“Saving the seeds of civilization while the fire rushes over the forest.”

A brief history behind three philosophical camps.

Readership: Men
Theme: Overcoming Obstacles
Length: 1,700 words
Reading Time: 6 minutes

Civilizationists vs. Nihilists vs. Preservationists

A previous post, The intermediate goal is to get past the blinding obsession (2022-4-25), covered a podcast from Adam Piggott and Scott Klajic that addressed many of the topics that were brought up in April 2022 (Theme: Overcoming Obstacles).

This post adds some historical perspective to an older topic Adam and Scott made a familiar reference to in the video.

In the podcast, Adam and Scott described three philosophical camps of men.

Civilizationists – The view of, “Keep calm and carry on.” (This phrase is attributed to Winston Churchill.) Christians and other conservatives must plow on, marry and procreate, in the midst of the catastrophic destruction surrounding them, and do so in faith, in spite of the risks. Adam Piggott appears to take this stance. Interestingly, churchianity does too, or rather, it presents it as a distant goal to dream of “after college” *cough*.

Nihilists – The view of “Fiddle while Rome burns” or “Sit poolside [cigar and cocktail optional] and watch civilization crash and burn.” I’m not sure where these memetic phrases originated, but the latter was made famous by Roissy of Chateau Heartiste. This stance was promoted by Brett Stevens of Amerika as a way to hasten the demise of Leftism. Since then it has gained philosophical traction among PUAs and MGTOWs.

Preservationists – The view of “Saving the seeds of civilization while the fire rushes over the forest.” This idea is sort of a middle ground between the first two, having the nuclear family model promoted by Civilizationists coupled with the socially insulated stance of the Nihilists. This is Scott’s stance.

In his describtion of this stance in the podcast, Scott attributed this quote to Dalrock (at 9:30), and said Dalrock used this quote in a private email conversation they had in 2014. Dalrock is famous for this quote, probably because it matches his overall philosophical stance. However, I’ve searched Dalrock’s site and I can only find this quote in one post, Continuing the discussion. (2013-5-24), and there he is quoting Vox/Ted at Alpha Game: Nihilists vs Civilizationists (2013-5-24). So apparently, this quote originated from Vox.

The Schism between Civilizationists and Nihilists

In 2013, Vox described the schism between these two camps in Nihilists vs Civilizationists (2013-5-24).

“What both camps have in common is a diagnosis. Where they differ is the prescription. This is why they are not functional allies in the long term.  Their immediate objectives and priorities have nothing in common and their perspectives are fundamentally different. However, it should be kept in mind that neither side created the problem to which both are reacting, and it should be recognized that both have important roles to play before the course plays itself out.”

In the same post, Vox described the strategic value of both groups, and prophetically foretold how their roles would play out.

“It is the MGTOW who will ultimately destroy the Female Imperative society by removing its foundations.  The traditionalists tend to allay the destructive effects of the irrational while the hedonists exacerbate them.  This is why the MGTOW incorrectly tend to look on the traditionalists as white knights and useful idiots in the service of the Female Imperative.  They erroneously conflate the traditionalists who are simply doing what they have always done with the feminized Church and the female-biased State.

By withdrawing their services, their seed, their paternal support, and their economic surplus from the women and children of society, they render that society unsustainable.  They are responding rationally to the disincentives which that society has presented them. Theirs is a perfectly legitimate response to a society gone mad.  More than that, their response is a necessary one, it is part of the pendulum swing that is required before society can return to sanity and stability.

However, the hedonistic, self-centered MGTOW will never be able to build anything lasting or replace the society which they quite rightly hate.  They must rely upon the civilizationists to do that; without the traditionalists still stubbornly working, marrying, and having children despite all of the societal disincentives for doing so, there will be no eventual recovery from the chaotic, barbaric morass into which the equalitarian-corrupted West is rapidly sliding.

This is why the accusations of lotus-eating on the one hand and white-knighting on the other are both misplaced and ill-considered.  Both nihilists and civilizationists are necessary to the process of first destroying, and then replacing, [a Feminine Imperative based] society. One need not agree with the other to respect and understand his — or her – role in the necessary, desirable, and, I would argue, inevitable, process.”

At that time, Vox had an even view of both Civilizationists and Nihilists. Recently, Vox has become scathingly critical of the latter camp. Apparently, they’re no longer in orbit.

Abridged List of Related Posts

For those readers interested in further reading, this conversation about Civilizationists vs. Nihilists has a long history. Highlights appear in the links below. I’ve included the relevant posts that have appeared on Σ Frame. I’m sure I’ve omitted many posts elsewhere that have discussed aspects of the schism. Readers are welcome to leave links to other articles in the comments.

As readers can see from the list of posts above, these two philosophical camps have rammed heads again and again for the past 10 years, and we continue to see this on a regular basis here at Σ Frame.

Note that by early 2018, the need for respect was identified as a key battleground for men, beginning with the Manosphere and then extending to the wider culture. However, persecution ramped up that year and this topic was largely forgotten. I’ve attempted to raise the issue since then, but more or less inefficaciously. It seems that men have forgotten what it feels like to be respected. Vox’s tantrums about MGTOW and his other weirdnesses haven’t helped raise awareness of this crucial need for respect at all.

Vox Day earning our “respect”. *cough*

Identification and Motivation

However much insight Vox has offered, he has not addressed the social identifiers and motivations that drive this schism. This is not merely a schism between two philosophical camps disagreeing about their vague notions of the future. There are other reasons that Civilizationists and Nihilists are at fundamental odds. Here are a few.

Class Schism — Under the current system, marriage and having a family is more available to the economic elite and less attainable by those making average wages. This socioeconomic class divide continues to grow wider as time goes on. Civilizationists are busy working the system to earn more money to support their families, while Nihilists are (not so) busy undermining the same system simply because it’s a broken system.

SSMV Hierarchy Schism — These days, just as in days of yore, the Alpha Male of the Group™ is not easily convinced to show grace and mercy to the men under him in the hierarchy, men who are not as aggressive, not as athletic, not as popular, and not sufficiently up on their level of the Game. It is much more ego affirming and satisfying for them to summarily ostracize and discriminate against their plebian underlings. LastMod gives us a daily reminder of this reality.

The Exceptionality Clause — Within the church, a Pearl of Great Price™ is not easily convinced that a man who is not in the upper 80% is worthy to open her clam, let alone to be considered worthy of her hand in marriage. To receive any respect from others, including a potential bride and her father, a Christian man needs to prove himself to be exceptional.

RedPillBoomer put it like this.

“I can clearly see the line that divides the “haves” from the “have not’s” with the young men.”

“…it is going to be difficult for the “lower 80%” of men to get a girlfriend; not impossible, but difficult given this current SMP.”

Readers may be able to come up with other differences in identity and motives between the “have’s” and the “have not’s”. But my point here is that there is a pattern. The largest difference between the Civilizationists and the Nihilists is that the former has access to realizing their evolutionary imperative of marriage, sex, and procreation; whereas, with the way things stand now, there are a number of hoops and hurdles for the latter camp of men to jump before they can ever consider marriage etc. to be an actionable choice.

Final Statements

The common argument that we often hear is that unexceptional men should somehow make themselves exceptional. This advice may help a small number of men who are on the cusp of Alphatude and need a little edge to qualify them for sociosexual visibility, but it is untenable as a general practice, and unfair to the average man. All that can be realistically done is to raise the quality of the average. But what we fail to see is that we (as a society) tend to only respect those men who can pass women’s hypergamous filters. To wit,

  • Women want the Alpha badboy.
  • Women want an upper middle or upper class man.
  • Christian women want the exceptional Christian man.

By accepting all these qualifications for respect that are put upon men, we are still buying into the Feminine Imperative. So the bottom line is that we are still playing by the gynocentric rule book.

To sum it up quite bluntly (CH style), pu$$y makes all the difference in men’s outlook on life. Men and women alike judge men by whether or not they can lock down a piece of the pie. Therefore, marriage is for the elite, because hypergamy. I’m not saying this is right nor how it should be, but only that this is how it is. Within this gynocentric cultural paradigm, Civilizationists are the “have’s” who want to keep the folds convulging, and the Nihilists are the “have not’s” who are broiling in envy and want to “burn it all down”. Such is the root of this schism.

Moreover, men are just as much enslaved to their desire for pu$$y (whether it be real or virtual), as women are to hypergamy and the Feminine Imperative. When a man can look past his human evolutionary functions, look towards Christ and His purposes, and start exercising respect for those men who rightfully deserve it (rather than for those men favored for their utility to women), then he might have a shot at ending this schism, turning things around, and accessing the Power of God in his life. For example, this is exactly what Scott has done with LastMod, and both men have been blessed. More men need to emulate these kinds of behaviors. Otherwise, we’ll never achieve solidarity and get the respect we need as men.

About Jack

Jack is a world traveling artist, skilled in trading ideas and information, none of which are considered too holy, too nerdy, nor too profane to hijack and twist into useful fashion. Sigma Frame Mindsets and methods for building and maintaining a masculine Frame
This entry was posted in Attitude, Churchianity, Collective Strength, Conflict Management, Conserving Power, Culture Wars, Discipline, Enduring Suffering, Faith Community, Feminism, Fundamental Frame, Holding Frame, Hypergamy, Introspection, Male Power, Manosphere, Masculine Disciplines, Maturity, Personal Growth and Development, MGTOW, Incels, Models of Failure, Models of Success, Moral Agency, Personal Domain, Personal Presentation, Purpose, Relationships, Respect, Self-Concept, SMV/MMV, Socio-Economic Class Studies, Sphere of Influence, Strategy, The Power of God, Zeitgeist Reports. Bookmark the permalink.

112 Responses to “Saving the seeds of civilization while the fire rushes over the forest.”

  1. Scott says:

    This is great.

    Recall, the entire purpose of my last blog “American Dad” was to restore just a tiny of bit of respect to the average guy, just for being the average guy. I stopped doing it because everyone looked at me like I had three heads.

    “You mean you lavish men (mostly dads, but it could be applied to all men who show up for the fight every day) with praise just for showing up, doing their jobs, and not complaining?!?! That’s crazy!”

    Like

    • Scott says:

      I started that blog for precisely the kinds of things I was seeing and reading. I felt that one of the main fronts in a battle to restore order was respect for the common dad.

      In our society, he is portrayed as a dufus; Al Bundy, Tim Taylor, etc. The last time we saw him in a positive light in popular culture was Father Knows Best. That was a VERY long time ago.

      The blog featured simple pictures of dads — any dad I met who was willing to stand still for me to take a picture. I would ask him a few questions about his life, his kids, etc. Then I would post the picture and write a few lines about him. It always ended with something like, “Jim is a dad, and dads are honored here.”

      Imagine a society where men like that are seen as the rock, the backbone of how the system works; the guy you go to to ask questions, for advice, for strength. Even the wife (if she stayed around) sees him this way. And imagine if this automatic respect was baked into the cake.

      With about 11 regular readers, I realized my effort was just too weird for Americans now. A shadow of an archaic past. Barbaric and old-fashioned. And to some people, dangerous.

      Liked by 2 people

      • cameron232 says:

        I enjoyed the blog but wondered how you approached the subjects and how people would react to being associated with a horrible-rotten manosphere type. When I had social media I posted some Red Pilled stuff and noticed I lost some “friends” (all males by the way — I didn’t lose any female friends — some men are such white knight cucks).

        Liked by 3 people

    • Jack says:

      “…the entire purpose of my last blog “American Dad” was to restore just a tiny of bit of respect to the average guy, just for being the average guy.”

      I was sorry to see that blog pulled. I had some links to that blog that I wanted to include in the list of posts, but they were dead links and The WayBack Machine had nothing. Is there any chance of reposting some of those articles here?

      Like

    • Scott says:

      I was even making memes to counter the narrative. Social media is absolutely flooded with memes about single moms doing the job of both parents, or how she “is the storm” or whatever. Don’t even get me started on how many “nurses holding the entire planet together” memes there are.

      So I would put up a picture of some guys up on a roof repairing it after a hail storm with something like “these guys don’t have any memes about them, but if they weren’t there you literally wouldn’t have a roof over your head.”

      Crickets.

      Liked by 3 people

      • cameron232 says:

        Nurses aren’t just “heroes” now. They’re “superheroes.” I’ve seen it on billboards.

        A garbage man is a hero. See how bad things suck if they all quit.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Scott says:

        Right. It’s ridiculous. And if you say anything, you hate women.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Lexet Blog says:

        It’s a lose lose situation. That’s why I want to watch it all burn as I smoke a stogie!

        Like

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        We can add the plumbers to the list of unsung heroes. The only people I know in the US that died of cholera were on Oregon Trail back in middle school. Dang cholera always got me.

        Liked by 2 people

  2. Lastmod says:

    With all due respect Scott, one does not “deserve” respect for just being an aaverage guy, because men like yourself are exceptional…. as are most of the readers of this space. An average guy is shat upon by most of his fellow men, and it’s not just the blue-pilled cucks…. Watch any Red Pill v-blog, or “gamer”, or PUA / dating / image coach. They hate just about all men.

    Like

    • cameron232 says:

      “…as are most of the readers of this space.”

      Only in terms of intelligence.

      The readers of this blog are not exceptional in attractiveness. Scott is the exception here. A few other braggards that show up occasionally with no evidence for their claims. Most of us regulars here are average.

      Liked by 1 person

  3. thedeti says:

    Something to remember here is that men’s desire to procreate and pick one woman and build something together is hardwired into men, if for no reason other than you have one woman around to have sex with and so you don’t have to work so hard to satisfy the sexual imperative. The initial reason men pick one woman and keep her around is so your biological sex drive isn’t constantly nagging and distracting you. That drive is sated so you can go out and do all the other things you have to do and some things you want to do.

    We used to recognize this. The main way you help a man get his sex drive under control and master it is by getting him a woman and getting him married to her. (We expected women to commit and stand by their commitments, but that’s another discussion.) Most men don’t have the sexual discipline to become volcels like Adam has following his divorce. Most men who go “monk mode” do it only for a while to get their lives sorted – their minds right, their careers and finances right, etc., and then they emerge from monk mode in much better shape to do what they want, which usually involves getting one woman.

    Many if not most of the PUAs and men at The Red Pill talk about this – the goal is to get one woman of sufficient attractiveness and good character and do the best you can to make a life with her. Years ago there was a guy named Fly Fresh and Young. He ended his blog, then found a woman and at last report planned to marry her. FFY is a good looking young guy, probably late 20s or early 30s, and lived the player life. He left the life and is getting married. There are a lot of other stories like this. Men leave playerdom to marry, and some leave it to return to a life of faith (Roosh, Bold and Determined/Victor Pride/Nickolas). Note however – FFY is a good looking guy. Scott got plenty of sex before his first marriage, and did well for himself between the first and second marriages. He married very, VERY well the second time around.

    MGTOWs have to resist the hard impulse to pick one and stick around and invest in her. They have to resist it because they have determined it’s impossible in today’s environment to find one woman who will return your investment and who won’t instead steal it, waste it, and burn it to the ground. Today’s society demands honesty, loyalty, and fidelity from men while demanding literally nothing of women. Again – another discussion.

    The point is that the sex drive is hardwired into men, and our own holy scriptures say the way you deal with this is you get him married off. But, then again, Paul didn’t live in a society where women could sic the police on you for yelling at your wife, nor could women freely divorce.

    Liked by 5 people

    • thedeti says:

      This is what I think’s going on with Adam right now. He’s in extended, indefinite “monk mode”. Same with Roosh. Roosh seems to have resigned himself to a life of celibacy and singleness (he’ll handle it much better than women do – women will take being single but will have illicit sex when they feel like it). But I’d bet if Roosh can marry, he will. If Adam can remarry, he probably will.

      Something Adam and Roosh might do well to remember is that they’ve gotten to enjoy things they’re telling MGTOWs and incels to forget about. They got to have sex, and lots of it, on their terms. Adam had a wife. Because, sure, sex ain’t a big deal… after you’ve already gotten to have lots of it the way you wanted to.

      Liked by 2 people

  4. thedeti says:

    MGTOWs get criticized for, among other things, refusing to marry. The main argument Vox and Adam make is “you’re not doing your duty to civilization”. First, these men don’t owe any duties to a civilization that turned its back on them and sh!ts on them.

    Second, what else do we expect bottom 80% men to do? They’re not attractive enough to attract even average and below average women. If they can attract anyone, they’re the second (or 22nd) choice. So much for “good character”. We aren’t expecting these men to save civilization’s seeds while the fire rushes over the forest. We’re telling such men to stand in the forest and be consumed in the fire. I can’t in good conscience do that.

    Third, for most of these men, walking away from marriage and fatherhood is the only logical response. These men are doing the only thing they can reasonably do. I personally, as did Novaseeker, outlined ways in which men can live productive lives without marriage and fatherhood. How can we begrudge these men doing that? How can we instead say “you still have to pick a woman and marry her and father her kids”? How is this any different from the churchians we love to rag on telling men “man up and marry the sluts” and “step up, man up, and marry a single mom and be her cuck and bill-payer”?

    So maybe Vox and Adam have a point that men, including some of us here (including me) agonize over whether women, or our women, will have sex with us. That we’re doing all these things to try to get women to have sex with us, and we need to stop talking about it, or we need to just “forget about women”.

    OK. If these men stop talking about women and just go away, will you leave them alone?

    If these men “forget about women”, will you stop complaining that these men aren’t “doing their duty to civilization”?

    Guys, I really have thought about this. And I really don’t know what else can be done about this now. These men have a right to walk away and say what they want to say about it. These men have a right to not get married if they don’t want to. And they have a right to speak up about it without other men haranguing them for “not doing their duty to civilization”.

    Liked by 6 people

    • cameron232 says:

      I respect and understand their decision to say “no ma’am.” I advise assessing your prospects and, if they’re not great ( i.e. unless you’re really attractive or decently attractive and successful) seriously considering “no ma’am.” Or at least try to understand the risk: Divorce rape. Take your kids. You gotta support a fat sow who isn’t even nice to you. No/little sex.

      Some of us did well and are having lots of kids. I don’t expect help but I guess I hope the MGTOWs at least won’t harm our efforts to save the seeds of civilization and will at least consider supporting us in small ways if they can (without compromising their own happiness). By “supporting” I mean this: I don’t think you’ll save it by burning it to the ground.

      Yeah I don’t agree with “man up and marry those sluts”, even when it comes from the ‘sphere.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Scott says:

        One of the last posts I did on America Dad was about an encounter I had in the grocery store.

        A man, with three kids. Two of them, barely old enough to walk, running around under his feet while he tried to push the cart and hold the baby. The bay was fussy, crying, asking for candy. His cell rang, and he picked it up. You could hear his loud, annoying wife complaining to him about something he forgot to do or something. He was toast, completely overwhelmed.

        I stretched out my arms and took the baby from him, “take your phone call, dad. I got this.”

        The look of relief on his face was so powerful, I almost started to weep. When the call was over, I gave him back the baby and told him he was doing a great job. I wanted to reach through the phone and strangle that women. Your husband has his hands full and is doing the work that most people can’t or won’t. You are an ingrate. My least favorite character flaw.

        This story was not to show what an awesome guy I am. But I want a brotherhood of men that transcends MGTOW and the red pill, Orthodoxy, Catholicism, whatever.

        I need help like that sometimes. So does Jason, and Jack, and Oscar.

        We will never get there like this.

        Liked by 3 people

      • cameron232 says:

        Yep. Love other men instead of nothing but competing – it’s hard – competitiveness is hardwired I’m sure.

        Like

      • Scott says:

        Cameron-

        Most people (even men) look at that situation and think, “Well, happy wife, happy life. He is probably in the doghouse for some reason. HAHAHA!!!”

        The blue pill, or cuckservatism, or the feminine imperative or whatever you want to call it is so strong, it will take a miracle to overcome it.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Scott says:

        And, guys like Jason see that in the grocery store and think, “No thanks. I at least have peace in my life.”

        This is not lost on me.

        Liked by 2 people

      • cameron232 says:

        I guess life’s a series of tradeoffs. With fatherhood, I’ve traded the depression I’d likely have without kids, for the anxiety that accompanies having kids.

        And you get to deal with women’s constant emotional triggers and their failure to understand that their feelings, while real, do not determine reality.

        No such thing as a free lunch.

        Like

      • Scott says:

        Yeah, the “depression of not having kids” is a tough one. When I started dating Mychael, I didn’t want any. She had a 10 year old son, and I was good with just having the one step son and moving on. Had I never had these four, how would I have been “depressed”?

        If I was a retired army major, in the shape I am in, with a strong, respected practice here in Helena, and single or no kids, I don’t know what my life would be like right now. I can’t deny it sounds like fun.

        The society around me does not respect the choices I made to be a father. At best it just means “to-MAY-to, to-MAH-to” to them. I chose children, Fred chose a dog, Sally married her favorite flower pot and they adopted a chicken from Zimbabwe, for the virtue signal.

        I don’t believe I will be alive when order and rationality is restored. Those of us writing here are like Moses, looking over the promised land, envisioning it, but never entering.

        Liked by 2 people

      • thedeti says:

        “I don’t expect help but I guess I hope the MGTOWs at least won’t harm our efforts to save the seeds of civilization and will at least consider supporting us in small ways if they can (without compromising their own happiness). By “supporting” I mean this: I don’t think you’ll save it by burning it to the ground.”

        Society has nothing to fear from around 20% to 25% of men not marrying and not fathering children (by “not fathering” I mean “not financially supporting child(ren) or said child(ren)’s mother(s)”). These men aren’t actively trying to destroy society; they’re simply standing back and letting society destroy itself.

        A few mentally ill incels like 31i0t Rodg3R and the Ts@rn@3v brothers and Ge0rg3 5od!n! aren’t going to burn society to the ground. Our society, like every one before it, has always had mentally ill murderers and we deal with them. We have always had incels among us. We have always had “confirmed bachelors”. (Remember my stories about Crazy Uncle Paul who lives in my cousin’s attic and watches the ball games on his 12″ B & W TV with rabbit ears?)

        Society did not burn to the ground then because a few men didn’t get married or father children. Society did not fall apart because a few men eschewed marriage and fatherhood in favor of buying shiny new stuff. It was not a few irresponsible men who quietly worked their jobs, paid their taxes, lived alone, and maybe saw a hooker now and then, who ruined everything. These men did nothing at all to tear at the fabric of the body politic. These men drinking mai tais poolside are doing nothing to make your or my life harder.

        Liked by 2 people

      • cameron232 says:

        Yeah – no problem with “no ma’am” deti. I guess I’m thinking of the descending into nihilism type, Also, I thought part of the MGTOW thing was bring women back to the negotiating table by not working, paying taxes, fixing broken things. Let society fall apart. I could also see men simply supporting other men who are trying to keep the flame lit. I don’t expect them to pay for my kids or anything. IDK maybe moral support.

        I always think of Pat Buchanan. He has zero children but still fought for our civilization.

        Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:

        “I want a brotherhood of men that transcends MGTOW and the red pill, Orthodoxy, Catholicism, whatever.”

        I’m all for it. Scott, you have my email and phone number. If you want, you call me or email me. Anytime.

        Any man here who wants to email or call me can do that anytime he wants. I have an ongoing discussion with Red Pill Apostle and we’ve helped each other. I have emailed with Jack from time to time. I have emailed with Nova before, but not lately.

        I am all for such a brotherhood. I’m all for starting to make real life connections.

        Liked by 6 people

      • Scott says:

        Pat Buchanan quotes the CCC on immigration, which basically obliges both parties (the host nation and the immigrant) to certain behaviors, which I think it pretty much awesome. Almost no Catholics know that exists.

        Like immigrants are supposed to assimilate, obey the law, learn the culture, not break laws or get out.

        Liked by 2 people

      • cameron232 says:

        Aquinas was against open borders and for distinct nations. A number of pre Vatican 2 popes were too.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Scott says:

        It shouldn’t even matter who is “for” or “against” it. As far as I understand it, catechisms are binding as church guidance/tradition and build on one another. That one passage is from an older one (Baltimore) but it applies. Any pope who is “for” open borders is violating his church’s own teaching.

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        The tendency of the Church in modern times has been to leave naughty things out of the catechism, canon law, etc. They don’t rescind it, just leave it out. Examples: headcoverings (canon law) for women. Husband headship/wifely submission (the catechism of the council of Trent).

        Liked by 1 person

      • Scott says:

        Ethnic nationalism is baked into the cake of Orthodoxy.

        But if you point it out, they call you “phyletist”, which is their fancy word for ethnic bigotry.

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        What contemporary “ethnic nationalism” consists of is that actual distinct nations/ethnies exist. The horror! They act as if it’s 1930s German hyper-nationalism or such. Very dishonest.

        Like

      • Scott says:

        The idea that “France” is a place where “French people” are from is outrageous!

        Liked by 2 people

      • Oscar says:

        I looked up the Catholic Catechism, and here’s what I found.

        Section 1911 affirms the responsibility to “assist migrants and their families”, and to “alleviate the distressing conditions” of refugees.

        Section 2211 affirms “the right to emigrate”.

        Section 2241 affirms that “the more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner”, and that “Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens.”

        Section 2433 affirms that “Access to employment and to professions must be open to all without unjust discrimination”, including immigrants.

        https://www.usccb.org/sites/default/files/flipbooks/catechism/

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        Yes, the Catechism of JP II definitely tends to agree with the power that be much more than earlier generations. The Catechism also says that Muslims also adore the one true God.

        I’m told the “Youthcat” is ambigous about homosexuality or maybe not directly, strong-worded enough for traditionalists.

        IDK but it’s irrelevant to us I suppose since our church uses the Baltimore Catechism.

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        At least it affirms the Immigrants’ responsibilities to the host nation. You pretty much never hear anything about that anymore.

        Liked by 1 person

    • lastholdout says:

      {long, slow clap}

      Like

  5. catacombresident says:

    Excellent, Jack. Civilization is a cheap, man-made substitute for the Covenant. Under the Covenant, the male hierarchy turns out very differently than the one Ted worked up. Under the Covenant, it’s not about who gets the nooky, but who gets peace with God.

    Liked by 3 people

  6. redpillboomer says:

    “When a man can look past his human evolutionary functions, look towards Christ and His purposes, and start exercising respect for those men who rightfully deserve it (rather than for those men favored for their utility to women), then he might have a shot at ending this schism, turning things around, and accessing the Power of God in his life.”

    Agree. An interesting question arose for me in the part above that states, “start exercising respect for those men who rightfully deserve it.” It got me wondering, “What type of men do I respect?” Especially now that I’m looking at men through a red pill as opposed to a blue pill lense.

    When I was younger, it was the achieving men that I respected; however now that I’m older, I see that is only one element of respect. Too many of the “achieving” men I’ve run into over the years, I’ve lost respect for in other ways when I become aware of other areas of their lives. Of course, no man is perfect or has “arrived” yet, so there’s allowance for a man’s shortcomings because we all have them. What I’m talking about is when I see something about the man that diminishes the respect I had for him in whatever area was generating the respect in the first place.

    For example, when I started listening to content creators in the ‘Sphere, I respected those that had something powerful to say that educated me concerning female nature, but as I learned a thing or two about their personal lives, I lost respect for them. I still appreciated the knowledge or insight, but the man, not so much.

    So Jack, maybe for a possible future blog subject, what is the profile of a man who “rightfully deserves the respect of other men”? What does that profile look like? Christ obviously, and we’re to grow in our relationship to Him and look increasingly more like Him as we grow in our faith (sanctification); however, Jesus is the Ideal, the archetypal man, perfection personified. What can a fallen, redeemed man realistically strive for in this life to be a man “respected by other men”?

    I’d assert that would definitely get the ladies attention. It might even get them to put down their lists of the “the 50 things a man must have or be before I even give him the time of day” ridiculousness they’ve been taught by our gynocentric culture that says they “deserve” all that in a man. Also give the men something to aim for in their growth besides telling them to just hit the gym, make money, and Alpha up bro, like the advice so many red pill content creators give them.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Jack says:

      “So Jack, maybe for a possible future blog subject, what is the profile of a man who “rightfully deserves the respect of other men?” What does that profile look like?”

      Well, we can begin by presuming it’s in the Bible somewhere. There are many Biblical examples of masculinity, but although we have read the words and stories, we’re not envisualizing the application very clearly. I have the idea that we might get some practical insights through examining where masculinity, or rather, where our concept of masculinity, goes wrong, and comparing that to the Biblical examples.

      Next month (which is almost here), I’m going to review several archetypes of faux-masculinity. In fact, that will be the theme. Hopefully, we’ll be able to find some insights about the sources of these stereotypes and identify the false values and/or false impressions associated with them.

      Like

  7. Bardelys the Magnificent says:

    There was a point I made yesterday that got buried in Popetalk. I’m all for men improving themselves. It’s hardwired into us to build ourselves because we start at zero. But we can’t do it to “get women”, because the women have their heads shoved so far up their own egos that nothing besides top 10% will do. Kevin Samuels did a video yesterday telling women over 35 they’re going to have to get used to sharing a man for the rest of their lives, because they refuse to settle for Joe the Plumber. This is where we’re at as a society.

    Our goal should be to get ourselves to Heaven. Bring other men along if we can, and leave the women to their own devices. They clearly don’t want it, so let them go. God will find a way to repopulate the earth if that’s His plan. If you are blessed with a family, chalk it up to God’s will and not your own attractiveness. Easier said than done, yes, but the alternative is trying to squeeze blood from a turnip re: earning respect from women. It ain’t gonna happen, gents. They’re not our women anymore, so they’re no longerour responsibilityto save. They rejected us and the society we built. Let them deal with it on their own. In the meantime, get on your knees, and help other men get off of theirs.

    Liked by 4 people

    • Bardelys the Magnificent says:

      I should point out that all the women that called in to KS’s show unanimously ageed that this was the correct strategy. This is the life they are choosing: scraps of a HVM (after their expiry date, mind you) rather than 100% of an average dude. So be it. Crab-bucket your way from being a 50th percentile man to 25th percentile all you want to; according to modern women, you haven’t budged an inch.

      So, improve yourself, but do it for you, our brethren, the glory of God and to reach Heaven. Don’t do it for women. It’s throwing your pearls before swine.

      Liked by 2 people

      • thedeti says:

        “I should point out that all the women that called in to KS’s show unanimously ageed that this was the correct strategy. This is the life they are choosing: scraps of a HVM (after their expiry date, mind you) rather than 100% of an average dude.”

        These women are proving Roissy right. “Five minutes of alpha beats five years of beta.” “A woman would rather share an alpha with other women than have an average faithful beta all to herself.”

        People, especially churchians and evangelicals, do not want to believe this. But Roissy was right. What the Church will not accept is that this is women’s nature.

        And in this particular post and thread discussion, we are talking only about the male side of the equation. Fixing this will take fixing men AND fixing women. If the damage is to be repaired, if there is to be a rebuild, it cannot be with modernist feminist blueprints.

        Like

      • Bardelys the Magnificent says:

        “Fixing this will take fixing men AND fixing women.”

        It’s my contention that men ARE fixing themselves, or are at least not as bad as the wimminz claim we are. It’s the women who need fixing the most and they absolutely refuse to budge, which is why we shouldn’t be doing squat for them. “Better to live in the corner of a roof…”, etc. Bottom line, you can’t make chicken salad with chicken s***.

        A guy like Jason, while he has his hangups, would make a fine husband and father in a sane era. He should not find it impossible to start a family. That our modern society rejects good men is not a reflection on those men, but rather on the women. Let them lie in the bed they made. If women want to come back under our protection, it will be on our terms (and I mean ALL of them) or nothing. Else, they can buy a dog and die alone.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Oscar says:

        “A guy like Jason, while he has his hangups, would make a fine husband and father in a sane era.”

        There’s never been an era in which whining, wallowing in self pity, seething with hatred for fellow men, bitterness, having a problem for every solution, making excuses, refusing to take responsibility for ones own bad decisions, blaming others, and habitual lying were considered “fine husband and father” material. In fact, in sane eras men were held to far higher standards than we are today. Standards like stoicism, problem-solving, facing hardship with humor (even if dark humor), owning ones decisions, taking responsibility, blunt honesty.

        Our era is insane not because men are held to impossible standards – we’re not, just look at what was common for ordinary men in the past – but because women are held to no standards whatsoever.

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        I suspect Jason would have stepped up and done well. He did well with the boyscouts. He seemed a lot better leader of young men than I’ve been with my own sons. There’s no way to know – sometimes peoples’ life trajectories would have been way different if they had had particular opportunities/challenges.

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        Don’t whine, don’t wallow in self pity, don’t be bitter, don’t have a problem for every solution, take responsibility for your bad decisions, don’t blame others, and be honest are an extremely low bar to clear. A man who’s unwilling to clear that extremely low bar is extremely unlikely to clear a higher bar. People don’t work that way.

        Also, there’s no need to put yourself down. Leadership is primarily by example. You’re way above that bar, so you’re setting a far better example, and are therefore a far better leader.

        Like

  8. thedeti says:

    It’s good now and then to remember some history. There have always been MGTOWs. There have always been incels. The only reason anyone talks about them now is the internet.

    These men have always existed. We just didn’t call them MGTOWs or incels. We called them “lifelong bachelors” or “confirmed bachelors” or…

    “that guy down the street who works as a janitor at the community hospital, and we all keep an eye on him because he’s a little weird but he means well and he’d never hurt anyone.”

    Or…

    “that guy who lives in the group home who works for the state highway department, and he’s kinda not all that bright but he’s OK.”

    Or…

    “the divorced guy who lives in the next door apartment, and he dates now and then but swears he’ll never get remarried because his wife got everything in the divorce and he doesn’t get to see his kids much.”

    Or…

    “that nice guy who lives the next street over and is just really shy.”

    These men were not gay, they didn’t live with their mothers, and they weren’t drains on society. They were just… different, or got really burned in a bad marriage, or couldn’t ever find a way to fit in.

    What happened was that the internet helped later versions of these men find each other and form communities based on this one particular aspect of their lives. Instead of living on the fringes of their local meatspace communities these men found ways to interact online in virtual communities. This has been something of a good thing (they realize they’re not alone) but has had drawbacks too (these men don’t integrate into their own communities).

    And it has called a lot of negative attention to these men. We as a society don’t want to admit these men exist. We want to push them to the fringes and margins and we don’t want to help them. We want them to shut up and stop talking and stop complaining and go away. What would be marginally better is for them to change and “become better” — except they either can’t, or they don’t want to.

    This might be another set of unsolvable problems. Or, it’s a problem that these men already solved, but our society doesn’t like the solutions.

    Liked by 2 people

    • cameron232 says:

      We want them to clean toilets, pick up the garbage, pay taxes and shut up.

      Like

      • thedeti says:

        Well, but Adam and Vox want these men to “man up and marry the sluts” too.

        I have no problem with telling these men to move on and find ways to have productive lives that don’t involve sex and women, since they cannot or will not “do the work”.

        But I absolutely draw the line at shaming them for “not doing their duty to civilization” and “you need to get married and have children or support another man’s children”. No. I will not do that. I will not endorse any message like that.

        Liked by 4 people

      • cameron232 says:

        Don’t know about Adam but Vox is an European/ethic nationalist. So is Alan Roebuck and we’ve had this discussion with him too (Dalrock specifically at the Orthosphere). They’re going to be observing that Europeans and their diaspora aren’t having babies and are being demographically swamped. Thus the sense that men need to “man up and take the risk.” You don’t have to agree I suppose to understand their perspective.

        I agree — I’m not going to shame any man for walking. Their business.

        Like

      • Lexet Blog says:

        99% of Ethno larpers are childless.

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        Yeah I don’t know. Vox and Alan have kids. Guys like Peter Brimelow and Jared Taylor do to. If you mean that there’s a good deal of spergy kids among the shock-value alt right kids (assume that’s what you mean by larper). then yeah that’s probably a thing. Low value neck beard dork that can’t get girl – not real surprised at that.

        Like

      • Scott says:

        I wish Serbia would kick all non-Serbs out. They are still in EU joining process

        Idiots

        Liked by 3 people

      • cameron232 says:

        Noooo. Not Serbia too. Hard for me to not root for Vlad. Or at least they can’t make me hate him. EU sucks.

        Like

      • Lexet Blog says:

        Hopefully the Slavic civil war will change their mind

        Like

    • redpillboomer says:

      “I have no problem with telling these men to move on and find ways to have productive lives that don’t involve sex and women, since they cannot or will not “do the work”….. But I absolutely draw the line at shaming them for “not doing their duty to civilization” and “you need to get married and have children or support another man’s children”. No. I will not do that. I will not endorse any message like that.”

      Agree. I have a younger brother that fits in this category of men. He’s never had a wife or kids, but he has always been a productive member of society, However, most of what he does, and the way he chooses to live, most men and just about all women would look down on.

      For example, some of the jobs he’s held include warehouse worker, golf course greens keeper, bus driver, etc. He also lives spartanly, but has a lot of money socked away. And yes, he’s a little weird, but not way too weird, just weird enough to create separation between himself and a lot of society.

      I respect his choices, but wouldn’t have made those choices myself. However, I won’t shame him for them because he is DOING HIS PART for civilization, just not in a way that most people would approve of unless they were doing similar types of work and living a similar lifestyle.

      Liked by 3 people

    • feeriker says:

      “We as a society don’t want to admit these men exist. We want to push them to the fringes and margins and we don’t want to help them. We want them to shut up and stop talking and stop complaining and go away.”

      Such men are an indictment of the society that created them. “Society” is like a woman; it cannot stand to be criticized or held accountable for its transgressions. Thus the hatred for MGTOW/incel men today.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Devon70 says:

      I never got married and I have enjoyed my life so from my perspective there isn’t any problem. Don’t think that every single guy ends up being miserable and angry. Plenty of happy single guys but most aren’t on internet message boards.

      Like

  9. thedeti says:

    I commend to your reading the Dalrock guest post at the Orthosphere, linked in the body of the OP up there. It’s interesting to see a 9 year old discussion, and that we…. haven’t really solved many of these problems. All we have really done is raise some awareness and bring more men to understanding human nature.

    It’s really something to witness how our modern Church will not accept or even acknowledge facts about female sexual nature. Dalrock’s point was that modern marriage is not marriage at all, and it certainly is not biblical marriage. Alan Roebuck’s main points were that men and women need to marry, and that men should “do what it takes” to “make concessions” to their wives in order to save their marriages.

    Yeah, um, sorry, but the very thing that ruined most modern “marriages” was men making concessions and “doing what it takes” to preserve their dysfunctional “marriages”. The very things that washed most men up on the manosphere’s shores were “making concessions” and “doing what it takes” (i.e. doing whatever she wants).

    We haven’t progressed at all. Because that’s still what people like Dennis Prager, Focus on the Family, Dennis Rainey, Bob Lepine, Steve Arterburn, and similar protestant “Family Ministries” tell men. “Family ministries” and “marriage ministries” are increasingly run by women, with ear tickling false theologies that tell us the same things: Men need to “make concessions” and “do whatever it takes”. Men need to realize that their wives are sexual “slow cookers” (i.e. not sexually attracted to them). Men need to love as Christ loved the church, and women need to…. deign to receive it while not “submitting” at all.

    It’s not working. It’s why men are walking away.

    Liked by 4 people

    • Scott says:

      “sexual “slow cookers”…”

      This is one of the weirdest things I have ever heard. When they are into you, you cannot get clothes off fast enough. Like, the second you walk in the door.

      If she has become a “slow cooker”, something died and it’s time to move on.

      Liked by 4 people

    • Scott says:

      That is a super interesting thread, I must have missed it the first time. In 2013, I was two years into the Red Pill, so I don’t know what I was doing. Interesting to read SSMs comments, and others who I have not seen around in a long time.

      I don’t even know who Alan Roebuck is.

      Like

      • cameron232 says:

        He’s a college professor and was a long time contributor at Auster’s VFR. He’s a Reformed/Calvinist Christian. A good guy and on our side even if he’s wrong about some things.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Jack says:

        In regard to the Blogosphere/Manosphere, Alan Roebuck is a key writer and thinktank generator for the Orthosphere. (Readers can find the link on the sidebar.) Earlier this year, I had a discussion with him about Christian Mysticism. From what I can tell, he is sticking to the creed and is not fully convinced that mysticism is truly Christian. I plan to continue our correspondence in the future, but it’s difficult to come up with rebuttals to his arguments because mysticism is completely foreign to aristotelian debate and cannot be very easily “argued” within that system of logic. It’s something one has to experience for one’s self.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Oscar says:

        Here’s a quote from SSM.

        “In general it has been my experience as a woman that a woman who gets away with commanding her husband once will be inclined to do it again and will paradoxically become more miserable every time she gets away with it.”

        She was right, and Alan was wrong.

        Liked by 1 person

    • thedeti says:

      And yet Dalrock has been silent for over 2 years and people still talk about his writings.

      The importance and depth of insights in Dalrock’s body of work simply cannot be overstated. He contributed mightily to the development of these ideas.

      Liked by 3 people

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        Dalrock was the first writer I read that really showed me how red pilled the Bible is. I read everything he wrote in about a month. The reason that people still talk about Dalrock is because his writing was both meaningful and true. He identified the issues and found copious examples throughout society as evidence that he was right.

        The next step after Dalrock is for those of us who who are husbands and fathers to teach our children about the issues and what to do to avoid them. Basically, we have to teach our families the bible, which, in the church universal, we’ve farmed out to others to do on our behalf with disastrous results. Once our families are getting on track, then it’s on to our friends and churches. Nothing will change until we get active bringing about change in our sphere of influence.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Jack says:

        I would not be surprised if “The Book of Dalrock” is added to a canon of extra-biblical/apocryphal writings within the next few hundred years.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Lastmod says:

        People talk about the The Beatles fifty years after they split up and that doesnt make them like Beethoven or Bach. Dalrock stated the obvious, or said it in a way people understood, or could relate to.

        Hairsplitting between what churchians or blue pilled cucks said about him showed me that he was concerned too about what people thought about him.

        He had a lot of good info. But adding his writing to a “canon” of scripture really is overstating him a little to much, and I am bold enough to say he would probably agree. But hey, when I asked for an answer to my personal challenges, I got, “Move to eastern Europe, learn the language / culture / find good provision, yeah… You too can find a really good Christian… whoops…. Orthodox wife!”

        If he had just told me it was hopeless it would’ve probably just been better advice.

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        But hey, when I asked for an answer to my personal challenges, I got, “Move to eastern Europe, learn the language / culture / find good provision, yeah… You too can find a really good Christian… whoops…. Orthodox wife!”

        You left out the part where he offered to correspond with you directly so he could give you advice better customized to your specific situation, and you refused.

        You have a habit of rejecting good advice, then blaming the people who gave you good advice.

        Like

  10. Protestants seem to be more civilizationists, at least from their Boomer counterpart advice. Catholics with the “no birth control, out procreate them” method as well.

    Orthodox not too sure.

    The Bible itself seems to be “remnant” / preservationist (Rev) especially since 1 Cor 7 indicates it is better not to marry if you can focus fully on God. Plus, disciple making is a “make an impact where you are and let God do the rest” type of thing. Focusing on the fruitful areas and leaving the other areas to whatever happens to them.

    Generally, I guess you could put me into the remnant camp based on what I’ve said before about making disciples. God doesn’t command us to save civilization, but He does tell us to continue making Christians whether there is severe persecution or not.

    Liked by 1 person

  11. Oscar says:

    I’m in the Preservationist camp. From what I can tell, we crossed the point of no return years ago. We’re like the people of Judah in Jeremiah’s day, to whom God said essentially, “It’s too late. Even if you repent now, you’re still going into exile. Now, take your medicine with minimum fuss, or you’ll make it even more painful.”

    I shared this at Dalrock’s years ago. This is God’s commandment to the first group of Jews that were taken to Babylon.

    Jeremiah 29:4-14 (NKJV)
    4 Thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, to all who were carried away captive, whom I have caused to be carried away from Jerusalem to Babylon:

    5 Build houses and dwell in them; plant gardens and eat their fruit. 6 Take wives and beget sons and daughters; and take wives for your sons and give your daughters to husbands, so that they may bear sons and daughters—that you may be increased there, and not diminished. 7 And seek the peace of the city where I have caused you to be carried away captive, and pray to the Lord for it; for in its peace you will have peace. 8 For thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel: Do not let your prophets and your diviners who are in your midst deceive you, nor listen to your dreams which you cause to be dreamed. 9 For they prophesy falsely to you in My name; I have not sent them, says the Lord.

    10 For thus says the Lord: After seventy years are completed at Babylon, I will visit you and perform My good word toward you, and cause you to return to this place. 11 For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, says the Lord, thoughts of peace and not of evil, to give you a future and a hope. 12 Then you will call upon Me and go and pray to Me, and I will listen to you. 13 And you will seek Me and find Me, when you search for Me with all your heart. 14 I will be found by you, says the Lord, and I will bring you back from your captivity; I will gather you from all the nations and from all the places where I have driven you, says the Lord, and I will bring you to the place from which I cause you to be carried away captive.

    We’re not in Jerusalem anymore, boys. We’re in Babylon. We weren’t dragged there by an invading empire. It’s more like Jerusalem transformed into Babylon around us. Either way, that’s where we are. It’s now our job to preserve what we can for the time that God’s wrath relents and His mercy prevails.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Well said. I’m going through Jeremiah right now and was thinking the same thing. I know we aren’t Israel, but having legalized abortion alone would be plenty for him to wipe us off the map. Kudos to you for getting v. 11 right, as most Churchians get it wrong.

      Liked by 2 people

      • thedeti says:

        Thanks for this.

        Jer. 29:11 is clearly taken out of context when it’s used today,

        Liked by 2 people

      • Oscar says:

        What amazes me most about the book of Jeremiah is the way that, even in the midst of His wrath and judgment, God finds ways to demonstrate His mercy and grace.

        Liked by 2 people

  12. Red Pill Apostle says:

    Since we are on the topic of preserving society, there has been a disruption in the force over at Amazon. Matt Walsh, the very Catholic and very honest assessor of the transgender craze, has written a children’s book called “Johnny the Walrus”. In the book Johnny identifies as a walrus and in the end he ends up identifying with his true self which is a little boy.

    It the current #1 LGTB book on Amazon which indicates that not everyone has taken the full measure of the cultural Kool-Aid yet.

    Liked by 1 person

  13. anonymous_ng says:

    Some random thoughts for the day.

    — Christ is risen!!! My first post since Easter/Pascha.

    — The US and the West are not the entirety of the world. Some of these discussions are universal. Much of it is a Western problem. Even there, my impression is that things are much worse in the US than even in much of Europe. And, Western Civilization isn’t the only form of civilization.
    — Regarding the problem with ethnic Orthodoxy that Scott mentioned. Honestly, I’ve really only heard this charge laid against the Greeks, but I suspect other ethnic churches can be less welcoming to those who are not of that base ethnicity.
    — The worst charge you can lay against a church in the US is that they are focused on the membership, and by implication not engaged in the great commission. This is IMO, the real charge against the ethnic Orthodox churches when they are ethnically exclusive. It points out the truth of the hypocrisy of the majority of churches who do all they can to get people in the front doors only to forget about the once they have.
    — With all the discussion surrounding Musk and Twitter, I’m reminded of the 1975 film Rollerball with James Caan. Many large corporations have greater yearly gross revenues than many countries have GDP.

    Like

    • Scott says:

      I am torn on the ethnic issue.

      What looks right to me seems unattainable in the modern world.

      (All nations being homogeneous ones with an orthodox bishop as the head of the corresponding autocephalous church.)

      There is no American Orthidox Church (except the OCA I guess) and I love my Serbianess.

      A person like me would have to choose between my “dual ethnicity” and follow the norms and customs of the one I choose.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Oscar says:

        That was always unattainable. Not even ancient Israel was homogeneous. Heck, not even Jesus Christ’s genealogy is homogeneous.

        Like

    • Scott says:

      Also Hristos Voskrese

      Like

  14. Devon70 says:

    I’ve gotten a lot wisdom from the better MGTOW creators but the influence of MGTOW is greatly overstated by Vox and others. This is a relatively small number of single older men on the internet. I think in another post Cameron mentioned J. D. Unwin who studied civilizations and found that decay follows the sexual liberation of women and we’re seeing that decay in the U.S. No one advocates restricting women’s behavior, so our society will continue to get worse and tradcons will continue blaming MGTOW, video games, etc.

    Liked by 1 person

    • thedeti says:

      Good point… the problem here is women, not MGTOW.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        We can solve most of the problem by learning to tell women “no” from time to time. The change that occurred in each of our marriages are testament to the success of this simple word.

        Like

  15. Lastmod says:

    Pundits and people on the Internet like to box up MGTOW neatly with a bow. In fact, it’s an umbrella term for a wide swath of men.

    No one “invented” MGTOW, despite what Paul Elam says (remember him). Somewhere in the mid 1990’s as the Internet and webpages began being created on a larger scale, there was “Deep Water Web”. (I met the creator many times, we both worked in the Silicon Valley. We had dinner once together.) There was also “Martian Bachelor Weather”. Both sites were proto-MGTOW, if such a thing existed. I am sure there were others.

    Martian Bachelor was “blocked” at IBM, GE, Ford Aerospace, Chrysler, Disney, JP Morgan, Dow Chemical, HP, and NASA for his “radical” views and hatred of feminism. Most of the views of his page were from men who worked at larger (uncool) companies who were seeing firsthand the woke corporate culture evolve. Very few people at startups were posting on his webpage. I did not know where he was located. I would assume: Texas, Silicon Valley, or New York City.

    Deep Water Web went offline sometime in 2002. Martian Bachelor also faded away. There was an early female blogger, “The Misanthropic B!tch” (“Providing jackoff material for GenX guys since 1996.” was the tagline) who was freaking hilarious, and quoted Martian Bachelor frequently. I am sure they met. She was the ONLY female allowed to post on his page as I recall.

    MGTOW is not a movement, its just a “loose association” of ideas about bachelorhood. Every few years, some chest-thumping guy decides “he” is the one called to amalgamate and unify the movement. It never works. Paul Elam tried and failed. Big John tried and failed (that CNN interview…….. ughhhhhh). Sandman has never tried, but many people WANT him to be the leader, or think he should be.

    It’s a powerful emblem / logo. Its broad swath of trans-generational and trans-economic-class men is enticing. Many men probably think, “If I could get this under a unified mission, harness it, we then could demand women to come to the table.”

    It can’t and will never be subjected to this. Too many ideas, too many different men, too much time passed, and it was never meant to be a unifier of men.

    And finally. I had a huge tussle with “Happy Humble Hermit” in 2019? 2020? I get a TON of flack for this. I have been “banned” off several forums for this. Anyway, here it goes:

    The factions inside MGTOW are:

    — Incel-blackpillers
    — Former PUA’s who have changed their titles to “life coaches” and are peddling the same nonsense.
    — Red Pill guys who are not like you men here….. They are “Red Pilled” fully but just “didn’t want to put the work in” (but the truth is, they were not good looking enough).

    There is an uneasy alliance….. and add to this all the other men who drop in.

    As I have said since 2012 or 2013, MGTOW will NEVER become a movement. MGTOW will NEVER “bring women to the table” and MGTOW will never “change the world”. Why????

    Because women don’t care about %99.99999999 of the men in MGTOW. MGTOW is like for the most part a homeless man who walks into a Mercedes Benz dealership on Santa Monica Blvd… and calls the cars “overpriced” and “pretentious” and “status seeking” and “all these cars are actually garbage”…

    Nobody cares about his opinion. No one. His comments mean nothing because this homeless guy could never afford, have, or get that car to begin with. So he could never “test drive” or lease, or even BUY a decent “used” one. (The car analogy is about attractive women.) The other people at the dealer may watch his ranting with amusement. They might pity him. Mostly, they will ignore him.

    In the end, THAT is MGTOW. It’s hardly a danger or a “threat”, despite many of them thinking they are a force of sorts.

    Liked by 3 people

    • thedeti says:

      I freaking love history.

      Liked by 1 person

    • thedeti says:

      “Because women don’t care about %99.99999999 of the men in MGTOW.”

      “Nobody cares about [MGTOW’s] opinion.”

      That might be why MGTOW isn’t having much of an effect on women or the SMP. But that’s not why MGTOW will never be a movement or change the world.

      MGTOW (and more specifically, men’s rights) will never impact the world much or be a “movement” because MGTOW is by definition not “unifying” and because at the end of the day, men don’t really care about other men as men, as a sex. No one, including men, views men as a political or social interest group having their own particular issues, interests, or needs to be addressed or remedied. The closest anyone’s come to a male interest group that’s ever achieved any traction is trade unions. Those aren’t even about “men” per se. They’re really about social status and class warfare (at their essence, about money and wealth transfer), and they let women join. Trade unions were not even an outgrowth of “men’s” anything — they were purely socialist, collectivist and Marxist in outlook.

      MGTOW is definitionally about the individual. It is “Do it all for you; Do it for yourself; Do it for no one else.” MGTOW is precisely oppositional to anything like male unification. MGTOW encourages the man to divest himself from society, avoid entanglements with others, and promote his own individual interests at others’ expense.

      Of course, MGTOW won’t bring women to the table because women don’t want anything less than high value men. Women would rather share a high value man with other women than have an average man all to herself. Women would rather accept knowing infidelity from high value men than accept an average man’s complete loyalty.

      Women will, however, complain when those “average” men’s resources aren’t available to them. Women are complaining that HVMs will have sex with them, but will not marry them. What women are really complaining about here is that they want to get married (attain the status of “wife” and access to resources) but don’t want to BE married to those men (actually have real relationships with such men where they have to submit to those men and take orders from those men). Women are happy to take those men’s money; but not happy to actually have to deal with those men.

      So women’s complaints really are that fewer men are available for them to steal money from.

      Like

      • Lastmod says:

        Okay… I agree in theory.

        Women will “use” MGTOW in public to say, “See! All these men are MGTOW and they are racist, haters, and won’t step up, won’t grow up, and are not being real men!”

        In private they DON’T CARE. Women in PRIVATE believe and THINK, “These men are are all losers / ugly / bad social skills anyway… They are going their own way? Good! These men are the reason why women don’t feel safe.”

        If you, Scott, DS, Jack… all got divorced and went MGTOW, or some other random Chads started saying, “I’m going MGTOW!”, THEN they would care. The ONLY way they WILL care in general is if guys like you, or Mr. Random Chad went MGTOW in decent numbers, then and ONLY then would they be genuinely wailing and giving out genuine “real talk” on shows, female blogs, and magazines about “changing my mind and settling is a good thing” (still without EVER admitting their previous behavior was wrong, mind you).

        Like

      • Joe2 says:

        “Of course, MGTOW won’t bring women to the table because women don’t want anything less than high value men. Women would rather share a high value man with other women than have an average man all to herself.”

        I saw that played out in high school where girls would “sneak” into the boys locker room after the boy’s swim team had practice. The swim team was considered high value due to status as well as the physical condition of the boys. The girls would unashamedly take turns and “service” the team (hand jobs at a minimum). These girls did not have boyfriends and were satisfied sharing the swim team.

        Like

      • Jack says:

        “The swim team was considered high value due to status as well as the physical condition of the boys. The girls would unashamedly take turns and “service” the team (hand jobs at a minimum).”

        I once dated a girl who was on a swim team in high school and college. Most of the team was female, and the coaches were male senior classmen. She said the coaches slept with every single girl on the team (including her) except one. The one who escaped the F-fest was able to do so because her parents dropped her off and picked her up from every practice. The others would hang out and do other things after practice, and that’s when things heated up.

        Like

      • Scott says:

        Joe-

        The first girlfriend I had post-high school told me something like this.

        She was manager of the football team (managers basically keep the stats, make sure the gatorade jugs are full, stuff like that).

        This is one of those “someone who was not really on my radar screen at the time and then we became a couple later” situations. In other words, she was one of the managers when I was a football player. She was 2 years behind me.

        During the regular season, we used have two-a-day practices, and most of us would crash for naps in a room full of couches right off the locker area. (Between the two practices). We would basically be in our underwear.

        She told me her and the other managers would sneak in and watch us sleep and get really turned on by it.

        I was like, “Well, why didn’t you wake us up?” Oh well, I ended up with her as my girlfriend a couple years later anyway.

        Like

    • cameron232 says:

      Can we know for sure if some of these men, the MGTOWs, the incels, have too high standards? The reasons I ask…

      1) There’s no way all us married guys here are top 20%’rs. No way.
      2) Some of you guys who keep maintaining you’re “bottom-of-the-barrel-ugly” are actually normal, average looking guys.

      Like

      • Lastmod says:

        Cameron, that is an excellent point. Yes…. there are some who have VERY high standards while they themselves are indeed that stereotype of bad haircuts, thick glasses, acne, greasy doorknobs on their home, and living in an apartment that is really disgusting. But boy oh boy! “Women should be going with him because he is such a great guy” type of thing.

        Some have high standards, and they look okay (been on live chats / Skype over the years with many, many MGTOW / Incels / Blackpillers). But because of that divorce, the guy in question has very demanding expectations. My thing was to them, “So, you got anally raped by your b!tch x-wife with no lube. You’re upset. You have standards….. Brother man, my question is, why on earth would be signing back up for this? Why are you saying, “Thank you! May I have another?'”

        Of course I was bitter, jaded, and didn’t understand sex, and once you have it, it’s impossible to live without it. (Ummmmmmmmm……… okay, but would you take that risk to get pillaged in court and demoralized for a few moments of naked bliss?)

        No one said MGTOWs or divorced men had a monopoly on intelligence.

        There are so many fat guys in these forums… No, not a bean burrito belly from just a few too many beers. I mean fat Fat FAT guys; men well over 300 lbs. demanding a 120 lb. beauty queen… Yes, that is there and it’s common enough, but even so, it’s not the “norm” for MGTOWs.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Oscar says:

        “Can we know for sure if some of these men, the MGTOWs, the incels, have too high standards?”

        Well, Jason claims to have seen Liv Tyler in person, and found her “average”, so the answer to your question is “yes”.

        Like

  16. Scott says:

    Saw a sticker on a truck today with a sillouette of an AR15 that read, “All rifles matter.”

    Silly. If you want to be “based” or “savage” or whatever, you should have one like, “Your mom matters.”

    Liked by 1 person

  17. feeriker says:

    “We can solve most of the problem by learning to tell women “no” from time to time.”

    Unfortunately, the reigning Satan-serving alpha males who have weaponized female behavior for their master’s evil ends have all but criminalized the discipline of women.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Red Pill Apostle says:

      Men deciding to live without women these days is in effect telling women “no”. Telling women “no” on marriage is very much applying the discipline of the natural consequences due to prevailing female attitudes and life choices (party years, careerism, etc). The application of this type of discipline is in part why men refusing to marry causes some consternation.

      Liked by 1 person

  18. locustsplease says:

    I think mgtow is a wider swath of men than people think. This assumption that they are all sub 5’9 broke loosers is not true. Just because a man is attractive or has money means nothing to how women treat him long term. Both those things affect short term for sure %100. Nothing any one man can do will replace the excitement of the CC. You cannot save – lift your way beyond those emotions or make them pair bond with you. Money does not make women pair bond neither does the shape of your face.

    There is a huge underestimating of the level average18-28 yo women will play and dump men for fun. The women are not marrying till 28 and they end most relationships. I have never dumped a girl they all dump me. After so many it’s old I see the play book and I’m not alone. If we all had 6 pack abs and benched 400 it’s not going to change the average American woman. She’s put years of effort to being a hoe you are not going to crush her dreams.

    Liked by 4 people

    • thedeti says:

      And we have always had MGTOWs with us. We just didn’t call them that. We called them “confirmed bachelors” or “divorced men who wised up and left the plantation entirely”. They usually were not high earners because they did not have to be. They also were usually very tight lipped about their status. They would make only passing reference to their never-married or divorced status. When asked if they would ever marry or remarry, they would usually shoot you a knowing glance, chuckle a little, and utter a quiet but firm “no”. And that was all they would say about it.

      Like

  19. Lastmod says:

    First part is a funny story. My talk about MGTOW starts at 4:40.

    Liked by 3 people

    • feeriker says:

      Jason, that gorilla story is HILARIOUS, on so many levels. To me, the funniest thing about it is just how many orders of magnitude more intelligent than its “mother” the gorilla was. The only reason stories like this aren’t much more common is because those few American women who can afford trips to Africa go there as sex tourists rather than wildlife adoption trolling.

      Liked by 1 person

  20. Oscar says:

    I’ll just leave this right here.

    Liked by 1 person

  21. Scott says:

    O/T-

    This is aging well, although a little slower than predicted.

    The Futurist (Imran Khan): The Misandry Bubble (2010-1-1)

    Liked by 1 person

    • cameron232 says:

      He updated it towards the bottom of this. Some famous manosphere charts in there.

      The Futurist (Karthik Gada, Imran Khan): Gems (2020-1-1)

      Like

      • Jack says:

        The Misandry Bubble and Gems are landmark manifestos. Several sections in Gems (The Misandry Bubble, U.S. Conservatism, et al.) have dozens of links to Chateau Heartiste and Dalrock. The section about Game links to Σ Frame. I find it amusing the way it subtly emphasizes the economic, intellectual, and social superiority of Indians.

        I could never figure out what an “economic singularity” is.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Scott says:

        Although I would replace “game” (the first horseman) with “a reawakening/rediscovering of how men and women work”

        “Game” is laden (in my opinion) with too much baggage and diffuse understandings of its definition and purpose, no matter how the user means it.

        It’s as useless as “alpha male” to me.

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        “It’s as useless as “alpha male” to me.”

        Well yeah — your use of “if she thinks you’re hawt” pretty much sums it up.

        Like

  22. Scott says:

    Another O/T

    I learned about Slate Star Codex in the early days of COVID. The blog is written by psychiatrist Scott Alexander, who up until that point was anonymous. He was doxed by the NYT. He is, as far as I can tell, on the left politically, but asks very un-cool questions (hence his anonymity). He falls into the same category as Steve Hsu, Jonathan Haigt, “Jayman”, and “HBD Chick” in that regard. All of them are left-leaning, but talk about things you aren’t supposed to talk about in polite company.

    It’s one of my favorite blogs.

    Liked by 1 person

    • cameron232 says:

      Yeah I think Hsu got cancelled. Being a theoretical physicist doesn’t help.

      I know of a prominent biochemist/geneticist (UChicago) who had Hsu-Jayman-hdbchick type stuff at his personal website – he claimed understanding reality would further social justice. He took it all down years ago.

      Like

  23. Oscar says:

    On Topic: Are the Chinese preparing for one of their periodic bouts of famine-induced cannibalism?

    https://michaelyon.com/dispatches/long-pig/

    Now on Chinese social media. “Human meat eating guide” Avoid brain, lungs, liver. BBQ ribs, slow cook or soup the rest.

    I mean, they have at least one per century. It’s getting to be about that time.

    Like

  24. Pingback: Faux Masculine Archetypes | Σ Frame

  25. Oscar says:

    On topic: the divide widens.

    This is the kind of thing that leads to secession and civil war. People with wildly diverging convictions on the most basic moral questions – like the value of human life – cannot coexist peacefully, as our first Civil War proved.

    Revelation 22:11 (NKJV)
    He who is unjust, let him be unjust still; he who is filthy, let him be filthy still; he who is righteous, let him be righteous still; he who is holy, let him be holy still.

    Like

Leave a Reply

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 )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s