No respect.

Vox Day has created a bit of a stir with his post Low morale men.  If you read the post, you will notice that there are two groups of men Vox doesn’t respect:

  1. Men who do not marry and have children.
  2. Men who marry and have children.

There is however a third category of men to whom Vox is holding out an implied promise of future respect.  These are men who aspire to marry and have children, but haven’t yet done so.  This is quite obviously a false promise, as once these men do as Vox instructs they will merely have moved from one category of men Vox doesn’t respect to another category of men he doesn’t respect.

This is of course a very common pattern in our age, as it is the same false promise of respect W. Bradford Wilcox, Jim Geraghty, Dennis Prager, and other men at National Review offer men if they marry.

The reality is that our current anti married father policies are merely the formal legal expression of our societal disrespect of married fathers.  The men of National Review, and now sadly Vox, are searching for a way to motivate men to marry without offering married fathers respect.  Though the details of their arguments differ, the form is the same;  married fathers deserve the contempt the system has for them.  If you disagree, your are either lazy or a coward. 

The fact that men are concerned about the disrespect of married fathers only shows that they don’t deserve respect.  Wilcox frames it this way in Hey Guys, Put a Ring on It:

There is no doubt that marriage requires sacrifices, and lots of them. Successful marriages require men to work harder, avoid cheating, spend less time with friends, and make a good-faith effort, day in and day out, to be emotionally present with their spouses. Many men find these sacrifices hard.

Vox makes a similar argument, but instead of saying that married fathers don’t deserve respect because they don’t work hard enough and aren’t emotionally available, he tells us we shouldn’t respect the modern married father due to his lack of commitment to murder-suicide (emphasis mine):

The truth is that men often suffer the legal order they deserve, because they tolerate it. Would any Roman patrician have meekly submitted to being made an indentured servant at the whim of his wife and the word of a judge?

No. He would have killed the judge, the wife, and everyone who assisted either of them, then calmly gone home and opened his veins in the bath. That’s why Roman law permitted patriarchs to kill those under their authority who crossed them in any way – because they were going to do it anyway and the maintenance of legal order in their society relied upon acknowledging that reality.

But the modern man values his toys more than his honor. That’s why no one, including the legal system, respects his possession of either.

Feminism is a disease of envy.  It spreads via women due to the temptation to envy the position of men.  For men, it spreads via the temptation to declare oneself the only real man, as other men aren’t worthy of respect.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Disrespecting Respectability, Envy, Fatherhood, Manliness, Miserliness, National Review, The only real man in the room, Traditional Conservatives, Vox Day, W. Bradford Wilcox, Weak men screwing feminism up. Bookmark the permalink.

547 Responses to No respect.

  1. Anders Breivik gets a lot of respect over there in Voxland. I think you are missing a third distinct category, men who marry, go postal and kill everyone. Accelerationists: DEUS VULT!!

    (Heh)

  2. thedeti says:

    Dalrock

    Vox’ post is titled “Low Morale Men”. that “e” on the end is important because leaving it off changes the meaning and context.

    [D: Thanks. Fixed.]

  3. sipcode says:

    “The daughter of Babylon is a threshing floor; it is time to thresh her.”

    The worship of women will be crushed.

  4. Paul Rain says:

    Vox is a contemptible faggot who countersignals anyone who wants to create a better society.

    But he’s ‘triracial’, made a video game noone’s ever heard of and some gay music once, and occasionally he says slightly edgy stuff, so according to him and his sockpuppets we should respect him. lol

  5. To clarify, those Roman patrician types are the only ones in line to receive respect from that quarter. But by the time they prove themselves they’ll be dead. (At least few will be able to accuse them of cowardice).

  6. Pingback: No respect. | @the_arv

  7. Otto says:

    The phrase “man up” (and its varints) has become toxic.

    Only those who want a man to act against his interest use the phrase “man up”.

    Man up, be a man, and real men don’t (or do), are just ways to manipulate men into doing something stupid.

    If you hear anyone using those phrases, understand they only wish to control you, not help you.

  8. Eidolon says:

    As I understood it, Vox’s point is that Western men, collectively over generations, have let women take over and tell them what to do. If Western men said “no” to them tomorrow, collectively, there would be nothing women could do, and they would go along with it pretty quickly. It’s pretty much the same thing as what you say, Dalrock, just stated differently.

    I think this is clearly true. It doesn’t therefore follow that any individual man is a coward because he doesn’t do the whole murder-suicide thing. His point is that other types of men, those taught better, have not tolerated such extreme rebelliousness in their women, and if a society’s men don’t tolerate it, the women won’t do it. Thus the most useful and productive thing an individual man can do is raise his children to be the kind of people who wouldn’t tolerate/engage in it and would be willing to reimpose sanity when the conditions make it possible.

    He does respect married men and women. He’s written many posts about it, indicating that both men and women have an important job to do raising the next generation. I think you’re reading a bit too much into it.

  9. DR Smith says:

    Sorry Dalrock and others whom have commented; I believe you did not read Vox’s entire post. I have read and re-read Vox’s post in question, and to me it seems his disrespect is not for all men who marry and have children, just those that do not lead in the marriage and let the wife and kids run it instead – a very big difference. The fact is, most marriages in the West are like this, even in the good Christian house holds. Another fact is that too many married men have their wives on such a high pedestal that when the end comes (and it will if you put your wife & kids up there) they are utter unprepared and unwilling to fight for their rights in court and get run over in divorce.

    However, their are entire blog sites dedicated to married men how how to become red pill and take back your marriage; Dalrock links to at least one of them, and this blog itself raises that issue from time to time.

  10. Embracing Reality says:

    It’s amazing that the solution to millenniums of tyrannical abuse of those with no power by the powerful has now been solved by this blogger genius vox. I get it now! Just kill everyone who unjustly abuses power over you and then die. Got it! I’m sure this will be easily carried out and well worth the personal cost. Marriage and family suddenly doesn’t seem overly risky at all. If only the revelation had been made before now. Problem solved. Thx vox.

  11. Dalrock says:

    @Eidolon

    He does respect married men and women. He’s written many posts about it, indicating that both men and women have an important job to do raising the next generation. I think you’re reading a bit too much into it.

    No. He does not:

    But the modern man values his toys more than his honor. That’s why no one, including the legal system, respects his possession of either.

  12. Nice strawmen arguments there Dalrock. Vox never says he disrespects married men with children or unmarried men.

    Only those who give up.

  13. Sigma Frame says:

    Some men won’t allow a corrupt system to define their identity and mete out terms of respectability. I think this is Vox’s idea. Sigmas do this, and I believe a lot of MGTOW’s have this same attitude in mind as well, but they don’t pull it off very well from a political standpoint. But that’s part of the MGTOW’s point – the ultimate F U to anyone who plays within a broken system, either as protagonist, or antagonist. The Sigma, on the other hand, plays the game stacked against him, but he decides on his own terms of winning. So even if he loses societies’ game, he can still win his own game, and that is enough to win respect.

  14. Boxer says:

    Dear Dalrock:

    Vox makes a similar argument, but instead of saying that married fathers don’t deserve respect because they don’t work hard enough and aren’t emotionally available, he tells us we shouldn’t respect the modern married father due to his lack of commitment to murder-suicide (emphasis mine):…

    Not only is Vox Day heartless and shortsighted; but, he’s also wrong.

    Stooping to violence may make an individual feel better, but the ideological apparatus is too entrenched to change, at this point. Sure, you can “remove” a few judges. The response will be to put you in prison or kill you, while the system laughs and appoints even worse judges in their place. (Newsflash to all the idiots like Vox Day: The system, as such, doesn’t care about its individual judges, any more than it cares about fathers … there are an unlimited source of new ones too choose, each more corrupt than the last).

    Boxer

  15. Cane Caldo says:

    @DR Smith

    I believe you did not read Vox’s entire post. I have read and re-read Vox’s post in question, and to me it seems his disrespect is not for all men who marry and have children, just those that do not lead in the marriage and let the wife and kids run it instead – a very big difference.

    Where: “do not lead in the marriage” = “failed to perform a murder suicide upon divorce”.

  16. Cane Caldo says:

    @swiftfoxmark2

    Only those who give up.

    Again, where: “do not lead in the marriage” = “failed to perform a murder suicide upon divorce”.

  17. thedeti says:

    @ Eidolon:

    As I understood it, Vox’s point is that Western men, collectively over generations, have let women take over and tell them what to do. If Western men said “no” to them tomorrow, collectively, there would be nothing women could do, and they would go along with it pretty quickly.

    The first sentence is true. The second sentence is not, based on conditions on the ground right now.

    What do you mean “if western men said “no” to them tomorrow, collectively, there would be nothing women could do”? That’s absurd. Of course there are plenty of things women can do and would do. They would divorce their husbands, take half of the marital property, steal the kids, and get back on the carousel.

    For women to “go along with it ” and for there to be “nothing they could do” would require a wholesale overhaul and nationwide rollback of divorce law, all the way back to Marriage 1.0, and amending the Constitution to deprive women of the vote. It would also require ALL men, including those in power, the police, the military, the courts, in industry, politics, and business, to get on board and stage nothing less than a coup d’etat. Those things are

    Not.

    Going.

    To.

    Happen.

    Ever.

    In our lifetimes. They’re just not going to happen.

    So of course there is plenty women can do about it. And they can, and would, and will. They’re doing it right now. Because they can.

  18. Good thing I have absolutely no desire to gain the respect of Vox Day.

  19. Oscar says:

    First of all, patricians were the elite. Most men aren’t elite.

    Second, what happens to the man’s children after he murders “the judge, the wife, and everyone who assisted either of them”?

  20. Boxer says:

    Sorry Dalrock and others whom have commented; I believe you did not read Vox’s entire post.

    I read it twice, in its entirety, and very carefully. Dalrock has the right of it.

  21. anonymous_ng says:

    Why would I care enough to expend the electricity to fire even a handful of brain cells on what some random dude thinks about me as a member of some generalized group?

    Post divorce, I spent several years pondering life, the universe, and everything, and I came to the conclusion that there are a handful of people who’s opinion I value, and everyone else can basically sod off. VOX isn’t on that list.

  22. Cane Caldo says:

    @Sigma Frame

    The Sigma, on the other hand, plays the game stacked against him, but he decides on his own terms of winning. So even if he loses societies’ game, he can still win his own game, and that is enough to win respect.

    Sounds like Secret Kingship to me…

  23. “there are an unlimited source of new ones [judged] to choose”

    For sure. We have far more law school graduates than jobs practicing law. Who’s going to miss a few judges?

    Anyway, he has it backwards: men killing judges won’t cause reflection among the people in charge. It will instead cause a spate of “see how vicious men are? someone has to do something about men” editorials, speeches, and sermons. There are already people seriously proposing a curfew for men only; some countries have no-men-allowed buses or train carriages. Living down to their view of men won’t spur change in the right direction. Not any more than the latest al-Qaeda terror attack has caused American society to rethink its meddling in the Middle East.

  24. White Guy says:

    My hope is that Vox’s woman never has a case of the “I’m un-happppppys” . Divorce laws in Italy seem to be pretty brutal.
    http://www.familylawitaly.com/a-short-guide-to-italian-family-law-for-expats/

    Children must be supported until they become financially independent (25% of the annual income per one child is generally considered an average support amount).

    There is no age limit for financial independence, conventionally a maximum age of 26 (in case of University studies) is considered appropriate.

    The house stays with the children normally, until they become independent (art. 337 6th of the Civil Code).

    Finally, there are still remnants of the “fault based” divorce in Italian law. The partner who is ‘not to blame’ for the family breakdown is entitled to personal maintenance. This implies not only alimony but a higher monthly amount for her/his support (normally hers). This ancillary relief can be paid as a lump sum, called Alimony in Gross.

    Ouch!

  25. Opus says:

    I am always impressed that VoxDay can do all the other things that he does and still add four or five essays a day to his blog many of which are very interesting. I sometimes add a comment and have so far avoided the wrath of having Vox out me as a Gamma. The horror.

  26. Bruce says:

    He’s an internet badass, I’m sure he’d kill his wife and the judge if put in that position.
    What do you call this sort of thing? Cartoonish anti-chivalry? Black knighting?

  27. Ras al Ghul says:

    I read vox everyday. I have read some of his fiction and nonfiction.

    In response to the criticism of that larpy shirt about daughter’s and daddy watching. He doubles down n it and used a false equivalency: not liking the shirt equals “throwing your daughters to the wolves”

    So he lied and double downed. Apparently sjws aren’t the only ones that engage in his three rules.

    I am glad Dalrock is calling him out.

  28. thedeti says:

    In order for “western men to say “no” to women, and for women to do nothing about it and fall in line pretty quickly”, the legal and cultural underpinnings have to be there for Western men to say “no” and to provide teeth to that “no”, to make it stick.

    The “Western Civilization” Vox wants us to “save” has to have Western men’s backs. That society has to provide the legal and cultural support to back up what those men say, to give them the authority to do what must be done, and to refrain from intervening in family matters absent actual, real criminal offenses being committed. It must recognize those men’s power, and back up and buttress that power.

    And we don’t have any of that. And we won’t, absent a Hard Reset. Because “Western Civilization” does not and will not do any of those things for men right now.

  29. Caspar Reyes says:

    Western men saying “no” would require an anarcho-syndicalist collective, a Galt’s Gulch sort of reverse Lysistrata, where the men of means, i.e., the earners and producers, go on strike by refusing to labor under the slave regime of alimony/child support. The System has a cynical leverage against men in that men are committed individually to marriage and family at any monetary cost, while women are committed collectively to providing for themselves at any human cost. The payments run the System and allow it to continue to exist, because the System gets a cut.

    After a showdown with the missus a few years ago, I had to resolve in my mind that I will go to jail rather than support the destruction of my household with a single voluntary penny. If they want it, they’ll have to steal it. That’s perhaps the only real autonomy I still possess. But I am only one man. We would all have to resolve the same and then do it when it came down to it.

  30. The Question says:

    Ironically enough, this ties in with the debate regarding a daughter/wife shirt he sells that makes no sense in a society where the men are, according to him, all cowards unwilling to defend their honor.

    So what is the intended purpose of the shirt, if the message is not literal?

  31. thedeti says:

    The System has a cynical leverage against men in that men are committed individually to marriage and family at any monetary cost, while women are committed collectively to providing for themselves at any human cost.

    that’s some truth right there. But I’d amend it slightly to say that “men are committed individually to family at any monetary cost”. I’d leave marriage out, especially legal marriage. Men love their kids, and that is a huge reason why a lot of men stay around and work their fingers to the bone and put up with all sorts of indignities and humiliations.

  32. Dalrock says:

    @Opus

    I am always impressed that VoxDay can do all the other things that he does and still add four or five essays a day to his blog many of which are very interesting.

    Likewise.

  33. The Question says:

    @thedeti

    “The “Western Civilization” Vox wants us to “save” has to have Western men’s backs. That society has to provide the legal and cultural support to back up what those men say, to give them the authority to do what must be done, and to refrain from intervening in family matters absent actual, real criminal offenses being committed. It must recognize those men’s power, and back up and buttress that power.

    And we don’t have any of that. And we won’t, absent a Hard Reset. Because “Western Civilization” does not and will not do any of those things for men right now.”

    This is dead-on point.

    Calling men cowards today for not wanting to marry because of the all dangers and risks is no different than the British colonel calling his troops cowards for not wanting to go “over the top” at the Somme when No Man’s Land is full of corpses from the previously failed charges.

    This doesn’t give men an excuse to give up on other areas of life. Self-improvement should always be a part of a man’s life. It also doesn’t mean they should ignore women who give signs that they might make a good spouse.

    It means that at this point, men shouldn’t be expected to explain why they’re not married and why they are not actively pursuing marriage and a family.

    Besides, women still remain the gatekeepers to dating, sex, and marriage. They set the terms, and those terms include delaying marriage until their late twenties, among other things. If those terms are unacceptable to men, then those looking to change the situation need to blame the unrealistic or intolerable expectations set by the women.

  34. Sigma Frame says:

    Hey Cane! Not sure what you mean by ‘Secret Kingship’. Those closest to the Sigma will know what he’s all about, so it’s not a total secret. Also, most Sigmas have a strong sense of honor, and honor cannot be a secret thing. But you’re right in a sense. You can’t win any game if you show all your cards.

  35. honeycomb says:

    @ White Guy ..

    Children must be supported until they become financially independent (25% of the annual income per one child is generally considered an average support amount).

    There is no age limit for financial independence, conventionally a maximum age of 26 (in case of University studies) is considered appropriate.

    The house stays with the children normally, until they become independent (art. 337 6th of the Civil Code).

    It’s even worse than 26 years old in Europe where this law is used ..

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/spain/11454812/Spanish-parents-must-support-their-children-financially-for-life.html

    I can’t find the one that has a 35 plus year old male that sued for support and won.

  36. RagingBeta says:

    @ Ras al Ghul
    VDADD. But its different when he does it.

  37. Hey Cane! Not sure what you mean by ‘Secret Kingship’. Those closest to the Sigma will know what he’s all about, so it’s not a total secret.

    I’ve never had this term defined for me precisely either; though the people who bandy it about insist that I fit the profile. With this in mind, it’s probably someone like me.

  38. Atticus says:

    Thomas Ball did not give up. He did not kill any judges. He set himself on fire on the court house steps after a ten year battle to see his kids unsupervised. No laws changed. No congressional hearings. Nary a peep.

    I wonder if Vox thinks Mr. Ball was a coward?

    http://archive.boston.com/news/local/new_hampshire/articles/2011/07/10/divorced_dad_leaves_clues_to_his_desperation/?page=3

  39. “That’s why Roman law permitted patriarchs to kill those under their authority who crossed them in any way”

    Roman law governing paterfamilias also allowed him to beat her to a bloody pulp whenever she got out of line, with no repercussions. He could also just exile her or sell her into slavery. Murder with no threat of reprisal was also certainly possible during Roman times, but it was not the go-to response of choice by the pater for crimes of revolt and betrayal by the wife.

  40. Thomas Ball did not give up. He did not kill any judges. He set himself on fire on the court house steps after a ten year battle to see his kids unsupervised. No laws changed. No congressional hearings. Nary a peep.

    I feel deep sympathy for Mr. Ball, and for his family, and do not mean any disrespect by saying that his sacrifice didn’t matter a bit.

    Had he done great violence to others that day, as Vox suggests that manly men have a positive duty to do, that wouldn’t have mattered either.

    We need to accept the fact that we are living in an epoch that cares nothing for the individual. Historical forces will shift in time, but for now, our job is not to be martyrs, nor is it to be murderers. All one’s best efforts in these regards will come to nothing.

    Boxer

  41. thedeti says:

    Vox has said (paraphrasing) that the “secret king” is the key mark of the Gamma. He’s a Gamma who is, in his mind, correct and a genius. But his genius is so unique and special that no one else can recognize it. He’s so “ahead of his time”. One mark of the Gamma is that he often refers to himself as a Sigma, even though he is sexually unsuccessful and is viewed as inconsequential at best by most of the people he deals with. He’s a “king”, but only in his own mind. Someday, people will realize how correct he is….

  42. Scott says:

    The Question-

    It means that at this point, men shouldn’t be expected to explain why they’re not married and why they are not actively pursuing marriage and a family.

    After several years of reading and blogging in the manosphere, as well as just observing the truths on the ground, this is the fulcrum upon which my entire hypothesis and the way I deal with men both single and married who read and comment at my site rests.

    I hope it has earned me some credibility. It does zero good to pit married men against not married men in the current environment.

  43. Luke7 says:

    Thomas Ball’s death put the concept of “The Second Set of Books” out there. We owe him for that.

    I would probably have just disappeared into the woods or permanently expatriated, myself. As appealing as the Darren White response was, most of us would not do that. His courage exceeded what mine would have been. He has extra gems in his crown in heaven IMO.

  44. The Question says:

    @Scott

    It has. It’s good to have married men whose message to men is grounded in that reality.

  45. I like much of your analysis. Sometimes, I do not understand it at all. It is as if you are walking down a hallway toward a seemingly obvious destination, and then, without warning, you bolt through the first door you come to. This post is an example of one of those times.

  46. Luke7:

    I would probably have just disappeared into the woods or permanently expatriated, myself. As appealing as the Darren White response was, most of us would not do that. His courage exceeded what mine would have been. He has extra gems in his crown in heaven IMO.

    I suppose I have a very different outlook from yours, based upon the fact that I want things to change here, in this world, rather than the next.

    With all respect to the martyr Mr. Ball (who was the opposite of a coward), he would have done my cause much better by simply giving the finger to the judge, daring the judge to put him into jail (where he would have had to be fed and housed at the court’s expense) and then started, from prison, to write subversive literature.

    There are also tons of places he could have disappeared to. Last I checked, Jamaica, Belize and The Bahamas were full of people who spoke English. A well-educated American who minds his own business could probably show up in one of these countries and stay for quite a while without any problems.

    The USA is full of poor, uneducated people with no papers, and all those people seem to survive (and often thrive) without speaking English or having anything more than the desire to work.

    The real tragedy is that Ball’s kids now only get to hear one side of the story, told by the unreliable narrator who is their mother. They have not only lost their father legally. They have lost him in an existential sense. Any man who is thinking of going out that way ought to consider the historical implications of this.

    May he rest in peace,

    Boxer

  47. earlthomas786 says:

    Feminism is a disease of envy. It spreads via women due to the temptation to envy the position of men. For men, it spreads via the temptation to declare oneself the only real man, as other men aren’t worthy of respect.

    And this is why this type of site will always trump a site like Vox.

  48. The Question says:

    Having made some criticism in comments above, I’m going to go out on a limb and say I’m sympathetic to some of Vox’s point, albeit in a limited way.

    When I was young adult, I heard two very clear messages from older adults.

    “You need to get married come hell or high water.”

    Followed by….

    “After you get married, if your wife divorces you, you need to submit to whatever the court says. If the police or CPS show up to take your kids, you have to give them up. If the school system tells you to do something or they will take your kids, you have to do it. Because if you don’t, they’ll throw you in jail or shoot you, but if you resist you’re in the wrong because they’re the law. Therefore, you have to ‘lead’ your family based on what you’re told by those people no matter what they say…..oh, and by the way, the Bible says something about the man being the head of the household or something. Good luck.”

    What idiot would voluntarily accept those terms and conditions?

    Vox’s stance – men who get married have the right to defend their honor and property by any means necessary – is infinitely more defensible.

  49. earlthomas786 says:

    So he lied and double downed. Apparently sjws aren’t the only ones that engage in his three rules.

    Goes back to the old saying, that I just made up….It takes one to know one.

  50. Anonymous Reader says:

    First off, I have quite a bit of respect for Vox Day / Theodore Beale in his multiple identies, first of all for leading the fork of Wikipedia to Infogalactic. It is a tangible action against the SJW’s of Wiki who continue to grind away at facts on that site in the name of their Narrative – remember what happened to the Wiki page on Thomas Ball?

    Second, nobody is right all the time, we all come up with foolish ideas from time to time. Assassination politics is a bad idea.

    History tells me a bit about this. In Tzarist Russia there were many revolutionary groups.
    https://infogalactic.com/info/Socialist_Revolutionary_Party
    The Socialst Revolutionaries, or SR’s, were more prone to direct action than others. For several years in the early 20th century the “maximal” wing of the SR’s
    https://infogalactic.com/info/Union_of_Socialists_Revolutionaries_Maximalists
    engaged in a campaign of assassination directed at high ranking officials within the Tzar’s goverment and even the royal family.

    A distinctive feature of party tactics until about 1909 was its heavy reliance on assassinations of individual government officials. These tactics were inherited from SRs’ predecessor in the Populist movement, People’s Will, a conspiratorial organization of the 1880s. They were intended to embolden the “masses” and intimidate (“terrorize”) the Tsarist government into political concessions. The SR Combat Organization, responsible for assassinating government officials, was initially led by Gershuni and operated separately from the party so as not to jeopardize its political actions. SRCO agents assassinated two Ministers of the Interior, Dmitry Sipyagin and V. K. von Plehve, Grand Duke Sergei Aleksandrovich, the Governor of Ufa N. M. Bogdanovich, and many other high-ranking officials.

    In short form, every time the Maximalist SR’s succeeded in assassinating an official there was always someone the government could promote to replace him. There was never a shortage of officials. However the Tzarist secret police, the Okhrana, did succeed in infiltrating the SR’s.

    In 1903, Gershuni was betrayed by his deputy, Yevno Azef, an agent of the Okhrana secret police, arrested, convicted of terrorism and sentenced to life at hard labor, managing to escape, flee overseas and go into exile. Azef became the new leader of the SRCO, and continued working for both the SRCO and the Okhrana, simultaneously orchestrating terrorist acts and betraying his comrades. Boris Savinkov ran many of the actual operations, notably the assassination attempt on Admiral Fyodor Dubasov.

    It should be obvious to any strategic thinker that an actual campaign of murder by men in the divorce machine would simply lead to even more screws being put onto men, thanks to White Knights in the government. There would be no change in law or custom for the better.

    This can be tested. I will do so.

  51. Anonymous Reader says:

    Program of assassination would not work.

    This can be tested: part of VAWA in 1994 required that men involved in certain Domestic Violence accusations be prohibited access to firearms (It’s on the Federal Form 4473, as anyone who has bought a gun in the US in the last 20+ years would know). There was no exception for police officers, and there was no time limit either.

    Time limit:
    When the Brady Act was fully implemented via the FBI’s NICS background check system + state level computerization of crime records, some interesting and embarassing things happened: men who had “Domestic Violence” crimes on their record, even from the 1970’s, suddenly were prohibited from buying a firearm from a licensed dealer. Many of these “crimes” were nothing more than a public argument that someone called the cops to settle, and the man chose to plead to a misdemeanor DV charge rather than fight it. Then a couple of decades later he’s banned from buying or owhing a handgun, thanks to the usual combination of feminists and their TradCon White Knight sock puppets.

    Police officers that carry sidearms who had an old DV plea, or who were accused of DV at the time found that they had to surrender their duty gun plus remove all other firearms from the house. They were basically out of a job until some sort of legal remedy could be found either to expunge the old conviction / plea, or the new one could be cleared. Various regulatory deals have made life a bit easier for cops since the 1990’s.

    The point I’m making: the 1994 Crime Bill converted a number of law abiding men into “criminals”, including cops. Nobody took up arms, nobody revolted, there was a lot of grumbling and lawsuiting, but that was it. This tests Vox Day’s fantasy to some degree.

    Back to the campaign of assassination:
    Off the top of my head, such a campaign would likely lead to Domestic Violence accusations being enforced against men “known to own guns” with a SWAT team rather than a couple of uniformed officers, with all that implies. Just as VAWA not only put more teeth into Duluth via mandatory arrest laws, and Federal funding for the feminist ‘women’s shelters’, an hypothetical campaign of assassination would lead to even more onerous loads on men, courtesy of the “ManUP!” White Knights and their uniformed minions, just as we’ve seen for the last 30 to 40 years.

    Ignorance of history is curable, provided one is humble enough to admit to a lack of knowledge.

  52. geronimo says:

    “Thomas Ball did not give up. He did not kill any judges. He set himself on fire on the court house steps after a ten year battle to see his kids unsupervised. No laws changed. No congressional hearings. Nary a peep.

    I wonder if Vox thinks Mr. Ball was a coward?”

    I doubt that Vox thinks about Mr. Ball at all. Nor do I. And to listen to you, nobody else does either.

  53. JDG says:

    The reality is that our current anti married father policies are merely the formal legal expression of our societal disrespect of married fathers.

    And

    Feminism is a disease of envy. It spreads via women due to the temptation to envy the position of men. For men, it spreads via the temptation to declare oneself the only real man, as other men aren’t worthy of respect.

    Absolutely spot on.

  54. geronimo says:

    This is like Eisenhower having a spat with Patton. You’re on the same side, morons.

  55. Oscar says:

    Lets lighten the mood a bit.

  56. honeycomb says:

    This is the final destination of NOT RESPECTING FATHER’s ..

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/woman-son-freeze-death-outside-admit-sleep-drug-binge-neglect-jamie-basinger-landyn-morganton-north-a8108156.html#commentsDiv

    You will not see this making the US MSM news cycle .. even though it happened in the USSofA.

  57. thedeti says:

    Geronimo

    Everyone’s respect for Vox Day doesn’t preclude disagreement with him. The fact that we’re on the same side doesn’t mean we can’t disagree with him. He’s wrong on this one. He’s showing disrespect for married fathers, suggesting that because they won’t commit murder-suicide, they care “more about their toys than they do their honor”. Or he spoke hyperbolically with a thinly veiled suggestion that divorcing men should commit murder-suicide after divorce, in which case he should clarify what he said as hyperbole or explain it.

    Based on Vox’s track record and prolific posting, I predict he’ll post some sort of response here, or on his own site, within 24 hours.

  58. earlthomas786 says:

    I think married fathers deserve quite a bit of respect. Feminism was also about trying to erode pretty much every aspect of ‘the Evil Patriarchy’…so guess who was going to get the first and probably biggest round of disrespect, fathers. Later on it went to husbands, then finally men in general. Along with the behind the scenes disrespect to God the father whether the feminist knew it or not.

    The most eye opening thing about feminism I ever witnessed was talking to ‘Catholic Feminsts’. There was nothing Catholic about them if you mentioned ‘God the Father’ or Scripture…it was all about trying to smash the patriarchy and hierarchy with them. That’s when it hit me hardcore, this is very Satanic in nature.

  59. thedeti says:

    And if we’re all on the same side, maybe Vox might do well to avoid trying to AMOG everyone else, and might want to avoid casting himself as the only real man in the room. He also might not want to suggest that married fathers (like Dalrock, and like me) are unworthy of respect.

  60. Oscar says:

    @ earlthomas786 says:
    December 14, 2017 at 1:44 pm

    “Along with the behind the scenes disrespect to God the father whether the feminist knew it or not.”

    That’s where it starts. We Christians need to keep in mind that EVERYTHING has a spiritual element to it, and that spiritual element is the most important facet.

  61. thedeti sez:

    Vox has said (paraphrasing) that the “secret king” is the key mark of the Gamma. He’s a Gamma who is, in his mind, correct and a genius. But his genius is so unique and special that no one else can recognize it. He’s so “ahead of his time”. One mark of the Gamma is that he often refers to himself as a Sigma, even though he is sexually unsuccessful and is viewed as inconsequential at best by most of the people he deals with. He’s a “king”, but only in his own mind. Someday, people will realize how correct he is….

    Vox clearly doesn’t realize the extent of my spellbinding genius. That’s OK; because the only real man in the room is me.

    I still don’t know what Sigma and Gamma mean (something like Alpha and Beta, I surmise, in roissyspeak); but, I think all these greek letters are used in the same way mathematicians use them: as a sorta spergy way to signal ingroup status and underhandedly boast about being scholarly.

    Best,

    Boxer

  62. Scott says:

    The message I receive from this society as a married father is something like this:

    All the hard work, the risk, the climbing up ladders to fix the roof, put up the Christmas lights, the helping with homework, helping mommy with dinner, housework, fixing everything, shielding the whole family from bad things— that’s what you’re supposed to do.

    But come home one day in a foul mood and look cross eyed at them and you are the shittiest dad on earth.”

    Kind of an approximation.

  63. Sounds like Secret Kingship to me…

    This.

  64. AnonS says:

    Agree with most of your assessments Dalrock but this one is off. It requires a deeper dive into what the difference between a modern man and non-modern man is in terms of mindset and not just everyone living today.

    The alt-right flirts with neo-reaction, which includes not assuming modernist ideas are eternal. This includes questioning where honor should be placed on the hierarchy among property, freedom, and happiness.

    We see this in throwback honor cultures migrating into Europe. Enforcement is only ever done within one’s gang and in their view, the police aren’t magical fairy overlords, they are just a bigger enemy gang. And by doing this they become increasingly immune to the laws of the nation even when their members mass kill random civilians they still win more and more authority. Because the world still works according to gangs, not “constitutions”.
    History never had “state police” until recently, you just had different gangs you were a part of. Church members went to Church court, serfs went to serf court, etc… The New Testament spells out that going to state authorities is a failure of self-policing your own Christian tribe.

    Vox is comparing the modern man to the non-modern man and showing how the modern man’s mind accepts modern ideas without question and is destroyed by doing so. Because the modern hierarchy of values doesn’t work in the long run, it degenerates back into classical forms.

    “But the modern man values his toys more than his honor. That’s why no one, including the legal system, respects his possession of either.”

    What does a non-modern mindset look like? It is fuzzy in the current climate but has some ideas that “conservatives” would find repulsive.

    1. Belong to groups that allow women zero votes.
    2. At the start of marriage hide and protect your assets either in trust funds or with a tribe of men that are looking out for you.
    3. At start of marriage, the wife doesn’t decide on the size of the home.
    4. Live well below your means and don’t spend money on toys.
    5. Reject pop-culture, have zero excitement for new Star Wars.
    6. Judge sexual immorality, judge pathological behavior.
    7. Mothers should stay home with infants for first 3-4 years.
    etc…

  65. Ras al Ghul says:

    geronimo says:

    December 14, 2017 at 1:37 pm

    “This is like Eisenhower having a spat with Patton. You’re on the same side, morons.”

    So is every MGTOW, and yet they are attacked repeatedly because they are easy targets.

    And this is the fundamental problem that Rollo has often pointed out. There is a “sister uber allies” but there is not and never will be a “brother uber allies” because there will always be men saying “I’m not like those other men.” There will always be men willing to cut other men down for the chance at sex (Amoging is a simple example. I’m the only man in the room being another example that Vox uses)

    This is also why western civilization cannot be saved without what TheDeti refers to above as a “hard reset” or as anonymous conservative calls it the K apocalypse.

    None of this will change without a massive collapse that results in a level of death that will be staggering.

    I don’t like it, it will probably happen during our lifetimes, certainly during my daughter, Talia, is going to experience it, but is unfortunately necessary.

  66. Lost Patrol says:

    Thank you Deti. That does make it clear.

    The secret of my secret kingship was so well guarded that I did not know it myself. This here though:

    But his genius is so unique and special that no one else can recognize it.

    This has definitely happened to me, and right here on Dalrock among other places. However I do think “King” may be taking things too far. Do you happen to know if there are slots available for lesser nobles? Maybe Secret Count, or Secret Marquis. Something that would get me a little secret respect without trying to take it too far.

  67. The Question says:

    This all comes down to the fact that the West can’t be saved if the women don’t cooperate, and they won’t cooperate until they have incentives to do so, and those incentives won’t reappear anytime soon, because Western women will vote to protect the current regime that incentive them to delay marriage, pop birth control pills like a homeless junkie, and have few if any kids as they spend their best years making terrible life choices.

    Everyone knows this, but they don’t want to confront the women for doing it. Nor do they want to create dread in these women by telling the men not to marry them when they go to settle down. So the unmarried men receive all the shaming for not somehow reciting the magic incantation necessary to get women to suddenly see the light, because as Dalrock has said a million times, it seems brave and courageous to do so.

    Meanwhile, thirsty betas in the Alt. Right will white knight for tradthots who proclaim traditional values while living a childless, YOLO lifestyle in which they bury more bones than a gravedigger during the Black Death.

  68. earlthomas786 says:

    Vox has said (paraphrasing) that the “secret king” is the key mark of the Gamma. He’s a Gamma who is, in his mind, correct and a genius. But his genius is so unique and special that no one else can recognize it. He’s so “ahead of his time”. One mark of the Gamma is that he often refers to himself as a Sigma, even though he is sexually unsuccessful and is viewed as inconsequential at best by most of the people he deals with. He’s a “king”, but only in his own mind. Someday, people will realize how correct he is….

    I may be wayyyyy off on this one, but I remember reading his stuff in the old days and I think he self-titled himself as a ‘Sigma”. This reeks of projection.

  69. earlthomas786 says:

    I still don’t know what Sigma and Gamma mean (something like Alpha and Beta, I surmise, in roissyspeak); but, I think all these greek letters are used in the same way mathematicians use them: as a sorta spergy way to signal ingroup status and underhandedly boast about being scholarly.

    Alpha gets all the sex
    betas worship women
    gammas whine about women
    sigmas don’t care about women and that makes women want to give them sex

    Something like that. It’s all a con game anyway.

  70. Zippy says:

    As a big, important counterrevolutionary leader at a key inflection point of history – and a personal authority on respect, honor, and manliness – Vox Day makes a great fantasy writer.

  71. Robert says:

    I like Vox. I like Dalrock. I think they both get it wrong sometimes. Vox can be an ass to those on his side and be downright cruel at times. Dalrock can reach mighty heavily at times. I think in this instances they are both right depending on the circumstances.

    But this is the reason, outside of God, I don’t see things turning around. Us patriarchs don’t exactly see eye to eye and our lines are drawn pretty firmly where we think they should be. There is a reason you often see Biblical patriarchs putting some distance between themselves and “their kingdoms” even though they are generally on the same side. Over the years I’ve had them both write posts on me, none of them friendly. Despite their reputations and their obvious respect by both of their followers, I still think I’m right. I’ve got my own credentials to stand on. So I’m just as wrong, and or right, as they are.

    Compared to the churchians or perverts and all the rest, who will all join hands with whores, homos and jihadists (which I don’t mind sharing space to share Christ with those folks through service and sharing the Gospel, but I’m damn sure not going to encourage and cheerlead put my stamp of approval on their perversions or devil worship) and stand against the evil christian patriarchs.

  72. Dalrock says:

    tradthots

    Hilarious!

  73. David says:

    Anders Breivik gets a lot of respect over there in Voxland. I think you are missing a third distinct category, men who marry, go postal and kill everyone.

    A lot of people have written about the near total overlap between feminists and White Trashionalists.

  74. SirHamster says:

    Vox makes a similar argument, but instead of saying that married fathers don’t deserve respect because they don’t work hard enough and aren’t emotionally available, he tells us we shouldn’t respect the modern married father due to his lack of commitment to murder-suicide (emphasis mine):

    You are taking “modern man” as a criticism of all fathers of modernity. I take it as the set of modern fathers who have helped build and accept the current status quo, which is a broken liberal and feminist system.

    As far as any father has acted outside that paradigm, they would then not fall under the category of “modern man”. (Though labeling such fathers “traditional” would probably be inaccurate)

    YMMV.

  75. Peter Soniborne says:

    I used to read Vox, but have come to the realization that:

    (1) He postures a lot.
    (2) He says things off the cuff, and refuses to admit when he was wrong
    (3) He hold up the wrong things as being worthy of respect (he’s a monarchist, an anglophile, he supports Breverik and that ilk)
    (4) I would never say that someone isn’t a Christian, but I have a hard time seeing how many of his views line up with Christianity (no Churchiantity… Real, honest to goodness Christianity).
    (5) If you disagree with him, he’ll resort to ad hominem attacks. How many people are on his “gamma” list?

    I have stopped reading him for these and many other reasons.

  76. bob k. mando says:

    you’re going to have to explain how Vox doesn’t respect men who marry. because i don’t see it in that post.

  77. I think married men – husbands and fathers – are largely regarded as fools.
    So I’m not at all surprised by VoxDay’s sentiment toward them, pre-marriage and post-marriage.

    It’s a good question: Is the husband and father not a fool?
    I mean, he did sign and commit to a precarious, onerous, unappreciated and rather profitless arrangement by getting married and taking on all of her liabilities for the long-term with little to no compensation in-kind or other, and against no contractual obligations for performance from the wife.

    Are they not the opposite of unwise and foolish?

    Perhaps it is not a little bit pathetic that even after millennia we seem to have lost what adjectives adequately describe and constitutes a man anymore.

    Here we are in modern times, and the only goddamn measuring stick for men is just how much dangerous and deep shit/quicksand he can manage to fall into, and whether or not he makes it out alive. That’s what constitutes a man worthy of respect?

    I would say that husbands and father should be worthy of respect for their role, performance and sacrifice IF they were held in esteem.

    Except they are not.

    Not anymore.

    Respect of men has been shouted down and shoved off the stage.
    The only on-stage performance for husbands and fathers is the trio Disdain, Ridiculue and Insolence.

  78. Oscar says:

    One would have to perform some serious mental contortions to respect Anders Breivik.

  79. Lovekraft says:

    Indeed, VD opening this can of worms did not sit well with me and I have followed and supported him for years. I suspect that behind his statements is some type of currying of favor with the spouse and to affirm his position vis a vis his children.

    My comments over at Vox Popoli essentially said “don’t kick a man when he’s down” and that there are two types of MGTOWs: a) the bitter losers who deserve some measure of contempt, and b) those who’ve seen the writing on the wall and have clear conditions that must be met. I fully understand and support the latter. Have been there myself. The LAST thing I want to hear is shaming language and redirection away from female responsibility/conditions.

    In defense of VD, since I know his style somewhat, I suggest patience and humility as he does come across at times as bombastic and preachy and to just let it slide.

  80. SirHamster says:

    > VD’s thoughts on Thomas Ball

    Vox comment: “Divorced, dispossessed men have it in their power to end the family court system next week in the same way that the USA can end the Taliban in Afghanistan. They simply do not wish to pay the terrible price involved. So, instead of actual warfare, we see symbolic gestures.

    Which is fine. I’m not advocating that anyone should do or not do anything, I am merely observing and commenting upon the obvious strategic aspects of the situation. I’m a wargamer, it’s what I do.”

    The tactics and strategy Vox points out are sound. You may not like the morality or the cost, but is the immorality of the status quo better?

    One would have to perform some serious mental contortions to respect Anders Breivik.

    Fear is a form of respect. Objectively, the choice to imprison him in a cushy prison rather than executing him is a form of respect. Current events are not painting his actions in a worse light, either.

  81. Dalrock says:

    @Bob K mando

    you’re going to have to explain how Vox doesn’t respect men who marry. because i don’t see it in that post.

    As I already quoted in the OP:

    The truth is that men often suffer the legal order they deserve, because they tolerate it.

    [Murder suicide]

    But the modern man values his toys more than his honor. That’s why no one, including the legal system, respects his possession of either.

    With the exception of the very small percentage of married fathers willing to commit murder suicide, married fathers deserve the disrespect the family courts reserve for them.

  82. Dalrock says:

    @SirHamster

    The tactics and strategy Vox points out are sound. You may not like the morality or the cost, but is the immorality of the status quo better?

    Christian marriage can not be restored by murder suicide. The tactics and strategy aren’t sound.

  83. Vox’s stance – men who get married have the right to defend their honor and property by any means necessary – is infinitely more defensible.

    Preached from a country where it’s illegal to possess a firearm or defend yourself…..

  84. Anonymous Reader says:

    AnonS
    The alt-right flirts with neo-reaction, which includes not assuming modernist ideas are eternal. This includes questioning where honor should be placed on the hierarchy among property, freedom, and happiness.

    The Society for Creative Anachronism has been doing something similar for decades. So far the Age of Chivalry has not returned, except in the form of Live Action Roleplaying once a year at the local RenFair.

  85. Oscar says:

    @ Sir Hamster

    “Fear is a form of respect. Objectively, the choice to imprison [Anders Breivik] in a cushy prison rather than executing him is a form of respect. Current events are not painting his actions in a worse light, either.”

  86. SirHamster says:

    The tactics and strategy Vox points out are sound. You may not like the morality or the cost, but is the immorality of the status quo better?

    Christian marriage can not be restored by murder suicide. The tactics and strategy aren’t sound.

    Sound for the purpose of destroying the family court system.

    Now, whether the Christian should practice such things for that objective is a different matter. But I note that the Israelites were instructed to put cities to the sword. Also note that the US has firebombed cities to ashes in war.

    The precedent of slaughter has been set. Should it be done? Should it be done in the name of Christ?

    I would be highly reluctant to do the latter. (But perhaps PizzaGate will reveal just cause …) That does not rule out the former, done in the name of restoring order to nation and tribe, but in the flesh, not of the Spirit.

  87. Anonymous Reader says:

    Although come to think of it, I knew a few ultra-serious SCA people who laid in extra arrows, swords, crossbow bolts, etc. back in 1999 so that they’d be ready to restore civilization after Y2K plunged the world back into the middle ages.

  88. The Question says:

    Vox Day’s point about Roman patricians raises a good question – what are morally acceptable responses by married Christian men to frivorce? Are they allowed to evade the law? Can they resist in any manner? Where are the boundaries? What safeguards should men set up to protect one another?

    Obviously murder-suicide is not among them, but I could never in good conscience marry if the only moral choice permitted is to submit and let the state to break up my marriage and take my kids from me. This is why I am somewhat sympathetic to Vox’s statement.

  89. Anonymous Reader says:

    Lovecraft
    In defense of VD, since I know his style somewhat, I suggest patience and humility as he does come across at times as bombastic and preachy and to just let it slide.

    Have you suggested patience and humility to Vox?

  90. I suggest patience and humility

    Go suggest it over there. I recommend starting the post of with:

    Vox, it seems as if you have a certain lack of patience and humility…..

  91. SirHamster says:

    “Fear is a form of respect. Objectively, the choice to imprison [Anders Breivik] in a cushy prison rather than executing him is a form of respect. Current events are not painting his actions in a worse light, either.”

    “You did a horrible inexcusable thing. Here, live at state expense for two decades. Enjoy your video games.”

    “[Anders Breivik] also demanded the replacement of a PlayStation 2 games console for a more recent PS3 “with access to more adult games that I get to choose myself” as well as a sofa or armchair instead of a “painful” chair.”

  92. JW says:

    The “modern man” that he refers to isn’t ALL modern men – it’s “The Modern Man.” The soyboy of the cucked or non-cucked variety, the Churchian or hipster, any of these, but not your long-suffering, red pilled Dalrock reader.

    His allusion to the “if we all just said no” is a nod to Solzhenitsyn’s statements that the Soviet police state would have dried up in a day if state security agents were all met with a hail of bullets at the door. It’s not at though he’s actually advocating murder suicide. He’s pointing out the point-of-failure of a totalitarian system. No one respected the modern Soviet man who saw his wife dragged off to a gulag, not even the legal system. I think he’s making that argument here about the feminist co-op of the male sphere.

  93. Anonymous Reader says:

    Sir Hamster
    The tactics and strategy Vox points out are sound.

    No. They are not, as the slice of history I posted up thread demonstrates.
    Even if he’s playing the old revo game of “the worse, the better” those tactics (there is no strategy in that posting) are not sound.

  94. thedeti says:

    Sound for the purpose of destroying the family court system.

    But it will not destroy the family court system. All that will happen is that the murderers will be put in jail, those who commit murder-suicide will leave their children as orphans and their family names tarnished, and the current system will tighten the thumbscrews on men in general.

    Also note that the US has firebombed cities to ashes in war.

    Sure, in a hot war with active armed conflict. We’re not there yet. Perhaps one day we will. But I’m not orphaning my children or sacrificing my career, livelihood and resources because you believe I should toss my body on society’s gears while shouting “For Western Civ!”

  95. earlthomas786 says:

    Vox Day’s point about Roman patricians raises a good question – what are morally acceptable responses by married Christian men to frivorce? Are they allowed to evade the law? Can they resist in any manner? Where are the boundaries? What safeguards should men set up to protect one another?

    Are you talking about Christian men who frivorce or have been frivorced?

  96. Anonymous Reader says:

    Sir Hamster
    “You did a horrible inexcusable thing. Here, live at state expense for two decades. Enjoy your video games.”

    The US is not Norway. Compare and contrast the Norwegian punishment of Brevik with the US punishment of McVeigh. Do you see any difference?

  97. SirHamster says:

    No. They are not, as the slice of history I posted up thread demonstrates.

    The Tsarist example? The Russian revolution succeeded …

    The point I’m making: the 1994 Crime Bill converted a number of law abiding men into “criminals”, including cops. Nobody took up arms, nobody revolted, there was a lot of grumbling and lawsuiting, but that was it. This tests Vox Day’s fantasy to some degree.

    An example of inaction does not demonstrate the ineffectiveness of action.

  98. earlthomas786 says:

    Murder-suicide won’t work.

    It’s about orienting marriage to the way God created it. In the OT it was outlined in Genesis after the fall…it was brought to fruition in the NT by Paul stating the model for marriage is Christ and the church. Everything we have now is trying to invert and rip apart marriages.

  99. earlthomas786 says:

    correction…it was also outlined before the fall as well

  100. Anonymous Reader says:

    Sir Hamster
    Now, whether the Christian should practice such things for that objective is a different matter. But I note that the Israelites were instructed to put cities to the sword.

    In the Bible context, who told the Israelites to do that? Was it Vox Day?

  101. The Question says:

    As someone who has worked in relevant industries for a long time, I can tell you exactly how a murder-suicide as described would go down.

    Every single media story would portray it as an act of masculine terrorism and a sign of growing extremism within Western men. The wife and judge would be heralded as martyrs, and stories of their kindness, compassion, and generosity would be run for weeks. Columns and editorials would condemn the husband/father as an abusive madman pushed to the brink after reading toxic sites in the manosphere and MRA community – the tiniest flaw in his character would be expanded into anything short of a crime.

    Feminists would use the deaths as an ideal opportunity to renew their propaganda campaign against any form of positive masculinity – the bills would be named after the victims – and enact more laws that no lawmaker wanting to be reelected would oppose. Possibly, one of those laws could allow for the temporary arrest by police officers of a man whose wife has filed a divorce in order to “protect and defend” against possible violence. Or, more likely, the law would have all divorce filings create an automatic no-contract restraining order against the husband, along with confiscation of his firearms.

    The Churchian media would double down on their current narrative on how men need to listen to their wives in order to properly lead,and any dissent would be an indication of potential violence and thus acceptable for the wife to report him to the church for discipline and justification for divorce.

    The church would also create white knight brigades to literally go to a woman’s house during a divorce, possibly armed, and ensure the husband was removed if he isn’t willing to go, while providing continuous on-site security to the wife free of charge. Men in churches would be expected to sign declarations condemning misandry and reaffirming their indirect role in creating a hostile and violence environment for women. Any sign of any male aggression in any form within the church would be stamped out. The soyboys would get even soyier, and the women even more ball-busting.

  102. Anonymous Reader says:

    SIr Hamster
    The Tsarist example? The Russian revolution succeeded …

    This is an ignorant statement. Go and actually read both Infogalactic entries then get back to me.

  103. SirHamster says:

    But it will not destroy the family court system. All that will happen is that the murderers will be put in jail, those who commit murder-suicide will leave their children as orphans and their family names tarnished, and the current system will tighten the thumbscrews on men in general.

    You think the family court system has the commitment to injustice to replenish their dead, even as the killers go to prison and live at state expense?

    When the thumbscrews are applied, that will reduce the number of desperate men willing to act against an unjust system?

    But I’m not orphaning my children or sacrificing my career, livelihood and resources because you believe I should toss my body on society’s gears while shouting “For Western Civ!”

    Not asking you to do a thing. Be as safe as you want to be. But if your choice is for all men to lose slowly because you can’t risk losing everything, then you are exactly the modern man Vox criticized.

  104. The Question says:

    @ earlthomas786

    I’m talking about married men who are being frivoced by their wives.

  105. Anonymous Reader says:

    Sir Hamster
    An example of inaction does not demonstrate the ineffectiveness of action.

    This is a stupid statement. Men lost social standing, lost family heirlooms and lost their jobs in the wake of the Misdemeanor Gun Ban and there was no action. An example of inaction demonstrates that men in the US will put up with a lot, therefore inaction is very likely to continue in the future.

    The divorce industry has been grinding men to bits since the 1980’s, even if you and Vox and others weren’t really aware of it. This mess didn’t just pop into being in the last few years, it is deeply embedded in the legal and social structure of the country. Assassination politics would not bring it to an end, but would give many three-letter-agencies even more justification for anything they want to do.

    You are not actually discussing real life, you’re asking us to engage in your fantasy world.

  106. thedeti says:

    But if your choice is for all men to lose slowly because you can’t risk losing everything, then you are exactly the modern man Vox criticized.

    My choice is for all men to do what is best for them, individually, in light of current conditions on the ground. It is not my job to do anything for “all men”, and my actions will not cause “all men to lose slowly”. The men who are “losing” are the men who won’t do anything or who make choices ignorant of current conditions on the ground. Those men are not my problem. And neither is Western Civ, so long as Western Civ doesn’t have my back.

    Why should I have “all men’s” backs when they don’t have mine?

  107. Anonymous Reader says:

    Sir Hamster
    You think the family court system has the commitment to injustice to replenish their dead,

    Yes. History shows this to be credible. What support do you have for your fantasy beyond your own imagination?

    even as the killers go to prison and live at state expense?

    I would expect those men to be killed one way or another, to the applause of most of society.

  108. earlthomas786 says:

    I’m talking about married men who are being frivoced by their wives.

    That’s a good question.

    I’m not sure how much it matters in the eyes of the law…since we have no fault divorce, but does it matter if the man doesn’t want to divorce or refuses to sign any papers?

  109. SirHamster says:

    This is an ignorant statement. Go and actually read both Infogalactic entries then get back to me.

    “The Socialist Revolutionary Party […] was a major political party in early 20th century Russia and a key player in the Russian Revolution. ”

    ” In November 1917, it won a plurality of the national vote in Russia’s first-ever democratic elections (to the Russian Constituent Assembly) […]”

    How about you just make your counter-point to the point I made?

    Looking at a different example:

    The Japanese system of party government finally met its demise with the May 15 Incident in 1932, when a group of junior naval officers and army cadets assassinated Prime Minister Inukai Tsuyoshi. Although the assassins were put on trial and sentenced to fifteen years’ imprisonment, they were seen popularly as having acted out of patriotism and the atmosphere was set where the military was able to act with little restraint.

  110. Anonymous Reader says:

    Question
    As someone who has worked in relevant industries for a long time, I can tell you exactly how a murder-suicide as described would go down.

    Based on the last 30+ years of US history, this scenario is quite likely.

  111. SirHamster says:

    An example of inaction demonstrates that men in the US will put up with a lot, therefore inaction is very likely to continue in the future.

    Did I say otherwise? Modern men.

    You are not actually discussing real life, you’re asking us to engage in your fantasy world.

    I don’t care if you engage or not. Examining the possible outcomes if action is taken is a separate topic than if the action is likely to happen.

    But likelihoods change. In one generation, America is a loyal British colony. In another generation, America revolts against the global British Empire.

    In one generation, compromise is made over the question of slavery. In another generation, the question of slavery inflames to the point of literal fratricide.

  112. craig says:

    Inaction continues until it doesn’t anymore; it requires a preference cascade for the average man to decide to slaughter and burn. Even within a regimented force it was four years of war before the allies were able to shrug off Tokyo and Dresden.

    The problem with Vox is that he prefers pagan ‘honor’ over Christian virtues. Even if it could be shown that murder-suicide were licit for a Christian in the case of frivorce, it still lacks the virtue of prudence, as The Question demonstrates.

  113. Anonymous Reader says:

    Sir Hamster
    “The Socialist Revolutionary Party […] was a major political party in early 20th century Russia and a key player in the Russian Revolution. ”

    ” In November 1917, it won a plurality of the national vote in Russia’s first-ever democratic elections (to the Russian Constituent Assembly) […]”

    If you actually bothered to read with any care or intelligence, you would have learned that the assassination campaign of the 1880’s – 1906 failed to produce any positive results, but was accompanied by infiltration of the revolutionaries by the secret police. Because the assassination campaign failed the SR’s moved on to other approaches. Therefore this slice of history shows that assassination politics fails to bring any social change.

    Your argument in favor of assassination politics is not supported, it is demolished. Try arguing with facts instead of handwaving next time.

  114. Anonymous Reader says:

    Sir Hamster
    The Japanese system of party government finally met its demise with the May 15 Incident in 1932, when a group of junior naval officers and army cadets assassinated Prime Minister Inukai Tsuyoshi.

    You assert that the US in 2017 is culturally identical or even similar to Imperial Japan in 1932?
    Do you expect anyone to take this seriously?

  115. SirHamster says:

    Why should I have “all men’s” backs when they don’t have mine?

    No reason at all from a material self-interest perspective. But that is why it is the path to glory and honor.

    It is an opportunity for those who seek such things. It may be more of a young man’s game, but hey, Abraham and Moses weren’t young when they answered their calls.

  116. Anonymous Reader says:

    Sir Hamster
    with a lot, therefore inaction is very likely to continue in the future.

    Did I say otherwise? Modern men.

    Yes, you did say otherwise. Now you are contradicting yourself.

  117. SirHamster says:

    You assert that the US in 2017 is culturally identical or even similar to Imperial Japan in 1932?
    Do you expect anyone to take this seriously?

    Do you have a reading comprehension problem? You can read my words yourself. No, I have not.

    But men are men, and have common weaknesses despite differences in cultural expression.

  118. The Question says:

    @earlthomas786

    Those are good questions, and I really don’t know that part of the law.

    I’d be interested in Dalrock’s take on that. What’s the proper Christian approach for a man whose wife is divorcing him for non-biblical reasons? What should a father encouraging his son to marry tell him about this situation and how to respond?

    I think that is what causes so much bewilderment by men to this, especially in the church, when they get slapped with divorce papers. There is virtually no discussion about how to deal with it, because nobody wants to talk about it. So what does the wise and prudent father tell his son about the realities of marriage in the Western world?

  119. Anonymous Reader says:

    Sir Hamster
    I don’t care if you engage or not. Examining the possible outcomes if action is taken is a separate topic than if the action is likely to happen.

    Moving the goalposts? Or motte and bailey? Previously you were urging a course of action, now you pretend it’s all just “examining the possible outcomes”.

    Still waiting for you to tell us who, in the Bible context, ordered the Israelites to kill everyone in certain cities. Was it Vox Day?

    Still waiting for you to demonstrate the simularity between Imperial Japan in 1932 and the US in 2017, too.

  120. Oscar says:

    @ Sir Hamster

    “No reason at all from a material self-interest perspective. But that is why it is the path to glory and honor.”

    Why haven’t you (or Vox Day for that matter) taken it?

  121. earlthomas786 says:

    If I bring a little personal life into this…I know one guy who’s basically on the precipice of getting divorced but has flat out told me he refuses to sign any papers and is basically putting the whole thing on his wife. I am curious to see what happens.

  122. SirHamster says:

    I’d be interested in Dalrock’s take on that. What’s the proper Christian approach for a man whose wife is divorcing him for non-biblical reasons? What should a father encouraging his son to marry tell him about this situation and how to respond?

    God hates divorce; what He has joined let man not separate. All reasons are non-Biblical.

    Since American legal system is unjust (Ex: Scott’s expose on Duluth), it is irrelevant to acting rightly before God.

    Play the legal games, threaten (legal) divorce, and play his hand “better” to dissuade her from taking that path. And if despite all his actions to preserve the marriage she is determined to leave – she has chosen the path of the unbeliever. Let her leave in peace.

    “But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you to peace.” (1 Cor 7:15)

    Whether to remarry after all that in the worst case scenario is another can of worms.

  123. SirHamster says:

    Why haven’t you (or Vox Day for that matter) taken it?

    Vox Day is building culture with Infogalactic and Castalia House and everything else he has on his plate.

    I am renewing my mind and dying to the “throw me a pity party” remnants of my teenage self. Grill me again in 30 years.

  124. SirHamster says:

    Moving the goalposts? Or motte and bailey? Previously you were urging a course of action, now you pretend it’s all just “examining the possible outcomes”.

    Your reading comprehension is poor. Oh well.

  125. Novaseeker says:

    But likelihoods change. In one generation, America is a loyal British colony. In another generation, America revolts against the global British Empire.

    In one generation, compromise is made over the question of slavery. In another generation, the question of slavery inflames to the point of literal fratricide.

    These changes all go in one direction and were fully supported by the liberal intelligentsia at every point since the enlightenment. It has been one way, and it continues to be one way. There is no comparable engine on the other side that can turn that around, that can change that trend. There is none. Vox and Richard Spencer are not it. There simply isn’t a critical mass of thought and people.

    Rather this long term trend has to run its course, and it isn’t close to that currently. Let it run its course and then there will be an opportunity several generations down the line, and at this time we have no idea at all what that opportunity will even look like. But one thing is certain — the opportunity is not now.

  126. thedeti says:

    Play the legal games, threaten (legal) divorce, and play his hand “better” to dissuade her from taking that path. And if despite all his actions to preserve the marriage she is determined to leave – she has chosen the path of the unbeliever. Let her leave in peace.

    Well, I’m not going to attribute Vox’ words to you. But if your words are to be believed, you don’t agree with Vox either. You’re not for murdering the ex wife. You’re for instilling Dread, playing the game, and parting ways if she will not be reconciled.

    Doesn’t that indicate the path to restoring Christian marriage isn’t murder-suicide, or threatening murder-suicide, but rather is insisting on a return to the man’s and woman’s proper order and relationship to and with each other, in their biblically-ordained roles; and if the woman will not do so, then not marrying in the first place? Isn’t the proper path an insistence on legal, and if not legal, then cultural, bulwarks to enforce that order and those roles?

  127. greginaurora says:

    I did not know of the Thomas Ball story. I read his manifesto thanks to his mention in these comments. Linked below:

    http://www.sentinelsource.com/news/local/last-statement-sent-to-sentinel-from-self-immolation-victim/article_cd181c8e-983b-11e0-a559-001cc4c03286.html

    Incredible.

  128. Oscar says:

    @ Sir Hamster

    In other words, both you and Vox Day criticize other men for not doing that which you won’t do. Let me know when your assassination campaign starts. Until then, your chest-thumping internet bluster is empty talk and inaction that helps you feel as though you’re “doing something”.

  129. TheLastCoyote says:

    I’ve thought Vox was weird ever since he was writing a column for WorldNetDaily 15 or so years ago (I never visit WND anymore becauseit too is weird, but I digress).

    Vox has written some good stuff on Alpha Game Plan. I think his alpha-beta-sigma-gamma-omega conceptualization is more accurate than the simple alpha-beta dichotomy you usually see elsewhere. He also had several good posts describing exactly what a gamma looks like in every day life. But at some point, it became clear that daring to disagree with him would get you classified as a gamma.

    Even though we have to rely mainly on what Vox claims about himself online, I can get a sense of what he’s like based on how he expresses himself in general and on how he responds to posters. . So readers, tell me this…can you picture yourself having a drink with Vox or going fishing or golfing with him? I sure as hell can’t. I’m looking mainly at the message whenever I read these type of blogs online, but at some point you have to factor the messenger into the equation.

  130. Gunner Q says:

    AnonS @ 1:57 pm:
    “History never had “state police” until recently, you just had different gangs you were a part of. Church members went to Church court, serfs went to serf court, etc… The New Testament spells out that going to state authorities is a failure of self-policing your own Christian tribe.”

    This is dead wrong and a good example of how alt-Right thinking is incompatible with Christianity. We are not allowed to take vengeance for ourselves. Even in OT, there were safety cities where the accused could go to be judged impartially. This is why we have police instead of honor killings in the West… but VD wants to go back to honor killings? Where did he get that idea? Not from Christ.

    Impartial civil government has always been a priority for Christians. It is an act of worship to God who Himself will judge us impartially. Not to mention the stupidity of “only thieves can judge if I’ve committed theft” thinking.

    Are you referring to Matt. 5:25? “Settle matters quickly with your adversary who is taking you to court. Do it while you are still together on the way, or your adversary may hand you over to the judge, and the judge may hand you over to the officer, and you may be thrown into prison.” That is not a call for self-policing.

  131. SirHamster says:

    Still waiting for you to tell us who, in the Bible context, ordered the Israelites to kill everyone in certain cities. Was it Vox Day?

    God, through his prophet Moses. Or later, through Elijah, ordered the slaughter of Baal’s false prophets.

    Doing it in the name of God does require a high bar of confirmation.

    Well, I’m not going to attribute Vox’ words to you. But if your words are to be believed, you don’t agree with Vox either. You’re not for murdering the ex wife. You’re for instilling Dread, playing the game, and parting ways if she will not be reconciled.

    Where are you getting disagreement? Vox draws out what a Roman patricians would/could do. It’s a reference point.

    Since I am not a Roman patrician, I do not blindly copy their actions; though it’s certainly an example of how brutal reactions would accomplish strategic goals. ex: Fear/Respect for fathers of a household; “My daddy wouldn’t do that, but he could”

    Isn’t the proper path an insistence on legal, and if not legal, then cultural, bulwarks to enforce that order and those roles?

    Peaceful paths are preferable. The question is, how far are you or am I willing to go if that fails?

    In self-defense, one decides the red line where the trigger is pulled. There is a Christian option to lay down one’s life. But a father must also consider his duty for those in his charge.

  132. SirHamster says:

    In other words, both you and Vox Day criticize other men for not doing that which you won’t do. Let me know when your assassination campaign starts. Until then, your chest-thumping internet bluster is empty talk and inaction that helps you feel as though you’re “doing something”.

    I don’t have an assassination campaign. What you think I am talking about and what I was talking about have diverged.

  133. Oscar says:

    @ SirHamster says:
    December 14, 2017 at 4:17 pm

    “I don’t have an assassination campaign. What you think I am talking about and what I was talking about have diverged.”

    Okay. What are you talking about then?

  134. So readers, tell me this…can you picture yourself having a drink with Vox or going fishing or golfing with him?

    “Hey Teddy the chart is suggesting we use green today, tackle box is open, want something?”

    “Don’t ever correct ME you MIDWIT!!!””

  135. earlthomas786 says:

    So readers, tell me this…can you picture yourself having a drink with Vox or going fishing or golfing with him?

    I can barely stand him in an online forum. He’d probably call the golf ball a gamma when he slices it to the right.

  136. Pingback: No respect. | Reaction Times

  137. He’d probably call the golf ball a gamma when he slices it to the right.

    Course designer and groundsman at the very least.

  138. Anonymous Reader says:

    Sir Hamster
    Your reading comprehension is poor. Oh well.

    Bravely ran away!

  139. 7817 says:

    I’ve benefited a lot from Vox Day’s information at Alpha Game Plan, especially when first finding the red pill and trying to reconcile it to Christianity and a blue pill upbringing. His Christianity+brutal explanations and acceptance of the dark nature of the world were very helpful.

    His complete rejection of weak men is something new; he used to have more pity for men trapped in the system. It may be that he’s just had all he can take.

    Either way, as with any sources of information, take what’s good and throw the bones away.

    We’ve all got to get up and walk. Despair is a lie.

  140. Novaseeker says:

    he refuses to sign any papers and is basically putting the whole thing on his wife. I am curious to see what happens.

    He doesn’t have to sign jack — the state will impose the ruling on him “ex parte” (ie, in his absence), and enforce it with the same guns they would if he signed.

  141. Anonymous Reader says:

    Sir Hamser
    Still waiting for you to tell us who, in the Bible context, ordered the Israelites to kill everyone in certain cities. Was it Vox Day?

    God, through his prophet Moses. Or later, through Elijah, ordered the slaughter of Baal’s false prophets.

    Are you asserting that Vox Day is a prophet? If so, show your proofs.
    If not then your cite to Joshua is irrelevant and does not support assassination of family court judges.

  142. jsinsatx says:

    VD isn’t looking for internet friends. I imagine if you are his friend you already know it. I expect he treats them differently. He doesn’t care what I think of him. I do not care what he thinks of me. We have a producer/consumer relationship. VD has done some great work in a variety of areas. I consume what I like and leave what I don’t. Clarkhat has taken a similar approach.

    I think it is a bit ridiculous to think that a man is a coward or worthless for deciding to excuse himself from a scenario where even if he plays the game perfectly he can wind up maritally destroyed in which case apparently the path to respect and glory is murder suicide. I think it could also be titled prudence.

    If the principle is worth enough for the divorced to fight and die then the never married and still married should pick up a rifle too.

    Plenty of non-blacks and non-slave owners picked up rifles for the cause in their day.

  143. SirHamster says:

    Okay. What are you talking about then?

    I wrote what I meant, and I meant what I wrote.

    If you think I’m advocating for an assassination campaign from what I wrote, I don’t see what I can write to clear things up.

  144. earlthomas786 says:

    He doesn’t have to sign jack — the state will impose the ruling on him “ex parte” (ie, in his absence), and enforce it with the same guns they would if he signed.

    That’s what I would figure. This is more to show and prove to his daughter that he wants no part in ripping up the family.

  145. Mike says:

    Until we exchange whiteknight judges with those that care about men’s issues, this will persist. We need more shitlords going to top tier lawschools.

    These delusions of men rising up in a civil war are just that. Whiteknights have infected every post of society, especially judges, police, and the military.

  146. Mike says:

    Maybe it’s time men create scholarship pools for students with our interests at heart. yes, it will take decades, but it might help. Every other major interest group does it.

  147. SirHamster says:

    Are you asserting that Vox Day is a prophet? If so, show your proofs.

    No.

    If not then your cite to Joshua is irrelevant and does not support assassination of family court judges.

    The slaughter of Canaan was due to their wickedness.

    Do you think family court judges are righteous, or wicked? Perhaps not that wicked. They only break families apart for lucre. Not reason to get blood on one’s hands.

  148. pathfinderlight says:

    I’m another one who had to go back and reread the article in question. My reading is at odds with Dalrock in the OP. Vox’s point is that he doesn’t respect the specific set of married men that refuse to risk their lives to defend their families and that he doesn’t respect men who have explicitly sworn off marriage and child rearing while still being capable.

    As the argument goes, this includes defending it from internal threats as well. The fact that divorce rape has become commonplace today without a large number of both judges and divorcing women facing retribution is proof that Christian men are too weak to defend their families. This weakness could stem through men not being morally strong enough to put their lives on the line or not having the moral sense to know what is being done to their family is in fact evil.

    He offers the Roman patricians as an example because their culture created a system where divorce could not become prevalent without the complacency of heads of household. Vox’s point is that going back to a system of honor killing would be preferable to a system of immorality instantiated in law like we have now.

    For the MGTOW, he is taking them to task about focusing their energy on selfish activities rather than having children. Basically calling it a male feminism.

    I’m not saying Vox is totally in the right on this one, I’m saying that Dalrock is painting with too broad a brush to represent Vox’s point accurately enough to reach a decent moral decision.

  149. AnonMGTOW says:

    From the Vox post:

    “From the societal and civilizational perspective they are useless parasites who, by their fecklessness, are helping the barbarians win the civilization war. Sure, they’re vastly to be preferred to the feminists, foreigners, globalists, and anti-Christians who are actively waging war against Western civilization, but they are passively refusing to defend it in any way…. They are, in fact, observably worse, as both are in it merely for themselves but at least the women may produce the next generation of Western children, even if they will surely raise them in a sub-optimal manner.”

    I’m not sure why should contribute to the continuation of a gynocentric society which is 52% White over a “barbarian” Black or Islamic society.

    “If we aren’t sympathetic to soldiers who run the moment they see the first casualties in their unit, we should not be sympathetic to men who run from women because they saw someone taken down by a toxic woman. ”

    My sympathies will depend on what the purpose of the fight is. Are the soldiers called to defend race and nation? Then by all means shoot the deserter. Have they been drafted to fight an unjust war for an unjust government? Then they ought to desert. There is no obligation to marry and have children just to continue a corrupt, gynocentric culture.

    “The truth is that men often suffer the legal order they deserve, because they tolerate it. Would any Roman patrician have meekly submitted to being made an indentured servant at the whim of his wife and the word of a judge? No. He would have killed the judge, the wife, and everyone who assisted either of them, then calmly gone home and opened his veins in the bath. That’s why Roman law permitted patriarchs to kill those under their authority who crossed them in any way – because they were going to do it anyway and the maintenance of legal order in their society relied upon acknowledging that reality… Men could end the entire divorce machine in 30 days if they chose”

    This is true, but it is also true that if all men went the way of MGTOW, the legal order would not survive. Women themselves would lobby the government to end it. And they wouldn’t have to kill themselves.

  150. earlthomas786 says:

    The fact that divorce rape has become commonplace today without a large number of both judges and divorcing women facing retribution is proof that Christian men are too weak to defend their families. This weakness could stem through men not being morally strong enough to put their lives on the line or not having the moral sense to know what is being done to their family is in fact evil.

    We’re still waiting for a good solution for this that doesn’t resort to killing a lot of people.

  151. Otto Lamp says:

    As someone who has worked in relevant industries for a long time, I can tell you exactly how a murder-suicide as described would go down. Every single media story would portray it as an act of masculine terrorism and a sign of growing extremism within Western men.

    Exactly right.

    A better approach would be the hunger strike. Which, btw, is essentially what the MGTOW movement is–a type of hunger strike. Only, it’s one where both sides end up starving–both the women and the men.

    You can’t force the genie back into the bottle, the genie has to want to go back.

  152. jsinsatx says:

    I think it is reasonable for a Christian to ask what is the obligation to take up arms against a kingdom of this world when christians are citizens of another kingdom. If your wife divorces you then she has failed. What does murdering Caesar do for Christ? What does marriage do for Christ? Western Civilization is not the Kingdom of Heaven. It is worth something and not to be thrown away, but to a Christian audience it is not a given that violence to change state policy is a good. Early Christians didn’t take up arms against Rome over emperor worship. At least not in big numbers.

  153. Oscar says:

    @ SirHamster says:
    December 14, 2017 at 4:50 pm

    “I wrote what I meant, and I meant what I wrote.

    If you think I’m advocating for an assassination campaign from what I wrote, I don’t see what I can write to clear things up.”

    You – and Vox Day – wrote about murdering family court judges. So, when do you start?

  154. 7817 says:

    “But the modern man values his toys more than his honor.”

    Vox is speaking rhetorically, but it’s worth pointing out that for most men, the choice is between some form of freedom (not being jailed for failing to pay the ex wife) and honor.

    The choice in his example is literally between death and honor, not toys and honor.

    It’s probably not that different for most of us; from what I see the modern man values a second chance and making the best of a bad situation over “honor,” even if you consider his example of murder suicide to be honorable.

    Is that wrong? I don’t know, but a decision like that should definitely be based on something more than some rhetoric by someone who observably enjoys stirring things up.

  155. Spike says:

    Unfortunately, Vox’s Patrician is alive and well. We see it in a lot of murder-suicides. The scenario always plays out along these lines:
    -Man, usually older, marries young woman
    -Man has her live in his property, which he spent a painstaking lifetime accumulating
    -Wife informs him she is pregnant. He is overjoyed
    -Wife begins process of erasing him from her life: fights and arguments
    -Man gets evicted from his own home.Police enforce this rule at gunpoint.
    -Wife takes up with new lover in husband’s former home
    -Husband gets gun, shoots lover, wife and spends time with child
    -Husband kills himself, or ends up imprisoned.

    I have read Vox, and I understand where he is coming from. I don’t think he’s by any means perfect in his arguments ( I have read his articles thinking ”this isn’t sustainable”). What is said in the above article about him is true.
    He does, however, have a place in the ‘Sphere, and it’s up to us to test his place in the marketplace of Ideas like anyone else.
    Anything else becomes a ”safe space”, as bad as those we despise.

  156. Otto Lamp says:

    He offers the Roman patricians as an example because their culture created a system where divorce could not become prevalent without the complacency of heads of household.

    Bad example.

    Divorce had become common by the latter part of the Roman empire, and it was as often instigated by the wife as the husband.

    Rome had to instigate a bachelor tax to encourage men to marry.

    Marriage stability broke down in Rome, just as it is breaking down in the West today. There are several parallels between the fall or Rome and modern America–this is one of them.

  157. 7817 says:

    @pathfinderlight

    “I’m not saying Vox is totally in the right on this one, I’m saying that Dalrock is painting with too broad a brush to represent Vox’s point accurately enough to reach a decent moral decision.”

    The brush doesn’t get much broader than this: “But the modern man values his toys more than his honor.”

    I’m not saying he’s wrong, but that is nothing if not a broad brush.

  158. Anonymous Reader says:

    Sir Hamster, his rationalization hamster in the wheel:
    The slaughter of Canaan was due to their wickedness.

    Ordered by whom, in the Bible sense? By Vox Day?

    Do you think family court judges are righteous, or wicked?

    Do you think God has ordered you to kill them?

  159. VD isn’t looking for internet friends. I imagine if you are his friend you already know it. I expect he treats them differently.

    Yeah, square this circle when it comes to his relationship with Roosh. How does non-Anglo PUA blog-man earn Vox’s respect? Selling T-shirts and $hoveling $hit for the almighty shekel while chiding the rest of us about being to cowardly to give up our toys.

  160. patriarchal landmine says:

    vox day made his own video game before going on to call all male gamers “basement dwelling loser virgins” while gamergate was going down.

    basically, he’s a stealth feminist. all tradcucks are. they are terrified of women’s disapproval.

  161. earlthomas786 says:

    Marriage stability broke down in Rome, just as it is breaking down in the West today. There are several parallels between the fall or Rome and modern America–this is one of them.

    It’s also what took down the Soviet Union. Lenin implimented all the stupid laws to make the state the head of the family (similar to ours today) and Stalin tried to put that genie back in the bottle…but it was too late.

    The US will go just like Rome and the Soviet Union…we never seem to learn from our mistakes.

  162. Gunner Q says:

    7817 @ 4:45 pm:
    “I’ve benefited a lot from Vox Day’s information at Alpha Game Plan, especially when first finding the red pill and trying to reconcile it to Christianity and a blue pill upbringing. His Christianity+brutal explanations and acceptance of the dark nature of the world were very helpful.

    “His complete rejection of weak men is something new; he used to have more pity for men trapped in the system. It may be that he’s just had all he can take.”

    I feel the same way. VD introduced me to the Red Pill, gave me a window to see why my love of reading was being strangled by revenge porns and sexual perversions, let me observe an Alpha up close to great benefit and scored the victories of GamerGate and Rabid Puppies.

    How disappointing that he now considers me an enemy. As if I’d freely chosen sexual starvation.

    JW @ 2:55 pm:
    “The “modern man” that he refers to isn’t ALL modern men – it’s “The Modern Man.” The soyboy of the cucked or non-cucked variety, the Churchian or hipster, any of these, but not your long-suffering, red pilled Dalrock reader.”

    Soyboy is a man, too. One with problems yet still made in God’s image and therefore worthy of being treated as a man. He is not a “Them” whose right to life is forfeit because he’s weak and plays on the wrong team.

    “His allusion to the “if we all just said no” is a nod to Solzhenitsyn’s statements that the Soviet police state would have dried up in a day if state security agents were all met with a hail of bullets at the door.”

    Remember what Christ did in that exact situation? He insisted He wasn’t leading a rebellion, put the poor sod’s ear back on and then went quietly to His undeserved destruction. We follow Christ’s example.

    jsinsatx @ 5:09 pm:
    “Western Civilization is not the Kingdom of Heaven. It is worth something and not to be thrown away, but to a Christian audience it is not a given that violence to change state policy is a good.”

    Well said and quoted for truth.

  163. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    I still don’t know what Sigma and Gamma mean

    From what I’ve read about Sigmas …

    * Sigmas so not exist in the hierarchy. They are lateral to the hierarchy.

    * Sigmas are like Alphas, in that they can get women if they want. But they often don’t, because they don’t care. They are aloof and above it all. They are heroic, Nietzschean figures.

    * Gammas often mistakenly believe they are Sigmas.

    * Some say Sigmas don’t actually exist. “Sigma” is a tortured concept invented by people who like to think they’re Alpha, but aren’t. Usually they’re Gammas.

    * Despite their supposed rarity, every time I’ve seen an article about Sigmas, everyone posting announced that they suddenly realized that too were Sigmas.

  164. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    I’m most confused about what is a Delta.

    I’ve seen some charts place Delta below Gamma (as in the novel, Brave New World). But I’ve seen other charts place Delta above Gamma.

  165. patriarchal landmine says:

    “For the MGTOW, he is taking them to task about focusing their energy on selfish activities rather than having children. Basically calling it a male feminism.”

    so refusing to take part in a rigged game men can’t win is “cowardice” and “unworthy of respect.”

    but a murder suicide where you kill everyone you don’t like is heroism and respectable?

    this is woman logic. you cannot believe that and be a man. but by all means, feel free to begin the uprising, see how many people show up to follow the banner of “it’s your fault my wife walked all over me in divorce.”

  166. earlthomas786 says:

    Sounds like it is a greek letter invented to cover up the other greek letter. Or it’s the ‘king in your own head’ class.

  167. Anonymous Reader says:

    This is off topic, however I will share it here because some men may be affected.
    Summary: bluetooth-enabled locks on safes are not a good idea. Especially home gun safes.

    https://www.sportsfirings.com/?p=16831

    No doubt some engineer meant well. Good intentions are not enough.

  168. SirHamster says:

    You – and Vox Day – wrote about murdering family court judges. So, when do you start?

    Dalrock has written about fathers with a symbolically incestuous relation with their daughters.

    Are you going to ask him the same question? Analysis is not endorsement or recommendation.

  169. Lovekraft says:

    @ Anonymous Reader above:

    Sure, anonymous internet person, I will confess.

    You didn’t quite get my point, so I’ll reiterate: over at Vox Popoli, in the comment thread in question, I choose the path of restraint and compassion, knowing full well that VD and I are of the same generation and temperament. I won’t lock horns with him. We are doing our own thing in our own ways.

    Tell us what you are doing to spread the red pill message.

  170. SirHamster says:

    I’m most confused about what is a Delta.

    I’ve seen some charts place Delta below Gamma (as in the novel, Brave New World). But I’ve seen other charts place Delta above Gamma.

    Haven’t heard the BNW framework used for manosphere. Delta is a term coined by Vox for his Socio-sexual hierarchy (SSH) model of men. So checking his definition:

    “Delta: The normal guy. Deltas are the great majority of men. They can’t attract the most attractive women, so they usually aim for the second-tier women with very limited success, and stubbornly resist paying attention to all of the third-tier women who are comfortably in their league. This is ironic, because deltas would almost always be happier with their closest female equivalents. When a delta does manage to land a second-tier woman, he is constantly afraid that she will lose interest in him and will, not infrequently, drive her into the very loss of interest he fears by his non-stop dancing of attendance upon her. In a social setting, the deltas are the men clustered together in groups, each of them making an occasional foray towards various small gaggles of women before beating a hasty retreat when direct eye contact and engaged responses are not forthcoming. Deltas tend to put the female sex on pedestals and have overly optimistic expectations of them; if a man rhapsodizes about his better half or is an inveterate White Knight, he is almost certainly a delta. Deltas like women, but find them mysterious, confusing, and are sometimes secretly a little afraid of them.”

    Summary: Average man.

  171. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Sounds like Vox describes Delta the way other men describe Gamma. White Knights.

  172. You didn’t quite get my point, so I’ll reiterate: over at Vox Popoli, in the comment thread in question, I choose the path of restraint and compassion, knowing full well that VD and I are of the same generation and temperament. I won’t lock horns with him. We are doing our own thing in our own ways.

    Tell us what you are doing to spread the red pill message.

    Sometimes locking horns is the necessary evil that brave men must do.

  173. Oscar says:

    @ SirHamster says:
    December 14, 2017 at 5:55 pm

    “Analysis is not endorsement or recommendation.”

    Okay. What’s your “endorsement or recommendation”? Should men murder family court judges, or not?

  174. Per Desteen says:

    Who is the hero with such a policy of “If you don’t like it, massmurder/suicide”?

    Well, St. Brevik for one, but he’s still alive, so not a total hero there.

    Thomas Ball, that Libyan Fruitseller, or the Burning Monk are also ones, but again not total victories because the excluded the other part. They did cause change, but didn’t get the satisfaction.

    Who then?

    Well, Mohammed Atta, for one. Any suicide attacker that succeeds in his mission is following such a policy. It’s a victory, but has the world gone the direction Islam wants? Did it invite more bombing, control, war, etc? Will it result in near total war on Islam? Odds are high.

    Would the desired result be achieved if every man who was zeroed out by the courts terminated all those involved and then committed seppuku? I don’t believe that, not for a second.

    It does not solve the origin of the problem, only eliminates those who administer a solution. (A is the operative word here, not “the wrong”)

    As someone noted above, the correct solution will involve returning women to chattel slavery with the associated social protections. I would suspect that it will require a bottleneck extinction to manage that, or a completely voluntary agreement by nearly all women to assume such a legal status. (extinction it is!)

  175. Anonymous Reader says:

    Lovecraft
    Sure, anonymous internet person, I will confess.

    I’m not a priest or a cop, anonymous internet person.

    You didn’t quite get my point,

    No, I got your point. That’s why I asked my question…

    so I’ll reiterate: over at Vox Popoli, in the comment thread in question, I choose the path of restraint and compassion, knowing full well that VD and I are of the same generation and temperament. I won’t lock horns with him. We are doing our own thing in our own ways.

    …and that’s a lot of words. You could have just answered “No, I did not urge patience and humility on Vox Day”.

    Tell us what you are doing to spread the red pill message.

    Why? My gosh, you Vox Day followers sure are prickly and passive-aggressive!

  176. Lovekraft says:

    Why don’t you answer my question: what have you done, and are currently doing to advance the red pill message, other than taking swipes at VoxDay using an anonymous handle?

    I’ve been commenting using Lovekraft for years. Thousands of posts. On many platforms. In TRL I can’t tell you how many times I’ve stuck my neck out to advance the debate, call out lies.

    My question is worded to find out one of two things: EITHER you’re redpilled and have serious differences with VD’s message (if so, good for you). Or you aren’t and are here to cause trouble.

  177. SirHamster says:

    Okay. What’s your “endorsement or recommendation”? Should men murder family court judges, or not?

    I have no endorsement or recommendation. Do you actually care what an anonymous person labeled “SirHamster” recommends?

    Should men kill judges from a Christian perspective? Depends. America has a tradition of revolution and having certain inalienable rights.

    “So the king did not listen to the people, for this turn of events was from the LORD, to fulfill the word the LORD had spoken to Jeroboam son of Nebat through Ahijah the Shilonite. When all Israel saw that the king refused to listen to them, they answered the king: “What share do we have in David, what part in Jesse’s son? To your tents, Israel! Look after your own house, David!” So the Israelites went home.

    King Rehoboam sent out Adoniram, who was in charge of forced labor, but all Israel stoned him to death. King Rehoboam, however, managed to get into his chariot and escape to Jerusalem.

    On the flip side …

    “For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.”

  178. honeycomb says:

    VOX is wrong ..

    We can’t go back. That time is over. Marriage 0.0 thru 4.0 is over. So his idea of the old solutions will not work without the complete system. And, there’s a reason we have de’gen’eer’ate’tit’ed through these versions of marriage go where we are today.

    Heck Marriage doesn’t even mean what it meant 10 years ago.

    All men that do marry when, or if, they get divorced will be divorced under an ever change platform or laws & customs that exist at the time of divorce .. not the marriage day. Time isn’t going to stop for any man. Including Vox.

    Not one word above can be dispute.

    So it really just comes down to trying to prove who is the “real man” amongst the group. OR someone (aka Vox) is trying to rationalize his choice to marry a slut. Typical GAMMA behavior.

    Either way .. FAWK HIM and his bandwagon bra’gay’did of merry rev’uh’lears.

    I am not dumb enough to tell someone how to handle his most precious personal property .. i.e. himself. The government does enough of that .. I hate con’script’shun the same way. Government by it’s nature is a growing every sxpanding set of laws and customs to further entrap you.

    Furthermore I respect any man who will carry the very burdensome load of marriage. Good job men.

    It’s just not for me (re: marriage and children).

    I pray GOD holds it against him (re: Vox).

  179. Anonymous Reader says:

    Lovecraft
    I’ve been commenting using Lovekraft for years. Thousands of posts. On many platforms.

    But apparently not here, nor at the late Spearhead, nor at Rollo’s RationalMale, nor at the now-frozen No MAAM, nor at Badger’s, nor at any other commonly known androsphere sites. Perhaps you could name some of those platforms where you have placed thousands of comments?

    From my perspective you just parachuted in here to defend a foolish Vox Day / Theodore Beale statement urging other men on a different continent to commit murder. You also have admitted that you won’t challenge Vox Day on his own site, which I suppose is prudent. However you have urged everyone else to be patient and humble with regard to Vox Day, a rather one-sided request don’t you think?

    Then again, you could be just another driveby like “Michael” and “Blume” on a previous thread, dishonestly trolling for flames…

    In TRL I can’t tell you how many times I’ve stuck my neck out to advance the debate, call out lies.My question is worded to find out one of two things: EITHER you’re redpilled and have serious differences with VD’s message (if so, good for you). Or you aren’t and are here to cause trouble.

    That’s nice. As a long term commenter on this and other androsphere sites, I don’t answer to you or any other troll.

  180. Athor Pel says:

    “Gunner Q says:
    December 14, 2017 at 5:38 pm

    “His allusion to the “if we all just said no” is a nod to Solzhenitsyn’s statements that the Soviet police state would have dried up in a day if state security agents were all met with a hail of bullets at the door.”

    Remember what Christ did in that exact situation? He insisted He wasn’t leading a rebellion, put the poor sod’s ear back on and then went quietly to His undeserved destruction. We follow Christ’s example.”

    Christ went to the crucifixion because it was His Father’s will. Because He was the Messiah. He did it for a purpose higher than resistance to just that day’s evil.

    You’re not the Messiah. I’m not the Messiah. Dalrock is not the Messiah. Vox is not the Messiah.

    We have to figure out God’s will for ourselves daily just like every other man doing God’s will in the pages of the Bible. Some men were told to preach repentance, some were told to kill whole cities, some were told to run, some were told to stand and fight. In each case they were doing God’s will.

    Jesus also whipped the money changers out of the Temple. Does that sound like a man avoiding physical confrontation or a man lacking zeal for the holiness of His Father’s house?

    Look at the whole picture, read the whole Bible, examine the whole Jesus. Just because the problem is complex doesn’t mean you should abdicate grappling with it and pass it on to your children. Because that is Vox’s message, in case you missed it. Get off your ass and do something constructive, today. See the rhetoric for what it is, not what your emotions tell you it is.

    Waiting for a societal reset won’t get it done.
    Waiting for someone else to do the hard work won’t get it done.

    If you want tomorrow to be better you have to do something today to get there. Will our many social problems get completely solved in our lifetimes? Why do you even care? Do God’s will and let Him worry about it. You do the work today. Your children will bless you for it.

    How do you think we got a Christian civilization in the first place?
    Do you have any idea what kind of brutal crap the early church had to deal with?
    Read Eusebius’ history of the early church. It’s one long string of persecution. Decades upon decades of persecution, brutality and death. But they kept working anyway. What’s your excuse?

  181. Why don’t you answer my question: what have you done, and are currently doing to advance the red pill message, other than taking swipes at VoxDay using an anonymous handle?

    To the fainting couches! RealMen TM are supposed to be able to handle criticism, that’s part of the package. That Vox situates himself to be immune from correction is evidence that he’s not what he advertises himself to be. Walk the walk where you are at work, online, at Church and at home. If you can’t hack it pack it in. How’s that for a “red-pill” message? Pointing out his bullsh!t hypocrisy is red pill too if you ask me.

  182. BillyS says:

    Not that anyone is likely all that concerned here, but Vox has gone off a bit of the deep end with this post. I still support being a civilizationist, but claiming that I am wrong because I didn’t go the murder-suicide route last year is idiotic.

    Vox is very talented, but he often fails to realize his success is not as much in his own hands as he thinks. The rains hit everyone. Some make it through much better, but some are hit hard. Life happens and we must move on.

    He is also wrong in other areas, but fortunately you can still learn a bit from him, just not in this area.

  183. BillyS says:

    Is the Snowdensjack there the same as the one here? He seems to be arguing the exact opposite there of what I have seen him post here.

  184. Anonymous Reader says:

    greginaurora
    I did not know of the Thomas Ball story. I read his manifesto thanks to his mention in these comments

    That manifesto was described in the main stream media as “deranged” or “ranting”, etc. but they never actually printed it. I’m pleasantly surprised you found a link, because it is one of the many factual events that the main stream media worked to “memory hole”, and Google is now part of the mainstream media. . The Wiki-feminists who made sure there was never a Wikipedia page about him.

    Yes, it is incredible. There is a place for hard copy as well as multiple digital images of such events, because they have an odd habit of quietly vanishing from the Internet.

  185. Per Desteen says:

    @Athor Pel

    “Get off your ass and do something constructive, today.”

    The advanced argument is that “constructive” includes “massmurder/suicide” and that the subset of people to do so are worthy of respect, and all others are not…

    So I’m married, have more than 2 kids, and act like a patriarch as much as I can. If/when my wife frivorces me, I’m going to be zeroed out. I’ll scorch earth as best I can, but plans change when you’re punched in the face.

    Anonymous Reader’s summation of “statement urging other men on a different continent to commit murder.” truly earns his judgment of “Foolish”. It’s another example of rhetoric that should be taken as such, as was your quote, Athor. Note that even though it’s rhetoric it can also be foolish, much as Vox’s rhetorical example of calling an opponent a pedophile to win an verbal engagement without regard to the truth of that proposition was foolish. While it made a nice tactical example it was strategically poor.

    So in these matters where there’s advice to toddle off to hell in the same handbasket as your tormenters being the morally superior choice worthy of respect, my response is the same as with the Alt-Retards and their idiocy: You First.

    Which is rhetoric replying to rhetoric, by the way.

  186. Anonymous Reader says:

    Athor Pel
    Because that is Vox’s message, in case you missed it. Get off your ass and do something constructive, today.

    Most people regard murder as destructive, not constructive. There are exceptions: Saloth Slar aka Pol Pot and his “Year Zero” Red Khmer regarded the murder of anyone who could read as something necessary to construct the new People’s Kampuchea. What do you think of that idea?

    See the rhetoric for what it is, not what your emotions tell you it is.

    I see words that clearly urge men like BIllyS to commit multiple murders. Perhaps you should try to see the words for what they say in plain English, rather than what your emotions tell you they really, secretly say to super-special insiders?

    Waiting for a societal reset won’t get it done.
    Waiting for someone else to do the hard work won’t get it done.

    But murder will get it done? If you are sure about that, do you intend to lead by example?

  187. BillyS says:

    One thing to note about the hostility against MGTOW is that many who favor it are equally hostile against those who marry or push marriage as needed for civilization. They are no cleaner in this either. See many replies here against those who propose full MGTOW as the only way.

    Vox is idiotic on this one, but so are those who claim they want it all burn, even while they continue to live in the world they want to disappear. Plenty of hypocrisy to go around.

  188. BillyS says:

    AR,

    The foolishness also assumes that enough murders, by others of course, would bring the system down. No one would fill in for those, right?

  189. Anonymous Reader says:

    BillyS
    The foolishness also assumes that enough murders, by others of course, would bring the system down. No one would fill in for those, right?

    That’s what it looks like to me. History tells me otherwise.

  190. earlthomas786 says:

    That Vox situates himself to be immune from correction is evidence that he’s not what he advertises himself to be.

    Which is worse…the ‘king in his own head’ or the ‘pearl of great price’?

  191. honeycomb says:

    BillyS ..

    As a MGTOW .. full disclosure .. I haven’t dated for about 10 years .. and it’s been great.

    I don’t hate men who are BP / Married / Divorced / etc. .. I don’t preach RP .. but I never shy away from RP truth’s when i am put into the situation of giving my opinion. It would probably be better if I just said nothing .. or the PC BS (aka male bovine fecal matter). But .. no one seems to be care about the 50 year old who keeps to himself these days.

    Here’s what I did .. I reversed Briffault’s law ..

    Briiault’s law maintains that “the female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal family. Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place.”

    Just reverse the male and female. It drives’em nuts.

    And my work zen (heh) has never been better.

    Away from work .. Me and my buddies do guy stuff & most of them are married with mostly out of the house kids.

    Seems constructive to me.

  192. Dalrock says:

    @Anon Reader

    But apparently not here, nor at the late Spearhead, nor at Rollo’s RationalMale, nor at the now-frozen No MAAM, nor at Badger’s, nor at any other commonly known androsphere sites.

    Lovecraft has been around for many years. I’m pretty sure he was an early commenter on this blog.

  193. Anonymous Reader says:

    Dalrock
    Lovecraft has been around for many years. I’m pretty sure he was an early commenter on this blog.

    Frankly I do not recall him. But I stand corrected.

  194. 7817 says:

    @Billy’s

    “One thing to note about the hostility against MGTOW is that many who favor it are equally hostile against those who marry or push marriage as needed for civilization. They are no cleaner in this either. See many replies here against those who propose full MGTOW as the only way.”

    Truth. For a wounded man there is definite appeal to MGTOW. Thing is, men can’t opt out of the game. Rollo is right, men are involved whether or not they want to be, so we might as well be the best at it we can.

    A wounded man naturally needs time to heal, but staying in the bitterness is death. Even if a man opts to not commit to a woman again (totally understandable) being bitter is poison.

  195. Novaseeker says:

    196 comments in 11 hours is a lot.

    This struck a chord, it seems to me. Interesting certainly. I am no fan of Vox or his tiresome groupies, and I disagree with his stance here (as I do often with his stances, when I bother to read them, which isn’t very often frankly), I do think this has been a good discussion between proponents and critics.

  196. BillyS says:

    Honeycomb,

    I don’t blame you at all. I don’t have any solid close male friendships, which makes my time a lot rougher than I would prefer. That is a major failure in our modern society, even in churches.

    I suspect I may not date either, since I am not drawn to the ones who seem drawn to me. I have a neighbor who seems to be a MGTOW of sorts, even if not officially. I had a brief conversation with him a while back and it seems he fell into his position rather than chose it however. (Young 30s, single, owns his own home, etc.) We don’t interact a lot, though he is quite nice to talk with, so I don’t know much more about his situation.

    I wish more people would really think through these issues, something even Vox is not doing. The solution is not just to chide men for being childish/selfish/afraid/whatever. I do think just living for yourself is not valid for a Christian, but I also understand the minefields are serious now.

    Few want to hash out solutions, which is very unfortunate. Reasonable discussion here.

  197. BillyS says:

    Novaseeker,

    I find most of Vox’s positions to have quite a bit of merit, but he is blind in a few areas as well. I do read there fairly regularly, along with here. In fact a post Vox had a long time back made me know Dalrock existed.

  198. Anonymous Reader says:

    For the record, the earliest comment on this site I can find by Lovecraft:

    https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2010/09/18/why-is-the-marriage-deck-stacked-against-women/#comment-1254

    The earliest comment of mine that I can find:
    https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2010/10/25/post-marital-spinsterhood/#comment-2037

    Lovecraft has seniority by 22 days.

  199. Johnycomelately says:

    Unfortunately Vox is correct but equally unfortunate is his prescription on individual retribution.

    Reminds me of Putin’s response to small states trying to evade the global octopus, paraphrasing, “If you can show evidence you are trying your best and doing your utmost to help yourself we will assist you, don’t expect us to carry the load.” And he showed it in Syria, the locals spilt a lot of their own blood making it work.

    There has to be an intifada in the West for anything to change and it has to start much like any terrorist organization, small cells with a common fraternal goal and enforced bloody and brutal allegiance.

    Too many cheap calories and entertainment for it to happen in the near future but down the road it will happen. Wether from religious orders, Fraternal lodges, sports clubs or even gangs it will happen. It’s in the blood of the western male, can’t be contained unless completely subverted by immigration or chemical subversions.

    The western male is defined by guilt culture and outgroup loyalty, eventually the truth will be so unbearably undeniable that his genetics will kick in and the streets will flow with blood.

  200. feeriker says:

    Based on Vox’s track record and prolific posting, I predict he’ll post some sort of response here, or on his own site, within 24 hours.

    I seriously doubt that Teddy will post here, where he can’t control the environment or the conversation, can’t AMOG, and can’t ban anybody who disagrees with him.

  201. Anonymous Reader says:

    Arithmetic fail. Lovecraft has seniority by 37 days. My error.

  202. Random Angeleno says:

    A better discussion here than over at Vox’s, that is for sure. I find Vox very readable, even challenging now and then for he is a very gifted writer with a keen understanding of rhetoric and dialectic. But make no mistake, every once in awhile his writing doesn’t just come from another continent, it even looks that way. I agree that family is the highest and the best a man can aspire to; I don’t agree that those of us who failed and have no desire to try again deserve nothing but scorn and abuse.

  203. Novaseeker says:

    Billy — Understood, I just don’t share your opinion, having observed him for over 10 years now.

    —–

    In general (not directed at Billy, to be clear), the idea that the clock can be turned back in any meaningful way is beyond silly. The direction is one way. Everything supports that, from the economy to technology to mores. It’s true to say that it can’t last forever, but it CAN last a long time, and it really isn’t very fragile, being supported by a military that is extravagantly powerful and relentlessly feminist/PC (there’s a reason why the military has always been an early target of PC transformation).

    None of that means it is useless to choose to live your life in a traditional way. Go ahead, it’s a good way to live, if you can find the right woman, and have the values/looks/charm to make it last successfully. Certainly a worthy goal. Just don’t think you’re changing the world, because you’re not. The world is too big for that, much bigger and subject to many more forces than in Roman times (for those who are comparing it to the early church). The key insight today is to become a shelter for the coming storm, so that your progeny can survive it intact, in terms of values, and prosper in the next phase, when this one runs its course — something which will likely take a few generations at least.

  204. ys says:

    Friction between the two megapowers of Dalrock and Vox.
    Dalrock is basically right here…a good summary of some of what Vox is trying to say (Don’t you EVER SPEAK FOR ME OR CORRECT ME!) is in the Alphagame post by Lee. Essentially, you can better your own odds by your own marriage choices. That is some of what Vox is trying to say, and it’s true.
    On the other hand, no one should stick their necks out for VD. Literally, if I was a loyal VFM, and I told him “my grandma was born in Frabce,” he would tell me I had to go back. However, if someone on his blog is saying something ridiculous, but happens to be one of the authors who his publishing house publishes…then they are beyond correction. So, I should throw my own grandma under the bus for VD, but he won’t even let his own readers disagree with one of his sheckel bringers, I mean, authors.

  205. feeriker says:

    Scott says:
    December 14, 2017 at 1:56 pm

    That pretty well sums it all up. “TFG” (Taken For Granted) is pretty much a synonym for “Dad” in the western world today.

  206. Anonymous Reader says:

    Dalrock
    For a blast from the past,

    Well played.

  207. Yet Another Commenter, Yet Another Comment ("Yac-Yac") says:

    One of the things to remember about MGTOW behavior, is that it is not a club, there is no membership card, it does not have a manifesto, there is no “official newsletter” — it’s a behavior.

    It isn’t necessarily consciously chosen, even. I am pretty sure I was MGTOW for about ten years before I knew at all, that the Androsphere even existed.

    Much later — long, long after I found out about sites like this, I happened upon some Captain Capitalism blog posts about MGTOW. He linked to things written by a miscellany of whiners, all of whom self-identified as MGTOW. His (Cappy Cap‘s) criticisms of the people he criticized made sense to me. However, it seems to me that if you fritter away your time putting up the sort of blog and vlog posts he was criticizing, you haven’t “gone your own way”, and you are still obsessed with women, just whinily and on social media, with a big dollop of life Fail tossed in the mix. Based on my own experience, I would guess that 70%-80% of men who have decided to get on with their lives rather than actively continue looking for LTRs of any sort, have never even heard of the five letters M, G, T, O and W.

    So, criticism of what men like me are doing, in the name of what whiners such as those Cappy Cap was lambasting / mocking / deriding / criticizing, is something very close to a Straw Man situation.

    More correctly, it’s a fairly brutal degree of sampling bias, which (because social media mainly incestuously references social media, rather than the broader world) is a hard flaw to notice.

    Mr. Beale does not seem to have noticed, anyway. (And in fairness to Cappy Cap, SFAICT, he subsequently has.)

    Simply, Mr. Beale doesn’t know what the h3ll he is talking about.

    One of the things I did when I first discovered the Androsphere, is hop from Blogroll link to Blogroll link (a friend referred me to a Cappy Cap post about an economic issue; Cappy Cap led me to Dalrock, Dalrock led to Heartiste, etc.); in time, this led me to Mr. Beale’s website. I was instantly repelled by his narcissistic arrogance, the cliquish toadying, and his racism. I have not gone back. I will not be clicking on the link provided in Dalrock‘s OP, above, either. I know everything I need to know, from the excerpts shared in the OP and in the comments here. Nothing has changed, from my first visit.

    It’s like this: Mr. Beale is, yet again, full of sh!t. There is no way to be polite about this. None.

    He is as much the enemy, as is any White-Kniting Cuckservative Pastorbator. And I couldn’t give a warm dump if, forex, a lot of the basic vocabulary used across the Androsphere originated on his website.

    But, let me be specific about my objection to Mr. Beale’s unsurprisingly rancid logorhetic effluvium, in this particular context.

    One of the more ludicrous arrogant themes of feminist shaming of men, is the language about how MGTOW behavior is less than masculine. “Am I too much woman for you?”; “You’re intimidated by strong women, aren’t you?” — that sort of cr@p; you all know what I am talking about. The key point to note about these word games, IMHO, is that they are all manipulative. If you slice them open like filleting a fish, the guts of these utterances come spilling out: do what a (or, this given) woman tells (“asks”) you to do, or you aren’t (enough of) a man. Notice the logical contradiction: your masculinity in some magical way is measured by letting a woman tell you what to do with your time, your money, your life.

    Whatever. It’s a truckload of pure BS.

    Which brings me to Mr. Beale. Like a whiny, ugly thot at a party I didn’t want to go to anyway, on account of I knew there would be whiny, ugly feminist thots present, Mr. Beale assures me that if I do not follow his great plan for me (and “civilization”), and let him tell me what to do with my life, then somehow I don’t measure up as a man.

    And here I had mistakenly believed that (adult) masculinity was about me taking control of, and responsibility for, my own life. I’ll surrender it to Christ, but not to the fem-thots, and not to the AMOG-ing Mr. Beale.

    So, same sh!t as the feminist sh!t, just in a different pile.

    My response (if not my reply) to Mr. Beale is the same as my response (if not my reply) to the whiny, ugly feminist thot at the party, who wonders how I can live with my lack of masculinity, as proven by me trying to get her fat, tattooed @$$ out of my personal space: Kindly go f^ck yourself.

    As for “saving Western Civilization”, I put it to Mr. Beale (and to all of you), that it died some time before AD 1970, and we are living in its rotting hulk — the furtherance without obstruction of what Rollo calls the Female Imperative in politics, law, etc. is just another aspect of the decay. Western Civilization’s not coming back.

    I have no idea what comes next, no idea what will replace it. Just a certainty that the transition to that future situation will be decidedly unpleasant for all who live through it (and, not all will).

    But again, to make my main and central point once more: Mr. Beale, you narcissistic, crypto-feminist, AMOG-ing piece of cr@p, Kindly Go F^ck Yourself.

    … and, without any irony, given my angry, ranting tone here, I wish all the readers & lurkers here (as well as our gracious host):

    Pax Christi Vobiscum

  208. JD, Herald of GenX says:

    Honeycomb @ 8:27pm

    Something in the air these days. I had the exact same thought about Briffault’s Law this weekend. There is no reason it can’t be applied in reverse.

  209. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Is this the same Vox who is suing Gab because a user said a bad thing about Vox?

    That sounds rather hypersensitive. Not very Alpha or Sigma.

  210. Anon says:

    Sometimes, a very insecure and beta man will get radicalized by his girlfriend or wife. Or at least be required to spout certain female-centric lines.

    Everyone from Colin Kaepernick to Charles Johnson (of Little Green Footballs) to Vox is an example of this. Such men are losers of the highest order, since they damage society and dry up their girlfriend’wife’s pussy at the same time. How stupid must a man be to take a woman’s instructions at face value?

    Even Bill Burr, who used to have very red-pill humor, has greatly scaled it back he got married and has a daughter. He is all but whipped now.

  211. Ben Sake says:

    Vox Day, and most other manosphere outlets, simply do not apply to Christians. I would never argure with their position because, frankly, they are right. However, at the end of the day, you’re either accountable to GOD, or you’re not. His rules are real simple: Get married, or it’s fornication. Stay married, or it’s adultery. There is no fifty shades of grey in-between.

  212. @RPL:

    Gab has a deep failure in their TOS & Community Guidelines that’ll ruin them if they don’t change some things. There’s some pretty cut & dry guidelines you can use for comments that reach “legally liable defamation”. When a big player wants to wipe Gab out, they’ve left that door open for that to happen.

    On Vox’s Socio-Sexual Hierarchy, the Sigma is the “remainder” class. They’re Men that can move in & out of the hierarchy. This isn’t the “Secret King”, though they’re the class that can most easily become the players from the shadows if they have a deep reserve of Machiavellianism.

    On the topic at hand, I’m going to quote myself from the thread over at Vox’s place:

    “One can have sympathy for a Man that’s been lied to his entire life and gets wrecked by society in the pre-2015 era. When you’ve been literally propagandized into being a serf to everyone and you get crushed if you don’t. But that was then and this is now. No one ever has sympathy for Gammas for very long. Many have tried and come to the same conclusion that it wasn’t much worth bothering.”

    I think Dalrock has misread Vox somewhat in this situation and I can see where assumptions about the meaning of specific words are driving most of this. However, since any time I try to actually explain the deeper issues I lose people when I talk about Structural Issues, I’ll go a different route.

    Build Something Useful. We’re at a pivot point within all Western cultures. We’re clearly headed for interior wars before 2050. They are going to be ugly and you’re likely to still be around when they start. You have been warned. So, what are you going to do about it? This is the “Question” every Man is going to need to answer for himself.

    You were robbed of your grandparents ability to enjoy their twilight years because those same grandparents refused to kill the people that were necessary. Our Institutions have been badly corrupted and you’ve been sold out. So, what will you do? That’s what this is really about. “What will you do?”.

    Whatever you chose, plan then start building. If you’re going to “nope out” of the situation, I’d recommend the East Asian region. As long as you can make yourself useful, they’ll let you stay around and it can be pretty comfortable living, but that’ll take Planning and then Execution.

    You live in a time, and likely a place, where idle drifting along the currents is going to send you over the waterfall to your demise. So, What Will You Do?

  213. earlthomas786 says:

    I would never argure with their position because, frankly, they are right.

    Their positions are accurate in the sense when God is basically taken out of the picture. Especially in terms of human sexuality.

    However, at the end of the day, you’re either accountable to GOD, or you’re not. His rules are real simple: Get married, or it’s fornication. Stay married, or it’s adultery. There is no fifty shades of grey in-between.

    Bingo, it’s that simple. Humans try to complicate matters when their lusts get in the way.

  214. FatR says:

    This is just basically another example of the Right, whether tradcon or alt-right, unfailing and ironclad commitment to losing. Vox talks the talk about wanting to win and his contempt for “noble defeat”, but as the linked post has illustrated, even the faintest thought of walking the walk and publicly proclaiming a stance on social issues with a potential for results other than noble defeat, rattled him hard enough to result in an uncontrollable fit of chest-thumping. God forbid men of the West would have an actual stake in defending the West or be rewarded for perpetuating it. That may, per chance, make Vox’ stated political desires actually achievable! And we cannot have that.

  215. Mike T says:

    MGTOW advocates men going off and doing their own thing, typically with a “fuck society” attitude. I have never seen a MGTOW advocate telling me who have been hurt:

    “Lick your wounds, then pick yourself up, dust yourself up, chest out, shoulders back and live boldly like you have a pair while laughing in that bitch’s face.”

    Nope, it all has the stench of gammas and low deltas saying “I got hurt, so I’ll go cry and mock everyone still trying.”

  216. Mike T says:

    I have a relative who is very sympathetic to Dalrock and MGTOW. He asked me what I’d do if my wife frivorced me like his several did (between them they could have held a may day parade in Moscow with the number of red flags, but I digress).

    I said that I told my wife “divorcing me is you sentencing me to having full control over my schedule.” He couldn’t believe that a man would actually say that if his wife frivorced him that he wouldn’t roll over and die for at least a few years.

    Despair is a sin. Stop courting Hell.

  217. Kevin says:

    One thing about Vox, he likes to be controversial. As does Dalrock, imagining between the lines to divine that Vox disrespects all married fathers.

    The father things and the murder suicide are distractions to his very clear point – MGTOW are a reflection of weakness. Given marriage challenges I don’t think that is true but one thing Vox is right about – people in the manosphere dramatically over estimate their likelihood of divorce and use that as justification for fleeing marriage. Online there is a divorce calculator that is very rough and if you meet several minimums you will find you risk of divorce as low as 15-20%. If you and your spouse share other commonalities like religion it’s even lower. A college educated couple on their first marriage have a divorce risk that is around 10-20%. If you can marry a low N woman even better. The 50% divorce numbers simply do not represent the average mans risk. So, Vox is basically saying in his special way – the risk is lower than you think don’t check out but get married and have as many kids as Oscar (did I see he posted he had 9 kids – way to go man!).

  218. Opus says:

    Just to lighten the tone – and to be factually accurate a couple of things caught my eye up-thread:

    Peter Soniborne @2.15pm on the 14th is critical of VoxDay’s liking for monarchy and that Vox is an anglophile. I obviously do not see either of those things as bad. but you may be interested to know that what is being touted as the most expensive Embassy ever built and at a cost of one billion dollars (!) is now being opened in London by the United States. We in Britain are very proud of this and think that it says something about our two countries similarities in outlook and linked destinies (us playing Greece to your Rome). It has a moat which is visually at least a vast improvement on the wall of concrete blocks around the old embassy in Grosvenor Square. I obtained my Visa in person at the old embassy; as a schoolboy I had cause to write to the embassy for some information which I was curious to obtain and one of the ladies at the embassy graciously supplied the information sought. It was very kind and was perhaps the first thing that endeared your country to me.

    SirHamster @3.28pm on the 14th asserts that America revolted against the “Global British Empire”. It is surely comforting to feel that having been oppressed one has thrown off the oppressor but I must inform him that in 1776 Britain did not have a global empire – that came later – and apart from a few small scattered enclaves the only empire (which it wasn’t as they were merely colonies of people who were British) were the thirteen American colonies, where the population was in any case a mere two and a half million compared to Britain’s seven and a half million. France (if my ,memory serves me correctly) had at that time a population twice as large as Britain. Now, who was being oppressed!

  219. earl says:

    . The 50% divorce numbers simply do not represent the average mans risk. So, Vox is basically saying in his special way – the risk is lower than you think don’t check out but get married and have as many kids as Oscar (did I see he posted he had 9 kids – way to go man!).

    Boxer has pointed out what inflates the numbers is the divorces that happen in 2,3,4, nth marriages…which by nature and by violating God’s law will be a naturally higher risk of divorce.

    The rate of divorce when you take those out is probably something closer to the 20% you mentioned. I don’t know the specific numbers though.

  220. earl says:

    I took the test…very low probability of divorce when it comes to me.

    No kids, employed, no forced premarital sex, she doesn’t have kids, kids don’t come until after marriage

    That’s usually how it is if you follow common sense or how God sets it up.

    https://divorceprobabilitycalculator.net/quiz/

  221. earl says:

    And just for fun…I did a scenario with a 22-27 yr woman who had sex before marriage, a kid, works full time, has a college degree, and lived with her partner before marriage.

    It goes to very strong.

    So why do guys marry that type of woman?

  222. Burner Prime says:

    I predict Vox will overreact to this essay and work overtime in a 1000 word rebuttal to prove Dalrock wrong.

  223. “notice that there are two groups of men Vox doesn’t respect”
    “the temptation to declare oneself the only real man”

    You’re using cheap strawmen and that’s beneath you. The essence of the article is that this society will continue to abuse men until men fight back. Do you disagree with that premise? To me, it couldn’t be more simple or obvious. How are we to even begin this battle without someone pointing out the battlefield and exhorting men to fight on it? I see this as inevitable. As we hit a tipping point of regular men who see that the legal system is venal and corrupt and offers them no hope of justice, they will have no alternative but to seek justice outside the legal system. Once enough men do this, both the society and the legal system will change because the costs imposed by these men will outweigh the costs of providing them justice. As these men mete out their own justice, a new respect for men will emerge. Why would any society respect men who meekly accept these injustices? I’m not saying “men deserve it” as in your strawman, I’m saying that men who refuse to fight for themselves will not receive respect: Is/Ought. When women and judges are forced to seriously calculate the possibility that any given man might put their head on a spike, then that’s what ‘respect’ looks like. Without the possibility or threat of violence from men, there is no respect. Why do you respect nature or animals? Because they can kill you. That’s just how respect works.

  224. honeycomb says:

    Earl you’re using bad data on marriage / divorce percentages. This 50% myth is just that .. a myth. It’s much higher for 1st time marriages .. much, much higher.

  225. earl says:

    Earl you’re using bad data on marriage / divorce percentages. This 50% myth is just that .. a myth. It’s much higher for 1st time marriages .. much, much higher.

    Wouldn’t there be a stat out there that has the divorce rate for 1st time marriages only?

  226. honeycomb says:

    Our data is purposefully skewed to provide a number less shocking that 80%(ish) of 1st time modern marriages failing by year 10 iirc.

    My first hand info supports this data.

  227. AnonS says:

    “Real Christians wouldn’t dare tar and feather British tax collectors.”
    “Real Christians wouldn’t dare break into private property and throw tea into the harbor.”
    “Real Christians wouldn’t dare organize militia and open fire on British troops.”
    “Real Christians wouldn’t dare disobey the King, Jesus submitted to Roman law after all.”

    Consistency.

  228. thedeti says:

    @Earl

    So why do guys marry that type of woman (with a negative history)?

    Simple. Because (1) society works hard to conceal and normalize those histories in women; and (2) women with those histories tend to be physically attractive and have for a long time avoided the negative consequences of their histories.

  229. Mike T says:

    Simple. Because (1) society works hard to conceal and normalize those histories in women; and (2) women with those histories tend to be physically attractive and have for a long time avoided the negative consequences of their histories.

    and (3) because many men are so thirsty for pussy that they’d rather do the marital equivalent of trying to redomesticate a wolf into a dog than hold out for something better.

    Also (4) many of the men who whine about the she-wolf were also the sort of men who’d scream “sexisssss” at the men warning them that a high notch count is tantamount to screaming “no impulse control.”

  230. earl says:

    and (3) because many men are so thirsty for pussy that they’d rather do the marital equivalent of trying to redomesticate a wolf into a dog than hold out for something better.

    Also (4) many of the men who whine about the she-wolf were also the sort of men who’d scream “sexisssss” at the men warning them that a high notch count is tantamount to screaming “no impulse control.”

    There’s no sympathy for those guys.

  231. Mike T says:

    There’s no sympathy for those guys.

    Yep and many of them cannot believe that those of us who waited to find a nice, boring good one aren’t worried about getting mauled by ours.

  232. javier_mendoza says:

    Society has these two contradicting messages we give to men. One is that women are uncontrollable and that any attempt to control them will always backfire.

    The other message is that women are deeply vulnerable to being controlled by men and must be protected.

    Here’s the modern-day parable of Bob and Ted. Bob is a nice guy who marries a ball-busting harpy who treats him like crap, does no work around the house, and openly flirts with other guys behind his back. Bob rationalizes his inability to control his wife’s behavior by saying all women are uncontrollable. Eventually Bob’s wife leaves him for one of her flings. We all publicly feel sorry for Bob while privately we despise him for his weakness.

    Meanwhile, Ted is not a very nice guy. Ted marries a nice woman who adores him. Ted seems distant, rude, and even cruel to her, but she shows oddly slavish loyalty to him. Ted’s wife makes excuses for all of his flaws no matter how badly he seems to treat her. We all publicly deplore Ted for controlling his wife while privately in our heart of hearts we admire his ability to command her.

    Here’s the secret: Bob and Ted married the same woman.

    Vox Day despises Bob whether he’s married or not. Marriage doesn’t turn Bob into Ted. Vox just wants more Teds and fewer Bobs.

  233. Dave says:

    The essence of the article is that this society will continue to abuse men until men fight back.

    I couldn’t agree more.
    Contrary to what some men say, women are not going to fight feminism and other injustices in society on behalf of men. As long as men take it, the injustice will continue to be dished out.
    Anyone ever wondered why Muslim countries don’t have any problems with feminism? Is it because their women are more virtuous? More reasonable? I don’t think so. It’s because their men won’t tolerate that nonsense. And as soon as western men also make it clear they’ve had enough of the madness of feminism, feminism will disappear from the west like snow in April.

  234. The father things and the murder suicide are distractions to his very clear point – MGTOW are a reflection of weakness

    A lot of things are reflections of weakness, that is the problem of socio-sexual status worship and losing track of Game as a tool versus Game as an ironclad lifestyle. If socio-sexual status is the end all and be all apology and humility are “weakness”. The worst form of defeatism is EVER admitting you are wrong. This is straying very close to the tradcon position of weak men screwing up feminism. I would say in fact it is the long way round to Mark Driscoll.

    If men can never admit their mistakes we have no chance of achieving a consensus or a team. I’m not going to lock step into a cult.

  235. Mike T says:

    Men can admit their mistakes, but they need to do so boldly unless their screw up was a heinous act. If you get caught flirting with another woman casually, apologize boldly. If you cheat on your wife and give her herpes, you ought to be on your knees grovelling because she legitimately has you dead to rights there.

  236. Jason says:

    Would MGTOW dare “break a fingernail”

    Yeah. Most of us who are MGTOW, fully understand what happened. We understand what went wrong and by the time many of us hit the age of 35 or so…….decided it was time to take the “circus” of dating, love, women, sex and kick it along with the “minstrel show” to the curb….and that bearded lady? She had to go too. No more ‘showboatin’ mr. boss-man’

    MGTOW’s my age (mid GenX…those born during the Nixon administration) really had a forced hand. We were not twenty-five anymore but were still young enough to start “doing something” with our lives besides go on to blogs and complain about “women” and “its not fair” all day long.

    Lots of MGTOWs (myself included) didn’t win the genetic lottery when it came to looks. We were not the top of the IQ tier. We didn’t have ego’s the size of God. Many of us in ORDER to NOT be that guy who went ballistic and waved his gun from inside a Burger King at the police outside yelling “I’ll never surrender!!!” or please……to become that guy in a fedora and gained 200 lbs m’ lady!

    Some of us…many of us……called a spade a spade. It was time to end the show. Begin a new chapter. Let me tell you, its a lot easier to fall into the midset of staying home. Living in some sort of virtual world of porn, seething hatred and anger. Too easy. Many MGTOWs DO behave like this. Many, like myself decided to learn stuff…..pick up old habits thrown away (for me it was Scouting, camping, hiking……..I FORGOT how much I loved this…I tossed it away to be “available” to “meet” women, and to “date” you know…..(cough) grown up things.

    I am in the best shape I have been in since 1992. I rebuilt a 1966 Vespa. I decided to serve in church to help others, and encourage. I dance. I got the silly cat. I’m actually a BUSY guy now, and not for the sake of busyness, but for the real liking of my life.

    PURSUING women for a decade and a half was causing me depression. My drinking and drugging skyrocketed as the rejections during the 1990’s piled up.

    Break a fingernail? What a putz. In June I got soaking wet in a northeastern downpour 60 miles out in the woods…….sure I was nervous about hypothermia….but as the rain hit my face, my wool jackshirt began to get waterlogged….but the song of rain in the leaves, the swollen streams, the muddy trail….the solitude……at one point I laughed so LOUD and yelled “This all you got????? Been through, and come through worse than this!”

    I don’t need a woman or a girlfriend to HAVE value. I freaking lucky I came through my addiction with most of my brain cells intact. I live in a modern country, and I am very proud of it. I have a relationship with Christ. I am clean. Something while pursing women I never had,

    MGTOW isn’t for every guy. yes, lots of sorry folks out there who are MGTOW, but blow you who hate it. It helped me more than put downs, game, bro-culture……..

  237. Eduardo the Magnificent says:

    When I first started reading Vox almost a decade ago, I thought he was a dick. But after reading him a while and really thinking about what he was saying I realized he was just confidently correct about a lot of things, and he wasn’t going to take shit from anyone trying to prove him wrong, because he knew he wasn’t. That sort of attitude can easily be mistaken for arrogance or ego, but it’s not.

    However, being right about so many things can easily blind you when you’re wrong. The problem with Vox’s position here is not that he’s wrong per se, but that pulling off what he advises simply isn’t feasible for the average man. The hole in Vox’s thinking has always been that he’s divorced from the average man’s way of thinking, because he isn’t one. He was gifted with way above average intelligence, athletic ability and connections, which, to his credit, he has used wisely. But most men are not capable of reading the voracious amount of books he has read, moving to another country on a whim, dating/marrying a model (was Spacebunny a virgin when he married her? I don’t know if he’s ever said), having streams of income that are location-independent, etc. like he has. So his advice simply isn’t practical for the average man on the ground here in the US. Doubled by the fact he’s admitted he doesn’t want to lead anything, which makes him a bit of an empty prophet.

    Look, I get the whole Solzhenitsyn thing, and Emerson’s line “God will not have his work made manifest by cowards.” But he’s doing what he always advises against, and that’s shoot right. I think most MGTOWs would love to get married and have families, but the incentives simply aren’t there for them. They know if they started doling out Biblical justice, they would be the ones paying the price and everyone except themselves would benefit. If Vox gets taken down by a divorce, he’d be OK. He’s not a model to follow when the SHTF. These men need practical things they can do, on a mass scale, and murder-suicide isn’t one of them. Oh, it could if society had these men’s backs, but it doesn’t, and no amount of shaming is going to do any good until that happens. So with all that being said, I’m not sure what exactly Vox was trying to accomplish here, unless he gets off on the lulz.

  238. I would also point out that not making allowance for the weaknesses of men is cutting them off from repentance and setting them up for the murder/suicide track.

    I want to see strong men, not brittle men. If I have to lead by example in admitting my failings does that make me weak?

    In certain circles that is mocked as “virtue signalling”. The mockery I call “word signalling”.

  239. C H says:

    Well now why would anyone give a damn what Vox day respects?

  240. In the absence of a paterfamilias system, fully backed by society, a man assumes an enormous risk pairing off with the modern woman. There is no political will to reduce this risk so men are increasingly less likely to find a suitable mate. End of story. It sucks, but there it is.

    How on Earth does the originator of a brilliant blog called Alpha Game not understand that men enjoying their lives without sacrificing themselves to the Feminine Imperative are PRACTICING GAME, consciously or unconsciously. Absence is a Game principle. Non-neediness is a Game principle. Playing ‘keep-away’ with Dick’N’Attention is Game.

    MGTOW is Red Pill Game, whether the man doing it thinks of it that way or not. The direct solution for men in this climate … the most effective way to increase their wealth, power and confidence (which also happens to define attractiveness to women) … the most likely mass male reaction to the current legal regime … is to flip the bird to it all and see to their own happiness. Now. Immediately. A Wall of Silence. Say No to the Dress. Let family court judges, daycare operators and divorce lawyers find real jobs. Leave the nightclub culture to the douchebags. Leave the Jezebelic churches to the nutless pastors. Keep Uncle Sugar’s Pimp Hand out of your wallet.

    Enough already.

    Roissy says women have to believe that you really don’t care if they’re around or not, and that it helps to actually feel that way. Well, they’re making THAT easier every day, aren’t they?

    Women have to feel the burn; they have to see their older slutty sisters aging alone and unloved; this has to happen. They are the only political power who can demand changes and get them. They have to be frightened out of their wits. They must be made to feel panic. They must be left to each others’ company:

    “Always in the stink of Women! How I hate Women!” – Julia, in the novel 1984.

    Vox said himself that the gatekeepers of commitment who commit too easily are just as promiscuous as the Carousel rider who gives up her youthful sexualilty to unsuitable men. Even hopeless, bitter incels have something women want eventually (if they’re gainfully employed). Nice guys can still be nice, they need only protect themselves and refuse to be railroaded.

    Most men won’t do this. Most don’t need to. 10-20% who aren’t utter manginas will starve the beast. More women need to be crying frantically in the shower, drunk and trying to wash away the shame from all the DNA they’ve let pollute their bodies. “Enjoy the Decline” is not a solution. It’s time to crash this thing.

  241. Otto says:

    “The essence of the article is that this society will continue to abuse men until men fight back.”

    Suicide is not fighting back. It is the ultimate surrender.

    The advocated violence is at odds with the 4th generation warfare principles Vox Day advocated (Yes, I read the Castalia House book). As has been pointed out here and in the book, acts of violence only hand your enemy victories. It is a win the battle, but lose the war strategy.

  242. Jack Russell says:

    Off topic but worth checking out. Grandparents in Ontario being sued for child support. The former DIL want $750 per month and 47K in back payments. The line from the Eagles song Get Over It (“The more I think old Billy was right……” )comes to mind.

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/sudbury/grandparents-sued-child-support-1.4445981

    I hope the grandparents “win”. This is in Canuckistan in one of the most liberal areas of N.A. I am suspicious of the far left CBC covering this. They probably want the grandparents to lose.

  243. BillyS says:

    Novaseeker,

    I have read Vox longer at least as long as you have, possibly longer.

    the idea that the clock can be turned back in any meaningful way is beyond silly

    Society operates in cycles. Things have been worse in the past as well. I suspect it will take a major system shock to reset things, but something will happen, eventually, since the current system is not sustainable.

    Each individual doesn’t have the need to fix it themselves. Gong on a murder spree is not smart at all and would be very counterproductive. Living in a “woe is me” state or only looking out for yourself is not appropriate for a Christian either. I am hip deep in this decision now, so I definitely understand it.

    Living through this mess is going to be more of a pain than most realize, even Vox.

  244. Novaseeker says:

    Billy —

    Each individual doesn’t have the need to fix it themselves. Gong on a murder spree is not smart at all and would be very counterproductive. Living in a “woe is me” state or only looking out for yourself is not appropriate for a Christian either. I am hip deep in this decision now, so I definitely understand it.

    As I said, each guy needs to make their own decision in light of the times. What I think is dumb is making that decision to “save Western culture”, because no decision achieves or contributes to that in any meaningful way. It just does not. That does not mean “woe is me”, unless people adopt a personally woeful point of view because Western Civ is doomed — something which is both dumb (can’t change it) and un Christian (our hope is not in Western Civ).

    Do you understand the objection yet?

  245. BillyS says:

    Opus,

    Democracy is one of the worst forms of government imaginable. Any human government has challenges of course, since humans are ruling, but I am no longer a fan of democracy as the ultimate. Monarchy is likely better, especially with some right to remove corrupt leaders, something that is far harder to do under our current (US) “democratic” system.

    I agree that criticizing this is not logical.

  246. honeycomb says:

    @ Jack Russell ..
    I hope the grandparents “win”.

    I do too.

    Thanks for the link.

  247. Gunner Q says:

    Athor Pel @ 7:25 pm:
    “You’re not the Messiah. I’m not the Messiah. Dalrock is not the Messiah. Vox is not the Messiah.”

    We are the disciples of the Messiah. “Christian” means “Christ-like”. You want to dismiss Christ’s example as being one of a special snowflake on a one-of-a-kind supernatural mission that has no modern relevance because you don’t want to follow Christ. You want to kill, conquer and play “ends justify the means” like the Muslims do. Like Christ refused to.

    “We have to figure out God’s will for ourselves daily just like every other man doing God’s will in the pages of the Bible. Some men were told to preach repentance, some were told to kill whole cities, some were told to run, some were told to stand and fight. In each case they were doing God’s will.”

    You don’t worship Christ. You worship King David, as the Tradcons do.

    “Jesus also whipped the money changers out of the Temple. Does that sound like a man avoiding physical confrontation or a man lacking zeal for the holiness of His Father’s house?”

    Jesus treated the Samaritans and Romans occupying Israel kindly. Does that sound like an alt-Righter?

    “Just because the problem is complex doesn’t mean you should abdicate grappling with it and pass it on to your children.”

    Once again, GOD RECOMMENDS MEN NOT GET MARRIED IN 1 CORINTHIANS 7. Seeing as you’re a fan of the Old Testament, you should read Isaiah 56:3-5. Childless men will have a greater reward in heaven than children could ever have been.

    You want victory. I sympathize. You want to kill Christianity, gut its meaning and wear the skin suit to justify what you would do regardless. I do not sympathize. If Christianity does not alter your behavior then your faith is dead.

  248. Jason says:

    Opus….off topic

    Do you remember that documentary Prince Charles made in the 1980’s about “architecture” in the UK, and he was pleading the case that “we have a second chance” in the realms of style, design and restoration. It was really well done, and now…..looking back 30 years, the ol’ Prince of Wales was correct here.

    They showed it last night on our local PBS (Public Broadcasting Service) affiliate. Man, he was young looking! Evidently at the time he was criticized for his stances and opinions.

  249. BillyS says:

    Jason,

    You overcame strong addiction, which has definitely helped your perspective. It is more of a challenge for those of us who were comparatively clean. We also need to be able to stand against the storm, but we may not have had the same struggles to build what it takes to have the same attitude.

    I find I can do that at times, but it is mentally challenging to think “I thought I did it all right” and find I didn’t get the expected results. I am just commenting here, not complaining. We all have our own struggles and just complaining doesn’t help anyone.

  250. BillyS says:

    Jason,

    You also don’t seem like the normal vocal MGTOW. Aren’t you in the Salvation Army as well? (Or am I confusing Jasons?) Fulfilling a mission beyond one’s self is not normal for most MGTOWs I have read.

  251. BillyS says:

    Novaseeker,

    Do you understand the objection yet?

    We are mostly in agreement, so I am not worried. I get a bit picky on details, but that is a different point. You have not spoken as some of the other MGTOWs I have read, including here.

    I tend to mix “Western Civilization” and “Christian Society” in my head, partially because I grew up in the US. That is not completely accurate, but the two can be quite compatible. I do think the world would be better off with winding the clock back, but that isn’t how these things work.

    Christians do need to be carrying out His will in their entire lives. Working that out is something that few really do, as can be seen when talking these issues over with others in many formats. Polarization is far more common that truth seeking. Hope that makes sense.

  252. Off topic but worth checking out. Grandparents in Ontario being sued for child support.

    Their son is dead. They need to assume his place, now. The wimminz must live large at someone’s expense, after all…

  253. Their son is dead. They need to assume his place, now. The wimminz must live large at someone’s expense, after all…

    And then there ARE days where we want to quote Arnaud Amalric with fervor…

  254. SirHamster Babbles:

    Dalrock has written about fathers with a symbolically incestuous relation with their daughters.

    That was me. Over at Cane Caldo’s blog. It’s called the Electra Complex. And no, I don’t expect you to understand it.

    Now, whether the Christian should practice such things for that objective is a different matter. But I note that the Israelites were instructed to put cities to the sword. Also note that the US has firebombed cities to ashes in war. The precedent of slaughter has been set. Should it be done? Should it be done in the name of Christ?

    Don’t blame the Jesus character for this nonsense. Nowhere in the New Testament does he endorse your lunacy.

    The slaughter of Canaan was due to their wickedness… Do you think family court judges are righteous, or wicked? Perhaps not that wicked. They only break families apart for lucre. Not reason to get blood on one’s hands.

    Have you ever seen a qualified analyst for these delusions of yours? Now would be an excellent time. No reason to go all George Sodini when a prescription for Zoloft would probably rewire your skullstuffing and help you cope with the daily stressors.

    Haven’t heard the BNW framework used for manosphere. Delta is a term coined by Vox for his Socio-sexual hierarchy (SSH) model of men. So checking his definition:

    Only a spergy incel would give a shit about your pseudointellectual greek letter morphology. Here it is in plain language:

    You are a kook.
    You are a loon.
    You are a ranting, delusional nutcase, with a tenuous grasp on reality.
    Divorced fathers don’t need you to do “slaughter” for them.
    Go see a psychoanalyst, before you hurt yourself.

    Regards,

    Boxer,
    Secret King of All Gamma Males

  255. honeycomb says:

    Boxer ..
    Their son is dead. They need to assume his place, now. The wimminz must live large at someone’s expense, after all…

    Time for the parents to “man-up” ™.

    ..
    Break
    ..

    This is only happening because she has a husband (btw it doesn’t even have to be the biological dad) .. if she was divorced or a widow .. this wouldn’t go anywhere. So, this is totally fair and just. Just ask any of th wimminz ™.

    A man or The man (e.g. tax payer funded thru the gubermint) has to pay! And, it’s a lot cleaner if it’s just one man paying. No one gets upset about that (re: topic at hand). A tax payer funded payment would cause a stir .. possibly.

    ..
    Break
    ..

    I hope she fails.

  256. Jason says:

    yes billy. I am a uniform wearing Salvationist and I take my duties seriously there too.

  257. StAugustine says:

    I think this Vox-Dalrock debate is helping to clarify matters : especially underlining the transformation of marriage into the ‘child support marriage model’. I worked in the blue collar sector : sure there were guys with happy families, but there were a lot of guys paying through the nose for their ex wife and kids – sure they might have a gf and even their own house, but their money troubles crushed their spirits. I’m not bashing these guys, blue pill to the core, working their hardest. However, I can’t say I respect them either – and perhaps that’s the problem at hand. Men who get ground up by the divorce industry get trapped in a situation where “the right thing to do” is to support the kids no matter what. When it’s just the ex, you could maybe feel justified in burning the house down and destroying all your assets, saying f the alimony and going to jail instead of paying her a red cent. But when there are kids in the equation, it’s more complicated..

    Vox Day’s example illustrates the paradox nicely – obviously it’s an extreme example. I think the problem is one of respect : our current society and systems are set up to give 0 respect to men. Falling into the divorce machine merely highlights this fact. However, it is our silent accession to the situation that is contemptible.

    It may be that all of western civilization is under the spell of children worship. What can’t be justified “in the name of the children”. If men will do anything to provide for and support their children, they will be hostages to anyone willing to use the children as a threat point.

    What I would like to see is the answer to the question : What do men being frivorced do in order to be respected? Clearly rolling over like a dog for the judge and the ex is no good. A murder spree is out (though I would note that angry mobs and majority groups do their own work). So how can we get our self respect back, and as importantly, get the respect of others? MGTOW is too easily seen as running away, which implies cowardice (I’m not saying that – personally I support mgtow). The same problem applies to running to another country.

    I feel like for this to change, there has to be a way for men to know how to respond to frivorce in a way that allows us to keep our self respect, and also to keep the respect of others.

    The red pill is part of it, but the way forward isn’t that clear, and not “common knowledge”. right now “common knowledge” of the Right Thing to do is to let yourself get divorce raped to support the kids, even at the cost of your reputation, career, health, all the way to Zeroed Out and plain old suicide.

    I think the answers are implied in RP thinking, but there’s a lot of “burn it down f that bitch” and “hit the gym lots of fish in the sea” advice that is of little use for men whose egos and motivation are at zero. It’s worse, I assume, in the Christian world, as the message is for men to be subservient, and so any movement into Red Pill informed action will lose you the respect of all those blue pilled dudes in the pews : your colleagues and neighbors..

    I think one of the biggest obstacles is that there are almost no male spaces to get a respect boost (and this is why I support MGTOW, as I think this will be a source of male spaces, like a monastery), so that if you get caught in the divorce machine, the only message you hear about the Right Thing to do is as I said above “take it for the children”.

    RP Blogs on the internet are a great source of information and inspiration, but they are not the network of respect that as men we crave.

    Its a bit distasteful, but red pill support groups with the object of self respect (and self control I imagine) could be a step in a positive direction.

    So that it’s clear I’m not blowing smoke, I’ll describe a personal statistic of my cousin (rip this last spring) : Rocky relationship with dad, mom passed away, negative relation with only sibling, distant relations with the rest of family. Gf had a brain tumor and personality change after surgery (I heard) – the rest is speculation of mine, that with buying a house but no steady job, poor investing decisions, ran out of money, started drinking, lost self respect, no respect from relatives, took the only way out he could accept

    Sympathy changes nothing for the dead – use it on the living.

  258. Dear Earl:

    Alpha gets all the sex
    betas worship women
    gammas whine about women
    sigmas don’t care about women and that makes women want to give them sex

    Something like that. It’s all a con game anyway.

    I think the Alpha/Beta heuristic can be helpful for very new people, who are being confronted by a swath of new, subversive information. As you note, as signifiers they don’t coherently point to any one thing, however.

    Spergs like Vox Day and his goony disciples simply add a bunch of extra letters, in an attempt to make it more sensible, while I think that the intuitively sensible take these terms for what they are, and abandon them after experiencing their internal contradictions.

    The most obvious problem is that they’re clearly socially constructed. Basing a heirarchy on who gets most sex would have our married, potbellied, Ward Cleaver type grandfathers as the “alphas” of the 1950s, and the motorcycle-riding cad as the “beta” who wanders from town to town, having sex with prostitutes. Most women in that era wouldn’t touch him, and he was run out of town (and sometimes got his ass kicked) when he ran day game down at the laundromat. The current regime is only in place because of artificial surpluses due to mechanization and immigration, and only the most shortsighted would think it meaningful.

    Best,

    Boxer

  259. earl says:

    Their son is dead. They need to assume his place, now. The wimminz must live large at someone’s expense, after all…

    The wimminz are strong, empowered and independent after all.

  260. 9767 says:

    If you want to know what kind of loathsome person Theodore Beale aka Vox Day is, all you have to do is read what he things about the mass murderer Anders Breivik:

    voxday.blogspot.com/2017/05/mailvox-breivik-saint-or-monster.html

  261. Opus says:

    @Billy S

    The earliest comparing of the different forms of government occurs in Herodotus and he prefers Monarchy. We do Democracy-very-light.

    @ Jason

    I have written over at Amazon (though I forget what book) about the views of The Prince of Wales on architecture – there goes my Knighthood for I am not exactly sympathetic to his views. It was the National Theatre (I believe) which he described as a Carbuncle. The building (which is now of course rather old-fashioned) has much grown on me though the lack of a pit in the Lyttleton is deplorable. Not sure about your new London Embassy.

  262. Yet Another Commenter, Yet Another Comment ("Yac-Yac") says:

    Eduardo the Magnificent (December 15, 2017 at 9:32 am wrote:

    “When I first started reading Vox almost a decade ago, I thought he was a dick. But after reading him a while and really thinking about what he was saying I realized he was just confidently correct about a lot of things, and he wasn’t going to take shit from anyone trying to prove him wrong, because he knew he wasn’t. That sort of attitude can easily be mistaken for arrogance or ego, but it’s not. […]”

    My experience of Mr. Beale’s drivel is the mirror complement of yours:

    “When I first started reading Vox almost a decade ago, I thought he was a dick. But after reading him a while and really thinking about what he was saying I realized he was just confidently incorrect about a lot of things, and he wasn’t going to take shit from anyone trying to prove him wrong, because he didn’t care he wasn’t. That sort of attitude can easily be identified as for arrogance or ego, because it is. […]”

    Leadership and Status are not the same thing. Mr. Beale seeks the latter and so presents a counterfeit version of the former. “Vision” and AMOG-ing are neither synonymous nor even coterminous.

    Secular perspectives suffer from False Prophets also. Example: Beale.

    I will repeat myself: Mr. Beale can Go F^ck Himself.

  263. Jason says:

    The issue pending in MGTOW circles that I have noticed is this:

    First: If indeed you accept the precepts of female nature to indeed “go your own way”, then do so. Be what you want to be. Take charge of your life. Objectively look at that “naked lunch” so to speak and do it. Red pill, or whatever its called. You can rail all day about the courts, the culture, the 80 / 20 rule……..true things…….but YOU as a man have to change the things you can, and challenge yourself to live “not of this world” and DEAL with it. It blows, I wish I was better looking on a cultural standard / norm. I wish I was smart. I wish at times that I was a father……..wishing won’t help you, especially when you are in the midst of a red pill acceptance. Too many MGTOWs will claim MGTOW, but most do nothing…or very little to indeed “go their own way”

    They cry, wail, stew………and I have been there…but indeed, picking up your “cross” to bear makes a MGTOW. All have that things in their lives that HURT. It is crushing. Something that just plain wasn’t “fair” in their life…..okay……get it out…but what then? For most. That is where they stay.

    Second: MGTOW, like singleness in the modern church encompasses a wide ‘swath’ of men. I cannot relate to the divorced man. The atheist MGTOW, the really disturbed MGTOW. I can only relate to myself,and The Savior who willingly did the will of the Father. The Savior is the only one who will “understand” your situation in the long haul. Many MGTOW’s get down right mad and spiteful with me because of my Christian proclamation. “You’re not a MGTOW because you follow Jesus, a MGTOW goes his own way”

    Coming from men who live on welfare, go to work, follow traffic rules, pay their bills……..some of their problems would be blamed on someone or something else if it wasn’t women. These men hopefully will grow out of it. Some never will. Some are so prideful that they are going their own way……it means donning a fedora and telling every other MGTOW how “MGTOW” they are. Chest thumping……men who who don’t have “game” were never a hit with the ladies, at work, in life now for once think they can be a part of something where they are a winner. In MGTOW the only winner is the means of itself. You’re going your own way without women. That’s it. It’s a circle jerk in many ways of telling every other MGTOW how “awesome” you are. MGTOW like Ghandi, and Rev King’s movements……it’s is a passive resistance movement. As it should be.

    Third: Since MGTOW doesn’t have a national office. Nor does it have an advocacy group in Washington DC, Ottawa, Canberra, London, Berlin, or Stockholm……..it doesn’t have a target person the media can focus on, or a specific man who “speaks” for MGTOW. You’re going your own way……..everyone is going to be different. Many of the big shots online have different takes. It will never be a movement like “NOW” or “Planned Parenthood” or the “NAACP” where an elected board, and committee decide platform, policy and PAY.

    MGTOW is the trump card for may men. He complains? He’s not a man. He tries to be a MRA, he’s whining that men need help FROM government (I have little faith in elected leaders in general). He tries to be good to women, have “confidence” (a VERY loaded word) and still fails? He’s not trying hard enough. He was too creepy, not forward enough. He was too forward. He didn’t “open the set right”…….MGTOW when applied, and the card played…..finally takes the burden off him to indeed go his own way. Women can’t stop it, point a finger at a national office, a single man (fall guy), or some other brick and mortar organization.

    Lastly……many MGTOWs still want it both ways. They want to be so tough behind a yellow street sign / logo yet many just wish they were something they are not, or could never be. Thus, the anger the labels of “loserdom” and the stereotypical thought of “He’s MGTOW? Well, he was never a ladies man to begin with? He’s going his own way? So what…..no loss for women, they never liked him anyway.”

    So MGTOW…then what? You gotta serve somebody. Even the ‘anarchist’ reads books. Listens to ideas of like minded people. If you are indeed MGTOW, and you are throwing off the pain, burden, frustration and everything else from the creature called “woman” that has perhaps hindered you in pursuits, aspirations……you had better be damn well doing something. Growing yourself, challenging yourself, working HARD. Having adventures. Making YOUR life something people could be inspired by…and at least for YOURSELF.

    I see why many don’t like MGTOW, but for me…..it worked. Am I an activist for the cause? No. Am I blogging about it? No. I’m living it. No……life isn’t perfect. Yes, attractive women still get a look from me…….and no, I don’t hate women.

  264. Embracing Reality says:

    MGTOW was essentially stereotyped by vox. He may or my not regret that now considering the excrement storm that followed. He did respond a lot. Who knows. Some internet MGTOW’s vomit a lot of hatred and bitterness, some of them get past it. Then there’s millions of men who have never even heard the acronym but essentially lived the life of MGTOW. Some of the later category are successful. Some of them are badasses. You’ll never see them whining on the internet. They don’t care, their living their lives focused on whatever they choose and could give a damn to contribute to this garbage society. They don’t owe anybody anything. If they’re not participating in its simply because they understandably don’t respect it or just aren’t interested. They sure as hell don’t need the approval of blogging vox somebody or other. If however those in vox’s camp are looking to make allies instead of enemies? Well…

  265. Yet Another Commenter, Yet Another Comment ("Yac-Yac") says:

    I read several commenters above blathering on about MGTOW men (itself a sweeping generalization — all we have in common is that we aren’t actively pursuing women for LTRs/Marriage at the present moment) behave this way because they’ve been “hurt”.

    Snicker. I have already ranted (above) about how the men who make these sorts of comments are basically crypto-feminist, recycling the same verbal excrement I’d expect from a woman wearing a T-Shirt that says “A Woman Needs A Man Like A Fish Needs A Bicycle”, and a pussy-hat.

    News flash: some MGTOW men (such as myself) went MGTOW because of our success. You can only have so many “victories”, where the prize is the harridan of your choice, before you begin to wonder who decided what the definition of “victory” was, anyway. You can only have so many women dump a chump for you, before you realize, subconsciously at least, that they’ll just as gladly dump you, for the next rung on their personal hypergamous ladder of Life Choices. Thoughts like this one cross your mind — and that’s before she’s even “gone out” (heh) with you a second time.

    You notice these things, whether you’ve been sexually successful or not, and you ask yourself: why should I prioritize over-much “winning” a game, where the grand prize is a nullity? And so you decide to prioritize other things over this. Congratulations, you’ve just gone MGTOW.

    And there are a dozen other categories of motives why this or that man decided to GHOW.

    If I stumble across a marriageable woman, I’ll marry her. But I’ve stopped making that goal the focus of my endeavors. Meanwhile, Mr. Beale presumes to tell me what to do with my life, like any cuckservative mevangelical pastorbator, and like any feminist legislator.

    I have already stated my reciprocal advice to him (et al.) several times.

  266. Jason says:

    Opus.

    Our new embassy in London……er…….well……….it’s like public art here in the USA. There has always been bad art, and design……..but the governments choice is usually worse. I am not really a big fan of it. Perhaps it could grow on me. Here is pundit Andy Rooney (RIP) matching the sentiments of what I feel about architecture and art. The 1:30 mark is a view of a hideous public art display in my city, Fresno…though its not mentioned.

  267. Sigma Frame says:

    Boxer, on my About page, there are a couple links to Red Pill blogs describing the Sigma.

  268. Sigma Frame says:

    The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.

  269. Disillusioned says:

    I visited my feminist sister and family this past Thanksgiving. I got to spend time with my nephew who is now in his early 30s. I couldnt believe it when he started spouting a lot of anti feminism and being concerned about making sure who he marries hasnt gone through the carrousel. It is ironic that a liberal family ended up with such a great man. Man am I proud of him.

  270. Jason says:

    Opus. Here is the Empire State Plaza in my home state of Albany, New York. The state capital. It was built in the 1960’s. Completed in 1973. It was ahead of its time. Brutalist. Modern. Deemed ugly. Albany was the “big city” where I grew up. Today? Upstaters cannot imagine their skyline without the Empire State Plaza. It’s okay. I ice skated here in the winter with family as a teenager. This commentator is dissing it, but I get where he is coming from………it works, and its fitting for a capital city in a state like New York. My dad helped build it, and the State museum here is actually good.

  271. Opus says:

    @ Jason

    I plead ignorance as to all matters concerning the plastic arts.

    In your new Embassy there is something by a British female sculptor Rachel Whiteread (bonus point for commissioning a female). She was the ‘artist’ who constructed (or had constructed) outsize sugar-cubes piled on top of each other not perhaps quite reaching to the ceiling of the Tate Modern. Being the big-kid that I am I merely wanted to climb then them to the top.

  272. Sigma Frame says:

    I was thinking the same thing. The double entendre on Vox’s original subject of ‘morale’ is that men lose it when they see their leaders argue. From this perspective, Dalrock’s response is a witty satire. Cheers, mate! It’s all good!

  273. Anonymous Reader says:

    Looking Glass
    I think Dalrock has misread Vox somewhat in this situation and I can see where assumptions about the meaning of specific words are driving most of this.

    The word “kill” is context dependent; it means a different thing in UNIX than it does in a court of law. But as used by Vox Day in his modest suggestion for frivorced fathers it is unambiguous.

    Here’s the thing that Day and his followers can’t seem to grasp: things like this have already happened. There was a case in New England in the 1990’s where a man took a rifle and went killing not only local government officials who had arguably wrong him badly, but also a journalist. You never heard of this case, why? Because it was a one-off event, and the man in question was shot to death by local police. There was no uprising of locals, he was not the trigger for anything. He was regarded as a nut who went over the edge, and that was that.

    IF the social fabric of the US frays to the point that men being ground by the divorce machine take up arms in noticable numbers to murder family court judges, likely that will be occurring against a backdrop of larger social breakdown with all that implies. Any man attempting such a thing before then will be treated like a rabid dog…

    It’s astounding that a self-proclaimed strategist would come up with something like this.

    However, since any time I try to actually explain the deeper issues I lose people when I talk about Structural Issues, I’ll go a different route.

    Playing the “I’m too smart for you rubes” card is not the best approach if you are attempting to sway opinion. You might want to bear that in mind.

    Build Something Useful.

    A man serving a life term in prison will find that difficult. A man who has been executed and buried in a prison grave won’t be building anything. A man who has been shot to death by the police or who shot himself to death, and was buried in a private grave? The same. Those are the most likely outcomes for any man who follows Vox Day / Theodore Beale’s advice regarding “what to do in case of divorce” in the real world. Therefore the advice is rather self-refuting…

    Please, don’t try that game of “it’s only rhetoric, it’s not supposed to be taken literally”, because that’s just childish. It’s on a par with the game that White Nationalists play when the switch from “We mean it!” to “Just Kidding, haha”, which is downright purile. Words that urge specific, direct forms of action with no ambiguity may contin an emotional argument, but the words remain plain and obvious.

    Words mean things. That’s the basic point Dalrock made, and all the fast-and-fancy tapdancing that various Vox Day supporters have tried here just has not obscured the plain, obvious, simple meaning of the words in question. The more that you and others try to pretend that those words don’t really mean what they say, they really mean something else, the more you look like the courtiers in The Emperors New Clothes. Or a used car salesman on a run-down lot.

    No, I won’t buy that used car from you. Nothing personal, I just looked under the hood and didn’t like what I saw, that’s all .

  274. Novaseeker says:

    The thing is Vox made up his taxonomy because he didn’t fit personally the alpha male set. So he invented the category Sigma for himself.

    He also has invented a version of Christianity for himself, where God is not omniscient, because his Mensa brain can’t countenance an omnicient God in an imperfect universe (theodicy).

    He’s creative, certainly.

  275. Sigma Frame says:

    Maybe Vox made a big splash just to bring out this question?

  276. BillyS says:

    Jason,

    yes billy. I am a uniform wearing Salvationist and I take my duties seriously there too.

    Then you completely fit the case Paul made for staying single: Being dedicated to the Lord’s work. You are a unique MGTOW in many ways.

  277. Oscar says:

    @ SirHamster says:
    December 14, 2017 at 6:49 pm

    “I have no endorsement or recommendation. Do you actually care what an anonymous person labeled ‘SirHamster’ recommends?

    Should men kill judges from a Christian perspective? Depends…

    On the flip side …”

    So, you have no definite opinion and your non-opinion is irrelevant. You should’ve said so from the start. It would’ve saved a lot of time.

    You’re trying to weasel out of your own words. As Dalrock rightly pointed out, VD claimed that men whose wives divorce them (Billy, for example) “suffer the legal order they deserve, because they tolerate it”, by which he means that they don’t “kill the judge, the wife, and everyone who assisted either of them, then calmly go home and open their veins in the bath”. And you defended VD’s statement. And when I and others pointed out VD’s respect for a man who murdered 96 unarmed teenagers, you defended VD’s respect for the mass murderer.

    You and VD are wrong on multiple levels, as others have pointed out; tactical, strategic, pragmatic, and most importantly, theological. But, if you and VD persist in your error, then, by all means, please lead by example. Let everyone know how it turns out for you.

  278. BillyS says:

    He also has invented a version of Christianity for himself, where God is not omniscient, because his Mensa brain can’t countenance an omnicient God in an imperfect universe (theodicy).

    The root is that Vox doesn’t realize God is outside time. It is easy for God to know and see all things if He is outside time. He can then see the choice we will make, even though it is our choice, before we are even born.

    We can also not fully understand God no matter how smart we are. I am reasonably high up there (I was never tested so I don’t know exactly where), but I am not foolish enough to think I can fully understand it all. We all have our blindspots though, no matter how smart we are.

  279. Maybe Vox made a big splash just to bring out this question?

    Another advocate of the troll theory? Poe Day?

  280. I agree that those men who choose to “go Galt” have every right to do so. It’s their lives after all. No one can choose for you no matter how high their own self-regard.

  281. SirHamster says:

    So, you have no definite opinion and your non-opinion is irrelevant. You should’ve said so from the start. It would’ve saved a lot of time.

    I would expect that not ever saying, “I recommend …”, “You should …” would have been sufficient for you to make this determination.

    You’re trying to weasel out of your own words. As Dalrock rightly pointed out, VD claimed that men whose wives divorce them (Billy, for example) “suffer the legal order they deserve, because they tolerate it”, by which he means that they don’t “kill the judge, the wife, and everyone who assisted either of them, then calmly go home and open their veins in the bath”.

    Giving an example of intolerance is not a recommendation for all to use that precise method of intolerance. There are other ways to not tolerate this status quo, which are obviously not being used. There may be some better, more Christian intolerance that does not involve blood.

    You have a basic decency you will not violate. I am a product of this generation, and while I have a preference for decency, I do not consider decency sacred.

    Thus the urgency to build an alternate culture … what do you think will happen if the MGTOWs get their way and watch it all collapse? Those red lines you respect disappear.

  282. Another advocate of the troll theory? Poe Day?

    It’s all 12-D chess, and us dumb mortals are too silly and stupid to understand the genius behind the endless poasting.

    Boxer

  283. Boxer, on my About page, there are a couple links to Red Pill blogs describing the Sigma.

    Thanks brother.

    To all you other one million people out there: Sigma Frame’s blog is must read, whether I agree with all the details or not. Check him out.

  284. SirHamster says:

    SirHamster @3.28pm on the 14th asserts that America revolted against the “Global British Empire”.

    My bad! I mistook the East Indian tea trade as reflecting more control than was yet present.

    World power. Not yet global empire.

  285. imnobody00 says:

    @Novaseeker

    “The thing is Vox made up his taxonomy because he didn’t fit personally the alpha male set. So he invented the category Sigma for himself.”

    Exactly.

    A guide to beginners:

    Vox’s alpha = Everybody else’s higher alpha.
    Vox’s beta = Everybody else’s lesser alpha.
    Vox’s delta = Everybody else’s average beta
    Vox’s gamma = For everybody else, he is a beta who thinks he is better than alphas and it is resentful because women prefer alpha.
    Vox’s sigma = For everybody else, he is a beta who thinks he is better than alphas and justifies it telling himself that he is out of the game.
    Vox’s omega = Everybody else’s omega.

    (IMHO, sigmas are very few and most men who define themselves as sigmas are gammas that fool themselves with a “sour grapes” excuse. This includes especially Vox Day, who is very protective of his fragile ego. Compare with Rollo, who is strong enough to accept disagreement with him in his blog)

  286. Novaseeker says:

    The root is that Vox doesn’t realize God is outside time. It is easy for God to know and see all things if He is outside time. He can then see the choice we will make, even though it is our choice, before we are even born.

    Yes of course, Billy. This has been explained to his Mensa-ness numerous times. His brain is too big to understand it.

  287. Random Angeleno says:

    @Opus, I remember that sugar cube monstrosity at the Tate. I also remember thinking it reminded me of Jackson Pollock as in “I coulda done that, heck anybody coulda done that”.

    Regarding the new Embassy in London, mmm… no, I’m not impressed. Garish, at best.

    Back to the topic. Vox is essentially advocating outright murder. Murder like this only works in the context of a full blown rebellion. If no one is there with you, it won’t have any lasting effect except on the kids left behind. The way I look at it, if I stick my neck out now, I’m just going to get cut down for nothing. Vox is okay with that but as a Catholic which Vox clearly is not, I won’t go there.

  288. Dalrock says:

    @Butch Leghorn

    You’re using cheap strawmen and that’s beneath you…

    Why would any society respect men who meekly accept these injustices? I’m not saying “men deserve it” as in your strawman…

    You are very confused about the term strawman. Strawman is when you substitute a weaker argument for the one actually presented. When you quote the specific argument, that isn’t a strawman. Vox and I agree that the family courts are merely the formal legal expression of our societal disrespect of married fathers. The difference is, Vox says the disrespect is deserved. As I quoted in the OP and in the comments:

    The truth is that men often suffer the legal order they deserve, because they tolerate it…

    [Murder-suicide]

    …That’s why no one, including the legal system, respects his possession of either.

    If you think Vox’s argument is laughably weak, take it up with Vox. Don’t blame me for quoting him.

    The essence of the article is that this society will continue to abuse men until men fight back. Do you disagree with that premise?

    I do. Murder suicide isn’t going to restore Christian marriage. It also won’t foster respect for husbands and fathers. Moreover, we won’t convince the culture (and thereby the courts) to respect married fathers if we don’t respect those men ourselves.

    Look. I get it. Respecting married fathers in our culture is very foreign. It feels really weird. But this is the fundamental problem. We can’t solve this by beating our chests and declaring ourselves the only real men. As I’ve shown with the men of National Review and Christian leaders, it is exactly how we got here.

  289. SirHamster says:

    What I think is dumb is making that decision to “save Western culture”, because no decision achieves or contributes to that in any meaningful way. It just does not.

    That is how kings are made.

    “David said to the Philistine, “You come against me with sword and spear and javelin, but I come against you in the name of the LORD Almighty, the God of the armies of Israel, whom you have defied. This day the LORD will deliver you into my hands, and I’ll strike you down and cut off your head. This very day I will give the carcasses of the Philistine army to the birds and the wild animals, and the whole world will know that there is a God in Israel. All those gathered here will know that it is not by sword or spear that the LORD saves; for the battle is the LORD’s, and he will give all of you into our hands.”

    To head off potential misunderstanding, I think being king sucks. You become servant to all and take on a lot of responsibility and problems. (That’s why the job attracts money and women)

    I am more of a minion than a leader – but bold acts are transformative. Ex: See Trump.

    Please also note this is an entirely separate line of thought than the hypothetical Roman patrician response to family court injustice. (which would not happen because the patrician wouldn’t submit to it in the first place)

  290. SirHamster says:

    … This includes especially Vox Day, who is very protective of his fragile ego. Compare with Rollo, who is strong enough to accept disagreement with him in his blog)

    There is plenty of disagreement with Vox on his blog. He just doesn’t tolerate liars, or Gamma behavior which wastes everyone’s time.

    That “fragile ego” quip? Lie.

  291. Anonymous Reader says:

    Sir Hamster
    Thus the urgency to build an alternate culture … what do you think will happen if the MGTOWs get their way and watch it all collapse?

    What do you think would happen if everyone on Manhattan island flushed their toilet at the exact same time?

    The one is as likely as the other.

  292. Anonymous Reader says:

    Novaseeker
    This has been explained to his Mensa-ness numerous times. His brain is too big to understand it.

    Alex, I’ll take “Things that are not my problem” for $100…

  293. Novaseeker says:

    (IMHO, sigmas are very few and most men who define themselves as sigmas are gammas that fool themselves with a “sour grapes” excuse. This includes especially Vox Day, who is very protective of his fragile ego. Compare with Rollo, who is strong enough to accept disagreement with him in his blog)

    @lookingglass –

    +1000%

  294. imnobody00 says:

    @SirHamster.

    “That “fragile ego” quip? Lie.”

    I have followed for years and I will keep on following him. He has the best links. Having said that…

    After he gives an opinion, he cannot accept he was wrong, even if he doesn’t know anything about the topic and an expert in the topic corrects him. He keeps on giving BS. He must always be right. It has to protect his fragile ego about knowing more than anybody in any subject.

    In matters that he doesn’t know, his opinion is incredibly shallow and ignorant, but he cannot accept that. He knows it all and can teach a cannibal how to make a meal with human meat.

    Of course, the guy is incredibly smart. It is only that everybody is wrong sometimes and everybody is ignorant about some topic. But he cannot accept that.

    He has Secret King tendencies. After their SJW enemies have changed the rules of the Hugo so his strategy failed, he keeps on telling anybody that everything is according to plan. He wins again. A gamma.

  295. SirHamster says:

    Sir Hamster
    Thus the urgency to build an alternate culture … what do you think will happen if the MGTOWs get their way and watch it all collapse?

    What do you think would happen if everyone on Manhattan island flushed their toilet at the exact same time?

    The one is as likely as the other.

    In collapse, there is a power vacuum. An ambitious man who captures the attention of disaffected young men and women has the ability to lead them and their nation into further ruin. Ex: pre-WWII Germany.

    It is the duty of builders to build, sowers to sow, and reapers to reap. As you sow? So shall you reap.

  296. SirHamster says:

    He has Secret King tendencies. After their SJW enemies have changed the rules of the Hugo so his strategy failed, he keeps on telling anybody that everything is according to plan. He wins again. A gamma.

    What was his strategy for the Hugos, and how did it fail? Were you a part of the Rabid Puppies?

  297. Anonymous Reader says:

    Sir Hamster
    In collapse, there is a power vacuum.

    You write like a teenager who is ignorant of history and everything around him. If civilization slumps or collapses, it will be due to many forces much larger and more powerful than the tiny percentage of men who label themselves as MGTOW.

    This would be a good time to point once again to Sir John Bagot “Pasha” Glubb’s monograph “The Fate of Empires”. It’s only 200 pages, and while it’s a bit dated (written in the 1970’s) the basic research and thinking is still sound.

  298. Of course, the guy is incredibly smart.

    I don’t think so. He’s of average to bright normal intelligence. He’s a gifted writer and he’s good at rhetoric (and sophistry – in the Aristotelian sense); but as you point out, he often betrays the fact that he’s a very shallow and emotional thinker. His spat with Andrew Torba (who is, at least, one standard deviation ahead of him cognitively) and his subsequent threats of a lawsuit are enough evidence of this.

    I do give him credit for attracting such a large cadre of mediocrities, who view the man as some sort of prophet or “guru”. Look at the ones currently running interference for him here as examples. He’s probably about as smart as I am, but he’s a much better writer, and far more charismatic, and that counts for something.

    Boxer

  299. SirHamster says:

    If civilization slumps or collapses, it will be due to many forces much larger and more powerful than the tiny percentage of men who label themselves as MGTOW.

    You are too slow.

    I accepted your premise that the collapse was unavoidable, and was looking past that to see what might come out of collapse. One possibility is that collapse feeds on itself. That is not good.

    As the saying goes, there is much ruin in a nation. But that doesn’t mean we have to watch passively. Can preparation and building now result in a better collapse? I think so.

  300. Anonymous Reader says:

    Sir Hamster

    If civilization slumps or collapses, it will be due to many forces much larger and more powerful than the tiny percentage of men who label themselves as MGTOW.

    You are too slow.

    Perhaps, but I’m not engaged in logical fallacies…such as moving the goalposts, as you have done over and over again.

    I accepted your premise that the collapse was unavoidable,

    Where did I state such a premise? Be specific.

    and was looking past that to see what might come out of collapse. One possibility is that collapse feeds on itself. That is not good.

    Again, you write like a teenaged boy who is ignorant of history. Glubb’s monograph as available is only 26 pages long, you could read it in minutes and learn something in the process.

    As the saying goes, there is much ruin in a nation. But that doesn’t mean we have to watch passively. Can preparation and building now result in a better collapse? I think so.

    This is a strawman fallacy. No one in this comment thread has advocated going poolside. Some have specifically advocated preparing for hard times ahead.

    Now then, returning to youre explicit thesis:
    Please explain how MGTOW will bring about the downfall of Western civilization.
    You may use both sides of the paper if needed.

  301. Jason says:

    Thanks Billy S

    Look, it’s not that I was “called” to be single. I’m a guy. I’m curious about women. Sex. Something I have never experienced….but what of it now? There are still mild tatters of jealously at times….in my case…..I’m at our monthly “soul stomp / all nighter” and I am hands down the best dancer there. I’ll ‘footsie’ and ‘jump back’ and ska-step in perfect count to the meter, tempo, and style of the record playing on the system. People always compliment me, people talk to me….I’m supportive, friendly and encouraging when a guy or gal says ‘Well, I can’t do what you do” and I tell them “no one cares here. this music is just getting out on the floor and forgetting about work, life…practice…….let this music speak to you.”

    Then a guy who happens to be good looking and (sigh) “young” only has to grind up on women, grope, and flirt. He seems to be making out with a different cutie every month. Sometimes a few different ones a night. he never goes home alone at 6am. Im shaking DJ’s hands, thanking them. Thanking the bar staff for “hosting us” and the club owner. The women who do come are younger, and……….are they Christian? Am I gonna meet a “great gal” who loves Christ at a place like this?

    No, not gonna happen. Then I feel better. I then remind myself….this night is about dancing, sweating off ten pounds, perfecting every nuance for when I go to the UK and dance a REAL northern soul night. It’s a workout, it releases tension.

    I’m not immune my friend. Even at my age, still sometimes it is bothersome. Player guy with three children with different women…..kids are healthy…he’s in a “band” and no ever seems to say “He’s an ass” I hear “He’s misunderstood / that b*tch x-girlfriend did this n that to him / he’s soooo hot”

    You have to live with it. Even fellow Salvationists tell me that I am “sinning” because I dance. I remind them that “what are the words saying? nothing sinful. no references to drugs, or sex. The dancing is WAY tame by todays standards, and I am not partaking in the the drugs and drink.”

    Thanks for the encouragement, and as for you…….if I can be of any help or support ever. Call me out. Seriously. I will pray for any man here that needs it. I’ll give the best take on it I can.

  302. Per Desteen says:

    And now Dalrock is no longer a linked site on Alphagameplan.

  303. Novaseeker says:

    And now Dalrock is no longer a linked site on Alphagameplan.

    Well now that’s a typical “sigma” move, isn’t it?

  304. Embracing Reality says:

    Is it so implausible that MGTOW, if sufficient large enough to even be noticed, may simply put pressure on the unjust system? Along with various other male adaptations like PUA, MRA? It’s probably a little early to start shorting western society for the stone ages. You can just as logically bet on a sick society that gets a little better and then a little worse. All part of a global system that drags on for a few more lifetimes. It’s anybody’s guess.

  305. SirHamster says:

    Perhaps, but I’m not engaged in logical fallacies…such as moving the goalposts, as you have done over and over again.

    Give me one example. What was the goalpost and where did I move it?

    You’re the one who keeps asking me about assertions that I did not make.

    Where did I state such a premise? Be specific.

    If civilization slumps or collapses, it will be due to many forces much larger and more powerful than the tiny percentage of men who label themselves as MGTOW.”

    “(If) Given a collapse, MGTOW blameless”

    Good for you. I am not talking about blame. I am talking solution – what is a man to do given the “bad” hand he has?

    Again, you write like a teenaged boy who is ignorant of history. Glubb’s monograph as available is only 26 pages long, you could read it in minutes and learn something in the process.

    If your argument had substance, you would give me the one sentence refutation instead of hiding behind name-calling of “teenage”, “ignorant”, “learn something”.

    As it is, what I see is that you don’t understand what you read enough to summarize it and apply it to my position.

    You think it’s relevant, and it may very well be, but your method and attitude isn’t convincing me.

    This is a strawman fallacy. No one in this comment thread has advocated going poolside. Some have specifically advocated preparing for hard times ahead.

    That’s not even a criticism of anyone here. I am describing my motivation.

    MGTOWs are way too sensitive, which is why I have no interest in following them.

    Now then, returning to youre explicit thesis:
    Please explain how MGTOW will bring about the downfall of Western civilization.
    You may use both sides of the paper if needed.

    That is not my thesis. No need for me to explain a thing. You are slow and wasting my time demanding responses to things I do not say or think.

  306. Anonymous Reader says:

    Per Desteen
    And now Dalrock is no longer a linked site on Alphagameplan.

    I’m sure there is a deep, long term thinking, strategic reason for that.
    To an unsophisticated, unintelligent rube like myself, it looks petty and petulent.
    In fact, downright feminine..

  307. earlthomas786 says:

    Well now that’s a typical “sigma” move, isn’t it?

    Yeah for anybody else it’d be a butthurt gamma move but since it’s him that makes it sigma.

  308. Random Angeleno says:

    @Jason, I do partner dancing too, mainly for the sheer enjoyment of it.

    @Per Desteen, nothing like a little passive aggressive “take my ball and go home” response. lol

  309. Jason says:

    MGTOW *will* continue to grow, more and more men will identify with it, but live it? Not too many. The core bunch will be the men who could never get a date / sex / companionship anyway….and of that group only a few will actually have a life probably worth reading about…or would make for a good “made for TV / straight to Netflix movie” with a few women wondering “why on earth” were they single?

    I personally believe that MGTOW does have some useful insights for *any* man out there in the first world. I’m glad it this lifestyle choice has finally put it into words of what a segment of men have been going through as the culture and times entered hyperspace and the 1990’s ended.

    Sure, a comment above mentioned that there plenty of men who are living a MGTOW life and have never heard of the term. The attacks on MGTOW will intensify by men and women. The worst examples will be found and made a public spectacle of on media. The attacks will get vicious for the fact there is no “one man to point at” and “call out” because it is a movement / lifestyle choice with no actual organization in the traditional sense

  310. Anonymous Reader says:

    Sir Hamster
    < Perhaps, but I’m not engaged in logical fallacies…such as moving the goalposts, as you have done over and over again.

    Give me one example. What was the goalpost and where did I move it?

    You constantly moved goalposts with regard to assassination politics.

    Where did I state such a premise? Be specific.

    “If civilization slumps or collapses, it will be due to many forces much larger and more powerful than the tiny percentage of men who label themselves as MGTOW.”

    “If civilization collapses” is not the same as “collapse is inevitable”. Your claim is falsified.

    As it is, what I see is that you don’t understand what you read enough to summarize it and apply it to my position.

    Stop changing your position and moving goalposts.

    ,i> Now then, returning to youre explicit thesis:
    Please explain how MGTOW will bring about the downfall of Western civilization.
    You may use both sides of the paper if needed.

    That is not my thesis.

    False.

    Previously you wrote:

    what do you think will happen if the MGTOWs get their way and watch it all collapse?

    Your thesis is that if MGTOWs get their way, civilization will collapse. If you cannot explain how this will happen, then admit that it is false.

    You are slow and wasting my time demanding responses to things I do not say or think.

    It is obvious you have a lot of time to waste. Why not try honest debate for once? Too difficult?

  311. Anonymous Reader says:

    No links handy, but Testosterone levels across the Anglosphere continue to decline as they have for the last 20 to 30 years. This is surely a factor in many social issues.

  312. earlthomas786 says:

    Of course, the guy is incredibly smart. It is only that everybody is wrong sometimes and everybody is ignorant about some topic. But he cannot accept that.

    The only thing larger than his brain is his ego.

  313. The Question says:

    @Sigma Frame

    Vox’s case could be much stronger if he didn’t accuse MGTOWs of being low morale cowards for eschewing marriage and relationships.

    I don’t believe Vox was literally calling for murder-suicide as the solution. His point was that this wouldn’t have happened in ancient Rome, because the patricians wouldn’t have tolerated it. They would have refused to put up with the system we have today.

    In this sense, Vox is right – we’re at this point because previous generations tolerated things that shouldn’t be tolerated and didn’t make a collective stand.

    How we respond to it, now that we’re passed that point, is the problem. Churchians will tell men to submit to the system, should it ensnare them.

    So what should a Red Pill Christian tell a young man about this while encouraging marriage? What are they to do if their woman decides to go for the cash and prizes?

  314. earlthomas786 says:

    His point was that this wouldn’t have happened in ancient Rome, because the patricians wouldn’t have tolerated it. They would have refused to put up with the system we have today.

    But would they? I think something that should be researched is when these empires started collapsing what the men tolerated as far as these type of laws. Once the empire gets fat and happy the men seem to lose their fighting spirit.

  315. Anonymous Reader says:

    Question
    I don’t believe Vox was literally calling for murder-suicide as the solution.

    Then he should not have written words calling for it.

    His point was that this wouldn’t have happened in ancient Rome, because the patricians wouldn’t have tolerated it.

    His point is moot, as divorce became common even amont the patrician class in the later empire. So common that a tax on bachelors was created in order to encourage marriage. This is not a secret, it is rather common knowledge that can easily be found in many history texts. If he is as intelligent and well read as claimed, he would not have made such an obvious mistake.

    In this sense, Vox is right – we’re at this point because previous generations tolerated things that shouldn’t be tolerated and didn’t make a collective stand.

    Other men have noticed this, yet they did not call for murder as a political too.

    How we respond to it, now that we’re passed that point, is the problem. Churchians will tell men to submit to the system, should it ensnare them.

    So what should a Red Pill Christian tell a young man about this while encouraging marriage? What are they to do if their woman decides to go for the cash and prizes?

    Gosh, if only there was a blog where topics such as that have been discussed for years….

  316. MarcusD says:

    @Per Desteen

    And now Dalrock is no longer a linked site on Alphagameplan.

    Within the last 12 hours or so, it would seem. That said, if I understand correctly, it isn’t Vox who is running it at the moment (of course, it still could be Vox who did that, but others are involved, too).

    @Earl

    Once the empire gets fat and happy the men seem to lose their fighting spirit.

    Reminds me of this image:

    (It’s worth noting that there is a fair amount of variation in ‘tetraptychs’ on the theme of “Hard times create strong men …”.)

  317. Anonymous Reader says:

    @Question
    Furthermore, castigating men in 2017 on the basis of what some putative Roman aristocrat might have done 2,000 or so years ago is nonsense. Might as well say “No Persian satrap would put up with this!” or “no Mongol would put up with this” or “No Chinese mandarin would put up with this” or “No Japanese samurai of the Shogunate era would put up with this”, because those examples are moot. To be specific, Roman law has been gone for centuries…

    The current cash and prizes reward for divorce has been in place for over 30 years. It was built on top of the older divorce system that grew in the latter 19th century, over 100 years ago. That was built on an older system. We stand at the culmination of a series of decisions dating back over 150 and arguably close to 200 years. This isn’t going to be reversed with appeals to some comic-book cartoon version of what Romans would have done.

    Men have been working to mitigate and if possible reverse a part of the divorce machine since the 1980’s. The first question a truly intelligent man would ask upon discovering this mess: “What has been tried so far?”. Did Vox Day do that? It does not appear he did.

  318. SirHamster says:

    You constantly moved goalposts with regard to assassination politics.

    That is not specific. Your thinking is too fuzzy.

    “If civilization collapses” is not the same as “collapse is inevitable”. Your claim is falsified.

    Your point is that MGTOW is not to blame, they are too few to make any difference to prevent a collapse. A collapse that happens is inevitable due to large forces outside their control.

    I can agree with that, but I’m not interested in assigning blame.

    Stop changing your position and moving goalposts.

    You are confusing the change in your misunderstanding of my position with an actual change in my position.

    what do you think will happen if the MGTOWs get their way and watch it all collapse?

    Your thesis is that if MGTOWs get their way, civilization will collapse. If you cannot explain how this will happen, then admit that it is false.

    That is not a thesis. That is a hypothetical question.

    I think MGTOW want to watch society collapse. When MGTOW get their way, they will get to watch society collapse. As a result of collapse, “Those red lines you respect disappear.” That is my thesis – that the upcoming collapse destroys the decency that Oscar is interesting in preserving.

    It is obvious you have a lot of time to waste. Why not try honest debate for once? Too difficult?

    I am amused, true. The limit on honest debate is not me. It is your inability to correctly identify and address the arguments I am making and the position I actually have.

  319. imnobody00 says:

    @ earlthomas78

    I think something that should be researched is when these empires started collapsing what the men tolerated as far as these type of laws. Once the empire gets fat and happy the men seem to lose their fighting spirit.

    From I, Claudius (by Robert Graves)

    Augustus did all he could by legislation to encourage marriage among men of family. […] When there were complaints from men of family about the vulgarity of these newcomers, Augustus used to answer testily that he chose the least vulgar he could find. The remedy was in their own hands, he said: every man and woman of rank should marry young and breed as large a family as possible. The steady decrease in the number of births and marriages in the governing classes became an obsession with Augustus. […]

    I remember once hearing two of my mother’s freed- women discussing modern marriage from the point of view’ of a woman of family. What did she gain by it? they asked. Morals were so loose now that nobody took marriage seriously any longer. Granted, a few old-fashioned men respected it sufficiently to have a prejudice against children being fathered on them by their friends or household servants, and a few old-fashioned women respected their husbands’ feelings sufficiently to be very careful not to become pregnant to any but them. But as a rule any good-looking woman nowadays could have any man to sleep with whom she chose. If she did marry and then tired of her husband, as usually happened, and wanted someone else to amuse herself with, there might easily be her husband’s pride or jealousy to contend with. […]

    Augustus gave the Noble Order of Knights permission to marry commoners, even freedwoman, but this did not improve things very much. […] Not only were there fewer women to choose from in the correct degree of kinship, but the marriage ceremony was stricter. The wife was more absolutely in the power of the master of the household into which she married. Every sensible woman thought twice before committing herself to this contract, from which there was no escape but divorce; and after divorce it was difficult to recover the property that she had brought him as a dowry. In other than anciently noble families, however, a woman could marry a man legally and yet remain independent, with control of her own property — if she cared to stipulate that she should sleep three nights of the year outside her husband’s house; for this condition would interrupt his right over her as a permanent chattel. Women liked this form of marriage for obvious reasons, the very reasons for which their husbands disliked it. […]

    The practice started among the lowest families of the City but worked upwards, and soon became the rule in all except the anciently noble families. Here there was a religious reason against it. From these families the State priests were chosen, and by religious law a priest had to be a married man, married in a strict form, and the child of a strict-form marriage too. As time went on suitable candidates for priesthood were increasingly difficult to find. […] so the lawyers found a way out. Women of rank were allowed, on contracting strict-form marriages, to stipulate that the complete surrender of themselves and property was ‘as touching sacred matters’ and that otherwise they enjoyed all the benefits of free marriage.

    So much for “macho” patricians….

  320. Anonymous Reader says:

    Sir Hamster
    I think MGTOW want to watch society collapse.

    There is no evidence that you think. But your emotions are obvious.
    You don’t actually know what MGTOW want. You’ve just taken Vox Day’s strawman and danced around with it.

    When MGTOW get their way, they will get to watch society collapse.

    What if they don’t get their way? What if they can’t get their way?

    As a result of collapse, “Those red lines you respect disappear.” That is my thesis – that the upcoming collapse destroys the decency that Oscar is interesting in preserving.

    Oh, is that your thesis now?
    Well, you’ve dialed back quite a bit from previous comments in this thread. Let’s go back to some of your previous points.

    Where does the assassination of judges fit in to your fantasy?
    How did the failure of the SR’s assassination in the 1880’s through 1906 lead to success of the Bolshevik coup d’etat of 1917?
    When will you get around to showing that Imperial Japan of 1932 is in any way similar to the US of 2017?

    Finally:
    What possible point do you actually have to make here?

  321. earlthomas786 says:

    ‘Morals were so loose now that nobody took marriage seriously any longer. ‘

    And there it is. Has that factor ever entered into the genius’s mind?

  322. earlthomas786 says:

    Good find @imnobody00.

  323. earlthomas786 says:

    ‘As time went on suitable candidates for priesthood were increasingly difficult to find. […] so the lawyers found a way out. Women of rank were allowed, on contracting strict-form marriages, to stipulate that the complete surrender of themselves and property was ‘as touching sacred matters’ and that otherwise they enjoyed all the benefits of free marriage.’

    Loose morals and women having to take over because there weren’t enough men to fill the roles. The more things change…

  324. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Mike T: it all has the stench of gammas and low deltas saying “I got hurt, so I’ll go cry and mock everyone still trying.”

    Nothing wrong with Gammas. I might be mostly Gamma (or Delta, or Beta), depending on whose hierarchy one applies.

    These male hierarchies only measure how sexually attractive a man is to women. It says nothing about a man’s other aspects, good of bad. Are not some of the great scientists, engineers, medical researchers, Christian saints, and other builders of civilization, Gammas or Deltas?

    These hierarchies tend to lean toward PUA ethics, where a man’s worth is only determined by his N count.

  325. And now Dalrock is no longer a linked site on Alphagameplan.

    One more reason not to bother going there. I used to hit the links from there. No reason to now.

    I wanted to suggest somewhere that someone shop the “daddy/hubby” T-shirt to the Chateau Heartiste crowd just to see what kind of reaction it would get. But I know what reaction it would get and really, what’s the point?

  326. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Some men are born MGTOW. Some men achieve MGTOW. And some men have MGTOW thrust upon them.

  327. earlthomas786 says:

    These male hierarchies only measure how sexually attractive a man is to women.

    And even that can change day to day.

    It says nothing about a man’s other aspects, good of bad. Are not some of the great scientists, engineers, medical researchers, Christian saints, and other builders of civilization, Gammas or Deltas?

    If the greek letter is only based off female sexual attraction…how low down the totem pole would men like Jesus, Paul, Tesla, Issac Newton, etc. be? These were great men regardless of what women felt.

  328. Jason says:

    Exactly RPL

    MGTOW as a ‘movement’ is something the pundits should not worry about. Men like myself are not gonna be bringing down civilization…….I’m not that important, and never was.

    The *only* way MGTOW could have a larger impact is if a large segment of the top-tier of men in the looks / game department actually “swore” off women in their twenties…….then it would be a crisis. That is not going to happen. In the 80 / 20 elements in the world of dating / sex / narcissism those men are not going to suddenly swallow “female nature” because they already have. They know about female nature, and could care less about the “thirsty 80 percent” and nor should they.

    MGTOW is gonna be taking a lot of flack sooner than later, and getting most of the blame for the 20 percents behavior and actions. In protestant church culture…..it “seems” to be growing without them really “knowing” about it. Christianity today is about ten to twelve years behind the times in these matters. Around 2020 or so…..some pastor in the vein of Driscoll / Chandler / Platt is suddenly gonna find out about MGTOW, read up on it….and broadcast it within Protestant culture and they will be deemed an “expert” on this topic and the shaming, belittling and anger is really gonna *real* inside the church towards the single men there. They will publish a “book” be on Ms. Griffiths show on CBN, the Christian talk circuit (Daystar and the like). Everyone inside the culture will act like they discovered this and lie to themselves again “because we Christians are at the forefront of the times / culture”

    It will be easy to smear, the worst examples will be made public, and a whole call to “rescue the young gneration of men from this tool of satan” will be the mantra…..and again…..very little will be done about the Jupiter sized pink elephant in the room called feminism will be ignored.

  329. “And now Dalrock is no longer a linked site on Alphagameplan.”

    Alphagameplan is under new management…Vox may have had nothing to do with it.

  330. SirHamster says:

    You don’t actually know what MGTOW want. You’ve just taken Vox Day’s strawman and danced around with it.

    No True MGTOW, lawls.

    You forget that I am a product of the feminist society that has destroyed men. You ignore that I start from MGTOW, “I have no place in this society, why bother?”

    I am discontent to sit on my ass playing video games. I recognize that I have not been passed on a sustainable culture and vision, and my goal is to have something worth passing on.

    I could be classified as ex-MGTOW, but I never had a strong commitment to it, so you can label me never-MGTOW if you want. It is a mistake to then conclude I have no understanding of MGTOW, though. I am half your age, old man. I am far more affected by this culture than you are in Mexico. (IIRC)

    When MGTOW get their way, they will get to watch society collapse.

    What if they don’t get their way? What if they can’t get their way?

    If Men Going Their Own Way doesn’t result in a collapse, their abstinence from marriage and society will be completely pointless. The MGTOWs die off and go extinct, and they will be replaced by whatever this corrupt society reproduces.

    As a result of collapse, “Those red lines you respect disappear.” That is my thesis – that the upcoming collapse destroys the decency that Oscar is interesting in preserving.

    Oh, is that your thesis now?
    Well, you’ve dialed back quite a bit from previous comments in this thread. Let’s go back to some of your previous points.

    Your inability to correctly identify my position is not my problem. You keep swinging and missing, and it’s pretty funny to watch an old geezer make a fool of himself.

    Where does the assassination of judges fit in to your fantasy?
    How did the failure of the SR’s assassination in the 1880’s through 1906 lead to success of the Bolshevik coup d’etat of 1917?
    When will you get around to showing that Imperial Japan of 1932 is in any way similar to the US of 2017?

    1. What fantasy?
    2. No clue, but ultimate success does not disprove the inefficacy of the intermediate tactics.
    3. They both have men and are societies. My point in bringing up that example doesn’t rely on any other similarities.

    Finally:
    What possible point do you actually have to make here?

    If you lack the reading comprehension to understand the points as stated, more words won’t help.

  331. The Question says:

    @ Anonymous Reader

    Questions still remain unanswered.

    How can anyone, including the men here, recommend marriage today to any man? If they can, how can they do so and then tell these young men that they have no moral right to resist the law, family courts, divorce court, and other state mechanisms that deprive him of his rights?

    There are really only two consistent stances. One is to say that if a man marries, he has to submit to these institutions if and when they come for him, but because of this no man should be expected to get married and it is perfectly understandable if they choose to remain single. The other response is Vox’s – get married and take the risk, but resist anyone who tries to destroy your life through the state, because they have no legitimate authority over it to begin with.

    Nobody has any right to expect, pressure, or shame men into marrying if they also believe he has no right to physically resist the state. Yet that is precisely the message I’ve heard as far back as I can remember.

    Vox may be wrong, but his argument highlights the absurdity of the alternative view described above.

    There are two discussions going on right now dealing with the micro and the macro view of the situation, and they are being confused and mixed together. The macro discussion is how do we solve the problem as a society and culture. The micro discussion is how we as individuals should respond to the circumstances we are in.

    I’m far more concerned about the latter, because we have little to no control over the former, and it’s nearly guaranteed the situation will not change anytime soon.

    I have yet to find an article in the manosphere discussing the moral boundaries of acceptable behavior by a Christian man to a frivorce. Are we biblically required to submit to the state’s intrusion into our marriages and usurpation of power over our kids, or are we allowed to resist, and if so in what manner? If my only acceptable options as a Christian man is to do as I’m told by the state system if one day my wife decides she’s “not haaaaapppppy”, then count me out of marriage entirely.

  332. SirHamster says:

    I wanted to suggest somewhere that someone shop the “daddy/hubby” T-shirt to the Chateau Heartiste crowd just to see what kind of reaction it would get. But I know what reaction it would get and really, what’s the point?

    lolcows are to be milked.

    But what if they don’t agree with you by mocking it? That’d be … dangerous.

  333. SirHamster says:

    Are not some of the great scientists, engineers, medical researchers, Christian saints, and other builders of civilization, Gammas or Deltas?

    Gamma does not create greatness. Gamma is smallness of soul and largeness of ego. Gamma loves ego-flattering lies, not truth. Lack of truth prevents greatness.

  334. Opus says:

    Glubb (who lived only a few miles from where I am) gets trotted out frequently as he does above and as if he is Holy Writ. I have yet to see anyone attempt a hatchet-job on his Fate of Empires (I assume he had an empire in mind when he published in 1978 and hint: it would not have been American) but I must say on the occasion that I skimmed his book I was less than persuaded.

    Having said that, one of the great moments of my childhood, one, sadly, no American can ever experience was when my Father took me aside to show me his school atlas: “all that painted red” which was most of it, he explained “is ours because we are top nation and better than anyone else and that is why it is ours” I expect he also explained that a portion of North America was also at one time Red. What he did not explain to me was that there were other parts of the atlas which although not red were also effectively controlled by the people who controlled the red bits.

    I will now head for the virtual bunker.

  335. JD, Herald of GenX says:

    You’re either going to interact with the modern dating market and family court system or not.

    If you’re going to, then you’d best get yourself in as antifragile a condition as possible. That will take time and will probably involve not getting tangled up with too many women in the interim. So, you’ll be doing your own thing.

    If not, then you’ll be concentrating on your own life and not getting tangled up with too many women. In other words, doing your own thing.

    MGTOW is a spectrum. Some are out permanently, some are in drydock for repair, and some are in building mode and realize they don’t have time for wasteful distractions.

    There must be a mass withdrawal of men from the SMP. Or more directly, there must be a mass withdrawal of money and attention. You don’t need to be Chad DonnerWang to say “No.”

    No need for murder-suicide. No need to firebomb courthouses. No need to do anything at all.

    Feminism is State-sponsored. The State is Man-sponsored. There’s your answer, Men.

    It needs to burn. It needs to seize up and die. Now. Not two generations from now. Now.

  336. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    SirHamster: Gamma does not create greatness. Gamma is smallness of soul and largeness of ego. Gamma loves ego-flattering lies, not truth. Lack of truth prevents greatness.

    Is that your definition?

    It doesn’t sound like it’s taken from a Male SMV Hierarchy. Women do not reject a man because he lies, or because he has a “smallness of soul” or “largeness of ego.”

    On the contrary, many women seem to be hawt for egotistical men. And what do women care about the size of a man’s soul?

  337. Anonymous Reader says:

    Sir

    Hamster

  338. Anonymous Reader says:

    Sir Hamster
    You forget that I am a product of the feminist society that has destroyed men. You ignore that I start from MGTOW, “I have no place in this society, why bother?”

    It is true that usually I ignore you.

    I am discontent to sit on my ass playing video games.

    Too bad. If you would just do that, then the rest of us would be spared your inanity.

    I recognize that I have not been passed on a sustainable culture and vision, and my goal is to have something worth passing on.

    That’s swell. Shouldn’t you be working on that, rather than trolling men in comments sections?
    Or at least do a more entertaining job of trolling?

    Sir
    http://i.imgur.com/zD4X8.gif
    Hamster

  339. SirHamster says:

    Is that your definition?

    Extrapolation from exposure and study.

    It doesn’t sound like it’s taken from a Male SMV Hierarchy. Women do not reject a man because he lies, or because he has a “smallness of soul” or “largeness of ego.”

    They don’t reject men for those reasons, but there is a correlation. Gammas are damaged men. If they weren’t damaged, they’d just be Deltas.

    Thing though is that the SSH is fractal; there are rich and powerful men with Gamma natures.

    I guess there’s a question here whether a rich, powerful Gamma can still be great. Don’t think so, but a contrary example should disprove my opinion.

  340. SirHamster says:

    That’s swell. Shouldn’t you be working on that, rather than trolling men in comments sections?

    This ain’t trolling. Thank you for conceding all the points you tried to pick a fight on.

  341. dwellerman says:

    MGTOW…

    “Patriarchy works because it induces men and women to cooperate under their complementary strengths.  

    ‘Feminism’ does not work, because it encourages immoral behavior in women, which eventually wears down even the durable chivalry of beta men [MGTOW], making both genders worse off. 

    It is no secret that single motherhood is heavily subsidized, but it is less understood that single spinsterhood is also heavily subsidized through a variety of unsustainable and unreciprocated means. 

    The default natural solution is for the misandric society to be outcompeted and displaced.”  

    ~ The Misandry Bubble

    http://www.singularity2050.com/2010/01/the-misandry-bubble.html

    ‘Displaced’ – a majority of men not caring for, nor being interested in, sacrificing themselves for a system of institutionalized male hatred. (MGTOW)

    and more…

    “The Fault-line of Civilization :  After examining all the flaws in modern societies, and the laws that exacerbate them, it becomes apparent that there are two realms of legal/judicial thought that stand alone in determining whether our civilization is going to be ever-improving or merely cyclical.  

    These two legal areas are:
    a) the treatment of paternity rights,
    and b) the treatment of due process in rape accusations.
     
    The human brain is wired to value the well-being of women far higher than that of men (for reasons that were once valid, but no longer are today), which is why extending due process to a man falsely accused of rape is not of particular interest to people who otherwise value due process.  

    Similarly, there is little resistance to ‘feminist’ laws that have stripped away all types of paternity rights from fathers.  The father is not seen as valuable nor as worthy of rights…  [MGTOW]

    These two areas of law are precisely where our society will decide if it ascends or declines.  All other political sideshows, like immigration, race relations, and even terrorism are simply not as important as none of those can destroy an entire society the way these laws can.”

    ~ The Misandry Bubble

    And how would an entire society be destroyed because of these two areas of law? The withdrawal of large numbers of men who just don’t give a shit for that society any more. {MGTOW}

  342. Anonymous Reader says:

    Question
    How can anyone, including the men here, recommend marriage today to any man?

    In the Christian relgious context sex is only lawful within marriage. If you use the search tool up at the top of this posting you can find more than one posting by Dalrock on the topic of marriage. Seriously, you are aware that this site dates back to 2010 and that the primary focus is on marriage as a social good and religious duty (for those suited)?

    If they can, how can they do so and then tell these young men that they have no moral right to resist the law, family courts, divorce court, and other state mechanisms that deprive him of his rights?

    It is possible to endorse marriage with caveats and yet not “tell young men…” that stuff.

    Nobody has any right to expect, pressure, or shame men into marrying if they also believe he has no right to physically resist the state.

    “Resist the state” is a big set of words. It encompasses a wide range of actions. You might want to think through where that can lead.

    I have yet to find an article in the manosphere discussing the moral boundaries of acceptable behavior by a Christian man to a frivorce.

    Maybe not explicitly, but it’s been discussed in various comment threads. You could try writing one yourself. The process of arranging your thoughts on the topic might well clarify your own thinking.

    Are we biblically required to submit to the state’s intrusion into our marriages and usurpation of power over our kids, or are we allowed to resist, and if so in what manner? If my only acceptable options as a Christian man is to do as I’m told by the state system if one day my wife decides she’s “not haaaaapppppy”, then count me out of marriage entirely.

    Nobody here is telling you to get married. There are a lot of articles discussing options for married men whose wives are getting unhaapy, to avoid the worse state of unhaaaapy or unhaaaaaaaapy.

    Again, you are asking for this site. Perhaps you should read all the way back to 2010.

  343. Anonymous Reader says:

    Sir Hamster
    This ain’t trolling.

    It’s not debating, it’s not coherent arguing, it’s frothy emotion intended to get a response.
    It’s trolling. Not very good trolling, to be sure.

    Thank you for conceding all the points you tried to pick a fight on.

    It’s trolling. Not very good trolling, to be sure.
    Time for you to declare victory and run away, Hamster.

    Sir

    Hamster

  344. Anonymous Reader says:

    @dwellerman, if I remember right The Fifth Horseman aka TFH made a prediction in that article; feminism would either end or be coming to an end by 2020. That wasn’t too wild a prediction back 7 years ago. TFH also insisted on the old Spearhead that men could effect change by pasting URL’s of androsphere sites such as Spearhead on stickers in bathrooms – his “URL’s for urinals” phase.

    TFH’s predictions don’t seem to be working out. The power of MGTOW seems to be rather limited in the short run. In the longer run, the declining interest in “prepare for marriage” on the part of men in their 20’s that Dalrock has pointed to is starting to have an effect IMO. We see that effect in the “no good men!” cries of women in their 30’s. Yet none of those women are willling to roll back any of the advantages women have, especially in the university track. They want to continue to be their own Betas, but also want men to become even more attractive in MMV. It’s fried ice all over again.

    Some men expect women to “come to their senses”, from personal experience I don’t agree.
    Don’t be surprised in a few years when popular entertainment starts glamorizing various forms of polymarriage – polygamous, of course, because of the “good man shortage”. Soft harems for a start, it wouldn’t be much of a step from some later Sex in the City episodes.

    Anyway, that Misandry Bubble is apparently made of tougher stuff than TFH thought back in 2010.

  345. The Question says:

    @ Anonymous Reader

    “In the Christian relgious context sex is only lawful within marriage. If you use the search tool up at the top of this posting you can find more than one posting by Dalrock on the topic of marriage. Seriously, you are aware that this site dates back to 2010 and that the primary focus is on marriage as a social good and religious duty (for those suited)?”

    Your condescending snark aside, that is not the question I have been asking, and you know it. The question is how men can recommend marriage, with full knowledge of the risks, and then in the same breath say that men must put up with the injustices. We’re not talking about biblical morality of sex within marriage or biblical reasons. We are talking about practical reasons.

    “It is possible to endorse marriage with caveats and yet not “tell young men…” that stuff.”

    Then you’re leaving out rather important details, wouldn’t you think? It’s no different than telling someone to buy a car that has a bad habit of breaking down under certain conditions beyond their control and then not giving instructions on how to respond as the driver. If you’re going to endorse something that has the potential to destroy a person’s life, you think it’s acceptable not to provide some guidelines on what to do in that situation?

    Ever wonder why so many married men are totally blindsided when they’re slapped with divorce papers? They have absolutely no idea what they’re supposed to do. Nobody has prepared them for it, because it’s not supposed to happen, but they also have no idea what they as a Christian men should do.

    ““Resist the state” is a big set of words. It encompasses a wide range of actions. You might want to think through where that can lead.”

    Again, condescending snark aside, I’ve explained my point very clearly and asked a question you’re avoiding.

    “Maybe not explicitly, but it’s been discussed in various comment threads. You could try writing one yourself. The process of arranging your thoughts on the topic might well clarify your own thinking.”

    I’m literally doing that here right now. Anyone who wants to provide an answer is welcome to do so. I’m not claiming to have the answer.

    I’ve also noticed you have yet to offer one. What say you?

    “Nobody here is telling you to get married. There are a lot of articles discussing options for married men whose wives are getting unhaapy, to avoid the worse state of unhaaaapy or unhaaaaaaaapy.”

    Once more, you’re reframining my argument. I’m not talking about to do to keep your wife from divorcing you.

    I will do this for the cheap seats: I am talking about what Christian men are biblically allowed to do and what they aren’t allowed to do in a situation where their wife is divorcing him for reasons not justified or permitted in the Bible.

    Everyone is freaking out about what Vox Day said, but this raises the question I’m asking, and I will repeat yet another time so there is no mistake: What are married men biblically allowed to do when their wife is divorcing them for unjust reasons and attempting to take everything they have through the state?

    If you and others here don’t have an answer, that is fine. It’s not a cut and dry topic. But don’t pretend I’m asking another question.

  346. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Don’t be surprised in a few years when popular entertainment starts glamorizing various forms of polymarriage – polygamous, of course, because of the “good man shortage”,

    I wonder how soon before “Christian” churches recognize polygamy. Many of them already recognize gay marriage.

  347. Anonymous Reader says:

    Question
    Your condescending snark aside, that is not the question I have been asking, and you know it.

    You asked “how can men recommend marriage”, in the context of this site my answer is neither condescending nor is it snark.

    The question is how men can recommend marriage, with full knowledge of the risks, and then in the same breath say that men must put up with the injustices.

    I don’t know. Why don’t you ask a man who has done that thing?

    The actual answer is: it is possible to recommend marriage with full knowledge of the risks while also teaching ways to mitigate those risks.

    We’re not talking about biblical morality of sex within marriage or biblical reasons. We are talking about practical reasons.

    Ok. It is possible to recommend marriage AND teach proper vetting AND teach Game. All practical stuff.

    “It is possible to endorse marriage with caveats and yet not “tell young men…” that stuff.”

    Then you’re leaving out rather important details, wouldn’t you think?

    Nope.

    It’s no different than telling someone to buy a car that has a bad habit of breaking down under certain conditions beyond their control and then not giving instructions on how to respond as the driver. If you’re going to endorse something that has the potential to destroy a person’s life, you think it’s acceptable not to provide some guidelines on what to do in that situation?

    LOL, as far as I know I am the man who came up with the “one in 4 cars catches on fire” analogy several years back. Proper vetting is “inspect that car carefully before buying”, Game is “always wear a seat belt and be able to drive under adverse conditions”.

    Ever wonder why so many married men are totally blindsided when they’re slapped with divorce papers?

    No, because I have known those men personally. I’ve seen that drama. Including suicide.

    They have absolutely no idea what they’re supposed to do. Nobody has prepared them for it, because it’s not supposed to happen, but they also have no idea what they as a Christian men should do.

    Yes, we know that. It’s one of the things that has been discussed here and at Rollo’s over the last 7 or so years. Do a search on this site for “So your Christian wife cheated” and read the article.

    ““Resist the state” is a big set of words. It encompasses a wide range of actions. You might want to think through where that can lead.”

    Again, condescending snark aside, I’ve explained my point very clearly and asked a question you’re avoiding.

    You’re not thinking. Are you prepared to resist a SWAT raid? Do you know how the Branch Davidian’s point defense against the FBI worked out? “Resist the state” comes in many flavors, starting with Constitutional rights (that have been eroded) and moving on to the legal area. However, since anti-Family Court is not a court of law, it is a dangerous place.

    “Maybe not explicitly, but it’s been discussed in various comment threads. You could try writing one yourself. The process of arranging your thoughts on the topic might well clarify your own thinking.”

    I’m literally doing that here right now.

    Good! Keep thinking that way.

    Anyone who wants to provide an answer is welcome to do so. I’m not claiming to have the answer.

    There’s this site that’s described as Thoughts from a happily married father on a post feminist world. that you might try reading.

    I’ve also noticed you have yet to offer one. What say you?

    Heavy vetting. Be ready to walk away in that process. Game, unbreakable Frame, be prepared to walk away from it all.

    “Nobody here is telling you to get married. There are a lot of articles discussing options for married men whose wives are getting unhaapy, to avoid the worse state of unhaaaapy or unhaaaaaaaapy.”

    Once more, you’re reframining my argument. I’m not talking about to do to keep your wife from divorcing you.

    What? That’s dumb. If your wife never decides to divorce you, then all that power of the State is never brougt to bear on you.

    I will do this for the cheap seats: I am talking about what Christian men are biblically allowed to do and what they aren’t allowed to do in a situation where their wife is divorcing him for reasons not justified or permitted in the Bible.

    Wait, make up your mind. First you want advice purely in the secular realm, now you flop back to Bible based thinking. Pick a position and stick to it.

    Everyone is freaking out about what Vox Day said, but this raises the question I’m asking, and I will repeat yet another time so there is no mistake: What are married men biblically allowed to do when their wife is divorcing them for unjust reasons and attempting to take everything they have through the state?

    Perhaps you should search the Bible for advice?

    <iIf you and others here don’t have an answer, that is fine. It’s not a cut and dry topic. But don’t pretend I’m asking another question.

    Careful vetting, regular attendance in a theologically conservative church (no women preaching or teaching men, etc.), an unbreakable Frame, a deep understanding of women via The Glasses / Red Pill and strong Game.

    You’re welcome.

    I must now go to an end-of-the-year function. “Mandatory fun”, but with the proper mindset it will be interesting and amusing. Maybe back in a few hours, maybe tomorrow.

  348. Gunner Q says:

    The Question @ 6:42 pm:
    “What are married men biblically allowed to do when their wife is divorcing them for unjust reasons and attempting to take everything they have through the state?”

    We are required to let the unbeliever leave (1 Cor. 7:15) and are not permitted to avenge ourselves. Past that, anything goes. The state doesn’t consider the father the top authority of the marriage but God does so everything from moving to a frivorce-unfriendly jurisdiction to mind games to financial Scorched Earth is acceptable.

    Anything goes but not much will create a happy ending if children are involved. Even Vox’s murder-suicide extreme would only serve to create many orphans.

  349. 7817 says:

    At one level every man has to go his own way. I’m reminded of this excellent comment by The Kurgan at Vox Popoli:

    The KurganNovember 19, 2017 9:08 AM

    “The few things that I have found most helpful are:
    1) realising that yes you actually are a lot smarter than other people and YES it DOES make a difference. Finding out about the 2SD gap was very useful

    2) realise the utter truth that as a man, you really are born alone, live alone, and die alone. This is not some poor me/victim thing. It’s just a truth. You can have good friends, wife and kids of course, but ultimately on some level you’re alone and the best thing you can do is take everything on. It is a positive thing, but most humans tend to be too weak to embrace it.

    3) Christianity. Being Christian helps one see things quite differently and increases patience for the Sea of monkeys around us.”

    Every man has to “go his own way” to some extent, yet as the Bible says, for Christians, none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself, but whether we live or die we belong to the Lord.

    The Kurgan’s comment is why I don’t have a problem with the quiet MGTOW’s. To me it looks like they’ve learned his point and are living things out to the best of their abilities; they know no one cares, but it no longer bothers them and they are living life to the best of their abilities.

    As far as the MRA- style MGTOW’S, well they’re pretty much male feminists stuck in denial. The system will never care about them.

    Oddly, this is the problem I have with Vox’s admiration of the actions he thinks a Roman patriarch would take: those actions are supremely black pilled.

    Can anyone explain to me how murder-suicide is not a total surrender to despair?

  350. Novaseeker says:

    People who are a full +2SD are kinda fooked tbh … really, REALLY hard to find a partner, unless you move to Italy to escape the IRS and write books while your wife earns the lira.

  351. Darwinian Arminian says:

    @TheQuestion
    So what should a Red Pill Christian tell a young man about this while encouraging marriage? What are they to do if their woman decides to go for the cash and prizes?

    Here’s one possibility I’ve been wondering about for Christian men, and one that even has a bit of MGTOW in its approach: Keep the marriage (find a good woman, have kids and build a home with her) but remove the state from the equation. You keep your money and properties in your own name and don’t register as a single unit with your woman through the federal government come tax season.

    Anthony Johnson, who heads up the 21 Convention for Men, has described taking an approach like this in his own life that he calls “libertarian marriage.” He’s described how this can play out in telling the story of his last long-term relationship; It would have looked like a traditional marriage in all but legal status, which he abandoned largely out his devotion to the principles of Ayn Rand. As it turned out, this choice may have saved his life after his woman decided to go feral:

    To my knowledge, Johnson isn’t any type of religious believer. But could his approach work for men who are Christians and believe in Biblical principles for sex and marriage? For the most part, I really can’t see why not. Pastors and religious leaders — particularly those with a large platform — are likely going to scream that a man and a woman simply having a ceremony and moving in together afterwards without getting a series of papers signed** are only “playing house.” But many of these same religious leaders were also working their ministries at the height of the “divorce revolution” in the 1970s as no-fault divorce became an option in every state; How many of them spoke out as vehemently against it as a threat to Christian matrimony in the way they do now about gay marriage? Today they might make the case that the state’s sanction acts as a protection against the marriage’s dissolution, but the legal realities of no-fault make that idea laughable — if one party now wants to terminate the arrangement, all they have to do is file a few papers without the other partner’s consent even being necessary. And in all likelihood, that party won’t be the man.

    At this point, a state marriage license doesn’t effectively amount to much more than an official signet mark saying that Uncle Sam deems your romance to be valid. So why should American churches who used to claim that they had no king but Christ treat it as a mandatory requirement for a gift they believe comes not from the state but from God Himself? Young Christian men still interested in a family should begin putting this forward as an intellectual argument and see how much further they can push it.

    **If state sanction is so necessary for Christians, it’s also worth remembering that many of the same religious leaders who insist on proper documentation for a marriage relationship are presently arguing that illegal aliens who skirted government security measures in order to come to the United States are really “Dreamers” and “undocumented immigrants” who should be recognized as Americans regardless of whether they signed the right papers or not. Hypocrisy, thy name is Pastor.

  352. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    That “libertarian marriage” won’t work if you “have kids” with her.

    The biggest cash & prizes extracted from a frivorce are child support payments. Bigger & better than alimony.

    A woman needn’t marry the man to collect child support. Alimony can be reduced if a woman has earning power, or hasn’t been married long. It can even be eliminated a few years after a frivorce. Not so with child support.

    And of course, the “child support” goes to support the mother’s partying with other men, one of whom might eventually kill the child.

  353. SkylerWurden says:

    I love the psuedo-masculine preening that modern men have been tricked into performing, a kind of warped attitude that causes them to believe that by talking about how badass and masculine men used to be they somehow share in that badassness and masculinity.

    Not by doing any of the psychotic shit that men used to do, but just talking about it.

    Think about how badass Mr. Vox feels when he talks about men who would murder their own families and then commit suicide. Now think about how Mr. Vox will react if he actually was made to witness this actually happen. Actually see the wife screaming and the kids weeping as their father slaughters them and then the despair on the man’a face as he bleeds put amidts the corpses of all his loved ones.

    He would fucking puke and rightly so. But since “Men in the past were obviously more masculine and badass and right about everything” he doesn’t think for one second abput how fucking psychopathic this shit he’s talking about actually is.

    Not only would this guy not last one second in the past, with all those “badasses” but he wouldn’t even want to. No sane human being actually would. So why does he worship these people who wouldn’t accept him and he would never accept?

  354. Lovekraft says:

    Dalrock above sums up the issue quite well here: ” Respecting married fathers in our culture is very foreign. It feels really weird. But this is the fundamental problem. We can’t solve this by beating our chests and declaring ourselves the only real men. As I’ve shown with the men of National Review and Christian leaders, it is exactly how we got here.”

    All the snark and vitriol in this comment thread aside, it does point out to a vibrant and yearning intellectual base which naturally will have some ‘kinks’ to iron out. Even today, a Taki Mag article pointed to the very real threat of Feminism 4.0’s Sexual Assault Hysteria advancing even further.

    I remember my redpill journey started with mens rights sites like Spearhead, Voice for Men, Shrink for Men and a few other blogs. In fact, In Mala Fide was where I first caught wind of Vox Day who came in like a lightning bolt to jar us out of our complacency and bring some harsh clarity to the issues. Years later, I moved on towards more ‘MAGA’ concerns, which culminated in last year’s the Trumpening (something I personally felt a part in making happen, in my own little way, after decades of having to endure the cultural marxist/PC thumbscrews.

    Lately I’ve wondered where this will lead, as we are seeing signs of full-blown street violence (initiated by Soros-and-his ilk Antifa, among other 5th columnists).

    Yet here I am, back at the men’s rights issues, where it all began. Funny. Perhaps another can find some type of synthesis between man’s personal true calling, and the greater social demands for a return to Truth as a standard.

  355. MarcusD says:

    @The Question

    How can anyone, including the men here, recommend marriage today to any man? If they can, how can they do so and then tell these young men that they have no moral right to resist the law, family courts, divorce court, and other state mechanisms that deprive him of his rights?

    It would have to be a conditional recommendation, as opposed to an outright recommendation. The conditional part extends mostly to the qualities of who they marry (i.e. the usual list), but also income sources, where they live, etc. I have read about men who have use of a house via a trust (which the parents control). Alternatively, the parents own the home but are paid a peppercorn rent. The outcome of such approaches being that the wife is unable to obtain that property in a divorce. (That said, I’m not a lawyer, so I don’t know if this would actually work, but I’ve read of it enough times to suspect there is at least some truth in it.) Can anyone confirm the soundness of this approach?

  356. All the snark and vitriol in this comment thread aside, it does point out to a vibrant and yearning intellectual base which naturally will have some ‘kinks’ to iron out.

    Vitriol? Are you surprised? There is only one reliable way to settle up the RealManTM question and it isn’t on the internet. And it isn’t to see who uses “seems” in the form of a sentence first in some type of Gamma Godwin’s law.

    Cicero was a master of rhetoric. His head was removed on the orders of one of those vaunted patricians.

  357. Does anyone think Julius Caesar was a “gamma”?

  358. JDG says:

    7817 says:
    December 15, 2017 at 7:09 pm

    Just read your comment. I have to say I agreed with all of it.

  359. Sigma Frame says:

    But fifty shades of incel, maybe?

  360. MarcusD says:

    Speaking of MGTOW:

    (It should be noted, though, that this guy ignored a number of the usual red flags.)

  361. DaveA says:

    A simple, and highly probable, solution is for white men to convert to Islam and demand that their family problems be resolved in Sharia court, and that anyone who objects to this be arrested for Islamophobia. Checkmate!

    Even if Jesus were OK with it (not likely), this solution has some downsides:
    https://blog.jim.com/war/the-solution-we-do-not-want/

  362. AnonMGTOW says:

    I think the underlying problem here is that the alt-right always descends into a competition into whose the most “alpha” or “based” or whatever the word is this month. And the easiest way to get there is to simply make stuff up. They lift weights. They get laid a lot. They tell everyone they know they are “far right” and indeed the women throw themselves at them for it. And then there’s the LARPing as fearless warriors. They might allude to the possibility of violence, but are careful with their words to avoid actually advocating it. Notice that Vox never advocates that his supposedly alpha-male fanbase do it, he only says a hypothetical alpha male, conveniently foreign in time, would do it. The Roman patrician wouldn’t care if advocating violence caused his blog to be shut down, but Vox is far from a Roman patrician. And that’s most of the movement: a bunch of guys who aren’t being true to themselves, pretending to be what they are not, denigrating other men who are like them. We will never get anywhere if these men are our leaders. We need a movement that can simply be pro-male without getting into an endless game of LARPing one’s superiority to other men.

  363. Anon says:

    Anonymous Reader,

    Anyway, that Misandry Bubble is apparently made of tougher stuff than TFH thought back in 2010.

    A quick glance at The Misandry Bubble reveals that the author described four factors that were expected to correct the Misandry Bubble by 2020 (and it is not 2020 yet).

    None of those four factors was ‘MGTOW’. But one was ‘Male economic disengagement’ which is the same thing as the attentuation of the marriage signal.

    Of the four, at least three appear to be fully on track.

  364. Scott says:

    We need a movement that can simply be pro-male without getting into an endless game of LARPing one’s superiority to other men.

    Brother, I see your MGTOW tag on your handle. And I hope you have been to my site where there is no such one-upping. Its pretty much all positive masculinity (very few female commenters–who really are legacy commeters that I trust) and I have never portrayed myself on my site as the only real man. I’m no leader, but the environment you write of exists.

  365. the bandit says:

    The t-shirt post troll’s “let’s you and him fight” gambit has borne more fruit than it ought to have, even though it’s mostly indirectly.

  366. Anonymous Reader says:

    JD, Herald of GenX
    MGTOW is a spectrum. Some are out permanently, some are in drydock for repair, and some are in building mode and realize they don’t have time for wasteful distractions.

    Yes, exactly. Very apt analogy.

    I know of men in all three categories. The friend who showed up a few years back with “Hi, I just got divorced” is probably out permanently. His child either has graduated from high school or will soon, at that time child support will no longer be garnished from his paycheck. He has produced offspring, he works at a useful task, he pays his taxes but he is probably done with women. He is a Man and he is Going His Own Way, but contrary to the braying of some jackasses, he is not a parasite.

  367. Burner Prime says:

    Holy crap, my prediction of an overreaction by Vox to this article was worse than I expected. Vox has removed Dalrock from his blogroll on the right column on his Alpha Game blog.

  368. dwellerman says:

    Anonymous Reader: [Anyway, that Misandry Bubble is apparently made of tougher stuff than TFH thought back in 2010.]

    Anon replies: {A quick glance at The Misandry Bubble reveals that the author described four factors that were expected to correct the Misandry Bubble by 2020 (and it is not 2020 yet). None of those four factors was ‘MGTOW’. But one was ‘Male economic disengagement’ which is the same thing as the attenuation of the marriage signal. Of the four, at least three appear to be fully on track.}

    Thank you Anon –

    Anonymous Reader: [feminism would either end or be coming to an end by 2020]

    ya maybe – maybe not – seems to me the TFH was more about warning men of the dangers inherent in Fed and State laws surrounding any and all relationships with women. Any man entering into a legal relationship with a woman [sex, conception, child birth, baby daddy, marriage, husband, fatherhood…] after 2020 has no excuse of not being forewarned how fucked his life could be if woman empowered gov’t colluded against him.

    [URL’s for urinals]

    I remember that – an attempt at local change that was maybe a good idea, but too little, too late.

    [TFH’s predictions don’t seem to be working out.]

    really? so TFH predictions that “(b) the treatment of due process in rape accusations…” – “determining whether our civilization is going to be ever-improving or merely cyclical…” isn’t working out? hmm… seems every alpha-celebrity influential male from Trump, to Weinstein, to Hoffman, to Garrison K. all the way down to yours truly is up for sexual impropriety scrutiny based solely on the ‘word’ of the female if she should so desire to speak out 25-35 years after the ‘fact’. It’s her word that she was groped, creeped out, felt up, inappropriately proposed, underaged, eye raped, made to watch, put in a position, gang raped, raped raped or whatever the fuck… currently the treatment of due process has taken a back seat the to the sentimental accusations of the ‘fairer sex’. Spot on for TFH predicting that this area of law would define the direction of the nation. And it’s not even 2020 yet.

    [The power of MGTOW seems to be rather limited in the short run. In the longer run, the declining interest in “prepare for marriage” on the part of men in their 20’s that Dalrock has pointed to is starting to have an effect IMO.]

    yep and I take pleasure watching the marriage rates tumble.

    [Anyway, that Misandry Bubble is apparently made of tougher stuff than TFH thought back in 2010.]

    ya – for one thing that Misandry Bubble has this thing called Hypergamy backing it up… Hypergamy doesn’t care about nobody and no thing except it’s own self interest. Rollo has my attention on that.

    “She lies and says she’s in love with him, can’t find a better man” ~ Andy Vetter – Pearl Jam.

    And for more tough stuff, it’s called Pussy 🙂

    “Why do people say “grow some balls”? Balls are weak and sensitive. If you wanna be tough, grow a vagina. Those things can take a pounding.” ― Betty White

  369. Anonymous Reader says:

    dwellerman
    “(b) the treatment of due process in rape accusations…” – “determining whether our civilization is going to be ever-improving or merely cyclical…” isn’t working out?

    Spot on for TFH predicting that this area of law would define the direction of the nation

    All the cases you list have been “tried” in the “court” of public opinion, nothing to do with due process. You could argue that the 51% rule at the Uni level meets that prediction, however.
    LAPD supposedly opened an investigation regrading Weinstein, but…we’ll see.

    One thing to watch for: the college-level “affirmative consent” rule being pushed into state-level rape law. That would change due process in many ways, and would match TFH’s prediction close enough.

    ya – for one thing that Misandry Bubble has this thing called Hypergamy backing it up…

    Well….yes and no. That’s complicated.

    <i<Hypergamy doesn’t care about nobody and no thing except it’s own self interest.

    This is an accurate statement.

    Rollo has my attention on that.

    Good. More men need to learn the deeper implications of Hypergamy.

  370. Anon says:

    This keeps happening :

    Woman in South Florida loses $1.08M to a Nigerian Romance Scam.

    She still rationalizes the loss in terms of “he made me feel special at a time in my life when I did not think I could again.”

    Point #1 : This simply could not happen to a married couple. Her cash and prizes from frivorce were extracted from her.
    Point #2 : Game works well.

  371. Anon says:

    https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/romance-scams-online-fbi-facebook_us_59414c67e4b0d318548666f9

    “In the U.S., romance scams account for the highest financial losses of all internet-facilitated crimes, the FBI reports. The bureau’s Internet Crime Complaint Center said it received 15,000 romance scam complaints last year ― a 20 percent increase over the previous year. Reported losses exceeded $230 million, but the FBI puts the true number much higher, estimating that only about 15 percent of these crimes are even being reported.”

    “Diana Warnack, 48, of Germany gave $18,000 to a man she met online. Intellectually, she knows she was taken, but emotionally, it’s a different story. “I am still in love with him. This is crazy, I know! He is still in my heart,” she told HuffPost. ”

    “According to FBI data, 82 percent of romance scam victims are women and women over 50 are defrauded out of the most money. ”

    Note how ‘done with men’ women over 55 are.

  372. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Anon, that South Florida woman met her first husband “in Air Force Intelligence school.”

    So apparently, that woman is a former U.S. Air Force Intelligence Officer.

    Yes even so, with all her military training, in “intelligence” no less, she fell for a Nigerian romance scam. Makes you wonder about the quality of today’s American military.

  373. Dave says:

    I have yet to find an article in the manosphere discussing the moral boundaries of acceptable behavior by a Christian man to a frivorce.

    True. Most writers never address the obvious problem.

    Are we biblically required to submit to the state’s intrusion into our marriages and usurpation of power over our kids, or are we allowed to resist

    I believe we are required to resist in some way. Having been a “church boy” since as far back as I can remember, I can say that the uniform messages that I have heard were to “submit to every man’s ordinance for the Lord’s sake” (1 Peter 2:13). In other words, Christians are supposed to meekly endure all forms of injustices meted out to them by the state and other citizens. You know, “turn the other cheek”, and be patient until the day of judgement, when the Lord will execute judgement on their behalf.

    However, as I grew older, and I experienced a lot of things, I began to ask questions, and at the same time, started to understand that my earlier teachers were probably wrong.
    If Christians are supposed to shun violence in every form, can we have Christian police officers, who sometimes must shoot a dangerous and menacing suspect? How about Christian soldiers? Is that an oxymoron? Soldiers, by their very definition, are supposed to be violent, and rely on using violent methods, in the right settings.
    What about a Christian president? Is that possible, remembering that sometimes, presidents must declare wars, where the only means of execution is violence?

    Going back in history, what would have happened to Europe without The Crusades? The Muslim warlords insisted on conquering all Christian lands through warfare, and subjugating their occupants under Islamic rule. Should Christians have acquiesced? After all, there is virtually no place mentioned in the NT that has not fallen under modern day Islamic rule. From Antioch to Galatia, to the former locations of the 7 churches in the book of Revelation, all have been conquered forcefully by Islam, and are under modern day Islamic rule. Even Apostle Paul’s home town, Tarsus, is in modern day Turkey, which is an Islamic country.

    It is clear, without The Crusades, Europe would have been conquered, and turned into a Muslim jurisdiction.
    Now, anyone who learned anything about the Crusades would agree that they were extremely violent.

    And how about OT commands where God specifically commanded Israel to exterminate some people?

    Why weren’t any NT soldiers who converted to Christianity ever told to abandon their profession, either by Christ, or by the Apostles?

    My understanding now is that true biblical teachings should emphasize Christian attitudes, not blind submission to injustice. We are to maintain the spirit of Christ, even as we use the means at our disposal to overthrow societal injustices.

    or are we allowed to resist, and if so in what manner?

    First and foremost, I believe we are to use spiritual means to resist.
    Christians of today are not using spiritual means enough to effect societal changes.
    There is tremendous power in persistent, focused, and unrelenting prayer, especially if coupled with fasting. Most of us do not use this spiritual resource often enough.
    Secondly, we must take a public stand for the truth. We cannot afford to simply keep quiet in the face of injustice–whether such injustice is against ourselves or against other people. Truth has a way of affecting people when consistently presented.

    Another form of resistance would be “MGTOW”, as God has told His people to do at various times (“Come out of her, my people”, etc). This may require physical relocation into a different country or state, etc.

    When all else fails, I believe Christians have the right to defend themselves, using physical force, if necessary.

  374. Sigma Frame says:

    That is the dilemma of today’s men, especially Christian men. The ideal plan is no longer ideal, and there isn’t any Plan B.

  375. BillyS says:

    Jason,

    Whether you are called to be single or not is outside my scope. I at least honor that you are taking your free time for God’s work.

  376. Dave says:

    Yes even so, with all her military training, in “intelligence” no less, she fell for a Nigerian romance scam. Makes you wonder about the quality of today’s American military.

    Well, I think biology trounces training in the long run.
    God has so ordained that man is higher than woman in creative order, in intellectual capacity, in physical and emotional strength, in spirituality, and in pretty much every way.
    Yeah, I know, it’s blasphemy to say so these days. But political correctness, like physical training, cannot withstand the uncompromising and unrelenting demands of biology.

  377. CSI says:

    Going back in history, what would have happened to Europe without The Crusades?
    I get the impression the Crusades really achieved nothing long term and was just a monumental waste of resources. The Arabs were largely past their conquest phase at that point, so establishing the Crusader states was pointless. The real danger was from the Turks, but the Crusades did little to challenge them. And then there was the tragic interlude of the Fourth Crusade when the crusaders sacked Constantinople, further cementing the schism between the Western and Eastern churches.

  378. earl says:

    Yeah, I know, it’s blasphemy to say so these days.

    Only to people who believe the equality lie.

    What you say is legit.

  379. Scott says:

    I have yet to find an article in the manosphere discussing the moral boundaries of acceptable behavior by a Christian man to a frivorce.

    I don’t know if what I did was moral, or the right thing. But I have written about it.

    I resisted as much as I could. I refused to sign the papers. This dragged out the process, but I was told that in Calfornia (as in pretty much all states now) the no-fault regulations would kick. The marriage can be dissolved without the consent of both parties.

    During the time that I dragged it out (about 2 years) I tried to get her back. And I mean I tried everything. Imaging a guy making himself look like whatever kind of fool to win the girl back, I did it.

    I prayed. I asked the elders to intervene. I tried to enlist the help of her friends, her parents. I changed everything about me she said I needed to work on.

    Everyone just kept saying “if it was meant to be, she’ll come back.”

    The only “good” thing is we were still pretty broke and there were no kids.

  380. earl says:

    The marriage can be dissolved without the consent of both parties.

    That basically blows up the marriage contract.

    It takes two to consent to a marriage and one to blow it up.

    And the rub of it is despite the fact you aren’t legally married anymore…the state still forces you to financially support her.

  381. jg1 says:

    Check out this site that shows as one of the statistics, the probability of 1st marriage surviving 10yrs…its quite revealing about the state of marriage today.
    https://www.statisticbrain.com/marriage-statistics/

  382. snowdensjacket0x0x0 says:

    Yes BillyS I am the same person, as well as an EC on the red pill forum, though I have not posted there in almost two years. I’m married to my second wife and I’ve come to the conclusion that for a man aware of reality divorce is absolutely terrible for the woman. Their always falling SMV and massive loss of status being a divorced single mother leaves them in dire straights post divorce. While a man can always improve his SMV, along with earn more money, buy more stuff lost through the family court system, and even buy another house. I know because I have done so.

    A woman cannot buy herself ten or twenty years of youth, gone forever.

    If you read through this thread, and the one over at VP, take note that exactly zero men show any interest in taking any of the real steps I outlined to make changes to the family court system. Even though my suggestions have actually worked and have actually made real changes. Much easier to larp about what a tough guy you are (vox et al) or to complain and refuse to do anything (mgtow et al).

    I’ve come to the conclusion over the years that for a significant majority of men in the manosphere their real complaint is that they are low value men and want the system to change so that they are no longer so. Rather than actually do the hard work to become high value. Just as they want the divorce court system to change, but without actually putting in any time or money to help.

  383. earl says:

    I’ve come to the conclusion that for a man aware of reality divorce is absolutely terrible for the woman.

    And yet they are the instigators of it most of the time.

    Just as they want the divorce court system to change, but without actually putting in any time or money to help.

    We should start simple…figure out a way to repeal no-fault and putting the welfare of the marriage only on one person. That’s the biggest poison and drawback. A marriage is the consent of three people (God, man, woman)…divorce is the consent of two (man, woman).

  384. Yet Another Commenter, Yet Another Comment ("Yac-Yac") says:

    Whether it is Mr. Beale telling me that I should put a ring on a slut, so he can Feel Good about Western Civilization, or it is (insert Evangelical leader here: let’s pick on Mr. Driscoll so it’s concrete) telling me that I should put a ring on a “beautiful, beautiful, beautiful” slut, so he can Feel Good about America, or it is (insert Feminist leader here: let’s pick on Ms. Steinem so it’s concrete) telling me that I should put a ring on a (“how dare you shame that slut”) slut, so she can Feel Good about the deconstructed intersectionality of the power relationship between gender-identifying something, something, something — …

    … it’s people in positions of relative cultural power telling me and men like me that I am under an obligation to ignore the accelerating dis-incentivising of marriage, for men, and an corresponding obligation to NOT dis-incentivise carousel riding sluts who are counting on making a good landing once the carousel ride is over, so that the cultural “leaders” can Feel Good — at the cost of my dignity and self-respect, and of my own happiness for the rest of my life — as if that will (as I and men like me agree to this, cough, “bargain”) give the sluts in question any reason to change their behavior, and so change the arc of decent of the culture at large.

    Life, Liberty, and The Pursuit of Happiness?

    Beale, Driscoll and Steinem (and their ilk) assure me, by their conduct and their words, that I must forfeit my Life for the sake of their Feelz.

    And, by my marrying some utterly unmarriageable woman (and let us be frank, that is the specific and exact category of women we and they are discussing, whether we, or they, or the women in question are willing to face that fact or not — actually, no: I am somewhat mistaken — the specific and exact category of women under discussion, is women who by their own chosen behavior, have made themselves unmarriageable), hence putting myself at the mercy of VAWA, the Family Court System, etc. — I must forfeit my Freedom for the sake of their Feelz.

    And, by the same choice — I must forfeit, if not my Happiness, then surely my ability to Pursue it, and again for the sake of their Feelz.

    What are Beale, “Driscoll” and “Steinem” going to give me in exchange for my giving up all that?

    Nothing. Nothing at all. It isn’t even the case that men like me continuing to make the choice they insist I make (i.e., and so, not MGTOW-ing) will “save” Western Civilization — even if you don’t accept my thesis that it is dead, merely sick, fact remains you, as a reader of this blog, will have understood that what is making it sick, is female behaviors such as Beale insists I discount. It isn’t even the case that men like me continuin to make the choice they make (i.e., and so, not MGTOW-ing) will “save” either “America” or “Christianity”. The female behaviors that are destroying those, and the “cultural leaders” who do not want to dis-incentivize that destruction, all will remain in place. And it isn’t even the case (per “Steinem”), that men like me continuing to make the choice they insist I make (i.e., and so, not MGTOW-ing) will make women any happier, or indeed any less unhaaaaaapy.

    So, in return for me literally giving up my Life, my Liberty, and my Pursuit of Happiness, all so the likes of Theodore Effing Beale, “Driscoll”, and “Steinem” can have the particular Feelz they seek, we get … no change at all to the current situation — a situation that is not a state or condition, but rather a trend towards a worse and worse social state and cultural condition.

    Notice that the linch-pin is my freedom of choice — mine, and that of men like me. I am (we are) still the one who is the Gate-keeper to Commitment. That very choice is what is under attack. There is no logical reason why I should give up my Life, my Liberty, or my Pursuit of Happiness, so that these miscellaneous “cultural leaders” can have the right Feelz at my expense, while the culture (and the economy, etc.) continues to disintegrate. There is no sound argument for it at all. Which is why we either get unsound arguments (such as the latest purulent vomitus from Beale), or shaming (“Driscoll”, and “Steinem”).

    “Feminism”, and its legal, social, economic, cultural and (most important of all) personal consequences has been presented to men as a “take it or leave it” deal. The specific and precise manner in which we “take it”, is to marry women whom Feminism has made unmarriageable. The specific and precise manner in which we “leave it”, is by refusing to do so.

    And, what does “refusing to do so” look like? Two things, and two things only: either marrying only women who have remained marriageable; or, stepping aside and getting on with our lives, while pehaps nevertheless hoping for such “unicorn” brides to turn up — aka, MGTOW.

    Notice how PUA behavior hasn’t entered into my comment so far. Leaving aside the issue of Sin (which, as a Christian, frankly I do not believe can legitimately be set aside, but be that as it may), PUA is IMHO not really relevant here. Or rather, it has no causative connection to what we are discussing. It does, however, have a causal one.

    PUAs require willing women. “The Battle of Montreal”, etc. notwithstanding, Game is not “Rape”. As anyone familiar with the context knows, a “What part of ‘NO’ don”t you understand” button is not a “statement about sexual politics”, it is a sh!t test — and so, it is in fact a form of invitation.

    Willing women (in this context) make choices based on incentives and disincentives. For the 97% of women who are not lesbians-etc., the chief among these incentives, by far, is Marriage.

    Only if the not-yet-married and not-currently-married men continue to put rings on the sluts, does the incentive remain in place. So, discarding Beale for the moment (as should we all, and not just for the moment), both the “Driscolls” and the “Steinems” who claim to be horrified and disgusted by PUA behavior, yet insist men should marry unmarriageable women anyway, are, shall we say, unclear on the concept.

    The only two moral choices for men, I would conclude, and the only path out of this cultural, social, legal, and economic mess, is for men to marry only marriageable women, and otherwise not to marry at all. Notice that no acts of violence are involved. No assassinations of Family Court judges, no physical violence against women. Just wise choices and self-control.

    So: my usual invitation to Theodore Beale, to go engage in anatomical impossibilities, goes here.

    And, a final note: a commenter above equated “respect” with “capacity for violence”, as in, we “respect” wild animals, and men who might snap and go postal on the courthouse steps.

    Just, No.

    We rightly fear; (rationally fear) both wild animals and feral men. But the wise choices [strategy] in dealing with both of these, is to confine and disarm them, or to destroy them — difficult tasks usually, and so tasks requiring both skill (acquired through self-control), and maintained through discipline (the exercise of self-control in risky circumstances) [tactics].

    Which is why, the men we respect aren’t the (merely) violent ones, but rather the ones who make wise choices and exhibit self-control. Going postal on the family court judge demonstrates neither.

  385. Marcus D writes:

    It would have to be a conditional recommendation, as opposed to an outright recommendation. The conditional part extends mostly to the qualities of who they marry (i.e. the usual list), but also income sources, where they live, etc. I have read about men who have use of a house via a trust (which the parents control). Alternatively, the parents own the home but are paid a peppercorn rent. The outcome of such approaches being that the wife is unable to obtain that property in a divorce. (That said, I’m not a lawyer, so I don’t know if this would actually work, but I’ve read of it enough times to suspect there is at least some truth in it.) Can anyone confirm the soundness of this approach?

    No. No one can confirm the soundness of this approach, because the approach will be different depending upon location (divorce laws sometimes depend on the actual county you live in, in some parts of the USA.)

    Even qualified attorneys (Deti, Opus) don’t give legal advice here. If someone is thinking of getting married, he should pony up a hundred bucks, and go sit for a half hour in the office of a professional solicitor/laywer, getting the goods, as they apply where he plans to live in wedded bliss.

    I get great moral insights on Dalrock, and often sound critical theory about the text of the bible, too; but I never get legal advice here. Taking legal advice anywhere on the internet is a bad idea. Go see a pro.

  386. Jack Russell says:

    Marcus D writes:

    It would have to be a conditional recommendation, as opposed to an outright recommendation. The conditional part extends mostly to the qualities of who they marry (i.e. the usual list), but also income sources, where they live, etc. I have read about men who have use of a house via a trust (which the parents control). Alternatively, the parents own the home but are paid a peppercorn rent. The outcome of such approaches being that the wife is unable to obtain that property in a divorce. (That said, I’m not a lawyer, so I don’t know if this would actually work, but I’ve read of it enough times to suspect there is at least some truth in it.) Can anyone confirm the soundness of this approach?

    I worked with a guy who has a house in a “trust”. His wife in her 40s decided to frivorce him. The two sons were in their later teens by then. She got nothing because on paper his mother owned it. His ex-wife was influenced by her divorced friends, ie cash and prizes and fun. I have a friend who has a second house and is giving it to his son when he turns 20 next year. I mentioned to him to put it in a trust so if he ever gets married and his wife is no longer haaapy she will get nothing of the property. This is in Canada in B.C. Your mileage may vary.

  387. Dalrock says:

    @Burner Prime

    Holy crap, my prediction of an overreaction by Vox to this article was worse than I expected. Vox has removed Dalrock from his blogroll on the right column on his Alpha Game blog.

    I wouldn’t necessarily read that much into it. I unlinked Alpha Game a week or so ago since it had been a dead blog for several months. The new owner may have done what I periodically do and removed links that aren’t reciprocating.

  388. Jason says:

    snowdenjacket

    Agreed with your comment about “low value men” so to speak in the man-o-sphere.

    Many in the MGTOW / MRA scene I have noticed (and I am frequent listener and reader of MGTOW / MRA material on the web) are indeed low value men……and “if the system just changed” they would suddenly become a man of merit, of high value, or have some sort of status in the world.

    Too many in the MGTOW scene talk up a good show of how “awesome” they are. Maybe they are. Out in the “world” most women (and a good number of men too) “laugh” at MGTOW and MRA men. They think they are a joke, and most don’t take them seriously. The men they get on news, or TV shows usually are the worst examples. Peter Lloyd from the UK is an exception. Not the rule.

    MGTOW seems to be a promise to these men that they are “somebody” and that they don’t need “nobody”. I have tried to explain that as a man you don’t need to be somebody. You already are ‘somebody’ by just being here.

    I was picked on, bullied badly in elementary school and in prep school…..never a ladies man…..the help that MGTOW does give for men who stumble on to it is the feeling of knowing “hey, you’re not alone……”

    There is a lot of tough talk on these pages and blogs about manhood. Most consider manhood watching football, or talking about how cool they were in high school, or how many women “want” them (a la Tom Leykis)

    In the end….MGTOW and MRA gives a promise. A promise that cannot be fulfilled. With many of these men in that scene and scope, if it wasn’t “women” they would find something else to blame for their failures or shortcoming in life. This is where Christ can and should be preached to these men in a way that can help them, or at least plant seeds……

    Again, MGTOW helped me, and I like some other posters / v-bloggers over others. MGTOW will continue to grow in scope and numbers but its not going to be the force that “changes” culture. It may be a piece in the future, but it won’t be the catalyst

  389. Jason says:

    Sure Boxer…..how do I do that?

  390. Jason says:

    sent Boxer. I belong to “protonmail” and my handle is Norsoul

  391. They Call Me Tom says:

    I don’t disagree with the Vox’s point though. It may be time to stop stoically suffering violence for the sake of keeping the peace. If we’re already living in a kind of soft anarchy, where we selectively enforce laws against citizens, but not politicians, bureaucrats and non-citizens, maybe the ideal of ‘peace in our time’ should be set aside until justice is restored.

    I’ll add the disclaimer; I’m not getting ready to partake in some violence. But intellectually, I do wonder if preserving the peace is unethical at some point.

  392. MarcusD says:

    Mother-of-three cook, 49, was shot and killed by her ex-husband a day before they were due in court over child support
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5184411/Kin-Man-killed-ex-wife-day-child-support-hearing.html

  393. Theodore Beale is controlled opposition. He has his followers engaging in trifles like meaningless sci-fi awards. He is a big Israel booster and the guy who is all Trump is 4D chess. Not sure what 4D chess is really. I thought it was some Dr. Who thing, but apparently its some better than 3D chess, the fake game from Star Trek TOS.
    This guy is hardly a supergenius. Unless its Wile E. Coyote. He shadowbanned me from his site, and now he stalks me on the Net stealing my ideas and claiming them as his own. I suppose the shadowban is because I’m clearly smarter and more appealing to him. Also, he mines my posts for his, and I suspect he believes I don’t know or might “out” him on his site. Silly little boy is Theodore. He has a Big Love for “Prince”, and who is this “spacebunny”. He writes an awful lot about Elves and science. An Oddfellow no doubt…
    He makes his money doing this. An economic opportunist. Doing comic books now. Fanboy all the way.
    Marriage is a sucker bet nowadays. The whole deck is stacked against the Men. Not even an even break. She gets everything, and gets cash and prizes for bailing out. Children are hostages used against you. You have to support the kids EVEN IF THEY AREN’T YOURS. Do not play a game that is rigged against you. YOU CANNOT WIN.

  394. earlthomas786 says:

    The only two moral choices for men, I would conclude, and the only path out of this cultural, social, legal, and economic mess, is for men to marry only marriageable women, and otherwise not to marry at all. Notice that no acts of violence are involved. No assassinations of Family Court judges, no physical violence against women. Just wise choices and self-control.

    If a man chooses to not marry at all either by choice or hasn’t found a marriagable woman, which is his right, then he also has two more choices…is he going to live his life for himself or is he going to live it for God?

    I think it’s best we bring up the potential pitfalls of the ‘TO’ of MGTOW.

  395. earlthomas786 says:

    ‘Lesli’s fiance and co-worker told WTAE-TV he saw the shooting from their workplace window.

    ‘I will never forgive the man that murdered her right in front of my eyes,’ John Ward said.

    ‘I’m dead inside. She was my life.’

    The pitfalls of worshiping women.

  396. snowdensjacket0x0x0 says:

    I’m aware of the statistics Earl. I believe that it is harmful to everyone for the mgtow set and various other men’s group to talk about how much women “win” in divorce because it may cause these women to falsely believe that they may be able to “win” through divorce. They do not win. They lose the man they were able to snag will their MUCH higher youthful SMV, they are financially far worse off, and their children’s lives are destroyed.

    The red pill and various other manosphere blogs have pretty much written out how to be a high value man and what types of attitudes are conducive to creating a traditional husband led marriage. They do work. Treat her like your bratty little sister, the oldest teenager in the house, set and enforce strong boundaries, have an abundance mentality, take the lead in your life and allow her to come along, sexualize her frequently, etc etc.

    Also be the best version of yourself you can and always be getting better. Follow your mission. All that. It works. Be the prize. Make yourself the prize and be aware of your own value. Demand reciprocity.

    I should have to mention make yourself attractive but after spending several years at the red pill forum trying to help other men I’ve realized very few people are actually going to do this. Lift weights, get your diet straight, get your testosterone in a good place (I recommend doing this naturally), have a mission in life that isn’t women. Don’t be fat or skinny fat.

    You would be amazed at the sheer number of guys on places such as trp who are fat and still bitch about fat women.

    Women want to follow. If they can’t find a man who will take over their frame they will follow a procession of foolish men.

    There are virginal women around. Even into their twenties. I know I have met and dated them. I don’t like them I think they are crazy and I’m done dating crazy. But even with your guys Christian views of only virgin women you could still get one and marry her.

    You have to try though. You have to be attractive mentally, physically, and emotionally. You’ll have to accept that being religious doesn’t have anything at all to do with being attractive. No woman cares. No Christian woman cares. No woman is going to submit to you because you quote the Bible at her. You have to lead and she has to choose with her own God given free will to submit to your masculine leadership.

    It actually becomes very easy to do all of these things if you just work on them slowly over time for many years.

    If you want an attractive thin wife material wife you are competing with a lot of other men who also want these women. And there are very few of them around. The competition is fierce. The reward is worth it though. A wife, children, a family, and a legacy.

    Of course in your churchy bullshit community all you’ll get is demands of more service for single moms and all their bastards. Have fun with that.

  397. Jason says:

    Earl….

    There are pitfalls for professing Christ. I lost friends when I donned a Salvation Army uniform. Some in my larger extended family don’t speak to me because of my faith, and profession of Christ.

    In a MGTOW sense…….men like Apostle Paul. St Francis who turned his back on the world to love and serve God. Going your own way in a Christian sense / walk still is a lonely path few dare tred.

  398. snowdensjacket0x0x0 says:

    Also I’ll repeat this, even though I know it will do no good for the complain-on-the-internet-forever crowd. There are father’s rights and shared parenting groups that could very much use your support. Both your time and money. Groups that have actually successfully changed the laws. Groups that have actually succeeded.

    No need to kill anyone. No need to larp on the internet. Real action you can really actually take.

    I’ve posted this here before, I’ve posted it at vox popoli, I’ve posted it at theredpill, I’ve posted it many times in many places over the years. Often with direct links to make it even easier for you guys.

    No. One. Ever. Cares.

    Because you guys aren’t actually upset about the divorce laws. You’re upset the you are unattractive and you don’t want to do anything about it.

  399. earlthomas786 says:

    @Jason

    It has to be brought up though. I never said it was going to be easy. The world hates Christ.

  400. earlthomas786 says:

    You have to lead and she has to choose with her own God given free will to submit to your masculine leadership.

    That’s really the crux of the matter.

    I’d suggest every man from here at this forum to the fat bitchy ones they need to become better leaders.

    However that doesn’t mean the women will become better submitters or helpmates. I don’t know if there’s a ‘woman’s sphere’ that is preaching the benefits of submission and tactics on how to attract, secure, and please a husband.

    You’ll have to accept that being religious doesn’t have anything at all to do with being attractive.

    I wouldn’t toss it out completely as an attractive trait…but if you are using it only to attract women, you’ll be sorely disappointed.

  401. Woman makes three children in her 30’s with a man characterized (post mortem) as a violent alcoholic.
    Leaves him, meets and shacks up with nice guy while still married.

    I’m not buying this story as presented. Too many blank squares on the bingo card.

    I’m sorry for the boyfriend, he looks like a genuinely nice guy, though he was a fool to get involved with this woman in her situation.
    I’m sorry for the kids, who’ve lost both parents due to their ridiculously poor life management skills.
    But above all I’m sorry for the father of this woman, who’s probably been tearing out his hair over her life choices for decades and now his worst fears have come to pass.

  402. CSI says:

    is for men to marry only marriageable women

    You could find a woman who ticks all the boxes for “marriageability”, and still wind up getting divorced. The problem is society has almost entirely de-stigmatized divorce, and even in the most ideal marriage there’s going to be periods when divorce is mighty tempting.

  403. Hmm says:

    For much of the history of the early church until Constantine, Christian men were discouraged from joining the army or whatever the police force was called. This was partly because of Christ’s call for peace, but mostly because being in any sort of official position involved some form of idolatry: worshipping at Caesar’s temple, joining a local cult of some kind, predicting success by reading entrails. Christians should not participate in such things.

    Under Constantine and through the middle ages to recently, it was possible to serve God in the military and police without participating in idolatry. But even the military when I was in it in the seventies required an oath of obedience to the constitution, and to the military hierarchy. Such an oath can put a Christian into a “two masters” situation, and there may be times his conscience required him to disobey the military authority and pay the consequences. Such a duty (to disobey illegal or immoral orders) was highlighted in the aftermath of WW II in the Nazi trials, but it was still no easy out.

    With the military now knuckling under to every modern idolatry, there may come a time when Christians can no longer serve in the military with a clean conscience. It’s already that way in the medical profession in some countries.

    Those who have been in the military recently can comment on the modern situation.

  404. Scott says:

    Snowden-

    I think you have some truth to tell. What has always been difficult for me is assessing/engaging the straight up MGTOW crowd where they are or with “lose some weight. Learn to not give a f$@#. Stop quoting Bible verses” as you have here. Part of the, I have written elsewhere is the anonymity thing. I don’t want to go round and round with that again, but I have made my case. I have several of them who write me personally (email) and just lurk at my site. You learn much more about their individual situation that way then with these electronic graphic representations of themselves.

    I have interacted with the fathers rights folks, mostly on their FB pages (and state chapter pages) and I agree– that is one of the best places to actually see progress on the divorce rape court situation regarding custody, property, etc. Some good things are happening there.

    I found my wife using the old set of books, and then switched the rules on her in mid stream. It was risky, but she stayed. Our blogging has chronicled what that looks like. Its actually the main reason I do it.

  405. Scott says:

    Correction. Missing word “part of the problem”

  406. snowdensjacketxoxo @ 2:32

    Ten bucks a month from a thousand guys each on Patreon for the MRA’s on the front line would make them an instant superpower. The dollar in the pocket is infinitely more powerful than a ballot cast every couple of years. We vote with those every single day. But these people have to beg for money all the damned time.

    “Because you guys aren’t actually upset about the divorce laws. You’re upset the you are unattractive and you don’t want to do anything about it.”

    A political and media complex that literally desexualizes men in the eyes of the average woman should be a target of their unending ire and fury. But they just sit and take the relentless scorn and contempt. They won’t back their champions and they won’t even stand up for themselves. “Trump will save us”.

    How I ‘voted’ in the past year:
    1) Backed a prominent MRA on Patreon – two years running now.
    2) Backed an org arming/training Assyrian Christians for self defense – two years running now.
    3) Wiped out the last of my debts and won’t go back. What it used to cost me in interest expenses alone paid for my Patreons.
    4) Junk food manufacturers and fast food purveyors took a 99% hit on their annual revenue from me. My local grocer gets nearly all my business now.
    5) Deleted my profiles from PoF and OurTime – I’m unattractive and it’s a waste of time. C’est la vie. I have a lot of work to do if I want the attention of anyone I’d actually want to see naked. And I’m old enough now that pool will be very small and shallow.

  407. Westray says:

    “Many in the MGTOW / MRA scene I have noticed (and I am frequent listener and reader of MGTOW / MRA material on the web) are indeed low value men”

    How on earth do you know this? I would ask the same of Forney, Cappy Cap and several others. Do you have any idea of how much window creeping you would have to do in order to know this? How many thousands and thousands of mother’s basement windows have you peeped into? How many neckbeards with Cheetos dust on their keyboards have you spotted all over the globe? How many glimpses of small penises have you seen of all these small penis MGTOWS? How many train-wreck dates have you surveilled from a few tables over? Thousands?

    HOW DO YOU KNOW?

  408. Westray says:

    “Their always falling SMV and massive loss of status being a divorced single mother leaves them in dire straights post divorce.”

    So totally wrong. Hilariously wrong. This is the manosphere’s silliest contrivance.

    The single mothers who allow themselves to become physical catastrophes….maybe. The fact that such a high percentage are physical disasters is another issue entirely. Yet I’ve seen women with zero sexual value land decent men just in my small circle of friends. If a single mom wants to so much as move her body on occasion, take care of her hair, dress like an adult, and maintain the diet of an adult (and not a 5 year old let loose in a candy store), then she will absolutely cruise to another careered beta.

    The post wall disaster, hopeless cat lady revenge bromide is the manosphere’s version of Bigfoot.

  409. Jason says:

    snowdensjacket

    Okay. I’ll bite.

    I’ve watched five college friends, and two from grad school go through a frivorce because the wife “wasn’t haaaaaappppy”

    Now, I helped where I could. Mind you, ALL of these men are now dating again, and of course “it’s true love” and “real this time” and “she’s a nine, totally smoking hot, twenty years younger than me, amazing sex gives head better than the x-wife ever could”

    Any man…..after a ruinous divorce that throws himself BACK into the proverbial lions den doesn’t get my empathy, sympathy, time, or money. He lost his kids, owes a grip of money in child support, has to move back into his parents house………and is dating??????

    I thought women hated grown men who live with “mommy”?

    I do what I can. I also expect men who are ruined by this to get some sense. You have kids. You have debt. You have garnishments. You have more debt. You have to be there and FIGHT for your rights to see your children. You need to work and live up to James Browns’ ‘The Payback’ when it comes to manhood. As usual, and again…….manhood is proved by how many dates, how many times she wakes you-up-to-get-your-way-above-average-penis-size-to-satisfy-her, how amazing you are…..

    Time is an equalizer. Sure, one of my guy friends was a “lady killer” in college, but now he has less hair than me and a dad bod…….he’s broke, living at home…….can he fight for his kids? Nope. But he can go online, go out and meet and have sex with “hot” women (all nines and tens) and doesn’t seem affected by his situation. Why do I need to feel sorrow for that? They “Aint got no time for any of that”………..but they all had “time” to find a girlfriend. Find dates. Find sex.

    He certainly wasn’t helping me out back in 1992.

    So, insult away. I do more than many, and I would do even more for a man that wanted to fight for his kids…but if he has time for dating, sex after a frivorce…….his kids obviously are not that important to him

  410. Westray says:

    Shaming men for not killing themselves is about the very bottom rung of disrespect, isn’t it? I can’t think of a more disrespectful notion.

  411. Westray: “HOW DO YOU KNOW?” To ask the question is to answer it.

    What the hell is a “low-value” man anyway? If Johnny Depp, Brad Pitt and Elon Musk can be dissed and blindsided by the women in their lives, what does the term even mean?

    We are ALL “low-value men” according to the GynoState and its mouthpieces. The small percentage of men who can maintain hand in their relationships have good things to teach, but the reality is most guys have always been clueless about such things and always will be. Society itself used to give men status and authority for doing the things that keep civilization alive. That used to be enough to give them confidence; it was a virtuous cycle. That’s all been dismantled.

  412. Westray says:

    “he has less hair than me and a dad bod…….he’s broke, living at home…….But he can go online, go out and meet and have sex with “hot” women (all nines and tens).”

    I don’t believe that at all.

  413. Scott says:

    My first marriage yielded no children. So even though it was a tragedy, it did not have that component.

    Now that I have kids, I have only sympathy for those men who have a contentious relationship with the ex, and the kids are rarely available to them because of manipulative behavior. If I was having my children deliberately kept from me I do not know how I would get up in the morning

    I have spent a total of about 2 years away from them for deployments and TDYs and stuff. The longest stretch was a year in Afghanistan. But even then, I knew the homefires were burning, my wife made sure to signal this to me constantly. The hope of reuniting is what kept me going.

    I do know some men who have constant conflict with their ex wives over petty issues and it always manifests as her reneging on some weekend visit or something. Several of them confided in me their suicidality in these situations. Its my job to know to what to tell them, but my first thought is “yeah, I would pretty much want to kill myself too.”

    What is the most disturbing is it always reminds of the movie “Liar, LIar” with Jim Carey. He is portrayed as a dad who always forgets, always backs out of deals and visits with his son. And this is the caricature we all know so well. But the weird thing is, I know exactly zero men like that. But I can name 20 situations where it is the ex wife pulling the mans heartstrings using the kids.

  414. Jason says:

    Westray

    By their own postings, most are. By their own incessant griping, they are. Cappy Cap? Is that Aaron Clarey? If you watch his videos he really doesn’t consider himself a MGTOW……..and def not a MRA.

    Look at a comment section of any of the big shot MGTOW bloggers. Men crying about how unfair the world is, seething hatred of women…..yet, yet expecting “said” women to like them for who they are. The infamous whiners about “they were never given a chance” so they joined the “he-man women haters club”

    So many MGTOWs DO NOTHING. “I have diabeties” and “I’m disabled” or some other excuse of why they can’t get find fulfillment. I have suggested another way 🙂 but since they are such amazing men who “are going their own way” and “don’t need anybody” my suggestions and thoughts are ignored.

    MGTOW 101 is cool enough. He actually cycles, likes a variety of topics that don’t involve ComicCon and Marvel Superheros. Sandman has had some great indight over the years. I have enjoyed some of BarBar……..sure……smart dudes, good insights. They are doing something. Look at the comments. Go to a live stream chat.

    It’s a lot of “waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa” or MGTOWs that are also the best PUA’s and have the best game you have ever seen and heard (by THEIR admission of course)

    West. I like MGTOW. I consider myself one. I live it….but I don’t have time anymore to help men through some of that pain. The suggestions I offer are met with downright hostility.

  415. snowdensjacket0x0x0 says:

    Yes Jason that does indeed happen. I was never a ladies man until after my divorce. My n count was four, and all in 1+ year long relationships. The guys who sleep with lots of women, which is far far different from having a healthy fun sex life, or even having lots of sex, are not people I take any advice from.

    Oh to the other guy. How do I know what mgtow and other manosphere guys are like? It’s because on my other identity where I’ve written many many essays explaining, and documenting my own experience, with cold approach, making a move, balancing women I’m not sure about, dropping them, etc etc, I’ve directly spoken with and attempted to help them.

    I get them to send me pictures. I’ve skyped with some of them.

    I do live what I preach. Though most of the women I’ve been with have been 5’s. I’ve also written posts about how a woman who is physically a 5 is just fine. What’s more important to ask is is she following your lead? Is she submitting to you? When you test her does she follow your commands? Does she do what you tell her to do?

    I actually feel like I fucked up my first marriage. I got skinny fat, I stopped engaging in the relationship. Because I didn’t actually want to be married to her. I didn’t respect her. She sure as fuck didn’t admire me. And I’m not dating younger women anymore. I married one.

    Meanwhile? My ex wife is in her late thirties, a single mother, she sold ‘our’ house and lives in an apartment, and she’s getting chubby. She dyed her hair purple lol.

    I don’t even need to say anything to her. I show up with my wife next to me and there’s nothing that needs to be said.

    Yes divorce was awful. It was the worst worst thing that has ever happened to me. It mentally destroyed me and I almost killed myself. But that was many years ago and I’m stronger and better than that. My wife, my now wife, knows that I can leave her. She knows if she fucks up that there are so many other women who would jump right away at a chance for a winning dominate man like me. I make sure she knows it.

    She’s a lucky woman.

    You guys just have to try. It’s not easy but whatever baby boomer cuck told you life was easy was lying to you.

  416. snowdensjacket0x0x0 says:

    @scott,

    My heart goes out to those men who have lost their children. But I speak from direct experience having lost my children. No one likes my advice here but my advice to those men in this;

    Give up. Move on. Make a new family.

    I don’t say this from a place of ignorance. Give up. Do not fight with your ex. When she says, ‘you won’t ever see him/her!!’ just accept it and move on. Maybe you will see your children again God willing. When they are older and want to know who you are.

    Or maybe your ex will realize she can’t manipulate you anymore. And she’ll stop. And she’ll get back in touch with you and ask you to see your children. That’s what happened with my ex wife. When I’m not too busy with my full real family I make time to chat with my other kids, with their shitty broken family and single mom.

    Yes it’s awful. Yes all of society has indeed freaked out at me because of it. The hypocrisy is incredible of course since I had no way to prevent her choices, and the state gives her all of their power. Right wing cuck judges I might add, in a very conservative state.

    It’s fine. Those children will have to suffer. That is the choice their mother made.

    Women are making awful choices all the time. Call them out. They will respect you even more for it. Unfortunately as dalrock has pointed out over and over most men, especially right wing men, are too cowardly to ever speak back to their betters.

  417. feministhater says:

    You guys just have to try. It’s not easy but whatever baby boomer cuck told you life was easy was lying to you.

    No, we don’t. It’s not about it being easy or hard. It’s just a bad deal that many do not want to be apart of. I don’t care that you think you’ve found a NAWALT, they can and will destroy you, you didn’t learn that the first time around because you got away with some of your life intact. I hope it works out for you but don’t be telling other men what they ‘just have to do’. It’s not up to you.

  418. Jason says:

    Look, I may be a bit cold or a realist when it comes to a divorce and there are children involved.

    I work with these children. parents are divorced, or were living together and never married. Both mom and DAD are dating now. Hooking up. Running around.

    While I “raise” their kid in Boy Scouting. Mom wants to know her son is a locked safe, “he’s not polite! why doesn’t he listen to me? why won’t he talk to me?”

    New boyfriend waiting in the car

    When “dad” picks up the boy, I’m always given the “i’m tougher than you speech / more of a real man than you attitude / or just the usual bs of how cool he was, how he was a Scout and of course he was the most awesome Scout”

    When I ask for help. Crickets. Shrugged shoulders. The usual. The new girlfriend is waiting in the car. The same scene I have witnessed with fellow guys my whole adult life.

    Scott….I like you, respect you and have gleaned some serious insight from you, but life ain’t no movie starring Jim Carrey. Hollywood never has given us real looks at real people in these matters.

    “real life” is more like a movie about frogs but starring clams.

  419. feministhater says:

    Anyone who thinks that MGTOW is simply low men should then stop complaining about it. If that’s what you truly think then it’s perfect for you and yours. It weeds out the weak men from the strong, right? You only want strong men, right? So, stop complaining. So called ‘weak’ men removing themselves from the dating and marriage market is thus a massive, huge, unbelievable boon to your side.

    If you start off with the one and then complain that MGTOW men are not doing what you want them to do, you are the ones with the problem, you get that, right? Or is it a case of weak men screwing up your ‘feminism’ again? Fucking lol, pathetic.

  420. Westray says:

    Cappy Cap came up with the same, totally unverifiable cardboard cutout that you just did. Both of you do it in order to make some point about yourself. I’ve been perusing the manosphere for years now and I have no idea where come away this army of “MGTOWS with diabetes” or whatever you came up with.

    Your suggestions are met with hostility and your thoughts are ignored, yeah? And that’s not on you? Let me guess that your demeaning take on MGTOWS came after they sussed you out for a narcissist. That’s what you are; swooping in to save souls. Why you? MGTOW encompasses all life paths anyway, so trying to typify MGTOWS is a conundrum right off the bat. Nothing could be more broad than MGTOW, but your solipsism and secret kingship immediately catapulted you to the place of defining it and saving souls. They sniffed you out immediately, as I’m doing, and disregarded your weak sauce. I’m doing it right from my mother’s basement, in between handfuls of cheetoh’s too, with my blow up doll on my lap, her plastic, inflated fingers duct-taped in a caress of my neckbeard.

  421. Jason says:

    FH

    Let me make myself crystal clear. I am a low value man. Now to Christ, I am not. Here in this world?????? You betcha. Low value. I have a low status job. I have low status looks. I have low status, unpopular opinions. I have low status when the names are drawn for the ‘secret santa’ at work, the person always says “who?”

    That is why MGTOW did have an appeal and DID (and continues) to help me in some manners and areas. Look, MGTOW DID kick me in the butt to actually DO SOMETHING. To INDEED go my own way…..and I am glad for it. But THEN what? After MGTOW the only logical and appropriate path was back to the Cross.

    But don’t tell anyone in MGTOW that….they get really mad 😉

  422. Jason says:

    You brought up Cappy Cap my man. You…from your original post sounded like you were defending him as a MGTOW….and how dare “I” classify MGTOWs as low value men

  423. feministhater says:

    After MGTOW the only logical and appropriate path was back to the Cross.

    But don’t tell anyone in MGTOW that….they get really mad.

    You know me enough to know that this isn’t my quibble with the ‘low value’ man argument. It’s the constant shaming to get MGTOW men to go the tradcon route, to better themselves for women and for society. To try marriage again, just one more time, it’s sure to work, isn’t it? Well that’s their argument..

    That is and always will be my quibble, these tradcon dipshits deserve nothing but scorn. They lost the battle to the feminists, allowed the laws and state of marriage to get so bad and now want MGTOW to forget that and better ourselves for their sakes, for their societies sake.. nope. I’ll better myself for Jesus.

    You and me both found our value in Jesus and not society and I believe fully that this is exactly the right path.

  424. thegreatshebang says:

    Jason said, “I am a low value man. Now to Christ, I am not.”

    That’s your problem right there. You took up the Cross to be a special “somebody.” No wonder MGTOW don’t want to hear it. Some don’t want to listen to any good advice at all. Others have seen what you offer all too many times before and don’t want anything to do with it.

  425. Jason says:

    What do they want then? I am one of the few, that is offering this in as a man who claims to be a MGTOW.

    What are they offering in advice? Aside from stewing and standing in a filthy drain.

  426. After MGTOW the only logical and appropriate path was back to the Cross.

    But don’t tell anyone in MGTOW that….they get really mad 😉

    MGTOW is a ladder, that one kicks away, after he uses it to get to someplace where he can see himself and his world more clearly.

    https://v5k2c2.wordpress.com/2017/04/13/angst-mgtow/

    If you weren’t “going your own way” (which for you, was back to the Cross), then you’d still be on the ladder. That would, ironically, render the ladder worthless. The point of a ladder is the destination, not the act of climbing.

    Boxer

  427. Jason says:

    You need that ladder to get back down off the roof. To safely return to solid ground. The ladder must be made sure it is in good repair. The ladder helps you, and continues to help you for future work up on the roof. The ladder is a means. Like MGTOW, but to kick it away? I think I am gonna make sure it’s always ready, safe and in good repair

    🙂

  428. westray says:

    Cappy Cap came out of nowhere with this same stereotype. I might have written it poorly or you misread it. He would agree with you.

    It’s hard for me to believe that we’re talking about/reacting to the same manosphere. I think MGTOW/Manosphere concepts have given me a new take on life that will likely be one of my main points of worldly gratitude during my death rattle. I just read what guys talk about. The whole part of deciphering who they really are is something that I don’t see as being possible. And then to take the words on the screen and go off into some zany assumption that they’re the opposite of their written offerings is just some new ball of yarn in the internet era, I guess. Why do that? It’s the thoughts that are here. There’s nothing else.

    Lastly,

    Don’t discount cold, unadulterated, raw projection as the reason for why you view MGTOWS as effete ‘do nothings.’

  429. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Jack Russell: I mentioned to him to put it in a trust so if he ever gets married and his wife is no longer haaapy she will get nothing of the property. This is in Canada in B.C.

    That won’t work everywhere. Someone posted a news story about a man who owned a house in a trust, in his name. When his wife frivorced him, the judge let the man keep the house — but he ordered the man to buy the wife a second house of equal equal.

  430. Jason says:

    I haven’t discounted it Westray. I’ve witnessed it. Before there was even a “name” for MGTOW and the long and time wasting fight between AVFM / MRA v MGTOW and of course the bunch that just don’t want anyone to go their own way.

    Agree with us! Circle jerk tonight! If you don’t come or play along, we’re going to tell you how you’re not a MGTOW!!!!

    As if.

    Name anyone who has come out of the MGTOW scene, claims to be a MGTOW and has status, looks along with it. Peter Lloyd from the UK is close. VERY close. I’ve emailed him several times about it. I am going to meet with him when I visit the UK (yes, I am on a first name basis with him).

    Most MGTOWs do nothing. Even at home. They do nothing. It’s fact. Raw projection is another term for “i’ve got a louder voice than you”

  431. thegreatshebang says:

    Jason said,
    “Name anyone who has come out of the MGTOW scene, claims to be a MGTOW and has status, looks along with it.”

    Argument from authority fallacy. The whole point of MGTOW is to trust your own mind, regardless of what high-status people may say or imply.

    Also, Jason said,
    “Most MGTOWs do nothing. Even at home. They do nothing. It’s fact.”

    You don’t know this. Why do you say things that you do not know? What’s worse, is that you’ve already defined what doing something or nothing is, so it’s circular reasoning.

    Not participating in a broken system and walking away is doing something. So anyone doing “nothing” would still be doing something.

  432. Jason says:

    Look who took a circular reasoning and justified it. You. “Doing nothing is doing something”

    Doing nothing is doing nothing.

    Also notice your reasoning when backed into a corner, or at least parrying towards one “trust your own mind no matter what high status people may say”

    Okay, look at like this. Jesus was not high status. Jesus had no army. He was not born into a powerful, or influential family. Jesus was scorned by the high status of His day. Jesus spoke of things that most didn’t want to hear (no one likes to be considered and called low status). Jesus chose people with no power. He didn’t “demand” an audience with Caesar to tell him “Let me speak the truth, and let me people go, and if I could just show you signs and wonders of heaven, I will convince you to follow me.”

    Jesus came into this world with no looks. The Bible even tells us that “he hath no comeliness that would make us attracted to Him” and he was a carpenter by profession. Hardly a job back then with ‘union benefits’ and pay……

    He turned the world upside down. Debate if its shrinking, or dead, or doesn’t mean anything. His profound influence is felt to this day. The humblest of men did indeed “do something”

    Also notice (in typical MGTOW fashion, which bothers me more than anything in that scene) that following your “mind” or “trusting” it is no better than what women are taught to do. Follow their heart and feelings…no matter what! One may say “well, trusting the mind is solid, and can be logical”

    Most of the logic I have seen on MGTOW forums is about as logical as a mud puddle. Even the greatest and humblest of men needed guidance of sorts from a mentor.

  433. Novaseeker says:

    My take on MGTOW is more or less the same as Rollo’s.

    You can sit on the sideline if you want, but the game still goes on, and noone wins the game when he’s sitting it out on the sideline. You can choose not to participate, but there are consequences to that choice (as for any other) and some of them in that case relate to the overall value assessment of the person making that choice, because they have chosen not to compete in the great game, the one that determines your value overall, whether you decide to sit it out or not.

  434. Jason says:

    Darlock:

    Apologies likes for “helping” to derail this thread with the discussion about MGTOW over the past few posts here. Everyone loves telling me what it isn’t but no one wants to work at what it is 😉

  435. thegreatshebang says:

    Jason said,

    “Look who took a circular reasoning and justified it. You. “Doing nothing is doing something”
    Doing nothing is doing nothing.”

    That’s right. But you don’t see the value in that. You seem to only care and respect power. Doing nothing is doing nothing. But it is still a “something,” since it is the actual act of not following bad advice.

    Jason said,
    “(Jesus’) profound influence is felt to this day.”
    God can only enter where men let him in.

    Jason also said,
    “Also notice (in typical MGTOW fashion, which bothers me more than anything in that scene) that following your “mind” or “trusting” it is no better than what women are taught to do. Follow their heart and feelings…no matter what! One may say “well, trusting the mind is solid, and can be logical”

    Feelings are feelings and are no mind. The masculinity in men is rationality, not feelings. If only men would not follow their heart! The rational mind is “solid” as in, you can trust it, which is what you are doing here, or else you are contradicting yourself.

  436. Jason says:

    Nova:

    There are rules to games. They are meant to ensure fair play. I agree with MGTOW in the sense of when the rules are pretty much stacked fully against your side…….kind of hard to say “yeah, I’m gonna play by the rules”

    Life is supposedly a “game” a game one plays according to the rules……..if you by chance of the dice are on the side with plenty of hot shots…..sure life can be an interesting “game” and if you are on the side where there are none????? It’s more like “yeah, some game……”

    Remember back in high school for gym class there would be a “basketball game” and for some bizzarro, strange reason…………all the basketball players from the varsity team would end up on the same side????? They would slam yo’ butt and kill your team….and then the rest of the day they would talk smack about how they dominated “your side” in gym class????

    Kind of the same thing.

    However, if you do choose not to play……..if you choose to form your own game, or team………people don’t have to like it. People don’t have to play it. People may not want to play it. In that case, you cannot be “upset” that people don’t want it. You get better, quit, find something else and in that something else YOU become. You learn, or discover things you are indeed good at.

    If you send out signals you DON’T want to be accepted…people are not going to accept you. MGTOW still has an awesome opportunity to sell itself so to speak as something. Look at comment sections of any of the big shots videos, or blogs.

    Seething hatred. Seething anger. Seething self-righteousness, and really terrible advice.

    And they are upset by men like me????????????????

  437. snowdensjacket0x0x0 says:

    So do you all understand how an orthodox Jew can speak to other orthojews and communicate through small words that they are both the same?

    Do you all understand that a Mormon can say certain key words that show other Mormons that they are indeed Mormon as well?

    Well high value men have similar experiences and will speak in the same ways. I suggest you become a high value man who can speak those words. As women do indeed hear them.

    As I do even in this forum. It’s easy peazy to see who the high value men are.

    The journey is honestly very simple. Us caring men have even written guides for you guys. We’ve made it as easy and simple as possible.

    The door is right in front of you. You just have to choose to open it.

    But yes. There is risk. As in all things. Be well my mgtow brothers. The door is right there in front of you. You hold the very key that keeps you locked in your prison. There is no guard.

  438. Jason says:

    Lol. A man following his mind: I want sex. No one will give it to me! All women are ruthless, evil, nasty b*tches!

    That is what your rational mind says.

  439. Jason says:

    Sadly, as much fun as this is. I am off to dance practice (something and “real men” don’t do evidently) and then laundry, and ironing (yeah, heaven forbid a man would like to have nicely pressed shirts and some class).

    So, I may jump on before bed. You guys take care, and I hope some of my banter here has been entertaining!

    -jason

  440. westray says:

    @Novaseeker

    Is it fair to say that there are a lot of different games out there though? Yeah there is the overall game of career/family/legacy, but a lot of the appeal of MGTOW is saying; “Make your own game. Put your energies where you decide they should go, not into the typical paradigm.” Is that possible or not? We’re kind of the first generation to even try it.

    If a guy only acknowledges one major culture or game, and sits it out but continues to react to it or criticize it…that’s to be avoided. Not a good stance at all. Speaking of Cappy Cap, I actually would put him in that category, motorcycle rides notwithstanding. That guy #@&%s the bed just visiting Italy for a week and rushes back to Minnesota to complain about everyone nonstop. That’s a ‘sit out and complain about why’ kind of guy. Not everyone is like that though.

    Jason;

    —Raw projection is another term for “i’ve got a louder voice than you”-

    Uh, no it’s not. What an incoherent thought.

    —Agree with us! Circle jerk tonight! If you don’t come or play along, we’re going to tell you how you’re not a MGTOW!!!!—-

    That’s your own self in a nutshell. Projection game on point…again.

  441. earlthomas786 says:

    We are ALL “low-value men” according to the GynoState and its mouthpieces. The small percentage of men who can maintain hand in their relationships have good things to teach, but the reality is most guys have always been clueless about such things and always will be. Society itself used to give men status and authority for doing the things that keep civilization alive. That used to be enough to give them confidence; it was a virtuous cycle. That’s all been dismantled.

    I’m repeating this…because this is why things like MGTOW and PUAs have become a thing. Feminism has pretty much eroded everything in civilization that gave men confidence.

    And now men are basing themselves as ‘high-value’ or ‘low-value’ based off the gynostate and its femme-fatale followers. This is where things descend into chaos. If you place your value on a woman’s reaction…you can be a stud today, and in the meat grinder tomorrow.

  442. earlthomas786 says:

    That’s your problem right there. You took up the Cross to be a special “somebody.”

    Christ told his disciples to deny themselves, take up their cross, and follow Him. That’s not exactly going our own way.

  443. PokeSalad says:

    Well, this entry certainly stirred up the nest! 🙂

  444. SkylerWurden says:

    @snowdensjacket0x0x0

    Dude…. Shit the fuck up.

    You have no more real value than any other average man and I don’t care how much glee you take in your ex-wife’s misery, you’re still a loser. Your high-value bullshit is as cheesy and unconvincing as some 13-year old bragging about his sick Call of Duty KDR. Of what possible value to anyone else is your hot wife or your sexual experience?

    In three hundred years, will anyone remember you? Will anyone read your thoughts or listen to your music or look in awe at your creations? Or will you be another nobody in a long line of nobodies that had neglible effect on the world? High-value my ass.

    “I write guides!”

    Every douche bag has written a guide. How much money have you made publishing your guides?

  445. Snowden’s Jacket:

    The journey is honestly very simple. Us caring men have even written guides for you guys. We’ve made it as easy and simple as possible.

    Link, please. Where can I purchase one of the guides you’ve written? I’d like to review it on my blog.

    Best,

    Boxer

  446. snowdensjacket0x0x0 says:

    How much more can I write? How many more essays? You’ve all read them if you’ve been around the red pill.

    None of your insults can work on me because you only insult me in ways I’ve mastered.

    Did you all not read what I wrote? The ways I said for us men to be?

    I honestly would like you to succeed. I’m lonely. All my friends are bucket crabs. I’m crawling up from the bottom. The more men who succeed, honestly succeed, the more friends I can really have.

    Boxer. You can succeed. A family. A line. Lineage. Forever.

    I live close to you in the 801.

    Seriously hit me up.

    Snowdensjacket over at the Google mail

    I’ll write you back. You can meet my family.

    I’ve tried to take many risks. I’ve doxxed myself many times. I have nothing to hide. And I really do wish for strong men to be my allies.

    Strange isn’t it? So many of us end up here.

    There is real winning here.

    But the winning?

    It never lasts.

  447. Oscar says:

    @ Snowden’s jacket

    “I suggest you become a high value man who can speak those words…

    As I do even in this forum.”

    Do those words include “LOL!”?

  448. snowdensjacket0x0x0 says:

    Yes no worries.

    I laugh at you all, all the time.

    My brothers. Lol!

  449. snowdensjacket0x0x0 says:

    The most, appropriate, song;

  450. Dear Snowden’s Jacket:

    Boxer. You can succeed. A family. A line. Lineage. Forever.

    I live close to you in the 801.

    I’m from Southern Alberta, bro; not Utah. (Google “Cardston”)

    Right now I live in the states, but still about 1500 mi away from you.

    Seriously hit me up.

    Snowdensjacket over at the Google mail

    I’ll write you back. You can meet my family.

    While I’m always down for Dalrock in meatspace, I’m sorta distant.

    If you change your mind about the guides you’ve published, let me know. I’ll give you a fair shake.

    Best,

    Boxer

  451. snowdensjacket0x0x0 says:

    Ah well. Best wishes to you and yours boxer.

    Family. It’s right there. Take it.

    Yes you would get better sex without. But sex? Dear God who really cares any more? Sex is everywhere.

    Family? That’s a rare gem. So is the woman who understands.

  452. snowdensjacket0x0x0 says:

    Oh and I did change my mind.

    The actions and results are still real.

    The goals?

    Hey we all grow. I never had those goals before. I never knew just what I could do

    Crazy. I can do whatever I want. I can literally do whatever I want. Maybe someone tries to stop me. So what?

    A fragile line. I’ll pass this knowledge down.

  453. Sharrukin says:

    As far as “winning the game” or being high value I don’t even know what those objectively mean any more.

    As mentioned above Brad Pitt and Elon Musk couldn’t win the game which I guess makes them low value? Prisoners on death row are apparently high value because they have no trouble attracting women.

    What exactly do you win?

    Marriage and its attendant threat points… financial, social, and emotional vulnerabilities has largely become meaningless. It is a long-term boyfriend contract with huge potential liabilities. Then we have the title of this post…”no respect”.

    The risks are high, the potential downside is large and the reward is contempt.

    Every step of the dating and marriage ritual in our society has become so degraded and pointless that participating in it makes less and less sense.

  454. snowdensjacket0x0x0 says:

    Hmm you own that bookstore?

    I’ve been very torn in my faith.

    Clearly I know it’s all bullshit. The church has never given me shit only demands. My wife is a southern Baptist because she’s so so so soooooo much better than the morning girls the church tried to saddle me down with.

    Ahhhh it’s a struggle. With no one to talk to.

    Gladly I’ve gotten good at talking to myself.

  455. Anon says:

    Sharrukin,

    Have you come to terms with how most ‘conservatives’ are cuckservatives, as in they are feminists as well as economic leftists?

    Conservatives is not really right-wing, but rather just fighting to normalize previous left-wing advances by resisting more recent ones.

    You used to be in great denial about this.

  456. Sharrukin says:

    Anon says:
    December 16, 2017 at 10:45 pm

    Sharrukin,

    “Have you come to terms with how most ‘conservatives’ are cuckservatives, as in they are feminists as well as economic leftists?”

    I have.

    It was hard to accept at first but the lose with dignity crowd helped a lot in my alienation.

  457. seventiesjason says:

    Wow…..

    I left and all the masculine, using-their-mind, going their own way posters left as well.

    How brave of them to come and defend “going their own way” to me….a man who is actually on their side. A man who wants so much for them.

    It’s easier to attack a fellow MGTOW who doesn’t toe the circle-jerk than to actually confront a man who mocks it and hates it. That would take “logic” and using their “mind” and oh actually work. Something most MGTOWs refuse to do….that whole Homer Simpson “let someone else do it. I’m a real man going my own way”

    I’m not alone. Discussed this with the owner of MGTOWN USA on FB. We’ve spoken on the phone. He agrees. Most MGTOWs are a joke.

    Many are one “bj” away for m going back to the farm and many (including myself here) were just never endeared by women. A man like me dropping out with women won’t bother them. They don’t care.

    Dance class went well. Did a lot of “mash potato popcorn” from about ’68 and a bunch of uptempo soul.

  458. Sharrukin says:

    seventiesjason says:
    December 16, 2017 at 11:26 pm

    a man who is actually on their side. A man who wants so much for them.

    Most MGTOWs are a joke.

    So as long as they do what YOU want them to do they are barely acceptable, failing that they are vile, low value, and a joke?

  459. seventiesjason says:

    No. Most MGTOWs just plain don’t do anything. Been in the scene for well over 15 years. Most talk big n bad. Most do nothing. Actually pasted a short article about the 80 / 20 thing from “Details” magazine I found in 1994 on cardboard. Most MGTOWs think they are in that top 20%. Going your own way takes work. Even a ship with sails up, culled by the wind still needs a rudder. Most MGTOWs would chop the rudder off then get mad at the wind for not cooperating.

    If you are MGTOW go your own way. Quit telling other MGTOWs how to be one…..make your life really awesome. Being really awesome to too many is yelling us all again how much they hate women. Big whoop.

  460. Sharrukin says:

    Quit telling other MGTOWs how to be one…..

    make your life really awesome.

    Maybe you should take some of your own advice.

    Quit telling other MGTOWs how to be one…..

  461. 7817 says:

    @Novaseeker on December 16, 2017 at 5:32 pm

    Spot on. The Game goes on one way or the other.

  462. Anon says:

    Sharrukin,

    I have.
    It was hard to accept at first but the lose with dignity crowd helped a lot in my alienation.

    Well, good.

    It is not easy. I myself lost one of my oldest friends because he could not accept that the GOP is in no way against ‘feminism’ except in name, and he kept demanding that I donate money to GOPe politicians, and just could not grasp that there are types of leftism that are promoted by BOTH parties. I sent him tons of evidence of GOP feminism. Our friendship of 25 years ended.

    I can think of no greater wastage of money than to donate to GOPe politicians. Thankfully, my lifetime total stopped at $225 (across 2004 and 2008) – it could have been worse. He donated $2000 in 2004 alone (and probably more after that).

    By contrast, donating to Democrats when you have a Democrat President, if nothing else, reduces your chance of IRS audits.

  463. Sharrukin says:

    “I can think of no greater wastage of money than to donate to GOPe politicians.”

    I am becoming very cynical of ANY politician. Trump is nice as a way to break the GOP lock on power as was Bernie Sanders for the left. Trump has no allies and Sanders wouldn’t have had any either. I don’t think Trump can accomplish much even if he wanted to.

    The Democrats and the GOP are the only game in town so far and as they fade into arguments about fake Russian scandals and pecan pie we have Antifa, BLM, and the Alt-Right out there and other groups we haven’t heard about yet. The potential for something bad emerging is high and yet Uniparty has nothing to offer but vacuous arguments, trivial disputes and aging retreads from a bygone political era.

  464. American says:

    Dalrock is both fearless and correct yet again, as usual.

  465. Anon says:

    I don’t think Trump can accomplish much even if he wanted to.

    I agree. Just look at how the tax reform is getting whittled down day by day until it will be a change far too small to mean anything.

  466. “But the modern man values his toys more than his honor. That’s why no one, including the legal system, respects his possession of either.”
    What toys? Phones? Sex dolls? Or is “toys” a metaphor? I trained with handguns when I was married and rode motorcycles when I was married, something we DIDn’t share when she got to hitting around 235, more than I at 6’1″ by 20 pounds or so (I wasn’t supposed to notice). Of course, she took a lobbyist/production position with a PR company that did all the adverts and direct mail lobbying for Sarah Brady Handgun Control, Inc. That was good, actually. We went to one of their parties in the midst of the debate over whether to eliminate concealed carry in Virginia and I happily and willfully paraded my CC-H about. The men there were disgusting, womanly fucks, worn down men, low-T, all of them were that were on the arms of these broads. I warmly and fastidiously made sure my opinion was: unless you shoot, unless you know a little about firearms, unless you’ve been in a fight or been a victim of a crime, you don’t know shit and have no business subverting the will of Virginia’s citizens. I expect CC-H permits to go away any old time, now however. And of course, Virginia is full of Hillary’s minions and is now Blue. So too we now know, Alabama..

  467. Pingback: Quoted for truth and being zeroed out | sfcton's Blog

  468. info says:

    @Jason
    ”very little will be done about the Jupiter sized pink elephant in the room called feminism will be ignored.”

    They won’t but what about God? What about our petitions to our heavenly father day after day. Night after night?

    Did Christ not promise our God will answer our prayers so long as its motive is his glory and seeking after his kingdom?

    Persistent and constant and never ending prayer is how Jesus described prayer that eventually gets answered.

    If its just man then dystopias can last forever. Yet do we not have one that have overcome the world?

  469. Opus says:

    It is my view that MgTOW is not so much a choice as an inevitability. Men only need women and for procreation at a certain early point in their lives. After that (and as children) the two sexes have little in common and over-familiarity with women only leads to false accusations and worse. One cannot avoid females altogether and mostly they are pleasant to talk to – but just briefly.

    If anyone here doubts that they or even most men are not MgTOW ask yourself the following: you are driving along in your motor-car on a largely deserted stretch of road and up ahead you see a young woman thumbing a lift. Do you stop? Fifty years ago you would not have hesitated, but now? Like VP Pearce you will not enter alone with a female a room otherwise unoccupied.

    Yesterday I popped into a local church (for a rest and perhaps a little spiritual re-couperation). Two elderly ladies were sitting there at their table welcoming visitors. I approached and asked them about the various church services over Xmas and what they entailed. I noticed as I spoke to these two women that whatever my question they would bring the subject back to their respective Great Grandchildren. That is what interests them.

  470. earl says:

    Do you stop? Fifty years ago you would not have hesitated, but now? Like VP Pearce you will not enter alone with a female a room otherwise unoccupied.

    I was reading an in depth Examination of Conscience for Confession this morning. Lo and behold under the sixth/ninth commandment it has…

    ‘Have I unnecessarily remained alone in the company of someone of the opposite sex?’

    Even 5 years ago probably most people would laugh at that, now it doesn’t seem like it’s such a bad idea to treat it like an occasion of sin.

  471. Westray says:

    Jason,

    This both mythical and typical MGTOW that you keep bringing up is just some type of prism which you are using to tinker around with your own self-image. It has nothing to do with who these guys are because you wouldn’t know any more than I would. And I have no idea.

    I think MGTOW is a great play to make against the current culture. It’s smart, effective, satisfying and above all, necessary. I think it would actually do more to bring down feminism than trying to grind back on laws. Then a guy like you comes in with his solipsism a’blazing and tries to insult the whole thing. Shame on you.

  472. Scotty says:

    I’ve read a lot of Vox’s post, and he is very intelligent (just ask him), but he’s a bit of an odd bird. He’s apparently, as they say “tri-racial”, and has this kind of “I didn’t want to be part of their club anyhow” mentality which comes across as hugely Gamma–all the time. Ironically, he’s the super smart guy who wants to be Alpha, but doesn’t have the Alpha goods, so he has this blog and his little Sci-fi /cum-geek world with is “music” background or whatever, to de-Gamma his setting and circumstances into an Alpha play. Smart, but still Gamma.

    His thoughts on White Nationalism, and the Alt-right are basically unimportant (he is of course contemptible of Richard Spencer–the guy who invented the very term Vox regrettably, I am sure, has to use–“Alt-right” to express his own views). That is major Gamma. He’s not white after all and his distaste for a man who created in many respects the very world Vox seeks to live and express himself in, must be very painful, personally. Gamma’s like to play on the margins of the worlds Alphas create and Betas maintain, with this sort of “Yes, but I can do it better, or I am really doing it right” mentality,. The #MeToo-ism of a guy latching on to a cultural, if not racial, movement that he frankly isn’t or won’t be a part of, while criticizing those same people inside it, would be funny if it did not come across as the Metallica-shirt wearing “smart guy” in the back of the room who makes fun of the Alpha football players, because he is much better on the PlayStation version.

    Other than that, he’s a pleasure to read. 😉

  473. earl says:

    In the old days the Gammas were called hippies.

  474. I was reading an in depth Examination of Conscience for Confession this morning. Lo and behold under the sixth/ninth commandment it has…

    ‘Have I unnecessarily remained alone in the company of someone of the opposite sex?’

    Even 5 years ago probably most people would laugh at that, now it doesn’t seem like it’s such a bad idea to treat it like an occasion of sin.

    It’s a shame more politicians and celebrity entertainers didn’t take that shit seriously, too.

  475. earl says:

    I think must people would laugh and say ‘what’s the big deal’ when it comes to a lot of things that are pointed out in an examination. Lately though I’m beginning to realize the wisdom behind it and addressing it before it happens…

    It’s something called unintended consequences.

  476. Jason says:

    Insult the whole thing? Most MGTOWs are doing that very well without my help.
    Here’s a challenge, why don’t you talk to a real “alpha” (for lack of a better term) of why he should be MGTOW.

    He’s good looking. He’s got a decent job. Ladies by the score. He’s involved with local civic groups. He has a few cool hobbies. He has an education.

    Convince him “why” MGTOW is the proper, and right choice for him. Use your rational logic on him, that all of us are so blessed with evidently. Use your mind and no emotions. Convince him that women are only good for one thing, and that he should “give up” on a society that hates men and post on webpages and blogs nonstop about how women “done him wrong”

    He’ll laugh at you, or raise an eyebrow and smirk. Oh yes…..he knows women are only good for one thing…….you didn’t have to tell him that. He gets plenty of sex. Marriage? Maybe someday, he has options concerning women. Lots of them. Give up on society???? Why should he? He’s doing well…..and he’s the type of man if he wasn’t doing well, he would be making progress to be back on top again.

    Convince this man he needs MGTOW.

    You can’t convince him. He as an “alpha” (for lack of a better term) and he doesn’t care about his fellow man like you or me. He shouldn’t have to. He wouldn’t want to. All he would have to do is check out the YouTube channels, see the comments and he would realize that he is waaaayyyyy above these men. He may like some of the commentary (and there is some good stuff out there in the MGTOW world).

    He would think that these men are pretty pathetic. He could respect a man that said “I’m done with women” and that man found pursuits, hobbies and a life worth living…….but when men, like the majority of the MGTOW scene………all they can do is mock, scoff at, and really be miserable to be around……well, the men MGTOW needs (like these alpha’s) don’t want to be around

    Again…..the women that DO know about MGTOW for the most part are not “frightened” by the prospect of men going-their-own-way………..most women are not attracted to them anyway. They view it as no loss to them. Women are more frightened at the prospect of the “good looking guy going MGTOW” than the likes of men like you and me.

    MGTOW had (actually still has) a vast opportunity to really express their message of passive resistance…some are doing it well, I admire these men….most of the viewers / readers are not.

    It’s a fact. Been in the scene a LONG time

  477. Novaseeker says:

    Women are more frightened at the prospect of the “good looking guy going MGTOW” than the likes of men like you and me.

    Yeah, they’re not concerned about that, either. They live in a world of excess demand, and it’s all they have experienced since they were teens and became sexually aware. Men’s libidos aren’t going away anytime soon, women know and experience this every day — trust me, they aren’t concerned about men running away and ignoring them, whether the men involved are good looking or not, because they all experience an excess of demand, even the ones who aren’t very attractive.

    Of course we know that no men in the manosphere are paying attention to these women, and contributing to that demand — because all manosphere men are unattracted to all women who are older than 23 and sub-HB8. But, trust me, almost all women live in a world of excess demand — the idea of that drying up isn’t even on their radar screen, and they certainly aren’t concerned at all if individual men go their own way, whether they are good looking or not. There are literally millions of men with strong thirst/high libido who are creating excess demand anyway.

  478. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Scotty: he is of course contemptible of Richard Spencer

    You mean he’s contemptuous of Spencer, not contemptible.

    Contemptuous — to regard someone with contempt.

    Contemptible — to be worthy of contempt.

    BTW, while not many people use it as such, there is a verb form. You might correctly have said, “He contemns Spencer.”

    And there is the noun form, as used in the Battle Hymn of the Republic:

    I have read a fiery gospel writ in burnished rows of steel:
    “As ye deal with my contemners, so with you my grace shall deal”;
    Let the Hero, born of woman, crush the serpent with his heel,
    Since God is marching on.

  479. Kevin says:

    @CaneCaldo

    Regarding the article about killing the child molester – this is weird but I think is part of societies collective madness of having no rules for sex but at the same time equating rape = murder. In many movies a women who is raped kills or arranged for revenge for the rapist. However as bad as rape is, it is nothing near as serious as murder and feminists work at elevating it into the worst crime in media has translated to where someone thinks the right response to child molestation is murder.

    There are many women who were raped or molested who live normal healthy lives without residual problems. Feminists always trying to rebalance the scales for their world views.

  480. Jason says:

    Nova: Agree in principle……we may disagree on some of the more minor nuances…but yeah. MGTOW is viewed by women as a “joke” for the most part. The are a few who ‘understand’ the concepts behind it as to “why” it has risen up……but its only a surface level….and even these women know and understand “oh, he’s given up on women? well…..he’s ugly / not attractive / bitter / a loser / been hurt / not a real man anyway and plenty of men are still hitting on me, and I still get attention when I need it”

    MGTOW at this point has a few options:

    *build the wall higher, and declare themselves the He-Man-Women-Haters-Club and get it over with
    *patch up with Paul Elam and let him have the rights to “MGTOW” and declare him the spokesman, setup an organization and dues, plead to State for money, advocacy and “help” even though all these men are “builders” and don’t need the government for anything. Oh yes, make sure Paul and his henchmen get a comfortable salary too. Have conferences. Be the male version of “NOW”
    *stay as they are with a mish-mash jumble of thoughts, ideas, various beliefs (which is one of the better options at this point)
    *The big bloggers, leaders, YouTube channels take it FURTHER. “Okay men…..what has happened? Number have grown, the message *is* getting out but now its time to kick up a notch. What are you? Who are you? Why are you? If we continue as a passive resistance type of forum online…..great….but all of us now have to move on from “female nature” because we KNOW it now. Get in shape. Kick the drugs. Back to school. Do your job better than anyone else. Challenge yourself.”

    Revolutionary indeed.

    I personally think (and I could be wrong) it will grow a bit more…then stagnate and become the “corner” of the Internet where a guy comes when he gets burned / cheated on / anally raped by the friendly family court system……he gets really angry, is a *MGTOW forever* until he meets the next NAWALT.

  481. feministhater says:

    Convince this man he needs MGTOW.

    Why? I don’t care about convincing anyone anymore, that is why I went MGTOW in the first place. Caring about shit like this took time, energy and patience and influenced me badly back when I used to care about such things. Now I enjoy myself.

    It’s stupid to think anything we do really matters. It doesn’t in the grand scheme of things. Society will do what it must do, I prefer not to get involved and enjoy my finite life as much as I can. Accept what you can change, yourself, and learn to live with the things you can’t, society. Done.

    It wasn’t only marriage and women that caused me to reconsider my life directions, it was a whole range of problems that started to become visible to me. Mountains of national debt, the ever invading government regulations into ever corner of our lives, the increased political correctness and in the end I’ve had enough. I don’t care about that anymore. Let the alphas sort it out, they’re so great anyway. Beyond that…

  482. Jason says:

    FH

    So MGTOW isn’t for “alphas” or guys who are like our friend Scott or my bro from grad school who is now in the top tiers of IBM Corp? its only for men like me? Like you?

    I was replying to Westray for telling me I was insulting the movement. I’m telling the movement the truth. Have been for a bit. Look, I still get the residual side effects from that ol red pill. It’s un-Christ like in the long haul. Go your own way……..well, then what?

    What about the suffering of men from sexual molestation as a child, and no help because *wink wink* they’re a guy, and they probably liked it. What about the man who is Christian and is called to celibacy, MGTOW should have a place for him. They have a term “monk” that floats around, but you can’t put the word “Christian” in front of it because the torch and pitchfork crowd will demand that a MGTOW cannot be a Christian. What about the man who was a chump, or guy like me and he grows into something like an alpha. A leader. This man is disqualified from MGTOW?

    Lots of questions like this in the scene that need to be discussed, and frankly if the movement is going to have some sort of impact on the level of Ghandi or Rev King….it needs a core purpose of indeed helping men. Not shouting how “all women be like b*tches”

  483. feministhater says:

    I think your problem is thinking that we have to spend our time convincing these men to be MGTOW. You don’t have to. It’s not a movement in the sense that MGTOW want anything from society. They either see the sense of it or they don’t.

    It’s un-Christ like in the long haul. Go your own way……..well, then what?

    And live your life on your own terms. You seem to think it was going to be something different. I don’t understand your complaining here. MGTOW isn’t an answer to a problem, it isn’t a solution. It’s just a means to provide you some semblance of peace and protection in a confusing and strange world, where up is down, black is white, right is wrong and everything is amiss.

    God will work his own ways on men. It’s not your job to convince them that they should become Christ’s disciples, it’s your job to spread his word to those that will listen. Perhaps in time they will listen but you cannot force someone to do something against their will, you can only try to help them learn.

    What is it you think MGTOW should be doing? Petitioning the government? Storming the battlements? Over turning the Church pews? My belief is that each man has to decide for himself the correct course of action for his life, I pray that Jesus guides him but I realise that it is his choice to make and MGTOW sets him on a path to where he must make his own decisions and not those of society or the gynocracy.

    Take a breath. You cannot change everything at once, only God can do that.

  484. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    I don’t see the point of a MGTOW philosophy or movement or leaders. I didn’t choose MGTOW. I just “became” MGTOW.

    I was unattractive to the high quality women I wanted. I didn’t like the low quality women I attracted. And at a certain age, I accepted that I would never marry.

    Maybe if I were younger I might make the effort to learn game. But at this point in my life, I don’t care to make the effort. The meager potential rewards are not worth it. I want to marry young and grow old with a woman. To share a life. But at my age, that’s impossible. Most of my life is past. So I’ve turned herbivore.

    I’m not trying to convince anyone to follow or emulate me. I don’t care if anyone respects or disrespects my lifestyle.

    I do think women will be upset if many men go MGTOW. The Alphas might not. But many potential Beta Providers might. Women do marry and frivorce Beta Providers they’re not attracted to, and they don’t want that option taken away.

  485. PokeSalad says:

    Did Christ not promise our God will answer our prayers so long as its motive is his glory and seeking after his kingdom?

    He promises that all prayer in the above vein will be answered…but not that we will like those answers.

  486. I don’t see the point of a MGTOW philosophy or movement or leaders. I didn’t choose MGTOW. I just “became” MGTOW.

    Every man’s “way” is naturally going to be his own, based upon his own decisions, whims, biases. MGTOW eschews some sort of unified “movement”. The point is to make your own examined life a work of art.
    https://v5k2c2.wordpress.com/2017/04/16/negative-dialectic-mgtow/

  487. feministhater says:

    I do think women will be upset if many men go MGTOW. The Alphas might not. But many potential Beta Providers might. Women do marry and frivorce Beta Providers they’re not attracted to, and they don’t want that option taken away.

    Just another one of the many reasons I don’t get the complaints against MGTOW. It’s doing these men a favour, all of them, from the lowly gammas, to the ‘meal ticket’ betas and the emperor like alphas whose harems just increased 10 fold due to the other men dropping out of the market.

    Stop complaining, just stop.

  488. Jason says:

    I expected MGTOW to be a place where men could just be understood. It’s not that. It’s a mantra of: women are evil! hypergamy! you’re not a real MGTOW because of x,y,z!

    I wasn’t expecting it to become MRA type of thing.

    Living life on your own terms? Okay. So it’s a “I’m okay, you’re okay” thing? A “free to be you and me” TV special? Okay.

    Then why have a movement? Why have a name? Why have blogs and webpages? Because that I was doing before there was a name for this, and living life on my own terms got me into deep, deep trouble. So who’s terms are we talking about?

    I mean FH, this goes really deep. If it “just is” then we don’t need any blogs, webpages, logos, nor further discussion on it

  489. Then why have a movement? Why have a name? Why have blogs and webpages? Because that I was doing before there was a name for this, and living life on my own terms got me into deep, deep trouble. So who’s terms are we talking about?

    It’s not a “movement” – despite kooks like Rob Fedders and others trying to co-opt it into gay libertarian politics.

    It’s a phenomenon that has a name because it’s describable.

  490. Jason says:

    Boxer…..disco was a phenomenon…..this is a very large corner of the man-o-sphere

  491. feministhater says:

    Living life on your own terms? Okay. So it’s a “I’m okay, you’re okay” thing? A “free to be you and me” TV special? Okay.

    Yes, in a way all life is like this. You must decide by which code of conduct you live. You and I have chosen to live by our Lord’s word. Each man has to decide this for himself, MGTOW just sets him on that path. I don’t get your quibble here. How you live your life is your choice, even the choice to live as a slave to Jesus Christ.

    I mean FH, this goes really deep. If it “just is” then we don’t need any blogs, webpages, logos, nor further discussion on it.

    How do you think any piece of knowledge came into being? How do you think basic common knowledge was found out, passed on and spread to the four corners of the earth? It is in our nature to talk to each other, to compete but to also cooperate with each other. Blog posts, webpages, whatever are merely a modern tool that has changed the ramifications of normal conversing between human beings for better or for worse.

    Believe it or not but you learn things but merely reading a blog or a webpage, it has an innate purpose of spreading knowledge.

    Then why have a movement? Why have a name? Why have blogs and webpages? Because that I was doing before there was a name for this, and living life on my own terms got me into deep, deep trouble. So who’s terms are we talking about?

    There is no movement. The webpages and blogs act as dissemination of information that men can either take or discard. It has always been such, there were books, scrolls, manuscripts and stone tablets, it always comes down to a man’s own choices on whether he follows them or not.

  492. Embracing Reality says:

    MGTOW is only definable in the vaguest sense, at this point. I’m not an authority but vaguely it’s simply the refusal to marry or participate in the marriage/family system. Legal or social. An MGTOW can certainly still ‘interact’ with females without any real commitment. That’s a dangerous game but more so if he intends to remain MGTOW. For a committed believer he has to avoid fornication, easier when one is older than 40 I’ve found. For the rest, women can use sex to manipulate a man. I’m convinced a high number of marriages still happen because a man who didn’t intended to commit made a baby accidentally. Meanwhile the female was in control all along.

    I don’t define myself as MGTOW or need to. My life so far would fit the vague definition though and will likely continue to. I’ve never mentioned the acronym to anyone or heard of it on the outside. It’s for the internet and it does have a value in the sense that it induces thoughts in men who are lost in the blue pill matrix. The notion that there even exists identity for men outside of serving the system and women’s purposes. He doesn’t need to start spouting off the acronym. Some guys get into it online, some only for awhile but maybe it changes the way they see themselves in society. No longer obligated. Nothing to prove. No longer needing to seek approval of women or the slaves of women.

    I expect it will have an impact. MGTOW will at least contribute to why some men drop out of the system. Doesn’t matter if they officially identify as one. Every man who refuses to marry puts a woman outside the system that serves them. Women can mock and ridicule MGTOW online all they want. They’ll attack it far worse if a man utters it in person. Meanwhile, if some women who ultimately want marriage and family are denied the privilege in part because of MGTOW discussions on the internet? They’re not laughing if they suspect men are dropping out because of it, promise you. To whatever degree this happens moving forward we’ll just have to wait and see.

  493. Jason says:

    We will just have to wait and see 🙂

  494. Jason says:

    Boxer, your above link seems to be broken. Is that the article by from 2015 or so?

    Fox news???? really???? 😉

  495. Boxer, your above link seems to be broken. Is that the article by from 2015 or so?

    Fox news???? really???? 😉

    I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree.

  496. Pingback: Morally acceptable responses to (impending) divorce | Christianity and masculinity

  497. Scotty says:

    Red Pill Latecomer , thank you for the correction, and apologies to everyone. English is not my first language (Spanish is), so I sometimes make critical errors like that, similar to the “imply/infer” error.

    One thing I will say in Vox’s defense, his three immutable (?) laws of SJWs is absolutely true and if that’s the only thing he ever achieves in his life–coming up with it, and writing about it, and spreading those three laws, he will have contributed more than his share. The rest of his attitude comes across as Secret King stuff, as noted.

  498. Devon35 says:

    http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2014/09/24/record-share-of-americans-have-never-married/

    “According to Pew Research projections based on census data, when today’s young adults reach their mid-40s to mid-50s, a record high share (25%) is likely to have never been married.”

    If the unmarried rate rises to 25% as predicted, women will care and there will be changes.

  499. Oscar says:

    Gents,

    Matt Walsh appears to have left his computer logged in and unattended.

    “” A husband does not need to earn his wife’s respect any more than a wife needs to earn her husband’s love. A wife ought to respect her husband because he is her husband, just as he ought to love and honor her because she is his wife…

    After a while, he will dread coming home at night, preferring to remain at work where his contributions are appreciated and his talents are admired. Now the marriage has entered a very dangerous place. If a man feels more like a man when he’s away from his wife than when he’s with her, disaster is right around the corner. The marriage is already half-dead. It won’t take much to finish it off.” ~ Matt Walsh

    https://www.dailywire.com/news/24676/walsh-most-effective-way-destroy-your-husband-ruin-matt-walsh

    Seriously; it’s an outstanding article. Read the whole thing.

  500. Anon says:

    Jason,

    *patch up with Paul Elam and let him have the rights to “MGTOW” and declare him the spokesman, setup an organization and dues, plead to State for money, advocacy and “help” even though all these men are “builders” and don’t need the government for anything. Oh yes, make sure Paul and his henchmen get a comfortable salary too.

    What????

    Paul Elam is a fraud. All he does is take donations and do nothing. Any accidental damage he does to feminism is always quickly reversed.

  501. Anon says:

    Novaseeker,

    Yeah, they’re not concerned about that, either. They live in a world of excess demand, and it’s all they have experienced since they were teens and became sexually aware. Men’s libidos aren’t going away anytime soon, women know and experience this every day — trust me, they aren’t concerned about men running away and ignoring them, whether the men involved are good looking or not, because they all experience an excess of demand, even the ones who aren’t very attractive.

    I don’t fully agree. The ones who are over 40 or otherwise lower than a 6 in looks are quite unhappy, because the excess demand they experience is specifically from men they don’t want.

    If it was from men they do want, there would not be any over-40 unmarried women.

    Plus, the fear of loss of demand is why women want to invade all male spaces, hate anything that men focus on for even a short while (like the Superbowl), and get violently angry at even the mention of sexbots.

  502. Ionathas Gnosis says:

    I’ve been reading this blog for a long time, but this thread finally prompted me to post. In 21st-century America, marriage is socially and legally designed for the pleasure of women, not for the interests of the common good. The common good of society requires stable, permanent households–and stability requires leadership, i.e. male headship–households in which the father and mother ideally raise their children and continue to be involved in the lives of their children and grandchildren. In that environment children can grow into adults with the benefit of having male and female role models in their immediate and extended family. No-fault divorce, presumption of maternal custody after divorce, separating a man from his children and property, etc. redirect marriage from serving the common good to serving the pleasures of women. I suppose that, since the common good should be a concern of every responsible adult, one might defend the thesis that men have a duty to get married if marriage serves the common good. Being a Catholic, I personally would not defend that thesis, and neither would St. Paul (i.e. First Corinthians 7.1-9, 32-34), but I could see how someone might defend it. Yet I do not see how anyone can argue that men have any duty to enter a marriage that is designed for the pleasure of women. Hence I do not understand the aspersions cast on those men who choose not to get married in 21st-century America. It’s no part of manhood to run the risk of self-destruction in subservience to a woman. If there’s any duty here, it’s that men have a duty not to get married unless they have properly vetted a woman and found that she is free of feminism, has not been corrupted by unrealistic romantic expectations, does not consider divorce an option, etc. The odds of finding such a woman are quite low, and then the pool is narrowed even further by the fact that there has to be at least some physical attraction, compatibility of personality, shared religion (in my case at least) etc.; so at last the prospect of finding a suitable wife seems very remote. Perhaps a man who is alpha (i.e. 6 feet tall, 6-figure salary, etc.) can count on keeping a woman in a lasting marriage, but for those men who don’t have the sex appeal and social status that would keep a shallow woman’s attention, it can be better to focus on other things from which success and a sense of self-worth are a surer outcome. If that constitutes MGTOW thinking, then I don’t see what’s wrong with MGTOW.

    While I’m writing, I thank you, Dalrock. I’ve learned a lot from your great blog. Actually, I am a high-school teacher, and I teach a course on western civilization, and your post on C.S. Lewis and the origins of romantic love in the troubadour poets led me to include that in my curriculum.

  503. feeriker says:

    Seriously; it’s an outstanding article. Read the whole thing.

    I think you’re right, Oscar. Either he left his computer unlocked and unattended, his account got hacked, or some alien life form has co-opted him. Whatever the cause, it’s definitely a positive improvement.

  504. Novaseeker says:

    I don’t fully agree. The ones who are over 40 or otherwise lower than a 6 in looks are quite unhappy, because the excess demand they experience is specifically from men they don’t want.

    That’s because those men are married to other women, are interested in younger women, or are not interested in marrying any woman, however. It isn’t because the men they want are swearing off relationships with women and going their own way — that isn’t happening, and women know it, so they aren’t worried about that.

  505. Jason says:

    Anon. No kidding. This is one of the options MGTOW does have, just let some other guy “call the shots” while everyone else is “going their own way” on some “deep” journey of “self discovery” which means complaining about women only.

    I don’t want that to happen, but it easily could. The whole movement (which now isn’t a movement) could easily be co-opted by a guy like Elam, I used him as an example first name that came to mind……..and most would be too scared, too stupid, or too overwhelmed to do anything. A large group would think its a “great idea” and few others would shrug and think “well, someone like him should run it”

    Then, after it happened…….everyone would then cry, whine, complain about how the movement (which now isn’t a movement) was taken from them….while they did nothing

  506. Novaseeker says:

    but all of us now have to move on from “female nature” because we KNOW it now. Get in shape. Kick the drugs. Back to school. Do your job better than anyone else. Challenge yourself.”

    Sure. TRP tends to be a bit more holistic like that, but most of the TRP guys come out of monk mode and want to pursue women, but they are also fixing the rest of their lives. The key is figuring out what you want to do and doing it, rather than staying in bitch mode. There are guys, for example, who find themselves frivorced at 50 and then to TRP and are back in the saddle in all aspects of their life (including but not limited to women) within 4-5 years, and there are other guys who just want to stay in mad mode and not change. I mean ultimately it’s up to every guy as to what they want to do — if you don’t want to change and so on to get your goals met that’s fine but it’s really dumb and counterproductive to enjoying the rest of your life to remain bitter and angry — and I think that’s what you’ve seen yourself with many of those guys.

  507. Jason says:

    Nova…..thanks for put it into words in a way I could not with your above post / reply 😉

  508. thegreatshebang says:

    EarlThomas786 said

    “Quoting myself: “That’s your problem right there. You took up the Cross to be a special “somebody.”

    Christ told his disciples to deny themselves, take up their cross, and follow Him. That’s not exactly going our own way.”

    If you deny yourself completely, what is left? Only God. You’re a special somebody neither before nor after you become open to God.
    My statement had nothing to do with “going your own way.”

  509. thegreatshebang says:

    Jason said,
    “A man following his mind: I want sex.” Then, “That is what your rational mind says.”

    That’s not a man following his mind. Desire has nothing to do with a rational mind. That in no way follows.

  510. Jason says:

    greatshebang:

    I was quoting what I observe on MGTOW channels. You’re (like your friends) are coming after the wrong person (me). Go after the guys (99% of them) on Sandman’s channel who post in the comment section 🙂

  511. info says:

    @Novaseeker
    There really is 2 options. Doing their own thing. Or finding out how the whole gynocentric system works and sabotage it.

    This requires knowledge of human nature and power dynamics.

  512. Dave says:

    If the unmarried rate rises to 25% as predicted, women will care and there will be changes.

    All that will show is a conquered people, waiting for their women to save them from a crumbling society. And what changes do you think the “caring” women will advocate? Why, the changes that will further their own interests!
    Maybe, at that time, they will make changes to allow for plural marriages. Or for open marriages. Or for temporary marriages. Or abolition of alimony (won’t be a surprise, because women might be earning far more than men at that time).
    And how will any of these changes benefit the men who are currently alive? Many of us reading this would either be dead, or too old to care.

    I’d say, forget about the women and their supposed future caring changes. Those men who wish to have a family should proceed. More than 95% of all women in the world are not Americans. Take a trip. There are still many women out there who’d be glad they have an American man as a husband, and will do anything to make him happy.

  513. Ben Sake says:

    Celibacy is a different topic, but also covered by The Bible (both voluntary and involuntary).

  514. dwellerman says:

    Westray says:

    “Jason,

    I think MGTOW is a great play to make against the current culture. It’s smart, effective, satisfying and above all, necessary. I think it would actually do more to bring down feminism than trying to grind back on laws. Then a guy like you comes in with his solipsism a’blazing and tries to insult the whole thing. Shame on you.”

    As per usual; Shame, Blame and Abandonment is what Jason is all about…

    Hey Jason : U Can’t Fuck MGTOW.

    But you can fuck yourself…

    Go fuck yourself Jason.

    Sincerely ~

    MGTOW

    🙂

  515. seventiesjason says:

    Notice how quickly f-bombs are spewed, anger revealed and festering resentment comes from all these men who are indeed “going their own way” and who don’t “care” what women think. Notice too for the most part they behave just like PUA’s with a cloaking if “alpha” to show and smear who “tough” they are in front of other men?

    The second a gal gives them attention a la Alexandra Blue for example…..its a NAWALT. It’s we should let her speak.

    Most MGTOWs must, have to always one up a fellow man.

    If you tell a man enough that he’s a “nobody” he will eventually come around and claim he’s everything.

    I said truth about MGTOW. I consider myself one. I’ve defended it plenty in this thread…..

    For men who use their minds and logic….hardly a rational discussion going on.

  516. seventiesjason says:

    Lastly…..

    I was a boy in the 1970’s. I was raised on a steady diet of “Mister Rogers Neighborhood” and the whole “free to be you and me” mindset as a child in preschool and elementary school.

    I’m still in a way recovering from this terrible mindset.

    Watch “free to be you and me” on YouTube (originally aired 1974) and you will understand.

    MGTOWs…..brothers. Life is terribly unfair. Your status and “class” as sociologist Max Weber once mentioned is a “chance of the dice”

    I agree that indeed if you are going to live life for yourself, then live it. A life without women or understanding female nature for what it is. I got your back.

    If I have a critical opinion, and you don’t like it?? Gonna cuss at me. Show me how tuff you are? Belittle me? Talk down to me? Tattle to all you equally tuff guy friends in the ‘sphere?

    That is female behavior of American women in general.

    It’s unbecoming. It’s trite and it isn’t MGTOW. Night all.

    Thanks Dalrock

  517. Sharrukin says:

    seventiesjason

    Your contempt and borderline hate for MGTOW is obvious. You are NOT fine with them going their own way.

    You don’t have anyone’s back… and peoples reaction to you is largely because they can clearly see that.

  518. Anon says:

    I think this #MeToo lunacy is going to scare a lot of otherwise blue-pill men into MGTOW.

    Instead of Incels, there will have to be a new category : Risk-Cels.

    They could get laid easily, but find the risks to just be too high now.

    The rise of the Risk-cel presages the peaking of The Misandry Bubble.

  519. Scott says:

    In a more general sense, but related to topic still— TRP analogy to the matrix does sometimes make me wish I had never started asking the questions that led me here.

    Like Cypher, I wonder if I was plugged back in could I ignore the fact that the juicy red steak isn’t real?

    If you identify yourself as MGTOW, I make very few assumptions about you. Only that you have come accross the manosphere and that what you have learned here caused you to change the way you interact with the world.

    In that sense, aren’t we all MGTOW?

    I can not unsee what I have seen, not can I behave in a way that pretends it doesn’t exist.

  520. Dear Fellas:

    Jason sez:

    If I have a critical opinion, and you don’t like it?? Gonna cuss at me. Show me how tuff you are? Belittle me? Talk down to me? Tattle to all you equally tuff guy friends in the ‘sphere?

    That is female behavior of American women in general.

    It’s unbecoming. It’s trite and it isn’t MGTOW. Night all.

    I haven’t seen anyone mistreat you in this thread. Maybe I missed it (always a possibility).

    I don’t think you’ve proven some of your contentions here by any reasonable measure, but everyone has been (at least minimally) polite in disagreeing. The dramatic one seems to be you.

    Then Scott sez:

    If you identify yourself as MGTOW, I make very few assumptions about you. Only that you have come accross the manosphere and that what you have learned here caused you to change the way you interact with the world.

    In that sense, aren’t we all MGTOW?

    I’ll give you my own pet theory. As a guy who, unlike me, is a qualified psychoanalyst, I’m sure you’ll find it sophomoric, but anyway.

    What Freud called the life instinct (eros, libido, the drive to mate and marry and reproduce and live with a woman until death parts you) comes into conflict with what I coined “the renunciation instinct”. This is the drive that causes guys like Ludwig Wittgenstein to write the tractatus. (Wittgenstein was an original MGTOW, by the way.) It’s the drive that keeps men from wasting time with women, pursuing real-world achievement and such. I speculate its rooted in the childhood fantasies that boys often have around adolescence, to explore the moon in rocket ships, or to write great novels, or to map out a career that will end in their becoming general of all the armies, or to leave and build a cabin in the woods, etc. etc.

    Some men find the renunciation instinct more powerful and more satisfying than the life instinct. Those are the MGTOW types.

    https://v5k2c2.wordpress.com/2017/04/16/negative-dialectic-mgtow/

    Jason’s not wrong, in that a lot of bitter and angry guys just won’t get off the MGTOW ladder after finding the life instinct less satisfying, or finding society lied to him (Jayzus, they lie to everyone, man. They lie to the fish.) Those guys are MGTOW, granted, but they’re not really using the process productively. The point is to make one’s life his own, rather than sit around cursing at life.

    Best,

    Boxer

  521. BillyS says:

    Boxer,

    Read the replies just before yours. I haven’t read the whole thread, but I have found many who openly espouse MGTOW go radical quite easily.

    NAMALT? (Not all MGTOW are like that?)

    Most of the regulars, even FH, can be at least somewhat cordial, but enough idiots jump on anything questioning their choices that it shows MGTOW is not all sweetness and light.

    I have been accused of calling for me to “man up and marry those sluts” enough to realize some people are just going to be idiots.

  522. earl says:

    Matt Walsh appears to have left his computer logged in and unattended.

    His article quality has improved since he left the Blaze and joined the Daily Wire. I never got the reason why a lot of men didn’t like Matt Walsh. He says a lot of uncomfortable truths out there about feminism and women yet gets the common insult of being called a ‘cuck’.

  523. earl says:

    Exactly.

    We all seem to understand that love is supposed to be unconditional, but we struggle to see how respect must be the same. I wonder: how would we respond to a husband who says he is not going to love his wife because she hasn’t earned it? What would we say about a man who chooses to act unlovingly toward his wife because she isn’t doing a good job of keeping the house together, or she doesn’t have dinner ready when he comes home, or she isn’t properly satisfying him in other ways, or she isn’t doing all the things he demands on the timetable that he prefers? Even if it were true that the wife is slacking in her responsibilities, we would consider the man to be a monster for holding that over her head or using it as an excuse to degrade and demean her.

    And wives who don’t give respect like that to their husband’s should be called the same.

  524. Novaseeker says:

    Maybe, at that time, they will make changes to allow for plural marriages. Or for open marriages.

    Both of these are certainly coming, and the foundation is being laid now. Men will mostly go along with it, because men mostly go along with anything that is required to get laid, period.

    What men don’t like dealing with is the imbalance in supply and demand sexually. That’s the problem. There’s a solution (becoming one of the few sexually in-demand men), but most can’t be bothered.

  525. thegreatshebang says:

    Boxer said,
    “What Freud called the life instinct (eros, libido, the drive to mate and marry and reproduce and live with a woman until death parts you) comes into conflict with what I coined “the renunciation instinct”. ”

    Dale Carnegie had a similar model, he called it sublimation. The sex drive “dissappeared” behind a greater energy directed towards a creativity of the higher mental faculties.

    This is part of what Nietzche meant by “undergoing”. It is a surrender of what most people would call important in a human life.

    Otto Weininger, who had a major influence on Wittgenstein, and was also an original MGTOW, and would have called it a universal genius, and thus an act of consciousness out of time.

  526. Oscar says:

    @ earl says:
    December 18, 2017 at 5:30 am

    “I never got the reason why a lot of men didn’t like Matt Walsh. He says a lot of uncomfortable truths out there about feminism and women yet gets the common insult of being called a ‘cuck’.”

    I haven’t read much of Matt Walsh’s writing in a while. He’s always been very good and stalwart on the issue of abortion, and as you pointed out, he criticized feminism truthfully, which is risky these days. He deserves credit for all of that.

    The problem I’ve had with Walsh is that he habitually falls (or did fall) into the typical temptation of traditionalists/conservatives; he blamed men for women’s sin.

    In this latest article, he didn’t do that. In fact, he pointed out how women get away with all kinds of sin that men can’t get away with. I was pleasantly surprised, and I think he deserves credit for it. Taking the stand that Walsh took in that article results in lots of vitriol, not just from the Left, but from the Right as well. You can see it in the comments. I’m glad Walsh has the guts to take that stand publicly. Let’s hope he perseveres.

  527. Ofelas says:

    Boxer & thegreatshebang:
    there’s also Jung’s concept of libido, as psychic/creative energy in general, as some elementary drive behind pretty much any creative activity, that can be channeled in different ways, and sexual expression is only one of them.

  528. earl says:

    The problem I’ve had with Walsh is that he habitually falls (or did fall) into the typical temptation of traditionalists/conservatives; he blamed men for women’s sin.

    This does need to stop. It perpetuates the ‘all men are evil and all women are blameless victims’ mantra.

  529. Pingback: Book Review: The Love a Wife Desires, the Respect a Husband Needs (5 stars) | Σ Frame

  530. thedeti says:

    @Anon: I don’t fully agree. The ones who are over 40 or otherwise lower than a 6 in looks are quite unhappy, because the excess demand they experience is specifically from men they don’t want.

    @ Novaseeker: That’s because those men are married to other women, are interested in younger women, or are not interested in marrying any woman, however. It isn’t because the men they want are swearing off relationships with women and going their own way — that isn’t happening, and women know it, so they aren’t worried about that.

    I think you’re both correct. Women know about the thirst. Most women can get sex from men pretty much when they want, and they know this. Even women of advanced age who have kept their looks reasonably well still know they can still attract men for sex. What they want and can’t get is attractive men who also want commitment, especially for women over 40. I see many women like this in my area, between ages 35 and 55, who want attractive men for commitment and cannot get them. So what they end up doing is settling for sex from reasonably attractive men who make very clear they are not available for commitment for one reason or another.

  531. thedeti says:

    Off topic : Susan Walsh (no relation to Matt) at Hooking Up Smart gets ready to hang it up. I won’t link there so you’ll have to check it out yourself.

  532. Anonymous Reader says:

    Earl on Matt Walsh

    His article quality has improved since he left the Blaze and joined the Daily Wire.

    A good thing, if true.

    I never got the reason why a lot of men didn’t like Matt Walsh.

    A couple or so years back he was arrogant in his pedestalization of women, for a start. He’d been married for 2 or 3 years and had one child, that was enough to turn him into a self-proclaimed “expert” on marriage, while bowing and scraping to his “m’Lady” wife in print. A blue pill tradcon who was fond of telling other men to manUP! but not willing to do so himself.

    He says a lot of uncomfortable truths out there about feminism and women yet gets the common insult of being called a ‘cuck’.

    Last time i bothered to read anything by Matt Walsh he was a conservative feminist who pretended to be antifeminist because he opposed abortion and lesbian weddings. DId you ever read his “letter to my daughter”?

  533. Dalrock says:

    @Earl

    I never got the reason why a lot of men didn’t like Matt Walsh. He says a lot of uncomfortable truths out there about feminism and women yet gets the common insult of being called a ‘cuck’.

    Walsh has written about his great fear of offending his feminist audience and having them withhold their approval of him:

    …what disturbed me more than the inevitable Attack of the Trolls, were the literally hundreds of people who told me they agreed with the message, and thought it constructive and urgently necessary, yet I “lost them,” or they “stopped reading,” or they “changed their minds about me,” because of one three word sentence halfway through my rather lengthy post. Here is that decisive phrase: “I’m no feminist.” There goes the whole heartfelt and sincere piece about loving, protecting, and being loyal to women; apparently negated in the minds of many because I didn’t give myself the proper label.

  534. David says:

    Walsh has written about his great fear of offending his feminist audience and having them withhold their approval of him:

    Not to be confused with Michael Walsh, who is just as much of a cartoonish cuckservative who is quick to praise bad behavior in women :

    https://pjmedia.com/drhelen/2016/03/27/why-are-millenniel-men-such-wimps-take-two/

    He actually says ‘You Go Girl!’ to praise a Tradthot that mooches money off men.

  535. Dalrock says:

    @David

    Not to be confused with Michael Walsh, who is just as much of a cartoonish cuckservative who is quick to praise bad behavior in women :

    https://pjmedia.com/drhelen/2016/03/27/why-are-millenniel-men-such-wimps-take-two/

    He actually says ‘You Go Girl!’ to praise a Tradthot that mooches money off men.

    I wrote a response to that at the time: Why am I so much better than other men?

  536. ExNewYorker says:

    @thedeti

    Wow. Blast from the past. Went to look to see what was up, and I guess when you’re down to a few stragglers posting, well then the doors eventually shutter. But life has lots of change, after all.

  537. earl says:

    Walsh has written about his great fear of offending his feminist audience and having them withhold their approval of him:

    That didn’t sound like fear to me…it sounded more like he was irritated and pointed out how shallow and label minded most people are that even if they agree with the message, they reject it because it didn’t have their proper label. (MGTOW is a VERY recent example in these parts)

    I mean take ‘Matt Walsh’ name out of the article and that article would sound like a manospherian type post. Men and women aren’t equal.

  538. BillyS says:

    Earl,

    Some people won’t be happy with anything they don’t personally do. Male feminists and their supporters may be bad, but the opposite side has its challenges.

  539. Pingback: Let’s Take it Point by Point | Malcolm the Cynic

  540. Pingback: An expert: respect is a key battleground in the gender wars

  541. Pingback: Zeitgeist Report 2018 | Σ Frame

Please see the comment policy linked from the top menu.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s