Monday, April 10, 2006

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.   

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
…. \_/...........