Angst (MGTOW)


Years ago, MGTOW was being promoted as a quasi-political movement, promising to “instill masculinity in men, femininity in women, and limited government” (source here). We shall open by briefly dispelling the inherently contradictory nature of these grandiose manifestoes.

Isn’t the point of going your own way to make your own decisions? How do such men all get together and agree on political libertarianism? The idea of “go your own way” types self-organizing to garner the mass appeal that would result in political power is transparently ridiculous.

The manifesto was purportedly written by an eccentric netkook from the ‘couve, pseudonymed Rob Fedders – which explains the logical feebleness of all this.

In any case, it might be useful to examine MGTOW, some ten years after it was first declared to exist, to examine what it actually is, and to figure out what might have kept it from catching on.


When the popular media or our feminist critics describe MGTOW, it is always in terms of what might be called “the marriage strike.” The dramatic transgenerational change (source) in statistics reflects the cheapening of the institution of marriage and is a source of amusingly hysterical articles, written by women, who pretend not to understand the writing on the wall they’re hitting.

Screen Shot 2017-04-11 at 08.44.40.png(source)

When we talk about Men Going Their Own Way, we necessarily include all those men who self-identify as MGTOW. Many of these men have never been interested in marrying a woman. Some of these guys are playboys who get their sexual needs met without marriage, some are asexual, some are gay. None of these men here described made some sort of conscious decision not to marry a woman because marriage is a bad bargain. They simply had other inclinations.

This is not a new phenomenon. Lifelong bachelors include some of the greatest men in history, from Isaac Newton to Ludwig Wittgenstein.

It is a collective evolutionary strategy to convince every man that marriage and family is the norm, and this is accomplished by social and fiscal sanction on bachelors. In newspapers as recently pressed as the early 1960s, one can find advertisements in the “help wanted” section declaring that management and professional jobs were available for married men only. Lines of credit, mortgages and business loans were generally declined to bachelors. Membership in civic organizations like the Free Masons, Elks, Kiwanis, etc. were also unavailable to unmarried men.

While women had little to do with any of these incentives to marry, they collectively became used to their benefits specific to women. When women embraced feminism, en masse, beginning in the late 1950s, they surely assumed those benefits would remain intact, despite the radical social restructuring proposed by their leaders. (Whether the leaders of the feminist movement knew about the eventual and potential consequences of their proposed policies is another post entirely). As TFW liked to remind us, women are unaccustomed to pondering cause-and-effect scenarios.

Now that we have all enjoyed a couple of generations of social “progress,” and the fruits of feminism are coming into view, women are naturally concerned. Popular media and MGTOW blogs both (almost unanimously) declare the collapse of marriage to be the result of a conspiracy by men to deny women the benefits of marriage. What motivates this? Women find this conspiracy theorizing to be preferable to the truth: that the lack of “good men” who are ready to “commit” is an organic result of the lack of marriagable women. Few men want to be financially and legally responsible for a banged out ho’. That is the painful truth that far too many women can’t handle.

This presents a dilemma to men who self-identify as MGTOW. Either they can indulge in a bit of satisfactory schadenfreude, and claim to have been part of this illusory marriage strike, or they can admit that there is no such thing as the marriage strike, and be faced with explaining to some unstable woman that she’s not marriage material based on her lack of merit. As many have noted, criticizing women doesn’t feel very good. The average dude feels like he’s kicking a puppy when he approaches the topic. In context, it’s easier for most men to play along.


So, if MGTOW isn’t equivalent to “the marriage strike,” then what is MGTOW?

We say that MGTOW is the set of all men who aspire to the Socratic ideal of the examined life. These men consciously and actively participate in life. They deliberate at length, before acting decisively to ensure their own happiness.

To live an examined life is the necessary and sufficient condition for MGTOW. Moreover, there are no other conditions for being an MGTOW.

One does not need to be a political libertarian to be an MGTOW. One can identify with MGTOW and be a conservative, liberal, socialist/communist, anarchist, libertarian, or political agnostic. In fact, a plurality of political views is expected, given that every man’s ‘way’ is essentially his own, and doesn’t need to conform to any other man’s.

One does not need to shun women to be an MGTOW. One doesn’t even need to shun marriage. Admittedly, the married MGTOW I’ve known of have usually been men who emigrated to some foreign country with more amenable marriage laws, and married a traditional local.

Occasionally a married man will find MGTOW late in life, after he’s already married. It’s unreasonable to expect such a man to divorce his wife, simply because he found he was a member and identified with the general aims. The idea of protesting frivolous divorce, by getting a divorce, is a contradiction in itself.

Part of the function of living as an active participant in life is the sober consideration of social constructs — like marriage — on their merits, rather than blindly accepting institutional obligations because some ruler or “guru” says that such things are necessary, good for you, or are otherwise in your own best interests. Different men have different goals


While different men have different goals, the overall telos of MGTOW is popularly known as “ghosting.” I would argue that this is an inborn, low-level aspiration of every healthy man, though in the MGTOW phenotype, it seems specifically pronounced. Where the average man is often overwhelmed with other inborn tendencies (specifically, the drive to mate, marry and raise a family) and with cultural conditioning driven by peers and mass culture, men of the MGTOW type seek freedom above conformity.

This renunciation instinct (my term, but I think it fits) often arises in adolescents. You probably knew a teenage boy who dreamed of building a cabin in the woods, or fantasized about catching a rocket-ship to a distant planet where he could start over, and carve out a completely autonomous space for himself as a colonist. This psychological state, punctuated by absolute narcissism, in which the individual’s ego subsumes the world, eventually collapses. The deflation occurs when the MGTOW realizes that he will never be able to provide himself the life he wants on his own merits, or with his own strength. Ever tried to design and build a refrigerator in a remote cabin in the woods? How about synthesizing antibiotics?

The recognition of one’s reliance on others necessarily constitutes the world in opposition to oneself. This is the source of the (real or perceived) angst which accompanies the general MGTOW discourse, particularly among people who just found the philosophy on a web page. Men are faced constantly with choices, driven by conflicting and ambiguous impulse. The world — that is, the social order — is experienced as a limiting and negative experience for the young man, and illustrates daily the impossibility of satisfaction, the limitation of freedom, and the disruption of pleasure. It is seen, rightly or wrongly, as a threat, as something to rebel against. Ones needs must be fulfilled from the other, which is untamable and uncontrollable by the individual ego.

Note: This is the first in a three-part series about the social movement MGTOW. When the second part presses, a link will be here.

An Open Letter to Lyn87

Down below, someone (no one knows who – lol) encourages me to come back to Dalrock’s blog and take sides in the latest pointless fight.

Screen Shot 2017-04-10 at 09.21.03

To begin with, I haven’t been banned from commenting on Dalrock’s blog — that I know of — but I’m still not going to go over there and take sides.

In order to explain this shit, I could tell y’all a pseudo-religious parable, about one of King David’s best soldiers, and how some of the slackers used to goof off and distract him, causing him to stumble and lose the war.

That didn’t come from the Bible, of course. I just made the shit up. It’s relevant, all the same. We’re in a fight to the death with our enemies. Dalrock is a particularly good asset in this fight. At some point, a couple of weeks ago, I was goofing off and having fun in the comments section, and he suddenly threw his entire blog into moderation.

It was probably a coincidence, but if I’m distracting him from his good work lampooning my enemies, then it’s in my best interests to chill the fuck out and let him keep at it.

Moving on, I did go over and check out the latest tempest-in-a-teacup squabble, which is visible here.

I don’t know Lyn87 personally. We’ve never had a single private conversation. I don’t agree with many of his positions. Yet I respect Lyn87, because he never gets personal. He also has proven himself capable of winning arguments by sourcing material, making salient points, and constructing sound arguments in support of his positions. Of all the people I’ve argued with, he’s the man who has defeated me most handily, with the greatest frequency.

This sort of rhetorical proficiency makes the usual whiners all upset, so naturally they’re inclined to accuse him of dishonesty.

Screen Shot 2017-04-10 at 09.14.17.png

While I don’t know Lyn87 personally, I’ve interacted with him for years, and I’ve found nothing in his behavior that’s inconsistent with his biographical references. He’s never boasted about being some sort of badass. He’s simply a retired military officer. Why he would lie about this has never been explained by his detractors. The most sensible explanation is that he’s not lying about it.

It’s far easier to believe that Cane Caldo, SirHamster, and various sockpuppets are lying about Lyn87, because he won an argument with them. They’ve done that shit before, incidentally.

And again, Lyn87 has won at least a dozen arguments with y’r boy Boxer. Grown men don’t get insulted when they’re rhetorically bested. They learn new stuff through the experience and their own arguments get better.

In any event, when Lyn87 refused to sink into the mire with these losers, they commenced to project their own sexual fantasies his way… quelle surprise!

Screen Shot 2017-04-10 at 09.11.45

More of the same nonsense…

Screen Shot 2017-04-10 at 09.59.12

Cane Caldo and his friends (visit his blog here) earlier accused me of being a homosexual pedophile (here) and then they all lied about it weeks later, when I pointed it out as an example of their ongoing dishonesty (here). Now they’re lying about Lyn87. Next week, it’ll be someone else.

I’m still in the dark as to the motivations of these corrosive idiots. They’re so consistently disruptive that it’s becoming difficult to believe they’re not working towards a feminist end. This sort of crap serves to demoralize and atomize the men that are most committed to resisting the feminist narrative. At the same time, Cane Caldo is simply not intelligent or grounded enough to be a useful asset to any sort of organized feminist strategy.

Well, whatever. I find these dysfunctional antics funny, but Dalrock may shut down the discussion if it keeps going. You spectators will have to fill me in as to the ongoing drama. It’s all too girly for me to keep track of.

In the mean time… Lyn87: Start your own blog. I’ll promote it, whether I agree with all the details or not. You’re consistently one of the best commenters there, and your background as a military officer gives you a unique perspective in the ongoing struggle against feminism.

The Private Man Has Completed His Journey

A moment to remember a solid and unassuming writer, who never came across as anything other than genuine. Go easy…

The Private Man

It is with great sadness that I have to inform everyone that Andrew Hansen a.k.a. The Private Man has completed his journey as 9:27 PM April 3 2017.

As many know unfortunately his cancer had returned a few weeks ago and there was not much to be done to help him. He chose to face it head-on rather then try experimental treatments. His greatness and courage in the face of knowing his own moral demise is an inspiration for us all.

It’s a great loss for not only all that followed his writing and his teachings but for those of us who consider him a friend. His last days were as comfortable as possible and he passed peacefully.

I can only hope that he realized how many peoples lives he touched and we were all better for knowing him. As the saying goes “Don’t cry because it’s over. Smile because…

View original post 74 more words


While most confirmed bachelors get their needs met, the typical single guy allows for the spontaneous initiation of the medium-term fling out of the occasional short-term bang. This can be interpreted as a subconscious collective strategy by women to curb the collective masculine in the sexual marketplace. It generally works, because the man gets distracted by all the good sex he’s getting from medium-term fling girl, and starts forgetting the alphabet.

A.B.C. is an acronym which stands for “always be closing.”

Johnny gets on Plenty of Fish, OK Cupid, Snatch Dot Com, and similar sites, right outta high school. He starts collecting phone numbers. He can’t believe it’s so easy. Around about girl number 25, he meets Sarah. Sarah has nice dark eyes, a great ass, and she’s always doing little thoughtful things for him. Johnny makes the mistake of announcing to the world (and to all the other ho’s he’s banging) that he’s met someone amazing. He starts concentrating on Sarah. He goes all in. If she makes him dinner, he buys her flowers. He starts pondering vacations together, and wonders how well it’d go over if he took her home for Christmas dinner to meet his parents.

Suddenly, and seemingly without warning, Sarah starts declining Johnny’s advances. She “needs her space.” She thinks Johnny is “moving too fast.”

What actually happened was this: That night, last week, when Sarah told Johnny she had to study/work late/visit her mom, she went out clubbing with her skank-ho girlfriends. While she was having anonymous sex with various guys in the public toilet, she met Mark. Mark makes a lot more money than Johnny, so she wants to see where he can take her.

Johnny suddenly has lots of free time, and a surfeit of sadness and depression.

Had Johnny taken Brother Boxer’s advice, he would still have a chance to keep Sarah on the leash. When she texted him to express these weird sentiments, he would have sent a one-word reply:


and then he’d have deleted her number, her photos, etc.

He would have been able to do this without too much hesitation, because he had Amber, Bethany, Carol and Darla in his iCloud contacts list, and they would take up the sexual slack that Sarah’s sudden departure had caused. He has other options because, as Boxer reminds him, he is to Always Be Closing. Keep getting phone numbers. Keep chatting up cute baristas. Keep running game in the laundromat (a strangely productive place for me in my youth). Keep your profiles up on PoF, OKC, etc…

Of course, when Mark tires of Sarah (and it’ll be weeks, not months) she will suddenly start sending ‘wat up’ type texts to Johnny. If he is anything like Brother Boxer, he will respond with:

sorry, who is this?

letting the bitch know that he deleted her number. This will cause her to start mildly groveling, at which point Johnny will have the option to either reject Sarah, or to allow her to re-enter his orbit at a wildly reduced level of commitment.

Of course, Johnny is new to this game, and he hasn’t remembered his ABC’s, so when Sarah hits him with the “I love you, but I’m not in love with you” text, and demands “just a little bit of space” to “find myself,” he panics. He has no other options left, and a sort of existential dread kicks in. Johnny starts sending Sarah long messages, which alternate between wordy demands for an explanation, rambling declarations of eternal devotion (how cute!) and ambiguous apologies for real or perceived slights that directly led to this tragedy.

Naturally, this only serves to convince Sarah that Johnny is unhinged or possibly retarded, and she quietly becomes sure in the knowledge that she made the right choice. She then gets back to picking out the best lingerie to wear for Mark that evening. Johnny will never hear from Sarah again.

Needy, whiny and desperate are not good qualities in a young man.

Always Be Closing.

An Interesting Conversation

It is hard to properly estimate the intelligence of the typical hack journalist. Evidence of the stupidity and humorlessness of these bozos becomes more evident with each passing day.

Today’s Random Example: My nigga Dr. Steven J Krune (fuck’n lol) has a candid metajournalistic conversation with Zachary Goldfarb, an editor for the Washington Post.

The original thread is here. The whole thing is worth perusing.