Man Going His Own Way (MGHOW)

“When I have one foot in the grave, I will tell the whole truth about women. I shall tell it, jump into my coffin, pull the lid over me and say, ‘Do what you like now’.” — Leo Tolstoy
.

 

 

Ghost Nation

 

There is a generation of men fading from view. This is a global phenomenon but it is particularly noticeable (if this is not a contradiction in terms) in the feminist countries.

Men, who have been pushed to the margins in so many ways have simply elected to disappear. I would imagine that as many as one million men have disappeared either partially or completely from view in the United Kingdom alone- meaning one in twenty or so of the native born male population. For the most part this disappearance has occurred without anyone noticing particularly because it has consisted of a gradual fading from view rather than a dramatic exodus from the mainstream.

I call these men the Ghost Nation and would like to introduce the term to common use. How does one become a citizen of the ghost nation? It occurs in many ways, very few of them are pleasant.

First of all one may become a member of the ghost nation by virtue of coming from a broken home. They have never seen either parent work and are told daily that men and boys are useless. As a result they never get the habit of work and drift around the edges of crime. Women coming from the same background have an option that is not available to men and this is to become pregnant. This ensures the basics of life and gives purpose.

Young men have no anchor whatever, other than the gangs they may belong to and other groups of men they may hate. He is how young men come to religious fundamentalism, political extremism and violence- a life has to be about something and these men’s lives are about nothing at all.

These men are among the most dangerous beings upon the face of the earth. These are the men who make revolutions, a barbarian army within the city walls. They may create or destroy and have no place in the existing order of things and no loyalty to it.

I call these men the ghost army simply because they have no dealings with wider society and are thus invisible to it. They rarely vote and own nothing. At present their anger is purely destructive and tribal in nature- directed against other races and other subcultures such as followers of other music.

Older men are joining the ghost nation more consciously and for other reasons. We (for this is my group) have clearer moral guidelines and have rejected crime and parasitism. Nevertheless we have no place in the existing order of things. Some of us have lost everything through divorce and realised that marrying in the feminist world is simple slavery. We know that no matter how honest we may be the courts and legal system will punish every good deed.

Therefore we work at things that interest us. We become harder to control because we are no longer willing to work inhuman hours for a woman’s approval.

Gradually we extricate ourselves from everything we have been brainwashed to believe is normal. This includes consumer credit, expensive chemical sludge pretending to be food and that strange 19th century invention, the career.

Gradually we eliminate, point by point, everything that ties us to the feminist state. This takes both economic and emotional form. Rather than let the media form our opinions for us because we are too tired to do anything else, we form our views actively on the internet.

Gradually, gradually we fade from view. We cannot even talk to people who are still within the system because most of them can only talk about their work.

The third group is those who are nearing retirement. They know they will be rich almost anywhere other than the feminist nations and therefore become free at the moment they are no longer needed by feminist society.

Have you seen yourself in these three groups?

Are you a citizen of the ghost nation?  

 

———————————————————————————

 

To All:
Read “Atlas Shrugged” and see how nothing today is really any different than it was decades ago when a brilliant and insightful woman chronicled the inevitable results of a society addicted to destructive consumption. Decide whether you are a creator or a looter, and whether you can commit to the Pledge:

“I swear, by my life and my love for it, that I will never live my life for the sake of another, nor ask another to live for mine.”

If you can, then: Harm none, do what thou wilt, shall be the whole of the law.

This is John Galt speaking, I WILL end this if I can.

 

 

Previous Index

One Man’s Kingdom

QUOTE: “The abandonment of men in contemporary society is so comprehensive that a man who has lost a wife or lover not only suffers from the loss of that deep personal connection, but from a fairly comprehensive rejection by society in general. First you lose your wife, then your kids, and then even your own family turns against you in many cases (this is a lot more common than most people realize — American men’s own mothers very often blame them and side with the ex in what is usually a futile effort to maintain contact with the grandchildren). The thrashing you get from the police and courts is just gratuitous abuse; in many cases guys are simply numb to additional pain by that time.”

I would argue that the sudden and total collapsing of love, as it is presented to men, is evidence of its illusion.

Children are raised on it, women can expect it their whole lives in a watered down sense, but men lose all right to it as they come of age. Unfortunately, in the West, no-one ever tells them that this is their heritage as men. They have to learn it the hard way, or go mad refusing to learn it at all.

Other cultures, particularly those closer to nature, had rites of passage for young men. The rite usually involved sending the stripling out in the wild, on his own. He would be exposed to danger, expected to survive on his own, and could expect no assistance. It was a symbolic, and real, exercise to let him know that he was no longer the dependent he once was. Young women were never subjected to the same. They belonged to the community, no matter their age, their fertility or their ability.

It is a feature of all men who go wild at women and take it out on innocents, as well as their former intimates, that they are still sold on the love illusion – they are men that fervently believe they deserve a place in the bosom of society. The trick is maintained for its utility in deceiving men into social contracts that are counter to their own interests.

It’s the same the world over. Every deal won by trickery has a higher harvest of woe than that done with all cards on the table and intentions plainly stated.

———————————————————————-

There are a couple of small lakes not far from where I live. One is purple to look at, the other is orange. Apparently the difference is due to a tiny presence of minerals – a little of one element in the purple lake, and a little of another in the orange one.

If you were to take a glass of water out of each of them, you wouldn’t be able to tell them apart. They taste the same and look the same. A simple laboratory analysis wouldn’t be able to distinguish them – only an advanced lab that can detect minute mineral presence and measure it accurately would be able to correctly identify which glass of water came from which lake.

Yet the human eye can spot the difference easily – but only in aggregate. At the microscopic level, rather than the macroscopic, the difference is beyond human detection.

The difference between men and women is also impossible to define in terms of easily spotted differences between individuals. The differences between the sexes is too easily obscured by simple personality differences. It is only when you look at humanity in aggregate that the difference between the sexes is at all obvious. And it is striking.

This is why feminists can say things like “gender is a social construct” and get away with it. Individuals can easily be made to appear similar, regardless of sex. The thing is though, “similar” is not “the same”. Often very significant differences cannot be seen unless one steps back from the microscopic view and looks again from the macroscopic. It is only then that the difference is glaring.

————————————————————————

QUOTE: “Turn your back on it all, accept the Truth, and Go Your Own Way.”

I’m convinced this is the only way to effectively counter the nonsense. It is leading by example.

The real value to me in following MRA/MGTOW sites is that they are the only places where I get to read intelligent men talking about things that matter without the media/academic gag firmly in its usual place. For that alone I value it highly, even if one has to read through a lot of dross to find a few pearls – at least those pearls are there to be found.

———————————————————————–

QUOTE: “I’m convinced this is the only way to effectively counter the nonsense. It is leading by example.”

The thing is, if men leave the building, women will follow. And if men keep walking, women will figure out a way to make some sort of association with men again that is agreeable.

Women are as independent as a tropical fern in a greenhouse in Iceland.

It doesn’t even have to get to the level of physical performance. Women’s mental character does not seek independence itself.

You can see this when women get divorced. I can, on many levels, understand why women would seek independence from marriage – from a male point of view, we understand it – but that’s not what they are doing. They divorce their current husband, and in 99% of cases, already have another waiting in the wings. Usually, in a very short time, the woman is back into a long-term relationship again where she is once again following the dominant lead of a male. Independence never existed.

Schopenhauer points this out too: ” That woman is by nature intended to obey is shown by the fact that every woman who is placed in the unnatural position of absolute independence at once attaches herself to some kind of man, by whom she is controlled and governed; this is because she requires a master. If she is young, the man is a lover; if she is old, a priest.”

The Buddhist philosopher Nichiren said it as well, but slightly differently. There are three phases women go through in life, and in each she attaches herself to a man – in the sense that the man is her “tool” for her own purposes in society – the first is her father when she is young, then her husband during most of her life, and finally to her sons when she is old. And I can certainly attest to the last since my father died. It is now me who she comes to for authority since she is without husband.

Furthermore, one also has to realize that women were complicit in creating “Patriarchy.” As we’ve often pointed out, “patriarchy” is merely another form of matriarchy, because even Patriarchy is ultimately for the benefit of women, not men. Women “are” society. Men are on the outside of society. “The herd” is what society is, not the males on the outside trying to seek approval to get back in (which they will never be allowed). Men might have controlled the laws in the past, but women have always controlled society’s social mores. If women don’t approve, society doesn’t approve, because women are society. Men are on the outside looking in.

If men walk away, women will follow. And if we keep walking, they will keep trying to entice us back. And if we still keep walking, they will try even harder until eventually women themselves will make it so that “it” works. Patriarchy only existed because women endorsed it themselves and were complicit in creating the social mores that made it work.

———————————————————————

QUOTE: “Women “are” society. Men are on the outside of society.”

And it is man’s place at the periphery that is our natural home.

While we concern ourselves with laws, government and social mores, we are intruding upon women’s space and women’s affairs – we are auditioning for their approval as – nominally at least – their masters (though it is clear on closer examination that all men in such positions are actually women’s servants, be they politicians, priests or husbands).

On the other hand, when a man realizes he is alone in the world, and dependent on nothing but his reason, his physical strength and his resolve, his attitude changes. His immediacy to the Absolute could not be clearer. The thing the free man most craves – his own sovereignty – is at its closest to being realized. It is this state that I refer to as “One Man’s Kingdom.”

When I say that I am convinced going my own way is the most effective way to counter the nonsense, it is not because I believe it will have any material effect on ‘society’ – it is the effect it has on the man himself that is undeniable. It is like turning off the television and no longer reading the newspapers (which are portals into society, or women’s influence). The calming effect is near immediate. The more one works at it, dealing almost solely with Nature, one’s own material needs and whatever other problems that concern only the individual – and disengaging from ‘society’ in as many ways as possible – it is surprising how readily, and how happily, the submerged male psyche rises to the challenge.

Also surprising is how one develops a keener appreciation of company when one gets the chance, even though it can easily be lived without.

At the end of the day, society will always be there and always be unconcerned with the welfare of men. Like women who cannot embrace true independence, many men also shy away from it, exhausting themselves knocking on the door of women’s world trying to gain admission, never stopping to look about them and say “it’s actually not so bad out here by myself”.

The world would of course change if a lot of men started doing this, but I have no interest in something as abstract as ‘the world’. I am far more interested in the small world I live in, and how I can adapt to it, and prosper in it. But I am alone in it always. Not being a woman, that actually makes me feel more alive.

Previous Index Next

“If it’s not right, Go Your Own Way!”

………………..

..oooO………..

..(….)………..
….\..(…………
…. \_/………..

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

………………..

The Legend of the Selkie

Some years ago, through the usual discourse of mindlessly arguing with people on the internet, I met a woman online who went by the handle of “Selkie.” I had no idea what a selkie was, so I typed it into Google and discovered an interesting legend that I believe is directly about human sexuality.

The mythological selkie is similar to a mermaid, except the selkie is a seal which can shed its skin and transform into a human being. The selkie can be either male or female, but most are female. Once they are in their human form, if their seal skin is taken or hidden from them, they are unable to turn back into a seal and thus cannot return to their home in the sea.

Now, as the legend goes, female selkies make great wives when in their human form and so men would hide the skins of selkies so they would stay with them, for if she found her skin she would right away put it back on, abandon her human husband and escape to the sea to seek out her male selkie lover/husband. There is an interesting twist though, in that even after she abandons her human husband she will return from time to time to visit the children which she had while with him.

The male selkie, according to the legend, has enormous powers of seduction. His favourite love interests are married women who are dissatisfied with their marriage, and often he seduces the wives of fisherman while their husbands are away at sea.

The legend of the selkie seems to be a way of telling about the nature of human sexuality. The “seal skin” represents human sexuality in its natural form, as is often discussed within circles of the Manosphere. The stories have elements of suppressing female sexuality, which makes for great, reliable wives, but when she is unrestrained with her sexuality, she instantly uses it and reverts back to her natural state… and in her natural state as a seal, she seeks out the cad, the male selkie who is like her, and is a master seducer who plays upon women’s emotions. This seems very much like the whole concept of “game” when understanding human sexuality. The male PUA is very much like the female in the way he seduces women – he understands about women’s emotions and how to manipulate them for his own benefit – which is very similar to what women tend to do with their sexuality when relating to men.

There are many myths and legends that discuss the nature of females. I think this is so because, as Philalethes often points out, women “are” society. What women want, society also wants. What women find desirable, society finds desirable. What women frown upon, society frowns upon. Women “are” society with males as mere interlopers in their midst, doing women’s bidding. Often women are referred to as having a herd mentality. I agree with this. And what is a herd made up of? Mostly females with only a few males, or sometimes just one male. The rest of the males – the outliers, or the betas that have been rejected by the herd, are always desperately competing to be let back into the herd though – and that means doing what the herd finds desirable. But anyway, since women “are” society, and since women absolutely despise having anything negative about their natures brought into daylight, they screech and shout and shame such things back into the deep darkness of the closet, and then society forgets all about them again as time goes on.

I think many times in the past, men have observed the nature of females (and males) and it seems to me that there is a consistency in what they find, and of course, it is very similar to what we have been discovering over the past years in our discussions of feminism and the destruction of the family. Every time I see a legend like the selkie one, I think to myself, “I’ll bet that comes from a man/men who ‘figured things out’ and also recognized the only way to send that message forward through time without being thwarted by the totalitarian nature of females, is to disguise it in a myth or a legend.”

Something that I find interesting about the legend of the selkie though is how it makes mention that after the selkie abandons her human husband to go back to the sea, she will return from time to time to visit her human children. This legend is old, as most myths & legends obviously are, so of course it comes from a time when father-custody was the norm. It was not until the 1800’s that presumed father-custody was undermined, and presumed mother-custody took its place. I’ve read before that it was when this transformation was completed that the divorce rates began to slowly but steadily increase.

The whole “point” of marriage used to be father-custody. Back before the days of romance, when marriage used to be an economic contract, marriage & wedlock birth was all about putting children into the possession of men. In the rare event of a divorce, the custody of the child was automatically given to the husband. If the child was young, the mother would sometimes care for it until around 6 or 7 years old, and then would be forced to turn over the child to the father for education and proper discipline. The whole concept of wedlock birth is to create legitimate, father-custody children. When an “oops-pregnancy” would occur, the first question out of the woman’s mouth would be “will you give the child your name?” As in, will you make this child legitimate, and show it by giving him your name – and not a hyphenated pseudo name either!

Women don’t actually “need” marriage to have children. They can get boffed by any number of men through a variety of seductive techniques, of which I think we are all aware of. Men however, did “need” marriage to have children, and thus, children born within wedlock are to belong to the man, while children born out of wedlock are to belong to the woman.

The parts of the selkie legend that discuss how she would come back to visit her children even after abandoning her husband seems to support the concept that divorce rates began to increase after presumed custody was changed from the father to the mother. Also supporting this notion is the evidence put forth by present day “joint-custody” advocates, who state that divorce rates significantly drop when sole mother-custody is not expected. Of course, women file for most of divorces as we all know, and so not having sole custody of the children significantly deters them from destroying their families, and rather encourages them to try harder to make things work.

Sure, one can write this off to saying that removing the financial incentives to divorce will lower the divorce rates, but keep in mind another thing one will find about women and sexuality throughout history is that it has always been that women have ended relationships more often than men. It is part of human nature that women do this, regardless of financial incentives. It seems though that placing the children in a situation where it is presumed that the father will gain custody upon the ending of marriage, is enough to encourage women to over-ride this instinct what they have.

Previous Index Next

“If it’s not right, Go Your Own Way!”

………………..

..oooO………..

..(….)………..
….\..(…………
…. \_/………..

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

………………..

MGTOW as a Form of “Cultural Game”

Women aren’t gonna stop eating our lunch because it’s “the right thing to do.” They are only gonna stop when we stop them from doing it.

For all those who understand “game,” you certainly must realize that aloof indifference does not stop women – it makes them try to be noticed harder. If you ignore them, they will escalate until you do pay attention to them.

You have to keep in mind with men and women as well, that when a boy sins it is overt. He shouts and screams and kicks and makes a big scene that you cannot miss. And then he stays quiet again for a long, long time, causing no trouble, until the next overt outburst. But women are covert and their outbursts/sins are subtle but last for a much longer period of time. A woman can keep a subtle running battle going for months and even sometimes years at a time, like Chinese water torture.

And, practitioners of game also should know the rule of “it’s my way or the highway, Toots!” and that any man who doesn’t want to be ruined by woman has to learn to say no without bothering to explain, and say it often… no… No… NO… NO!!!
Merely because I said so.

Just because I want it that way.

Tough. There’s the door.

Well, this is merely game on a cultural level. Women really are powerless without us. That vote they keep yacking about doesn’t mean a thing without men enforcing its power. Everything that permits the “you go grrl” culture is provided to women by the indulgence of men. If men left the building, women’s vote couldn’t enforce a single thing – because their vote and their rights are not based upon “the barrel of a gun,” but rather upon indirect social manipulation of the people holding the gun.

If men leave the building, women will follow.

I think men understanding how women are manipulating us – as put forth by guys like Schopenhauer – will do ten thousand times more for our “movement” than any amount of billions of dollars funnelled to lobby-groups to manipulate the law into something even worse than we have today.

As much as women like to say that men don’t leave them alone, if the men said “fine, see ya” and actually left, the women would follow us to the ends of the earth.

And if they don’t… tough.

It’s such a joke for women to come around here and try to con us into believing how much we want and need them, when almost none of the men here are on their forums seeking them out. They find guys who are busy with other things and completely ignoring them, and try to intrude and take over. This is the entire history of “feminine-ism.”

And, herein lies the proof of the big lie, and the big paradox for women. Accusations that men don’t care only work when men do care. In order to get his mind in the right frame where he can attract women, he has to reach the place where he no longer cares if he does or not – and in many cases “not” starts to win.

Further Reading:

Western Culture’s Inability to Pass Feminism’s Shit Tests

MGTOW is also Men Going The Right Way

Previous Index Next

“If it’s not right, Go Your Own Way!”

………………..

..oooO………..

..(….)………..
….\..(…………
…. \_/………..

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

………………..

Work With The World, Don’t Fight Against It

Something I think men will have to come to terms with is that when the pendulum inevitably swings back, what actual benefit do men think this will have for them? Will it bring that fabled equality everyone is seeking? Will everyone join hands and sing kumbaya and live happily ever after? Will the planets align and Heaven on Earth make itself apparent to man and woman alike?

Not likely.

For example, Angry Harry has often pointed out that when feminists cry of the abuses of women in places like Afghanistan, if you look at the men, they are treated even worse. And, if you look at the “abuses” women endured in the past centuries, you will find that in every situation, men had even worse abuses to endure. It is a feature of human nature. It is just like no matter at what place, or in what time, children are always treated better than adults – it’s just the way humanity works.
.
So, after Feminism subsides, how will things change? Do you really think it will be any different? Women will still be treated better than men. They have been since the dawn of time, and they will be until closing time.
.
This is why it is so dangerous to have the MM try to set up things like lobby groups and government bureaucracies to oversee the welfare of men and boys. It is so open ended, and because of the very nature of humanity, means they could perpetually justify their existence until it becomes just another oppressive, statist organization that harms everyone but themselves. It’s so freakin’ open ended and fights a never-ending battle against nature that how could it not be a disaster? If I start a lobby group to “stop the tide” I will forever be able to show the demand for my group is real, because the battle is still not won. See, here comes the tide again. Gimme more power to fight it!
.
Far better, if you must support some organization, that they have a clear mission statement and acknowledge they will disband after achieving their goal. (Ie. Fighting to remove Bill C-79 from the legislature).
.
But then, what are the actual goals that men want?
.
No matter what happens, compared to women, men will still be treated as “lesser” than females. That is simply a feature of human nature that can’t be changed no matter how many laws are made or discarded, nor how many lobby groups are formed to fight the tides.
.
Accepting this as true does not mean admitting defeat. It means working with the way the world IS, rather than fighting against it. It does not mean men cannot try to create or remove laws which make their lives better – but no matter what happens, at the end of it all, men will still be treated relatively worse than the females in society are.

The Serenity Prayer comes to mind here:

God grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change;
courage to change the things I can;
and wisdom to know the difference.

Living one day at a time;
Enjoying one moment at a time;
Accepting hardships as the pathway to peace;
Taking, as He did, this sinful world
as it is, not as I would have it;
Trusting that He will make all things right
if I surrender to His Will;
That I may be reasonably happy in this life
and supremely happy with Him
Forever in the next.
Amen.

Related:

The Personal

Philalethes #15 – Women Are Out of Control in Our Culture

Previous Index Next

“If it’s not right, Go Your Own Way!”

………………..

..oooO………..

..(….)………..
….\..(…………
…. \_/………..

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

………………..

The Fine Art of TV Repair

Is something wrong in your house?
.
Is there a constant subtle drone always permeating throughout what should be your retreat from the harsh world?
.
Do you think that Man Hatred is just everywhere?
.
Chances are, your TV is broken!
.
Therefore, No Ma’am will provide you with an easy, illustrated, 4-step method to fixing your “best friend.”
.

.
STEP #1: Get the Proper Tools
.
.
The best tools for TV Repair can likely be found in the backyard shed. Two favourites are the pick-axe and the sledgehammer. Also find some gloves and safety goggles – The Safety Bear recommends this, so I will defer to his judgement in regard to safety.
.
Step #2: Swinging the Pick-Axe
.
.
Take a few steps to the side of your friend and grasp the pick-axe firmy with both hands. Your aim should be directly for center of the screen, as this is where the heart of the problem is.
.
The swing is performed much like a golf swing. Keep your eye on the center of the screen from the beginning of the swing right through to the end.
.
Bring the pick-axe behind you and begin your swing. Your upper body should shift the energy through your shoulders while at the same time, the weight of your body should shift from your back foot through to your front foot. Remember to keep your eye on the center of the screen throughout your swing!
.
The above illustration is an example of the results of a good first swing. The pick-axe should penetrate to the heart of the problem with a depth of at least 6 inches. A professional TV Repair Man consistently hits 10 inchers, but 6 inches is the minimum penetration needed.
.
Step #3: Sweeping the Field
.
.
Sometimes it is best to change tools and grab your sledgehammer for this task.
.
You must remove all of the glass to fully repair your TV.
.
Don’t be afraid to choke up on the hammer nor to get down on your knees to get every last piece of glass out of there. There is nothing “sissy” about this. The only “sissy” thing would be to not do a thorough and complete job. Anything worth doing is worth doing well.
.
Notice the craftsmanship of this professional job in that he has even removed the knobs. This attention to detail is the mark of true guildsmanship, but you need not be this fancy. Removing the glass will most likely fix your problem completely.
.
This is also an excellent time to have a look around inside the TV. You will realize that there is really nothing of substance behind the glass.
.
Step #4: Call the Wife
.
.
With the most manly bellow you can muster, holler out the following words:
.
“Woman! Come Hither!”
.
A real professional might manage to include the following:
.
“And bring me a cold one!”
.
But your main job is to have the wife come and look at your craftsmanship.
.
You can now gently explain to the missus that you believe in the “Eek-Wallet-Tee” of both sexes equally doing the housework. Point out that you have done your 50%, and the other 50% is the clean up – so hop to it!
.
Be sure to stay with the missus while she works. This is where the cold one would have come in handy, as it would give you something to do rather than just stand there doing nothing.
.
Don’t be afraid to direct your wife to any teeny tiny piece of glass that she may have missed. You might impart some manly wisdom at her here by telling her that “anything worth doing is worth doing well!”
.
You’re all done!
.
Go back into the house and see if that annoying drone of man-hatred has disappeared.
.
And rest assured, it will only get better from here!
.
Good job! Mr. Repairman!

Previous Index Next

“If it’s not right, Go Your Own Way!”

………………..

..oooO………..

..(….)………..
….\..(…………
…. \_/………..

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

………………..

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 don’t even try to make money from Google Adsense. 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

“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

“If it’s not right, Go Your Own Way!”

………………..

..oooO………..

..(….)………..
….\..(…………
…. \_/………..

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

………………..

The Liberation of Men

To the woman he said, “I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.”

To Adam he said, “Because you listened to your wife and ate fruit from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat from it,’ “Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat food from it all the days of your life. It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return.” — Genesis 3:16-19

And so it has been ever since, until feminism convinced women to unwittingly take on men’s curse as their own.

And what’s a man to do about it, after all? Despite corporate and feminist attempts at designing various ways for emasculated males to take on the pains of child-birth, there can never be a true understanding for males of what it is like to give birth. This is women’s curse, and it is their curse alone to bear, for it is impossible for men to share equally with her in it – even if men were so stupid to want to.

Apparently though, this is not the case in reverse, for women seem to not only be agreeable to take on man’s curse, but they are downright using every bit of power their feminine wiles can muster to force it into social and legal acceptance, and if it tosses men aside in the meantime, then so be it! Ever heard about Tom Sawyer & Huckleberry Finn and the great whitewashing of the fence fiasco? Well, this situation is similar, except that the one’s holding the short end of the stick (men) aren’t the one’s doing the manipulating!
.

.
No, in the situation of men’s curse, it is actually the women that are manipulating behind the scenes for the curse of toil and labour, without any real encouragement (nor discouragement) from the males. Apparently, women are demanding to alleviate men from their curse. Well, gosh and golly, I suggest that the slaves let them! What slave on the plantation would scorn his master for demanding the slave work less, so that his master may reap the benefits of being a cotton-picker?

But, it’s not all quite so simple. Perhaps we should look at this a little closer.

Doing the Math

This morning, as I was watching the Business News Network (B.N.N.), Rona Ambrose, the Canadian Minister for the Status of Women (S.O.W.), trumpeted out the same old tired song about women on executive boards once more. The refrain goes like this: “Research has shown that having more women on executive boards is good for the economy. Therefore…”
.

.
Really? Is that so? Or is it simply that when you only consult advocacy researchers from an ideologically driven and politically activist arm of academia (Women’s Studies), you will only receive results that are consistent with their ideology.

For example, since the stock market crashed back in 2008-2009, the Business News Network has relentlessly trumpeted that women who were investment managers fared better than men, because women are more “risk averse.” And this is true, so long as you cherry-pick through your research and ignore any factors which don’t support your ideology. The real truth of the story, however, is that while female investment managers lost less money during the crash than male investment managers, in the run-up to the crash, women also created less wealth because of their aversion to risk. All you have to do is run a few numbers to see what a fraud the Business News Network is promoting as “fact.”

For example, if a man invests $10,000 and averages a return of 9% a year for 8 years, he will have $19,926. Then when the economy collapses and he loses 20% of it, he will be left with $15,941. And, if, during the same time frame, a woman invests $10,000 and averages a return of 6%, after eight years she will have $15,938. When the economy collapses and she loses only 10% because of her aversion to risk, she will have $14,345 left. Hmmm… so, sure, during the market crash, it appears that she “out-performed” because she lost only 10% as opposed to the man’s 20% loss, but overall, you would still be better off with the man’s pot of cash than with the woman’s. In fact, the man still earned 11.1% more than her during the same time frame. These are quite some “facts” media shills like the Business News Network are promoting, aren’t they? Indeed, making less money than men shows how superior women are, so long as the real facts are distorted and hidden. Makes you wonder why anyone would watch such a channel trying to learn “the facts,” doesn’t it? I guess they are trying to make sure that women aren’t oppressed by math.

Another ideologically driven “fact” that gets bandied about is that women somehow bring more ethics and morality to the workplace – especially when they are on the board of directors of major companies. This “women are more ethically pure fact” is just more smoke and mirrors, since it has long been known that while men are more prone to break the law with crimes of violence, women break the law in greater numbers than men in crimes of deceit, such as perjury, fraud and embezzlement. The shucksters in academia and the media get their “women are more morally pure” trope from the fact that women are prosecuted less for these crimes of deceit than men are. Women are also given far lighter sentences for the same crime when they are actually convicted (this is true of all crimes), and so it is that there are more men in prison for crimes of deceit than women, even though women commit the majority of deceit crimes. This is indeed an interesting fact that insinuates many things about our society and our notions of “equality under the law,” but in no way does it stand as valid research which proves women’s ethical and moral purity is greater than men’s. For these very women who release such “facts” which are obviously lies in themselves, it illustrates something very negative about their ethics and morals in the first place, wouldn’t you agree?

And yes, my goodness, I know, women only receive $0.76 for every dollar a man earns! This has been debunked so many times by so many people that I feel rather foolish even mentioning it, but here we are. Women are not paid $0.76 for doing the exact same work as men, (this has been illegal in America since the Equal Pay Act back in 1963) rather, because of the choices women make and the lesser hours they actually work throughout their “careers,” they only earn 76% of the wages that men do.

Imagine for a moment that there are two young boys, Jack and Tom. Both are eight years old and have identical abilities in every possible way. Both of them have a dream to be accepted to the basketball team when they enter university, and so they start practicing for when the day comes that they will be given the opportunity to try out for the team by shooting hoops each day after school.
.

.
Jack dedicates himself by shooting hoops for 60 minutes every day. Tom, however, has taken it upon himself to also have a paper route so he can earn a little pocket-money, and in order to make the time for delivering his papers, he only practices for 45 minutes a day. After four years of practice, 12 year old Jack will have spent 1,460 hours practicing as opposed to Tom’s 1,095 hours, and by now, Jack is able to put the ball through the hoop with 8 out of every 20 attempts. Tom, however, is only able to sink 6 out of every 20 attempts, because he practiced less than Jack. Out of frustration at his lack of performance, Tom wonders if perhaps basketball isn’t for him after all, and so he quits practicing and takes up karate instead, while Jack continues shooting hoops faithfully for 60 minutes a day. But after three years of karate, the now 15 year old Tom decides that he really did like basketball better than karate after all, and so he quits his karate classes and resumes practicing hoops for 45 minutes a day. At this point, after 2,555 hours of practice, Jack is able to sink 14 baskets out of 20, but Tom, who hasn’t practiced at all in the last three years and is now a bit rusty, is only able to make 5 out of 20 baskets. But, both boys continue practicing for the next three years until they finally enter college and are able to try out for the team. By now, Jack has spent 3,650 hours practicing and he can sink 20 out of 20 shots every time and he easily gets accepted onto the team. Tom, however, has spent only 1,916 hours practicing over the past ten years and is only able to make 10 shots out of 20… and so he doesn’t make the team. The two boys were of identical ability, remember, and their outcomes were different only because of the choices each boy made throughout the past ten years. Had Tom made the same choices as Jack, he probably would have made the team too.

It’s pretty easy to see how this translates to the workplace. Is Tom only getting “paid” $0.50 for each $1.00 Jack makes? Nope, he’s getting paid exactly what he deserves. Is there a patriarchal basketball players club conspiring behind the scenes to keep Tom off the team? No again. Choices have consequences. What a revolutionary concept!

All you need to know about how false the $0.76 propaganda which academic and media charlatans like BNN spews forth is this: If it were true that women only made 76% of the wages as men for doing the exact same thing with the exact same efficiency, then there would be no shortage of people who would simply buy a company, fire all the men, and replace them with the far cheaper labour of women. They would make money hand over fist while putting the competition out of business for secretly conspiring behind the scenes to pay men more than women. It’s such a simple formula for success that it’s amazing no one has thought of it before, eh?

Equal Opportunity or Equal Outcomes?

You can see the fraud of feminist “academics” and the media’s complicity in perpetuating their lies fully exposed by the way they reported on Wal-Mart’s recent Supreme Court case regarding whether there was “a culture of discrimination” against women in their organization. Keep in mind that even though Wal-Mart successfully defended themselves, they did not entirely “win” either. It was because feminist lawyers tried to launch a class-action suit that the Supreme Court said there was no definite policy at Wal-Mart which favoured men over women, and thus they did not entirely throw the law-suit out, but rather said that it must be dealt with in the lower courts on a more individual basis instead. And how did the BNN cover this story? Why, in order to get a “balanced and unbiased” view on the decision, they interviewed a feminist from Eastern Canada and another feminist from Western Canada. (Gee, I guess degrees in Journalism are about as useless as degrees in Women’s Studies). The consensus was that this culture of discrimination against women was allowed to persist because there were too many of those dastardly right-leaning men on the Supreme Court still perpetuating the infamous “Old Boys Club.” But don’t worry, they pointed out that soon Obama will be able to stuff a couple more of these “morally and ethically pure” women onto the Supreme Court, so that when a case like this is inevitably brought before the court again, the decision will be in favour of women.

What they glossed over completely, however, was the absurdity of the argument itself, and the dire implications it would have had on Wal-Mart, as well as every other company in America, and they failed to extrapolate the implications further to its effect on the economy over-all.

One of the core arguments of the lawsuit was that men were promoted to management positions ahead of women because women were unable to work as many hours as men and women could not as easily move to undesirable locations where they would more easily advance their careers because of the other responsibilities women had outside of the workplace, such as caring for children or elderly parents.

In other words, if we take this back to our basketball example with Jack and Tom, the argument becomes that since Tom had other things to do besides practice shooting hoops, such as his paper route and karate classes, the university had no right to “discriminate” against him for only being able to make 50% of the baskets as Jack, and both boys should be equally accepted to the team, regardless of their actual performance abilities.

That’s literally what was being argued in this Wal-Mart case. Because women have other responsibilities that are completely not related to the workplace, it is workplace discrimination for them not to receive promotions and pay commensurate to those who actually did work more hours and made more sacrifices which advanced their careers.

Thus, if the BNN were actually in the business of reporting the facts, and Wal-mart had lost their case, rather than reporting it as a “triumph for women,” they would have been more accurate to report it as follows:

“Wal-Mart Forced to Replace Top-Notch Management with Mediocre Employees. Long-Term Outlook for Stock Valuations is Grim!”

This is not a slam against women, this is simply the truth. It wouldn’t matter if the employees were male or female. If you take employees willing to work 60 hours a week and relocate wherever they need to, and replace them with employees only willing to work 40 hours a week and only in desirable locations, it doesn’t matter which gender, you would be severely handicapping the company.

In the same way, if Jack and Tom’s university would insist that out of the five basketball players on the court, at least two players who are capable of making 20 out of 20 baskets must be replaced with players only capable of making 10 out of 20 baskets, the performance of the team would suffer – especially against teams that are not burdened in the same way. It is pretty easy to see the numbers. If five players take 100 shots and 100 of them go through the basket, such a team will far out-perform a team that can only make 80 out of 100 baskets, which is exactly what would happen if the team were to replace two players at Jack’s 100% ratio with two players at Tom’s 50% ratio.

And you thought globalization and cheap foreign labour was the only reason the Western World is falling behind the Developing World, eh?

Equal or “Equal?” (Wink! Wink!)
.

.
“Differences [between men and women], including the products of social inequality, make unequal treatment not unequal at all.” — Catharine MacKinnon, “Reflections on Sex Equality Under Law,” Yale Law Journal, 1991

When the Status of Women Canada, the “academic” juggernaut of Women’s Studies, and the Business News Network (BNN) continually make the case that more women deserve to be on executive boards regardless of their abilities (due to outside choices women themselves are making in their lives), you will discover they never argue that it extends that women also, therefore, deserve to be equally represented in jobs that don’t carry prestige and high pay. After all, when was the last time Minister Rona Ambrose got on the TV and argued how ridiculous it is that women are “oppressed” because they make up less than 10% of the garbage collectors in the country? I mean, you would think that the government would want women to take on more of the low prestige, dangerous and dirty jobs, since careless and clumsy men are accounting for over 90% of all workplace injuries and deaths. The government and Canadian employers would save billions a year in Worker’s Compensation expenses by increasing the amount of women in these types of jobs. This is simple feminist math. If over 90% of all workplace injuries and deaths are males, then if we increase the amount of women in these positions to 50%, we will reduce such injuries and deaths by around half as well! It’s so simple!

Of course, you know I am being facetious.

But seriously, what does anyone think will happen to the men who are in these high paying, prestigious jobs such as CEO or Chairman of the Board? When the government of Norway made it law that all corporate boards must have at least 40% women, do you think they simply created more positions and only hired women until they made up 40%, or did they keep the amount of positions the same, fire the required amount of men, and then replaced them with women? I think you know the answer without my stating it.

What you find in the workforce is the same that you will find almost everywhere else when you compare men and women. While our averages are pretty close to the same, how we reach those averages is quite different. For example, men and women both have similar averages of IQ, however there is far greater variability in male IQ than in the female IQ, which is clustered around the mean in greater intensity than with males. Thus, even though we have similar averages in IQ, there are far more males who inhabit the areas of extremely high IQ and extremely low IQ. This translates also into the workforce, where you will find that the very powerful and wealthy (like CEO’s or those on executive boards) are mostly male, and also that most of the very poor, like the homeless, are male (85% of the homeless are males). It’s not only intellectually dishonest to selectively observe only the men who have risen to the top while at the same time ignoring the men that have fallen through the floor, but it is also socially irresponsible. It’s like taking the examples of Denzel Washington and Will Smith as successful and powerful black millionaires, and therefore claiming there is no poverty problem in the Black Community. But this is exactly what is done every single time that “our betters” in the government, academia, and the media address women in the workplace.

If, as a society, we are going to boot out qualified men from top positions to make way for less qualified and less motivated women, it will cause a chain reaction all the way down and increase the amount of those at the bottom. After all, if those who would have merited an executive board position are restricted from achieving those levels, they will be stuck being over-qualified and underpaid at the middle-management level, where again, they will be displacing those who should have merited middle management positions, and forcing those men downwards to lower management and basic employee status. Thus, the men currently in those lowest of positions will be losing their jobs and sleeping on the streets.

The Return of Aristocracy

It’s not hard to see that if fully qualified men are displaced from high level prestigious positions, to be replaced with less qualified, less motivated women – while at the same time ignoring the fact that women are not equally represented in the less desirable positions like garbage collector, ditch digger, or enemy moving target – we will be returning to an aristocratic class structure in society, except based on gender rather than bloodline.
.

.
Again, it is just simple math. If women only replace men at the top, in the most prestigious and well paying of jobs, then you are virtually guaranteed to increase the amount of men in the dredges of the workforce, or drive those men out of the workforce entirely and into the streets.

Quite frankly, men would be twits if they continued working their tails off 60 hours a week trying to get ahead in the corporate rat race, if they had no chance of making it because a woman who only works 40 hours a week will be preferred for the job anyways. It will very quickly become that men will simply stop trying to be successful in those jobs at all and abandon them en masse for jobs where they don’t have to put up with such nonsense. You don’t think that will happen? Have a look at how men have virtually disappeared from the teaching profession since every man in close proximity to a child has become viewed as a pedophile. Men simply said, “No thanks,” and moved on to other professions.

In a generation or two, you will see the class distinction between men and women quite clearly. Women: Good paying, high prestige jobs in air-conditioned offices. Men: Shutting up and shoveling the gravel to keep the electricity on and the sewers working. That’s some “equality.”
.

.
Hypergamy and the End of Marriage
.
The essence of hypergamy is that women “marry up” while men “settle down.” Thus, we see in society that, while men are not necessarily “better” than women in general, women do insist that the men they marry are “better” than they are. Male doctors marry female nurses. Male lawyers marry female secretaries. Male factory workers marry the waitress at the diner, and so on. Conversely however, female CEO’s do not marry auto-mechanics, but rather, they tend to seek out a mate who is “higher” than she is. The problem is, when you are a female who is near the top of the economic food chain, there are very, very few males who meet this criteria, and of the ones that are actually around, hypergamy dictates that those males are attractive to all the different levels of females below him. Not only are there slim romantic pickings for women at the top, but they have to stand in line with, oh, about a gajillion other women for the only men they are attracted to.

Now, many women counter this by saying that they “had to” marry upwards, because it was the only way they could be socially and financially mobile under the dreaded Patriarchy. If men were just to step aside and make room for women at the top, things would change. It’s too bad that this is not the case though. In fact, there is much evidence that it is not men’s super-sized egos that demands they must earn more money than their wives, but rather it is women themselves that are angry at husbands who don’t earn as much money and thus, they aren’t “pulling their weight.” This is further evidenced by “kitchen-bitch” marriages, where the roles are reversed with a female breadwinner and the man being more focused on the home. The divorce statistics for regular marriages are bad enough, but in kitchen-bitch marriages, divorce rates sky-rocket to 90% – yes, that high!

Hypergamy is a very real force to be reckoned with – especially if we are to continue shoe-horning women into top positions of power and wealth. If we create an aristocratic class of women and a peasant class of men, then marriage – as screwed up and broken as it already is – will pretty much grind to a complete halt. The prince marries the maiden Cinderella who scrubs her step-mother’s floors, remember? Snow White did not marry one of the Seven Dwarves.

Perhaps now you can understand why men work their tails off more than women to have a successful career. It fulfills women’s hypergamy and makes men sexually attractive to women, whereas women are not considered either more nor less sexually attractive because of their social and financial status. They don’t have near the motivation for it as men do! Furthermore, women are not socially considered to be deadbeats if they are not economic performers, nor are they considered to be “bums” if they take a few years off and let their husbands fully support them while they pursue other things they want in life. Working, for men, is not a choice like it is for many women. Either men work or they become invisible. It only makes sense then, that men will put in more effort to make their jobs “work” for them, while women, who have other options, will not view the workplace with the same intensity as men.

“Only 14 percent of female middle managers aspire to be CEO; the figure is 45 percent for middle managers who are male.” — Newsletter of the Women’s Freedom Network, Spring 1997

Mutilated Beggars

During the economic crisis in 2008 and 2009, we termed the resulting recession as “the mancession” because the vast majority of the jobs lost were those done by men. If I remember correctly, it was three men losing a job to every woman who became unemployed. But, when the economic stimulus was injected into the economy, they had feminists appearing on the Business News Network (BNN), madder than wet hens that women were not equally receiving stimulus money as men. It really did make sense that more money was spent on men’s jobs than women’s, since those were the vast majority of the unemployed, but feminists demanded 50/50 equality in the spending of stimulus funds. See how this works? America had become A Woman’s Nation because they finally outnumbered men in the workforce, and they were so gracious about it that they cackled and laughed and wrote about The End of Men, spitting in men’s faces when they were down. But when it came time to deal with the problem and get men back on their feet, they screamed and wailed that they were victims for not receiving equal funds – funds they did not need nearly so much as men.

And further, when people mentioned that a lot of those men were supporting families, you could almost see the hatred spill from the now ex BNN news anchoress, Kim Parlee’s eyes, matching the spirit of her “unbiased” panel: a gaggle of feminists pulling The Mutilated Beggar argument. You see, women support their families too! Therefore, it was sexist to insinuate that it was higher priority to put those men back to work instead of women.
.

.
Except… let’s not forget that, at the behest of feminist and media brainwashing, we now claim that “all families are equal.”

But they aren’t.

When we talk of men and their families, we are talking about a man, a woman, and the children they might have together. When we talk of women and their families, however, we are talking about a single or divorced woman and the children she has. The man is non-existent in this paradigm.

But does that mean that man has truly ceased to exist?

Nope, what it means is that the man, whose job was taken by a woman, is now sleeping down by the river beneath a bridge.

You see, men take care of themselves, women and children. But women? They take care of only themselves and children, while leaving the man to fend for himself. Thus, if you wanted to benefit the most people in society with jobs, you would first give the work to men who then turn over their paychecks to their wives. This simply does not work the same way in reverse.

This Way to See the Great Egress!

“There is a great old story about PT Barnum. One of his shows was so successful that the crowds were becoming dangerous. People were so packed that there was a real danger of some of them getting trampled. So, he had his carnies open some of the gates and his barkers start shouting “This way to see the great EGRESS!” The herd surged through the gates and found out that “egress” means “exit.””
.

.
Feminism has done far more to liberate men than it has to liberate women, although most men don’t think it has at first glance.

All throughout history, men have had the curse of having to work. Society greatly enforced the “gender role” of men being the breadwinner who then passes on “the bread” to females. Up until the feminist revolution of the past fifty or so years, the only men who got away with being socially acceptable without tying themselves to the responsibilities of a job, a marriage, and supporting a wife and children, were eccentric rich men. For the rest, if you didn’t follow in the condoned path you were considered a social outcast. But remember, men only need to expend around 20-30% of their labour ability in order to survive – when yoked to a woman and children, the excess went to them, not to the man.

Women are as independent as a tropical fern in a greenhouse in Iceland. This goes all the way back to when we were living in caves. When the woman heard a rustling outside, she pushed her caveman out first, using him as a shield to check if it was a sabre tooth tiger. Once the area outside of the cave was secure, the woman took over the immediate area around the cave while she sent the man further out into the dangers of the wilderness to hunt mammoths and bring her back some meat for dinner. Once the male has made things safe and easy, the woman takes over and pushes the man away, insisting he move on and make more things safe and easy… and when he succeeds in doing it, she takes over that space too!

The same thing happens in the workplace. Work was never been “fun” for men. It has been oppressive and often downright dangerous. The 50 some odd men who gave their lives so that the Hoover Dam could provide electricity for women and make their lives much easier probably didn’t feel overwhelmed with their “patriarchal power.” But, as soon as men make a certain area of the workforce safe and pleasant, women immediately move in and claim they were “oppressed” by not having the opportunity to do such work throughout history. Today, women are not claiming they are being “oppressed” by not being represented in great numbers in the construction industry. But this kind of work is often dangerous and dirty, climbing around on roofs and scaffolding while pounding away with a hammer and being exposed to all sorts of inclement weather. However, once construction work becomes so computerized, safe and pleasant that one can build a house by sitting in an air-conditioned box, pushing buttons while gabbing mindlessly with one’s friends, women will claim they have been “oppressed” throughout history for being “denied” the opportunity to do such work, and they will force the men out so that they may exercise their girl power.

I say, “Let them!”

Sure, men still have to find some work to do in order to provide for themselves, but so long as they aren’t attached to women and children – which feminism has done everything possible to make happen – they really don’t need to work that hard. If you don’t get saddled down with debt for a useless degree, or a useless McMansion, or a useless wife who secretly hates your guts, but rather find something decent to do like being an electrician or a plumber, you could easily save up enough money by 35 or 40 to run off to Mexico or Thailand and live like a king, never having to be a wage slave again.

Women are demanding to have our curse because “They don’t need no Ma-yan!”

Let them take it!

Work sucks! A bad day of fishing is better than a good day at work! 

You Go, Grrrls! Men have better things to do! 
.

.
Previous Index Next

“If it’s not right, Go Your Own Way!”

………………..

..oooO………..

..(….)………..
….\..(…………
…. \_/………..

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

………………..

What’s Next? Cries of Sparta?

Um, actually… Yes!

Lol! I had a case of rant-itis the other day over at Dr. Helen’s, not that you care to read my ramblings… oh, wait… why are you here again?

Anyway, the gist of my argument was that academics are stooooopid, and it must be the biggest stimulus package of all time to have thrown away scores of knowledge about humans & the relations of the sexes that was known in the past, under the horrific charge of “misogynist,” only to now pay our modern-day slackademics big bucks to “rediscover it.”

Captain Chivalry showed up with his cape wrapped tightly around his eyes… as well as a professional victim-screecher, er, dissimulator… well, anyway, the link is up there. It was good fun.

Anyhow,

It seems the equality-seekers have found another university study revealing some shining light on knowledge “never before known.” I guess we can now talk about it, since the seekers of truth have sanctioned it with a real study! Yippee! It must be real now!

Study Shows Disparities in Criminal Sentencing

“The assessment of fees and fines also appears to be influenced by defendant characteristics: Hispanic defendants are assessed significantly higher fees and fines than white defendants, and male defendants are assessed significantly higher fees and fines than female defendants.” – The Assessment and Consequences of Legal Financial Obligations in Washington State

(dumb dee dumb dumb… moving along…)

“The report urges the state to overhaul the way Superior Court judges assess those penalties.”

Attorney Marc Angelucci writes that this study corroborates others that show, for example, ‘gender differences favoring women are more often found than race differences favoring whites.’ (Crime and Delinquency, 1989, v.35, pp.136-68)”

Ssh! Quiet! Can you hear it?

“Click…clunk…creeeeeeek.”

Yup. That’s the sound of yet another door to the Mysteries of the Universe being unlocked by our modern high priests, the Slackademics.

Yessirree! And the Dean of the Department of Useful Idiotology recommends the following actions:

Step One: Run to the government.
Step Two: Hold onto your crotch like a toddler needing to pee.
Step Three: In the whiniest voice possible, repeat the following phrase: “DOOOooooOOOoooOOOooo something! We’re not EEEEeeeEEEeeekwal!”

—

Of course, for a lot cheaper, they could have just read this kind of stuff:

Excerpts from The Politics of Aristotle: The Spartan Women

Again, the license of the Lacedaemonian women defeats the intention of the Spartan constitution, and is adverse to the happiness of the state… / …in those states in which the condition of the women is bad, half the city may be regarded as having no laws. And this is what has actually happened at Sparta; the legislator wanted to make the whole state hardy and temperate, and he has carried out his intention in the case of the men, but he has neglected the women, who live in every sort of intemperance and luxury… / …But, when Lycurgus, as tradition says, wanted to bring the women under his laws, they resisted, and he gave up the attempt.

Huh?

Whatchoo talkin’ about, Aristotle?

You mean to tell us that it’s near impossible to bring both sexes equally under the law?

I call BS! Has there been a peer-reviewed study done on this?

No?

Then shut up, you misogynist! Telling us clearly with your words that women belong in the kitchen! The nerve!

Obviously women never get into trouble with the law because they never sin! Don’t you believe in equality?

How else can you explain it?

—

(Dissimulation = A form of deception similar to pool hustling).

Excerpts from Schopenhauer’s Essay on Women

“… Nature has not destined them, as the weaker sex, to be dependent on strength, but on cunning; this is why they are instinctively crafty, and have an ineradicable tendency to lie. For as lions are furnished with claws and teeth, elephants with tusks, boars with fangs, bulls with horns, and cuttlefish with its dark inky fluid, so Nature has provided woman for her protection and defence with the faculty of dissimulation, and all the power which Nature has given to man in the form of bodily strength and reason has been conferred on woman in this form. Hence, dissimulation is innate in woman and almost as characteristic for the very stupid as the very clever.
 
Accordingly, it is as natural for women to dissemble at every opportunity as it is for those animals to turn to those weapons when attacked; and they feel that in doing so that in a certain measure they are only making use of their rights. Therefore a woman who is perfectly truthful and does not dissemble is perhaps an impossibility. This is why they see through dissimulation in others so easily; therefore it is not advisable to attempt it with them. From the fundamental defect that has been stated, and all that it involves, spring falseness, faithlessness, treachery, ungratefulness, and so on. In a court of justice women are more often found guilty of perjury than men. It is indeed to be generally questioned whether they should be allowed to take an oath at all…“

Holy crap, Arthur! You Neanderthal! How dare you say that women should be chained to the bed but the chain should be long enough to reach the kitchen?

What’s that? You say it should reach the bathroom too? Cause you ain’t cleanin’ no toilets?

What do you mean Darwinists ought to believe this too? You’re so full of it. One of the basic premises of Darwinism is that animals devolve into creatures that are less suited for tasks and defences… isn’t it?

—

Well, since I do believe that men and women are equal – but vastly different, and especially since I believe that we are equal in sin… let’s make sure that men don’t get let off the hook completely.

Here’s an excerpt of Otto Weininger’s preface from Sex and Character:

“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. 

I need not say that I am prepared for the answer women will have to the judgment I have passed on their sex. My investigation, indeed, turns against man in the end, and although in a deeper sense than the advocates of women’s rights could anticipate, assigns to man the heaviest and most real blame.”

Okay then, as long as it’s men that are being blamed and not women!

Mutter, mutter… you’re still a cretin… mutter.

The fact is that women have always been able to get away with being treated with kid gloves.

“Lizzie Borden took an axe, gave her mother forty whacks. When she saw what she had done, she gave her father forty-one.”

But, Lizzie Borden was not punished. Scores of people rushed to her defense and she was acquitted. There was no investigation afterwards.

When was the last time a woman was executed in the USA anyway? How many men have been executed since then? And they’re just figuring out that men and women aren’t treated equally before the law?

Why wasn’t Genene Jones fried? She was a mass baby killer. She’s getting out of jail in another 8 years. She should have swung from a rope, and then gotten fried. Better yet, she should have been hung from an electrified rope!

Belfort Bax, writing in1908’s The Legal Subjection of Men and in 1913’s The Fraud of Feminism wrote extensively of the phenomenon of women being treated more leniently than men by the courts… so much that, well, I just don’t even know where to begin. You can find examples of all sorts. From society demanding that innocent fathers also be charged when a woman alone commits infanticide… to 14 year old boys being charged for sex crimes when engaging in the deed with 16 year old girls who were the sexual aggressors… to demands that men who hire prostitutes ought to be charged equally as the prostitute herself…

Kinda makes you think that academics who claim to be “studying” this stuff while putting out their palms and asking to be paid for it… well… their integrity certainly ought to be scrutinized, or at the very least, the integrity of their “superior” degrees.

Of course, one could always just do a head count of how many men are imprisoned in the country and then do the same for women… of course, there are not equal numbers – mainly because women sin less. Isn’t that right Mr. & Ms. Equality, Ph D.? You could probably just google it.

Women have been performing the same types of crimes for a long, long, looooong time already as well.

Genesis 39 is the story about how Joseph was falsely accused of rape by Potiphar’s wife for malicious purposes.

Judges 4:21 describes the “Mary Winkler’s” of old – killing men in their sleep:

“But Jael, Heber’s wife, took a tent peg and seized a hammer in her hand, and went secretly to him and drove the peg into his temple, and it went through into the ground; for he was sound asleep and exhausted. So he died.”

There is nothing new under the sun – we have only wilfully thrown away all of the old knowledge about the sexes – and we did it all to make the ladies happy.

It’s time to stop listening to these charlatans and toss slackademia into the sea where it belongs. The Social Sciences in particular ought to get an extra ass-kicking.

It’s time to start telling people who demand a “peer-reviewed study” to “prove” something, to shove it up their ass. Is that where the Absolute Truth originates? From a panel of idiots giving another idiot the thumbs up?

Sure, there are some uses for slackademia. Toilet paper has some uses too.

But, it’s time to tell the Ph D’s and other slackademics to shut up and sit at the back of the bus – they’ve done more than enough damage already.

It’s not something that has spun out of control in women, but moreover, it’s that society has thrown away the previous knowledge of how the sexes worked and somehow, idiotically, now believes that men and women can be treated equally under the law.

It is impossible to treat men and women equally under the law.

That’s why society used to treat men and women differently. Men respond more to being controlled by the law, but women respond to socialization and shaming – to fashion, as it were.

The Marxists who were behind the Women’s Movement from the beginning knew this too. See what one of the most esteemed forerunners of Marxism thought of the subject?

“…Women may have happy ideas, taste and elegance, but they cannot attain to the ideal. The difference between men and women is like that between animals and plants. Men correspond to animals, while women correspond to plants because their development is more placid and the principle that underlies it is the rather vague unity of feeling. When women hold the helm of government, the state is at once in jeopardy, because women regulate their actions not by the demands of universality but by arbitrary inclinations and opinions. Women are educated – who knows how? – G.F. Hegel

In other words, women form their ideas and opinions from fashion and socialization, rather than by universal principles and logic.

While men are controlled by the law, women are controlled by socialization and shaming. And since women don’t much care what we men think, such socialized and shaming control must come from other women. And that’s usually how it was done – the older ladies clucked and shamed the younger ones, and shunned the women who behaved outrageously. (They do just the opposite today, and their socialization encourages bad behaviour).

This does not mean that women are only good for cooking and birthing babies… although, given our below replacement level birthrates, a few babies might not be a bad idea. And yes, a good meal once in a while would be nice too.

But no matter how much that is given to lobby groups to “change the law,” it still won’t matter.

There are fundamental differences in how we operate. Trying to control women by the same factors that are used to control men is completely fruitless. One might as well try to keep a flock of geese in a field by use of a cattle fence. It ain’t gonna work. Men and women must be treated differently.

Far more effective than funding lobby groups to bully the government to pass more laws would be for men to start brainstorming on how to motivate women to start “shaming the sense into eachother.”

As Karl Marx himself noted, women are society – they lead, since men are the sexual servants of the female. Too bad they lead by a sense of fashion and sisterhood, rather than by the logic of universality and the rule of law.

“Anyone who knows anything of history knows that great social changes are impossible without feminine upheaval. Social progress can be measured exactly by the social position of the fair sex, the ugly ones included.” – Karl Marx

(Keep in mind that Marx’s idea of “social progress” is the destruction of Western Civilization)

Aristotle explains this in the The Politics of Aristotle: The Spartan Women as well.

“But what difference does it make whether women rule, or the rulers are ruled by women? The result is the same.” – Aristotle

Don’t expect any help from the ladies though. For as Aristotle further points out:

“…the influence of the Lacedaemonion women has been most mischievous. The evil showed itself in the Theban invasion, when, unlike the women of other cities, they were utterly useless and caused more confusion than the enemy.” – Aristotle

Is this not what we see all around us as well? There are obvious things wrong, and every time a man tries to point out the obvious, the women all gather around him and throw every damn monkey wrench at him as possible. Making sense does not matter to the ladies… but throwing monkey wrenches at the men does matter.

That our children inherit a safe, stable and prosperous society is truly the utmost “best interests of the child” that there is… but, point out the factors that are destroying us… nope, here come the ladies and their senseless monkey wrenches.

They obviously feel that bitching at men and confusing everything what men say is the main purpose of their lives. Otherwise they would smarten the hell up and recognize that they are also part of society and thus, are also part of the problem – and the solution. They refuse to do that. The ladies love to dissimulate.

“SPARTA!” Fedrz cries.

The professional victim/dissimulator, that showed up to argue about senseless crap over at Dr. Helen’s is a good example of the type of “help” we can expect from the ladies as our civilization begins to crumble about us.

There was a reason why things were the way they were in the past.

No, women don’t necessarily need to be in the kitchen. Who ever said that, except for the monkey-wrench-throwing women themselves?

Women would obviously rather have 100% of nothing than 50% of something.

If society refuses to acknowledge these things about the way the sexes interact with eachother, then no amount of laws being changed, or studies being done, will ever help – not one single bit!

These academics “discovering” such things while accepting payment for it are discovering jack-shit. It has all already been discovered and socially censored into oblivion under the politically incorrect charge of “misogyny.”

“Why were things in the past so misogynist?” That is the question that our ill-esteemed academics ought to be studying. The blanket reason for “why” has been “the evil patriarchy,” when it is obvious all around us that the old guys were right, while the “new intellectuals” of slackademia are spineless idiots.

Remember the first reason God gave when he cursed Adam and kicked him out of Paradise:

Genesis 3:17

(17) To Adam he said, “Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘you must not eat of it,’ “Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life.”

Previous Index Next

“If it’s not right, Go Your Own Way!”

………………..

..oooO………..

..(….)………..
….\..(…………
…. \_/………..

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

………………..