Sunday, February 23, 2014
Sunday, February 2, 2014
One can observe the naive male teenager who, upon falling in love with the first woman to ever
pay attention to him, is something akin to a functional schizophrenic; walking around in a complete and
utter haze, voluntarily ignoring whatever red flags this women blatantly plants in front of his face. He'll turn his back on friends – his family – just to maintain this vision of perfection he has projected upon her.
What most men are deprived of in our society, if they wish to seek it out, is the chance to have sex with multiple novel partners until this pussy novelty wears off. One of the things that cannot be emphasized enough to men, especially younger men, is that once you've had enough pussy, you will inevitably come to see it as the overrated commodity that it is.
Before I go on, I want to point out two phenomena.
The first is shown in a study at the University of Pisa observing the serotonin levels of couples claiming to be in love with their significant others (Marazziti 1999). The team found impaired functionality of serotonin transporter levels in the blood, as well as an overall decrease of serotonin resembling that of a person suffering from obsessive compulsive disorder. Unsurprisingly, follow-up tests a year after showed the serotonin levels and hormone fluctuations had returned to normal.
The second is the Coolidge Effect.
In experiments with rats it has been observed that after vigorous copulation with a new partner, male rats soon completely ignore this partner, but when a new female is introduced, they immediately are revitalized – at least, enough to become sexually active once more. This can be repeated again and again until the male rat is completely exhausted.
This phenomenon has been called the “Coolidge Effect”, in reference to a story of the American president and his wife. During a visit to a farm, his wife had been shown a rooster who would copulate with his hens all day long, day after day. She liked that idea; she asked the farmer to let the president know about this. After hearing it, President Coolidge thought for a moment and asked: ”Does he do that with the same hen?” “No, Sir”, answered the farmer. “Please tell that to Mrs. Coolidge”, said the president.
Not only has the Coolidge effect been observed in all tested male mammals, but also in females. Female rodents for instance flirt more and present themselves more attractively when observed by new males than in the presence of males with whom they have already had sex.
It’s findings like this that helps us understand a few things with a bit more clarity.
First, given the Coolidge effect, it very well may be possible that female human beings may be better suited for serial stints of monogamy spanning a decade or so before they move on to their next possible mate. In the case of the male human, we may very well be designed to have multiple female sexual partners instead of a lifelong monogamous relationship with just one woman.
Perhaps the only limiting factor for both genders curbing this behavior was the fact that sex led to pregnancy. Perhaps this post birth control era will herald the collapse of the lifelong human pair bond as we know it. I hypothesize that the only thing holding men back from sexual access to as many females as possible are the risks of having too many children and the social stigmas attached to unapologetic male sexuality – as well as the desire for male mother need I've often discussed.
The problem of excess reproduction can be remedied with male birth control while men including myself prove the social stigmas surrounding an uncompromisingly selfish form of male sexuality rivaling that of our female counterparts can exist and persist despite the catalogue of shaming that society reserves for the sexually selfish male.
The only thing holding us back really from our very own sexual liberation fifty years after women demanded theirs is this mother need; the desire to quench our unceasing loneliness as men with a mother figure; a figure that only wants to take care of us because she sees just how special we are.
Prostitution, being completely legal in some countries, has made no difference in abating this male mother need. Men continue to marry; they continue to engage in their relationships; for the most part, nothing has changed. Prostitution, even destigmatized, won't be enough for men to admit to themselves that modern relationships – marriage in particular – are increasingly nothing but social and legal contracts of unbalanced servitude towards entitled, ingrate women; women that know they have the power of the state functioning as the third member of the relationship.
Nevertheless, peripheral factors including prostitution or lack thereof act to potentiate the effects of this male mother need. I suspect that enough inhibition of this potentiation, wherever it may appear, can eventually have an effect. The agents of potentiation as I’ve identified them are as follows.
First we have the fact that the western world, since the advent of mass media, subjects boys to a constant state of sexual arousal using female sexuality. Every where you look there's female sexuality being shoved down the throats of boys and the men they eventually become, but prostitution remains illegal. Why would a society so obsessed with sex ban prostitution?
It's because society is set up to keep men and boys in a constant marathon of a never ending pursuit of sexual satiation. This drives western civilization as we know it. This dynamic doesn't have its genesis in any conspiracy theory; this happened naturally as advertising agencies and governments and women figured out that men could be kept in a constant state of production by making sexual imagery as ubiquitous as possible while making the actual sex as scarce as possible.
So men essentially aren't capable of assessing this mother need rationally; instead they perceive this mother need under the haze of this pussy obsession we see across society.
Show me a beautiful woman with the world stuck to her, and I’ll show you a man who’s tired of fucking her. The Coolidge effect describes to us the age old truism that any man with sufficient experience with women knows all too well; that is that the best pussy is new pussy. And so whenever your average frustrated chump (as the PUAs like to say) witnesses how a man who can't seem to throw women far enough treats women like tools for his own sexual gratification and gets laid doing it for it, these poor guys stare in amazement and say to themselves, man I'd give an arm and a leg for just one of these girls, I'd treat her special why don't they want me blah blah blah.
What's the difference between them? The guy who’s getting attention from all of these women knows something about them that their would-be suitors don't. He knows that for the most part the vast majority of women he comes across are some of the most plain, uninteresting mental invalids the human species has ever produced. Women that take most offense to this are often some version of what I've just described. They’re pissed off that a man dares to say it out loud.
The difference between the two men, is a simple matter of the scale of observation.
One observes a siren, singing her rhapsodies from a far away ship, and with her song clouding all judgement he's ready to throw himself into the sea; he observes from afar and sees nothing but shining gold.
The other man has come years before him. He tossed himself off the ship and actually made it to the island. He’s heard the sirens’ song for so long that where before he heard a million different songs, now he hears only one. Or, he asks himself, was I hearing the same song all along? This man stares into a loop lens. He sees pyrite; fool’s gold. Fool’s gold everywhere.
One of my favorite parts in the book Nineteen Eighty-Four was what Winston said to Julia after meeting up with her for the first time in direct rebellion to the party. He was watching Julia undress herself for their first secret sexual rendezvous. The narrator described the way Julia removed her clothes:
She stood looking at him for an instant, then felt at the zipper of her overalls. And, yes! it was almost as in his dream. Almost as swiftly as he had imagined it, she had torn her clothes off, and when she flung them aside it was with that same magnificent gesture by which a whole civilization seemed to be annihilated.
Winston then asked Julia if she had done this before with other male members of the party. She told him that she'd done it dozens, maybe even hundreds of times. And what Winston replied was amazing to me. The exact quote of the book is as follows:
He pulled her down so that they were kneeling face to face.
“Listen. The more men you've had, the more I love you. Do you understand
“I hate purity, I hate goodness! I don't want any virtue to exist anywhere. I want everyone to be corrupt to the bones.”
“Well then, I ought to suit you, dear. I'm corrupt to the bones.”
“You like doing this? I don't mean simply me: I mean the thing in itself?”
“I adore it.”
That was above all what he wanted to hear not merely the love of one person, but the animal instinct, the simple undifferentiated desire: that was the force that would tear the party to pieces.
What I took away from this quote was so much more than an expression of an animal instinct. I think this dialogue represented much more to Orwell than what he let on for the reader. You see, Winston blatantly stated himself in the book numerous times that he was an admitted misogynist. Se said he hated most women, and even that he hated Julia, until Julia slipped him that singular phrase in the note she handed him. Which read simply; “I love you”.
Now in my opinion, Julia did not actually love Winston, and Winston did not actually love her. What the note she slipped him really should have said was, “I know that you exist; you're a human being and I see you.” What Winston and Julia really fell in love with was the affirmation of each others’ humanity in a totalitarian state where deviating from both male and female gender roles was punishable by torture and execution. Within that environment, this simple gesture – two human beings sneaking off for an illicit affair – represented an act of revolution; an act of militant action; an act of pure selfishness that threatened to collapse the whole damn rotten system.
Why do you think Orwell said Winston hates goodness and purity – that the more men she slept with the better? It wasn't because he hated good things, and he didn't truly hate women. What he hated was the hypocrisy of the way civilization at large described what was good and wholesom. What he hated was the mostly female swallowers of slogans, the disgusting anti-sex league and work-sleep-reproduce-consume-die.
How does this apply to MGTOW?
I ask you, how many women you've dealt with as a man actually see you as a human being? Not a man existing to do things for women, but a human being?
How many women have said to you, in whatever particular expression it may take, some version of “I know that you exist; you're a human being and I see you.”
This of course transcends romantic relationships altogether. Who are the people in your life who you'll remember for the rest of your life, even years after you've stopped talking to them? They are your friends that think most like you; the ones with whom you can get together, even if it’s been years, and share your unique experiences, and laugh at just how similar your interpretations of them are, and for that fleeting period of time you don't feel so alone. That’s what's important to me and I think all men at least who've had the opportunity to really look at women as the overinflated commodity they voluntarily make themselves out to be.
Men are plagued by this feeling of isolation coming from the fact that we know we're alone. Society doesn't bend over backwards to hide the fact that men are alone so that men feel better about themselves and so we place value on things like human connection, intellectual discourse and discovery, et cetera.
Any intelligent alien observer looking at the technological progression of our species will of course notice that the vast majority of technological discovery came from men, and also that throughout our history a technological obsession we've had is to quench this aloneness we feel by communicating knowledge with other men.
This has been the case from our very first cave paintings to the present day where men have created mass media and instant worldwide communication. Yet even this is not enough to quench our loneliness. We look out into the cosmos with satellite arrays built with the singular intention of answering the question; are we alone?
Our problem as men is in how we approach our need to satiate this loneliness with women. That is, we seek to project our appreciation of these lapses in isolation onto the female when the human female appreciates no such thing. We build this elaborate fantasy in our heads, the me and my girl against the world mentality, and we mistakenly believe it because this female satiates our loneliness; we project this value onto the woman.
Woman, conversely, have the Borg consensus; the in group gender preference; the you go girl no matter how wrong you are sisterhood as well as society at large willing to satiate their loneliness. They place no value on something that's so readily available to them. Women are perfectly happy pretending they aren't alone so long as everybody else pretends along with them.
In this respect men are far too rational a creature to accept this mental gymnastic. We know we're alone as far as society is concerned, and this gives rise to our very own male self deception; we know society doesn't give a shit about us, but somewhere in the world exists some incorruptible Madonna, and she's going to rescue us from our solitude.
Men will believe this mythology and women will exploit this chink in our armor, and so will the state. This is why its so important that men place more interest in fighting this aloneness with intellectual pursuits between men instead of mythologies that project our value of these lapses in isolation onto the women we have romantic interest in.
I've dated. I’ve fucked Women that were undeniably attractive by any societal standard. I’ve dated virgins – good Christian women and all that bullshit – and I've dated promiscuous women that were absolute nymphomaniac freaks that needed to be pretend-raped to get off. You know what I remember about these women, some of whom spent years in my life? Nothing; even their faces are starting to get a bit fuzzy when I try to picture them in my head.
The only thing I can summon up when recalling them to memory is that they all viewed me as a man first and a human being last if they ever viewed in those terms at all. The people that truly looked at me as a human being – not as a provider, protecter, an ATM – the people that shared their humanity with me, both male and female, I can tell you where and when it happened, their exact body language, the inflection of their voice, everything as clear as the day it happened. This is what MGTOWs are seeking.
We are men throwing off the fake hypocritical shackles that society has placed on us simply because we happen to be men, and frankly the only women we have respect for have the same qualities as the only men we have respect for; those that affirm and respect our humanity instead of denigrating and capitalizing off our manhood.
If you're a woman who absolutely needs to descend back to your primitive female compulsions then be content with getting a good hard animalistic fucking and be done with it. But once you try to exploit us financially or emotionally or however because you can't keep your female biology in check then don't be fucking surprised when we treat you as nothing more than a walking dick receptacle, and don't you think for a second that we can't recognize it. You're dealing with a new breed of man. We know when you're trying to play us and unlike your blue-pill trad-con manginas and male feminists we will gladly exploit you right back and not lose a drop of sleep over it.
And another thing I want to address before I move on is this influx of women coming into our movement masquerading as allies to our cause that are nothing more than tradcon parasitic frauds that are panicking because men are finally starting to walk off the plantation.
I'm seeing a lot of this bullshit (image) popping up around the manosphere lately. This dumb shit is almost always followed by a retinue of one-blowjob-away manginas heaping praise over these attention whores and it’s all because women see that feminism is slowly but surely collapsing and now, how convenient that now you want to make sandwiches or hand out blowjobs. Bitch, I see you. I know exactly what you are. You can keep your sandwiches and I'll get plenty of blowjobs without ever having to pay one of your bills.
Do not fall for this. This trend indicates to us that MGTOW are doing exactly what they need to do and should only ramp up their efforts. Now I've always been clear that I don't mind women in this movement but remember, if you watch my NAWALT video, I predicted this years ago. I knew there would be women trying to infect this movement with their traditionalist garbage. Hold firm and stay on course. They’re getting scared of the manosphere, and of the fact that MGTOW has grown to encompass most of the manosphere. They can no longer ignore us, so they'll try to co-opt us. Hold firm; stay on course.
If you accept that society will always bail out women, it will become apparent that the legal progress we can make will be at odds with our society's innate desire to prioritize women’s well being. This means that in terms of legal advancement we will at most be able to achieve change with only the most draconian and blatant institutionalized hypocrisies. We may be able to get lifetime alimony removed, because this is one of those things that are in fact so blatantly unfair that with enough persistence we might be able to successfully challenge it based on the unfair and archaic nature of alimony payments in a world where women can work and find jobs just like men can. We may be able to address certain issues here and there. But I believe it impossible to combat any legislation that deals with women's safety no matter how much this legislation impedes the freedoms of men.
For example, take the Forbes article entitled, Government Shutdown: 9 Million Moms And Babies At Risk As WIC Program Halts. I’ve mentioned before programs like WIC; these legislations expose the underlying biological motivations behind western civilization that supersede all political effort. Read the title; millions of moms and babies at risk. No politician will touch this. I don't care if he's the most left or right politician in the world, this these kinds of headlines are what's going to end the government shutdown in the states. No government official will say what's obviously true; that these WIC programs can't be sustained; that they are inherently discriminatory against the male half of the population. They might say it preceding them being cut for good, but when women and children are being tossed out in the street – and it will go there – when camera crews start recording women and children going homeless because of some politician’s spending cuts, you will see some of the fastest political back pedaling in history.
Because what were truly battling here isn't a fight for freedom. There is no freedom in western civilization. Freedom requires complete personal autonomy. If you're not living in some cabin miles from civilization in complete self sufficiency, you are to varying degrees in a state of codependency with the civilization and society around you.
What were forgetting is that for all of our technological achievement, for all of our culture and customs and nations and civilization, we’re still fundamentally a bunch of apes hurtling around on a ball of rock trying to figure out the best way to survive against nature and its elements. Civilizations are survival centers towards this end. Rights are survival strategies; strategies that can and will fall under a hierarchy of survival priorities. One of these survival priorities is the protection of women and children. This is one of the strongest survival priorities of our species and is shared by both men and women, and this survival priority existed before human beings could even conceive the idea of the politician, much less the left or right wing politician. This survival priority existed eons before our species could even conceptualize what a human right was and so civilization has an array of various survival strategies that contribute to a fragile balancing act that gives us civilization as we know it. Very few of these survival strategies will win out over our ancient compulsion to protect women above all other things, especially not the concept of rights and freedoms which is in its infancy as a survival strategy employed by human beings. Feminism is a manipulation of this protect women-at-all-costs survival strategy which is why any legal prescriptions designed to combat feminism will by default by limited in size and scope by this survival strategy. This is not to say that legal progress cannot be made, but that the main inhibitor of legal progress will be this survival priority.
What were going to have to do is to either find a better manipulation of human nature than feminism has or build a society and eventually civilization around the most accurate possible interpretation of what makes the human animal work. This admittedly is a daunting task since feminism has exploited human nature almost to perfection. Feminism, if we look at it as social machinery, is brilliantly complex, and yet infinitely simple. It’s got everything going for it and everything it needs to sustain itself built into it. It’s completely self assembling when the correct conditions are in place.
If you've ever seen a thermite reaction, thermite has its own oxygen built into its very own molecular structure. Once a catalyst gets it going it’s almost impossible to stop and you're only real option is to stand back give it its space and wait till the reaction consumes itself. Feminism in many respects is social thermite; if certain social conditions align themselves correctly – in our case traditionalism functioned as the fuel and the industrial revolution catalyzed the reaction – then all we can really do is stand back, give it its space, and persuade the men observing to stay as far away as possible.
What men are not yet understanding is that a political approach to ending feminism is a voluntary stroll into stalemate. One of our problems as men is that we’re so action orientated that we have a hard time recognizing a need for siege warfare when we see it. The very politicians that would allow the WIC services to expire, even if women ended up starving in the streets, are the very politicians that wouldn't last a second against a politician that's willing to smile in front of a camera and say “well, I'm against welfare programs but we can't allow women and children in need to go without government aid”.
And it's all bullshit, of course. There’s no altruistic motivation behind this since countless men are homeless and nobody's giving them a damn thing. No government aid is coming their way. This is the benefactor of women, the state, acting on behalf of women.
Think about what really drives politics. What really motivates political change? Every time you've seen some sweeping political change, that is democratic in origin, we don't see appeals to reason and logic based on rationality. We see emotion driven rhetoric spewing from the mouths of politicians that excel at manipulating human emotion. We saw all this business with the Patriot Act. No one sat your average American down and said, “okay, we're going to put these laws into place, they’re here to protect you, and in order for us to protect you, we're going to take away this right that right and three other rights …” What we do see happen is that an appeal to base biological drives is made. “You see, if we don't take away these freedoms a bunch of Muslim terrorists are going to bomb American buildings they're going to kill you”, and the public acquiesces to that all on its own and the prole idiots will thank the government for doing it while they're at it.
What's powerful enough to end one of the most inherently American traditions and freedoms, the right to bear arms? What's strong enough to negate two hundred plus years of the right to arm yourself? Let a couple innocent kids get murdered by a big scary assault rifle. That's what's powerful enough to do it. Look at, for example, mothers against drunk driving and how they're more than happy to advocate for laws that allow illegal checkpoints and random DUI inspections. Who cares that it violates you're fourth amendment if these mothers believe less teenagers will die from drunk driving accidents? It doesn't matter that these things probably don't effectively prevent drunk driving accidents. It makes women feel safe. It makes then feel at ease. This is the true scope of the problems were facing; that is that women are allowed to vote, and that they dominate the vote in comparison to men in terms of voting numbers and voting uniformity. And that they vote on visceral emotion, for whichever politician promises them the most stuff essentially.
To be honest I actually wish it was as simple as voting for the right politicians and defunding government. This is naive in a political culture where the right politicians can't get elected and the wrong politicians are more than happy to pander to women at men’s expense.
I wish it was as simple as defeating feminism. If the fix for this was exposing feminisms hypocrisy, I say we're making pretty good headway on that front; most women today actually shy away from the feminist label. Most women won't happily wear the moniker. If we look at third wave feminism, notice there exist no modern third wave feminist that shares the same political clout and garners the same amount of reverence as their first and second wave predecessors. There are no third wave Gloria Steinems, for example. No, the heroes of third wave feminism are clowns like Anita Sarkeesian and Jessica Valenti. Third wave feminism is the parading freak-show of Feministing, Big Red, David Futrelle and Hugo Schwyzer. Nobody takes these fools seriously.
But the true legacy of feminism – the privileges that feminism and women put into place – those will remain whether or not feminism is “defeated” (whatever that even means) and the reason for that is that as Cynical Cynicism once said, culture precedes politics and culture is informed by the unflinching hand of human biology. We can theoretically get hundreds millions of women behind us saying that they hate feminism that they rebuke it, but wait till enough women fall on financial hard times and see if those same women don't demand that the government do something about it. That something is going to be some kind of welfare program that ensures political suicide for any politician crazy enough to confront it.
No, gentleman, our battle does not lie in any politician’s office. Capitol Hill unfortunately is gynocentrism ground zero. Men cannot compete politically with women even if they wanted to. Look up any of the statistics on voter turnout and you'll see that women consistently outvote men and it’s clear what they vote for.
If the goal was some sort of attack on the family, or communism or any one of the other versions of the litany of conspiratorial hogwash that we’ve heard regurgitated over and over, the question that would immediately become apparent, is “Why didn't the conspirators also incentivize men to leave their wives for younger hotter replacements? Why was it only women that have been allowed the freedom to push the eject button on their families whenever they see fit with impunity?” Could it be that female nature predisposes them to this behavior? No, that couldn't be it. It was the Marxist crypto fascist crypto communist cultural Marxist leftist; they conned women. Certainly there’s no examples of the state using female nature to control men before American feminism.
Except maybe Aristotle’s Politics, book five, where he goes into detail on how tyrannies are sustained. He says;
Again, the evil practices of the last and worst form of democracy are all found in tyrannies. Such are the power given to women in their families in the hope that they will inform against their husbands, and the license which is allowed to slaves in order that they may betray their masters; for slaves and women do not conspire against tyrants; and they are of course friendly to tyrannies and also to democracies, since under them they have a good time.
Well, it makes perfect sense that a slave has no pity for the tyranny his masters are living under, since a slave is living under a tyrant himself – the slave master under the tyrant who rules him – but isn't it interesting that two millennia before feminism existed, we have one of the greatest philosophers in human history making the observation that women seem to support tyrannical government at the expense of their husband? How did this happen before the great satan Karl Marx hypnotized all of western woman kind? Oh, I know, the illuminati Rockefeller Marxist cabal made a time machine, traveled back two thousand years and conned these women as well and Aristotle, the evil misogynist, who's just as bad as the feminist that wouldn't exist for another two thousand years, he said this about women because he can't get laid and was a degenerate nihilist, and …
Or perhaps the ancients where a hell of a lot more honest and in tune with themselves and what it means to be human – and what it means to be male and female – than we are. Maybe they understood that for their own good, women needed to be generalized, and maybe they knew that women naturally embrace tyranny if it benefits them. Maybe they understood that women are just too damn selfish for their own good and could care less about the continuity of civilization. And that any behavior conducive to building a civilization aside from child birth was better left to the men. Maybe they went about setting up a system by which female nature, the selfish aspects of it at least, could be contained and harnessed by harnessing male biology. Maybe this system collapsed once technology underwent an explosion of innovation with the advent of electricity and with the discovery of fossil fuels that produce an estimated twenty five thousand hours’ worth of human labor in one barrel (de Sousa 2008).
No, that wouldn't throw a wrench in a system that relied on mens’ superior ability to perform labor in exchange for female reproduction and fidelity. Instead, we look for obscure and largely irrelevant political fads to blame. The Fabian socialists. The Frankfurt school. We assign to them an almost God-like ability to influence the course of human interaction decades after these political fads have died.
Some will say that because men insist on making excuses for dysfunctional female behavior, that this is all a result of the big bad government incentivizing bad female behavior. If that's the case it should be obvious that cutting women off from the government tit will pose a direct threat to these incentives. If they're willing to sabotage their own families for a payout, what makes you think they're just going to acquiesce for something as trivial to them as male rights? This is simple criminology. When a crime occurs the first thing you do when establishing motive is ask who benefits? Men certainly don’t. The state does, and women do.
This is the problem that any political solution fails to address. This is why political solutions to the problems we face are at best additional and subordinate to a shift in the cultural attitudes and behaviors of men. What does it do to change an unjust law if we don't understand exactly what caused this unjust law to be written into law in the first place? If we change an unjust law without even acknowledging what put it there, then we've effectively done nothing to prevent the law from changing back.
Without understanding female nature and how we react to it as men we will never understand what got us here in the first place. This highlights, I think, why there's such an insistence on declaring symptoms, Marxism and communism or leftism as being to blame for feminism. It’s an easy way out, at least it sounds that way, since it mistakenly assigns natural human socialistic tendencies to Marxism, which is portrayed by these types as some kind of mental illness instead of a politically codified expression of human nature. In doing this we set ourselves up for a perpetual political battle that can never be resolved because it is a political fight against human nature itself.
Ironically, the defeat-the-lefters’ failure to recognize "Marxism" as an expression of human nature is the same perpetual war against biology that feminists have concocted with their patriarchy theory. The only actual difference is that feminists and the women they advocate for actually have the necessary resources – that is women and their in group preference – to make effective political headway with their anti-nature ideology, while the defeat-the-left types have failed and will continue to fail in making any significant political headway and are certainly not capable of achieving any where near the amount of political changes they drone on and on about.
The mens’ movement, I believe, is smart enough not to follow these people into the never-ending right-left political quagmire that it’s an absolute fool’s errand; it’s a fight against a boogeyman for children masquerading as philosophers who'd rather concoct the most ridiculous conspiracies instead of acknowledging what's going on right in front of their faces. On top of this, now these idiots are even defending contractual marriage, trying desperately to frame the abysmal rate of divorce in the west as not being so bad without ever putting forth any real incentive to get married in the first place.
Know thy self or be ruled by those that do. Politicians know what makes humans tick. They know how men will behave. They know how women will as well, and if you don't know these things you will never stand a chance of putting up any kind of organized resistance against the state. Every successful tyranny starts with propagandists understanding and exploiting human nature. That’s why hitler had Goebbels. That's why America has CNN, Fox and MSNBC. The simpletons that think the propagandists within our midst all decided to setup shop on one aisle of the political spectrum have a staggering ability for doublethink that will lead this movement down a path of constant political bickering and needless associations with the sacred cows of both of these corrupt political parties that we simply can't afford to take on.
Here is, to clarify, my stance, politically speaking. This is specifically to the MRAs. My advice to you is to go into the political arena with the understanding that as I've just said, all politicians in the west are there to manipulate, connive and exploit first and foremost. All of them. And so when dealing with them you will treat them as such and you will never, ever show any kind of partisan solidarity with them. They can either address our issue or they cannot. If they can, then we will lend them support on that particular issue only. And if they can't, they are a waste of our time.
A basic precept that we should follow when approaching the political arena is: Understand human nature. Understand how it will be expressed in a changing environment. Understand it as thoroughly as possible, or politicians will do it for you. Human beings hate to be told inconvenient truths about themselves and we hate even more to confront those inconvenient truths and actually change our behavior in the hopes of addressing them.
When dealing with men willing to do mens’ rights advocacy, the correct strategy is to recognize that nobody, not a single person can say they are wholly right-wing or left-wing. This is why this right-good, left-bad, black-and-white nonsense impedes the mens’ movement; it denies the grey areas of western politics. One of the lies I hear spread all too often is that leftists are inherently for policies that discriminate against men, and as such they cannot be allies in this movement. I will put an example forward to disprove this talking point. Let's say someone may be for a form of universal healthcare. I may or may not be in agreement with them, for example if this person is advocating for the blatantly anti-male Affordable Care Act, then I’ll say “no; under no circumstances will I support that”. If this person is for universal health care and advocates for tax-payer-funded healthcare where the funds must distributed equally between both genders, and he frames that as an issue he wishes to tackle as a mens’ rights activist, I'm not going to alienate him or call him a leftist, Marxist, et cetera. I'm not going to yell at him that all taxation is theft. I'll simply tell him that although it’s very unlikely that I'll support tax-payer-funded universal healthcare, I'm glad that he's fighting for mens’ issues in a way that he deems appropriate. I'm not going to bitch and moan that all taxation is theft when I'm perfectly fine living in a society where people are forced to by car insurance and taxed to support a nationalized military. This person advocating for this universal healthcare may very well be considered a leftist by most right wing standards, but this is a person that I could consider an ally to the mens’ movement, since he's fighting a form of hypocritical institutionalized preferential treatment the government is engaging in at the expense of men.
The same exact concept goes for a right winger. You may have a much more thorough idea than I do about what limited government means. You may think it’s absolutely unacceptable to spend x amount of taxpayer dollars on health care. Well, okay then, maybe we agree on limiting government spending for something else. Maybe you’re an anti-war libertarian who thinks we should get all our troops out of the Middle East today right now, on the grounds that not only is it fiscally unsustainable but it contributes to male disposability. On this I'd be in complete agreement with you, and this is because I'm not invested in either party.
This means I can be for some right wing policies, and not have to sign on to their family values chivalrous tradcon bullshit , and I can be for left wing policies and not have to sign on to their politically correct garbage. I pick and choose what I think is a good policy based on the merits of the idea, which brings me to an actual comment from someone that I will choose to leave anonymous that demonstrates exactly what I'm talking about here.
A self-identified MRA came on a comments section and claimed that if the mens’ rights movement pursues government funded domestic violence shelters for men, that it was a deal breaker for him; that he couldn't put his support behind this movement because taxation is inherently criminal behavior. This of course is absolutely ridiculous. If you can't support the mens’ movement for simply working within a system that already taxes us for female domestic violence shelters, because some MRA is trying to pursue an equitable share of these tax dollars, then quite frankly the mens’ movement doesn't need you and no, the person pursuing these taxpayer funded mens’ shelters is not a cultural Marxist collectivist or any other of these ridiculous terms.
Nobody’s saying you have to agree with what he's doing but under this ridiculous logic if you're an MRA that supports a tax payer funded military than that's a deal breaker; tax-funded police and fireman, deal breaker. This is the type of nonsense that I've seen too much of in the mens’ rights movement and I want absolutely no part of it.
My position is clear. If you're ready to work with others toward any issue that men face, if I agree with it, I'll extend my assistance. If I don’t, I won't, and I'll leave it as a simple disagreement in tactics unless I can clearly point to some overwhelming evidence that your actions are actually going to harm men instead of help them.
Lastly, we should understand the unique relationship between the state and the female human being that allows for the control of the male human being.
A 2007 study of demographic patterns in two different part sod the world, Brazil and India, noted a remarkable drop in fertility and a rise in divorce rates corresponding with regions where these two countries were developing most rapidly. It wasn't just any type of development that seemed to catalyze this change; it was the regions cable television was proliferating for the first time, and it was only where Brazilian telenovelas and indian soap operas featured empowered career minded Brazilian and Indian women (Jenson and Oster 2007). Where only 21% of the women featured in these shows had children.
This is what we're dealing with. It’s no secret that women control a vast sum of the total wealth of any advanced or newly developing country. They also control the political landscape in pretty much wherever they have suffrage in the west. And yet women are apparently so stupid that their destinies can be dramatically swayed en masse by a simple soap opera.
This is what we're dealing with; not ridiculous conspiracies, but the fact that women have taken advantage of a set of conditions that allows them to do what they do, and those conditions are in place because men simply have refused to say that enough is enough. They have allowed their biology to dictate to them their interactions with women, their giving them whatever they ask for, and their looking for every other boogeyman to blame aside from themselves, women and the state. This civilization is an unstoppable force on a form of biological cruise control on a collision course with an immovable object, and all we can say is “governments did it, and we’re going to elect more politicians but these politicians are different; they want to shrink the government because the government’s too big, and then women won't be able to be mean to us anymore.” This is the best we can do? This nonsense?
Why did the government get to this point in the first place? This is the question we refuse to view honestly. Instead we dream up communists and socialists lurking behind every shadow and under every rock. We take some insignificant bullshit about the Frankfurt school or some other ridiculous conspiracy and we overinflated the influence and political clout they had to damn near mythical proportions in order to explain away the fact that we got ourselves here. We did this to ourselves. We did this because we refuse to look at the way men and women interact without deluding the shit out of ourselves with every little romantic fairy tale that falls short of the ruthless, calculating evolutionary struggle that men and women have always been in.
de Sousa, Luis. 2008. What is a Human Being Worth (in Terms of Energy)? The Oil Drum Europe.
Jenson, Robert, and Oster, Emily. 2007. The Power Of TV: Cable Television And Women’s Status In India. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 124(3):1057-1094.
Marazziti, Donetella. 1999. Pending Title. Pisa: Pending Publisher
O’Connor, Clare. 2013. Government Shutdown: 9 Million Moms And Babies At Risk As WIC Program Halts. Forbes.
Orwell, George. 1949. Nineteen Eighty-Four. London: Secker and Warburg.