Monday, December 7, 2015

Who is your enemy?

Keep this in mind if you're inclined to MGTOW. It's not women who are your enemy. It is the State that is using them as weapons to destroy the family.
Child welfare services in Norway have reportedly removed five Christian children from their parents’ home and placed them into foster care after the parents were accused of radicalizing and indoctrinating their children with Christianity. According to the British-based Christian Institute, Norway’s child protection services, known as the Barnevernet, seized the three sons and two daughters of Ruth and Marius Bodnariu in mid-November.

Although the family wasn’t quite sure at the time why their children were being taken away from them, their lawyer discovered that the parents were being charged with Christian indoctrination. The Bodnariu’s lawyer obtained a copy of the government document that lists the charges against Marius and Ruth, which includes being listed as “radical Christians who were indoctrinating their children.”
That's the problem with MGTOW. Giving into despair is what they want you to do. It is how they plan to defeat you and destroy your civilization. They have no problem with you going your own way and dying as an evolutionary dead end, a self-castrated eunuch, a drone.

Yes, the odds are stacked against you. They are stacked against anyone who stands for Western civilization. But that doesn't mean that lying down and dying while contentedly chewing the lotus leaves is the best option for a man.

36 comments:

Rex Little said...

It is how they plan to defeat you and destroy your civilization.

You really think these people have a plan to destroy civilization? That's giving them way too much credit. As Napoleon is reputed to have said, never ascribe to malice what can adequately be explained by stupidity.

Russell Newquist said...

Giving up is seldom a sound strategy.

jsolbakken said...

Uhh, seems to me the people who are laying down and dying are the ones who had the children and then let the State take them away unjustly and do nothing about it.
At least I did not waste my time having children to see them taken away. If I had kids and the State took them away so unjustly there would be unspeakable circumstances. I see no support for me coming from anywhere for the unspeakable acts I would commit if this happened to me. So, what are any of us supposed to do? I refuse to cooperate in supporting society in any way on the State's terms are they now exist. Should I change my mind and submit to their terms? I'm serious, what exactly do we do now?

spastic0plastic said...

"Child welfare" is a stereotypical focus of female politicians, and the bureaucracy is female directed and operated (the men just keep their heads down and feed at the trough). Even after her children were taken away I doubt this mother would not vote for taxes to be raised for more "services".

VD said...

Uhh, seems to me the people who are laying down and dying are the ones who had the children and then let the State take them away unjustly and do nothing about it.

Them too.

I refuse to cooperate in supporting society in any way on the State's terms are they now exist.

It's not enough to "refuse to cooperate". That's literally doing nothing. You have kids, you raise a family, and you fight for them. It's not like the settlers didn't have kids just because they might get killed by Indians or eaten by bears.

Cadders said...

I have some sympathy with MGTOWs.

I understand what you are saying, but some men are men of action and some are not.

It doesn't mean that their inaction is without value. All the accusations of men being 'Peter Pans, not committing, not going to college, not jumping on the corporate treadmill, not interested in becoming engaged fathers, not dating, not stepping up to help women, the things synonymous with MGTOW.....they are all about men NOT doing something. Men are increasingly NOT doing things that women expect them to. And with good reason; the mass of women no longer give men any incentive to do so. Women, mostly, don't understand that this new behavior from increasing numbers of men is a direct result of the ways they themselves are now behaving.

Male disengagement is, imo, THE dynamic that will stop the liberal, feminist narrative. Men of action, such as yourself will be the ones that reverse it.

MGTOWs are complimentary to men of action, not their enemy.

genericviews said...

MGTOW will still get to support women and children. Just not their own. The state will force them through taxation.

Jose Coces said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jose Coces said...

Having kids is not the only option for fighting the good fight. Paul himself said as much in 1 Corinthians 7. For example, you can become a priest, and help to restore religion and morality in society. Or you can follow the late Lawrence Auster's example and live as a bachelor, devoting the extra time and resources you have to the fight and to helping others raise their kids properly.

Desiderius said...

"never ascribe to malice what can adequately be explained by stupidity."

Only stupidity in this sense:

http://mpcdot.com/forums/topic/56-the-stupidity-of-intelligence/

OW, not nearly adequate.

Kutuzov recognized that Napoleon himself was far from stupid. He still managed to defeat him.

Desiderius said...

This, and only this, is the heart of the matter.

Desiderius said...

This = Vox's post.

Unknown said...

Rex Little, you say that as if stupidity and malice were mutually exclusive. I think they are not.

Tom K. said...

One aspect of this MGTOW seem to be missing is the fact that "fighting against the evil government" is a form of "bad boy game" and as such is very alpha and enticing to women. A man committed to a battle against a real-life opponent, going at it will all his masculine power and energy is a major turn-on for women. If a man attracts a woman with that frame and then maintains it throughout the years of building hearth and home, there is no reason she should ever leave him. Especially if he makes her understand and see the true DANGER he is protecting her and her children from. A man with a reason to act the man in this panzified world will be able to hold his woman.

Mark Pasko said...

Ova Eggs tend to be abundant cholesterol in which assist enhance testosterone output in the human body Aside from also they are containing more selenium Vitamin supplements K Some Pro Muscle Fit sort of N Electronic and N which might be vital pertaining to testosterone release Some Try a Normal The male growth hormone Product the male growth hormone.

http://www.supplement4fitness.in/pro-muscle-fit.html

Brad Andrews said...

Very few MGTOWs go to Christian service of some sort. The very name indicates otherwise, since they are going their own way, not Christ's way.

They are free to do that, but it does feed into the destruction of civilization.

Bill Henry said...

You hit the nail on the head Vox. This is the overlying evil facing men today.. The State.. like a bed of pendulums the left has synchronized their efforts and engaged in an comprehensive initiative to destroy the family. MGTOW is not the answer.. Its a form of submission to fate.. I sympathize with them but ultimately believe they need to re engage, game and re frame...

Sokrates said...

http://freedompowerandwealth.com

Thank you. A good reminder. When fighting a battle it’s very easy to lose track and concentrate on the wrong enemy. There are way to many fake-battlefields nowadays.

Jibola Lawal said...

Am I the only one who feels the urgency of how this news heralds the second coming of Christ?

Or am I missing something?

Student in Blue said...

@Cadders
I understand what you are saying, but some men are men of action and some are not.

If men are not men of action, they need to improve themselves to become men of action, not men of indolence. It's Alpha to take charge and do things, it's very un-Alpha to be passive aggressive.

Simply saying "Some men are men of action and some are not" does not excuse those who do not act. That's like saying some men are men who are not immoral subhumans, and some just are.

Men of inaction are simply not fighting back against men of action of either side. They're not helping anyone but themselves.

Victor Y said...

MGTOW are pursing the only sensible option in a immediate, worldly context.

Men and women are complementary, but only in a metaphysical / evolutionary sense. Women exist to make life difficult for men, so as to speed up their physical and spiritual evolution. In a practical sense, women make rather unattractive companions whose only assets are their fertility and the male sexual bias toward female characteristics.

"If we could survive without a wife, citizens of Rome, all of us would do without that nuisance; but since nature has so decreed that we cannot manage comfortably with them, nor live in any way without them, we must plan for our lasting preservation rather than for our temporary pleasure."

Nobody needs a wife. There is no legitimate reason to marry excluding religion. If your reader isn't Christian to begin with, you'll have a hard time convincing him to take such a risk with no reward. As for children, one only needs to find a woman who's willing to rent her womb.

Likewise, nobody (except a traditional monotheist) needs a woman for romance or carnal pleasures. For that a man can do just fine with an open mind and by abandoning his ego investments about "being masculine" or pigeonholing himself into a fixed "sexual orientation". Presumably as a consequence of neuroplasticity, human sexuality is quite fluid/mutable.

And FYI; MGTOW won't turn into Christian drones (as opposed to secular drones) as a result of petty rhetoric about them being genetic dead-ends or eunuchs. As if they care about that. I'd say from a Christian perspective they're a benign group who has stopped feeding the warlords' machine. They are starving the Beast. If you don't believe in a God to save you in a rigged game, the only winning move is to not play.

"All the evil in the world is being fuelled by decency.

All that is required for evil to succeed is for good men to do SOMETHING."

You're not helping your cause by alienating MGTOW with your petty rhetoric, and for that I am thankful.

Student in Blue said...

@Victor Y
MGTOW are pursing the only sensible option in a immediate, worldly context.

Your beginning sentence highlights what's going on. It's sensible in an immediate context, not a long-term one.

That's the point going on here, not secular vs Christian, but "if you do not fight back, then we lose in the long term. Future men will either have no option *but* MGTOW, or be slaves".

As for children, one only needs to find a woman who's willing to rent her womb.

I mean, sure you can do that... if you want messed up children. Kids do better with a single father than a single mother to be sure, but the best need both.

Rusty Fife said...

@Brad Andrews

'Their own way, instead of Christ's way' is an interesting bit of rhetoric.

It does shine a light down a path to the wandering monks of Russia, the Black Robes of France, and similar historical models. Turn into a homeless street preacher and see the US by foot; quite appealing actually.

Then yone could work towards gathering more brothers into the flock.

Rex Little said...

you say that as if stupidity and malice were mutually exclusive. I think they are not.

Of course they aren't. My point is that it isn't the intent of SJWs and feminists to destroy civilization. They believe, in all sincerity, that they're improving it. Destruction is the unintended consequence of their beliefs.

Student in Blue said...

@Rex Little
My point is that it isn't the intent of SJWs and feminists to destroy civilization. They believe, in all sincerity, that they're improving it. Destruction is the unintended consequence of their beliefs.

Half right. There's more than a little of them that believe in order to improve civilization, they have to destroy the old way. They think they're clearing out the chaff, when instead they're burning down the barn thinking it's for the better.

jsolbakken said...

VD:
I'm too old to have my own children now, but I've always supported the families of other people who were worthy of it. I'd hurt someone if I thought it would help that family who are getting their kids taken away. I'll speak up in their defense, I'll contribute financially. I think what made me personally a MGTOW from before it had a name is that I've always felt like I was unlucky, and that I would end up one of those who gets royally screwed by women and the system and I'd just eff things up. I'm not against other people having a go at it.

Cadders said...

@SIB

'Men of inaction are simply not fighting back against men of action of either side. They're not helping anyone but themselves.'

That's my point. Everything in an advanced modern society absolutely relies on men helping 'everyone'. Often, everyone EXCEPT themselves. It is telling that wider society only starts to notice men when they finally start living only for themselves. The cries of 'man up' from women I understand, but I struggle to understand the hate from areas of the manosphere. To me the rise of MGTOW as a response to feminism seems as natural as night following day. Because it is an autonomic response. I know a number of men who are living a MGTOW lifestyle who don't even know it has this name. MGTOW is literally instinctive in many men. Nature, or God, would not have placed this instinct there unless it had value.

The modern world was built on the backs of men and continues to rest on them. And as increasing numbers walk away it will - it is - starting to crumble.

There are battles to be fought. But men's nuclear option, is, as it has always been, to walk away.

Not to slink away into the night, but to go build a life on your own terms someplace else. Every society stands or falls based on male engagement. Ours will be no different.

Cail Corishev said...

Half right. There's more than a little of them that believe in order to improve civilization, they have to destroy the old way.

Yes. They do consciously want to destroy the civilization we have had, namely Christendom. They may have some fantasy civilization, made in their own image, that they hope to replace it with; but it doesn't really exist and they don't really have a plan that goes beyond dancing in the ashes.

Bastiat's Ghost said...

This also goes back to your post about not standing up to women. You make the diagnosis but don't give us any tools to work with. The state has made men powerless. MGTOW or moving overseas to a country without functioning 911 is the only logical course.

Student in Blue said...

@Cadders
That's my point. Everything in an advanced modern society absolutely relies on men helping 'everyone'.

Exactly... and if no one men aren't helping others (it doesn't have to be everyone) then there will be no advanced modern society.

There's a false dichotomy being inferred by many MGTOW I see though, in that "if you're not MGTOW you're feeding the beast".

This couldn't be further from the truth, and that's why people who are *actively* fighting instead of simply going their own way are so ticked - here's someone who gets it for the most part, who sees past the pretty lies... yet refuses to help topple it.

And why help topple it? Because if those handy Vault-Tec Vaults aren't built now, when the social nuclear fallout happens there won't be any humanity left.

Instead of simply letting the society fall... let it fall and create something to replace it. You need children for that.

Student in Blue said...

and if no one men aren't helping others

Should be: "and if men aren't helping others"

Cadders said...

@SIB
Then I guess we must agree to disagree.

If women are herd animals, men are pack animals. Whilst women's herd instinct has been co-oped by feminism, men's pack instinct leads them down a wider variety of paths in reaction to it.

And to be honest this is as it should be. Women's tendency to act and think 'as a block' makes them powerful in the face of men's more fragmented response. The success of feminism is testament to just how powerful.

But this herd tendency is also women's, and especially feminist's, greatest vulnerability. For whilst such a monolithic world view may be effective at breaking and subverting the great institutions that men have built, it is virtually powerless against smaller groupings of men who depart from the feminist narrative.

And here I am not just talking about MGTOWs, but also PUAs, traditional patriarchs - just about any red-pill men in fact (as an aside I exclude MRAs from this list intentionally). These are just new types of packs, with each man free to join the one that best suits him - or none at all. Their strength lies in their distributed nature - in most instances there is no figurehead to target, no headquarters to protest at, no financial power base to attack. Feminism is largely toothless in the face of them.

These packs are often antagonistic to each other. You mention the MGTOW refrain of 'if you're not MGTOW you're feeding the beast'. VD commented above; 'It's not enough to "refuse to cooperate".' Whatever an individual's position on this spectrum, what really, is the effect of this conflict of viewpoint?

Quite simply, it excites men to engage, to debate (often that is too polite a word), to THINK.

Nature calls on men to constantly test themselves. Even in the face of the challenge presented by feminism men continue to test themselves against other men, constantly refining their approach. In a way that women, forever in submission to the dominant cultural narrative, do not.

Attacking the narrative in the way you espouse, undermining it in the way of the PUAs, preserving the best of Western Civilisation by raising traditional children in a traditional family, starving the narrative by way of MGTOW - these are, imo, all equally valid vectors of attack. Feminism, leftists, progressives, all may adapt to effectively fight any one of them but they can never effectively fight them all, and the individual packs natural antagonism to each other ensures that all are at the top of their respective game when they do what they do. All these tactics will have a role to play in the 'toppling' you mention.

I do not believe we are headed for a future as bleak as you imply. The toppling is already underway and as the current narrative starts to crumble I am already seeing changes at the margins. It comes as no surprise to me that rise of French Nationalism is being headed up by two women. The current narrative is just as subject to hypergamy as the lowliest man and when it can no longer deliver what women want it will be discarded just as quickly. Women will switch to it's replacement, which will imo inevitably be some form of overt patriarchy, with breathtaking speed, all the while denying they ever believed in feminism. And once more, men will form new, different, packs in response.

Artisanal Toad said...

The system is what it is. It will not be pulled apart as long as women can vote, short of a civil war (which I believe is coming). The state is the enemy because it has inserted itself into marriage and given women multiple levers to coerce and punish their husbands. This is a problem for Christians because there is a command to be fruitful and multiply.

Get monogamously married and the state assumes it is a party to the marriage and will do as it damn well pleases. The security apparatus of the state will cheerfully assist the woman in destroying your family if she ever decides to divorce rape you. The rule is that if the woman wants out for any or even no reason at all, she gets out. The state has arranged the incentives to reward the destruction of her family. Or, the state itself might just steal your children... because it can.

http://medicalkidnap.com/2014/11/25/breastfed-homebirthed-babies-taken-away-from-parents-for-not-using-hospital/

Men can go MGTOW and do whatever it is they want. The state is OK with this because the laws are such that your girlfriend can get you kicked out of your own home and of course, you still have to pay taxes and have zero reproductive control.

I believe the most reasonable solution is to have a polygynous marriage with a binding marital contract. For reasons of public policy the state cannot recognize polygyny as a marriage and without a marriage there can be no divorce. And believe it or not, rights can be waived in equitable contract. With children by multiple women all living with you, if one of the women wants out her odds of getting custody of the children are not good. She won't get half the assets, nor alimony and if she doesn't get custody of her children she will have to pay child support. If she does get custody, the child support will only be based on the fathers income, not on the household income (assuming some wives work).

Under the existing system a polygynous marriage is the safest and most stable marriage for men to raise a family and if the guy is high-value enough women will go for it. In effect it's giving the women their own herd, but polygyny also aligns the incentives toward remaining in the family and penalizes anyone who wants to leave. None of the tactics women use within monogamous marriage (bitchiness, complaining, using sex as a weapon, etc.) work when there are multiple women because the wives have to compete for his attention and the only way they can compete is by giving him what he wants: a wife that's submissive, sweet, feminine and sexually available.

Some Christians will no doubt claim I'm inciting immorality. I don't care. Polygyny is sanctioned and regulated in the Bible, never forbidden. It works because within such a marriage the husband can easily say NEXT. And yes, not all men could do it because only some men are attractive and high-value enough to make it happen. So what? Become that man. Have a large family, homeschool them, indoctrinate them in the faith of Jesus Christ, discipline them and teach them the value of hard work and achievement. Become a patriarch and raise up your own tribe.

tonsplace said...

Sooo women do as the state dictates and yet, somehow, not the enemy?

Women either have moral agency and therefore willingly became enemies
or
They do not have moral agency and should have the legal status of children( my stance on the matter, women should be held as property as should be children but if you think women have moral agency then they are your enemy)

What should one do when the state comes to steal your children? Die in a firefight? Sounds good but doesn't do the kids any favors and yes that is what it comes down to. If you don't give them up, cops show up to take them. Run with them and cops hunt you down... yes cops are the enemy too

if the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over again expecting different results there are some insane mofo's around these parts... unless you think Game is a magic pill then... well no still insanity

tz said...

Somewhere there is potential for a new dating site.
Stupid women are joining ISIS.
There are real men who don't want to (directly) fight "the state".
There are real women who want a real (Christian, Constitutionalist, Alpha, 2 of 3) man.
And who want to breed an army that 30 years from now will reestablish the original intent.
Do I have to wait for TEOTWAWKI?

RHJunior said...

And "suicide by marriage" IS?
MGTOWs aren't "eating the lotus leaves." They're going Galt. We'll see who goes extinct first when the would-be lords and masters of the feminized society are left standing in the middle of the crumbling ruins, wondering where the hell all the (plumbers, auto mechanics, firemen, cops, soldiers)competent men have gone. Want to accelerate the process? It's simple: the next time a woman in your life nags you, just go around the house and tighten the lids on everything. Then leave for the day.... >;)

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.