Misogyny

.
“For a man to pretend to understand women is bad manners; for him really to understand them is bad morals.” – Henry James

Many people who read the following pages within The Philosophy of Men Going Their Own Way will reflexively be uncomfortable with what they find. "Why, it's misogynist! The author must be living in his parents' basement and has probably never been laid in his life! He must have a small penis! He must be a dead-beat dad! He's just bitter! He certainly doesn't understand women very much!"

Well, no, no, no, no, no and no. I live in a nice little one bedroom condo. I have slept with the mid-double digits of women and even lived with a few of them, so while I am no stud, I am no virgin either. My penis is average sized. I have luckily never been married and I have no children. The only thing I am bitter about is how the Truth has been hidden and manipulated to bring harm to men, women and children, and I understand women and sexuality well enough to have compiled this "book," rather than just fling about emotionally charged insults.

I started studying this subject back in 2004 and when I was diagnosed with cancer in 2005, I found myself with free time on my hands while I was going through treatments. I decided that I could either watch TV, or I could put the time to use and learn something instead. At that point I started reading and researching in earnest, often spending eight to ten hours a day on it. Originally, my doctors figured it would take around six to eight months to get through the chemo and to the other side... but it took much longer. Three and a half years, to be exact. So I got much deeper into this than I had originally intended, and afterwards, well, I just kept at it. It had become a habit, I suppose. Or perhaps it is better described as being unable to look away from a horrific train wreck. I am now about nine years into my studies on this subject. 

“It takes a man a lifetime to find out about one particular woman; but if he puts in, say ten years, industrious and curious, he can acquire the general rudiments of the sex.” – O. Henry, Heart of the West (1907)

There's a difference between how a married man knows women and how a bachelor comes to know them. The married man, through the course of spending his life with the same woman, will naturally come to know her individual quirks and personality flaws. We all have them, and so does his wife. The married man therefore believes that Not All Women Are Like That.

The bachelor starts out from the same place as the married man. He falls in love with a woman, discovers her quirks and flaws, and as the relationship spirals out of control he thinks to himself, "I must have just been unlucky and ended up with a faulty one." And so off he goes and finds another, thinking that she will be different. When the second love ends the same way as the first, he starts to doubt himself. Maybe he is the problem. After all, he is the constant factor in this equation. And so, off he goes through life until he loves yet another, and this time he focuses on changing his behaviour. Then he loves another, and another, and still, they all end up being remarkably similar experiences - often even down to the very words she says when in the same situation. Finally, he comes to the amazing conclusion that yes, something is wrong with them! All of them! And thus, with enough notes to compare from various women he has known intimately, a pattern begins to emerge, and once he begins to identify it and map it out, he starts to see it everywhere. Further, as he ages and his old friends disappear into the void of marriage, he begins to hang out with more and more bachelors, and as they compare stories, he discovers that they have had similar experiences as him throughout their lifetime too, which begins to solidify his conclusions. 

Marriage hides the nature of women while bachelorhood exposes it as life goes on. I've read before that if a man reaches the age of 38 without having married, the likelihood of him ever marrying is negligible. This is why. He's figured out "the game" in ways that not even men who have been married multiple times ever will, and he knows it is all an illusion - one that does not operate in his best interests. Marriage hides the true nature of women as a sex from men, while bachelorhood exposes it. The feminists have indeed destroyed "The Feminine Mystique" in their bid to free women from men by destroying marriage. The more men that remain bachelors, the more that women will fall from the pedestal they have traditionally been placed upon by men. It is not hatred to recognize the true nature of woman any more than recognizing grizzly bears are carnivores instead of herbivores means that I hate grizzly bears. It merely means that I recognize the Truth and will act accordingly. 

Misogyny versus Misandry

Much of feminist theory is based on the belief that misogyny is inherent in men, and thus the dreaded Patriarchy is a natural extension of this inbuilt negative attitude towards women which men possess.

But ask yourself, is this really true? Is it true that men are naturally misogynistic towards women? Is it true that most of the men you meet think negatively of women? Is it true that when in the locker-room the men conspire to hold women down? Is it true that businessmen would secretly conspire to throw away their profits by paying men 30% more wages than women, simply to keep women from reaching their true potential? Is it true that 1 in 4 women will really be raped in university, and by extension that therefore 1 in 4 men are rapists? Do you really believe that 25% of the men you know are secretly raping women? Really?

None of this rings true for me. In fact, what I see are enormous amounts of men tripping over themselves to praise women. I see men worshiping women as some sort of goddesses. I see men apologizing for the most nonsensical and trivial things simply out of fear of offending women. I see our world leaders praising women while shaming men in order to win votes. I see men trying to one up other men, proving to women that not a smidgeon of misogyny exists in their souls. I see men constantly believing that it is other men who are treating women badly, but certainly not his enlightened, sensitive and equitable self. And those other men? Well, they also believe they are more enlightened than the rest of those misogynist men out there! 
.

.
A few years back, Dr. Helen did a couple of interviews with Richard Driscoll, author of You Still Don't Understand. During the interviews, Dr. Driscoll cited a survey which illustrated that 14% of men were resentful or were almost always resentful of women. However, the same survey also illustrated that 34% of women surveyed were resentful or were almost always resentful of men. That is nearly two and a half times more women that are resentful towards men than is conversely true of men being resentful towards women. 

Misogyny, as men are routinely accused of, simply is not as rampant as society claims. In fact, the hatred of men is far more prevalent than the hatred of women. "Misandry" still gets underlined by my spell-checker because it is a concept that hardly exists, even though the evidence of it is all around us - if we only cared to look.

It is not in men's nature to be harmful towards females. Just the opposite. Men work like slaves to provide for them and often will even sacrifice their lives for women. Does that seem consistent with some inherent misogyny found within males to you?

"In fact, everywhere in nature, the male is the reproductive servant of the female. This goes down to the level of plants which have "male" and "female" parts.
.
The ripening of an egg, or ovum, is a time and energy intensive job, so the male is designed to be ready to fertilize that ovum when the female notifies him that she is "ready."
.
In the rest of the natural world, females announce their readiness to the entire world with a variety of cues - smell being the most significant, but visual cues come in a close second.
.
When a female chimpanzee is in estrus, her genitals swell up and become a SPECIFIC shade of bright pink. Jane Goodall observed one such female whose genitals could be seen from across a valley - nearly a mile or 2 away.

There is a species of fish in which the belly of the female turns a particular shade of red when she is gravid. A block of wood with the lower half painted that exact shade of red will drive males into a mating frenzy.
.
Smell is even more important. There are MANY species in which a female in heat gives off pheromones which are specific to that species which can be picked up by males as much as 5 miles away."

One of the most significant things I learned in studying this subject was about All Female Populations in the Animal Kingdom. For example, there are certain species of lizards where there are females, but they have somewhere in the past stopped producing males (or have never produced males to begin with). Females "are" the species (in all living things) because they are the ones who control reproduction. If there is only one sex, it must be female or the species will die out. Further, the reason why a species either creates or stops creating males, is in relation to what the females want. They create males to do things they cannot do, or are unwilling to do, themselves. In other words, on a very basic level in nature, the entire purpose of the male is to serve "the species," which is by default female. 

And this goes even deeper yet, down to our genetic and evolutionary level. These all-female populations can only exist and thrive in ecological niches. As soon as they have to compete with a species that has both males and females, they get over-run and die out because they have little ability to adapt. It is the male that mostly evolves the species, because the male has far more variability. What happens is that mutations in the species mostly happen to the males, and when a positive mutation happens, the female breeds with him and "saves" the mutation in her genetics which get further passed on through the species. Thus the male "evolves" and the female "saves" the evolution. So even on that level, you can see that the male serves the female.       

What is really amazing is how this exists in every living thing on earth, and a biologist will confirm it is so except that the same biologist will deny it exists in humans as he or she reflexively believes that men hold all the power in humans, rather than women. Although, in their defense, it is somewhat true, because while we are of the animal kingdom, we are not animals. We are humans and we have the ability to live at a higher level than animals. What we did somewhere in the past was we re-ordered this, the only creatures on earth to have done so, and we rose up from being beasts in the field. But even so, on a very deep level of our existence, males are still serving the needs of the females. The question becomes (or was in the past), are we going to serve women as animals, including all of the harshness that comes with that brutal world, or will we do it as humans, and enjoy all the benefits that civilization bestows upon us?
.  
Misogyny in Religion, Myth and History
.
A few months before I started up this blog back in 2006, I had pretty much walked away from the Men's Rights Movement (MRM) because I couldn't see anything they were saying that made sense. All they wanted was "equality" (which is not achievable) and they had dozens of little robots running around making sure that no-one generalized and most of all, making sure that no-one expressed even the slightest 'misogynist' thoughts. It was as brain-dead an experience as living your life in a kindergarten class. They certainly weren't seeking the Truth. So I left them to their political correctness and Went My Own Way. 
.
Soon after, I found myself reading a website about the legend of Atlantis. This was not a weird way out there site, but rather it argued that Atlantis and the Garden of Eden were one in the same. In fact, it argued that all religious paradises and many of our ancient myths & legends were essentially about the same story: that all of our human ancestors had experienced a global, cataclysmic flood at the end of the Pleistocene, some 11,600 years ago, and all of our religions and mythical stories about paradise lost and a flood (or rising waters) are a "twinkling remembrance" of what happened to the humans who lived through that time. Thus, it explored quite a bit of the similarities between various religions and beliefs that existed around the globe. It was one of those experiences that just "clicked" in my mind, and I began to see things in different ways after reading it. For example, I started thinking, "If I were the last adult alive amongst 100 children and given the responsibility of passing on 'what I know today' to them, while recognizing the human trait of wishing away inconvenient Truths, how would I go about this so it would last for them centuries into the future? Well, I would write it down in an unchangeable religion." 
.
Shortly after, I watched a video of a university lecture which had a fellow who had studied the ancient Hebrew language and texts, and as he was interpreting parts of them, he noted the misogyny that was found in them - and in fact, was embarrassed by it enough to offer an apology to those in the lecture hall. (See? If misogyny was innate to men, they wouldn't automatically apologize for that which someone else had said. They would just shrug it off and not care). Some of the things he pointed out were that Sodom and Gomorrah, the two most wicked cities in the Bible, are the only two cities in the entire region that are referred to in Hebrew as feminine. (As in, how French has masculine and feminine). He further mentioned that the most evil of demons were always portrayed as female. 

There is also the story of Adam's first wife, Lilith. There are two accounts of how humankind was created. In the first, man and woman were created at the same time, while in the second, Adam was created first, with Eve being created later. In the Hebrew texts, Adam and Lilith were equals, and as such she often challenged Adam's authority and always rebelled against him. She would even complain to him, during sex, that she had to lie beneath him, which she didn't think fair because they were equals. Eventually, Lilith left Adam, but from her sexual union with him she spawned many demons which went forth to plague mankind. When we get to the second story, that of Adam and Eve in the Garden, Eve was created after Adam - from his rib - and when God ejected Adam and Eve from the Garden, he told her when he cursed her that her desire will be for her husband, and he will rule over her, thus completely the opposite of the equality that Adam and Lilith had shared. 
.

. 
These things were, of course, all very interesting. But what I found the most striking out of the entire lecture were the professor's profuse apologies for "misogyny." It made me step back and ask, "But why is that 'misogyny' in there? Doesn't anyone ever ask that question?" And, apparently, no-one does. We just continue writing it off to men's innate, evil, misogynist nature - even though, as I pointed out earlier, if we opened our eyes and actually looked at the world around us, we would see that men are far more prone to practice irrational and blind love of women than misogyny. And, just as the men of the modern day always think it is the other men who harbour misogynistic attitudes towards women, we also believe that our modern enlightened selves are better than those other misogynistic men who existed in the past.   

But, what do you do when Greece and then Rome arise as two of the premier civilizations in human history? And yes, you can point out their "misogyny," but you can't deny their excellence. It is said that when Alexander the Great was handing King Darius III of Persia his ass on a silver platter, Darius lamented, "My men have become women and my women have become men." (In other words, they embraced androgyny - and this is true, if you examine how their customs changed over time).

And look at what comes from Rome, but the same warning we find about Adam and Lillith's equality:

"If you allow them [women] to pull away restraints and put themselves on an equality with their husbands, do you imagine that you will be able to tolerate them? From the moment that they become your fellows, they will become your masters." -- Cato the Censor (There's a story similar to modern "slut-walks" found in that link, by the way.)
.
I have also read of the effects of hypergamy and Briffault's Law in Rome, as it related to a woman's dowry and how it changed over the course of history in relation to divorce laws. At first, when a divorce occurred, the husband would keep the dowry, and divorce was low. Then the laws changed and after divorce, the dowry would return to the wife's father, and divorce rose. Finally, after divorce, the wife kept possession of the dowry herself, and from there, we find that in Rome they said "women marry intending to divorce, and divorce intending to remarry." (Sound familiar? Ever heard of starter marriages?). Thus, they had to pass draconian laws trying to force men to take them on as wives, because the men wanted nothing to do with them, and their birthrates declined to a point where it was a jeopardy to the state.

We find the same tale in Aristotle's Spartan Women, except in Sparta they further undermined hypergamy and Briffault's Law through their inheritance laws: 

"And nearly two-fifths of the whole country are held by women; this is owing to the number of heiresses and to the large dowries which are customary. It would surely have been better to have given no dowries at all, or, if any, but small or moderate ones. As the law now stands, a man may bestow his heiress on any one whom he pleases, and, if he die intestate, the privilege of giving her away descends to his heir. Hence, although the country is able to maintain 1500 cavalry and 30,000 hoplites, the whole number of Spartan citizens fell below 1000. The result proves the faulty nature of their laws respecting property; for the city sank under a single defeat; the want of men was their ruin."
.  
We see the same thing, over and over again. In fact, written some eight decades ago, Sex and Culture by J.D. Unwin, chronicled the rise and fall of over 80 cultures and in each case he found that "misogyny" was present at the beginning and during the rise of the culture, while equality and the feminine principle dominated the decline and the eventual collapse.   
. 
 I believe that one of the reasons we only find this sort of "misogyny" in religion and myth is because, first of all, books like the Bible are unchangeable because they are based in Absolute Truth.  They are further found in myths and legends because men, somewhere in the past, must have figured out that women will never allow the Truth about them to be openly discussed, so they passed it on in different ways - through the "twinkling remembrance" of our ancestors.  
.
“Men are not troubled to hear a man dispraised, because they know, though he be naught, there's worth in others; but women are mightily troubled to hear any of them spoken against, as if the sex itself were guilty of some unworthiness.” – John Seldon (1584-1654)
.

.
After all, when looking at the concept of All Female Populations in the Animal Kingdom, which we discussed further up, can't you see its relationship to the legend of the Amazonian Women?

"There has never been a case of men and women reigning together, but wherever on the earth men are found, there we see that men rule, and women are ruled, and that on this plan, both sexes live in harmony. But on the other hand, the Amazons, who are reported to have held rule of old, did not suffer men to stop in their country, but reared only their female children, killing the males to whom they gave birth." -- Spinoza

And can you see it further in some of our great feminist "thinkers?"

"If life is to survive on this planet, there must be a decontamination of the Earth. I think this will be accompanied by an evolutionary process that will result in a drastic reduction of the population of males." -- Mary Daly, former Professor at Boston College, 2001

"The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race." -- Sally Miller Gearhart, The Future - If There Is One - Is Female

What happens throughout history is that women censor all of the negative observations about them into oblivion, and men, in their desire to serve and please them, will enable them - much like how companies like Symantec, the producer of Norton AntiVirus (who produce terrible products anyways), will try to label any website speaking of these issues as a "hate" site. The only way to get things "through" and passed the burning desire of the male to please the female, is to enshrine it in something absolute like the Bible, or hide it in myth or legend.

Is the Truth Misogynist?

The term "misogynist" is one that indicates emotion. It means a hatred or dislike of women. The academtards with subversive social agendas have been trying to rejig the English language by insinuating that misogyny means someone who doesn't believe in equality, or voting rights, or whatever other feminist jargon they tack onto it - basically insinuating that anyone who doesn't support their political and social agenda is misogynist. But this is nonsense. Just because someone doesn't believe children should have equal say as their parents does not mean they hate children.

The "misogynists" of old, such as Otto Weininger or Arthur Schopenhauer or Aristotle or the Bible don't hate women. They disagree with the feminist agenda, for sure, but there is no "hatred" in what they say. They are merely trying to reveal the Truth.

The Truth has no feelings. It does not feel love or hatred.

The Truth has no agenda - unlike the multi-billion dollar feminist industry.

The Truth does not assign blame, nor does it concern itself with hurt feelings.  

The Truth just is.

Often in the following pages you will see me refer to a "hierarchy" that goes like this: God/Truth --> Man --> Woman --> Children.

This "hierarchy" exists on many levels and does not indicate any particular superiority, although those who believe in the religion of equality are instantly incensed by it. It also works backwards in much the same way that it works forward. For example, children are considered more valuable than adults, and women are considered more valuable than men. Further, children are at war with their parents, but parents are not at war with their children. Women are at war with men, but men are not at war with women. Men are at war with God/Truth, but God/Truth is not at war with men. And it descends from here as well. Only when man is in proper relation to the Truth, can he expect woman to be in proper relation to him. This is something hard-wired into our biology and it has been with us from the beginning.

Our civilization is a "machine" that harnesses our sex drives and life forces for the good of us all. I don't really believe that men are any more superior than women, but I don't believe we are "equal" in all things either. I believe we both have strengths and weaknesses. I believe that men and women possess different kinds of power. I believe that men make very poor women and women make very poor men. I think androgyny is the most destructive notion we've ever unleashed on our great civilization, and I don't support the feminist movement's agenda to further destroy us by brainwashing more of this androgyny into society.

If that makes me a misogynist, so be it. I feel no shame.

If the Truth is misogynist by modern definition, then I stand with the Truth proudly.
.

Previous Index Next

MGTOW

“If it’s not right, Go Your Own Way!”

....................

..oooO...........

..(....)...........
….\..(............
…. \_/...........

………....Oooo..
………....(....)…
…………..)../....
..........(_/......

....................

.

“Remember this: The strongest sign of the decay of a nation is the feminization of men and the masculinization of women. It is notable that in Communist nations women are exhorted, and compelled, to do what has traditionally been men’s work. American women, some of them, feel triumphant that they have broken down the ‘barricades’ between the work of the sexes. I hope they will still feel triumphant when some commissar forces a shovel or an axe into their soft hands and compels them to pound and cut forests and dig ditches. I hope they will be ‘happy’ when a husband deserts them and they must support their children and themselves alone. (After all, if a woman must be ‘free’ she shouldn’t object to men being free too, should she?) I hope they will feel ‘fulfilled’ when they are given no more courtesies due to their sex and no kindnesses, but are kicked aside on the subways buses by men, and jostled out of the way by men on busy sidewalks and elevators…. I hope, when they look in their mirrors, that they will be pleased to see exhausted, embittered faces, and that they will be consoled by their paychecks.” ~ Taylor Caldwell, 1970

MGTOW Activism - Part Two

In MGTOW Activism - Part One, we explored the notion that MGTOW is about "Taking the Personal Out of the Political," which is more congruent with the male principle of individuality and freedom than the female herding instinct which creates thoughtless movements like feminism. Also, we touched on the fact that movements which beg the government to make our lives better simply creates organisms which serve no other purpose than to empower themselves while increasing the scope of power big government has over our lives. Such movements are not compatible with the MGTOW Manifesto, which states its only three goals as "to instill masculinity in men, femininity in women, and work towards limited government." Therefore, we concluded that MGTOW is not a political movement, but rather it is an Awareness Movement.

In this article, we are going to explore these notions a little deeper, namely, discussing what men can actually do about fighting back against the situation we find ourselves in. It is not in men's nature to sit idly by and passively wait for others to fix things for them. Just the opposite. Men's nature is to Shut Up and Shovel the Fuckin' Gravel!

When Doing Nothing is Actually Doing Something 
.

.
A friend of mine has a niece living in Ontario who is around 18 or 19 years old. Like many girls that age, she met a boy and fell madly in love with him. And yes, you guessed it, he is not particularly what one would call a Nice Guy. At any rate, I suppose the young couple felt that the world was against them, but none of that mattered because they could live on their undying love. So, the girl quit her job, and the two of them packed up her car and ran off together with about $1,800 between the two of them. She also skipped out on the payments for their escape vehicle, for which her grandfather had co-signed the loan, forcing him to take over the payments. After a few weeks, they wound up in Newfoundland, broke, where they requested some charity of her other grandparents who lived there. These grandparents had an old cabin on their property where they told her they could stay... the only thing is, the cabin had no electricity or water, and it was March, and still very much winter. They had to chop wood for the stove for heating and cooking, and also, had to carry buckets of water into the cabin from the frozen creek. It didn't take too long before the phone calls back home started coming, requesting money to help them out. The answer was, "No, get a job." A little while later, more phone calls, "But we don't like chopping wood and carrying water!", to which the reply was another simple, "Tough. Get a job!"

The whole extended family agreed to "do nothing." And in doing so, they very much did, "do something," didn't they?

The same strategy can be applied to Western women. As The Eternal Bachelor (used to) have on the top of his blog, "Giving Women the Husbands They Deserve: None!"  

There is no point in arguing with women and trying to convince them to see the light. That door was closed several decades ago. Many of you have read Rollo Tomassi's excellent essays on "The Female Imperative." Essentially, women "are" society, and what their wants are is what society's wants are. What women find disagreeable, society finds disagreeable. They are "the herd" and the males in the herd either serve their purposes or they are ejected from it. Women also don't understand the laws of cause and effect very well. The only way to get women to see that it is in their benefit to have men respected is to make them suffer the consequences of treating men so poorly. Since women control our social mores, once having men dis-empowered in society starts to harm them directly, there will be no stopping them in agitating for men to be re-empowered.

Lots of MRA's whine and moan that "we must get women on board." True enough. The problem is that women won't get on board until it is in their best interests to do so! This is something that really chaps my ass about Trad-cons and Christians. They want to "save" marriage, and encourage men to keep marrying, without expecting that women must change to make it worth men's while, nor addressing that marriage itself must be restored to its original meaning - and then they point to the Bible and blah blah blah. All I have to say to them is: "Until you get off your asses and create a form of marriage that actually represents what the Bible intended, STFU and keep your spinster daughters for yourselves! Don't expect me to immolate myself upon the marriage pyre for a false notion of marriage in a society that actively criminalizes everything about men and Biblical marriage as God intended it!" (You might even, like, you know, try to use that "rights" thing called Freedom of Religion.)

 .
Only when it is in women's (society's) best interests to re-empower men, will women (society) re-empower men. They hold all the cards on that level - it is where their power lies. But to keep propping women up, simply because it's what men have always done, will not work. It just enables further bad behaviour. If my friend's family had just sent the niece money and propped her up despite her behaviour, she wouldn't have learned her lesson either.

However, men also have to start realizing where their own power lies. We might be the lowest on the totem pole as far as human sympathy goes (Men love women, women love children and children love puppies), but the whole of society only works so long as men are willing to be invested in it. Women, children, and the government all need men far more than we need them. Men can survive with a pocket-knife and a garbage bag. Everybody else, not so much.While women are demanding their new husband, big government, give them affirmative action to be equally represented in the cush and often non-productive jobs, like government bureaucrat, tenured professor in women's studies, or executive board members, they still expect that men will continue to do all the shitty jobs that need to be done in society, like digging the ditches, keeping the electricity and sewers running, and providing fodder for enemy gunfire. We used to do all of these things because of the of the respect which women (society) gave to us for doing them. In other words, we wanted women's social approval and affection for these things, and we used to get it. Now, we are told we are looooosers for doing it, but they still want us to "man up" and do it all the same.

Hmmm. I wonder what would happen if the men just worked enough to get by, and then eventually quit showing up and went ghost? Such a strategic retreat is what men must do, and thus, we are Men Going Their Own Way.

We Speak Our Views on the Internet

The internet has been the greatest thing to happen to free speech since Gutenberg invented the printing press.
.

. 
Actually, it is beyond the printing press! We are sharing our stories and our life experiences in ways men have never done before. One thing we are finding is that we are not alone in our observations. Thus, we reach out to other men in the hopes that they may learn from our experiences and our mistakes. It is not much different than what every women's magazine has done for decades, except that our views were historically suppressed to satisfy the feminine imperative. (Women, er, society, has never liked us talking of these things in the same way women have talked of us).

There is no right way or wrong way to be a MGTOW Activist - it is one of the features of MGTOW, so I'm not going to try and shoehorn in what makes an MGTOW or not. However, there are certain things we have discovered that worked for us in the past. 

Start Your Own Blog or Website
A long time ago now, I used to regularly read William S. Lind's columns about Fourth Generation Warfare. Now, of course, I am not advocating doing anything violent, but rather taking the concept of decentralization found in Fourth Generation Warfare and adapting it to the internet. There is no "leader" of MGTOW to attack or discredit. We are all leaders of our own movement, and if one of us is removed, there are more nameless people to take his place. Just like in Vietnam or the recent wars in the Middle East, it really doesn't matter how many multimillion dollar, high-tech jet fighters you bring to the battlefield when the enemy is not engaging you in the air, but rather with booby traps made from bamboo or low-tech car bombs parked on the side of the street. It doesn't matter how many drills your platoon practices, nor how informed your CO is on military battlefield tactics, if your enemy refuses to engage you openly on the battlefield. In fact, if you can't even identify your enemy from the friendlies, the entire notion of organized armed conflict gets completely demolished. We can take these concepts and adapt them in a non-violent fashion for use on the internet.  

Now, of course, blogging can be a lot of work and not everyone has the time nor the ability to regularly do it. I spend a lot of time writing my articles - often six or seven hours or more of thinking, researching, writing and then re-writing. Some people can whip out articles like it is nothing, but not all of us can. There are other things you can do to create awareness though. Just simply starting a blog aggregator is a good idea. Even better are aggregators that print out the entire article. Why is this beneficial? Because many of us who do run blogs get attacked by people like Symantec/Norton AntiVirus, or Google will monkey with our search results or, our websites simply disappear - as often happens with Proboards. When an aggregator copies our entire article, it circumvents what these a-holes are trying to do to silence us, because now there are more places on the internet to access the information and be picked up by search engines, and it also provides an automatic back-up of articles in case a website does "mysteriously disappear."

Another easy thing to do is simply find a blog or a particular article that you endorse and then enter the url for it along with your name & other info when you make comments around the internet, so that you are giving exposure to ideas you endorse simply by making the comments you make already anyways. A few years ago, I used to regularly get hits from a fellow who commented all over the internet on a variety of subjects as "L. Walker - Man of Color", and for each place he commented, he linked in my Marriage is Fraud article, and thus I got exposure from oodles of places, and it took hardly any effort from him at all. Thank-you, Mr. Walker. A really good web-page to use for this is Wedded Abyss, because it was designed for this purpose - to give a brief summary of our views, while linking to a variety of sites where people can go to explore these concepts at a deeper level.

If you do start your own blog, here is a quick tip: don't publish all of your articles all at once. What I mean is, lots of guys start up a blog, get really excited about it, and crank out one or two articles a day - every day, and then find that within two weeks they are burnt out. What you need to do is make a post every three days or so when you first start out (later, after you are established, an article every week or so will keep the hits rolling in). So, when you have all that energy at the beginning, go ahead and write your articles, but schedule them accordingly by spacing them out. You will be glad you did, I promise. It will also give you the luxury of not being under the gun to write something simply to keep your blog running, and thus, you will find that if you are writing two weeks ahead of publication, your articles will be of much higher quality. Also, keep in mind that when you first start your blog, your hits will be minimal, no matter how many articles you write. So don't blow your brains out over articles that hardly anyone will read. Your goal should be to provide something every few days so that people will know to keep checking in, and thus, you will begin to get exposure by others linking to you.

Furthermore, if you find yourself frustrated with writer's block, never forget that you can always plumb the depths of The Wisdom of Zenpriest and Eye of the Mind. Zed has given explicit license for any of his words to be used by anyone, in any way, to further the cause of men. In the same spirit, I have given permission at the beginning of The Philosophy of Men Going Their Own Way for it to be used by anyone wishing to promote the philosophy. I am not doing this for fame or money. I am not using my real name and I haven't made a dime from what I've written - nor ever intended to. I am doing this because I want men to get up off their asses and stand up for themselves. If taking one of my articles and using it directly for your own blog, either in full or in part, helps to accomplish this, then do it! That's why I put them there!   

Linkage is Good for You
Be sure to link to others, especially those that link to you. I check my stat-counter almost every day, and if I see that a new blog has linked to me, it will automatically get linked in my blogroll. I want them to get exposure, and further, the more exposure they get, the more I will get in return! I also link to blogs that I have read which don't yet link to me, but I go through my blog list every few months and clean out the ones that have not provided a reciprocal link to my blog. Why? Because I want those who scratch my back to get the most amount of traffic I can provide them with, and clogging up my blog list with oodles of links to those who are unwilling or just don't care enough to link me back, lowers the exposure those who do support me will receive, and this in turn harms me.
.

.
An exception I have made to this is linking to blogs which are run by women. You might think it misogynist, but that is not my motivation - in fact, to a certain degree, I think some of them have more or less decent insights, although they are always clouded by the female imperative, and many of them are pretty sneaky on entirely different levels. The reason I don't link to them is because of men! Nothing pisses me off more than offering a man the red-pill, and then watching him run with it to some woman to request her approval for whether he should swallow it or not. I notice this phenomenon every time some woman enters the manosphere. They really don't say anything significant compared to the men in the manosphere, yet within a few months they become one of the most popular bloggers around, while men with far more profound things to say languish in No Man's Land for years before they get similar traffic - from men!

What is really going on is that women have enormous social power, while men do not. Even though it is merely words on the internet and not a real woman, many men in the manosphere seem desperate to get a woman's social approval for their views, or they believe a woman's views are "more correct" than the men's. It kinda reminds me of how a cat will catch a mouse and then bring it to you, believing you are the head of the pride, to see if you want to eat some of it too. It's really come to piss me off over the years to see yet another bimbo show up in the manosphere, write a few trite comments about men in society, and within six months her site is getting 2,500+ hits a day - from men! It's like the Pied Piper playing her song "Not All Women Are Like That!" These men are desperate to find at least one woman in the world to keep on the pedestal and I just refuse to provide them with the illusion of it. Plus, nearly all of the women I have seen in the manosphere will, eventually, betray their ideals the moment it becomes in their best interest to do so. The whole situation is enough to make one a full-fledged misanthrope!
.
"Where my exposition is anti-feminine, and that is nearly everywhere, men themselves will receive it with little heartiness or conviction; their sexual egoism makes them prefer to see woman as they would like to have her, as they would like her to be." -- Otto Weininger, Sex and Character, Author's Preface
.
Another thing I tend to avoid is linking to big blogs. First of all, they don't link to me so I don't "owe" them anything. Now, I get it, if they linked to everyone who linked to them, they would have blogrolls that numbered in the thousands. But on the same token, if they are so large, then they certainly don't need me to link to them in order to get exposure. Everybody knows who the big blogs are already, whether I link to them or not. Also, it kind of negates the notion of "decentralization" to have big websites acting as a clearing house for all of our ideas. I prefer to send my traffic to the smaller guys so that they may get their legs under them and grow into big blogs themselves. I'd like to see dozens and dozens of really big blogs dealing with men's issues, but this will never happen if we ignore the little nuts who may grow into a mighty oak, in favour of only looking at the full grown oaks and simply wishing there were more of them around.

Back when MGTOW first debuted in 2006, we used to do something called "shout-outs." Basically, anyone who showed that they were flying the MGTOW flag and were committed to maintaining a blog, got a public shout-out to the other MGTOW bloggers so that he would be entered as a link on everyone's sidebar, and also to provide the newbie with some traffic to get his legs under him. It also had the benefit of providing the person who did the shout-out, to be able to take a few days off of blogging while directing all of his traffic to someone who needed it, while still providing one's readers with, well, something to read. Here is a shout-out for someone you may recognize. Marky Mark just did one the other day. And here was mine.

When I got my shout-out, it was probably the most significant thing that happened to me in my entire blogging career. Before that I was only getting about 75 hits a day, but suddenly I was getting Eternal Bachelor's 2,000 hits a day all directed to my site and I was like "Holy Smokes! I'd better sit down and write some good stuff while I can!" After the shout-out disappeared into Eternal Bachelor's archives, my blog settled in to about 400 hits a day, and from there it steadily increased. In part it kept on increasing because of the exposure I had received, but even more so, once I had the exposure I was highly motivated to keep it by continuing to provide my readers with more content. And here I am, seven years later, still running my blog! So, don't forget to take care of the little nuts, for they will be the oaks of tomorrow if just given the chance to grow.

Don't Delete Your Blogs
Of course, not all people will want to keep blogging forever. If you no longer feel the motivation, that's fine. It is a thankless job and the pay sucks. But please, oh please, don't delete your blog! Not only does it remove from the internet a significant body of work that others might find and read, whether old or not, but it also removes all of those links in the articles, in the comments, and on the sidebar, which support those of us who still are blogging. Most guys who quit blogging have not lost the faith in the message, they simply are fed-up with blogging. There's nothing wrong with becoming a Man Going His Own Way (MGHOW) and moving on - in fact, it is one of the natural conclusions of MGTOW. But please, if you've found a path to enlightenment through MGTOW and the manosphere which resulted in you starting up a blog, leave your work up so that others may find it, and so that the links in your blog may direct others towards those who are still actively blogging about it.    

We Legally Reduce Any Tax-Paying
.

.
MGTOW does not advocate doing anything illegal - ever. It does, however, promote thinking outside of the box in order to dis-empower those who seek to bring harm to men either for profit or for the desire for power. Therefore, it goes without saying that you should boycott the products of companies who disrespect men. Companies like Norton AntiVirus, who produce terrible products anyways, are easy to identify. But there are many others - many, many others. Trojan condoms used to have an ad portraying men as pigs, and General Motors thought the way to attract females into buying Cadillacs was by showing ads of inept men being scorned by a snotty bitch of a woman. I notice lately that almost all boat manufacturers now portray women at the helm in their brochures, with the man playing kitchen-bitch in the background, despite the fact that boat purchases are predominantly a male dream instead of a female one. The list is endless. But it goes further than simply switching products, because no matter what, even if you went to another company, they will sell men down the river in a heartbeat too if it means expanding their sales by even one percent.

The best way to hurt consumer culture's desire to crap on men in order to create greater profits is to find ways to remove yourself from needing their products as much as possible. Longtime MGTOW, Richard Ford, has a blog called Six Million Pounds that focuses on finance, and further, about working less and stretching your dollar. One simple thing that can be done to harm consumer culture is to buy high-quality products that will last you a lifetime, rather than cheap garbage that keeps you coming back every few years to replace it.

Another thing you can do is focus on getting yourself debt-free, so you no longer have to work like a slave to pay for useless crap you don't really need as a MGTOW. (For example, if you are a single guy, do you really need a three bedroom 1500sf house, or would a 750sf cottage do you just as well,  and cost you less in upkeep?).

All of these things attack the very system that purposefully harms men. First off, it obviously decreases the profits of those companies, but furthermore, it also harms our biggest enemy, Big Government, by decreasing their tax revenues. What do you think all of the "stimulus" the government has injected into the economy over the past years is all about? They want to do things like re-inflate the housing bubble, so that people will feel richer and go back to borrowing against their home equity to buy useless crap. In other words, they know that our economy is fueled by debt, and the best way to keep the economy going, and thus their tax dollars coming in - which funds vast bureaucracies which further harm men, like Women's Studies - is to keep people perpetually enslaved to debt in their desire to "get more useless crap." It does this on several levels. First off, you work harder to make more money, thus the government takes more of your money through income taxes. But also, the more profits these companies make, the more the government makes from them in taxes. Furthermore, the more people spend, the more the government receives in consumption taxes, like sales taxes. And, the more people desire to buy useless crap, the more these companies will hire other people to produce that useless crap, thus providing the government with more people's incomes they can tax, and so on, and so on, and so on...

Another thing you can do to harm those who are harming you is what I call "victory labour." Think about it in this way: Here in Canada, it costs around $2,000+ to heat one's home for a year. Now, in order to come up with that $2,000, I have to go into the work-place and exchange about $3,000 in labour, so that after the government takes off its income tax, unemployment insurance premiums, pension plan deductions etc. etc., I am left with around $2,000 net, which I will then apply to my heating bill. So really, the heating bill costs me $3,000 instead of $2,000. If I made $17.50/hr working 40hrs/wk, I would come to about $3,000/mo in gross income. So, it would cost me one full month's labour to make enough money just to heat the house for a year.

On the other hand, my province of British Columbia is chock full of trees. I could spend two or three 8hr days cutting down trees and carting them back to the house, and perhaps another four or five days chopping wood to burn in the wood-stove, and that should be enough to keep me warm for the year.

Well, in the first situation, I have to work 172hrs in order to have heat in my home. In the second situation, I only have to work around 60hrs to heat my home for the year. What do you think pays better? (I'd be earning the equivalent labour value of $50/hr in the second situation). And, as a further bonus, I've legally avoided giving the government $1,000 in income taxes, which they will use to fund the bureaucratic organizations which harm men. Further, I will have robbed them of taking tax income from the gas company's profits, and also, I will have reduced the income tax they are able to siphon off of the gas company's employees. Ha ha! Now we are talking about kicking them in the pants, aren't we?

This can be applied to hosts of things. Victory labour in the garden. Victory labour by fixing my own car. Victory moose-hunting, and so on. The quicker you get yourself debt free, the less beholden you are to a paycheck, and the more you can put concepts like victory labour to use.
.

A MGHOW victory-fishing for the cause!

.
And just think, with all the free time you have created, you might even be able to become a MGTOW blogger like me!

Further Reading:

Zenpriest #42 - Activism

Zenpriest #56 - MGTOW's Trademark Copyright Philosophy

Previous Index Next

MGTOW

“If it’s not right, Go Your Own Way!”

....................

..oooO...........

..(....)...........
….\..(............
…. \_/...........

………....Oooo..
………....(....)…
…………..)../....
..........(_/......

....................

MGTOW Activism - Part One

The difference between being a Men's Rights Activist (M.R.A.) and being Men Going Their Own Way (M.G.T.O.W.) is the way in which we deal with the situation at hand. While both have pretty much identified the same problems and concerns in society, the approach to "fixing" these problems is entirely different. In fact, they are so different that they are in direct opposition with each-other.
.

Change comes from within.

 .
MGTOW: Taking the Personal Out of the Political

To refer to the MGTOW Manifesto: "The goal is to instill masculinity in men, femininity in women, and work toward limited government!" This is something that is not congruent with the Men's Rights Movement's (MRM's) form of activism, which by its very nature is political. In other words, the goal of the MRM has always been about such things as raising money to fund lobby groups which demand the government change XYZ for them. (Take your pick: Divorce reform, child custody reform, men officially included as domestic violence victims, male-studies at universities, ad nauseum). In each of these cases, men are demanding of government to fix their problems for them and in doing so, they are increasing the scope which government has over our lives. It suggests that men are incapable of changing their lives unless the government assists them in doing so.

Don't get me wrong. Sure, some things only the government can fix... but the fixing they need to do is repeal laws and get out of our lives, rather than expand their laws so that men are included under their umbrella of power. This is not just a small difference between MGTOW and the MRM, but rather, it is a fundamental difference that makes them as opposite as night and day!

In fact, I would go so far as to say that the very fact most men seem entirely unable to consider any form of action valid besides "running to the government," is merely further evidence of the feminization of our culture. The "male principle" is independence, freedom and self-reliance, while the "female principle" is dependence, security and 'Someone! Anyone! Please fix this for me! Don't you know I'm a victim?!?" 

"“Movements,” like harems, herds, and other collectives, are for females. It’s been remarked that men’s first priority is freedom, while women’s is security. Thus women are natural herd animals, for security is most easily and immediately found in numbers. And thus the inclusion of women in political life must inevitably lead to totalitarian collectivism, as it has everywhere it’s been tried — at this point, essentially the entire planet, which is fast turning into one vast nursery, where “everything that is not prohibited is compulsory.” Women instinctively seek the security of such an environment; when women rule, this is where everyone must live.
.
“Do you want to be free, or do you want to be taken care of?” Answer this question honestly, and you’ll know where you stand on the male–female spectrum, regardless of what form your personal plumbing may have." -- Philalethes #10 - Male vs. Female Thinking

As we all know, feminism and the totalitarian growth of government hasn't really helped women as much as everyone reflexively thinks. It has distorted women's thinking into believing they have become "independent" by not needing any looooser ma-yaan to provide for them... but only because they have substituted the support of the men they married in the past, for their dependence on their new alpha-husband, Big Government. They are still as independent as a tropical fern in a greenhouse in Iceland, just like they have always been. The only difference is that now they have unwittingly taken on Men's Curse as their own. Also, now that they are under government "protection," they may soon find that what was once a social expectation of them to fulfill certain obligations to individual husbands who loved them and cared for their well-being, will become a legal expectation to fulfill obligations to their collective husband, The Government, who has no feelings for them, and throughout history has proven to be downright harmful to them.   

Government, bureaucracies, lobby groups and academia are appealing to women, and increasingly to men, as "the solution" to any and all problems because such organizations are relatively abstract, distant, conceptual entities which can easily be imagined to be perfectible. Ultimately, one should think of it in this way instead: Would you give authority to your neighbour to decide how you should live your life, and allow him to punish you if you didn't agree? Most would say 'no' pretty fast, wouldn't they? But, the people in government are the exact same fallible and self-serving people as your neighbour. It's when they're in an abstract concept like government that we trick ourselves into thinking that they should do the right thing and be void of any other influences. History is filled with examples of people making this mistake, and many of them were not able to live to regret it.   

Organisms
.

.
When government bureaucracies, lobby groups, or activist arms of academia are created, they almost immediately turn into organisms that serve themselves first and foremost, while hood-winking their supporters and the public in general into believing they are serving some higher altruistic purpose. One of the main reasons this happens is because they operate under the "budget principle" rather than the "profit principle." Both of these principles work under the same human motivations of greed and the desire for power & prestige, but they differ in how they achieve those goals.

Under the profit principle, one satisfies greed, power, and prestige by making more money. Thus profits are made larger by creating a greater demand while cutting away unnecessary costs. In order to do this, companies advertise to increase the desire in people for their products, while cutting costs by laying people off, off-shoring their manufacturing, or automating their labour force.   

Under the budget principle, greed, power and prestige are satisfied by showing a need for larger budgets. Thus, the directors of government bureaucracies and other such organisms always come in over-budget, and then run to their benefactors with their hands out in order that they may meet this need.   

Now, for the most part, I consider myself a capitalist (small "c") and prefer the profit principle over the budget principle. Private enterprise creates a miracle a minute while government bureaucracies fumble around making excuses but never performing. Thus, we see in Canada that when we de-criminalized marijuana and made its medical use legal, 15 year old boys were able to grow killer weed in their closets without their parents finding out, while a gaggle of government scientists in multimillion dollar underground facilities were unable to produce marijuana with sufficient THC levels to benefit cancer patients, resulting in those cancer sufferers still seeking black market outlets to satisfy their needs.

However, I also see an inherent problem with the profit principle, such as when mega-companies like Merck are able to influence government policy to artificially create a demand for their products, like Gardasil. I don't have an answer for this completely, except to point out that if the government didn't have the authority to artificially create a demand for Gardasil, companies like Merck wouldn't seek to influence the government in the first place. Also, there comes a point when mega-companies become so large, that Capitalism ultimately become a form of Communism in itself. Thus, the small mining town where the lone mining company also owns the town store and extends credit to keep its employees enslaved to them, which is no good either. Further, in the U.S.S.R., the car manufacturer Lada was essentially granted the evil of monopoly capitalism, in that no matter how crappy of cars they built, they still had a 100% market share, which undermines the notion of a miracle a minute. (If you don't like our Lada cars, you are more than welcome to go down the street and buy... a Lada!). Lol! But we're getting off topic here!

The budget principle, however, is truly insidious. It outright seeks to create problems and inefficiencies. If a bureaucracy has a budget of $100 million, the only way to gain power is to get that budget up to $120 million. And once a budget of $120 million is achieved, they again show they are short of cash, and do whatever they can to intensify all sorts of the problems that still need to be fixed, so that they are granted a budget of $150 million next year. What they absolutely don't want to do, however, is actually fix any of the problems they are tasked with solving, because then their budget would be reduced to $75 million, and those within that bureaucracy would lose power and prestige. Thus, a bureaucracy's goal is to create as many problems as they possibly can, while dealing with them in the most inefficient ways they can get away with. 

It pains me deeply to see how Men's Rights Activists (MRA's) seem to believe that creating White House Councils on Boys and Men, or Male Studies Departments in academia, will magically behave differently than any other bureaucratic organization that has come before them - which is mainly to say that they will simply feather their own nests. Like I said earlier, the only reason MRA's believe it to be so is because such organizations created to "solve" our problems are abstract, conceptual entities that should operate in "this" manner or "that" manner. If we wouldn't allow our neighbours to decide who we are and how we "should" act, why should we assume that Warren Farrell, Stephen Baskerville, Strauss & Gelles et. al. are somehow morally above others? If you watch them all closely, and read their "solutions" to our problems, they all boil down to "the government must..." and "more funding is needed..." and... and... and...

Dr. Phil and Warren Farrell are simply different ends of the same spectrum as it is. Both have achieved fame and wealth from the Gender War, not by actually solving it. In fact, had Farrell "solved" the Gender War only a few years after he got booted from being the head of the National Organization of Women (N.O.W.), he would not have sold so many books, as he would be just another schmuck with a useless Ph. D. in Psychology (Even my dumbass, irritatingly feminist sister has one of those, and nobody knows her name!). As it sits, Farrell would suffer greatly if the Gender War actually stopped tomorrow. Plus, not only has he many times recommended fallacies such as "equality" since he became the foremost (and best paid) men's activist, but often he recommends more androgyny, which we all know is a complete disaster! Furthermore, androgyny is completely against the MGTOW Manifesto, which has the stated goal of instilling masculinity in men and femininity in women! That is decidedly not about androgyny or equality (at least not beyond equality under the law as defined by the American Founding Fathers).

I highly encourage you to watch this video by Ezra Levant, which illustrates so plainly and clearly how any organism that is created, no matter how noble and pure it sounds on the surface - such as encouraging people to stop smoking - ultimately turns into a self-serving, lying, statist organization that either simply feathers its own nest, or benefits its master (Big Government), in order to maintain its funding - while accomplishing absolutely none of its stated goals! 

Organisms representing men will become no different. Why? Because it is in their nature! 
.

.
Left. Right. Left. Right.

"The oppressed are allowed once every few years to decide which particular representatives of the oppressing class are to represent them." -- Karl Marx

The debate over whether one ought to vote for left wing parties or right wing parties is never ending. Just to be clear, I would prefer a right-wing, conservative government, but the truth is that it doesn't really matter because such a thing simply doesn't exist anymore. Furthermore, most people have no clue where most parties actually sit on the political spectrum anymore anyways. Take our ruling Conservative party here in Canada. It gets bandied about all the time that they are right-wing (spit) nazis who are like the George Bush Republicans in the States. But the truth of the matter is, we haven't had a political party as right-wing as the US Republicans for decades. Our present Conservative party is actually a centrist party, and if one were to place them on a political spectrum compared to the States, they would actually be the same or to the left of the Obama Democrats. So what's the point? People think the Conservatives are evil because they are the furthest to the right in Canada, and yet, the same people think Obama is the Messiah because he is the furthest left in America. If Obama were a Canadian, he would be a Conservative. It's all just silly.

Even more troubling is that since we stopped teaching civics classes in our schools several decades ago, replacing them with social-studies, we have stopped educating the masses on their rights and why our forms of government were created in the ways in which they were in the first place.

I have opted out of voting altogether. In our elections, only about 60% of the people actually do and it gets to be less and less people each year. Pretty soon, since we are running under a democracy, the majority will not have given their consent to be governed, and no winning party will truly be able to claim a mandate... which hopefully will cause a host of problems and force the government and the governed to examine our political systems a little closer and actually re-learn the importance of setting things up in the proper ways. Well, one can dream. We are supposed to have a Constitutional Monarchy in Canada and a Republic in the USA, both of which have similar features which counter the evils of democracy. This also blows all sorts of holes in women's cries that they were "oppressed" for not having the vote - here's a clue, there is no "right" to voting for either sex, just like there is no "right" to a job, cheap housing, or free healthcare. "Rights," as they were originally intended, are supposed to protect us from the government, not to empower them to "fix things" for us.   

The real government isn't the people you vote to represent you in Parliament or Congress anyways. The real government is the unelected bureaucracies right beneath them - the ones that never change and are unaccountable to the people. I mean, does it matter whether the Conservatives or the Liberals are in power? (or the Republicans or Democrats in the US?). Has the judge in your community's divorce court changed? Does it change his biases? Does it change the bulk of the 900 miles of legislation and policy that backs his authority? Do the police automatically allow more freedom when a "right wing" government gets elected and then clamp down harder under a "left wing" one? Nope! They just keep marching on the same no matter what. Do all of those bureaucracies (organisms) that have been formed to "protect" or "help" us stop creating policies that only feather their own nests? No again. It just simply doesn't matter. The real government is the bureaucracies beneath the elected government, and it marches on no matter what.

An Awareness Movement

A long time ago, Zed and I were having a conversation during which he related to me the Disney story of Fantasia.
.

.
Sometimes, no matter what you do, you can't stop something once it has been put into motion. All you can do is let it run its course. In other words, you can't put the genie back into the bottle, or, as was the case with Pandora's Box, once things are gone, they are gone, and all that is left is hope. In the meanwhile, it's time to recognize that a storm is coming, and since it's smearing shit in our faces, it's obviously going to be a shit storm.

Not only will being a political activist simply further the dialectic and empower the government to have more control over our lives, but things are way too far gone already for this to be stopped. The time to stop it was forty or fifty years ago. Today, we must figure out ways to adapt and survive - and thankfully, adapting is what men excel at.  

I am not Jesus Christ. It is not my destiny to be the saviour of the world. Furthermore, as a bachelor in a world that constantly undermines any action I may take to be part of society in a meaningful way, I don't owe society anything more than it owes me - which I am constantly told is nothing. Therefore, all that I owe is to myself, and what I have come to realize over the years of studying and writing about these subjects, is what I ultimately owe to myself is as good a life as I can live with the cards that are dealt to me. Life has never been a cakewalk for men, but things are certainly better for us today than they were throughout most of human history, regardless of the social climate of the present day. What I can do, however, is stop trying to paddle against the river's current and rather, turn my canoe around, seek safety and shelter, and clear away as many snags along the shore as I can so the filth will pass by me as quickly as possible. This notion is best described by the phrase "being an Ethical Sociopath." 

All I can do is take the red-pill, bring awareness to others of what is going on, and hopefully help them figure out how to pull themselves out of the fire before they get too burnt.

This is not a political movement.

It is an Awareness Movement.
.
Previous Index Next

MGTOW

“If it’s not right, Go Your Own Way!”

....................

..oooO...........

..(....)...........
….\..(............
…. \_/...........

………....Oooo..
………....(....)…
…………..)../....
..........(_/......

....................