Unlike many in the Game community, I don't have much regard for the self-styled MGTOW sorts. I tend to view them as being predominantly weak and damaged individuals of low socio-sexual rank who would probably sacrifice their oft-expressed principles in a minute if the right woman presents herself in the right way.
Here is why: a man who is genuinely doing his own thing doesn't make a big deal about it. If I'm not going to read a book, I just don't read it. I don't loudly proclaim to all and sundry the fact of my not-reading it. I don't know any man who makes a habit of announcing that today, again, he is going to refrain from having sex or engaging in romantic relationships with chickens, or indeed, poultry of any kind. The very act of the self-identification as a Man Not-Reading a Book or a Man Not Having Sex with Chickens is an indication that everything is not in psychological good order.
Now, I have a lot of respect for men who take vows of celibacy for religious or intellectual reasons. I don't think it's an accident that some of Man's greatest geniuses, men like Isaac Newton and Nicholas Copernicus, never married, although I think it is a genuine tragedy that, in the case of Newton, their genes were lost to the race.
But the vibe I get from most self-styled MGTOW is that their professed choice is an emotional reaction, not a proactive decision. This observation is supported by the reaction some have had to the statement of the completely obvious that if civilized men do not manage to reproduce and instill civilized values in their sons, civilization will not survive. To somehow summarize that as a call to "man up and marry those sluts" is to miss the point so profoundly that I don't even know where to begin pointing out the errors.
I can't fault a man who is so psychologically damaged by his experience with the opposite sex that he has been rendered capable of nothing more than retreating into a cave and licking his wounds for the rest of his life. But it is not behavior that merits respect from other men, nor is it of any use to anyone who values the finer aspects of Western civilization and wishes to avoid a collapse into mud hut barbarism.
As for those who claim I am somehow attempting to shame such men, what would be the point of that? It's a factual observation, nothing more. If a man is so delicate as to remove himself from the world due to the bad behavior of a woman or three, he's not likely to be of any use in the upcoming battle for the West.
There is always a risk in doing anything worthwhile and sometimes the odds are stacked against you. That is the way things are; it is the way things have always been. The hero is the man who runs toward the sound of gunfire, not the man who runs away from it.
261 comments:
1 – 200 of 261 Newer› Newest»I am the exact opposite. I have never had much use for the PUA/gamer types that pose as alpha males as they treat all women like sluts on general principles. Nor will that save civilization.
If you want to save the world, boys - you need to rewind back to at least the 1950's. The idea is to find a stable woman with old world values - not make political statements with your sex life.
You speak of heroes running into gun fire...well, useful fools and cannon fodder do that too. If you must go your own way for awhile - do it. Clear your head, ease your soul, and plan for what you're going to do next. If you are up for cheap thrills do the PUA thing, I suppose. Every man will react differently and as long as it works for him that is all that matters.
Remember though Glen, the devil is in the details, he said "run towards the SOUND of gunfire" not actually into it. The proper response is to locate the source of incoming fire, supress it, flank thier position and wipe them out.
If you want to save the world, boys - you need to rewind back to at least the 1950's.
Ah, more's the pity. Lacking a time machine, we all seem to be doomed...
Also odd that you chose the 50's. By all accounts it wasn't exactly a virtuous time. That's when most of the boomers were being born too, which doesn't exactly recommend the women that raised them.
There were no good old days... then as now, there were women suitable for marrying and women who had rendered themselves unsuitable. There is no rewinding. There is acting in a way that makes sense now, for the future.
"Here is why: a man who is genuinely doing his own thing doesn't make a big deal about it. If I'm not going to read a book, I just don't read it."
I've run across a few where a more accurate parallel would be that they see many men reading the same crappy book because they've been bludgeoned into thinking they don't have a choice. Too many men who don't have options are convinced that they can't be happy if they don't get married and have kids, and don't have enough voices out there telling them "Hey, be careful. You lose more than you realize by getting married. So make sure she offers enough gains, aside from just getting laid occasionally, before you go down that road."
But I agree that most just seem to hate women and are probably not nearly as valuable to women as they claim, based on how hard they have to assert the number of options they have.
MGTOW isn't celibacy though. It's refusing to marry and have LTRs. Refusing to let women and the government have suck you dry, if you will.
"MGTOW isn't celibacy though. It's refusing to marry and have LTRs. Refusing to let women and the government have suck you dry, if you will."
quite true, but this is simply playing defense. In the context of preserving civilization, it adds next to nothing to the debits side. If MGTOW were explicit that they were simply hedging thier bets and trying (however quixotically) to starve the beast till it collapses and then move on, i'd be more savvy about it. I daresay this is vox's point as well.
"If MGTOW were explicit that they were simply hedging thier bets and trying (however quixotically) to starve the beast till it collapses and then move on, i'd be more savvy about it."
....of course thats the point :D You think women would act like shit forever? The ideal scenario is a short term collapse where this kind of behavior will be stigmatized much like "fascism" was after WW2.
Thank you. The arguments over whether MGTOW are confident, healthy, swashbucklers turning down crowds of adoring women or scared rabbits living in their mothers' basements and fapping to anime porn get pretty old. While there are some of each, I suspect that most are the equivalent of the girl who says she's "not ready for a relationship right now": if the right offer came along, that would change in a hurry, but they're not actively trying to make it happen. But a man being that passive looks bad, so he says, "Uh, yeah, I'm doing this on purpose."
Seriously though, in jurisdictions such as those in the USA, getting married really IS a disaster waiting to happen.
Or, they could simply be rational men who've done a cost/benefit analysis, and determined that the work and/or risk outweighs the reward. Age-related low testosterone helps too.
Incidentally, I don't think there's any saving this civilization, which was lost in the early 1910s (or, some might argue, after the Whiskey Rebellion). _Maybe_ there's a chance at restoring civilization after the upcoming collapse.
I think there is no MGTOW "movement" and that it's a title slapped on a reaction. At best, maybe MGTOW is like a support group, but I just don't think there is a movement.
However, I think it's imperative we do just the opposite by honoring God's command to multiply. There are Godly women out there. Maybe you won't marry a model, but that is not what is important. God looks at the heart. The whole discussion regarding SMV should be realizing your own place within the hierarchy, seeking to better it if possible and looking for a woman within those constraints that loves God and that will love you. Then and just maybe then your genes and values will be passed onto subsequent generations and this battle might one day be won.
Rather than "man up and marry those sluts", the rallying cry should involve seeking God, asking him to provide you a Godly woman, marrying the woman he provides and seeking to honor Christ on a daily basis through your marriage and family.
The first time it came up here I felt the same way. It's not our job to say the west for your kids. We dropped out. We won't have kids so anything beyond fifty to sixty years down the road doesn't matter.
Our lives are for us. Sure something might come along and change that, but we're not actively pursuing. And dropping out means these Greek alphabet of labels doesn't mean all that much.
Enjoy the decline.
I don't understand the title of this post. ISTM that a desire to save civilization is precisely what we want from men. But I assume you're using the terms in a way I'm not getting.
Do the MGTOW folk think their behavior is going to save civilization? If so, it sounds like a silly plan.
I think a better way to save civilization is for good men to marry the few marriageable women out there and thereby (1) create more of a competition for that sort of woman, and (2) raise more girls to become women like that.
Alexander Thompson,
I do have children, so I have a vested interest in making sure my two sons and unborn children don't get stuck in Fallout 4. Are you going to be a Viper Gunslinger or a Great Khan? If so, you'd better pray you never meet one of my sons.
Sounds reasoning, Vox. I can't fault your argument here.
My main point of disagreement with the MGTOW-types is that their choice represents a 'no-saying' to women, and to life, when in fact life is still beautiful and can be enjoyed. Some of these guys, I think, almost seems to regard their behaviour as a form of punishment or retribution.
The battle is to be embraced, not to be avoided, whether that avoidance takes the form of a retreat into celibacy or--to be fair--into domestic married life.
For the record, I'm not so certain this civilisation can be saved by increasing the White birthrate. It's too late in that regard. So instead of focusing just on how many White babies our side can produce, maybe our talents and efforts would be better spent on finding better ways to reduce the numbers of our adversaries?
Of course we need people who know how to fuck; but, perhaps more importantly, we also need those who know how to fight.
The hour draws near.
Or, they could simply be rational men who've done a cost/benefit analysis, and determined that the work and/or risk outweighs the reward.
Their behavior does not appear to be in line with this interpretation.
I suspect that most are the equivalent of the girl who says she's "not ready for a relationship right now": if the right offer came along, that would change in a hurry, but they're not actively trying to make it happen.
I suspect you are correct.
The first time it came up here I felt the same way. It's not our job to say the west for your kids. We dropped out.
As is your right. So long as you understand those who are attempting to save civilization owe you no respect, and if they do somehow manage to save civilization, will not consider you to have any right to a place in it.
I was rather amused by the guy who was concerned about the prospects for his biracial children in a world riven by ethnic strife. Not because his concerns aren't legitimate, but rather, the idea that although he had consciously and intentionally abandoned the white race, he still wanted to identify with it in case of future trouble.
As a general rule, groups don't operate that way. You make your bed, and then you lie in it.
"probably sacrifice their oft-expressed principles in a minute if the right woman presents herself in the right way."
The same applies to PUAs - Elvin Bishop, you know.
Are many PUAs actually anti-marriage on principle, though? I'm not familiar with a lot of them, but David Deangelo, for instance, got married in a particularly sickening way, but he was never against marriage. In his DYD stuff, he always presented Game as something you could use to get laid or to get a wife.
If a guy says he's MGTOW, ask him to name the hottest woman he can think of. Then ask, if she were to show up begging to date him with an eye toward marriage, would he refuse. If he says no, then he's not MGTOW; he just has high standards.
A spot on analysis. MGTOWs are lower tier men who have given on finding a virgin to marry, which is today's equivalent of a unicorn in the West.
By this definition, I am not MGTOW because I already gave marriage an honest shot and I certainly don't refrain from sex or other interactions with women. The question is whether I will marry again. I emerged from the first one unscathed -- no kids, no alimony, and no property division. But when I consider how swiftly the whole thing unraveled when my ex descended into psychosis, and how lucky I was to get out of it intact, I hesitate to volunteer for another round of Russian roulette.
The problem here is not the usual challenges and risks associated with having a family. I would welcome those wholeheartedly. Instead, the problem is a twisted social and legal landscape where I have no rights whatsoever; where my children, my savings, and my livelihood can be ripped away from me for any reason or no reason; and where merely attempting to instill traditional values in my children will meet with furious resistance from all quarters. In this environment, having a family does not necessarily mean I'm helping civilization survive; to the contrary, it could very well mean I'm just supplying more fuel for civilization's destruction while sealing my own fate in the process.
Regardless of whether I ultimately decide to take the plunge again, surely there are ways for a man to defend civilization other than supplying progeny. George Washington is a case in point, as are any number of men who fought and died in the Revolutionary War without having a chance to procreate.
Regardless of whether I ultimately decide to take the plunge again, surely there are ways for a man to defend civilization other than supplying progeny.
To be sure. And as per your example, they mostly involve killing people.
Commendable, yet futile.
The left is turning this into a war of attrition--bringing in millions of foreigners to make whites a minority, and ensure their power. And pretty much no one is doing anything about it.
Does Vox have a solid point, saying that if whites don't have enough kids, we'll end up a dying breed? Oh, definitely. We'll end up like small jaguar populations, or the small, isolated Elvish cities in Lord of the Rings.
But unless something is done to cut off immigration to the USA, democrat power is utterly assured. That's the point of their strategy--there's a limitless supply of Mexicans/central Americans who will be happy to sneak across the border and vote democrat. And unless we do something about it, we've already lost. Read the paper--Obama's about to give amnesty to millions of illegals. Hell, the courts already have struck down multiple voter ID laws.
Their behavior does not appear to be in line with this interpretation.
May also be a case of selection bias: those who evangelize MGTOW for others kind of miss the point. As a response to RP data and wisdom, and life experience, it's a pretty personal decision.
And any 'civilization' that has universal suffrage (which, once 'achieved', is a one-way ratchet) really isn't worth 'saving', since you'll still be stuck with a cracked foundation.
A spot on analysis. MGTOWs are lower tier men who have given on finding a virgin to marry, which is today's equivalent of a unicorn in the West.
In a culture of unbridled hypergamy, statistically, 80% of men (or more) are in that 'lower tier'. And 100% of men are subject to Marriage 2.0's lopsided legal regime if they choose to (or are so weak that they can be shametalked to) take that risk.
I agree that men who loudly claim to be MGTOW deserve little respect. What deserves even less respect is the man who claims to be saving civilization by using Game to screw his way through as many Western women as possible in order to teach them a lesson.
You'll notice a small percentage of commenters at Dalrock and Roissy who claim to be traditional religious Christian men who want a virgin wife, yet meanwhile rationalize their PUA lifestyle as some sort of "corrective measure". I have also noticed a few who specifically like to prey on churchgoing women (even wives) and again rationalizing their behavior as "Hey church guy... we're going YOU a favor."
Listen guys... you can't have it both ways. If women are by and large unaccountable for their behavior (as so many manospherians bitterly claim), and easily led into error... then if you take advantage of that fact, YOU are indeed responsible.
Listen guys... you can't have it both ways.
In general that seems to be used to mean "the same rules should apply to men and women," which is flatly wrong. However, I agree with you that the PUA types are scum.
The man who runs towards gunfire empty-handed is certainly not a hero. This is more a situation where you are in enemy territory, and the SERE protocol is in effect
How many of you think that when the bullets really start flying and the white devil goes on the warpath that these millions of Central Americans and other assorted Latinos will stay put? They'll make like Taco Bell and make a run for the border. The blood of Robert the Bruce, Confederate warriors, a Captain in Patton's 3rd Army and Herschel Peskin still flow through my veins. I was born here and I will die here too.
Listen guys... you can't have it both ways.
Especially when Christianity is part of the context, MGTOW means celibacy. If you've rejected marriage and only use women for sex (which seems like it would make you a PUA, not MGTOW, but I guess some guys think those overlap), then you're taking advantage of the destruction of Marriage 2.0 just like the woman who dumps her "starter marriage" to go alpha-hunting. Maybe you have that "right" just like she does, but don't pretend it's noble or manly.
How many of you think that when the bullets really start flying and the white devil goes on the warpath that these millions of Central Americans and other assorted Latinos will stay put?
I don't know. I hope you're right. But I think a lot of these "white devils" will probably be too busy watching chick flicks with their wives, driving their kids to the mall, and trying to shame MGTOW to give a fuck.
Let's also keep in mind another thing--it's not just numbers, it is largely smarts. Look at Russia. They've got a population of 143 million with a land mass of 6.5 million square miles, while the USA has about 3.7 million square miles and 318 million people. Yet Russia has still been a sizable force for a long time.
Numbers are not as important as smart policy. The USA had about 143 million people in the 1940's, during WW2. And we did just dandy.
The battle isn't going to be won by finding the guys who logically see that legal marriage is a bad idea and telling them it's their civic duty to marry and have kids anyways. The battle will be won by somehow forcing smart policy about migration and keeping America from being sheer overwhelmed by millions and millions of foreigners, such as the GOP stopping Obama. The news talks about him granting amnesty to five million illegals--literally, doing the equivalent of adding a latino state to the USA.
LBF,
If guys are still doing what you say, we haven't hit the warpath yet.
You "real men" (lol) are misunderstanding mgtow. You're brainfucked on romantic delusions and Christianity, and saving the world like complete blue pill manginas. You're still jumping through hoops to fulfill society's rules for you.
MGTOW have not become celibate, we just simply will not jump through hoops and dress like peacocks and develop different personalities to bang sluts while we decry how there's no good women. You're probably just young. You will learn. You will learn that the "good women" you seek are a delusion. I've loved many a slut, but im not about to try and change them, nor am I going to sign on the dotted line to pay for all their shit. The real world is not as good or as bad as it seems, nor is it the romantic delusion you still crave. Your lives are still controlled by the all powerful greasy crease, and delusions of your own alpha. Get a grip boys. saving the world? Nothing causes more problems than people trying to change the world.
As with most movements, people participate on a variety of levels and with a variety of moral motivations, fortes, foibles, etc. I certainly have observed that many MGTOW men are low-tier whiners. I often hear them talk about how "masturbation is all they need." It indicates that there is no manhood, for there is neither moral fortitude nor the virility to approach the opposite sex. If they had moral fortitude, they would not be serial masturbators; if they had virility, they would attain their empty orgasms with actual women. MGTOW types often respond that any form of sexual entanglement with a woman can lead to emotional entanglements. This seems indicative of a man with an unhealthy propensity for neediness and emotional dependence upon women, since the general feeling a man has for an easy lay, is anything but emotional bonding.
That said, there are others who stay away from women for good reasons. I agree to some extent that they don't need (nor tend to) make a big point of what they don't do. But in a society such as ours at present, it does seem entirely appropriate to draw their attention to the reasons for the sudden male defection from their plantation.
I am a monk. I became a monk for a great mix of reasons. First and foremost, I read the Fathers of the Church, and their teachings on the glories of the celibate life. In particular, St. Dorotheos of Gaza spoke of how voluntary sacrifices were a way of giving something to God above the obedience that is His due. This idea captivated me, for God has been superfluously gracious to me and I have made but little return on His investment. But, despite the fact that I chose celibacy for primarily positive reasons, I almost never fail to draw a woman's attention (if she asks why I became a monk) to my negative reason for embracing celibacy, as well... reasons well-known to thinking men of the modern world.
As an afterthought, for the fellow above who looked down on MGTOWs as "men who gave up on finding a virgin to marry (which are as rare as unicorns in the west):" There may be many reasons to look down on many MGTOWs, but this is not one of them. I had this standard myself. There are two levels to this. First, when I was dating back in my Protestant days, at some point every girl I dated indicated that she felt undesirable because I hadn't made the move yet. I always told them that we were Christians and I took that seriously, and this usually meant the end of the relationship because they felt morally judged and rejected, and the hamster told them that I was a meanie. But truly, a woman with so little honor will value you and her marriage vows not at all. In the second place, I simply have no respect for women who have been sexually active before marriage, and I would never put myself inside of such a woman. My brother used to tell me about all the things he did with his gal (now his wife) before they converted to the Church: doggy-style, anal, oral, etc. Long before I was Catholic I could perceive the moral repugnance of this approach to "sex" - it doesn't deserve the name of "sex," because the sex, and even the species of the participants, is wholly interchangeable. He met his wife when they were 16, and she propositioned him for sex out of the blue as he visited her campus (for a competition); two of her ex-boyfriends were at the wedding. I simply could not have married a woman with such a past, as I'd be revolted by the thought of being merely the latest guy to sit on the dunghill. My standard involved a few things, but the chief of them was: virgin. They are rare as unicorns, nowadays, and that is part of why my decision was less agonizing than that of many men in the past. But I think the standard was entirely correct.
Grab a tampon, Jason. You're leaking all over the place.
Jason Jones...
Then why are you here whining?
History happens. Civilization happens. And collapse happens. This isn't romance but fact.
I'm not about "saving America" or "turning the clock back". I'm realistic enough to realize that there are too many nihlistic idiots like you dancing around. What I'm about is a) being a part of the remnant (there is always a remnant) and b) preparing myself and my children for what's next.
The world is not a static "thing" with which you are presented. It is not parceled out, quantum-like. It is dynamic and reactive. Everything you do has an effect, in conjunction with what everyone else chooses to do. Most of those effects will not be felt by you but by someone generations hence. Ergo what you complain about now was caused by bad decisions in the past. As always, the question is: do you want to be part of the problem of part of the solution? So you don't owe nobody nothing? Then don't complain when the barbaric collapse that is coming turns you into a human shish kebab. Doing good requires sacrifice. There's no way around it.
Good women are not a delustion. They are made by good men. It doesn't happen instantly or in a simple one-on-one transaction, but generationally, within a culture, this is how it happens, and no other way. Men are capable of molding the future. The power is in your hands to have a small part of that. Or, just be a useless layabout. If you choose the latter, then don't waste your time here.
Why is the original poster whining about MGTOW? I was reacting to that whiner.
LOL. "Good women are made by good men" I laugh at your delusional ignorance.
Men Going their own way is a threat to the power of those who consider themselves alpha, in other words, the arrogant control freak. We will not join your delusional gang. Deal with it.
And again... why are you here? You obviously want some sort of validation.
Why are you hear rycamor? You obviously want some sort of validation. At least I adhere to the most basic bro rule. Bros before delusional belief systems.
The celibate monk is questioning my manhood. LOL. That's hilarious. I know I get more wet crease than he does?
Sacrifice for god? Christianity is a slave religion. All religions are for slaves, now that I think about it.
A spot on analysis. MGTOWs are lower tier men who have given on finding a virgin to marry, which is today's equivalent of a unicorn in the West.
You really believe in that myth? That there are no more virgin women in the west?
Why is the original poster whining about MGTOW? I was reacting to that whiner.
Which means you're a gamma.
Not really tobias. Whiners are people too, and deserve to have their idiotic comments fapped in their own faces.
ok this is confusing, i thought mgtow meant they didn't get into relationships with girls, but some of you are saying that they don't even sleep with girls & some of you are saying that they do sleep with girls, they just don't get married. so which is it??
Or, they could simply be rational men who've done a cost/benefit analysis, and determined that the work and/or risk outweighs the reward.
Certainly doing a cost/benefit analysis is smart, but you've still got to find something to invest yourself in. If you conclude every potential endeavor is "too risky", well, that says something, doesn't it? We come from a race that has conquered so very much, it's rather preposterous to believe having a family is simply beyond us.
The problem here is not the usual challenges and risks associated with having a family. I would welcome those wholeheartedly. Instead, the problem is a twisted social and legal landscape where I have no rights whatsoever... where merely attempting to instill traditional values in my children will meet with furious resistance from all quarters. In this environment, having a family does not necessarily mean I'm helping civilization survive; to the contrary, it could very well mean I'm just supplying more fuel for civilization's destruction while sealing my own fate in the process.
Here is why I am so openly contemptuous of MGTOW. You would welcome the risks and challenges of having a family, but go on to list a swath of challenges, all presented as pretty much insurmountable. MGTOW hammer on about how impossible it is as a way of justifying their own failure. I've no doubt at all that you would like to raise a family, and that you are just as capable of facing the risks as the next guy. But... you've allowed yourself to be convinced by the MGTOW it's impossible, that the risks are unmanageable, that there's just no way you can win.
It's a seductive position to take, it means you don't have to face the risks. It means you don't have to do the work to find and keep a loyal wife, nor the considerable work required to provide financially for a family in economically crappy times. It means you don't have to make the sacrifices of time, energy and carefree lifestyle a man makes when he takes on the responsibility of his own family. It means you can coast. It also means you don't outperform the MGTOW who have already succumbed to their fear and are trying to seduce you into the pit with them.
You have the tools to succeed, or to at least have a chance of succeeding. I encourage you to use them.
Look, Jason. It's a simple question: Is it worse now than it used to be? Was there a time in Western history where women could be more relied on to be wives and mothers and than they are now? Sure, women have never been perfect. Was there a time when it was not possible for a woman to use the law to tear a man's life apart?
If there is even a partial "yes" to these, then it is not delusional ignorance. There is simply the chronic fight between good and evil. Read any serious history and you will see that the things we are dealing with now have happened before, and they have been dealt with before. You tell us to "deal with it"... my friend, that's exactly what we are doing. And when we are done dealing with it, your type of man will be run out of town. If he's lucky.
Sacrifice for god? Christianity is a slave religion. All religions are for slaves, now that I think about it.
Ho hum, yet another postmodernist MGTOW Gamma. Par for the course.
Look, Ry-ry. Evils collapses of it's own weight. Your call to arms or whatever you advocate is simply not necessary. Feminism is being destroyed by women, as we speak. And quit shaming other men, it's kind of womany.
Corvinus, Your label and dismiss strategy is quite lazy. Im not a postmodernist, I just don't believe lies.
If guys are still doing what you say, we haven't hit the warpath yet.
No, we haven't. And part of the reason is that too many of the chaps on our side have given in to married domestic life, a condition that normally precludes radicalism and revolution.
Jack Amok, I just really don't want a family. I like kids. I like being around them for brief moments.
The idea of the 'good woman' is a fairy tale, just like the idea of the man who wouldn't bang 3 ladies at once if he knew he wouldn't get caught.
I've had good relationships, knowing full well that there's the chance that she could be banging other dudes. I loved them anyway. I loved who they really were. But when they stop treating me right, I bailed.
Give up the control, give up the lies, you self-important, self-described alphas. You're blue pill all the way.
Life long monogamy is a myth created to lure men into legal bondage.
Self-righteous Churchians like to taunt PUAs, MGTOW, and others by pointing out how their lifestyle will result in lack of progeny and genetic legacy, which I find highly amusing in light of the Christian belief in Eternal Life.
Corvinus, Your label and dismiss strategy is quite lazy. Im not a postmodernist, I just don't believe lies.
Oh please. You're the very definition of a postmodernist. And I think it's funny that you claim not to believe "lies", when you believe the Nietzschean crap about Christianity being a "slave religion", when it was Christian Europeans who took over and completely dominated the world.
I don't particulary like Nietzsche either, corvinus. Morality is logical and rational. It doesn't need supernatural justifications. The naked power seeking ideology of neitzche is ugly to me.
What is morality?
Morality is a set of behaviors and attitudes which facilitate voluntary, cooperative, and mutually beneficial relationships.
Shaming mgtows is not cool. It is done out of fear by brainwash victims who sense than mgtows will not contribute their energies to the delusions to which tradcons have devoted their lives.
The idea of the 'good woman' is a fairy tale, just like the idea of the man who wouldn't bang 3 ladies at once if he knew he wouldn't get caught.
You really have know idea what you are blabbering about. It's ok. You're new here. So the ignorance is expected.
Self-righteous Churchians like to taunt PUAs, MGTOW, and others by pointing out how their lifestyle will result in lack of progeny and genetic legacy, which I find highly amusing in light of the Christian belief in Eternal Life.
Taunt? Stating observable reality is not a taunt.
And do elaborate on this one: "highly amusing in light of Christian belief in Eternal Life".
I have no use for "manning up" if we cannot tell women to feminize. Wholesale surrender in the gender wars is unhealthy. Nonetheless, I do think if some men are the marrying type, it should not be dissuaded, yet many women are not marriageable and it leads to the inevitable disappointment. We are exactly where we are because of the reality that women fail to attract the available males.
MGTOW...Atheist...
Notice: as the atheist loves to ride piggyback on Christian morality, hoping to enjoy the benefits without the sacrifice, so does the MGTOW hope to enjoy the benefits of civilization while not contributing. In fact, not only do both refuse to contribute to that which they enjoy the benefits of, but they actively work to destroy that very thing. And they somehow expect it to all just work its way out in their favor--"Evils collapses of it's own weight." (sic). No, evil collapses when it is either confronted by those with courage an strength, or it has consumed everything in its path.
Jason, you may want to learn to spell better if you really want to be taken seriously. Poor spelling and incorrect words indicate your intelligence is quite low. ("hear" for "here" for example)
That is not a good indication you have much thought behind your point. Though you really don't, so you make a good poster case for the point in the OP.
Focus on yourself all you want, consequences are coming.
Tobias, you seem to only have name-calling in your in your arsenal of persuasion, and as such, have invalidated yourself. I need only to watch and laugh! lol.
Maybe one of you can write another article about how you don't want to hear about mgtows. Or don't and we won't come burn your blog down anymore. LOL. It's awesome being so awesome.
jimmy-jimbo said...
I have no use for "manning up" if we cannot tell women to feminize.
Of course. That's my whole point. When men of conviction take control of society again, that is when it will happen. Note that this is why Christianity holds its own throughout all histories vagaries, because it establishes a micro-society where this can happen, in spite of the corruption of the surrounding society. Yes, Christians regularly fail at this, but they do not ALL fail.
This immediately came to mind: http://www.rangerup.com/gunfire.html For those who haven't been in the military, this isn't about running into a random fight as a do-gooder, but rather the visceral response of joining fellow men of your unit (community) that are under fire because "Sometimes violence is the only answer" http://www.rangerup.com/patriotday.html This is a bond men have understood since before writing.
Beyond the troll-bait that showed up, the issue is understanding "Saving Civilization" in an operable manner is key.
I've had my kids, educated them in the home, and now grandkids are arriving; humans are flawed, but the generations roll on. Marriage seems a bad bet under current conditions, but those conditions won't hold up for very long.
I choose to make time to volunteer in the community (firefighter), run a NO-PC business, commend people on their contributions, and call people on their crap when it comes up in public.
Civilization is mostly within a 20 minute drive for me, and beyond that ends before the state border. For most human beings those are the limits of our influence good or ill. In that sense writing is one of the few force-mutiplers available to individuals.
It is within that local context that men will win or lose their civilizations.
I hold no hope for the US as a nation, but some pockets will survive, and thrive in what comes after.
Actually brad, a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of a small mind. Small minded people, focus on minutia. Im actually a supreme communicator, as indicated by the number of responses I've generated from the hapless. speechless tradcons. I've rendered all of you inert.
Oooh consequences are coming! Pretty scary! is god, your alpha male, coming to punish me on your behalf? isn't that kind of womanly?
Tobias, you seem to only have name-calling in your in your arsenal of persuasion, and as such, have invalidated yourself.
Name-calling? I don't think it means what you think it means.
I need only to watch and laugh! lol
As the saying goes, "ignorance is bliss."
Ry-ry convictions are not worth anything if the ideas behind them are stupid to begin with. I have convictions too, but they don't inspire to dominate the world, that's why my convictions are not considered psychopathic and yours are.
If sacrifice to God makes Christianity a 'slave religion', then how does Jason reconcile with this:
Christ offered Himself as a sacrifice for us.
Now obviously, Jason does not believe that this happened. But surely, Jason, you concede that Christians believe it to be true. In which case, with your own belief that sacrifce is slavery, surely Christianity is in fact a religion of the ubermensch!
Tobias, all you said is that I'm ignorant and newby. You made no actual substantive argument about anything I've said. And you've offered an unrelated quote. Very weak.
No, Jason. You're just a tool some of us are using to provide instruction to better minds. So in a small way, you have made a contribution, unwillingly and unwittingly.
Alexander, that's easy. We are to have a self-hating slave as a role model. It prove my point.
Well, Ry-ry, at least we agree I've made a contribution. We'll leave if for readers to decide what type of contribution it is. I wish nobody here any ill will, seriously.
There is sacrifice in love for sure, but total sacrifice is a slave relationship. Christianity is a mangina faith.
On the planes they tell parents to put their oxygen masks on first, before helping their kids.
Tobias, all you said is that I'm ignorant and newby.
Yes. Because you are ignorant and a newbie.
You made no actual substantive argument about anything I've said.
I don't have to. You already done that yourself. Sadly, you, just like the other wannabes that have tried before, are too stupid.
You claim that there are no good women. I'm sorry if your mom was a whore and wanted you aborted and treated you and your dad light feces.
But most of the regulars here have great mothers.
And you've offered an unrelated quote. Very weak.
Au contraire, it is an apt quote describing the bliss you feel being a parasite.
Im actually a supreme communicator, as indicated by the number of responses I've generated from the hapless. speechless tradcons. I've rendered all of you inert.
@Jason Jonea
"Inert"? Not hardly. You really don't say much of substance to attack, aside from a stale re-affirmation of MGTOW dogma with some nastiness thrown in. And I've already attacked your mindless repetition of the "Christianity as slave religion" canard.
Of course. That's my whole point. When men of conviction take control of society again, that is when it will happen. Note that this is why Christianity holds its own throughout all histories vagaries, because it establishes a micro-society where this can happen, in spite of the corruption of the surrounding society. Yes, Christians regularly fail at this, but they do not ALL fail.
@rycamor @Hammer6 Actual
I think the thing that scares MGTOWs is that Gammas and Omegas cannot, by their very nature, have a successful marriage in today's society, except maybe with a complete fug. Same deal with Deltas, who won't realistically get anything better than a plump plain jane. But here's the thing: They don't want to improve their personalities and natures up the socio-sexual hierarchy. They may not think of it this way consciously, but it's part of a postmodernist idea where you accept your defects as part of what you are, rather than strive to wipe them out or control them. Think of the attitude that faggots and lezbos take about their paraphilias being part of their "identity" -- it's the same exact idea.
People talk about the 1950s, but the Gammas and Omegas of the 1950s would most likely come across as the Deltas of today, with a similar deterioration in the other ranks' relative SMV over time. A socio-sexual Flynn effect, if you will.
Go tobias, doubling down on the adhominem attack. LOL. Good for you.
It's obviously true. My main point: You tradcons must attack MGTOWs because you rightly sense that the delusions you've devoted your lives too are failing to recruit new people under you, to reinforce your self perceived alaphaness. You're like failing amway representatives getting desperate. lol. Please please look at my catalog and buy my products, or I will cry and call you names. LOL.
Here is why I am so openly contemptuous of MGTOW. You would welcome the risks and challenges of having a family, but go on to list a swath of challenges, all presented as pretty much insurmountable. MGTOW hammer on about how impossible it is as a way of justifying their own failure.
Do I need to fail at skydiving in order to legitimately prefer not to do it based on the risk profile, or its potential rewards?
What is the direct immediate and ongoing benefit, to me, of marriage 2.0?
Every man's experience is different, as is his risk tolerance. I would not presume to judge another's choices in the marriage, as their experience and risk tolerance is different than mine. I don't evangelize MGTOW or ghosting, but if asked I will answer. And shametalk is as ineffective from SoCon churchians as it is from fembots and their lickspittle manginae.
Corvinus, you keep plugging along being a slave to others. Why is men going their own way so upsetting to you? I have read so many articles on tradcon sites about how they don't want to hear about MGTOW anymore. You guys are obviously obsessed with us. Stop being control freaks and live your lives. We will laugh at you when your lady leaves you and your precious Christ abandons you. Rid yourself of these crutches, embrace reality, and stopping being such womanly male shamers.
Go tobias, doubling down on the adhominem attack. LOL. Good for you.
Coming from the guy who said this You "real men" (lol) are misunderstanding mgtow. You're brainfucked on romantic delusions and Christianity, and saving the world like complete blue pill manginas.
Seriously, if you can't take the heat, don't play with fire.
It's obviously true. My main point: You tradcons must attack MGTOWs because you rightly sense that the delusions you've devoted your lives too are failing to recruit new people under you, to reinforce your self perceived alaphaness. You're like failing amway representatives getting desperate. lol. Please please look at my catalog and buy my products, or I will cry and call you names. LOL.
Tobias: The sky is blue.
Jason Jonea: Waaaaaa! You're attacking the sky! You evil, psychopathic, brainfucked man! We sky-lovers will fight you!
Tobias: ~faceoalm~
You really believe in that myth? That there are no more virgin women in the west?
If they go to college, then no.
I've said on other blogs that men fuck sluts and marry virgins. We have statistical data to prove it where if a woman had no previous sexual partners before her husband, they are less than 20% likely to get divorced. When you add just one previous sexual partner, that probability increases to about 50%. Note that this is just for the women. A man can have many previous sexual partners and still have a relatively stable marriage with a woman who wore a legitimate white dress.
From the perspective of most men who are MGTOWs, it seems to me that they view most young women as non-virgins. On top of that, as Dalrock has pointed out in the past, single men are being targeted and shamed into marrying single mothers by society and especially the Churchians.
My point is that men are, by and large, looking for the one. And in their minds, that one is the pure, innocent girl who managed to get through life without riding the carousel and kept her dignity intact.
Is it unrealistic? Yes. But you can't fault a man for having his own preferences in a life partner.
Of course. That's my whole point. When men of conviction take control of society again, that is when it will happen. Note that this is why Christianity holds its own throughout all histories vagaries, because it establishes a micro-society where this can happen, in spite of the corruption of the surrounding society. Yes, Christians regularly fail at this, but they do not ALL fail.
Indeed. The greatest failure of modern Christianity is to recognize that the entire feminist movement is really just one giant shit-test.
Jason,
Get a clue or buy one. Calling names, ranting, and attempted insults aren't going to carry the day. It's chick crank, not substantive.
If you want to get your panties in bunch fine, but the relevant point is most of us don't give two shits what you do as long as you aren't in the communities that we are trying to maintain. As Vox points out, *if* we are successful in maintaining our communities [civilization in the individual perspective], then non-contributors will be driven out as they have been since humans started forming communities.
If you want standing among men, then contribute. Start a business, run a farm, ply a trade and bear yourself in such a fashion that you are worthy of respect - none of these requires you have a female in your life. BTW, that is a difference being an anatomical male and being a man.
You are funny Tobias. But it's noteworthy that you must resort to a fictionalized script in order to "win".
I think my Amway crack was funnier though.
Hammer 6, it's your "side" that resorted to pure insult as a debate tactic. You're Nazi-like cleansing of the "communities you control" is pretty hilarious. Get over yourself. I care not about the gunching of your undergarments, as well. Two can play at not caring.
Interesting. It's always been obvious to me after first interacting with the MGTOW crowd that the movement is primarily part of the gamma desire to not try as a track record might interfere with their self delusion of greatness. But from the comments here it's also looking like they are an extension of the crowd that believes in no higher good then themselves.
Granted, Jason Jonea, might not be representative, but the pattern does seem to fit. And if that is a valid correlation, the movement is certainly as evil as anything they are fighting.
@swiftfoxmark2
"Indeed. The greatest failure of modern Christianity is to recognize that the entire feminist movement is really just one giant shit-test. "
Indeed. The greatest failure of modern Men is not recognizing that Christianity is the shit test. <--gold
The unfortunate plethora of name calling toward what many perceive as MGTOWs is rather juvenile. Additionally, there is nothing wrong with avoiding marriage per se, particularly given the rather extreme misandric laws that permeate the western legal system. Whether one is a "tradcon" or "MGTOW" individuals should be active in attempting to educate others in the dangers and destructiveness of feminist-inspired/created laws as well as the severely misguided cultural decadence brought forth via feminist political activism.
A MGTOW is simply an individual man who has chosen to create his own life and goals outside a given collectivist mindset that either tradcons or feminists have planned for them. Attempting to shame them via feminine-style shaming tactics will be completely ineffectual and should probably be avoided.
As a MGTOW myself (depending on how one defines the term) there are plenty of methods of remaining active to not necessarily "save civilization" (since this is likely an impossible goal to achieve anyway) but rather have in place the necessary intellectual tools to build a new one. Ancient Rome's collapse was inevitable and due largely to economic factors (http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/the-ancient-suicide-of-the-west/), as is all others who have traveled the road to destruction once a certain point has been reached.
In my opinion the most important aspect to understand is that the current destruction of the present civilization is due to economic illiteracy. Therefore, and from my perspective, I think it necessary for an individual to study the subject then subsequently offer their knowledge to others. Given that the subject is enormous and well beyond the scope of this blog it might be prudent to simply offer a link to begin one's education: www.mises.org. Now obviously most will disagree with the above conclusions regarding the reasons fro the decline of the West. However, one should at least be willing to acknowledge its importance in said decline.
Lastly, given the obvious interest in the moral aspects of civilization and how/why it has degenerated into the present situation their might be an audience here for the following:
The Cultural Consequences of Fiat Money | Jörg Guido Hülsmann
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAN5CKbZnD0&list=UUmT6-ChKpaiIVu2fhEIsNtQ
Booch, what we are fighting is people like you, aligning with the state, and majority of women, to make us into slaves and convince us it's noble. we're sorry you internalized the lie, but would you quit spreading your disease please? Thanks.
Indeed. The greatest failure of modern Men is not recognizing that Christianity is the shit test. <--gold
I wasn't talking to you. I don't care what you have to say. Go get a bullhorn and shout your nonsense atop a national monument you self-important windbag.
Good stuff mechanized. And im with you on fiat money, but these churchian meatheads seem like the masonic brethren toolboxes that immediately call you and anti-Semite or a socialist if you criticize our totalitarian money system.
I think most people miss the major point that Vox has been pointing out from the beginning: that civilization requires children for its survival. MGTOWs, by and large, are not breeding and thus are not participating in civilization.
To the original point of this post:
Vox:
"I can't fault a man who is so psychologically damaged by his experience with the opposite sex that he has been rendered capable of nothing more than retreating into a cave and licking his wounds for the rest of his life. But it is not behavior that merits respect from other men."
MGTOWs:
"We DO so merit respect! Because we've been handed a hot potato and we don't want to hold it! But respect us anyway! Who are you not to respect us? You're just name-calling white-knighting shaming feminist-apologizing [insert standard manosphere terminology]!"
Vox isn't saying it is wrong to avoid marriage (see above re: celibacy). He is saying you don't merit respect for it unless you are doing it in pursuit of a greater purpose. "Just because sour grapes" does not merit respect. All the MGTOWs trying to reframe this as "feminine-style shaming tactics" and "blue pill mangina" talk are displaying their own feminine mindsets.
Wrong, ry-ry. Our reframe is quite successful, because it's true. Im not the only one noticing.
You guys keep feeling proud about being slaves though. Society needs betas, like someone was saying.
Jason,
"nazi" - you learn that insult from a chick? Sounds so very womyn studies.
You provided a live illustration of damaged adult males
<1> socially autistic - you fail to grasp that communities are formed out of affinity and establish common governance
<2> narcissistic and grasping for control - you used "control" - I stated maintain
<3> no demonstrable grasp of manhood - neither in respect for others or grasping anything beyond the dick between their legs
<4> preens on his self-proclaimed parasitic existence
Better that you not breed.
Notice how the MGTOWs conflate lack of respect with shaming? Classic chick-think.
Jason,
They tell parents to put their oxygen masks on before their childrens' because they can't help their children or anyone else if they are passed out.
That was a poor example of whatever you were trying to say.
Hammer6.
1. Affinity and common governance starts with respect.
2. You're the one asserting you will route all of the "losers" out of your midst. That's control freakish writ large.
3. The author started this whole disrespect train, I guess he's not a man.
4. Preening? Im not preening. You're the ones acting like the rightful despots of the land. Because you believe the most lies, I guess.
and then you end with an insult. classy.
There we have it. hammer6 hammered on every smarmy point.
Concscienta Republica.....
Maybe those parents are selfish for wanting to save themselves first.
MGTOW going their own way is exactly a perfect example. we cannot thrive and help the next generation is a climate with both woman and superbetas like you church folk imploring us to destroy ourselves for others.
It's an apt metaphor.
If I had a child, I'd view MGTOW's as neutral. Not allies, not enemies, just there. The enemies are the married chumps who supplicate their wives. They would be the ones who make things more difficult for me and my children. MGTOW's don't affect us in any way, positive or negative. Allies are the ones with adequate Red Pill skills and knowledge to keep their wives in line, and raise good, reliable children.
Or, well, there would be a second group that takes being enemies to the next level, but I'm not talking about that.
Notice how Ry-ry grasps at straws and stupid shades of meaning word games when he is revealed as a human doorstop.
Markku, excellent and revealing point. These tradcons THINK we're the enemy because they know in their pretender hearts that their wives have programmed their mangina minds. Lol.
You are misreading the situation. Not only am I on Vox's side, I'm actually his business partner. I'm also de facto MGTOW, though I'm not that by any vow or anything. It would actually be amusing in a grim way if I did get married, got divorce-raped, and Vox economically suffered for it in a truly epic way, the details of which I won't go into.
As long as the unilateral no fault divorce ('his fault' divorce) remains the law of the land, there will be MGTOWs. Period. Whom you call a 'hero', I call a 'tool'. Once again, I'm not gambling my life on anything that has the failure rate close to 50%.
Jason Jonea,
Is there anything you would happily die for? I'm not asking if you believe that you have the courage and it would not fail you in a moment of need, but in principle, is there any cause or principle for which you would gladly lay down your life in the service of?
If you want standing among men, then contribute. Start a business, run a farm, ply a trade and bear yourself in such a fashion that you are worthy of respect - none of these requires you have a female in your life. BTW, that is a difference being an anatomical male and being a man.
Vox isn't saying it is wrong to avoid marriage (see above re: celibacy). He is saying you don't merit respect for it unless you are doing it in pursuit of a greater purpose. "Just because sour grapes" does not merit respect. All the MGTOWs trying to reframe this as "feminine-style shaming tactics" and "blue pill mangina" talk are displaying their own feminine mindsets.
We have to realize that MGTOW postmodernists make their Gammatude a part of their identity, because they don't believe in objective reality. Therefore, what we consider objective reality -- that building ourselves into masculine men that people can respect, raising families, and passing on our lineage is a laudable goal for men, and makes us attractive to women -- they see as contemptible being "slaves to others" and "conforming to societal expectations".
Hey Jason, if you jump out of a tenth-floor window, are you going to blame gravity for trying to prevent you from flying when you hit the sidewalk with a splat? Or are you going to be a "slave" to gravity, which enables you to do things like figure out how to launch rockets and build working airplanes?
See how stupid postmodernism is? Reality is what it is, and if you go against reality, things go wrong.
But apparently, for you MGTOWs, being a "master" entails snuffing out your lineages and urging other men to do the same. Yeah, I get ya.
Well, markku, your partner Vox has no respect for you.
Correct, Jason. Hence, it would be so amusing if that were to happen.
But note that lack of respect is not the same as disrespect. This is exactly the difference between a neutral and an enemy.
Corvinus, That's an awful lot of writing to devote a pitiful strawman argument.
Im not a post modernist, I believe in objective reality. I don't believe in your lies however, I thinks that what scares you.
And booch, I would lay down my life to defend myself or a family member, but I wouldn't be glad about it. ANd I certainly wouldn't do for an -ism.
LOL. Maarku, please word games, really. Lack of respect is not VERY different from disrespect. Come on, man. Get it together. You're better than that.
Im generally considered quite sexist, and while I am an atheist, the conclusion most other humanists arrive at, population control, globalist totalitarianism evil, I argue strenuously against. I actually think Obama should emulate Putin. He's the man.
Corvinus, That's an awful lot of writing to devote a pitiful strawman argument.
Im not a post modernist, I believe in objective reality. I don't believe in your lies however, I thinks that what scares you.
I don't know how the hell you mistook my contempt for fright, but whatever strokes your Gamma ego.
Jason,
You either fail to grasp basic communication, or deluded to a clinical level.
From the OP: "But it is not behavior that merits respect from other men, nor is it of any use to anyone who values the finer aspects of Western civilization and wishes to avoid a collapse into mud hut barbarism.
As for those who claim I am somehow attempting to shame such men, what would be the point of that? It's a factual observation, nothing more. If a man is so delicate as to remove himself from the world due to the bad behavior of a woman or three, he's not likely to be of any use in the upcoming battle for the West."
You have been afforded an opportunity to present a rational case for your cause but rail with the insults and butt-hurt mentality of a chick.
In short you have demonstrated you are currently unworthy of any respect - it is earned among men, not given.
The previous point of mine being proven by your continued deportment, I closed with a sincere recommendation - it IS best that you NOT breed. You have indicated you are unwilling or unable, and raising children to adulthood takes twenty-five plus years of effort, self-sacrifice, and persistent effort as a man - all things which by your own words you are ill-equipped to do.
Dismissed.
Im generally considered quite sexist, and while I am an atheist, the conclusion most other humanists arrive at, population control, globalist totalitarianism evil, I argue strenuously against. I actually think Obama should emulate Putin. He's the man.
You're a postmodernist. You're an atheist humanist, and pick and choose what you want to believe.
"Strawman argument" argument = debunked.
Anyhoo. Ive enjoyed parlaying with your meany-heads. If you should comment again and say something mean again, on this thread, I will come back to smack you around alittle. I would just like for you guys to be a little less hostile to me, Im a precious snowflake.
It is a lack of respect in (or due to) one particular area of life. Normally, this would be the only area where two men's lives touch each other. You, for example, happen to be of no use to Vox. But, if you were raising a member of the next generation that's capable of fighting, then you WOULD touch his life due to that. You would have his basic respect simply for what you are, and what you're doing. And if they save civilization, you would be a natural ally in the new situation.
But me, I'm doing other projects with him. Which is why I don't mind that the one thing, the default touching point of a random man, is off the table. And here is the important difference between disrespect and lack of respect. If it was the former, it would be towards my person. Nothing else would matter. It would automatically be disrespect for me.
But now it's just a case of that thing being off the table. For you, though, the two end up being the same thing. As it IS the only touching point. The only thing that matters.
The simple fact remains. You want to convince guys who don't wish to marry, to wed and have kids? (I assume when you say MTGOW, you mean all men who don't want to get married, not just those who want to live celibate and totally ignore women.)
Use facts and demonstrate that the risk is easy to mitigate and/or that the rewards are great enough to make it worth the risk and the huge effort it requires.
Saying it's their civic duty to help save Western Civilization doesn't hold water--if only because having more kids is pointless without massive immigration controls. The left can just import more foreigners. The men who think marriage is an awful deal will just read posts like this and say, "See! They're admitting it's awful and set against men, that's why they just say it's a man's duty. The hell with that, I can have a relationship and sex without bringing the law into it."
Archer, he is not claiming it is your civic duty. He explicitly said about this choice, "As is your right." If it were a civic duty, it wouldn't be your right.
Dammit corvinus, Just because im an atheist doesn't mean ive replaced my thoughts with all the evil the other atheists have dreamt up. I believe in evil. Im not a moral relativist. Ive stated my moral axiom to you. tell me what you don't like about it.
Morality is a set of attitudes and behaviors which facilitate voluntary, cooperative and mutually beneficial relationships.
What part of that harms society or morality? The cooperative part, the mutuality part, the benefit part, the relationship part?
I reject the elitism of all forms of totalitarian thought, based on any premise, from the anti-human environmental movement, to religious zealotry.
If this testimony doesn't convince you, then what will?
OOh. Look at me! I'm half vampire/ half werewolf! Im so scary. Im corvinus! lol
Funny, I was just listening to the Rifftrax for X-Men. At the early scene where the girl kisses a boy and he starts to freeze up because she's unknowingly sucking the life out of him, Mike says, "That's why I find it's better to avoid girls altogether and just play endless games of Tomb Raider."
MGTOW advocates (not the same set as those doing it) want us to believe that the typical MGTOW is living a fascinating life, channeling all that extra energy into pursuing impressive goals, reaching new levels of spiritual insight, driving to success in his business dealings, being a leader among men in his social circles, and fitting in a little mountain climbing and skydiving on weekends, and that all this is the result of a rational choice he made to cut women out of his life even though he had options. Perhaps some are, and good for them. But the guy playing endless games of Tomb Raider because he's afraid that a real girl will suck the life out of him seems much more prominent, at least among the advocates.
Mindstorm, what part of my belief is morally (in behavioral sense) at odds with Christianity. Please do tell.
I really dislike video games, cailcorishev. Im not saying Im an uberwinner at everything in life, but that's ok with me, and I don't have some shrew emotionally abusing me into embracing the wrongheaded mass-consumerist ethic. I know, I know, you all control your women with a firm hand..... sure ya do....
I think actually if you Christians would listen to what Im saying instead of lumping me in with "postmodernist" whatever that is, you would like me.
He's tantamount saying it's civic duty. And that's ok, as he's got a valid point. But he's not going to persuade anyone going about it in the way he does.
I'm actually trying to be helpful. Does no one see logic here? You want to persuade someone to make a major life decision. In this case, Vox wants to persuade men who think marriage is a lousy idea, to get married.
Telling them that it's the manly thing to do and it's noble isn't going to cut it. We're living in Henry IV. Crime and corruption was rampant--because the king himself was a murderer, so if the ruler was a murderer, what's wrong with theft, for instance?
We're men. We're supposed to be logical and smart and rational. Yet Vox is tackling this akin to how Sunshine mary might.
Here. George Clooney already tackled the weakness in all the pro-marriage arguments here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEDyFvKFcoQ
Yes, Vox is a woman, that's what I was getting at. LOL.
Shame tactics are all that's left. There is no rational reason. That's why the tradcons here have gone woman on us.
Sunshine Mary! lol.
He's tantamount saying it's civic duty.
No, he's saying that if it eventually turns out that his side was right, and your side was wrong, then you will be treated as a neutral. Like a national of a non-enemy, non-allied country. Just ignored.
If it turns out that your side was right, and the civilization COULDN'T be rebuilt, then you would be the ones who made the call with the best expectation value of happiness. It still wouldn't have been a couragious call, but it would be a prudent call.
And he's not trying to get you to just blindly marry. Previously he has actually said that for an atheist, it would be stupid to marry.
Rather, we all agree on the basic facts here. What women are like, what they desire, what kind of trouble they cayse, and so forth. Now, one side's conclusion to those facts is "Ok, then, it's not worth the trouble and risk. I'll just do something else." The other's is, "I'll take all this information and use it to improve my chances of raising good children, compared to the average man."
I am legitimately trying to be helpful and point out the best way that they could persuade men to get married. I've read a lot of what Vox has written and agreed with very much. Hell, I'd like to be persuaded myself. Seeing my own parents fight so much, getting asked at age 14 who I would go with in divorce, has a way of spoiling someone on making such a huge investment.
Believing that posts like this--saying men who think marriage is a bad idea are low value, damaged people who are parasites--will help persuade them otherwise is illogical.
What next? Maybe all those sermons about, "Guys, put down the game controller and ask a woman out!" Will magically persuade college youth to go to church and ask church ladies out. What happens in reality? The men shrug and say, "Forget that." And walk away. Posts like this could probably help *dissuade* men from some activity. Too much drinking, perhaps, or smoking.
Posts like this will not do *anything* to persuade men to change and be willing to make a major life investment that, according to statistics, has a 50/50 chance of ending with them financially devastated and their children gone.
Good synopsis Markku, it's just the dis(withholding of) respect that makes him seem like a girly little shaming bitch.
I agree that the MGTOW is more often than not, lower rank. What I don't understand is this battle going on right now. Look, for the sake of argument, let's just say that MGTOWs are nothing but a bunch of losers, if this is the case then you might as well just ignore them as they are little use to you in saving the civilization. Not only that but a man of lower rank has far more to lose by taking your advice. I have known more than a few men who were pushed into horrible marriages with disastrous consequences. If man is pushed into a bad marriage, you have just made the case for the MGTOW. In the previous thread, I asked Vox if he was trying to shame them he responded:
>When I say something is fine and I do not care, I mean it.
>It took 12 disciples to shake the world.
> We don't need reluctant warriors committed only out of shame.
This of course makes sense, given the mission at hand, concentrating on MGTOWs is a waste of time. Instead you should put your efforts toward Alphas because
1. They are the natural leaders, get them married and on the program and the Betas will follow suit.
2. They're the ones who are screwing the most women, putting them in marriage means that there is a better chance decreasing the slut factor.
3. When the number of Alphas are diminished, women will tend to stop waiting for/pursuing them.
As a final note I really don't see anywhere single men lacking respect. 20 years ago I would have agreed, today? Turn on the TV, the biggest joke is the Husband and Father, but that is popular culture, the manosphere? As shown before, guys like Roissy advise men not to get married. I am an American who works as a technician in Europe, so we run in different circles, but in my observation, single men do not lack respect. So let the MGTOWs go, they are of no use to you.
Markku, "No, he's saying that if it eventually turns out that his side was right, and your side was wrong, then you will be treated as a neutral. Like a national of a non-enemy, non-allied country. Just ignored."
Jack Sparrow wants some of what you're drinking.
There's been no point in the history of the United States when an able bodied man was "just ignored." Men pay higher taxes, men get drafted to go die in wars, men are the majority of security forces, law enforcement, infrastructure workers, mechanics, and I'm guessing farmers. Old people are pretty much already looked at with disdain and ignored, so I don't doubt old men who lack great skills will be ignored. But able bodied men? Yeah, sure. They'll be ignored. When you get women to participate 100% in the workforce and join male professions in equal numbers.
girly little shaming bitch.
Girly...
Allow me to quote you.
LOL. "Good women are made by good men"
The celibate monk is questioning my manhood. LOL.
I need only to watch and laugh! lol.
Or don't and we won't come burn your blog down anymore. LOL.
Go tobias, doubling down on the adhominem attack. LOL.
You're like failing amway representatives getting desperate. lol. Please please look at my catalog and buy my products, or I will cry and call you names. LOL.
These tradcons THINK we're the enemy because they know in their pretender hearts that their wives have programmed their mangina minds. Lol.
LOL. Maarku, please word games, really.
You "real men" (lol) are misunderstanding mgtow.
Jason Jonea said...
Shame tactics are all that's left. There is no rational reason. That's why the tradcons here have gone woman on us.
No you idiot. There is a perfectly rational reason IF you care about something beyond yourself, and IF you have a long-erm, historical, cultural viewpoint instead of a need to see immediate bang for your buck. Also, IF there is a God and this God does indeed have rewards and punishments in store based on one's choices, it is also perfectly rational.
Logical discourse not being your strong point, I'll understand if you can't get past a simple modus ponens or modus tollens.
Yes, that means the converse can be true. If you value your own perceived well-being and pleasure over all else, then your course makes perfect sense. If the future doesn't matter... ditto, (Insert any other number of valid propositions to the negative here...)
Point again to the topic of the post: If you want respect from the likes of Vox, then you won't get it if MGTOW is your major, defining life choice. It's simple logic and not subject to emotional hand-wringing on either side.
Yeah, but he started it! :^)
I think some men think it's alpha to bully other men around, and make them do things. Making them "Man Up" is this alpha tendency gon white knight gone white knight mangina. That's why they just can't let us MGTOWS go. They're ultimately control freaks.
I care about things beyond myself, like I care about other men, and the disasters I've seen from marriage. You people are just doubling down on your traditionalist viewpoint, thinking you're noble dogooders and everybody else sucks.
You are acting so much like a butthurt omega male that I'm actually ashamed to even be de facto on your side. Let's just take:
Anyhoo. Ive enjoyed parlaying with your meany-heads. If you should comment again and say something mean again, on this thread, I will come back to smack you around alittle. I would just like for you guys to be a little less hostile to me, Im a precious snowflake.
...and then high-fiving someone who you think agrees with you only moments later ("Yes, Vox is a woman, that's what I was getting at. LOL. ") Now you're again at it as if you hadn't said it at all.
If Vox had a sock-puppet, it would be you.
Men are not getting married and we say it's the legal system that has allowed women to get the guys money, his kids and make kick him out of his own life, and that's true, but the real horror of it is knowing that women would do that in first place, when FINALLY they were allowed to. This is why marriage is dead, the secret of women is out, and it's a Pandora's Box im afraid. Or a genie out of the bottle, are womanly nature we can't unknow.
Markku, there's likely to be a big difference between you and the MGTOWs Vox despises. Would you marry if you could find a Christian girl who fits the bill? Reasonably attractive, modest, feminine, no tattoos or children from former flings, low or zero N? Or have you sworn off the possibility of family with any woman now and forever, because you KNOW that there are no good ones, period?
Lifelong monogamy is a myth, gentlemen. We're serial monogamists at best. That is how god made us, if he indeed made us, then he obviously did it.
I would be vox's sock puppet. Does it pay?
Markku, there's likely to be a big difference between you and the MGTOWs Vox despises. Would you marry if you could find a Christian girl who fits the bill? Reasonably attractive, modest, feminine, no tattoos or children from former flings, low or zero N?
As I said, I'm not MGTOW by any vow. This is what I mean. I'm just putting zero effort to it. De facto vs. ideological.
With men like Jason around, I am starting to see the why God allowed the worthy among Old Testament men to have multiple wives.
Knowing what I know now, I view marriage as an extreme sport. I respect those who have demonstrable skills in it. I watch them do it, and am both fascinated and entertained by how they defy death.
But as for those who have fallen to their untimely demise, I kind of go "well, that's the way it goes".
Markku, the IDEOLOGY of the mgtow is to not put any effort into it. You're really working hard to create a distinction without a difference, so you don't THROWN in with the lowly likes of me.
And Ry-ry, I was thinking that too about multiple wives. That would be a good thing, than the man slaves such as you "real alphas" can knock yourselves out in a frenzy of consumerism, and society will still have enough slaves, and us mgtows can lounge around by the pool, the way it outta be.
>I am starting to see the why God allowed the worthy among Old Testament men to have multiple wives.
I don't want to hijack this thread (if that hasn't been done already) but I think this would be a good topic in the future. Polygamy? I'm all for it.
That would be a necessary but not sufficient condition for being ideological MGTOW. But they would, or they at least would claim they would, put effort AGAINST it, were such a situation to fall in their lap.
I, on the other hand, make no claims about never getting married.
Maybe the "skill" in marriage is just learning to tolerate suffering and abuse at the hands of loved ones. That's something to really respect. NOT.
The difference between you and me Markku is that you still feel the need to bow and scrape before these self important white knighters.
No. It was a direct question, and I answered it in the most straightforward and truthful fashion.
It's a man-thing. You wouldn't understand.
I have never said never either, markku, if some millionaire cougar wanted to marry me and promised to blow me everyday and get me whatever I wanted, I might not say no. So now how are we different?
If that is the case, then not as much as I thought. Then the difference is merely that the lack of respect bothers you very much, but it doesn't bother me.
Well, plus that I would actually reject said cougar. But that's purely incidental - the principle is the same.
I'm confused about what/who MGTOW are.
First there are gamma's who can't get women till they fall off the carousel. Naturally some don't want the already chewed gum or to raise her two brats from two baby daddies. He has no other prospects, except fatties and uglies. There's always some guys at the bottom but the pool is much larger now because other guys are chewing their gum before they get a chance at it. Can you blame them for not marrying the slut?
Then there are the guys who have the resources and status to land a woman but don't do it because they are afraid of divorce or because they are having too much fun. These are the guys who make sure that all the girls are fucked enough to be ruined for the guys who actually would marry them. These guys in my view are the problem.
I'm confused about what/who MGTOW are.
Those who self-identify by this choice. It's a banner that they flock under.
"Jason Jonea said...
Men are not getting married and we say it's the legal system that has allowed women to get the guys money, his kids and make kick him out of his own life, and that's true, but the real horror of it is knowing that women would do that in first place, when FINALLY they were allowed to. This is why marriage is dead, the secret of women is out, and it's a Pandora's Box im afraid. Or a genie out of the bottle, are womanly nature we can't unknow."
Unfortunately when government power grows the parasites tend to converge on the center of power. The reason for this is actually rather obvious in some respects. As endless amounts of taxpayer dollars (i.e., someone else earnings) are accumulated in a single spot (currently the income tax, payroll taxes, and corporate tax amounts to an astonishing $2.9 trillion p/year) all of the parasitical vultures descend upon it in hopes of acquiring a piece of the monetary pie. The military-industrial complex, Big Pharma, feminist groups, minority-"rights" groups, environmentalist groups, corporate welfare, and a seemingly endless number of tax-feeders see a great prize available for picking since such funds are acquired via violence or treat of violence as well as being someone else money. It is always easy to spend someone else money while utilizing for one's own pet political project.
All of this has created a severely destructive chain reaction where everything has become politicized; from the corporate office right down to even the bedroom. This is the primary MGTOWs exist and likely the reason for the severe explosion in PUAs over the course of recent western history. When one politicizes something decisions are soon made on a political level as opposed to another level, such as financial, personal, or what have you. Feminists have effectively taken taxpayer dollars and transformed it into an engine of societal destruction. MGTOWS are simply the effect of the problem, not the cause and should therefore not be the concentration of ones vitriol or attack. If one wants to stem the tide of MGTOWs one must destroy the politico-economic mechanism that fuels and thus empowers the feminist engine. This is the primary reason I concentrate on economics. Ultimately, this is where the primary problem lies.
"The characteristic feature of this age of destructive wars and social disintegration is the revolt against economics."
---- Ludwig von Mises
In my opinion, his view is correct. Perhaps we should be less concerned with who is a tradcon or MGTOW and instead concentrate upon the actual problem? In short, concentrate on correcting the original problem as opposed to wasting time and effort on its side effects.
We have to remember that as Christians, we have an additional weapon on our hands. If we have the faith, we could for example put a curse on the wife as a last resort, and have a bear come out of the woods and maul her to death.
It's much more understandable for atheists to swear off marriage.
Of course, you are completely right, Mechanized, but these tradcon types, possible being real natural alphas, do well in corporatist institutions, as the fascists controllers at the top are not stupid enough to work against human nature in all endeavors, they use it when they can, if it helps. So they are not willing to bite the hand that feeds. They also embraced affirmative action, as it meant they could keep other men out, and be applauded for it. Now they're being tasked by the corrupt political establishment with browbeating the same guys they kicked out of the workforce, man up and take it lake a man, and still believe the same old shit.
This is why marriage is dead, the secret of women is out, and it's a Pandora's Box im afraid. Or a genie out of the bottle, are womanly nature we can't unknow.
Oh, please, girlfriend. The nature of woman was made apparent since the beginning of history, and the elites of team woman have been promoting a counternarrative for almost as long. To anyone with an ear to hear or eyes to see, the "mystery" was solved long before the crime was committed. MGTOW thinking they've unmasked the deep darkness of women are worse than a stage magician with a rabbit. At least the stage magician knows his trick is played out. If this is the main argument of MGTOW the only thing I've learned about them is that they are ignorant of the ancients and the classics and are therefore modernist and postmodernist intellectual cripples.
Get over yourself, Jason. You got burned too many times and don't want to take it anymore. Good for you. Home is that way. Here's your ball.
Mechanized, MGTOW are exactly as you described: the natural victims of an economic force. The problem is that they promote victimhood as the obvious and only response to feminist economic destruction. This is what they should be attacked for: aiding and abetting their overlords in the continued victimization. It is a co-dependency: MGTOW only can justify themselves under the certain and predestined permanence of the feminist cash and prizes supremacy. If feminism can be destroyed, then MGTOW is - essentially - the economic backing by those men of a losing horse. With their victimhood, MGTOW fund the feminist ideal of a manless world.
So Daniel, you agree with my conclusions, but still insult me ok. wow. You're a cool guy.
And Daniel, I don't promote victimhood, I just change my mind and learn from new evidence in light of new information. You're really having to stretch to villianize mgtow. Feminism is bad, and we blame the corrupt legal system for the cash and prizes mindset, but as you alluded to, the cash and prizes mindset is nothing new. It is within women, and Christian monogamy is just a mindfuck on men to convince them of something different.
So self righteous and smug you all sit, in judgement of me, but yet, we're finally getting to the nitty gritty.
You're welcome.
In case you guys are wondering, solidarity amongst men doesn't make you gay.
Daniel said:
"The nature of woman was made apparent since the beginning of history, and the elites of team woman have been promoting a counternarrative for almost as long. To anyone with an ear to hear or eyes to see, the "mystery" was solved long before the crime was committed."
Ok, mgtows are not the first to unmask it. That's a side point and what Daniel has chosen to focus on in order to be anti-me. But we actually agree on this truth. Are you Christian manginas gonna argue with him, or is ok when he says it?
Two can play at not caring.
I'm not playing. I don't care. You, on the other hand, observably do.
A MGTOW is simply an individual man who has chosen to create his own life and goals outside a given collectivist mindset that either tradcons or feminists have planned for them. Attempting to shame them via feminine-style shaming tactics will be completely ineffectual and should probably be avoided.
Why should it be avoided? A) They are weak, frightened, and irrelevant. B) Demonstrating contempt is not shaming.
Notice how the MGTOWs conflate lack of respect with shaming? Classic chick-think.
Yep.
In this case, Vox wants to persuade men who think marriage is a lousy idea, to get married.
Vox is not doing anything of the sort. I don't think men like Jason should get married. I expect the average woman would chew him up and spit him out within three years. It certainly doesn't strike me that the loss of his genetics is up there with, say, Isaac Newton's.
Believing that posts like this--saying men who think marriage is a bad idea are low value, damaged people who are parasites--will help persuade them otherwise is illogical. Posts like this will not do *anything* to persuade men to change and be willing to make a major life investment that, according to statistics, has a 50/50 chance of ending with them financially devastated and their children go.
Again, I am not trying to persuade the MGTOW of anything. I don't care what they do. They are as irrelevant as China's millions of extra men and even less useful.
Good synopsis Markku, it's just the dis(withholding of) respect that makes him seem like a girly little shaming bitch.
I direct the reader's attention to the dozens of emotion-laden comments here. You want respect without earning it. That is not an adult male quality.
Im not really understanding your reasoning, Daniel of why obvious victims of an economic onslaught should be attacked. Could you go over that again? It might even help you think straight.
"Mechanized, MGTOW are exactly as you described: the natural victims of an economic force."
Indeed. Or perhaps more accurately, a logically pursued avenue for the purposes of self-preservation.
"The problem is that they promote victimhood as the obvious and only response to feminist economic destruction. This is what they should be attacked for: aiding and abetting their overlords in the continued victimization. It is a co-dependency: MGTOW only can justify themselves under the certain and predestined permanence of the feminist cash and prizes supremacy. If feminism can be destroyed, then MGTOW is - essentially - the economic backing by those men of a losing horse. With their victimhood, MGTOW fund the feminist ideal of a manless world."
Not necessarily. Simply acknowledging that a given individual is subject to arbitrary destruction via the government apparatus is hardly "playing victim". In reality, such an individual is a true victim since the malicious hammer of the state is utilize to destroy said individual simply on the whim of another. Their course of action (that is, to maneuver around the minefield as opposed to recklessly trampling through it) is quite understandable and even logical. However, one can still act in a MGTOW fashion yet engage in the necessary work to set the stage for the necessary rebuilding of this currently collapsing societal paradigm. How one might ask? In the very manner I spoke of earlier. Study the reasons for the current decline, acquire the knowledge to provide the necessary answers for rebuilding, and therefore create a new civilization that makes family life attractive again for the average male.
It is unrealistic to expect the majority of males to continue to voluntarily rush straight into machine gun fire across an open field (as general recklessly and idiotically forced their solders to do in the First World War, wasting valuable human lives). Instead a new civilization, and therefore a new familial paradigm which should obviously be extremely contrary to the present situation, should concentrate on providing positive incentives for males to marry. Whether one wishes to accept it or not, human beings act on incentives, God or no God. If the incentives are set against marriage, the trend will be to avoid marriage. If said incentives favor marriage then males will be significantly more inclined to marry. In this respect, it is actually quite simple.
In closing, let us cast aside the silly name calling and instead accumulate the necessary knowledge for civilizational reconstruction and maintenance. Thus, when the collapse inevitably does materialize we will be ready with the answers and can offer them as not only the reasons for the collapse of what would then be the previous paradigm but also the solutions to prevent such a problem in the future. If we're both interested in creating a new order we are going to have to work together in order to find the solutions for doing so.
Jason, I agree with you, in general. It's the blog host that I am at odds with.
Yep. All vox really has Is girly little shaming techniques. He obviously works for the gyno-crats. He parades himself around being aggressive, and "manly" im sure, in his own eyes. But he deceives other men with Tradcon bullshit version of masculinity, to their own detriment.
Lack of respect = no action
Disrespect = action
Disagreement != disrespect
Too confuse the three, you'd have to be a woman.
A note for Christians, this hateful attitude, and reference to gene pools and men who shouldn't reproduce is not a Christian view point, it is the Darwinian humanist eugenics viewpoint, and is strictly masonic and luciferian.
I agree that the MGTOW is more often than not, lower rank.
You mean, the lower 80-90% that, thanks to Marriage 2.0, cannot be secure in their vows from hypergamy in what passes for modern Western culture?
Again, I think that what folks around here consider civilization can't be saved, because you can't save something that has long since been lost. You can try to recover, restore or rebuild it, but you can't save it. If one takes that as read, then in the process of recovery/rebuilding/restoration, would one build on a cracked, damaged, unlevel, fundamentally flawed foundation? No. The foundation would be ripped out and done right in order to provide a solid, reliable base for the rebuilt edifice.
There is no saving a civilization with universal suffrage and unchecked immigration. There is no rebuilding a civilization with those flaws intact. It would likely take 3-5 generations of favorably wide disparities in birthrate to address peacefully, and a pretty brutal civil war to address it otherwise. I can't imagine even after those 3-5 generations that the electorate, in a secret ballot, would voluntarily decide to restrict the franchise to property-holding males, and therefore the fatal flaw in the democratic foundation would still be there.
So ghost is back to the vacuous word games again. How uncreative and sad, piling on with a weak argument that was weak in the first place.
Isaiah 26:14. But please, Mr atheist, please tell us slaves what we believe, and what we shouldn't say.
Well, as Confucius said, wisdom begins when you begin to call a thing by its true name. You've demonstrated your lack thereof. You call disagreement disrespect. Much like a woman. No wonder you don't like women very much (you self described as misogynist); I've never met a woman who liked other women either.
Thanks mechanized, and Otiswild, and Mindstorm for being true bros.
otiswild said...
You mean, the lower 80-90% that, thanks to Marriage 2.0, cannot be secure in their vows from hypergamy in what passes for modern Western culture?
Which is why Vox wants men of higher rank to step up and help (re) create a society where women are not rewarded for rampant hypergamy.
There is no saving a civilization with universal suffrage and unchecked immigration. There is no rebuilding a civilization with those flaws intact.
Who said anything about keeping those flaws intact?
It would likely take 3-5 generations of favorably wide disparities in birthrate to address peacefully, and a pretty brutal civil war to address it otherwise.
Now you're getting it.
I can't imagine even after those 3-5 generations that the electorate, in a secret ballot, would voluntarily decide to restrict the franchise to property-holding males, and therefore the fatal flaw in the democratic foundation would still be there.
You lack both imagination and historical perspective.
I want to reiterate my earlier point: Though we Christians WILL want to marry wisely and marry well, we HAVE to remember the ultimate trump card in our pocket. God is not merely a god of love, but of harsh, even lethal justice also. Just remember Ananias and Sapphira. That was New Testament, you know.
Yes, to have that kind of faith when we need it requires a lot of work. A lot. But, if we make a mess of our lives because we didn't put in the effort, then we share the blame. The sin - spiritual laziness and unbelief - merely actualized at that time. It was sin all along, but that moment was when the debt got collected.
Which is why I haven't sworn it off completely. I have recourse. If I put in the work.
Im not really understanding your reasoning, Daniel of why obvious victims of an economic onslaught should be attacked. Could you go over that again?
Gladly. I'll put it in simpler terms by way of analogy. Just as a woman in an abusive relationship is nonetheless capable of "asking for it," the innocent victims of feminism will demonstrate that they embrace permanent status as victims by declaring themselves the product of feminism that is MGTOW.
History is littered with associations and self-identified groups who died with the victimizer. At the very best, MGTOW will be a public anachronism on your resume, as your ideological birth mother (feminism) is not long for the world, and you have not only declared yourself functionally infertile, but also still in utero.
LOL. These guys are going to recreate the past. Instead of realizing the true nature of women and behaving accordingly they will attempt to control human nature. Good luck with that.
You people are lost.
And here is Markku reminding Christians of the old testament wrathful god. LOL. Forget the love of Christ, y'all. You must suffer. This is precisely why Christianity is or has at least been turned into for all intents and purposes, a slave religion. The grace and love of Christ has been driven out by the masonic luciferians. So sad.
Me: That was New Testament, you know.
Jason: And here is Markku reminding Christians of the old testament wrathful god.
You shouldn't comment when you are so butthurt. You don't have the patience to read the messages carefully, and just end up repeatedly making an ass of yourself. You would do much better to just return tomorrow, with your mental faculties hopefully in better working order.
Daniel said:
"Gladly. I'll put it in simpler terms by way of analogy. Just as a woman in an abusive relationship is nonetheless capable of "asking for it," the innocent victims of feminism will demonstrate that they embrace permanent status as victims by declaring themselves the product of feminism that is MGTOW."
Pointing out a cause and effect reality doesn't mean you endorse that state permanently. You're really not making any sense. Really. You're not.
Markku said, "that's new testament, too."
Jason: "here's markku with old testament wrathful God..."
Markku got it first.
And Im not sure I really blame feminism actually. Feminism inadvertently lifted the veil on the feminist imperative hypergamy, and the cruel nature of the beast. That is the reality of the situation. Perhaps going forward we will just need more honest relations between men and women. Maybe reverting back to old Christian lies of feminine virtue and forgetting what we know isn't the solution. I know it seems sad, but sometimes the truth is sad.
You guys are so threatened by me. It's hilarious. You're making ridiculous arguments that actually remind me of feminism. I must be saying many correct and awesome things. So awesome you're literally pulling out all the stops, and even making up crazy stuff.
All is see is white knighting mangina behavior, and outright evil and viciousness.
I have to do my journal entry now. I may not be as active, but you bunch of assgrabbers sure are a load of fun.
I will not be kind to you dudes, in my journal, and it will really hurt your feelings! lol.
Special snowflake out, for now. Or not. depending. I may just be a little slower.
Oh no, not the journal!
I direct the reader's attention to the dozens of emotion-laden comments here. You want respect without earning it. That is not an adult male quality.
It's a millennial trait I suspect. They've been told they are incredible every day of their lives for doing absolutely nothing special. The absence of adulation encountered in the real world is inferred to be active disrespect.
Jamesv, it might also be possible the unreason denial of respect, and that's pretty close to disrespect. I'm amazed at how many of you have latched on this retarded "shades of meaning" word game, when there are many substantive isssues in this thread, namely how the Christian idea of marriage is an obviously bad idea in light of information regarding the hypergamous deceptive nature of women, and yet you still advocate it for others, and seem to think it's a good idea. Misery loves company, I guess. OH wait, I forgot, misery is how god expresses his love for you. Bwwahahah! Fools.
This thread is addictive. I only got one line done in my journal.
"The snowman offensive.
The snowmen left the yards of all the children who had created them. They convened on the pre-planned location, behind the storage shed at the municipal park. "
Well, words have meanings, you fucking fool.
Yes, and sometimes the meanings are so close it's considered nitpicking and lame to make it into a federal case, potty-mouth.
The first snowman to arrive on the scene stared at the ragtag group of incoming snowmen, askance, and finally inquired:
So, what are your names, wayfarers?
Who are you, Jason Jonea? Well ma'am, I'm like no man you've ever met before.
Tradcons gonna tradcon, gammas gonna gamma. The Churchians are truly showing their true colours.
Pointing out a cause and effect reality doesn't mean you endorse that state permanently. You're really not making any sense. Really. You're not.
Oh, so you are only temporarily MGOTW? For how long? Until your morale improves?
I basically just face banged y'alls worldview for an entire day straight with no meaningful or effective rebuttals sighted.
I had to google what the hell MGTOW meant. Classic. Place the cowboy hat on your head, mount your trusted steed, and ride away into the setting sun.....Then turn and announce "By the way, I'm going my own way just in case there was any confusion or you cared. Did I look cool?"
Did I?
Yes. Yes you did.
But you should never have turned to ask.
Post a Comment
NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.