Thursday 14 August 2014

Making the Effort

A little while ago Vox Day stated that: Saving civilization is not "manning up" - and that he had little respect for the MGTOW movement on the whole. Amusing, given that I suppose that I identify as an MGTOW and have little respect for the PUA movement as a whole.
I tend to view them as being predominantly weak and damaged individuals of low socio-sexual rank who would probably sacrifice their oft-expressed principles in a minute if the right woman presents herself in the right way.

The PUA obsession with socio-sexual ranks - which is why Vox threw it out there. He invented the multi-tiered ranking of socio-sexual ranks: Alpha, Sigma, Beta, Gamma, Omega, ad-nauseum. Make any man who disagrees with this opinion a socio-sexual loser, both in his mind and in the minds of those who read his blog. A good attack upon potential opponents (anyone who *might* disagree with him) from the get-go.

Regarding sacrificing our oft-expressed principles - you didn't read the memo. It's right up here on the no-ma'am website (paragraph four):
And, practitioners of game also should know the rule of “it’s my way or the highway, Toots!” and that any man who doesn’t want to be ruined by woman has to learn to say no without bothering to explain, and say it often… no… No… NONO!!!
Vox, you are arguing from a footing of wrong/incorrect information. Please, get the background information right before you go making blanket statements. I am giving you the benefit of the doubt, that it is accidental ignorance rather than deliberate ignorance or deliberate dissemination of misinformation - whether to feed some personal agenda or simply to get a lot off pissed-off men jumping over your website for the traffic-count and notoriety.

MGTOW are not PUA. MGTOW never said they were. MGTOW simply aren't jumping through hoops just for the opportunity to drop a fuck into some damaged girl's vagina.

Next, Vox throws out some more pre-emptive shaming tactic statements:
Here is why: a man who is genuinely doing his own thing doesn't make a big deal about it. If I'm not going to read a book, I just don't read it. I don't loudly proclaim to all and sundry the fact of my not-reading it. I don't know any man who makes a habit of announcing that today, again, he is going to refrain from having sex or engaging in romantic relationships with chickens, or indeed, poultry of any kind. The very act of the self-identification as a Man Not-Reading a Book or a Man Not Having Sex with Chickens is an indication that everything is not in psychological good order.

I have no clue why he dropped that into his talking about saving civilization. Again it is a blanket attack upon the MGTOW (interesting conflation of MGTOW with men not having sex with chickens - wtf twisted nuttiness is that about). He appears to be stating that MGTOW are being attention-whores online. Funny, you could state the same about any blogger - especially any blogger who has a large audience - including himself, an author.

For example, here are The Minimalists. Following Vox's argument, because they are saying what they're doing/thinking online, they are crazy. Taken to a logical next step: following Vox's argument, because he is saying what he's doing/thinking online, *he* is crazy.

Further, take note of the shaming tactic of flat-out stating that men who identify as MGTOW are psychologically damaged (aka insane). Another good leftist-style attacking statement, attempting to force a man who wants to disagree onto the back foot and prove that he's sane and not insane - the implication being that if he doesn't attempt to prove it, he is automatically insane and therefore his statements are automatically null-and-void. QED.

All readers should keep in mind and remember: this is *one*man's*opinion* of a general movement. One that he doesn't identify with. One that I have already established, he has not read the memo about (qv above).
As for those who claim I am somehow attempting to shame such men, what would be the point of that? It's a factual observation, nothing more. If a man is so delicate as to remove himself from the world due to the bad behavior of a woman or three, he's not likely to be of any use in the upcoming battle for the West.
Ah, another good pre-emptive strike! Yes Vox, you have just absolutely invalidated everything that I've said in this post, previously ever said on my blog, will ever say in the future on my blog, and will ever say in response to you or anyone else who disagrees with me! Good on you! Only I'm not buying it. Please, keep the ad-hominem attacks and pre-emptive shaming tactics to yourself. This is coming across more and more as leftist, feminist boilerplate and attempted groupthink/silencing of potential naysayers.

What would be the point of shaming such men? Yet you are doing it! What would be the point of mentioning MGTOW *at*all* given the overall shaming tone of your blog-post? Your only point in mentioning them in an article about civilization is to flat-out shame them. If someone buys-in to your shaming tactics, then they will become predisposed towards thinking as you do. That is the point of attempting to shame such men: they think like you do or they are shameful. Good attempt.
There is always a risk in doing anything worthwhile and sometimes the odds are stacked against you. That is the way things are; it is the way things have always been. The hero is the man who runs toward the sound of gunfire, not the man who runs away from it.
Certainly there is risk in doing something worthwhile. Certainly the odds are often stacked against you. Note that it's running towards the sound of gunfire, assessing the situation, and then dealing with it. Not running blindly into gunfire and getting killed like some kind of sheep. Vox seems to think that the situation has not been assessed by the MGTOW, that MGTOW are incapable of thinking for themselves.

I'm not even going to attempt to pull up statistics - I've done them to death in previous posts. As have others across the so-called Manosphere. Whether MGTOW or not - for various reasons. Nice sub-rosa "man-up" message attempt, by the way.

You have very obviously missed the point. MGTOW has nothing to do with saving or not saving civilization. Its about recognizing and not getting involved with damaged girls. If you don't get involved with damaged girls, you don't get your life (effort, time) screwed up and clawed away and wasted by some NPD/BPD type. This is most women this days: highly narcissistic.

At any rate, Vox's post has occupied a miniscule portion of my mind off and on for the last couple of days. The realization has slowly come to mind:

Sure, back 50-100 years ago it might have been worth putting in some effort to chase a woman. She would have appreciated it, she wouldn't have been completely batshit crazy 90+% of the time, etc. Children would have resulted with great ease and pleasure on both parties parts. Next generation assured, the growth of civilization assured.

These days? Nah. I save my interest for the (very) few women who show up and actively show me - very overtly! - that they are interested. And that they are not crazy. The rest of my time, energy, and money is focused entirely on myself, like any good old-fashioned selfish bastard of a man should do.

So, Vox states that men should still attempt to salvage civilization. I have a counter-argument.

Saving our current civilization is not really worth it on the whole.

* when a civilization is acknowledged to be throwing at least 50% of married men under the bus via divorce, destroying their lives, damaging the next generation psychologically, etc

* when a civilization has demonstrated zero interest in reducing the incidence and destructiveness of divorce

* when a civilization has demonstrated a preferential willingness to support single mommies over more-productive family life

That civilization needs to salvage its men. In proving that it cares for its men - it's children - the next generation - then it will *earn*the*right*to*be*preserved* as a civilization.

Otherwise, it needs to die. Just like a crack-whore welfare mother who steals from my pocket (via tax-theft and child-support) to feed her habit, fuck bad-boy men, and produce more dependent children into poverty conditions - while she parasitizes off my hard-earned money.

Remember that money is like everything else around you: it is a product of your blood, sweat, and time. The chair you sit in, the screen you read this on, the walls around you, the roof over your head, the clothing you wear, the food you eat. It is all human effort, amplified by the technology that we as a species (though mostly white men) have built up over millennia of toil, thought, and constant struggle and improvement.

Too bad Vox. IMO you greatly missed the mark on this one. Plus I think that you lost the respect of quite a few people, including me.

But then, in your eyes I'm nothing more than another MGTOW. I'm of such low socio-sexual rank that you feel free to simply despise me and automatically discount my and any other MGTOW's thoughts, experiences, and life as being of no worth.

I wonder when the kill-squads will be heading my way. My crime: hatethought.

Edit: An unworthy thought. I wonder how many of Vox's reading-demographic are women.


  1. While I often agree with him (although not always) I'm glad someone called him out on it.

    His statements are very similar to ones that I've heard regarding "alphas" (and sigmas). A real alpha (or sigma) doesn't go around proclaiming himself as such, he just is. And anyone that does, is insecure about their real social sexual rank (and yes yes, he was a cad and yes yes Spacebunny). But that's the type of argument he's using.

    And as you pointed out. What exactly is he trying to save? What part of western civilization is worth keeping. Its legal system is corrupt and tyrannical. Its political system is corrupt and decadent, the vast majority of the women are damaged beyond repair. The culture is both anti male and anti white (the two combined, white men, have been (past tense) the greatest creative force this world has every seen.)

    Christianity? even he acknowledges that only a very small percentage are actually Christian. He fled the United States (if that's not MGTOW I don't know what it is.). And the injustice done to his father, has colored his way of looking at things. If one really wanted to take his position that "the hero is the one that runs toward the gun fire" then fleeing to Italy from the center of the battle for western civilization seems to be an action that is less than heroic. I don't fault him for it, I'd flee too if I could.

    The way I see it, MGTOW is men recognizing that the social contract is broken (marriage being the biggest part of it)and they are therefore free to act as they will since it was the other parties that broke that contract.

    The only way to "save" civilization is to pull down what is currently crumbling around us. And the only way to do that, without sacrificing yourself and loved ones is to starve the beast, to become MGTOW.

    And now we're really getting to the heart of why some in the sphere want to save civilization: They have skin in the game. Its really hard to recognize that something is evil and will always be evil and that the only way to be successful is oppose it, when you have children that will suffer more when the inevitable collapse occurs.

    It has taken a while for a lot of the pro-marriage men at Dalrock's to finally come around to the idea that marriage just does not exist anymore. At some point there will be a recognition that the west as it is, cannot be saved.

    1. I often agree with him too, quite a bit of what he says seems to make sense to me. This one though seemed tremendously off-base. I guess that's why I felt the urge to analyse and speak out about it in my own rebuttal.

      Yes indeed to his doing his personal MGTOW thing in Italy and finding his Spacebunny. Good on him for those things. I wonder if he realizes that he's actually his own form of MGTOW - which is partly why I thought it odd his post basically denigrating them.

      Regarding Alphas/Sigmas: I think that might be because as human beings we try to identify ourselves with part of a herd, and of course we like to think we're the best, etc - at least in our own eyes. Its an ego thing. When someone starts labelling a certain segment as losers it tends to get people's back up (so you could state that I got my back up and did my response/rebuttal).

      It is a personal attack and nobody likes being attacked. Which is probably why Leftists and Feminists can easily dish out the attacking language, yet have great issues taking it in return. They get reduced to ad-hominem personal shaming attacks, like "you can't get laid", etc. ("Pretty much everybody can get laid, it just depends if you really want the one who is targeting you. Next attack please.")

      Regarding civilization, I think that it is in a world-wide decline. While I haven't travelled extensively I have managed to visit: America (several times), Australia, England, Germany, and Thailand - plus I've been around Chinese and Latino (Argentinian) women. The basic female drives are still evident in each place even if fresh off the boat and into the country (I think Russia et al also). The only difference is their overt attitude towards men and how long that might last. Covert, I've seen some pretty nasty stuff come out over time.

      Skin in the game: you have a very good point there. I wouldn't mind keeping certain parts of civilization - however I get the feeling that there will be an orgy of destruction and it will be hard to pick and choose. It might all come down.

  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

  3. I completely dismiss all that Alpha/Beta nonsense. Day and Roissy are close to being frauds, seeing that the mix ancient wisdom with the nonsense they pulled out of their asses.

    1. Anything is possible Bob. In some ways it's nonsense, in other ways it's as good a label as any other. I myself lean towards BoneCrkr's definitions, when I feel the need to bother with definitions - not hugely often these days.

      As always, pick out the pieces that are relevant to you and ignore the rest. Just like with my posts. I certainly don't expect what I say to be a one-size-fits-all, and after thinking and talking have even come around to different conclusions also.

      Its all how we learn and think and grow.

    2. Regarding the alpha, beta, omega thing. I've always found it best to think of them as behavior sets:

      Alpha are behaviors or traits that women find attractive. Lover
      Beta are behaviors and traits that women find nice, but don't do anything one way or another with attraction husband
      Omega are repulsive behaviors and traits. creep

      The rest isn't necessary. Just as women have three sets.

      Whore - sexually available, sex traits. Playmate
      Madonna - nice traits especially for ltr, but really don't do anything for attraction. Wife
      Ugly - both inside and out, traits that repulse. Feminist

  4. "This observation is supported by the reaction some have had to the statement of the completely obvious that if civilized men do not manage to reproduce and instill civilized values in their sons, civilization will not survive. To somehow summarize that as a call to "man up and marry those sluts" is to miss the point so profoundly that I don't even know where to begin pointing out the errors."

    It would have been nice for him to make the effort to begin pointing out the errors, though.

    1. It would also have been nice had he pointed out where to find someone who isn't gonna pull the divorce trick - with an absolute certainty. As I've said previously: I don't like playing Russian Roulette with half the chambers loaded.

      It seems as though he has a bit of a mental disconnect. Yeah, I'd like to have kids and bring 'em up right. Find me a non-eat-pray-fuck type. Keep looking? I'm bored with looking, plus I have better things to do with my cash (the fruits of my working time) and my spare time.

  5. The root problem is pussy worship. Most PUA's fall victim to it too. They just go about it differently.

    1. Yep, PUA comes from a mindset of pussy-worship. Think I've mentioned that a few times, motivations and the like.

      Of course, the PUA gurus who make money off PUA, have it in their self-interest to push the pussy-worship. It's where they get their $$$

      I once got sucked in by Amway (before I analysed it and realised what a manipulative crock of shit it and other MLMs typically are). Some parts of the PUA $ machine remind be very strongly of the Amway model.

  6. The big problem with Vox's argument is that you eventually run out of marriageable women. There are only so many of them to go around, and its not possible for all men to find one. Some men are going to be left with the choice of A. marrying a Tinder whore, B. importing a bride from abroad (or expatriating) or C. just not marrying at all. Vox says he isn't advocating A, yet he clearly has a very low opinion of men who choose either B or C. Hmm.

    1. It would be amusing to find out if his Spacebunny is an Italian girl, therefore placing him solidly into the (B) category which he has contempt for. Though the fact that he expatted to Italy also puts him into the (B) category.

      So: his mental disconnect becomes doubly-strong if Spacebunny is a non-American girl. Which I definitely get the vibe that she is.

      Hypocrisy now.