until about 100 years ago, the only people who had "lifetime employment" were slaves and serfs. You might even say that didn't change 100 years ago, just that we gave the serfs a slightly better deal for a little while. While we could afford it anyway.

Of course the real reason you want to believe all the crap you believe is so you can absolve yourself responsibility. All somebody else's fault. Help! Help! I'm being repressed!



Anonymous said...

@Jack

Sigh...so much for reasoned discourse. You have been reduced to nothing but sputtering rage.

You are too blinded by your own rage and anger to possibly see my point, so there is no reason to speak with you any longer.

I thought Christians were to show self-control and not start shouting curses, invectives, and abusive language at people. Especially fellow Christians.

Chill out dude. I am done with you and your insane blograge. That fact that you got so angry at me and posted a stupid response shows that I won, even though you would never admit it. I didn't even have to try, and you have been reduced to sputtering rage.

Take some tranquilizers and call me in the morning, sheesh...

qwert

Anonymous said...

Jack Amok said...

a few thousand generations who somehow managed to do it without a 401k matching program. Damn, how did they do it?

With a VERY different type of woman at their side!

Anonymous said...

qwert, I have to with Jack on this one. Look at the incredible power the internet has laid at our fingers. We have a repository of the worlds collective knowledge at our beck and call, and we all know that knowledge is power. Yes, the economy is worse. As are the laws, society, people, etc, ad infinatum. Not everyone can excel, but the power to do so is more widespread than at any other time in history. The situation is far from ideal. It is incumbent upon you to rise above the crowd. Take advantage of your strengths, and cover your weaknesses.

A few major points of contention

1.) How can the knowledge from these blogs somehow overcome the tremendous counterweight of Obama socialism, big business, and dozens of other heavy forces arrayed against you.

Please provide some actual examples (that have been demonstrated to work for more than a tiny handful of exceptional individuals) as opposed to a general statement that this information will somehow allow one to succeed in the current situation. How can the information that these folks provide work for the average joe who wants to support a family?

2.) I always find it humorous when people tell you to rise above the crowd. By definition that is only going to work a minority of people. The claims here among the civilizationists is that their way, i.e. supporting a family, is what everyone or nearly everyone should be doing. But that apparently requires 'rising above the crowd'. So how is everyone supposed to be better than average?

Are you really with Jack that we only have 'marginally' harder today than people did in the 50's and 60's, with *vastly* better economic conditions?

qwert

Anonymous said...

@Anon


a few thousand generations who somehow managed to do it without a 401k matching program. Damn, how did they do it? With a VERY different type of woman at their side!


Not to mention that many didn't do it - after all, what % of men actually ever had children? I have heard stats usually around 40%...so contrary to the civilizationists, having children is not the only way for men to live.

qwert

Jack Amok said...

How can the knowledge from these blogs somehow overcome the tremendous counterweight of Obama socialism, big business, and dozens of other heavy forces arrayed against you.

How indeed.

Perhaps by... trying?

But I know qwert, I understand. It's not about the nail.

Anonymous said...

She will not return to this blog. I am afraid I must forbid it.

It would be refreshing to see a woman for once do what she says she will, even if it perhaps needs to be caused to happen by a man.

If that is indeed what will happen.


Especially when you consider that for all of Loki's blusterting, Sigyn is legally his master. She may well obey his command, but her obedience is still only contigent upon her will - if she chooses otherwise, it's divorce court, alimony, and probably false DA charges for Loki.

All these men here can talk about how they are they man of the house, but they serve that role purely at their wife's pleasure. A single phone call if she is unhaaaaaaaaaaapy, and it's all over.

qwert

Anonymous said...

so contrary to the civilizationists, having children is not the only way for men to live.

qwert

Even if it was, you have to have a mother in order to have children and far too many of what passes for women in this day and age are unfit for that role. I certainly wouldn't want them raising any of my children.

The facts don't matter to them because this issue is just being used as an excuse to pound their chests and do some strutting.

Jack Amok said...

Not to mention that many didn't do it - after all, what % of men actually ever had children? I have heard stats usually around 40%...so contrary to the civilizationists, having children is not the only way for men to live.

You know what every single person alive today, even the most wretched looser, has in common?

Every single one of their direct ancestors for thousands of years successfully procreated. Even the lowest member of society can claim his father - whether he ever met him or not - was reproductively successful.

Will your children be able to make that claim?

Loki of Asgard said...

It would be refreshing to see a woman for once do what she says she will

A pity you will never see it, for it requires a negative be proven. But ah, of such is made faith: the endless contortions of poor logic and bizarre excuses to rationalise believing what one already wished to believe.

Anonymous said...

The facts don't matter to them because this issue is just being used as an excuse to pound their chests and do some strutting.

How true.

Notice how they aren't responding to any of the arguments...just shouting louder - TRY HARDER, MAN UP, YOU MUST HAVE TO CHILDREN OR YOU ARE A LOSER,etc...

But they keep evading almost all the points us MGTOW'ers are making...as if chest thumping trumps actual argument. Poor old Jack won't leave me alone after his blograge meltdown, and apparently he is back to chest thumping sans arguments.

But as I stated earlier, I am done with FI-addled tards like him. I have better things to do with my time. If anyone else wants to play with him, then I wish them well.

qwert

Anonymous said...

But ah, of such is made faith: the endless contortions of poor logic and bizarre excuses to rationalise believing what one already wished to believe.

You are a Christian, right? I recall there being another definition of faith, O slave of sigyn.

qwert

Loki of Asgard said...

Qwert attempts to provoke me to a fight, because he sees someone ignoring him. Perhaps were his mother not so busy "entertaining" her "gentlemen friends", he might be less pathetically starved for attention.

...Yes, that is all the response his envious ranting merits.

And now I am going to go dominate my "legal master". Good night.

Desert Cat said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Desert Cat said...

Jack Amok said...
Every single one of their direct ancestors for thousands of years successfully procreated. Even the lowest member of society can claim his father - whether he ever met him or not - was reproductively successful.

Will your children be able to make that claim?



There we go with that breeding thing again. You don't gain immortality through your children, you know.

I doubt it would matter a whit to the ages if Aristotle, Plato, Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, etc, etc. had genetic descendants or not. Their immortality and contributions to civilization far outstrip any descendants they may or may not have had. Many of the disciples sired no children, nor did Jesus himself, for that matter. And how much more do they matter today?

Nor is reproduction necessarily the best way to carry your values forward to the next generation. Look at the success the cultural marxists have had! They weren't all that keen on reproduction, but they were damn keen on seizing control of the institutions necessary to indoctrinate the last two or three generations into their worldview. That's *your* kids they've turned!

Anonymous said...

The fact no one has cracked a joke about The Big Lebowski here disappoints me greatly.

Anonymous said...

Qwert attempts to provoke me to a fight, because he sees someone ignoring him. Perhaps were his mother not so busy "entertaining" her "gentlemen friends", he might be less pathetically starved for attention.

...Yes, that is all the response his envious ranting merits.

And now I am going to go dominate my "legal master". Good night.


So proving my point above, you ignore all of my arguments and simply hurl insults. Great argument tactics there, not to mention totally in violation of the faith that you profess.

You lost this argument, seeing as how you didn't even fight.

Anonymous said...

Many of the disciples sired no children, nor did Jesus himself, for that matter. And how much more do they matter today?

True. The FI-slaves on this blog appear to have the FI as their true God, not the God they proclaim.

The will violate their professed beliefs, and argue contrary to their professed belief that reproduction makes the man.

Their worship of the FI rules them completely - their emotions, their 'logic', and quite likely their faith as well.

qwert

Jack Amok said...

Notice how they aren't responding to any of the arguments...just shouting louder - TRY HARDER,


That is the answer. You don't think it is because you want someone else to plan it all out for you, map out the route, pave the trail, and set you on your little tricycle (make sure your helmet is on tight!) pointed downhill and give you a gentle push.

I can't tell you exactly what obstacles you will hit, or precisely what strategies will get you past them. I can tell you that you'll probably have many failures, every man does, and each one will require you to pick yourself up off the ground and figure out what went wrong.

You want answers to questions about how to stay married? Buy Athol's book. You want answers to questions about how to earn money in this economy? read Worthless from Cappy Cap. It's specific to college degrees, but it's based on the reality of how job markets work.

You want someone to hold your hand through life and make all your decisions for you? Eh, if that's the case, you should expect to be exploited and taken advantage of. Do you want to be someone's bitch?

Desert Cat said...

"The future belongs to those who show up."

Nice mantra, but false.

You are not your children, and there are no guarantees that your values will pass through to them.

Rather:

"The future belongs to those whose ideas and ideals are successfully passed to succeeding generations."

Jack Amok said...

The future belongs to those whose ideas and ideals are successfully passed to succeeding generations.

Marxism will be dead in 20 years. Hell, you could say it's dead now. Sure, a bunch of people who call themselves Marxists are around, but their ideas are more akin to the biggest thug wins than from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. Thuggery is a very, very old philosophy, and doesn't require any effort to transmit from one generation to another. It's the default state if nothing else gets passed on.

Marxism, as some sort of "workers of the world unite!" movement died with Trotsky. Since then it's been cover for various kleptocrats and thugs.



Jack Amok said...

No. That's why he's ignoring your demands regarding his life and refusing to marry a bitch.

In his case, it's probably a wise choice.

Other men can do better though.

Which, when you get right down to it, is the Gamma's biggest complaint.

Qwert there is the Y-chromosome equivalent of the woman telling her female competi... er, "friends" that they'd look awesomely cute with short hair.

You go girl.

Nate said...

no is being critisized for not marrying... at least not by me.

Again.. my problem is only with the sub-set of MGTOWs that come on these blogs and whine that nature should change to suit them.

Herman the German said...

Mr. Greenman wrote:

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.

As I (and Craig Ferguson) would jokingly say:

Many an angry, curmudgeonly, Presbyterian Scottish minister would say YES (he sinned)! Ooh, makes me wonder what prosperity preachers like Joel Osteen would say...hmn....??

In any case, Greenman, I appreciate your admonition to those who consider themselves Christians. "Sarah's Daughter" has exposed herself to be what you assume she obviously _is_. Thank you, Sir.

Herman the German said...

Wendy wrote:

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.

@Wendy (and SD, I suppose):

- How does one appraise an MGTOW, who's fathered and continues to successfully parent children, but who's wife detonated the family for Frivorce Cash & Prizes, eh? Hmmnn.....

I retained a phenomenal lawyer, lucked into the X doing some idiotic illegal things as well, and after four strenuous legal battles in three years, I'm free and clear after a few years of settling finances.

At the risk of being solipsistic, I thought it a useful exercise to provide an example of one who has _successfully passed on his genes AND ideals_, but is now benefiting from the MGTOW lifestyle. I adore women & appreciate their company, but they cordially leave when we're finished! (so wonderful!!)

Time to enjoy watching my wonderful children grow up...time to enjoy life...WITHOUT the disincentive of "manning up" and remarrying some American post-carousel slut. Proud to say that my 15 yr old son has decided to father children, but plans on not marrying unless society radically changes the law to incentivise him to do so. Otherwise, he will do what I've done. Find a fun & rewarding way to produce more than he consumes for the benefit of his children and himself, without the need for the companionship of a desouled, butthexted ex-carousel riding Ami-Schlampe.

Desert Cat said...

Jack Amok said...
Marxism will be dead in 20 years. Hell, you could say it's dead now.

Jack...Jack... you don't even know what is wrong with America that your marriage prescription is supposed to cure, do you? Cultural marxism is very much alive and well, and is the cancer eating this nation's soul. Our current president is their greatest victory yet!

Markku said...

A pity you will never see it, for it requires a negative be proven.

There is a threshold when one can consider as having seen it happen. For example, I thought Beezle couldn't do it, but he did.

Toby Temple said...

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. Please use Name/URL to select a Name. Anonymous comments will be deleted as spam.

Thank you, God!!

Nate said...

Qwert
I believe you have misunderstood the claims to "man up" and "don't be a pussy."

As I used them they were referring to how one should respond to a shit test.

I was not suggesting that "manning up" meant marrying and having kids.

Of course if marriage and family is what you want... and you refuse to go after it out of fear... well that's not exactly masculine. Be smart about it. Josh just got married a few months ago. People read these blogs and think its all over. It isn't. Not by a long shot. There are people out there raising good kids. There are women out there that grew up in divorced homes and have no desire to put their own kids through that. There are still families out there who would literally ex-communicate their daughter if she divorced her husband.

Anonymous said...

The second topic was shit-testing. It is about behavior after the coupling has taken place. Shit testing is about the female reassuring herself that she is still following the strong horse. I simply have no patience nor even a hint of charity for the idiot men that want to complain about it. One may as well bitch about hormones or periods. It is, and always will be, female nature. If you can't deal with it... go away.

Nate, same deference for the male sex drive? Im asking openly, not suggesting one answer or another. The point is that the sex drive is there day in and out, yet a married man DEALS WITH IT. Its expected of him.

If a man can manage that, a woman could do well to not be told enabling bullshit like what you just said, even it its true.

I'm also not in 40's meaning plus, now its age and not IQ?

Markku said...

If a man can manage that, a woman could do well to not be told enabling bullshit like what you just said, even it its true.

There are a lot more men here than women. Men still win in this equation if they get it through their skulls that there is just no avoiding shit-tests in a marriage. Ain't gonna happen, no how. They can either learn to deal with them, or start preparing for frivorce.

Of course, some of us still have the option open to consider women as not worth the cost. Personally it is worth a lot to me, that I still have one place left that's not a battlefield - my home. A place where I can charge my batteries.

But many have already committed themselves to another course of action, and they need to understand what they have committed to.

SarahsDaughter said...

Herman the German,
Reading your two comments back to back is quite interesting. You may have good reason for not liking me or wishing me ill will. But what I can not figure out is why you would care in the least what my appraisal of you is.

Different T said...

If a man can manage that, a woman could do well to not be told enabling bullshit like what you just said, even it its true.

The "shit-test as male fitness test" is only a (far from best) model of the behavior.

It appears many posters lack strategic foresight and are unable or unwilling to consider the consequences of the models they promote.

For instance, stickwick relates:

I remember one time trying to shame [husband] into not doing something, saying "I have no respect for that." I really thought that would do it. He shocked me when he shot back with, "I don't need your approval," and went ahead and did it.

Yet, because of the models promoted here (by supposed men [what is the saying about enemies and friends?]), this inappropriate behavior is given a "evolutionary meaning" or is based on a "GOD given instinct."

So stickwick continues:

In retrospect, I see that was a fitness test.

Additional consequences of the model include statements like:

Subconscious shit-tests are the best thing a wife can do for her husband.

and responses to the question "If a man's wife leaves him, is it your position that it is his fault for failing "shit tests" and he is "unfit" to lead HIS family?" of "Yup."

Other consequences include sentiments like this (granted it is based on the "evolutionary" model and not Nate's appeal to a "GOD given instinct.").

Desert Cat said...

Ok, I see what Nate's beef is here. While I may be sympathetic to the MGTOW lifestyle, what you have here is an "Is-Ought" problem Different T.

This may be an example of "excuse-making" against what Ought to be as you perceive it. Yet it is manifestly what Is. Accept what Is, head on and without bitterness, and deal with it. Railing against it is Gamma-fail.

Learning to dispatch shit-tests is not all that blessed hard DT. I was skirting the edges of Gamma status a few years ago when my marriage was on the skids. Accepting what Is and adjusting my own patterns accordingly was far easier than the manifest results of the railing bitterness. And it was only going to get worse from there unless I MYSELF made the mental and emotional adjustments necessary to deal effectively.

The only thing missing prior, was my knowledge of what "effectively" was. Now you know too. That knowledge is widely available. No excuses.

Jack Amok said...

Nate, same deference for the male sex drive? Im asking openly, not suggesting one answer or another. The point is that the sex drive is there day in and out, yet a married man DEALS WITH IT. Its expected of him.

If a man can manage that, a woman could do well to not be told enabling bullshit like what you just said, even it its true.


Not entirely sure what you're getting at, but it sounds like you are trying to say that if a man can learn to suppress his desire to have frequent sex, then a woman can suppress her desire to shit-test. Is that it?

If so, it's a perfect question. Because if a wife decides not to put up with her husband's sex drive and denies sex to him, he will either cheat on her (though not sure you can call it cheating at that point) or else become angry and frustrated. Same this is true if she completely gives up on her appearance and lets herself become sexually repulsive to her husband. Either way she stifles his sex drive, and either way he responds, her lack of ability to deal with his inherent nature will destroy their relationship.

Likewise, if a man can't deal with the shit-testing inherent in a woman's nature, he will destroy any relationship he has with her.

The answer is, you can't change other people, you can only decide how to respond.

Jack Amok said...

Desert Cat, I specifically meant Cultural Marxism, though frankly there's little philosophical difference between Economic and Cultural Marxism.

Yes, I think both kinds will be dead soon (Economic Marxism already is). It's an unsustainable movement. It can't outlast prosperity.

Nate said...

"Nate, same deference for the male sex drive? Im asking openly, not suggesting one answer or another. The point is that the sex drive is there day in and out, yet a married man DEALS WITH IT. Its expected of him.

If a man can manage that, a woman could do well to not be told enabling bullshit like what you just said, even it its true.

I'm also not in 40's meaning plus, now its age and not IQ?"

How exactly do married men deal with it? Lots of married men "deal with it" by cheating. Lots of married men divorce their wives over it.

I don't know if sex drive specifically is the best way to make your point... but if you are just saying that there is shit men do that they learn to control over time... then yes. That happens. Women also learn to control the shit testing thing over time as well. Some have greater success than others and also the better you deal with the shit testing the more rare it is. As always these are generalizations and your mileage may vary.

Desert Cat said...

Jack, then you're a far greater optimist than I.

Wendy said...

@Herman

I was simply pointing out what someone else said and what someone else thought they said didn't match up. I honestly don't care if guys go their own way or not (or whatever they choose). It's their life. And they really shouldn't care what I think about their choices anyway.

Jack Amok said...

Jack, then you're a far greater optimist than I.

I didn't say that what replaces it will be any better.

In fact, that's why I'm so contemptuous of despair. Only so many people can imagine something better, and if too many of them can't imagine ever succeeding, then whatever comes next will be no better and maybe even worse.

I think we're guaranteed an opportunity. I don't think we're guaranteed a win.

Different T said...

Women also learn to control the shit testing thing over time as well.

Why would women "learn to control" their "GOD given instinct?"

Different T said...

what you have here is an "Is-Ought" problem Different T.

No.

Toby Temple said...

Why would women "learn to control" their "GOD given instinct?"

Another evidence that you are not all enough for this ride, Different T.

God gave you the instinct to eat. Do you then let yourself be a slave to such an instinct and eat without restraint?

It appears many posters lack strategic foresight and are unable or unwilling to consider the consequences of the models they promote.

Again, you are making a claim base on your own ignorance on how women are.

Several posters here have proven their foresight on women to be correct based on their experiences with them that have successful results.

Any claim that such a foresight is short-sighted or incorrect cannot trump observable reality.

No.

Desert Cat is correct. Nate made a claim about women that is proven by observable reality. You claim that this is wrong. An Is-Ought problem that only existed due to your own mental deficiencies.

Now that you are given a hand on how to go up the stairs, we will be waiting for you at the top.

Nate said...

"Why would women "learn to control" their "GOD given instinct?"

Its hard to determine if you're just being obtuse... or you're really this stupid.

Ioweenie said...

Different T: "Why would women "learn to control" their "GOD given instinct?"

We would because we can and should. Some women do learn. It may take a lot of repetition, but after a while, some of us notice the connection between the brick wall and subsequent pain in the head. We may even notice how much better it feels to stop banging our heads against that brick wall. In fact, it's a genuine relief to discover the brick wall is not as an obstacle, but a boundary and protection.

Different T said...

Its hard to determine if you're just being obtuse...

As just stated, one consequence of modeling shit tests as "male fitness tests" is the sentiment expressed by earl that "shit-tests" are good.

Another is expressed by Markku here:

Because that knowledge comes deeper from the biology. And even that is not going to be 'wow, he responded in the correct way to my shit-test' but rather 'wow, somehow I don't feel anxious about this family's leadership anymore.

Your models are likely to lead to the inference some "magical female intuition" (which is quite strange given your assertion that "shit testing" is also part of male nature).

Another consequence of labeling a wide array of behaviors as "resulting from the female's GOD given instinct to seek strength," is allowance of simply inappropriate (and unrelated to "male fitness testing") behavior to be reinterpreted as something it is not. Because,

you so desperately desire every behavior to have some "biologically important" reason.

So much so, the model's you employ produce this as the explanation:

By standing up to her and not cowering, he [can] show an ability to stand up for her against someone else.

when the input is this:

Wife (wearing warm weather clothes on a cool day): Why didn't you think to bring me a sweater or a change of clothes?!

Husband: I didn't know you were cold.

Wife: Good grief, you wore warm clothes yourself! Why didn't you think to bring me warm clothes if you knew you were going to be cold yourself!

All of this said in a resentful and irritated tone.


------

As it is obvious the "dreaded ilk" is not interested in re-evaluating the models they use, this thread has devolved yet again into disrespect and incivility. As stated before,
the purpose of this interaction is to help other posters differentiate frauds such as yourself.

Different T said...

@loweenie

As a woman, do you assume this:

Wife (wearing warm weather clothes on a cool day): Why didn't you think to bring me a sweater or a change of clothes?!

Husband: I didn't know you were cold.

Wife: Good grief, you wore warm clothes yourself! Why didn't you think to bring me warm clothes if you knew you were going to be cold yourself!

All of this said in a resentful and irritated tone.


should be interpreted as:

By standing up to her and not cowering, he [can] show an ability to stand up for her against someone else.

As in, if you did something similar, do you perceive yourself as performing some sort of "male fitness test?"

-------

We would because we can and should.

Your response is acknowledged and understood. The question was meant to expose the consequences of the model being used by the "dreaded ilk" (and much of the manosphere).

Markku said...

Your models are likely to lead to the inference some "magical female intuition" (which is quite strange given your assertion that "shit testing" is also part of male nature).

Nope, just human intuition in general. Just like we men can recognize feminine behavior when we see it, but most of us can't credibly describe exactly what it would entail in any given situation.

Different T said...

Nope, just human intuition in general. Just like we men can recognize feminine behavior when we see it, but most of us can't credibly describe exactly what it would entail in any given situation.

So your models are built around "human intuition? Do you find that reliable?

Markku said...

So your models are built around "human intuition? Do you find that reliable?

It depends on what the intuition is about. It's not magic, it can only base its decisions on the experiences it has access to. (I view it as a background process that makes connections between memories when the brain has idle time, and eventually gives potential decisions for the conscious mind).

As to judging whether or not to feel certain behavior of the opposite sex as attractive, that's as basic as it gets. And therefore generally reliable, unless your entire wiring has been screwed up due to hormonal reasons, for example.

The opposite example would be making business decisions with little business experience. The pool of relevant memories is so small that intuition is bound to be unreliable.

Different T said...

As to judging whether or not to feel certain behavior of the opposite sex as attractive, that's as basic as it gets.

Have you ever read "The Rawness's" articles about narcissism and other personality disorders and their affects on mate choice? If you choose to go to his site, know that he is a neo-mystic peddling nihilistic psycoanalysis.

Toby Temple said...

As it is obvious the "dreaded ilk" is not interested in re-evaluating the models they use, this thread has devolved yet again into disrespect and incivility.

Again, a blatant display of ignorance.

Respect is earned. And you still have to earn ours, Different T.

The fact that the Dreadeded Ilk stands firm to its models is because it gets reaffirmed so many times that predicting the female response is almost doable all the time.

As stated before,
the purpose of this interaction is to help other posters differentiate frauds such as yourself.


As stated before, no amount of claim will change observable facts.

You are not even trying to prove your claim.

Ioweenie said...

Different T:

In re: the woman who didn't think ahead about the weather and blamed her husband; is this a as a test of his ability to protect her in the future?

Yes. Sometimes, we women are bitchy, whiney, and insatiable complainers. We tend to find fault, esp. with our mate, and relate everything back to ourselves. So, in essence, anytime a man does not cower to our whiney, self-centered, and irrational behavior, on some level, we get that he is not bent to our will, he is not irrational, and therefore, he can be relied upon, especially in a stressful situation. This is not a thought process of which we are consciously aware; this usually takes repetition, trial and error; it's especially helpful to see our spouse in action behaving with a level head when we are losing ours. When the response we get back to our crappy behavior is minimal and dispassionate, we're left to contend with our own emotion and "problem." Some of us figure out we need to take responsibility for our own stuff, including our emotions, but we sure don't get there and are only enabled to never get there if someone responds to our unreasonable, unacceptable behavior as if it's reasonable and acceptable.

Now, if a woman speaks disrespectfully to her husband routinely, that is a different matter and requires him to respond in a more dominant manner, best done in private, unless she continues to push in public. Then, a public reproach is necessary.

Nate said...

Let us sum up Different T's position.

We shouldn't tell the truth... because when some women hear the truth (even though we aren't talking to women, we're talking to men about women) they will hear the truth (which they already know) and behave worse.

Brilliant.

Really.

Anonymous age 71 said...

>>" Let's not forget who ignorantly sanctioned the feminist script and allowed women to gain power...men.
Anonymous May 24, 2013 at 6:39 AM "

Some men. The men in charge whose fortune never changes no matter what happens to most men. This follows the feminist canard that what some men do is the fault of all men.


>>" 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...
@nate May 24, 2013 at 6:41 AM"

Hogwash. Another man who has nothing going for him except denigrating other men with no purpose except making himself feel superior.

This attitude is a subset of the heresy which HAS DESTROYED the Christian church in the US. That effective male leadership initiates biblical submission by women. The Bible says no such thing. In fact makes it clear that female submission initiates male leadership.

Thus, I assume this man is one of the Christian heretics. Who believes that REAL MEN(tm) like himself can take the normal American ho and turn her into a sweet, compliant dearie. I have never in my 71 years seen a good man turn a skank into a good woman; the skank always destroys the good man. A good woman at times can turn a bum into a good man, but not the other way.

Let me add a statistical note. The AVERAGE bride in the US has previously had 11 lovers. I first encountered this number in the 80's, and assumed the magazine that made the study had really slutty subscribers. Now, it's the national average. Sounds pretty much like most AW are sluts. The fact that a rare woman is not a slut does not create millions of chicks that would make good wives.

Anonymous age 71

Markku said...

Thus, I assume this man is one of the Christian heretics.

He also happens to have an absolutely preposterous pile of guns, for the express purpose of arming his own militia when the time comes. I have no doubt that his wife would be looking at the wrong end of one of those guns in the right circumstances. He also has preposterous amounts of land to bury corpses.

But that's really what it takes. It is typical alpha solipsism to extend your own particular circumstances that have taken decades to build, to all men. It's either alpha or gamma for them.

Nate said...

"Hogwash. Another man who has nothing going for him except denigrating other men with no purpose except making himself feel superior.

This attitude is a subset of the heresy which HAS DESTROYED the Christian church in the US. That effective male leadership initiates biblical submission by women. The Bible says no such thing. In fact makes it clear that female submission initiates male leadership.

Thus, I assume this man is one of the Christian heretics. Who believes that REAL MEN(tm) like himself can take the normal American ho and turn her into a sweet, compliant dearie. I have never in my 71 years seen a good man turn a skank into a good woman; the skank always destroys the good man. A good woman at times can turn a bum into a good man, but not the other way."

I married a virgin you ignorant baby boomer locust.

She was raised in the Church of Christ. You obviously have no idea what that means... because if you did... you'd know that there are plenty of others just like her.

Nate said...

" It's either alpha or gamma for them."

This is not true.

The whole spectrum exists for me. The alphas are the extroverted leaders of the game. The sigmas are the introverted winners who would be leaders if it was absolutely forced on them even though its the last thing they want. The betas are the competent followers.... the deltas are the incompetent followers. The Gammas are those who are to busy crying about the rules to play the game. The Omegas are such losers they only experience the game through the pain of exclusion. Lambdas are playing a totally different... fabulous... game.

Markku said...

Anonymous:

So that you wouldn't feel unwelcome right from the first post, note NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. Anonymous comments will be deleted as spam. and also that it is enforced without even reading the post. Use Comment as: Name/URL. You can leave the URL empty.

jlw said...

True omega males are MGTOW by default. For example, I'm short, ugly, miserly, largely anti-social, and have high standards. I'm immune to shaming. No sane/smart person would bother to do so to me anyway as I'm clearly out of the game whether I choose to participate or not.

Different T said...

Let us sum up Different T's position.

We shouldn't tell the truth... because when some women hear the truth (even though we aren't talking to women, we're talking to men about women) they will hear the truth (which they already know) and behave worse.


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

You accuse others of being obtuse, and then blatantly lie.

"The 'shit-test as male fitness test' is only a (far from best) model of the behavior."

In none of my posts has it been claimed that the "female shit tests are really fitness tests" model is accurate or "true." My posts have regarded your models allowing women to shift responsibility away from themselves when convenient (eg., "its just my biology") and take responsibility when it is convenient (eg., "I chose him because of my GOD given instinct"). Your models also force guilt (fault for marriages ending) on men because they "fail to pass fitness tests." Your model also requires you reinterpret all behavior as "biologically meaningful."

Again, the purpose of this interaction has been to help other posters differentiate frauds such as yourself. If those posters still cannot differentiate, this is unlikely to change if the interaction is continued.

Nate said...

"Your model also requires you reinterpret all behavior as "biologically meaningful." "

No. I don't give a damn what it means. I am only acknowledging that it exists, and giving men who seek to stay married, the tools to deal with it.

Nate said...

as for my being a fraud... it would be very difficult to pull that off wouldn't it? Given the number of people that read and comment here that have actually been to my place and know me and my family?

Toby Temple said...

I have never in my 71 years seen a good man turn a skank into a good woman;

71 years of gammatude: makes you believe that there is no such thing as a repentant adulteress.

patriarchal landmine said...

the issues we as a civilization face now begin and end with female misbehavior. correct female misbehavior first, or stop pretending that you give a damn about men.

RoughDivide said...

At this rate what Japan is dealing with concerning their "grass eaters" is what the rest of the west will become. Look at southern EU for example. They used to have the largest families of all of the EU and they too also suffer from declining birth rates. So while the west is too busy having a gender war, labeling each other as alpha, beta, gamma, omega, zeta or whatever, the ones who would like to see nothing more than the west gone have booming birth rates and we all know that demographics is destiny. We can boast and brag about the military prowess but that doesn't stop them from moving into the west and spreading their influence. Sweden had that wave of rapes due to the islamic immigration and right up north from me in the UK they have "Sharia law" zones where the British police have no say and no power. To me personally it'll be the MGTOW's who will be able to take care of themselves when it all goes down while the ones who are so quick to pander to a currently broken system will be the ones caught with their pants around their ankles. We have some dark times ahead of us.

Jack Amok said...

I have never in my 71 years seen a good man turn a skank into a good woman;

Y'know, I'm kind of inclined to agree with this. Men, at least the kind who can influence a woman, tend not to bother with skanks. They leave the carouselers to the lower SMV men and instead snap up the women who haven't become skanks.

vasc said...

Roughdivide, you unfortunately accurate.

Tim Reynolds said...

This is hilarious. While I am mostly a troll, some of you have no clue how actual revolutions play out.

You see, while some nihilists are, in essence, stupid psychopathic man-children, there are those who possess both a high IQ and social acumen. These type tend to be only mildly sociopathic and quite adept at manipulating groups. It is this second group of nihilists, rather than the so-called 'alphas' on display here, who tend to wind up in charge of these movements. And they don't hang the hedonists (elite men and their associates get hanged, not the layabouts). If they hang anyone within their own movement, it'll be the Nates of the world, because those are their potential competitors. And the Nates of this world tend to get hung in such situations, because the nihilists will go further than they will, much more quickly than they will.

While I agree that MGTOW are spiteful losers, the real social dynamics of revolutions play with considerable difference from what's being portrayed here.

WhoCares said...

I think this sums it up quite well

http://mayhaan.blogspot.com/2013/05/why-is-it-easier-to-oppress-men-rather.html

Glen Filthie said...

I don't see it that way at all. Both camps are reacting to the same problem and I believe that they are fluid and the players will change 'sides' as the situation changes.

Right now I can happily fiddle while the the fires smolder. When the blaze really starts roaring I will pour a drink and light a cigar from the flames. When the fire is out...the game will change. Radically.

The economy is tanking. Welfare mothers will be a thing of the past. In hard economic times affirmative action will go over like a lead balloon, both for racial minorities and women. A good solid marriage will make sense for both men and women, and feminists will be dismissed for the rancid whores they are. The traditional values of marriage will bind men too: the pump and dump of the slut culture will be frowned upon by both men and women.

This sickness that pervades our culture will pass.

Unknown said...

unblockedgames unblocked online games unblocked games at school and work unblocked school games unblocked fighting games unblocked games 4 free unblockable games Unblocked Games At School unblocked games 4u unblocked mario games
jogar sinuca jogos de tiro online jogos da polly sinuca online jogos de carros 3d jogos de dama jogos de estrategia jogos de motas ballerspiele affen spiele giochi gratis per ragazze giochi delle winx giochi di cavalli juegos de vestir barbies juegos de vestir muñecas juegos de vestir bebes juegos de vestir novias juegos de vestir princesas juegos de vestir a modelos juegos de vestir ala moda

Pussy-ManiaGirls: http://goo.gl/w9Oepq said...

watching my collection, we have upload more video at here:

Collection Part 1:

Doggy Style and In Missionary Position

Hot Sex Anal With Amazing Girl Friend

Sex Under Hot Lights Bad Girls

Give Me The Cum

Cum In My Panties

Nude Amateur Teen Girls

Sexy Brunette Girls

Young Kinky Sluts

Busty Tattoo Chick On Car

Young Asian fucked anal

Latina Havana Ginger gets

Teen Threesome Porn

Hot Blowjob

Amateur Pulls Down Tanga

Sweet girl amazing hot

Sexy japanese babes getting their tight

TEEN BLONDE ANAL SEX ORGY




Collection Part 2:


Hot asian blowjob and pussy creampie

Sucking dick, Audrey put vegetables in all holes

Blonde love fuck

Naomi Russell And Her Royal Ass

Sexy blonde gives blowjob in the car

ASIAN XXX PORN VIDEO

JAPANESE XXX PORN VIDEO

ARABIC XXX PORN VIDEO

HARDCORE PORN VIDEO

GAY XXX PORN VIDEO

WATCH STREAMING PORN VIDEO

USA CELEBS XXX PORN

LATINA XXX PORN

LESBIAN XXX PORN

Hardcore Porn Celebrity

HOT TURKEY PORN MOVIE

INDIAN NUDES CELEBRITIES VIDEOS

UZBEKS Fuck PORN VIDEOS

HOT RASTA GIRL


100% MAKE you satisfy......








































Reply Delete

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 353 of 353   Newer› Newest»

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.