inquirius

What is the point in discussing MGTOW if the only thing you're going to say is hyperbolic, ad hominem nonsense? "Get a heavier ballsack." "Be a very high quality male." That's exactly the kind of unthinking male posturing that makes engaging with ideas impossible and belies the opposite of a "heavy ballsack." Maybe if you stopped committing logical fallacies and actually engaged with what some of the reasonable MGTOW are saying, you'd be able to find some value in the philosophy.

MGTOW, in its highest form, is a leaderless, individualistic forum of men with only two core tenets; never marry and never delude yourself about female nature. Some prominent voices in MGTOW are Sandman, Stardusk (whom I admire and share most of my views with), Barbarossa, and TFM (also a hilarious and great influence), who offer their own nuanced MGTOW perspective but in no way lead anyone and very often disagree. The most important aspect of every MGTOW should developing his ability to think logically, know himself, and do what makes him happy. Whether or not your life involves having sex with and being in the company of women is up to the individual, and of course, having less to do with women is a natural result of shedding previous white knight tendencies and learning what they're (white knight tendencies and women) really about. The aspect of the philosophy of MGTOW that onlookers often don't give it credit for, however, is the increased standards MGTOW men place on other men. People look on MGTOW as either an inherently woman-hating way of thinking or a desert island for men who can't find a woman, but in reality, a proper MGTOW should challenge men and themselves about male behavior and thinking just as much than female behavior and thinking. If you say you're a MGTOW and you're only paying attention to women, you are missing at least 50% of the point (and also not escaping a gynocentric view), yet critics of MGTOW only pay attention to those men who are not self-aware enough to criticize themselves. So yes, as with any philosophy or way of thinking, you are going to find far less adept thinkers who abuse the philosophy, and you can obviously misrepresent MGTOW as a whole through giving those people a disproportionate voice. Ultimately, the sustainability of MGTOW doesn't matter, because MGTOW is an idea that most men would never summarily adopt anyway, and one that shouldn't be the only idea in the heads of those who do. At best, MGTOW offers a way for men to re-focus on themselves and what makes them feel happy, and if a woman wants to be a part of that, that's great, but most do not. And that's fine, really, because if MGTOW is anything, it is the act of telling all those who would try to shame men for doing what makes them happy to go **** themselves. Hope that clears things up.

1. Your statement, "Statism is institutionalized coercion; The belief that humans can exist in different, opposing moral categories." definitely needs some unpacking. I understand the part before the semicolon, but I do not understand the esoteric part after the semicolon. 2. Sex is a great example which perfectly illustrates my point, actually. The cases I pointed out deal with contracts in which consent is implied via certain factors such as the actions of the concerned individuals, just as in sex. The equivalent would not be rape, as you attempt to argue; it would be how sex often occurs without express consent. Adverse possession is like courting a female for a long, long time and then having sex with her when you go back to her place; you don't need her to say, "Hear ye, hear ye, this man-beast and I may now engage in copious copulation," if she says as much with her actions. 3. You appear to be fogging me here, as Stefan often says, so I'll just reiterate that my point stands that contracts rely on being legally enforceable to mean anything. Subserviance to a party of higher authority which has the means of enforcing that authority is a fundamental part of a contract. Furthermore, damages caused via loss of reputation are very real and people do go to court to remedy libel and slander. Maybe the disconnect here is that you say, "thinking less of someone is not a behavior," but that's very obviously incorrect because thinking is itself a behavior. In fact, if you look up the definition of behavior, which is "the way in which one acts or conducts oneself, especially toward others," how one thinks about someone else is certainly included in that definition. 5. No, actually, my ability to post on these forums is a privilege, not a contract, because I was granted that ability by a party which has such an authority grant such an ability. If the admins on this site decide to revoke my ability to post here, I do not have any legal right to remedy that situation. If I did, then it would be a contract. What that has to do with my #5 point, I have no idea. If you'd like to actually address my fifth point, you might want to do a better job that saying "false" and derailing the argument.

1. You're going to have to talk in plainer language for me to address this point. 2. Contracts are generally voluntary, yes, however, there are types of contracts in which this is not the case such as those created by operation of law (operation of law = contract automatically created by the state regardless of intent of parties). A benign example would be intestate succession (a.k.a., death without a will). A less benign example would be adverse possession (title of land passes to unopposed aggressive occupant after a period of time). 3. Even assuming that loss of reputation is somehow an acceptable punishment, the threat of loss of reputation is coercion, because threats are coercion. Terms like "less likely" are not acceptable parts of a contract, because one of the elements of a viable contract is the mutual understanding of the intent of all parts of a contract. Lack of clarity would certainly be grounds for voiding a contract. Not to mention common sense dictates that you would frankly have to be pretty stupid to agree to a contract someone might be held responsible for breaching. Imagine you're a settlor for a trust and the trustee embezzles the funds; under your threat of "maybe" punishment, do you really think the trustee cares? Do you think people who would do future business with that trustee particularly care if that money is stolen? If marriage is any indicator of the integrity of humanity when it comes to contracts, the answer is a resounding, "no." 4. Yes, early termination clauses, such as those accompanying tenancy contracts, are in general a good idea, provided they make sense within a given type of contract. We agree, but I'm not sure what your point is. 5. Contracts are a statist construct because the legal fiction, history, and logic we use to understand and implement them are statist constructs. The fundamental legal fiction that makes a contract what it is today is the belief that we can give the enforcement authority, which should belong to the parties making the contract, to another party, and be subserviant to that party. Being contractually subserviant to a party's enforcement authority sounds a hell of a lot like government to me, whether that government is one person or many people.

Not sure if you're being facetious or not. I'll be assuming you aren't. Yes, marriage (which is a contract) and contracts are, in fact, statist institutions, because they fundamentally require both parties to acknowledge the enforcement authority of a sufficiently legitimate third party to have any meaning. You could argue that the third party in question need not necessarily be a state, but for contracts that really matter, I don't think anyone would be willing to settle for anything less than an entity which has the greatest possible violent force and the greatest possible history of legitimacy. This leads into my next point, which is that marriage is currently never a good idea for a man, because the male end of the bargain is violently compelled, the female end is not, and the female has nearly all authority. For much of English common law, under the legal doctrine of coverture, this was not the case; consent was implied via the marriage contract, as it should be. Marriage was openly acknowledged as a contract for the trade of a lifetime of sex for a lifetime of resources, and that was reflected in law. Additionally, the male retained most authority because that trade still favors the female. So, is there a such thing as marital rape? I don't think so. Community property dictates that a female owns the male's body via his labor, so I see no reason why a man is not then entitled to use the body of the female.

I believe I understand and empathize with how you feel about the dating/marriage predicament; in theory, no one wants to be without a partner for the rest of their lives. People want to have lasting empathetic, reciprocal love, but the problem is, excluding self-aware individuals, modern "love" has ironically become an unsexy exchange that goes against the very psychology that would allow for a rewarding empathetic (and sexual, of course) relationship. The relationships on offer for a young man like myself appear to be either prostitution, consensual abuse, or nothing; that is, you either pay for it in some way, have sex entirely too soon without paying, or go without. In this, both men and women have failed, because women have realized that the sooner they give it up, the sooner they get whatever value they seek, and men have largely been irrationally accepting of the arrangement due to their innately high sex drive. Yet, both have in truth receive worthless goods because the exchange lacks the established presence of empathetic love necessary to give those goods value. In the rush to get what each sex thinks they want, and without elders to guide us due to the destruction of the family and community, we've created a situation wherein none of us get what we really need (empathy), or even the thing we originally wanted. It's truly a sad situation for all involved, but I must put the majority liability on women, because it is they who control sex and it is men who are inherently vulnerable, in addition to being starved of empathy far more than women throughout their lives. This is also why I anticipate that the presence of empathy in relationships will only continue to decline, because women have already proven that they are incredibly irresponsible with the power they are born with. With 1 in 4 children born to single mothers in the US and with the divorce rate so high and primarily initiated by women, I can only conclude that most women themselves are not empathetic. And that isn't even counting dysfunctional marriages. Now that I think I've revealed what the situation basically is, you probably want to know if there is, as much as my opinion matters, hope for what you want. My answer is...I don't know, honestly, and were I to gamble on the answer, I would say that there isn't much hope left, because that's just the way the trend is going. However, it's not all bad news; the best upside is that there's many resources available now for those who are self-aware to help change themselves and those around them into more empathetic individuals, and perhaps find a suitable mate in the process. Finally, MGTOW means different things to different guys, and the only tangible points of intersection are understanding that women are just people, not angels and usually very flawed, and that marriage is probably not a justifiable risk if you live in a Western country (depends on certain laws, like those related to community property). MGTOW is just information and an acknowledgement of how things really are, not a prohibition on sex or relationships. Still, you should take care to make sure you don't get stuck on the negativity that often permeates MGTOW content; it's admittedly easy to get sucked into because the situation between the sexes seems pretty bad, but what matters is how you use MGTOW, like any other kind of information, to improve yourself and your life. If it doesn't serve you and it makes you feel like shit, then don't bother with it. That's not exactly the most hopeful response, but the TL:DR is that while there doesn't seem like there's a lot of empathetic women (or people, in general), there has to be some. The only thing we can do is try to find someone like that while we become more self-aware and avoid the legions of single mothers and witches. Seriously, it's like Helm's Deep out there. Where's Gandalf when you need him?

Single mothers shouldn't even be in your reality, because as Stefan and others have said many times, they either weren't good enough people to be in the reality of the man with which they became pregnant, or have such poor choice in men that they're willing to create a random life despite all the consequences and glut of contraceptives women have access to. The best thing you can do is never allow a single mother access to your attention or wallet. Remove her from your life just as she removed the possibility of a biological father from the life of her disadvantaged child. Of course, many single mothers are physically attractive, and they obviously know that and wield that influence to create such a the situation, but no single mother (or woman in general) is so physically attractive that it excuses her actions or her abysmal value. Frankly, to reward that behavior via buying her dinner and doing things for her tells me that you aren't really connecting with that fact due to fear (as you indicate), which leads me to my next point about the fear of being alone. The pain/fear of being alone is something all people who choose/have the opportunity to be self-aware should learn to conquer, because being alone is a nigh-unavoidable byproduct of being self-aware, if for the simple reason that most people are not self-aware. Once you develop a consciousness above the work/breed/eat matrix and see all the examples of people who are unaware, unhappy slaves to that matrix, you can't go back to a lower level of consciousness (a.k.a., the animal consciousness matrix) unless you find a way to wipe your memory. Which is why I suspect Cypher, in the movie The Matrix itself, demanded to "not remember anything" as a prerequisite for his cooperation with the machines; minds that know the truth unconsciously reject false realities, as the Architect basically states in his interview with Neo (humans rejected a paradise because they knew it wasn't true). What I think your fear of MGTOW is really a fear of accepting the implications of self-awareness, and to be sure, to do so is not without a measure of painful emotions equal to the extent to which you originally bought into the matrix. What is not discussed at all to my knowledge on FDR is that the ultimate goal and benefit of self-awareness is self-mastery, which is heaven compared to the hell that most of us are locked into via the animal consciousness we fear breaking out of. Men in particular are fearful of self-mastery, because they are so used to being human-doings (that is, having mastery over everything except themselves) that, as indicated in Esther Vilar's The Manipulated Man, most men choose not to know themselves and remain beasts of burden. Hence, the reason why many men kill themselves after divorce, losing access to their kids, and more; the purpose for their "doing" reality is gone, and having never cultivated their "being" reality, they are left with nothing. So, I encourage you to regulate your attention (especially when consuming MGTOW content) and do things that will increase your self-awareness, so that you can have self-mastery, which is just a harmony between your mind and body such that you may experience reality how you want rather than how others want. There are many ways to do this, and as Stefan says, they do involve doing activities that involve a struggle or resistance at times, but look at the situation this way; being more well-read, mindful, working out, etc are things that naturally attract women anyway, so should you make the decision to date, you command a higher price and are better able to pick the wheat from the chaff. Good luck, hope this helped.

At least in my experience as a man in his 20s, "dating" women is a truly ridiculous practice for which there's essentially no benefit, and that's assuming you never pay for her company or sex. Stefan is adamant that, if you properly vet females (whatever that means), you'll eventually find one that's worth it, but that argument ignores the reality of modern dating. Consider that nearly all females have instantaneous, exhaustive access to innumerable suitors, and would almost certainly prefer a man with absolutely no self-awareness because they themselves have no self-awareness. Add in the fact that females grossly inflate their own SMV in perpetual hypergamy and the number of men willing to prostrate themselves to the pedestal of female orifices, and I can't escape the conclusion that those with higher self-awareness (and IQ, frankly) are far better off doing something else that yields a more tangible, reliable benefit. There are just so many things you could do to improve your body and your brain, or just entertain yourself, that a man who has even a mote of understanding about the current situation between the sexes can't rationally justify getting involved. Ask yourself, how many times am I going to have the same inane conversations before I legitimately want to blow my brains out? Before I went MGTOW, I could barely stand the rote of dating/hanging out with women even if it meant getting laid, but now that I'm fully inculcated in improving my brain and body, as well as doing whatever I want, my patience for shit tests and female nature in general is non-extant. And that doesn't make me some great genius--it just makes me sane in comparison to most men. Finally, in response to that disturbing Pepe spawning yet more Pepes, the notion that you can "red pill" a woman shows a fundamental lack of understanding about the nature of the so-called red pill. A woman loses power by being in a relationship with a red pill man, and you can't "red pill" her out of what she is designed to be sexually attracted to (wealth, status, height, etc). The monkey-brain expansion pack is just that; an expansion pack. The base game is running on software you aren't gonna change.

That's true, they can't (yet) diagnose mental illness or the risk for it, but the point is that there is an observable physiological reality to depression.

http://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/pet-scan/multimedia/-pet-scan-of-the-brain-for-depression/img-20007400 http://psychcentral.com/news/2008/05/08/brains-of-people-with-depression-different/2253.html https://source.wustl.edu/2009/03/brain-network-functions-differently-in-people-with-depression-researchers-find/ At least, that's my cursory effort at research.

I'm not sure what you were expecting to happen. I'm far from a SJW warrior for the interests of LGBT whatever, but I also don't think what you said was constructive or tasteful. I would have done the same thing to preserve the integrity of the conversation.

1. Depression is not some weird tool that so-called betas use to avoid conflict with so-called alphas or secure their access to eggs. I don't see how suffering from depression is even remotely beneficial, especially in males wherein the symptoms are more often psychosomatic and get in the way of everyday life functions. But hey, if you can provide me evidence that depression has anything to do with alphas, betas, zeta, and/or omega males, I might actually take your incredible claim seriously. 2. Depression may or may not have anything to do with anger, that depends on the person. People have lots of different reasons for having depression, and anger is far from the sole cause. I have no idea what you mean by "unprocessed anger requires adaptation." The most I would say is that unprocessed anger requires energy to resolve, as any psychological problem requires energy to resolve, but adaptation certainly doesn't require more energy than control (that is, adaption is MORE efficient than control) and we can see this easily. In nature, a prey species simply runs away from a predator, it doesn't try to somehow control the predator or even more ridiculous, the environment. In fact, predators, which seek to control their prey, require much more energy and are much less successful in an evolutionary sense than prey (prey numbers are huge, predator numbers are small). Humans, in fact, are unique in that they expend enormous amounts of energy on the control and upkeep of their environment, for reasons that usually don't justify the costs. I could go on, but I suggest you learn about energy flow and ecosystems if you want to learn what efficiency really means in the context of the environment, because it's pretty clear that your understanding is completely backwards, even in a purely anthropological scope. 3. If I'm understanding your use of the term "beta" correctly, as in beta provider, then your argument that betas are effectively not very intelligent makes no sense at all. To provide, you have to know how to go out into the world and get resources, which requires a higher IQ. I really don't know what definition of "beta" you're using, because it's clearly not working with your arguments. 4. Really, being assertive in an "aggressive conflict" is more efficient than avoiding such a conflict, or defusing the situation? If your goal is to resolve the conflict with minimal energy and maximum maturity, then further escalating a potentially dangerous situation through being assertive is the exact opposite of what you want to do. Smart, efficient people don't engage in aggressive conflict precisely because the energy output isn't usually worth the return. If what you meant instead is non-violent competition, then you're still wrong because the smartest, most "alpha" people who lead companies don't actually want competition, and the formation of monopolies, intra-industry cooperation, and non-compete agreements illustrates this. Competition is far more costly than cooperation and to use the nature example again, adult predators don't typically hunt adult predators unless extreme environmental pressures force them to. 5. I don't really know what this means, but given that one of the signs of depression is actually an increase in risk taking, I again don't think you know much about depression.

The foundation of relationships should be reciprocity. If you think your grandmother has carried out action that has made your life better, then feel free to enmesh yourself in the conflict. If you think your grandmother hasn't been a good grandmother, yet you still want to help her, then the reasons you want to help are irrational and no one here is going to convince you otherwise.

Honestly, I find the title of the video misleading given Stefan's evidence. I think Stefan gives great evidence to show that the institutional structure behind the medical understanding of mental illness is illegitimate, and I agree, but that doesn't mean mental illness itself isn't real. I think the most insidious achievement of big pharma, in collusion with psychiatrists and psychologists, is that they effectively lumped mental illness in with all mental suffering and did their best to make the two indistinguishable (the DSM keeps getting bigger, after all). It's really quite ingenious when you think about it; they found a way to make everyone a potential consumer of their products. What is most erroneous about Stefan's conclusion is that he doesn't look at the entire history of mental illness. Severe mental illnesses have a written history that extends as far back as Hammurabi's code wherein mental illness had dire consequences for those it applied to, and that didn't change for thousands of years (lobotomies were being carried out less than a century ago). More recently, brain scans can now recognize differences in the brains of those with mental illnesses compared to those without such illnesses. Certain brain structures, like receptors, shrink or enlarge. So yes, there are physiological changes that give evidence to the existence of a pathology, and like any other pathology, doctors and scientists group such conditions together and give it a name. Of course, there's a problem when you start terming very normal human conditions as pathology and I think we can all agree that is the primary failure of the mental health system. The problem, then, isn't that mental illness doesn't exist, it's that doctors/clinicians in the modern mental health system are incentivized to cast their nets too wide in the ascribing of pathology and the prescription of psychotropic drugs, and that society at large is lead to believe that pharmaceuticals are the go-to answer when they should be a last resort. What is truly unfortunate is that the corruption has created a polarized ideological environment of skeptics and virtue-signalers, wherein the answer appears to be either hard psychotropic drugs so you don't offend the sufferer, or nothing at all. It becomes a war, and as usual, the truth of situation is the first casualty and the sufferer often follows.

I don't think this situation is salvageable, and I see no reason why you should go out of your way to try, given your own abuse. If your grandmother actually cared about future grandchildren, she would not have abused your mother, who then abused you. The situation sounds like a hell of your grandmother's own making, and unfortunately, I think your well-meaning empathy is misplaced. As someone who has dealt extensively with abusive female relatives, I also don't think you should believe anything they say; between your mother and your grandmother, you will never get a straight story. You're obviously free to do whatever you want, but if there's no financial benefit in getting further involved, is this situation worth your time investment? Consider that you are actually "saving" your grandmother from the consequences of her own actions.

While I can't comment on addiction and the challenges that entails, I dealt with severe depression for about seven years, so I can at least speak to that. For the small amount of time I went to therapy (the beginning of my depression), both one-on-one and group, I learned nothing and merely saw the system for what it is; chemical warehousing and lost souls trying to make sense of things in whatever feeble way they knew how, and failing often. I was really confused that no one seemed to be concerned about how to actually permanently, strategically solve their problems, and the group counselors didn't give anyone any kind of direction. The individual counselors put people on psychotropic drugs, and didn't achieve much beyond that. After experiencing two rather misandric counselors, I really didn't care to continue the fruitless charade anyway. I soon left therapy for good and proceeded to spend most of my time going to trying to go to school while figuring out how to solve depression on my own. What I think finally resolved my depression is a combination of four things; drug-induced extreme suicidal ideation which forced me off the psychotropic drugs, philosophy including the trivium method, learning about and carrying out strenuous working out/bodybuilding, and basically going MGTOW (ideally, more of a Stardusk-like MGTOW). The weightlifting and cardio in particular restored my brain, and I'm convinced that everyone, especially men, need to engage in strenuous workouts to calm their minds. I never once thought my way out of depression--it was only when I forced my attention away from my mind, through working out, that I finally found a way out from under numbness and racing/bad thoughts. My plan, while I didn't fully grasp it at the time and though it's still a relatively recent development, has turned out well so far and I think now I know why; it was a full mind-body change, and the old, unfit mind-body needed to be discarded. Through hard physical and mental work and determination, I'm creating a self I find worth living, and seeing the results of my efforts keeps me going, even through difficult days. Overall, I think there comes a point in some lives where, once an individual has suffered thoroughly enough, he or she either has the innate willpower to make life-changing decisions, or doesn't. No one really cares about the pain you go through, no one is going to do the work for you, and your situation isn't going to improve until you do that work. You're alone, and you're either your own worst enemy, or your most ferocious advocate.

While meager in either case, there is no benefit a single mother can bestow on a man that a childless single female cannot better provide.

What you appear to be looking for are people to justify your involvement with a single mother, which is illustrative of exactly why you should not get involved with her and instead, seriously investigate why you think involving yourself with a single mother is at all acceptable. I'm not going to list reasons why you shouldn't get involved with a single mother, as the reasons are self-evident and you're not thinking rationally. The most I can do is suggest that you educate yourself on the topic. I don't even know why you would be attracted to a single mother. Surely you can find ass that isn't attached to extremely bad life decisions.

He's asking the forum if he should "find a woman to enjoy life with now at age 20" and my response is that the likelihood of him or whatever similarly aged woman he would want being ready is akin to finding a unicorn, and the process is like finding hay in a needle stack. Relationships and marriages fail more than they succeed, and especially so for young people. That should clarify your exact concerns.

Quote me where I said that a virtuous woman is impossible to find.

First of all, there are plenty of MGTOW men who interact with women; MGTOW is, if nothing else, about refraining from marriage. Secondly, the fact that you're more concerned about whatever minute competition I offer as a random man on the internet rather than the great wealth of resources I've directed you towards should display for all your lack of critical thinking when it comes to females, especially given the previous emotional damage you suffered. You also never give a single reason as to why you need to engage in marriage, which is an absolutely unnecessary risk which benefits only the state. What you should be working on is yourself, not trying to find hay in a needle stack.

I do not answer to straw men.

Men should rejoice too; if the artificial sperm catches on, men would be protected from making the incredibly stupid decision to donate sperm. Mothers of children which result from IVF have successfully sued for child support.

I suggest you familiarize yourself with the wisdom of Tom Leykis, Sandman on Youtube, and the tenants of MGTOW before you go on your quest to find a unicorn.

There's a therapist, Peter Gerlach, who has a theory about "incomplete grief," which often stands in the way of being honest with yourself. I think he and his work deserve a lot more attention in the discussion on honesty and maybe an interview with Stefan, if the former is still alive. Here's his website: http://sfhelp.org/site/pkg.htm Your article is a good contribution and I agree that behavior is voluntary; I would add a concurring opinion that many dysfunctional people develop such ingrained, erroneous behavior patterns that the steps laid out in your article are very difficult to follow if the individual hasn't already had some therapy or isn't inherently introverted. You do, however, acknowledge the importance of therapy in your article, so were I to change something, I would just put the mention of therapy at the beginning rather than near the end, since I see it as almost a prerequisite. Also, the Age of Empires example made my day! We should play sometime.