Loading...

SATAN the MGTOW | Forum

T. Volt
T. Volt Jan 10

Yes.


As applies to our recent century:


Hard times create strong men: WWII

Strong men create good times: The 50s, rock & roll

Good times create weak men: Free love, drugs, millennials

Weak men create hard times: Present Day


MGTOW is the beginning, because it is the point where men are saying enough is enough. Men are the ones society relies on to get things done right and done good. The problem is that men have little to no reward anymore, no hope for having a stable family and an honest working life, he has no incentive in a geynocentric society that will punish him for just existing, yet turn around and demand everything and more from him.


We can easily have a "No Woman Day" but not a "No Man Day" because the real shit gets done by men.


David's Bridal, the largest marriage company, is filing for bankruptcy protection. The media says that co-habitation is to blame, that lack of religion is another major factor, yet when you look at divorce rates, it is women leaving men, re-marrying and leaving again, and no matter what you decide to blame, it comes down to this one fact:


Men control the decision on marriage. It is up to men to propose, and men aren't doing that.


MGTOW either live small or big, not a lot of in-betweens. When men opt-out, all the incentive of the "plantation masters" goes right out the door. A man cannot be slave driven to work so hard when he only has his own mouth to feed. One could say women are the motivator, and yes, sex is a thing men use to keep themselves physically regulated, but since it is no longer optional, he has to turn elsewhere. Women have become more of a burden than a benefit, and contrary to what people believe about men not having motivation without women, the experience of MGTOW is the opposite: That men have time to clear their mind, learn of themselves, and begin to focus on personal achievements without distraction. This is what women and society try to hide from men by keeping them distracted.


See, there is a business factor here too: Men save more than women on average, meaning men are satisfied with certain things that only require one purchase over long periods of time, TV, computer, car, and will purchase other things that last, that are practical. Women spend more money on useless crap (men do too, but at younger ages, where they usually grow out of it and become more conservative over time with their resources, while women generally indulge frivolous spending through out their life). This means that if there are no men to leech off of financially, and will force women and other people such as government and corporate to act differently. Will they be more accommodating to men? Unlikely. The goal is to prevent the power of men at all costs. Quite the opposite of what feminism claims about patriarchy, but feminism is usually a chop-job inversion of the truth.


Yet a lot f MGTOW realize that fighting back only draws un productive results and after acquiring a good amount of resource, they find themselves avoiding risks and protecting their achievements.


MGTOW is the first step, but men have to learn to be men, all the way.


The system we had before is in ruins, it ain't comin' back. The change has already happened, men are just walking away from the shit pile. I will say though, that if and when a more productive world is crafted, and as we see now with the social ruin that the strong are separated more and more from the weak, the outcome will no doubt come down to men being men again.

The Forum post is edited by T. Volt Jan 10
AK
AK Jan 10
You paint an interesting narrative, but it's one that just doesn't even remotely resemble the world I see when I step out from behind my computer and outside my front door. 


I do agree with you 100% that divorce laws are definitely long-overdue for a re-visitation. I can get behind that if only in the interests of what is fair and sane. 


The problem I have here with MGTOW is that it is pandering to group identity. It's just as cringe-worthy when BLM is doing it; and for the exact same reasons. Group-think is group-think. It's identity politics no matter how you spin-it. You're going to have a tough sell marketing that sort of thing as "Satanism". Maybe TST might take you up on it, though. They're all about correcting injustices and equal rights.

The Forum post is edited by AK Jan 10
Seeker
Seeker Jan 10
T.Volt 


I'm skeptical towards the idea that MGTOW would change the western society because women don't care with men. They don't need men because the equal system protects them and gives them the opportunity to realise themselves. 

The Forum post is edited by Seeker Jan 10
AK
AK Jan 10
If MGTOW are Satanists, then who are these "bad boys" these lactating incels do so carry-on about in the comment section?
The Forum post is edited by AK Jan 10
T. Volt
T. Volt Jan 11

"The problem I have here with MGTOW is that it is pandering to group identity. It's just as cringe-worthy when BLM is doing it; and for the exact same reasons. Group-think is group-think. It's identity politics no matter how you spin-it. You're going to have a tough sell marketing that sort of thing as "Satanism". Maybe TST might take you up on it, though. They're all about correcting injustices and equal rights."


This reads that as long as other people are doing the same thing as you, then it's identity politics. Yet identity politics is different, at least when I see it applied in the context people use to describe an issue: People choose a political side for identity alone, without questioning the real world, or analyzing the situation. In other words, ignorant, stubborn bias.


The basis of MGTOW is simply not like that.


Feminists don't do this, neither do liberals in general. I don't think MGTOW is identity politics, they walk away either from experience or because they know the real world data. That's a different thing from refusing to give up an ideology just because you don't want to face rejection. I am sure there are some of these so called, "butthurt" folk as you say, but I think MGTOW reasons are genuine. Real. The same cannot be said about liberal ideas.


Going by this argument you make, being an American conservative makes me identity politics. So be it.


In-and-of-itself- group association, or tribalism, isn't a bad thing, it depends who you associate with, and why. How much thought you put into this, how much time you spend looking at the facts, thinking on your experience, and getting a clear idea of where people are coming from, is how you determine who is fact based and who is not.


"who are these "bad boys" these lactating incels do so carry-on about in the comment section?"


Apparently its MGTOW.


As for "bad-boys", I think a lot of them are just trying to tell so called "nice guys" that being so is unattractive to women. The attack isn't on "bad boys" but on the tradcucks. Some might ridicule the masculine men for getting women, but these are generally a warning to guys who do it without hesitation.


What I wonder about: Where are all the hitched guys? The guys with the women? Too busy pounding pussy to care? Quite possibly, but still. In retaliation, you'd expect a bunch of guys with girlfriends and wives and booty call and mistresses to put in their two cents, tell MGTOW how full of shit they are, etc. Not one in sight, except for a few single tradcucks still trying at female validation. It makes me think that maybe, just maybe, the hitched and quiet are not happy enough in their relationships to put in their opinion.

You even see the rise of these women, who the guys are calling "chameleons"


The following video is not exactly one of my "go to" channels, as those are mostly gone and deleted by youtube for being too fucking real. As are most things deleted by youtube for being so. I think this video explains the "Chameleon" approach very well:




You see these women talking shit, but where are their boyfriends? Where are their significant others to back them up and tell other guys out there how wonderful it is to be in a relationship with them? I'm just curious about that, is all.


Moving on:


MRAs have failed. The laws can't change if women continue to have the kind of voting power they do. MRAs are nowhere to be found. As long as women vote, the laws won't change. I have ran my head around this time and again, just like TFM has. The closest thing is limiting rights only to net tax payers, which would be a small percentage of women.


See, there are real world problems going on that MGTOW address. These are NOT abstract ideas, feeling based retardation, these are stats, data, real world issues that require attention to detail. This is not male feminism, this is not mere identity politics, these are men, men who have shared experience, who have concerns for their country's sovereignty and prosperity. These are not butthurt misogynistic losers, these are guys who know the score and are talking solutions.


Here:



@Seeker: The only thing women have come to realize is that they have not only failed to live up to the opportunity they've been given, that is on an average basis, but continue to abuse it and support ideas that cripple the very country that gave it to them in the first place!


What I'm saying, is that MEN are going to have to be the ones to make this change, MEN are going to have to put their foot down, and right now the most effective thing other than all out rebellion is men turning their back on the plantation.

The Forum post is edited by T. Volt Jan 11
Seeker
Seeker Jan 11
Quote from T. Volt

What I'm saying, is that MEN are going to have to be the ones to make this change, MEN are going to have to put their foot down, and right now the most effective thing other than all out rebellion is men turning their back on the plantation.


Yes but you know it will never happen... Being devoted to an ideal is a waste of time. Life is to short...
T. Volt
T. Volt Jan 11

IT will eventually happen. I don't think there are enough chances for men to really act now. I think society is on its way to collapse if this kind of social shit show goes on. After the fact? It certainly won't be women, or the weak who pick up the slack and get to the work of rebuilding society. It always comes down to men.


You're going to have to be more specific in your replies. Life is also full of challenges, individual and social, and you are going to have to choose your place and stand your ground. Those words of yours would make sense coming from an adolescent who hasn't left his parent's house.


MGTOW is not an ideology, or even a movement. Kind of but not quite. A rational conclusion of the current state of affairs, a rational move based on realistic cost/benefit analysis.

The Forum post is edited by T. Volt Jan 11
Seeker
Seeker Jan 11
But what about the erotical relationship with women? Does MGTOW means to go into a kind of celibacy?
AK
AK Jan 11

This reads that as long as other people are doing the same thing as you, then it's identity politics. Yet identity politics is different, at least when I see it applied in the context people use to describe an issue: People choose a political side for identity alone, without questioning the real world, or analyzing the situation. In other words, ignorant, stubborn bias.


No. Identity politics applies when one's group identity such as class, race, religion, gender, and/or sexuality is the sole basis upon which their political decisions and world-view rests. It's bigotry masquerading as virtue behind the facade of being discriminated against. It's literally "Men" Going Their Own Way. How do you not see this? Its whole premise is Women are like this, and men are like that so therefor we must unite and protest against the tyranny of some faceless "other" or other. It's no different than feminists complaining about the patriarchy (just as sexist), or black people griping about the white man (just as racist). Granted, it's not explicitly political in nature, but it has sufficient social and economic implications predicated upon group identity to warrant suggesting that it is.


"We as women are oppressed by those who are not women. Men are the problem. We're woke to the real problem facing our 'community'"


"We as black people are oppressed by those who are not black. Whitey is the problem. We're woke to the real problem facing our 'community'"



"We as men are oppressed by those who are not men. Women are the problem. We're woke to the real problem facing our 'community'"


It's the same reactionary and divisive formula. You've just changed some nuances where applicable. It's literally the same thing. This is exactly why a WGTOW will work just as well, be equally as convincing, and probably be more of an actual threat than some whiny middle-aged incels who still haven't processed or accepted that men and women are just different and that life isn't fair. I guarantee if such a thing as WGTOW ever graces the halls of YouTube, they will be collectively mortified.


"Going by this argument you make, being an American conservative makes me identity politics. So be it."

Also no. For the reasons I can't believe I actually had to spell out for you mentioned above.


"In-and-of-itself- group association, or tribalism, isn't a bad thing, it depends who you associate with, and why."

Actually yes. Yes it is a bad thing. Tribalism is an incredibly bad thing through-and-through. Herd mentality is exactly what it amounts to - what it, by definition, is. I don't owe anyone my loyalty or respect based solely upon features that we share in common with each other which neither of us have any control over. That whole premise is patently absurd. It is an atavistic mode of thinking that is only of any utility whatsoever in prison. You (the general you) happen to be a man who got played by women? What do I care? Go fuck yourself. I have nothing in common with you. Kick rocks.


As for "bad-boys", I think a lot of them are just trying to tell so called "nice guys" that being so is unattractive to women. The attack isn't on "bad boys" but on the tradcucks. Some might ridicule the masculine men for getting women, but these are generally a warning to guys who do it without hesitation.

What's utterly baffling to me is that we live in an era that this common-sense stuff needs to be spoon-fed to people by dorks with a bone to pick on the internet. That there's even a market for this. Some metro-sexual with a YouTube channel telling his subscribers what a bad-boy he is and how women love it is as laughable as those types who hop on these forums Crippin. It's like "no you're not, you're a bookish dork with access to the internet - go defrag your hard-drive". 


The issue here is fakeness, and that goes equally for the "nice guys". It's fake, and women - people - sniff that out a mile a way. Being "nice" does not over-shadow being fake. It doesn't excuse it. Not ever. Why would anyone think that it should? Fake nice is still fake. Everyone knows you want to hit it. It's how we're wired. If you put the stink ditch on such a pedestal as to compromise who you are for just a chance to approach it, I don't care if you're a fake nice guy or a fake bad boy, you're a punk first and foremost. You shouldn't be at all surprised when continually denied. It's not about "what women like". It's that real recognizes real. It's a human nature thing that transcends whatever group you happen to identify with.


Fact is real people - as-in people with any amount of depth, character, and substance - they're neither nor and both. That's what makes them people and not mindless automatons. You can't just expect to push the right button repeatedly and assume you're entitled to a treat. They're not machines. I feel absolutely no commiseration with any sob-stories pertaining to "I treated her so well. I bought her things, I deserve my reward" my short response is "well, you have yourself to blame for treating people like vending machines. I have no sympathy for you."


So if by "Men going their own way" they mean: we're going to try being ourselves for a change and see if we have better luck that way? That's a huge "Yeah. Well duh, you autistic retards."


"What I wonder about: Where are all the hitched guys? The guys with the women? Too busy pounding pussy to care?" 

That would be me. Speaking for myself, all I have to say about MGTOW is that what these guys are looking for are boyfriends. That's all that comes to mind when I hear any of their pissing and moaning. It's only getting any of my attention at all because you're bringing it up here where I hang my hat and you're fun to spar with. Otherwise, to me, it's just another goofy internet thing. Like Bronies. 


"You see these women talking shit, but where are their boyfriends? Where are their significant others to back them up and tell other guys out there how wonderful it is to be in a relationship with them? I'm just curious about that, is all."

How should I know? I don't know these women. These types don't even register on my radar. They're basic bitches. Background noise. I could not possibly care less about how their relationships are going or where their boyfriends are, and I certainly am not threatened in the least by their existence. 


"The laws can't change if women continue to have the kind of voting power they do."

Has anyone tried even taking the first steps in taking the initiative to make this a referendum, or are they just happy to let the views, likes, and subscriptions pile up?


What I fail to see, though, is how any of this is Satanic. A scapegoat was identified and made to carry the blame for the deficiencies inherent to the group. Women are your Satan.


If you're willing take yourselves out of the race and cede your time to those more qualified to handle what amounts to the most basic type of human relationship in existence, have at it. I take no issue with anyone who can't hack it stepping aside and allowing nature to take its course. This means less competition for mates, and less competition for our offspring's resources. Internet channels devoted to game hating is a very small price to pay for this.


*Also TurdFlingingMonkey is probably a troll. 'Definitely a punk with copious amounts of sugar in his tank who's probably just fiending for a dick in the butt, but just doesn't know how to go about asking for one on account of being socially handicapped. Who actually gives a rat's ass how manly other men behave except chicks and faggots? He's not a chick, so___ you do the math. I don't know how you don't notice that. 'Probably hates women because he wants to be one. And this is coming from me! a dude who thinks "Years & Years" is actually not a bad band, musically speaking.


Anyway:


"changing the laws hasn't worked, we need to take women's rights away" 


Just say that aloud to yourself, and let that sync-in exactly how stupid that sounds.


How do you suppose that would happen but by changing the laws, genius? 


No one is actually this retarded... at least I hope not. It's an hour long clip of some jagoff insisting that what totally amounts to identity politics isn't, except that's exactly what it is. Period. If how you vote is predicated upon by some immutable characteristic such as race, gender, etc - that's exactly what it is by definition. The debate was lost before it even started, and his opponent wasn't even all that bright. 


It's like "I can't even manage a relationship between myself and literally one other person, yet I totally know how to solve society's problems" - yeah. Rocks; get to kickin' 'm, faggot.


It just goes to show why I'm not too opposed to MGTOW - these are the exact type of people I don't want breeding, anyway. I don't take issue with any of that in and of itself. If they've managed to justify taking themselves out of the natural selection cycle, great! My only real issue is that I just don't see how any of that has anything at all to do with Satanism. In a lot of ways I could make pretty solid case that it is the exact opposite of each and every flavor of "Satanism" out there.

The Forum post is edited by AK Jan 11
T. Volt
T. Volt Jan 12
Kind of went up and down here, no particular order in the points addressed, but let me start here:

"This is exactly why a WGTOW will work just as well, be equally as convincing, and probably be more of an actual threat than some whiny middle-aged incels who still haven't processed or accepted that men and women are just different and that life isn't fair."


Where are the numbers of willing WGTOW, and what are their reasons for doing this? I'm not seeing it. I really don't think MGTOW would care if there were WGTOW. I have not asked a woman out in years. The ones who flirt with me are given a nice wall of nothing, because they are not worth my time. I have encountered very, very few women who are.

MGTOW and incels are different things. Incel is Involuntary Celibacy, MGTOW is more often than not, WILLING celibacy. I am in fact, one of the willing celibates. I have no real urge to share my life or biology with most women I meet. Yes the urge is strong sometimes with some women, but I willingly deny it. I am not an idiot.

MGTOW HAVE accepted the differences, that is a point to many of their arguments. Men and women are not different, life is not fair, but we're just supposed to go along with it anyway and have our lives ruined while women just do what they want to us. Not gonna happen. MGTOW understand that the load is not worth the haul.

"-immutable characteristic"


:D

a mentally handicapped person is in the driver's seat because you decided they are human, and you are in the passenger seat now, but hey, let them have it. They're human.

Let's see how far your car goes. Just sayin'

"happen to be a man who got played by women? What do I care? Go fuck yourself. I have nothing in common with you. Kick rocks."

This is an argument MGTOW make to PUAs and other men. If you can't learn, or refuse to, fuck off. The same could be said to women: You're a used up THOT. Go fuck yourself. I don't want or need you, and I don't let my dick think for me.

I don't need to reproduce with women to live my life. As you've said, I don't need to contribute shit to botched social double standards.

"Everyone knows you want to hit it."

So what if I do? I have refused women who flirt with me. Good looking ones even, but let's continue:

"It's how we're wired."

So what.

"If you put the stink ditch on such a pedestal as to compromise who you are for just a chance to approach it"

So I'm supposed to think with my dick, and that makes me, what? More real? Hilarious.

"I don't care if you're a fake nice guy or a fake bad boy, you're a punk first and foremost. You shouldn't be at all surprised when continually denied. It's not about "what women like". It's that real recognizes real."

Exactly, which is why most women are denied, by yours truly.

"It's a human nature thing that transcends whatever group you happen to identify with."

Exactly, my choice to do the old Nancy Regan, just say no. Works for me. Fuck women. If I do what the feminists say, which is to blatantly disregard my sex drive, which in relation to your argument, makes it less human, OK, but I can in fact do this. I can see women for their personality, and most of what I see is a stinking sack of undeniably stupid hypocritical nonsensical shit.

Fact is real people - as-in people with any amount of depth, character, and substance - they're neither nor and both. That's what makes them people and not mindless automatons. You can't just expect to push the right button repeatedly and assume you're entitled to a treat. They're not machines. I feel absolutely no commiseration with any sob-stories pertaining to "I treated her so well. I bought her things, I deserve my reward" my short response is "well, you have yourself to blame for treating people like vending machines. I have no sympathy for you."

So I'm supposed to reject women's behavior, go out there, treat women like fucking angels when they're not, stop being a realist and somehow not see them as vending machines or some insane shit, and let them walk all over me because I'm honry?! That is utterly retarded. I'm sorry but that's unrealistic in terms of personal development.

"we're going to try being ourselves for a change and see if we have better luck that way? That's a huge "Yeah. Well duh, you autistic retards."

So, the food is poison, but you're hungry, it's your instinct to eat, so go ahead and eat the poisonous food, instead of finding some other sustenance that won't kill you, because muh instincts.

I can't get on board with this.

"Women are your Satan."

Apparently I am also their Satan. Their adversary.

Let that sink in.

"basic type of human relationship in existence, have at it. I take no issue with anyone who can't hack it stepping aside and allowing nature to take its course."

Let's be real. It's not basic. Men's rights are taken away in family courts all the time. There is in fact an attack on masculinity. I already made this point before, and why this is so important to understand. Women don't let you have a basic, simple, uncomplicated life. It's in their nature to complicate things for you if they can, and they have legalities of the general judicial system on their side. You either understand this or you don't.

"This means less competition for mates, and less competition for our offspring's resources. Internet channels devoted to game hating is a very small price to pay for this."

I don't give a shit about people and their retarded mating habits. More retards will populate the earth. This is one issue I disagree with TFM on, specifically because the USA has too many armed people for an invasion to be a real threat.


It does, actually, make me wonder why I even debate or say anything anymore. I guess I like to troll, and use my mind while doing so.


"*Also TurdFlingingMonkey is probably a troll. 'Definitely a punk with copious amounts of sugar in his tank who's probably just fiending for a dick in the butt, but just doesn't know how to go about asking for one on account of being socially handicapped. Who actually gives a rat's ass how manly other men behave except chicks and faggots? He's not a chick, so___ you do the math. I don't know how you don't notice that. 'Probably hates women because he wants to be one. And this is coming from me! a dude who thinks "Years & Years" is actually not a bad band, musically speaking."


Prove it. He's made some very clear points, rationalized, and debunked quite a few mis informing claims. He's done the work. Prove him wrong. Prove all these facts and stats completely wrong, and I'll take this more seriously. None of this is any real argument at all. I don't worship the guy, I agree with him on some things, not so much on others. If this is an attempt to push my buttons to get me mad so you can prove me as some tribal monkey with shit for brains, well, I'm not.

"How do you suppose that would happen but by changing the laws, genius?"

This is you missing the point here not me, but, I'll clarify: MRAs have been trying to change laws for decades, while trying to avoid attacking women's voting rights, because they presumably they didn't want to seem misogynistic. The problem here, is trying to get dry scooping and pouring buckets of water out, while standing in a lake. SO, yes, you're correct, you'd have to change the laws so the majority of voters are men. There is a rational solution, one that argues for net tax payers as the people to make the change. I think feminists saw this coming, and that's why they push for women to be more involved with the work force, but its not happening. They simply aren't built in the mind or body for the working life like men are.
That is not faggotry, that is not butthurt, that is a matter of fact, no matter how you spin it.

"I can't even manage a relationship between myself and literally one other person, yet I totally know how to solve society's problems"

This isn't just a few losers who can't get any. This is men everywhere experiencing the shittery of ungrateful horrible women. I have met them. I have experienced them, and thankfully I was smart enough to get out of my relationships with them. To this day I continue to avoid these women, they give me bad looks, they are incredibly rude, narcissistic, things I can be to them right back but choose not to, it's a waste of time, and, ultimately, no reward. This is not including the times women have tried to get me fired, accused me of assault and other harassment that never happened, cheated on me, let me have sex with after lying about STDs, birth pills, and our relationship in general.

Somehow I am supposed to just give up and say, "well fuck it, I have a boner, better just jump in and get herpes, let my life go to shit and let this woman take everything from me, just because vagina" is what your argument amounts to.

See and it's true, EVERYONE blames the men, but rarely EVER blames the woman. It's my fault that women are shit? No. It's not. I fucking refuse to take blame for their actions. I'm supposed to be accountable for my actions, but they are supposed to just get away with theirs? Because vagina?! How in the name of fuck is that even remotely being adult, let alone being a man?! Answer: Its not. That's called being a simp.

"These types don't even register on my radar. They're basic bitches. Background noise. I could not possibly care less about how their relationships are going or where their boyfriends are, and I certainly am not threatened in the least by their existence."

Sure you're not threatened by their existence, and generally speaking, neither am I, but I also don't get involved in them. See this is what I'm talking about, why is everyone so disgusted with MGTOW?

"Who actually gives a rat's ass how manly other men behave except chicks and faggots?"

...

"these are the exact type of people I don't want breeding, anyway."

:D

The USA military cares, or used to, when they had to train men to go to war. You have your war guys, and your private piles out there. MGTOW are not this. The simplings and whiners are the ones being beat with the soap bars, by women, and other men who see them for the sacks of blue pilled shit they are.

"no you're not, you're a bookish dork with access to the internet - go defrag your hard-drive"


I am a bookish dork. Einstein was a bookish dork.


"Tribalism is an incredibly bad thing through-and-through. Herd mentality is exactly what it amounts to"

Some people are physicists, the 1% rich, and rock stars. They also have tribes. Family is tribe. Human nature is in fact, tribalism. My point, that I've already made, is that what matters is who you choose to associate with, and the reasons, and that takes looking at your own behavior, experience, and to self scrutinize, and figure out who has commonalities that matter.

Neither one of us likes Antifa. We and all others out there are as you might say, anti-antifa. We are a tribe for this one value alone. The real tribal parts come down to how you share and rationalize your living with others. The only way to be Satanic to tribalism itself is to not have any opinions, any conscious understanding of anything, to not exist.

Satan is Adversary, at the basic form. My personal brand, is that of scrutiny, in ways of rationality and willing experience. TO look at what I know of both sides of any group or situation.

Some people are in fact, right, and some people are in fact, wrong. MGTOW is right, and feminism is wrong. One abides by facts and sound rationality, while the other does not.

Plain and simple, at the core.


Anyway, I am tired of the subject. I already live a MGTOW life, anyone else can have the last word if they wish, but I think I have made all the points I can on the matter.


Take care.

The Forum post is edited by T. Volt Jan 12
Seeker
Seeker Jan 12

Quote from T. Volt

Anyway, I am tired of the subject. I already live a MGTOW life, anyone else can have the last word if they wish, but I think I have made all the points I can on the matter.



It's an interesting subject you have started because there are some confusing statements from MGTOW. They claim to be MGTOW but seems still to act like a movement. A cause so to speak. 


You say "fuck women" but in what way does it help? Will you go into celibacy? I cannot see how your lifestyle has to do with Satanism. Satanism is called a carnal religion. It's not a cause. Satan means much more than just adversary.

The Forum post is edited by Seeker Jan 12
AK
AK Jan 12
You're doing a ton of reaching here and taking a few things wildly out of context, but A for effort.


*I found it sort of amusing you felt the need to clarify what an incel is. It was an insult, and a fairly accurate one at that. 


Here's what it comes down to. There has never been a MGTOW that I've listened to and thought "that's a man who I need to start paying more attention to - he's got a lot to teach me". Not ever. They're up there with Bronies. 


Fact is there's a ton of really shitty people in the world. Half of those shitty people are female. 


As for the changing the law thing. I gotta say, I really thought you were more intelligent than this. It's a simple question:


How. Do. You. Take. Women's. Voting. Rights. Away. Without. Changing. The. Law? 


The argument is: "We had no luck changing the law. It's just never going to work until we change the law. What we need to do is change the law. Then we'll have luck changing the law."


And with a straight face, your telling me you've had no luck securing simple revisions to family court, but your wildly-oversimplified and narrow-minded proposal to radically alter our entire Democratic process will totally work? Pass me some of whatever you're smoking. 

The Forum post is edited by AK Jan 12
T. Volt
T. Volt Jan 12

Net. Tax. Payers. Only.


*The revisions to court that MRAs want are being withheld by majority voters of women who are, or have, feminist (female marxist) values. Any foresight into trying to deal with this problem has to address that fact. *How to get the following passed, is going to be difficult in light of the above, but, no one thought Trump would win at first glance. That's not much to go by, so you're right again. How? I don't know right now. The only thing men can do without full on rebellion, is leave the plantation/marriage life.


@Seeker: Carnality doesn't have to include everything. Your the damn Satanist, do what you see fit. I try to be realistic, which means cutting ties with women. Say for the sake of argument, it really is all my fault. I don't know what else to do. I'm not a good fit for any woman I meet, so what would you have me do? Let's even say women just think I'm repulsive for a variety of reasons. Do I sit and weep? The only way left is on my own. I choose to accept myself and try to live a rational self sufficient life style.


*ME: SO, yes, you're correct, you'd have to change the laws so the majority of voters are men. There is a rational solution, one that argues for net tax payers as the people to make the change. *Men have earned it, and if there are some women who earn it, who have great careers, OK. Its going to fluctuate for people, but its on a privilege earned basis. It will need to be addressed and refined but I can't see how this goes against your values, as far as I know them. People who don't earn shit are able to vote for more welfare handouts. This would take that away, and you could even still apply for welfare, but, you wouldn't be voting if you did. Women who have no work history, no skills, are able to get their welfare, but if I go for a week of unemployment, they tell me I have to wait and never let me have it no matter what. Hilarious. Yeah, let the welfare queens keep voting, let the politicians who support it grow in power. Net Tax Payers Only approach is at least a good starting point here.


*I found this just interesting enough subject to come back to and reply. It may even require another forum topic, corrupt democracy in a Constitutional Republic. *Let the people who work/earn the most, which is not only limited to the 1%, we're talking about the population, in general, be the ones to vote and decide more about how tax money is spent.


*Democracy alone is not enough. We are a Constitutional Republic. If Democracy is compromised *and used as a tool against our Constitutional values of living, then it stands, we must address and fix the issue.

The Forum post is edited by T. Volt Jan 12
AK
AK Jan 12
It is an interesting topic. 


Here. >40% of the population does not pay federal income tax. 


You're going to tell 40% (and I'm low-balling this for the sake of argument) of the US population - 130,000,000 citizens - that they don't get to vote?



T. Volt
T. Volt Jan 12

Got any stats on that population? How many are citizens and how many are illegals? How many are men and how many are women, how many on welfare and how many not?! Fucking illegal aliens are somehow, and I admit, it goes over my fuckin' head, but, they are supposedly getting welfare. IF that is true, then, again, we need to do something.


If that means that only 60% get to vote, so fucking be it. If it means saving our constitutional life here in this country, that's still a majority vote. Men, btw, are the majority net payers. Are men going to vote against the 2nd amendment like women say they will? Unlikely.


Men have had to sacrifice a lot more to keep this country intact and still do and are getting shit on in return. I'm supposed to get my hard earned money taken and watch it go into corrupt policies, corporate pockets, where the fuck ever, and have little to no say? I'm supposed to pay for ACA, HUNDREDS of dollars a month, even if I can't afford it, have to watch all my tax return get taken from me, for what again? Oh, so I have the freedom to go out and have to pay for even more health insurance, because I'm not allowed to receive what I paid for, taken from my own earned money. And I get no say in it.


NO. No I have not lost my ever loving mind. Just increasingly, my money and my citizen right to ownership of earned income.

Fuck.

This.

Shit.

Net. Tax. Only.


They want to steal my money and give it away to people who don't belong here or even refuse to earn, all the while telling some people who really need it like seriously disabled, even veterans to fuck off, because fat welfare queens need their surplus of fast food and gas cards and other shit...


FUck it. Lobster Lady time! She's an awesome woman, exposing it for what it is. Roughly 14 bucks, not a shit load, and live lobsters are not cooked, in Oregon (it may be nation wide IDK) but you can't buy pre-cooked goods with food cards. Anyway, its a good watch for the point:



The Forum post is edited by T. Volt Jan 12
AK
AK Jan 12
Depending on the sources from Market Watch to Forbes, it fluctuates between 44% and 47%. I was being generous by low-balling it and calling it 40%.


This is federal income tax. 
If you want to factor-in state taxes, payroll taxes, property taxes, sales taxes - then where do you draw the line? 
How do you quantify government subsidies? What if I work in an industry that subsists entirely on government contracts? What if I work for the government? Does my vote weigh more if I pay more? 


How about we just limit the vote to land-owners only? That's never been tried before, right? What is a country but a plot of land, after-all? That way, even people who are here illegally who do pay taxes don't get to vote. That sounds fair. Plus most land owners are men, so, there you go.  Problem solved.


*if you don't detect a twinge of sarcasm and this actually makes good-sense to you, you might be on the spectrum.


It's a huge red-herring proposed by people who have no credible background whatsoever in economic or political theory. They can't even manage dealing with the opposite gender. Their political ideas are straight-up garbage your average middle-schooler could easily rip to shreds without even really thinking too hard about it. You can't possibly take these people seriously. 


The issue was that women vote more than men and yet (and this is according to the US census bureau) 50.8% of the US population is female. It is, for all intents and purposes, 50/50. So no. If females out-vote males, it's definitely not because men are out numbered by any significant margin, and there's some faceless enemy keeping them down. It's a behavioral issue these faggots need to own-up to.


The rest of what you said, it's perfectly reasonable. Valid complaints, and everyone has a right to complain (at least for now, anyway) but where the rubber meets the road is that if you can't use the processes already in place to affect change, then your only option, aside from crying in your beer over it, is sedition.


Think that through. 

The Forum post is edited by AK Jan 13
Seeker
Seeker Jan 12
Quote from T. Volt

@Seeker: Carnality doesn't have to include everything. Your the damn Satanist, do what you see fit. I try to be realistic, which means cutting ties with women. Say for the sake of argument, it really is all my fault. I don't know what else to do. I'm not a good fit for any woman I meet, so what would you have me do? Let's even say women just think I'm repulsive for a variety of reasons. Do I sit and weep? The only way left is on my own. I choose to accept myself and try to live a rational self sufficient life style.


You don't answer my questions... Does cutting your ties to women mean that you go into 
celibacy?
T. Volt
T. Volt Jan 12

@ Seeker: Figure it out.


@AK: I am not completely convinced of any strategy, to be honest. I don't know, maybe the American dream just isn't meant to last. Human nature is to build and destroy, and the more resources and success you gain, the quicker people go to war. I still don't think it's a faceless enemy, I think too many women and people in general are conditioned by unrealistic thinking and it is quite possible they are in fact, empowering a new kind of tyranny. For all I've said, it's nothing as bad as taking away the 2nd amendment, or #killallmen.


I think the right to vote would be great to have for everybody, but the fact is, it seems at the moment, to be systematically steered in such a direction that it is becoming more and more against our constitutional values.


This idea of earned voting rights comes at the necessity of evaluating the situation, and reasoning. Do we have to take away rights from some people to vote on everything or just some things? How would that work? I could go on and on, but it seems to me, conflict is inevitable, and somewhere on some ground things have to be brought to level the field. I'm saying the sooner the better.


AK
AK Jan 12
Sure. By faceless enemy I mean "black people" or "Muslims" or "straight white men" or "women". I'm by no means preaching tolerance, I'm just saying that it is really bad form. Too broad a brush; especially when that brush paints-over 50% of the population(!). 


It's a word I'm trying to use sparingly, but "myopic" is the right one. It lacks focus. Right away this tells me they're not too serious about really doing anything about perceived injustices, because in order defeat an ideological enemy, you start by being able to identify it with precision and nuance. "Women" as a whole - never mind the bigotry angle of that mode of thinking - that's just way too nebulous a target to hit. It's bad strategy.


The first step is always: understand the problem. It just doesn't sound to me like they really do understand the problem at all beyond the standard "my stupid car won't start" level of diagnosis. 


To be honest, I don't have a reliable sample of women sufficient to say one way or another how they are being conditioned. I just don't. I don't think anyone does. 


I've only been in romantic relationships with, what?, 20 or so? Probably not even that. Even each one of them was so radically different than the other, that honestly, I can't draw a single thread between them outside of the anatomical level - and even that varies wildly! 


This is why, pro or con, I don't offer relationship advice except in rare instances where I know for a fact my boy's girl is on some shadiness. I don't know your ex. I don't know what she was thinking, and I certainly wouldn't extrapolate from my own statistically limited sample how "women work". That's an absurd claim even for a woman to make; all the more so for a dude. 


I do know, though, that some - a majority of - people are just really sketchy. Half of those people are female. That's all I got. 


*case in point: I have listened to these pod-casts for however cringe worthy, and a reoccurring theme you'll hear is: "she was banging my best friend" or "she was fooling around with the neighbor" while I was at work. Man, I'm not trying to defend women here, but that quote-unquote best-friend or neighbor you've mentioned there, bucko, is pretty sketchy too! It takes two.


I couldn't tell you how women are being programmed or even how they respond to that programming. Objectively speaking, my sample-size is a drip in the Pacific. I highly doubt that anyone else's is much better. This skepticism applies equally to your most vehement misogynist to the most simpering mangina.


I do agree with you that marriage is a dying institution. This is something that "we" as a culture will have to acknowledge, confront, and adapt to. The implications of this are non-trivial save but to those who just want to watch the world burn. This is also why, although I lean conservative, there's some issues on that side of the fence I just plain can't get behind. 


Abortion is one of them (go 'head get all the abortions you want. Or don't. Why should I care? I don't even mind paying for them. If it were up to me, parents would have up until the age of seven to kill their child, and I do not mean this flippantly, either. This is actually what I believe.


The sanctity of marriage is another (It's a legal contract, a very one-sided one, sure, but no one's putting a gun to your head forcing you to sign. Marry your dog. Renounce the institution altogether. What's it to me?) 


Anyway, I think before anyone gets all up in arms about how the system is being steered they first need to take a serious look at how their own complacency and misdirected efforts feeds into this. How often do you make it to the polls? 


As a general rule, if stuff just isn't going your way, the first thing you want to look at is how much of that is within your control. What have you done to change it? This applies to literally everything: not just politics. One must bear responsibility and hold themselves accountable for what it is that they believe in. Otherwise all they're doing is impotently shaking their fist at a glowing rectangle.


If you've (the general you - I'm not saying you have) already written-off voting as a scam and choose not to participate, then you have no real leg to stand on in terms of complaining how the system is being steered. You've rescinded control of the wheel by choice. 


TFM (who is really not that bright at all - seriously, 'dude's a moron with all the sensibilities of a 17 year old child - I think you could probably do better if so inclined) identified a problem: more women vote than men. Statistically that is true. This is not because there are more women than men, so the problem is elsewhere. It's that men just don't vote as much. Fix that issue first. That's low-hanging fruit right there. Less time talking about it, more time being about it: that is IF you're really about it. If they can't MANage that, they certainly can't manage over-hauling the democratic process. Certainly not with this "boohoo :( someone tried it once, and it didn't work" attitude. 

The Forum post is edited by AK Jan 12
Baphomets
Baphomets Jan 12
Masculinism. "We're rough and tough. We don't need that bitch. Let's screw each other. Let's go our own way and have our own movement. Women are just too powerful and get too much air time. Let's compete. We need attention too. Waaaahhhh"
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 »

Like and Share

Certain features and pages can only be viewed by registered users.

Join Now

Donate

This site is largely funded by donations. You can show your support by donating. Thanks. Every dollar helps.