Search the Community

Currently 19 years old, deciding whether or not I should set myself up for the possibility of a family later on, or whether I should set myself up for being single for the rest of my life. Thoughts? Pros and Cons for each? I'm an Omega male so getting laid isn't an option.

There's a fun thought experiment in store for you, and in the end I demonstrate how 'atheist' and 'MGTOW' are the same thing, which is pretty cool. But it's less to do with that example. Sorta jumping the gun but whatever. I'm starting a project I suppose you can help with or appreciate. Basically, I believe that where there is some content of truth within any perspective that's logically consistent. Yet, that truth isn't a matter of conclusion but one of relationship. So let's try a thought experiment! I'll show what I mean through numbers. Ex: I ask 3 people to solve for 'x'. The Christian says the answer is 3. The MGTOW says the answer is 5. The Conservative says the answer is 11. These numbers only represent some conclusion they've crafted in response to 'x' (some problem). Then they argue and carry on as they do. But then you ask this: Solve for 'y'. The Christian says the answer is 3.6. The MGTOW says the answer is 6. The Conservative says the answer is 13.2. Then you keep doing this over and over again. You can also do this merely by studying their content, of course. Now, all their conclusions are different. But you're not interested in their conclusions. Instead, you're interested in how their conclusions relate to each other. You want to see how x relates to y, how one conclusion they have relates to another. From there, you're trying to establish a trend. You're trying to see if irrespective of their conclusions, the way they relate to each other is the same. Think of it like a different language. The term 'fear' is different in a host of languages and you wouldn't understand them. But should you inquire their term for spiders, anxiety, terror, etc., you'd be able to establish how each term relates to the others and so finally understand their language. Takes a long time granted, but it's how you do it. Learn the word. Learn its relation. Learn the language. Yet what's more, if we delve into our own understanding of terms in our own language. We come to find out that we understand these terms through relation as well. Think about it. Not only is every word, every abstraction reliant on others to understand it, to frame it within reality. But without those others things existing, you wouldn't be able to define the term let alone even create the abstraction. It's like the physical law(?)of how everything that exists is an effect and produces an effect. So everything that exists does so by virtue of interaction. Be that with something else or time or whatever. It's a neat ontological idea and one that's been plenty explored - true too, I think. What that means is that everything that exists, or rather everything we recognize as existing, does so in our minds by virtue of relationship. It's not an 'is', it doesn't 'just exist'. There needs to be a how, a constitution of some sort. Science bears this out and might even be a product of our minds more than anything. See, every time we find a gap in a cause and effect system, we create something to be responsible for it. Then we try to demonstrate its existence in some fashion. If successful, we try to find a gap in this new cause and effect system, the next thing to be responsible for it, and so create something there and so on and so forth. Truly, those things, those particles for the most part, are placeholders. It's freaky, but they might not actually exist. They've all been the product of attempting to understand a relationship. We say that a proton effects an atom in this way which effects a molecule in this way which effects a larger molecule this way and so on until, I dunno, you form an apple. But we know in reality that where we started, the proton (or whatever the smallest particle we identify) is what the whole thing is supposedly made of. There is no 'atom'. It's a grouping of protons(in this example). Just like there is no 'forest', there's only a bunch of trees. So really, what we're doing when we create all these other particles from proton to apple, is we're creating intermediaries to better understand the relationship protons have to apples. We look at it like a step-by-step process, but we've actually no reason to. Nothing happens 'first' in this system, since it's only one relationship in reality: proton to apple and even then, it's we who are calling this set of protons an apple in the first place. The only truth we've actually discerned from this is the nature of the relationship itself. It's component parts are intermediaries only for our own understanding. It's seen as step 1, 2, 3, 4, etc., but there aren't any steps. Or if you want, there's only one. One that we separate into different steps because we can't understand it any other way: proton->apple. Again a freaky thought, yet our language works this way. What 'humility' (or any word) is, is a product only of all its relationships to its component parts as well as its outcome in reality i.e. how you understand it. So not only do you need the existence of these other concepts, these other words to define and so understand 'humility', but you need an entire network of other words all linked together in some fashion. You need a 'language Matrix', a universe. This operational network, this modeling of reality would thus be a product not of individuals, of certain intrinsic beings, but one of relationship. The words would only be like nodes in a computer chip(protons, molecules, etc.). They only SEND the SIGNAL along. They only TRANSLATE the RELATIONSHIP along. It's WHERE that signal is sent that determines the function and so purpose of the node. Imagine being inside a hollow white sphere dotted with little black circles on the inside surface. When you 'select' a circle it shows all its connections to the others using, I dunno, lasers. All of them are connected yet all of them are different. That's how I envision it. So yeah, entertain the thought. How you understand something isn't due to some intrinsic, innate, 'entirely distinct from everything else' quality, no. You understand it in how it has an 'entirely distinct from everything else' relationship to well, everything else you know ON THE WHOLE. No matter what it is it hits all the nodes, but travels along them in a different path. For example, the node for 'war' isn't connected to 'good' unless routed first through 'soldier' and then 'defense' or whatever. And yes, the relationship of even those nodes are created in the same fashion, having their own unique connections to other nodes and so on. The beauty is that their inter-connectivity is technically all the same giant Matrix, but starting at a different node yields a different perspective of this connectivity. So no matter what, your mind never links 'war' with 'good' directly, or whatever the nature of this would actually be. (It's a thought experiment after all). So on the whole, this is your model of reality. This set of relationships is your 'truth'. So in this thought experiment, the nodes themselves, the words are irrelevant. They're all equally 'words' or 'beliefs' or 'positions' or 'WHATs' without distinction. What distinguishes them is 'HOW'. It's their interconnections that determines their uniqueness. Now if that were true, then what someone says is true or believes is true isn't actually relevant to what's true or even, believe it or not, their own understanding. The node doesn't matter. What matters is its relationship to the other nodes. So consider another person's connected nodes. They may have two nodes connected that you don't. So to you, they might seem like entirely unrelated phenomena. But if their understanding of something shares the same relationship you have regarding something else, if they have the same inter-connectivity but starting at a different node, then suffice it to say you believe the same thing, but only in a different language. Get it? So if their node for 'war' is linked nearly identically to everything your node for 'pragmatism' is connected to, then it's entirely likely that your understanding of 'pragmatism' is actually their understanding of 'war'. Sounds like a neat if probably impossible idea, but that's what I'm looking for. I'm finding it too, BTW. Remember those numbers? x = 3, 5, 11 y = 3.6, 6, 13.2 Well, 'y' is a product of this equation: y = (x/5)+x This is what I keep finding. So long as these groups are attempting to discern truth, they're forced to do so with regard to a certain matter and within a certain perspective since well, everyone has their biases. But wherever they deem to find it, it starts to create parallel relationships to other terms. Their conclusions are different yes, but their relationship to their conclusions, and its relationship to others, begins to develop an eerie congruity. So it is that their conclusions may be absolutely false, but their relationship to their conclusions and subsequent relationships therein, mirror our own within a different, supposedly unrelated subject. I take it you want an example and good, clean one. Simple: MGTOW are to women what atheists are to God. Strip away what each of those terms represent and simply look at the relationship between them. Everything the atheist says of God is true of what the MGTOW says of women. Remember, the 'nodes' don't matter. It's the relationship between the nodes that does. Atheists claim there is no 'God'. It's a product of your own desire for it and subsequent projection of meaning into it. MGTOW claim there is no 'woman'. It's a product of your own desire for it and subsequent projection of meaning into it. Atheists attempt to reconstitute 'God' as it actually exists i.e. the effect it actually produces in reality. MGTOW attempt to reconstitute 'Woman' as it actually exists i.e. the effect it actually produces in reality. 'God' doesn't exist as described, so atheists study the nature of the theist (true believer) to best determine the nature of 'God' as an abstraction. 'Woman' doesn't exist as described, so MGTOW study the nature of the gynocentrist (true believer) to best determine the nature of 'woman' as an abstraction. Atheists don't pray. MGTOW don't hope (no NAWALT). Atheists don't tithe. MGTOW don't pay. Atheists don't attend church. MGTOW don't take 'Women's Studies'. Atheists don't become priests. MGTOW don't become feminists. Atheists don't value God, seeing only the possible benefits of delusion and social cohesion. MGTOW don't value women, seeing only the possible benefits of delusion and social cohesion. Now, this isn't just some mad-lib or 'fill-in-the-blanks' sort of scenario. This matter of relationship is 1:1. In this case, both represent the loss of an abstraction, the loss of a certain connectivity of nodes, and a reconstitution as how they actually exist. But amazingly, that reconstitution is exactly the same. We would think this is impossible given the nature of these concepts. But if we remove any notion of what they're meant to represent, to see them as empty words, as mere nodes in our model of reality, they can be absolutely equal given the same array of relationship. The same relationship to the self, to the individual. And that's what's happening. This is why Jordan Peterson has paralleled very well (I've done better - maybe) the link between Genesis and consciousness. Also, the nature of God as truth, Jesus as the relationship truth has to ourselves, and with the Holy Spirit as the process of reconciling this through discernment. I've already gone into the Christian with this same tool to great effect. I linked them with scientists. Again, uncanny and offers some explanation of why Christian Europe was so instrumental to the scientific revolution. The Holy Trinity is the Scientific Method. Watch a good preacher talk about God and shift him into a scientist talking about the nature of truth. It will follow suit. I've posted something related to this in the Religion section just now, if you're interested. Anyway, yeah. Finding evidence for this is all I'm up to at the moment. Atheist and MGTOW are well-established, but I'd like to try more. I know some will see atheist and MGTOW both as a product of disillusionment and that's all they really share in common. But if you look at the relationship they have to their beliefs, how it shapes their identity, intentions, interactions, and others, the commonality continues unabated. So if you take yourself as an atheist and shift your node, shift your perspective so that 'God' lines up with 'woman', you'll at the very least be able to better understand MGTOW. Sympathize too, since as a matter of language and its relationship to themselves, they aren't technically wrong on principle. I actually encourage you to try it - if you can. Write out your relationship to 'God' then convert it to woman, following through on all the same relationships 'God' had. The impetus to MGTOW makes sense too, after that. No personal motivations or intentions are required to create it. Just lose the abstraction of 'woman'. Same goes for atheist with regard to God, obviously. There is no particular intention or motivation required. Instead, a loss of intention is. Same for MGTOW and to the same result. I guess the takeaway is that when it comes to things that aren't real, that are just ideas - especially lost ones, we can better discern our understanding of them strictly through their relationship to other ideas, not of any intrinsic quality. It also serves to simplify so many things, given one can only have so many relationships to belief anyway, if you think about it. It could probably even be charted using maths. +,-,x,/ and all that. Your model of reality converted into algebra? Complicated as all hell, but I think we could do it. Hope this was fun. PS - There's a Numberphile video on YouTube regarding Surreal Numbers. Just Google it. Watch a mad-genius create our entire collection of numbers(means more than it sounds) using only this ' : '. He's half the reason I think I'm right about this, since he's created everything using only the concept of 'greater' and 'lesser' or: 0 and 1. If I'm right about nodes, at the most basic level it is binary i.e. connected or not. There's other parallels though, obviously. The philosophical process of attribution i.e. distinction i.e. individuation, as a major one.

Hello. I am a fairly intelligent white male and find myself fairly ostracized by society. I understand the MGTOW movement via living near a college campus for a while, and inner cities to that previously ( my sexual market value was low in both places, despite Stef's arguments. I think his age and location have insulated him from the degree to which younger women in the US have been propagandized and advertised to pursue one of three categories: the non-white, the weak (read SJWs that are rail-thin), and the dirty ( skeezy men )). Much like the last show's caller, the guy who moved to Cambodia, I get the idea of being low to middle income in America (relative to an area, NYC obviously having heavy competition). Women seemed to really get off on having some dumb-ass or clearly deficient person to have around, and really seem to get excited in my opinion when some decently put-together person comes along. It seems like they get off on the nihilism of knowing they can always throw themselves after the next person who comes along, or pump out a kid and latch onto the government. I get the impression that associating with someone who can hold a conversation and is intelligent is fundamentally off-putting as it conflicts with their narcissism (the better looking ones). Obviously, the more attractive women are agreed with by the desparate white knights, which greatly decreases their incentive to have good contact with reality, speaking probabilistically. The basic dynamic I see is that they would rather associate with someone who is easy to control than not. In any case, the underlying intent of my post is to query the wider group as to whether they think rage is a reasonable response to this. In my personal experience, I once attempted to hold a woman to account for being dishonest and was attacked by a swarm of sycophants and white knights. It shared a disturbing parallel to a childhood experience where a best friend in grade school, a female before puberty (I'm male), whose parents were wealthy and professional (medical) but leftist wrote me off abruptly for being middle class and plunged into an exploration of who I viewed as fairly abusive, underhanded people who played the class card very hard. I suppose a related tangent is along the lines of the degree to which white western women have totally abandoned their own kind, and feel no shame about doing horrible things to the people who work insane hours and give up years of their primes in study carrels to dig through fascinating but dry details of how to get an iPhone (fundamentally a sex toy for girls) to work. I get the impression that Stef, as an actor originally, and hailing from the great white north, misses much of the experience of the rest of us, sailing above on an early hit of wealth, acting training for interacting with people before learning the tech stuff, etc. Just fishing generally for ideas. I suppose, with Trump and whatnot, to what degree are we being cowards in suppressing our rage for fear of career and personal life problems. I've lost a couple jobs and relationships already from sticking to FDR-type principles, but this one about confronting women about their unethical behavior is I think an edge case even for the free-thinking community.

Let me start off by Thanking Stefan for the books, that he has written. They have helped me a great deal. I am NOT trying to be cruel or mean. I am just telling the truth as I know it. So please forgive me if my wording or grammar are a little off. Stefan, Please Read. It will be short. I do not think you/Stefan knows what a MGTOW is. There's a lot of MGTOW that are married with kids. I hope you/Stefan did not pick MGTOW as a topic just because it is a large group of people/men. To learn more about MGTOW, I would start with Spetsnaz https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCbbeOA5K7Hhc3I2vWG1jZ0w and work my way out from their. I think MGTOW like Sandman and Barbarossa are Interesting, But not in the same frame of mind as MGTOW like Spetsnaz. What is being talked about here is Post-traumatic Stress Disorder, suicide 4to1 vs woman, social exclusion, woman using the state to destroy men, western civilization clasping because woman have used the state so much to kick the shit out of man, They are with drawing from woman by the 100s of millions, etc, etc, etc. This a civil rights issue. This is very, very real. And this is horrifying. Just look up the statistics. 2/3 of all Japanese men have withdrawn from woman/the state. I do not have all the statistics for all the countries of western civilization. But if you look them up I think that you will be shocked. I live in the U.S.A, White Males are the only race and sex that have laws written to sexually and racially discriminate against them. The small group of good woman vs large group of good men would destroy millions of men if they took your/Stefan's advice to get married and have kids. Stated differently, there are not enough woman that will not destroy men using the state. Therefore millions off men are left out in the cold and are damaged from woman using the state. suffering from Post-traumatic Stress Disorder, Social Exclusion, Poverty aka Homeless. What should they do? If men are married or single, why not Men/Man Going Their Own Way? Being seen as a human, a man and not a utility or a thing. This is a very large subject. please take a deeper closer look before going out half cocked. Please talk to good representatives of the MGTOW community before Judging them. Of what I know about the Freedomain community. I am sure Stefan and the community will take a closer look. Thank you.

Just had a thought and while it may not be original (might be though) I would be remiss if I didn't bring it to the attention of people that could do some good with it. I believe Stefan and everyone else arguing for the good in marriage and those arguing against it, namely MGTOW, are overlooking something integral to the argument. Here is the problem as I see it: A committed relationship and marriage are not the same thing. Marriage is a business contract to sire and bring a child to adulthood. The relationship between the husband and wife in lieu of that contractual obligation is a free relationship and should be strictly voluntary. We actually do recognize this with no-fault divorce. No-fault divorce, which ensures that one can annul a marriage at any time due to dissatisfaction, has erroneously applied itself to both relationships. With regard to the personal relationship yes, one should be able to end the relationship without fault. It is voluntary. It is merely a recognition of our right to free association (and freedom from association). But one should not be able to annul with regard to the child-rearing relationship without fault because it is a business contract and not a voluntary relationship. See the difference? Thus men are choosing not to marry (and/or arguing against it) because they recognize that the contractual relationship itself is absurd and antagonizes them in it's current state. The spousal relationship in lieu children on the other hand, a voluntary long-term relationship, remains appealing though. Given that the law and most people generally make no distinction between either relationship men cannot reconcile their desire for a voluntary commitment to a partner and the business contract of marriage to sire and bring a child to adulthood. It certainly makes the entire concept of love farcical when women insist on marriage (forced obligation) to prove one's commitment (voluntary dedication). In this way they are antithetical. This lack of any distinction sullies both relationships in the eyes of men which can be best demonstrated in alimony law. First though consider that child support is a necessary and warranted punishment/insurance for breaking your contractual obligation to sire and bring children to adulthood. This is sensible (except the laws are absurd but let's pretend they are fair). Alimony on the other hand exists as a punishment for breaking the voluntary relationship between both partners. Stefan correctly recognizing this practice as immoral and akin to prostitution because it is a payment/punishment for past association. Men (and some women) correctly view this as hostile to even the concept of a loving relationship but have failed (to my knowledge) to correctly identify it as a contractual punishment for what was never truly contractual i.e. the voluntary association between both partners. Therefore, my solution is to design a new contractual relationship that deals strictly with child rearing. The rest of the relationship must remain untouched by government interference and any contracts whatsoever. So for example no-fault divorce would be ended but in the recognition that the husband's and wife's relationship to each other in voluntary and divorce itself deals directly with the contract to sire and bring children to adulthood. Contracts will be drawn up dealing with child support, what warrants fault in the case of divorce, etc. The voluntary aspect of the relationship will remain unmolested. Then and only then will men choose to marry again because it makes the contractual part of marriage meaningful and sensible and also preserves the freedom of association of a loving relationship. So in essence, identify that the spousal relationship involves two relationships one of which is voluntary (personal association) and the other involuntary (through contractual obligation to raise children) and treat both separately by law and by us as well. When anti-marriage people argue with pro-marriage people both are arguing at cross-purposes. Anti-marriage people are right in identifying that a marriage (voluntary association with a partner) should be strictly voluntary. They are wrong however when they argue the same position for child-rearing contracts or simply throw the baby out with the bathwater. Pro-marriage people are arguing that the institution of marriage is essential to child-rearing (as a lawful obligation) and are correct in that regard but are incorrect when applying that same position to the voluntary relationship between both partners. Much of this contention between these camps comes from the conflation of both relationships as the same and this is made especially difficult when the same word, marriage, is used in reference to both. If you want to extend an olive branch between both camps, to at least some in both camps anyway, this is how you do it. Suffice to say, 'marriage' and 'marriage' aren't the same thing. Until then I think any further argumentation without reference to this is going to make either side look foolish and fruitless in their efforts because both sides are as right and as wrong as the other and any people swayed by their arguments merely deepen the divide and fill their ranks with those that don't understand the truth of what's going on. I hope that helps. I'll try and communicate this to the MGTOW community as well.

I want to explore the issue of MGTOW as a social phenomenon. The proponents/advocates of MGTOW present it as a rational path in the current society/culture/legal framework/economy etc. I have watched a number of the videos such as from Sandman, BarBar, Clarey etc. As an individual actor I can appreciate the rationality of their analysis. Some men get screwed badly and most men get screwed a little. So, there is the relationship dynamic with women and then the wider sociological conditions of state etc. I want to explore the sociological drivers for MGTOW here. Is MGTOW just another expression of something that has always been? Is it possibly a population-level stress response to conditions? If so, is it perhaps even a biological response as much as a rational response ie. population levels and differing stressors to the past. E.g. post WW2 period in the US vs now. As it could very possibly lead to alot of single men for life, the strategy for a search for meaning in life in MGTOW discards tradcon and questions the nature of the civilisation that has been cultivated. Hence the "red-pill" metaphor. It has occurred to me that it could very well be a sociological "branching-off" of perhaps some of the best minds and talents on the planet (possibly). What does all this mean?

This is a debate between Professor Plum of Manhood Academy and MGTOW advocate Psychological Cynic. Towards the second half PC brings up anarchy and fumbles all the arguments, allowing the Professor to walk all over him using arguments that have been refuted a million times (how will roads work without government?, anarchy is utopia, etc). I felt embarrassed listening to this because even a highly intelligent person like the professor can make anarchy appear foolish in minutes. Anarchy is the correct position so I suggest there is something wrong with the general presentation of it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=juxz_WCTAGI