It's been quite a while since my last post, and if anyone thinks I have disappeared, that's not exactly true. I'm still on NG's forum now and again, and I have been keeping watch and living life.
Rest assured, there will be times I will be around again. I'm pleased to see the amount of MGTOW-oriented blogs and videos that have proliferated across the Internet. Let me just say "cheers!" for now to anyone getting this. Perhaps when I do have more time, writing will be an outlet again. There's certain much to say, if anything else. SR
Saturday, June 4, 2016
Thursday, September 17, 2015
The MGTOW Manifesto, The Black Pill, and Unveiling the Truth
With all the apparent in-fighting in the manosphere and heated differences regarding MGTOW, there has to be something that clears things up.
One of the salient matters that several people fail to grasp (or don't want to) is that men have adapted and expounded upon MGTOW as a philosophy and a way of being, if you will. I was on Nice Guy's forum when much of the ideas were fleshed out and discussed, and occasionally with heated arguments. I was there online with Ragnar, Zed, arthur, alonso, JadedGuy, Teflon, Alpha, Mechanized, Kevin Biomech, and a host of others were in the fray for the first few years.
I find it funny how there are those who damn us as "hating women" since many of us dared to question and discuss the real meaning of gynocentric behavior. Perhaps this truly frightens and dismays the manosphere detractors (although they will not admit to such emotions), and that is part of the reason why we have seen anyone like Esmay and others lash out at us as hatemongers and cultish.
We are exposing these truths, and it is not always pretty or fits with their deluded sense of how the dynamic of the sexes really is in life.
Even on NG's site, sadly, much of the resistance of understanding gynocentric culture came from the posters who still had "Let's go back to the 1950s!" mindset, or the idea that feminism was a corrupting influence . . . rather than the fact that women latched on to feminism because of its benefits and using it to mask highly selfish and destructive motivations. Feminism is another outgrowth of gynocentric behavior, as an ideology institutionalized and media saturated norm.
One of several faults of the tradcon manosphere posters (currently) is that they are caught up into taking the manifesto literally. The subjects of the marriage strike, hypergamy, Briffault's law, hypoagency, as well as misandric factors in society such as the legal climate and negative social attitudes towards men were often issues back then as well as now. The manifesto was skeletal guide, and men are left with the choice to live their lives and adopt to their personal reality as they see fit.
Simply because the marriage strike was not mentioned does not negate the paramount importance of the topic, its place in MGTOW, or the effect on women and society. The manosphere that wants to condemn MGTOW or co-opt it is engaged in one or more of the following:
-They are in denial of the laws and social norms that are seriously damaging towards men.
-They do not understand the legalities and the way the system is rigged against them.
-They believe in their hubris that they can somehow "alpha" their way through it struggles they face in the current state of affairs.
-They do not think that what happens to other men will happen to them.
-They are having grave trouble with accepting the dark side of selfish female nature, and that countless women consider men as packmules or disposable. This includes them.
-They cannot accept that the push to get married places them more in the line fire than not getting married.
-They are demonizing men that have gone their own way without coming to terms with the gravity of the issues we are facing as men, and we are scapegoated because we have the audacity to speak the truth.
-They do not want to accept that gynocentricism is deeply embedded in Western culture, and both modern "traditionalism" and feminism are two major aspects of it.
With all that in mind, let's get back to TBP and more of what he has to say:
Essentially speaking, he is correct. I remember when Zed was actively posting on NG's site, and he remarked that men had an incredible amount of stubbornness even when concerning their own welfare. With all the in-fighting and vehemence involved, even, that's why men going their own way was coined---and attributed to Zed himself. He also mentioned that so many types of men's rights movements---to his dismay---would splinter and fracture. There had to be a better way of men being able to educate, empower, and save themselves. Hence, MGTOW was born from those proverbial waters, if you will.
Anyone still embracing the manosphere misunderstanding (or purposeful misguidance of MGTOW) needs to scan Zed's writings. I think a few are even too stupid to understand them if they read any prose at all (Matt Forney comes to mind, not surprisingly). But many will benefit from them if they are willing to have their eyes opened.
TBP continues here:
What MGTOW detractors don't either get (or bitterly resent) is that the acronym is way of codifying a mindset and behavior among men on paper, but there is more to it. It is about men resisting the control and unwarranted yoke of society hefted on them, and discovering their own value as men. It could any other label, but its usage is profound in a way. Throughout history, there have always been men fed up with the treatment they were receiving, and carved their own paths for their sake of their own self interest. This troubles society, feminists, and self-serving parasites, for it throws off the shackles of self-obligation (and the inherent hypocrisy and exploitation of men that comes with it).
Let's see what TBP caps things off with:
The insidious thing is that there are scam artists and deeply troubled individuals laying claim they are the real deal, but there is a curious side effect; their meltdowns and true colors are being exposed. Part of their spiel is clinging to the fundamental interpretation of the draft of the manifesto without realizing that was merely a spring board for the philosophy. Either that, or they are employing it for selfish ends and causing conflict with other men. MGTOW is also a rational reaction to how a misandric culture treats men, the imbalance of gynocentricism, and taking the reigns away from the female imperative to enable men gain personal power. It seems the recent critics are not terribly happy with that.
Those out to "own" MGTOW and control men have already been met with an iron boot of backlash. There exists more than one reason for this---there are men done with being controlled, done with being scammed, done with being exploited, and done with hacks and hollow gurus spewing horseshit for their own ego and gain.
The lamentable thing is that feminist and white knights must be having a grand time about all the all-fighting and pissing contests. Still, the jovial online banter from them wouldn't last long, and the reputation of those who want to twist MGTOW for their own nefarious purposes will fail (and probably will scapegoat others, of course, while they fall).
This is a shout out to The Black Pill and Zed/Zenpriest. Thank you for inciting me to light the inspirational fires again on my blog. SR
On his blog, The Black Pill states:
MGTOW happened because of the decisions of many men concerning the nature of women. They made those decisions not because of a document but because they rationally assessed the situation with women. Even the authors of the so called MGTOW manifesto knew this.
One of the salient matters that several people fail to grasp (or don't want to) is that men have adapted and expounded upon MGTOW as a philosophy and a way of being, if you will. I was on Nice Guy's forum when much of the ideas were fleshed out and discussed, and occasionally with heated arguments. I was there online with Ragnar, Zed, arthur, alonso, JadedGuy, Teflon, Alpha, Mechanized, Kevin Biomech, and a host of others were in the fray for the first few years.
I find it funny how there are those who damn us as "hating women" since many of us dared to question and discuss the real meaning of gynocentric behavior. Perhaps this truly frightens and dismays the manosphere detractors (although they will not admit to such emotions), and that is part of the reason why we have seen anyone like Esmay and others lash out at us as hatemongers and cultish.
We are exposing these truths, and it is not always pretty or fits with their deluded sense of how the dynamic of the sexes really is in life.
Even on NG's site, sadly, much of the resistance of understanding gynocentric culture came from the posters who still had "Let's go back to the 1950s!" mindset, or the idea that feminism was a corrupting influence . . . rather than the fact that women latched on to feminism because of its benefits and using it to mask highly selfish and destructive motivations. Feminism is another outgrowth of gynocentric behavior, as an ideology institutionalized and media saturated norm.
One of several faults of the tradcon manosphere posters (currently) is that they are caught up into taking the manifesto literally. The subjects of the marriage strike, hypergamy, Briffault's law, hypoagency, as well as misandric factors in society such as the legal climate and negative social attitudes towards men were often issues back then as well as now. The manifesto was skeletal guide, and men are left with the choice to live their lives and adopt to their personal reality as they see fit.
Simply because the marriage strike was not mentioned does not negate the paramount importance of the topic, its place in MGTOW, or the effect on women and society. The manosphere that wants to condemn MGTOW or co-opt it is engaged in one or more of the following:
-They are in denial of the laws and social norms that are seriously damaging towards men.
-They do not understand the legalities and the way the system is rigged against them.
-They believe in their hubris that they can somehow "alpha" their way through it struggles they face in the current state of affairs.
-They do not think that what happens to other men will happen to them.
-They are having grave trouble with accepting the dark side of selfish female nature, and that countless women consider men as packmules or disposable. This includes them.
-They cannot accept that the push to get married places them more in the line fire than not getting married.
-They are demonizing men that have gone their own way without coming to terms with the gravity of the issues we are facing as men, and we are scapegoated because we have the audacity to speak the truth.
-They do not want to accept that gynocentricism is deeply embedded in Western culture, and both modern "traditionalism" and feminism are two major aspects of it.
With all that in mind, let's get back to TBP and more of what he has to say:
They came up with the phrase “men going their own way” because they noticed one reason the MRM which was not working was because “men kept going their own way”.
Essentially speaking, he is correct. I remember when Zed was actively posting on NG's site, and he remarked that men had an incredible amount of stubbornness even when concerning their own welfare. With all the in-fighting and vehemence involved, even, that's why men going their own way was coined---and attributed to Zed himself. He also mentioned that so many types of men's rights movements---to his dismay---would splinter and fracture. There had to be a better way of men being able to educate, empower, and save themselves. Hence, MGTOW was born from those proverbial waters, if you will.
Anyone still embracing the manosphere misunderstanding (or purposeful misguidance of MGTOW) needs to scan Zed's writings. I think a few are even too stupid to understand them if they read any prose at all (Matt Forney comes to mind, not surprisingly). But many will benefit from them if they are willing to have their eyes opened.
TBP continues here:
The authors of the so called MGTOW Manifesto invented nothing. They only observed a phenomena among men (which if you include monasticism has been going on for centuries), gave it a name, and then tried to use that name to control it.
What MGTOW detractors don't either get (or bitterly resent) is that the acronym is way of codifying a mindset and behavior among men on paper, but there is more to it. It is about men resisting the control and unwarranted yoke of society hefted on them, and discovering their own value as men. It could any other label, but its usage is profound in a way. Throughout history, there have always been men fed up with the treatment they were receiving, and carved their own paths for their sake of their own self interest. This troubles society, feminists, and self-serving parasites, for it throws off the shackles of self-obligation (and the inherent hypocrisy and exploitation of men that comes with it).
Let's see what TBP caps things off with:
They failed at trying to control MGTOW, but since their document exists enemies of MGTOW can use to pull the “I’m not really against MGTOW because the MGTOW Manifesto” scam. Regardless, even the authors of the so called MGTOW Manifesto knew that it had nothing to do with actual MGTOW.
The insidious thing is that there are scam artists and deeply troubled individuals laying claim they are the real deal, but there is a curious side effect; their meltdowns and true colors are being exposed. Part of their spiel is clinging to the fundamental interpretation of the draft of the manifesto without realizing that was merely a spring board for the philosophy. Either that, or they are employing it for selfish ends and causing conflict with other men. MGTOW is also a rational reaction to how a misandric culture treats men, the imbalance of gynocentricism, and taking the reigns away from the female imperative to enable men gain personal power. It seems the recent critics are not terribly happy with that.
Those out to "own" MGTOW and control men have already been met with an iron boot of backlash. There exists more than one reason for this---there are men done with being controlled, done with being scammed, done with being exploited, and done with hacks and hollow gurus spewing horseshit for their own ego and gain.
The lamentable thing is that feminist and white knights must be having a grand time about all the all-fighting and pissing contests. Still, the jovial online banter from them wouldn't last long, and the reputation of those who want to twist MGTOW for their own nefarious purposes will fail (and probably will scapegoat others, of course, while they fall).
This is a shout out to The Black Pill and Zed/Zenpriest. Thank you for inciting me to light the inspirational fires again on my blog. SR
Tuesday, August 25, 2015
Howling Mockery At (Certain) Portions of The Manosphere: Exposing the Truth
There were dust ups that I generally didn't get involved with too much when they occurred. I did say a basic piece on why I think the detractors of MGTOW were clearly wrong. But I'm back to break things down again to get to the crux of the matter, and state why they are full of crap.
Does this sound like the shift to pre-1960s ways of dealing with women and family? No.
And yet certain cocksuckers in the manosphere want men to go back to risk everything they have done for themselves and adapting in a misandric culture to throw themselves back into the dangerous maelstorm itself. Unreal.
Note many will point out that MGTOW is a part of the manosphere in a general sense. I will not split hairs on this issue, but I will be speaking about the alleged "critics" that seem to think it's not a path for men to travel on. I will discuss those who act as if MGTOW is a cult, a haven for loserdom, or men not living life.
They are wrong. As usual.
-The most salient point a reader must understand about the barbs thrown at us men is thus: they are rife with hypocrisy from the accuser. It's demonstrative on more than one level, which I will explain further.
-The other is that there are forces in the manosphere that want to make a quick buck online, and since men are often suspicious of anyone that will exploit them, PUA snail oil brewers and would be gurus are showing their true colors. Even more so, those same hacks piss on anyone who doesn't fall for their bullshit. As con artists, they are not very good. However, they seem to have amassed a following. It's unfortunate because they will be punished by their own ignorance for siding with the peddlers of bad advice and false hero worship.
-Speaking of that hypocrisy I mentioned, much of the griping I've seen stems from projection. Projecting their own failures with obtaining affection with women. The surprising disregard for their own health and well being, including addiction and weight problems. Several of the men that have come for to make a name for themselves look virtually nothing like the next Chris Hemsworth or Tatum Channing, much less have charisma. Several MGTOW have been slammed as neckbeards, and when you see the finger pointers, they have fragile ground to stand on.
Does anyone actually believe someone like Matt Forney can pull in a Jessica Biel look-a-like with his own charms? I would ask you what type of herb you were smoking . . .
Does anyone actually believe someone like Matt Forney can pull in a Jessica Biel look-a-like with his own charms? I would ask you what type of herb you were smoking . . .
--The grandiose sense of self-importance and self-promotion, rather than focusing on the message and application as paramount. I realize there are key figures in men's issues and it's actually a good thing that more voices are speaking up, and recognizable ones as well. It gives a feel of a network of sorts and a personal spin and face on things. However, there are others that want lap dogs to bow down to their arrogant personas while they bestow nothing of real value to men. They are ones to avoid, and they will prey on the gullible all the while extolling how "manly" and "alpha" they are. Which if they have constantly remind everyone of that label, then they are not.
-Dissing incels I wanted to do a blog post alone on the subject, but I will say this for now----the jeer of "You can't get laid, ha ha" is by origin a feminized one. Women in our culture have imbalanced power over men through the state and institutions, but it is gradually eroding through many factors (including men waking up and a shoddy economy). Since women's sexuality has been the biggest attribute they have over men---young men particular---the idea that shaming men in this fashion of the you can't get laid has its root source with women. Many men are countering with not marrying or denying women relationships and affection back, or using them for just that---sex. Whether they are "incels" or not, taking back one's personal power is vital to any MGTOW.
When men in the manosphere slam others for not getting regular sex do this, they are stooping to gutter-level Ameriskank tactics. Period. (And by the way, this is coming from someone who was considered a womanizer in a proverbial past life, if you will).
-Gravitating towards a more traditional approach and praising the nuclear family versus the PUA lifestyle. The mansophere "gurus" need to make up their minds on this . . . will you continue to reward skanks with libertine behavior or socially shame them while rewarding loyalty from women? Several people will claim that "gaming" women can lead to a monogamous and healthy relationship. I doubt this is a serious component for long term relationships.
-Wanting to lead men back to the plantation. Several of the ex-PUA gurus and commentators in the manosphere are proffering ideas about getting back to the antiquated notion of their idea about traditionalism. This advice is absolutely insidious, and must be fought with at all costs. Including those who masquerade as "conservative" in nature but are wolves in sheeps' clothing. The pricks involved must think their women-taming tactics will save them from false accusations or having their life ruined. It won't. They are deluded, or they are deliberately leading other men astray. Paul Elam has been one of several, and that's why AVfM has lost trust with so many men after that debacle. There exist people who label themselves as MRAs who have zero interest in helping men whatsoever, but would see them get trampled in the process.
Here's what Zed had to say about going back to uh . . . traditionalism:
Men now must completely destroy marriage. It is too corrupt and too fouled to fix. It is a derelict building which MUST be torn down so that something useful can be built in its place.
Does this sound like the shift to pre-1960s ways of dealing with women and family? No.
And yet certain cocksuckers in the manosphere want men to go back to risk everything they have done for themselves and adapting in a misandric culture to throw themselves back into the dangerous maelstorm itself. Unreal.
MGTOW offers something more---we are waking up to our own individuality, our own worth, our value as men. It's puzzling that we are dubbed as being just as bad as the feminists, considering that those same lousy detractors engage in similar behavior as those said feminists. If women couldn't bring us completely back the fold, they will not, either.
Friday, March 27, 2015
Chivalry Sucks (Yes, it does)
I have a friend that truly believes being a chivalrous man will give him the upper hand.
I'm going to school him one evening and tell him that that's essentially bullshit.
I honestly think he doesn't want to come to terms with how it is for men, the dating scene, and with modern women. He still believes in soul mates and there is an exception out there for him. I'm sure he could stumble on a mythic NAWALT, but chances for him are slim.
He's truly a good hearted man, and good hearted men get trampled in the maelstrom.
The salient reason why they get trampled is that they still want to desperately buy into the fantasy of the golden angel that is their soul mate. Ultimately, when a man enacts chivalry, he is rife for his own servitude. There are women that are more than happy to be the cynosure of that, and coupled with a boundless sense of entitlement of selfishness, exploit men. Financially especially.
I also found it's exceedingly rare to find a composed woman that doesn't want to throw down once in a while. US women seem to have a fine habit about creating chaos when being reasonable to allay conflict would be more rational. I'm speaking largely of emotional abuse (although this can be physical abuse as well; there is overwhelming evidence that women are often the antagonists in DV, but right now I'll stick to the manipulation here).
I did have a relationship with quite a sexy older woman years ago who never did this; we barely got into a heated debate about things we disagreed with, and it was mild. There exist honorable exceptions, but they are not the majority.
And if you protest and demand equal treatment in a relationship, you are "complicated" as a man and moody. If you draw a line in the sand and put your foot down, you're an asshole.
But if you concede all the time, you're a pussy.
It's not easy to "win" with Ameriskanks.
Chivalrous men fail to realize they will constantly be trying to placate a woman who will be happy being unhappy. No relationship is perfect. But incessantly catering someone with a narcissistic complex---coupled with an "you must entertain me or else" injunction---is a tainted relationship from the start. Chivalrous men feel ego gratification from making a woman happy; and if momma ain't never truly happy, well, you know that will be an endless battle to make her content. And she never really will be.
The mainstream still does not truly acknowledge men are largely the romantic sex. The unfortunate thing is that it can (and will) be used against chivalrous men, and there are women who think nothing of doing that. Including dragging a proverbially broad-sided man through divorce court while sleeping with someone else.
I asked my friend what a woman would do in turn for all the genteel acts he would perform for her. He never answered online, but once we do meet up at a lounge we occasionally frequent, I'll let him know not only how one sided his approach is, but how it's possibly fraught with pitfalls and peril.
I doubt if it will sink in until he's ran the gauntlet enough times.
Personally, I rather go my own way than deal with all the heartache.
I'm going to school him one evening and tell him that that's essentially bullshit.
I honestly think he doesn't want to come to terms with how it is for men, the dating scene, and with modern women. He still believes in soul mates and there is an exception out there for him. I'm sure he could stumble on a mythic NAWALT, but chances for him are slim.
He's truly a good hearted man, and good hearted men get trampled in the maelstrom.
The salient reason why they get trampled is that they still want to desperately buy into the fantasy of the golden angel that is their soul mate. Ultimately, when a man enacts chivalry, he is rife for his own servitude. There are women that are more than happy to be the cynosure of that, and coupled with a boundless sense of entitlement of selfishness, exploit men. Financially especially.
I also found it's exceedingly rare to find a composed woman that doesn't want to throw down once in a while. US women seem to have a fine habit about creating chaos when being reasonable to allay conflict would be more rational. I'm speaking largely of emotional abuse (although this can be physical abuse as well; there is overwhelming evidence that women are often the antagonists in DV, but right now I'll stick to the manipulation here).
I did have a relationship with quite a sexy older woman years ago who never did this; we barely got into a heated debate about things we disagreed with, and it was mild. There exist honorable exceptions, but they are not the majority.
And if you protest and demand equal treatment in a relationship, you are "complicated" as a man and moody. If you draw a line in the sand and put your foot down, you're an asshole.
But if you concede all the time, you're a pussy.
It's not easy to "win" with Ameriskanks.
Chivalrous men fail to realize they will constantly be trying to placate a woman who will be happy being unhappy. No relationship is perfect. But incessantly catering someone with a narcissistic complex---coupled with an "you must entertain me or else" injunction---is a tainted relationship from the start. Chivalrous men feel ego gratification from making a woman happy; and if momma ain't never truly happy, well, you know that will be an endless battle to make her content. And she never really will be.
The mainstream still does not truly acknowledge men are largely the romantic sex. The unfortunate thing is that it can (and will) be used against chivalrous men, and there are women who think nothing of doing that. Including dragging a proverbially broad-sided man through divorce court while sleeping with someone else.
I asked my friend what a woman would do in turn for all the genteel acts he would perform for her. He never answered online, but once we do meet up at a lounge we occasionally frequent, I'll let him know not only how one sided his approach is, but how it's possibly fraught with pitfalls and peril.
I doubt if it will sink in until he's ran the gauntlet enough times.
Personally, I rather go my own way than deal with all the heartache.
Monday, March 23, 2015
Neo Unplugged on "Is MGTOW Feminism for Dudes?" and his response . . .
There's been one pretty lame sentiment going around for some time: that MGTOW is the inverse equivalent of feminism for men. I've been saying this (quite a while), that anyone making the charge that MGTOW is another form of feminism---just the sexes reversed---has either no idea what they are talking about, or in serious denial. Neo Unplugged takes that same train of thought to task in his current videos found here:
Friday, March 20, 2015
A Post on the schism between MRAs and MGTOWs
Obviously, this is not directed specifically toward those who are for men's rights and are not trying to actively take MGTOWers to task. For those who wish to keep the peace, I legitimately thank you.
However, there are others who either believe that MGTOW has toxic elements and men within, or they are acting as if there is among us. It is interesting of note that these same control-mongers adamantly refuse to see their own hypocrisy. They are so enamored with their own arrogance that there is barely any room for anything but their own idea what men should be doing.
Part my own grievance is because of this; they simply refuse leave things alone. They were the ones drawing out the proverbial gunfire, and then calling us losers and assholes for hitting back. There are those (such as the AVfM) that have had critics for a few years now, but it is clear that they if they had been some sort of friends in spirit towards others, it has been become antithetical towards what men are often seeking, and that is self-interest and preservation.
This is not a good situation.
I would even gather people like Paul Elam and their ilk have generated a cult of personality about themselves, and despite being supposedly tough, will invariably take any return fire from MGTOWers as "bitterness" even though it is clear they have their own moody turns and refuse to see why they are getting flak against them.
I wonder what happened with all the apparent attempts to dismantle feminist influence from society. I guess attacking what they perceive as low status men is more important.
The trouble is we didn't need them in the beginning, and we won't put up with them now.
Clearly, they have done jack fucking shit in the amalgam. They are not helping men as a rule. There are have been a few personal victories for men here and there, but overall, societal changes have not occurred. Many of us have seen how deep the gynocentrism is rooted and how corrupt the system has become, and we've decided to live on our own terms rather than engage with petty bickering online with feminists and their cronies.
The fact that certain self-labeled MRAs are damning other men with unearned shame and guilt is very telling; they want control over other men and browbeat those same men in silenced submission for pretend sins and transgressions. They want to profit from men's suffering and toil. It's revolting. The audacity is maddening . . . it's no longer surprising, but it's still outrageous. And the idea is no different from the feminists and white knights have done, and those were the ones they slammed in past.
Guess what. The feminists are having a joke at their expense; all the in-fighting gives them a sense of smug, righteous glee. That's what really has been accomplished.
That's sad, but that's the way it is right now.
One hallmarks of feminists also is condemning otherwise good men as suspect, and eventually making enemies of them when they were originally not. There are people claiming to be MRAs that are doing exactly the same thing. We do not need more of this.
And as I've said, anti-MGTOW detractors have gall to equate us with feminists . . . when we simply wanted to opt out and do our own thing. If refusing to be their lap dogs, praising them, and kissing their asses dubs men as "misogynists," so be it. Would they assist us in our trials and tribulations? The answer to that is an emphatic no.
We've already determined to go it alone successfully; to hell with their "help" if it doesn't enrich or contribute to our lives.
However, there are others who either believe that MGTOW has toxic elements and men within, or they are acting as if there is among us. It is interesting of note that these same control-mongers adamantly refuse to see their own hypocrisy. They are so enamored with their own arrogance that there is barely any room for anything but their own idea what men should be doing.
Part my own grievance is because of this; they simply refuse leave things alone. They were the ones drawing out the proverbial gunfire, and then calling us losers and assholes for hitting back. There are those (such as the AVfM) that have had critics for a few years now, but it is clear that they if they had been some sort of friends in spirit towards others, it has been become antithetical towards what men are often seeking, and that is self-interest and preservation.
This is not a good situation.
I would even gather people like Paul Elam and their ilk have generated a cult of personality about themselves, and despite being supposedly tough, will invariably take any return fire from MGTOWers as "bitterness" even though it is clear they have their own moody turns and refuse to see why they are getting flak against them.
I wonder what happened with all the apparent attempts to dismantle feminist influence from society. I guess attacking what they perceive as low status men is more important.
The trouble is we didn't need them in the beginning, and we won't put up with them now.
Clearly, they have done jack fucking shit in the amalgam. They are not helping men as a rule. There are have been a few personal victories for men here and there, but overall, societal changes have not occurred. Many of us have seen how deep the gynocentrism is rooted and how corrupt the system has become, and we've decided to live on our own terms rather than engage with petty bickering online with feminists and their cronies.
The fact that certain self-labeled MRAs are damning other men with unearned shame and guilt is very telling; they want control over other men and browbeat those same men in silenced submission for pretend sins and transgressions. They want to profit from men's suffering and toil. It's revolting. The audacity is maddening . . . it's no longer surprising, but it's still outrageous. And the idea is no different from the feminists and white knights have done, and those were the ones they slammed in past.
Guess what. The feminists are having a joke at their expense; all the in-fighting gives them a sense of smug, righteous glee. That's what really has been accomplished.
That's sad, but that's the way it is right now.
One hallmarks of feminists also is condemning otherwise good men as suspect, and eventually making enemies of them when they were originally not. There are people claiming to be MRAs that are doing exactly the same thing. We do not need more of this.
And as I've said, anti-MGTOW detractors have gall to equate us with feminists . . . when we simply wanted to opt out and do our own thing. If refusing to be their lap dogs, praising them, and kissing their asses dubs men as "misogynists," so be it. Would they assist us in our trials and tribulations? The answer to that is an emphatic no.
We've already determined to go it alone successfully; to hell with their "help" if it doesn't enrich or contribute to our lives.
Sunday, March 15, 2015
MGTOW Rising . . .
Be careful how you fight evil . . . your weapons can be turned against you.
---(Slightly rephrased quote from a dark film . . . )
It's been a while since I've spoke up. It's certainly about time.
Much has been said about the rifts occurring with certain MRAs and MGTOWs; there are people who know what the fundamental problems here, but I think a further examination is worth not just repeating, but getting to the crux of the matter.
There are several people trying to demonize and control those who simply refuse to come back to the plantation. The have much to gain from doing this in the short term, including even money making schemes, ego-boosts, looking like the good guy, and even procuring a following.
Of course, procuring a following with us men that have broken away quite a bit is pretty tough; even though MGTOW has struck a chord with us, we tend to be fairly---if not highly---individualistic. For the so-called appointed leaders in particular MRA and manosphere circles, it is challenge they don't seem to understand. Several are not very convincing with trying to lure men under their own influence, often resorting to the same tired shaming language and unwarranted accusations that both white knight neotrads and feminists employ in order to ensnare men.
It is obviously doomed to fail. We have already done much to purge our own lives of such manipulative tactics and social toxicity. The problem is that the same would-be designated "alpha" buffoons are seriously shooting themselves in the feet.
There are have been forces in society, institutions that have lied to us and tried to loot us, and women that have betrayed us on a fundamental level---all the while demanding that we "man up" even when celebrating how they have screwed us over at our expense. They are incessant and malevolent . . . and acted as if it was all our fault. We are no longer interested in getting used and abused anymore, and will remember those who crossed us. Do you honestly think an Elam or a Fidelbogen will garner any allegiance while dumping on MGTOW as "misogynists" as they desperately try to promote themselves? No.
The insidious irony is that they have become so much like the antagonists they deplored at length.
And they have the balls to call us just like feminists.
But it gets even worse.
I think a few of them know how difficult is it for men in a clearly misandric culture. It has effected most men on almost every level. Much as been written about the legal system, societal malaise, the demonization of masculinity and male sexuality (including us white heterosexual men), the family courts, and other weighty topics---I won't go in depth here for the moment because it quite vast, but I will say this . . . I am absolutely DISGUSTED at both the men and women who KNOW what men are going through in this era and their pain and struggles, and still want to alienate men, profit from them, claim to help but actually exploit them, and all the while damning us as embittered misogynists.
The same tired name calling is leveled at men with the Social Justice Warriors with #gamergate and #metalgate.
Sound familiar?
You will lose us just like the feminists and the "traditionalists" (i.e. the selfish, lazy women) have. Instead of strengthening your ranks and persuading men to help in their camps, you turning your proverbial weapons on the very men you should be providing the tools to enrich and develop. Those lapdogs, front men, and scapegoats you seek will not be there for you.
We truly are done.
With the current rash of doxxing and unfounded slags against men, they are showing their true colors. They are also discovering that those men are not the dunderhead losers they believed, but men who had carved their own paths out for themselves and continue to do so.
It doesn't matter if a self-proclaimed MRA like Paul Elam, a fraud like Anita Sarkeesian, the Jessica Valenti feminists of the world, or even the religious hacks like Mark Discroll continue to bite the hands that feed. We will refuse to support them for their misandry and we will expose them for who they are. They have the audacity to condemn men while possessing zero bravery to critique Ameriskank behavior whatsoever, a myopic strategy that will backfire. We are not lambs to the slaughter, but lone wolves discovering our own worth and personal power.
We want to be the masters of our own destiny, and take the steps to secure that truth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
