I believe that “Libertarianism”and MGTOW will ultimately be incompatible….

Okay, at my work, I’ve been put in the “libertarian” box by co-workers. Truth be told my views are probably closer to an anarchist. But after a few quick questions such as my views on drug legalization, I am placed in the libertarian camp. If you listen to man-0-sphere tough guys, what they are pedaling is really a synthesis of traditionalism with some sprinklings of libertarianism mixed with a big heap of Nietzschean “might makes right.” Again, I might be more intellectually aligned with a true conservative, true libertarian than for what passes as one today but that is not the scope of this because what I believe will ultimately benefit MGTOW and society as a whole will look like “evillle socialism” to many…

Now most of you are aware of the schizm between Youtube MGTOW’s and M(h)RA’s from AVfM. Without getting into details, it’s quite easy to see this split was inevitable. Those interested in men’s issues SHOULD NOT make the mistake of feminist’s. Men are not one homogenous class. In fact men from different groups have interests that are diametrically opposed. Therefore married men and bachelors will have interests that at some point will be different and at another point be such a bone of contention that they will split into different factions. It is obvious that Elam just wanted recruits that would donate to his cause without questioning his poor leadership. That’s why you saw the PigTOW shaming. A married man has interests that are diametrically opposed to a bachelor-THIS IS WHY a MARRIED MAN CANNOT BE a MGTOW. (Yes Barbarrossaa went through some nice mental gymnastics but I am here saying it in a cut and dry way.)

As I’ve been reading more MGTOW material, I question if I am even a MGTOW at this point as I realize my views differ from “the community.” The reality was that I could rarely get through a 30-60 minute youtube video unless I was involved in multitasking such as restringing a guitar. Since reading sheddingoftheego.com almost daily, I have consumed more so-called MGTOW content in the past few months than in the past few years. If MGTOW is to survive, I believe it will transmogrify into something different than what it is now and will essentially advocate for the interests of bachelor men. And if this sounds strange, realize that MGTOW has already changed into something far different than when it was about “instilling masculinity in men and femininity in women.”

I believe that what is stated as “libertarianism” within men’s right’s and the man-0-sphere only helps a very small percentage of men who came from wealthy families or won the “startup lottery.” I’ll explain this further. Perhaps 30 years ago, a man with a strong back could make a good livelyhood doing factory work. Black men used to make more money than white women. People might argue that sexism was more rampant than racism. However the answer is much more simple. The economy moved from a manufacturing economy to a service economy. And the economy is shifting still…

We have seen two trends for workers-stagnation in wages and increasing worker productivity.
the stagnation may come from several things. More people willing to work or needing to work, thus increasing supply while lowering demand. Or from corporate interests lobbying congress for legislation hostile to workers. Now, increased productivity-how did that happen? A big part was technology. More access to technology meant more efficiency. What should have happened was employees should have seen shorter hours and increased wages. They are more efficient, right? Why aren’t they rewarded? I suppose the argument was that it was a more efficient assembly line and not a better worker. And when the recession hit, people dug in and were just glad to have a job. They were told to do more with less and not ask how it was lining their employers pockets. In fact, when I saw many so-called libertarians rallying against minimum wage, I knew this wasn’t an ideology that I would be signing up for.

Okay, so where does this leave us? Look around you, ATM machines and online banking are replacing tellers. Many supermarkets offer self-checkout. Eventually, drones will deliver your Amazon purchases and probably your groceries too. This means that many jobs that employ many people won’t exist tomorrow. Sure, there will still be jobs for engineers, at least for awhile. And, as you can get a coffee cheaper at 7/11 than Starbucks but many people go to Starbucks for “the experience”–Well, I suppose there will still be some service jobs. I suppose society can handle 10% unemployment, but will society handle 50%? History has shown that when large groups of people have little to lose, things don’t stay polite for very long. When someone like Hillary talks about wage inequality, do you think it is because she actually cares about poor people or is it because she does not want to be a “primary victim” if there is ever a revolution in “Murrika?

What might fix this? Perhaps a guaranteed minimum income. OMG-I must be a commie pinko with a socialist micropenis for even suggesting such a thing as I sit here in my pink boxers feverishly squeezing said micropenis with tweezers as I read Karl Marx and salivate over photos of Mao Zedong. Where is this money going to coming from? Currently, public companies pay their investors with (hopefully) rising stock and dividends–and yes I am guilty of vast oversimplification here. Keep up with me though. Corporate interests use infrastructures created by taxpayer dollars-roads for example. That means at the end of the day, these corporations are at least partially subsidized by the taxpayer-that’s you and me buddy. Is it socialism to expect something back when these companies make a profit? Did you know that Alaskan’s get an oil dividend? Perhaps things could be structured so that American’s get a share of corporate profit. And next time someone tells you to “pull yourself up by the bootstraps,” just take a look at some entrepreneurs and see how they had a wealthy family to help them get started.

Now, what gives individual bachelor men the opportunity to live the life they would like? A society with a strong safety net and a guaranteed income where they could become an artist or musician and dedicate 100% of their time to their craft? Or a society where young guys are forced into “careers” just to afford a small apartment and an old beater car? I understand what I’m proposing here sounds a bit outlandish and would mean drastic changes in law and the economy to occur. In fact, in contrast to this, an M(h)RA demanding that society “make marriage safe again” sounds much more reasonable. However, if a so-called “MGTOW community” is interested in the self-interest of bachelor men, shouldn’t these ideas be discussed more frequently?

18 thoughts on “I believe that “Libertarianism”and MGTOW will ultimately be incompatible….

  1. Where is the counter to the brazilification of the western world? Whats going to stop it or reverse it here and elsewhere? Absent true technological post-scarcity which is nowhere on the horizon the future looks grim. Given the facts on the ground the -ism you subscribe to isnt going to matter much.

  2. Sadly I fear the Galts and Ubermensch plan on bring the hammer down, and the manosphere and tradcons will cheer them on. Even though I lived through it it was not until the past few years that I realized Saint Reagan was our Robbespierre (sp?). Sadly my generation is the Reagan Youth . Eh maybe it had to be …thankfully I turn 47 next week and am in ill health (just typing this is sort of painful) so maybe I’ll die before it gets too horrid.

  3. Stoner, I get where you’re coming from, and I don’t really disagree (except for the time frame of the job apocalypse, but that’s neither here nor there). Your analysis is falling victim to a variant of what PMAFT calls the androgynous fallacy. You’re assuming that a guaranteed minimum income and other social programs will go to men and women equally. This is an incorrect assumption.

    Pretty much any social program (outside of veterans’ benefits which really isn’t a social program) gives more money to women than men by a significant margin if it gives any money to men at all. The USDA’s WIC (women, infants, and children) only goes to women by definition. Obamacare covers a myriad of women’s birth control, but no birth control for men such as vasectomies. The homeless are disproportionately male which means that women are getting more social spending on fighting homelessness than men. The list goes on and on. Add a guaranteed minimum income to this list and the same thing will happen. Either it outright won’t go to men or there will be enough loopholes to make sure it disproportionately goes to women or goes to women only.

    In fairness to a tiny handful of socialists, there are a few socialists who understand this problem. However, the rest of the socialists simply denounce and attack them by calling them terms like “brosocialist” or “brocialist”. In any practical sense, all socialism is now gynosocialism, and it’s going to be a long time before that changes, if it ever does. At this point even conservatives are just the right wing of gynosocialism.

    This is the reality that drives MGTOWs to libertarianism. It’s not that libertarianism is better than other political positions. It’s just that as far as men are concerned it’s all libertarianism because government programs are for women. It’s just that for men there are only really two political options:

    1. Libertarianism
    2. De facto libertarianism for men with higher taxes to fund social spending for women (AKA gynosocialism)

    So any MGTOW (or man using his brain for that matter) will naturally pick the first option. It’s logical given the situation. A man may only get meager benefits from libertarianism, but as long as everything else is some form of gynosocialism, libertarianism is the better option.

    1. I’d probably have to do a bit of reading and write another post to form a response to your comment. One point, though is how many MGTOW spaces seem to have a cult like adherence to libertarianism, feels to me like a feminist’s unquestioning acceptance of “patriarchy” and in both spaces I feel like a heretical outsider…

      1. One point, though is how many MGTOW spaces seem to have a cult like adherence to libertarianism

        Obviously, I can’t disagree with this, but it doesn’t change the situation. As far as men are concerned the entire political spectrum is libertarian. The only difference is how much socialism women get, because men get none.

        And it’s not like the libertarians are guaranteed to be that helpful either. You can go to many libertarian spaces online and offline and find women who say that they completely agree with libertarianism except that government should do things for women. There’s a real danger that libertarians will cave on this in an attempt to get female votes which would then lead to the ultimate gynosocialism since it would be pure socialism for women and pure libertarianism for men. I hate to say this, but while I want the NSA spying to stop the fact is that the military & intelligence sectors of government act as something of a bulwark against gynosocialism. It makes me sick that I’m even thinking this way, but it’s the reality of the situation. There is a real danger that libertarians (from Ron Paul to the Libertarian Party) will eliminate every part of government except transfers to women. Thus manuresphere support for libertarians as they are now is incredibly shortsighted.

        The question is what realistic alternative do men have. I was thinking about guaranteed minimum income, and I realized how it could be used as a scam by women. We already have a problem with women engaging in oops pregnancies, paternity fraud, and so forth. Even if a man can prove a child isn’t his, if he was married to the mother or even in a relationship with the mother, courts will stick him with a child support order and garnish his wages if necessary. This can even happens if a man has a relationship with a woman who has children from a previous relationship when it’s clear from the beginning that the children aren’t his. Imagine instead of wage garnishments, the government starts engaging in guaranteed minimum income garnishments. If gynosocialism isn’t defeated first, things like guaranteed minimum income effectively won’t exist for men. This sort of thing can be applied to anything government does so it makes every political position libertarianism for men except for how much men are taxed and punished by the government.

        Right now for men, politics is nothing but picking a form of libertarianism.

      2. If you haven’t already seen it, you will likely find this interesting….


        Womyn are the largest group of voters, so politicians will always pander to them-ironic, femmies whine and cry that there hasn’t been a womyn Prez, blame womyn voters…

        anyways, I think the commenter on the Barbarossa thread who mentioned that low skilled workers will get phased out, at first companies will make huge profits, but then government will have to tax them heavily or government will collapse and only those “off the grid” will do okay…I think he was addressing similar things to what I am addressing…

        anyways, “tough guy” libertarianism as suggested by Capt Capitalism/Bernie Chapin might make things even worse for low status men than they are now. “Men” like Crappy Crap/Chapin/Donovan hate other men with a passion most rad fems wish they had. (And if that sounds delusional, remember, it was manurespherians/AVfMer’s behind the doxxing of MGTOW’s, not feminists. And AVfM is now Roosh central, they are even more misandrist than Feministe.)

    2. Yes, it is true that economic policy is tied to favorite groups, but this works also the other way around. Programs to favorite groups will be the last to be cut, while libertarianism destroys the remaining general welfare.

  4. A basic guaranteed income I am for because I care about lower status men that start out poor. In the future it will become nearly impossible to work your way out of poverty due to high demand and lower supply for low skill work. So I am for a basic guaranteed income for the sake of social stability. But three strict measures must be put in place.

    1) All receivers of basic income and government employees may not vote in any election as long as they receive basic income or work for the government. This is a requirement as empirical data has shown that when the vote is extended to all groups this leads gradually to big government and welfare states 100% of the time. The good thing about this option is it requires you to be invested in and contributing to the tax coffers in order to vote. I think this is a fair requirement – By explicitly barring women to vote you make it seem like women are “oppressed” and it motivates women to overturn it based on sexism.Note that women could not vote and they still got a constitutional amendment on the basis of “injustice”. So this option is good in that the same requirement is given to everyone. We also need to ban government employees from voting because they are mostly women and we must stop people from voting themselves in make-work that do not create any value.

    2) Only people over 18 can receive basic income. This requirement is needed to stop people from using their kids as a welfare check. I think all can agree with this one.

    3) Remove all existing welfare, tax credits, EITC, CTC, food stamps social security and replace with the much more fair basic guaranteed income. I believe liberals are not going to like this since people their vote base that receive the benefit of the welfare spending will see a 80 – 50% reduction in real income.

    Honestly I think none of this will happen and we are going to see the slow decline into more gradual chaos. Add to the mix a declining workforce participation rate, a floundering job market, probably the widest left right divide US presidential election ever, race wars, gender wars, chaos in the Middle east, refugee crisis, massive unemployment, incompatible ideologies (pro life vs pro choice) MGTOW saying fuck it all I just want to see it burn, I think violence and civil war is not out of the question in the coming years.

    1. “1) All receivers of basic income and government employees may not vote in any election as long as they receive basic income or work for the government. This is a requirement as empirical data has shown that when the vote is extended to all groups this leads gradually to big government and welfare states 100% of the time.”

      Citation please.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s