Manosphere

Mens Rights and MGTOW Stuff

MGTOW: The sad tale of Alexander Pettersson

Standard

I’d like to give a shout-out to Sargon of Akkad for bringing to my attention arguably seven of the most harrorwing minutes of personal monologue I have ever heard.  After hearing this, I am forced, no, compelled to give a response not only to Alex Pettersson, but to feminism and to Swedish Society  at large.

I think at first glance, alot of MGTOWs will describe this man, rightly, as little more than a tragic/comedic caricature on the same level as Uncle Ruckus from the TV Show, “The Boondocks” written by Aaron Macgruder. Good show, I do highly recommend it.

Uncle Ruckus (despite being quite obviously African-American) completely rejects everything about being African-American.  He is a sad figure who sees no value in being African-American, and to avoid an existential conflict, chooses to believe that he is not one.  Though in all respects, Uncle Ruckus has not freed himself at all, taking on menial (almost slave-like) service work in and around the plush gated-community of Woodcrest to perpetuate the slave-master dynamic he fervently needs to justify his life, his identity.

I see some strong similarities between Uncle Ruckus and Alexander Pettersson and that would lead a lot of men in the manosphere to ridicule and deride the way Alex has surrendered all positive traits of masculinity. But in all fairness, we have to look at both characters with a great deal of pity.  They are products of the environment in which they exist.

And I do emphasize the term “exist” because you don’t really “live” until you are able to completely accept who you are as a person.  You don’t “live” until you have a positive, independent identity.  This leads me to this very sad conclusion:  The person that is known as Alexander Pettersson does not live any more.

He has become the toxic-dumping-ground for every negative stereotype ever referred to as masculinity. We often hear feminists decry women who won’t join their ranks as “internalizing misogyny”, just hearing one minute of Alex’s piece tells you straight away that this man has fully “internalized misandry”.  He has personalized every negative generalization regarding manhood.

Alexander compares himself to the likes of George W. Bush, Vladimir Putin and every rapist, merely by sharing the same genitalia. But I think the worst part in Alexander’s story is that his self-loathing is completely undeserved.  It is wasted on trying to appease “women”.

The women in Alexander’s life, erm, existence enjoy a life that has been bought with the day-to-day sacrifices of men, for-better-and-for-worse. These women have enough time to indulge in their favorite past-time, fantasizing about the men at the very peak of their masculine power. Whether it is the influential world leader, the international soccer star, captain of industry, or the thug in a dark alley who has his hand over the mouth of his victim telling her not to scream or she will get hurt.  This power dynamic is very seductive to these women.  This is the apextual fallacy that Alison Tiemann speaks about quite a bit.  Women only focus on men that THEY SELECT.  These men are qualified to be “men” because they hold power over women.

Yes. Selection.

Sexual selection of mates.  This is their biology.  This is their nature.  They do their darnedest to try to hide it, but they can’t help themselves but fall into this pattern of hypocrisy. Alexander, you have bought into the “lie” that masculinity is only about this “power” that some men have and most men, obviously, do not. You have been given a few scant pieces of the jigsaw puzzle and been asked to form a qualified view on masculinity.

Alexander Pettersson, you do not know “man” at all.  All you know are buzzwords and propaganda.  You are incapable of forming such an opinion in the environment in which you exist.  You can’t say you embody all manhood without acknowledging the other 95% of men who are not a part of the power structure, and who would never think about raping a woman. In the same vein, you are the man who installs the electrical wiring into a home, the man who lays the sewerage line in a busy city, the father who plays with his children on the front lawn, the peace-keeper in the middle-east who monitors a disputed border, you are also Mozart, Da Vinci, Van Gogh, Newton, Aristotle, Einstein, Gautama Buddha, Jesus Christ. Generations of men who lived and continue to live quiet and inspirational lives, slowly building the foundations of civilization.

You are also *all* of these men.

But what annoys me more than anything, is the erosion of your right to be judged only on the content of your own personal character and individual deeds.  No one has the right to place guilt on another human being for anything other than their own choices and decision making.  We can’t change the past, we can only influence the present and plan for the future. The whole “sins-of-the-father” caper was left in the Old Testament of the Bible.  Feminism needs to stop harking back to these anachronisms.

If there is guilt, it should be placed firmly on the heads of the feminists in your life.  They speak of equality, but only want privilege.  They want rights, but will not accept any responsibilities.  They mew and shriek how men have caused all the problems of the world, but yet will still accept every luxury, comfort and advantage that western life offers them.  When will you realize that it is they who are projecting their own superficiality and guilt onto you?  They are not egalitarians.  They are self-serving bigots and totalitarians.

I know, Alexander Pettersson, that you are trying to become something that will make yourself less dangerous, less masculine, to gain approval from these women. What you are doing is wrong.  In the end you will become something that is even less than a servant.  You are on the path to become a Eunuch.  The only Eunuchs I know are found looking after the households of female royalty.  It is done to ensure that there is no chance that the Eunuch can be SELECTED sexually.  Maybe you are starting to notice the patterns of “privilege” that the women in your existence exercise over you!  They want you to continue to faithfully serve their cause, and yet denounce not only your right to hold a positive self-identity, but also your right to have children in the future.

Alexander Pettersson, you have a decision.  You can continue to associate with these women who do not appreciate you, who detest you.  Women who will turn you from an individual into a “stereotype”. If you do this, you will become a Eunuch, a house-slave, safe enough to associate freely with his Mistresses, his Princesses.   Accept that you are indeed a lesser “inferior male” and make way for the men that your women-friends SELECT.

But I say this to you in all seriousness. Their sole claim is in their ability to give birth to the next generation, but is that enough to make them worthy of your presence?  Is their continued mistreatment of you really worth it?   Are they really giving you a positive identity and are they really accepting you as a human being?

Come away from those women.

Come away from “her”.

The Social Mechanism of Bastardry

Standard

Having been born in the 70’s, outside of wedlock to a Catholic Father and a Presbyterian Mother,  the rather tender subject of being a “bastard” comes up. Back in the day, most people still attended churches and being part of the community and the social fabric was very important to most people.

“Bastard” is a word that still is an insult, but does not carry its former sting in this modern age, but why?

It is a legal term to denote a child born out of legal wedlock and thus outside the path of inheritance from the Father.  But it was also used a lot in Christian circles too, particularly within the Catholic Church.   If my mother is to be believed,  my father had me and my twin brother declared as “bastards” in the eyes of the Catholic Church.  But my mother said many other disparaging things about my father too, so I am inclined to take that with a grain of salt.

In the 70’s it was still a social Taboo for a woman to have children out of wedlock.  It has only been in the intervening years that it has become socially acceptable for women to take this course of action.  Branding a child as being illegitimate has lost its deadly intent.  If 30 – 40% of all boys are not in line for any inheritance, it fails to become an insult to be used to socially injure and exclude, especially when they become a social demographic.

In past days it was a real social slur to call someone “illegitimate”.  Take a listen to this song from the 60’s:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Li5SeswcCp4

There were serious consequences for people bringing children into this world outside of the protection of marriage before the 70’s.  And it is only now in this modern age that we see how bad the outcomes for boys from single mother homes actually are.  There are real, quantifiable implications for boys raised in an environment without a supporting father in the picture.

Something more sinister is actually happening, though.  We are de-emphasizing the importance of male lineage, male inheritance and male continuance.

Should these things be unimportant? I say they are vitally important! Our fathers and our forefathers are the chains on which males can hold fast to the anchoring identity of being “men”.  Women have deliberately cut the chains to the very anchors that boys need to secure their identity as men.

No wonder why boys from single mother homes feel so adrift!  Why boys are so eager to do everything that “Mummy” says, and believe everything that “Mummy” states.

They don’t know where they came from, ergo, they don’t know who they are!

MGTOW: Living with your Choices

Aside

Part of being a MGTOW, or a Man Going His Own Way, is that Iron-Clad resolve to do just that.  Be your own man.  Do your own thing.  Experiment. Push the limits and try new things out. All the while acknowledging that you are also taking risks too.

I recently tried something a bit too radical recently.  Waay Too Radical. Something that was too emotionally charged and something now I think I am going to regret.  But I guess we can’t try the limits without going outside of the boundary from time to time.  It is outside of the boundary that we are challenged as people, that we grow and we learn.  Sometimes it is a step forward, a leap in consciousness and understanding, and sometimes it is a step backwards, an error, a misstep, an overreach.

I made a mistake.

I own it.

I accept the consequences of my actions.   And I realize that I have probably lost a lot of respect in the community because of it.

But I am resolved to stay in this community, come “hell or high water”.  I am sure my commentary over the last couple of years has been valued by a few people.  If I did not continue to do so, I would be doing a disservice to the others in the community.  All voices in MGTOW are valuable.  Even the voices of MGTOWs who make stupid mistakes from time to time.  They now have the benefit of Experience!

I also look at this as a push to do more as a MGTOW and as a person who can write.  I really should blog a bit more, maybe even do a video or two.

I’ll be catching you guys in the comments section as normal…

Peace!

The shifting goal posts: Re-Endangerment for Social Change and Profit

Standard

 

Biology.

We can’t really escape it.

Not even in this modern and safe environment.  We can remove ourselves from physical harm,  craft our environment so that we reduce environmental and natural risk to a bare minimum.   But we can’t escape our emotions.  Emotions are used by our biology in response to stimulus with the external world.  They are part of the human condition.  They are also very necessary for our continued healthy existence.  Anger, fear, love, lust, sadness.  A veritable spectrum of emotional responses.  We just can’t escape them.

Understanding that we are, indeed, creatures possessing both logic and emotion, we come to noticing the recent video about a woman walking around New York City, showing street harassment.

Naturally, this only shows a little less than two minutes of this woman receiving cat-calling, propositioning, compliments.  A distillation of about 10 full hours of this woman walking around New York City.  The brevity of this footage says a lot about how frequent this behaviour is in her travels.  In no means did she receive all this attention throughout her walk.  It happened only in a few instances.  But that is the intellectual dishonesty of this particular video.  It was never meant to present logical evidence.

It was meant to evoke an emotional response in the viewer.  Here we have a woman, a particularly attractive woman.  A woman walking alone.  Walking through some tough neighbourhoods being accosted by dangerous looking men.  Men want to jump through the screen and try to protect the woman from the harassment.  Women put themselves in that position of alone-ness, receiving what is 10 hours worth of street harassment in just two minutes of watching.

Viewers don’t take in the time frame over-which this all occurred.  Viewers don’t take into context the rarity of such a beautiful looking woman walking through that particular neighbourhood.  The Viewers are left with the impression that for 10 hours straight, this woman was subject to 10 hours of guys breaking social conventions and being down-right creepiness

This is all just emotional puppet-mastery. The Con is Complete.

There are now feminist legislators who are rapidly and rabidly looking to put new laws in place to protect women from such street harassment.  But in all fairness, the street harassment is subjective, and dependent on the woman in question.  She may look at the behaviour as empowering.  She has been able to attract the attention of these men in the streets,unlike other women who may have just passed by without notice.  Again, this is completely dependent on the emotional state of the woman in question and her motivation at the time.

Was this woman in any real and physical danger?

Probably not.

What the video makers are doing instead are promoting the “fear” of being physically in danger.  They are authoring a narrative of  “re-endangerment”.  It is a pretty clever ploy.  And it is this videos ability to play out on the emotions of its viewers that bothers me a lot.

Our emotional state is not necessarily the reality.  Fear of physical danger is not the same as being in physical danger.  But this is the landscape we are in.  There are powers out there that continue to peddle these Threat Narratives, primarily because they allow the writers of these narratives the ability to promote a suitable re-action to the newly presented “re-endangerment”.

I live in Brisbane, Australia, and right now I am having a long weekend, thanks to the G20 Conference being in town.  Earlier this week, we were given the news that Russia had sent several Warships into the Coral Sea (and in International Waters).  I see no threat from Russia in these moves, but many in our press are overplaying the danger these warships present.  This has all the hallmarks of yet another Threat Narrative.  And on cue the press has cultivated the politically appropriate response.  Australian Warships have been sent out to shadow these vessels.

Threat Narratives are so easily recycled.  The Russian Threat to the fledgling colonies of Australia was all the rage back in the 1880’s.  Fort Lytton at the mouth of the Brisbane River was created primarily to stop the threat of Russian Incursion.  I find it completely ironic that 130 years later, FINALLY the Russian are justifying the existence of Fort Lytton!  And even now,  I don’t believe those Russian Warships will make any further moves towards Australian Waters.  There is no real threat.

But in creating a threat, it is the people who craft the threat who benefit from it.  Just imagine the profit that was made by the makers of the old 6 inch muzzle-loading guns that sit idle at Fort Lytton, the Construction companies that were paid good money to lay in the concrete for the emplacements, the officers and men who derived a living from protecting the Colony of Queensland from the spectre of a Russian Incursion into the Capital of Queensland.  Their existence was there not to stop any real and credible threat, but as a way of placating the emotional fears of the populace.

We need to realize that as certain parties continue to craft threat narratives, they slowly shift the goal posts of legally acceptable behaviour.  They are slowly drifting away from reality, into the realms of Emotional Subjectivity.  This hands too much power into the hands of those who will be protected from such emotions.  In this is a real danger of thought policing, censorship and freedom of expression.

Always question the motives of anyone who wants to evoke the emotion of “fear” in you, because they will always “have” a solution that maximizes the power and the profit into the hands of the person who is doing this.

The War between Women

Standard

From the moment she wakes up, a woman is at war!

I know this sounds hard to believe, but hear me out on this.

Women are constantly fighting with one another for social dominance. As we have built this modern world, giving women more and more free time, more safety and less risks from health and environment issues we have also given them the flexibility to slip into “herd” mode.

And in any herd, there is the inevitable ladder of heirarchy – the pecking order –  being constantly fought over.  For men, our weapons are linked to our strengths and we fight physically for superiority. For women, they use other weapons,  they use materialism as their main tool for superiority.

This materialism actually plays a large part in their Pre-Approval mechanism (I know it is a “Game” term but it is relevant.).  Take men who buy $400 shoes, the Rolex Watch, the Imported Car.  Their chances of success with women is increased over the man who has the cheap $40 shoes, the Seiko Watch and the second-hand Domestic Car.  This Pre-Approval isn’t just applied to men, it is applied to women as well.  A womans material wealth plays a large part in their social standing.

Pre-Approval has always  been molded by the environment around women.  In the past, women were part of the community, they knew most of the people in their own community, and they were known as well.  Women saw that struggles of life were a normal part of being in a real relationship. Good Homes, well-adjusted and achieving kids, these were earned by leaner times when Marriages were new. Now in this modern age, real community is practically dead.  What replaced it was the Modern Media.  And the Modern Media has focused women onto the Material exclusively.  That is the whole point of Advertising, right?  Make people miserable unless they purchase their product.   The situations and people in the dramas and reality shows that women enjoy, seem to show the women in the fulfillment of their material (and social) needs merely from being on these shows, or just for existing.

These shows condition women into needing these material things for Social Acceptance and to Socially Accept.  Inclusion and Exclusion hang in the balance of possessions.

Like in any war, the real winners aren’t the people who fight the wars.  It is the people who finance and produce the weapons used in such outbreaks of violence. Keynesian Consummerism needs women to keep on “fighting the good fight” on behalf of the Economy, and Prosperity and Jobs. What is left after the woman has proudly paraded her new Handbag in front of her GalPals is the animosities and jealousies which continue of smolder and burn after the new item is displayed. This leads the victims of this Material Violence to plot and buy the weapons needed for their counter-thrust at their mortal foes.

What of Men? You are there to further her war against ALL of womanhood.  You will be used like a beast of burden and slaughtered to achieve her goal of Social Superiority.  You are secondary to any concern that she might have.  Their battles will consume you like ammunition.  Society is now set up to ensure the spent cartridges are swept up and put out of way so they aren’t tripped on by the female combatants in the continuing Consumer War.