No Ma'am Is A Proud Supporter Of The Marriage Strike

Peer Reviewed Research - the Holy Grail of Truth?

.
I must condemn the rationality of searching for "peer reviewed" research in order to make a theory "real". While all the educated elites consider "peer reviewed" research the holy grail of irrefutable truth... I must beg to differ with anyone who cites "truths" by this criteria.

Academia is one of the pillars of deception which we as men are battling. We acknowledge here everyday about the extreme politicization of our universities and how all dissenting views are squashed through heavy handed, totalitarian tactics. (Here is a good example: Lynched by the Sisterhood by Jeffrey Archer). I cannot understand how we can be expected to chase after our own tails by encouraging the belief that the only refutation or confirmation of a theory or idea is peer reviewed research. The three pillars we battle are government, media and academia. Let's make no mistake about it, government and media are "justified" via academia's peer reviewed research. To imply that everything is questionable until it can be backed up by peer reviewed research is completely insane to our cause because academia no longer encourages the free thinking that lends credibility to peer reviewed research! We may as well be living in Nazi Germany and asking a Jew to prove he is discriminated against by using Nazi Reviewed Research. Commonsense, mankind's natural curiosity, desire for the truth, reason and rationality should always trump peer reviewed research.

There is really only one example that needs to be given for why "peer reviewed research" has absolutely zero credibility in the issues of which we speak and write of.

The fundamental basis of feminism is that "gender is a social construct;" that we are based upon "tabula rasa," the Latin for "blank slate." It is upon this foundation that all else of feminism's ideology and victimology is based upon. Since we are essentially the same, the only reason that women did not figure prominently in history, or science, or music, or philosophy, or pretty much anything else is because of the innate evil and misogynistic nature of men (which already refutes tabula rasa in itself). Therefore, women are institutionally discriminated against by the very fabric of civilization and society itself, thus affirmative action and breaking down gender barriers is completely justified.

However, walking across the hall in our ivory towered institutions, we can attend courses in Queer Theory, where the fundamental basis for it all is that homosexuality is a normal, biological condition - that gays are "born that way," which is 100% the opposite of feminism's fundamental premise of "gender is a social construct." Queer Theory argues that their LGBT "gender" is natural and biologically based, therefore, they are discriminated against by virtue of their birth, and suffer socially and in numerous other ways because of something over which they had no ability to control.

Take your pick. If you support gay rights you are a cretin of a misogynist - a sexist, really, for believing that the sexes are different by virtue of their birth. However, if you support women's rights and equality based upon the blank slate, you are a homophobe (a hate-crime in Canada), because then you believe that gays could be "cured" of their homosexuality through laws, social conditioning, and whatnot else that feminism has been pushing on us. Namely, that we can break down gender barriers and make everyone the same, which includes gays. 

These two positions are 100% completely and irrefutably in direct opposition of each other. This is just simple common-sense. You cannot be walking east and west simultaneously. Yet, both Women's Studies and Queer Theory have panels of academics judging whether the studies each puts out are "the Truth." In other words, they are both peer-reviewed and found to be satisfactorily representing the truth. Well, the truth cannot possibly be the same for both of them, so at minimum one of them must be completely wrong.     

Therefore, our universities are knowingly and willingly promoting falsehoods, and simply should not be trusted as reputable sources of "Truth."

And I don't need a peer-reviewed study to prove it, do I?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Q: "... but has any researcher made a serious longitudinal study on this?"

A: "Maybe you should do a longitudinal study on the overall effectiveness of always depending on longitudinal studies."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Cigarette smoking has been shown to increase serum hemoglobin, increase total lung capacity and stimulate weight loss, factors that all contribute to enhanced performance in endurance sports. Despite this scientific evidence, the prevalence of smoking in elite athletes is actually many times lower than in the general population. The reasons for this are unclear; however, there has been little to no effort made on the part of national governing bodies to encourage smoking among athletes." – PLOS

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Did you know that Albert Einstein did much of the groundwork for the Theory of Relativity not while at a university, but rather while working at a patent office? He also got mediocre grades when he was in school.

Did you know that neither of the Wright Brothers graduated from high-school? Yet, they proved all of the academics of the day's "lift equation" to be, obviously, wrong. They also both never married. Smart men indeed!

Did you know that Thomas Edison was considered to have an "addled" brain because his mind wandered while in school? He likely would have been given Ritalin today. He was pulled out of formal schooling after three months and taught by his mother at home.

Did you know that Louis Pasteur was ridiculed by the medical community for his "Germ Theory" and suggesting that surgeons should wash their hands before cutting people open?

Did you know that the cure to scurvy was discovered in the early 1600's by Samuel de Champlain, when his ship was ice-locked for the winter and Indians brought the crew pine-needle tea which was rich in Vitamin C? When he told of "the cure" back in Europe, he was scoffed at by the intelligentsia for a cure from "savages." In 1753, James Lind first proved citrus could cure the disease through experiments he described in his book, A Treatise in the Scurvy, although, even then it took several decades for people to believe him and implement the use of citrus on ships. In fact, there were still a variety of other techniques the "intelligentsia" believed to be correct instead of Vitamin C, causing people to suffer and die from scurvy right through World War One and beyond, until it was definitively proven to be a vitamin C deficiency in 1932. 

Did you know that in the past, before we had universities, the intelligentsia were mostly to be found in religious institutions such as the church or its monasteries? When we talk of the religious persecution of those such as Galileo, it is just as fair to claim the intelligentsia persecuted him (and other discoverers) as it is to claim religion did. In fact, you can see this phenomenon everywhere. Rarely does the intelligentsia discover anything or even really "do" anything except for defend their position, while adding little of significance to it, which real mavericks already paved the way for.

Academics have a vested interest in telling everyone that which they have learned is 100% correct, and discrediting all those opposed to them. After all, they tend to look really stupid when grade eight drop-outs demolish their beliefs after they've spent a decade of time, tens of thousands of dollars in tuition, and a lifetime of building a social reputation based on academic "achievements" which really, someone else achieved, and they only parrot and teach.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“‘This is not to be wondered at,’ said Goethe; ‘such people continue in error because they are indebted to it for their existence. They would have to learn everything over again, and that would be very inconvenient.

“‘But,’ said I, ‘how can their experiments prove the truth when the basis for their evaluation is false?’

“‘They do not prove the truth,’ said Goethe, ‘nor is such the intention; the only point with these professors is to prove their own opinion. On this account, they conceal all experiments that would reveal the truth and show their doctrine untenable. Then the scholars — what do they care for truth? They, like the rest, are perfectly satisfied if they can prate away empirically; that is the whole matter.’”-- quoted from Johann Peter Eckermann’s conversation with Goethe, Feb. 1, 1827.
.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
It is an outrage that they should be commonly spoken of as Intellectuals. This gives them the chance to say that he who attacks them attacks Intelligence. It is not so. They are not distinguished from other men by any unusual skill in finding truth nor any virginal ardour to pursue her. Indeed it would be strange if they were: a persevering devotion to truth, a nice sense of intellectual honour, cannot be long maintained without the aid of a sentiment which Gaius and Titius could debunk as easily as any other. It is not excess of thought but defect of fertile and generous emotion that marks them out. Their heads are no bigger than the ordinary: it is the atrophy of the chest beneath that makes them seem so. ~C.S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man
.
Previous Index Next

MGTOW

“If it’s not right, Go Your Own Way!”

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

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

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

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

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

Obituary: Robert Fedders, age nine, of the World Wide Web, died on July 30, 2013

Robert “Rob” Fedders was born to the figment of an anonymous writer’s imagination in 2004. In 2006 Rob graduated from The School of Hard Knocks and within a few months started the No Ma’am blog, where he resided for the rest of his online life.
.

Rob was cornered by a herd of brides demanding that he man-up and oppress one of them with matrimonial bliss, but he would have none of it. In a series of moves he seen in a Jackie Chan film, Rob ran up a brick wall and did a back-flip over the long, bony, grasping fingers of the gaggle of bridezillas. Landing on the other side of the desperate mob, he took off like a gazelle, running as fast as he could to save his mortal soul from the slavery which the brides wished to inflict upon him.

.

.

The herd of brides, horny as hell to get a piece of his incredibly cute ass, immediately gave chase. Bystanders reported Rob yelling, “You women are as independent as a tropical fern in a greenhouse in Iceland” before veering hard to the right and running pell-mell towards the Cliffs of Insanity. Rob glanced back and seen the brides were ready to pounce... he looked to the cliff, then back to the brides, and to the cliff again where he spotted a vine dangling over the edge. “If it’s not right, go your own way,” he said as he grabbed the vine and began shinnying down the cliff, away from the clutches of the middle-aged princesses who had now started chanting, “We want it all! We want it all!”  
.

“Phew, that was close!” he said.
.

.
Rob then looked down and saw that upon the jagged rocks below was a minister holding a Bible, imploring him to “stop acting like Peter Pan and marry one of them sluts!” He looked back up and saw the herd of brides, now baring their life-sucking fangs while drooling at the sight of this succulent piece of husband-meat. Just then a mangina and a white knight appeared out of a hole in the side of the cliff and began chewing on the vine. The mangina, in between chews, looked at Rob with his dark, beady little eyes and said, “I am a lawyer, and I am going to drag you through the courts to make you pay for these women one way or the other.” Then the white knight turned his bright red albino eyes upon Rob and declared, "I am a politician. I will pass laws that will ruin your life if you don’t keep them happy, and don’t think you can just run to a foreign country because I’ve already helped to pass IMBRA laws which prevent that!”
.

What to do?
.

Rob looked to the cliff and saw a big, tasty, ham & cheese on rye sandwich just sitting there on a ledge that was within arms reach. He grabbed it and ate it. “Ah, it is so delicious.”
.

Then, with all the might he could muster, Rob pushed off the cliff with his feet and let go of the vine.
.

“FREEDOM!” he bellowed, and plummeted to the rocks below.
.

.
It was a good death.  
.
It's better to burn out than fade away!
.

He is survived by no-one as he was a free man who never married and had no children.
.
In Rob's last will and testament he requested that in lieu of flowers, you give women the husbands they deserve: None!
.

Rest In Peace, Rob.
.

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

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