Home › Forums › Political Corner › Creating Pro-MGTOW Foreign Policy
This topic contains 11 replies, has 6 voices, and was last updated by 
Uintatherium 3 years, 5 months ago.
- AuthorPosts
Hi broz. Lately, I have been having some very deep thoughts regarding foreign policy. I’m trying to come up with a foreign policy plan that would be good for MGTOW men.
In our society, neoconservative foreign policy is generally associated with masculinity because they are both on the right … but I think that neoconservative foreign policy has been awful for men everywhere … except megacorporate overlords. Many men have died in wars that were just used to help big business.
Ignore the people who claim that “Women have always been the primary victims of war.” That simply isn’t true. It wasn’t even true back when men took women home as trophies. Men are still the primary victims of war.
These wars are used to promote international outsourcing. This takes jobs away from Western men. Instead, Chinese children do jobs that we could be doing. This brings down the price of goods … but what good are cheap goods when jobs are hard to come by? Western governments frequently attack countries that install child labor laws or limit international trade. Thus, Western governments are actively trying to outsource your job so that you get fired and replaced by Chinese children.
Additionally, Western neoconservatism has a long history of creating more terrorists. These terrorists beat up people in their countries, creating thousands of refugees. These refugees often lash out at the West. They’re frustrated because integrating into Western culture is so hard. Most people who suffer from these attacks are in the middle class or lower class.
I’ve come to the conclusion that Western neoconservatism is a successor to old European imperialism.
Neoconservatism hasn’t exactly failed. It was designed to benefit the elite. In that sense, it worked. The propaganda machine designed to prop it up has worked as well. Neoconservatism just hasn’t worked for Average Joe because it wasn’t designed for him.
What should we do about immigration? In previous posts, I stated that I don’t care about the Islamization of the West. I didn’t really mean that. I really just said that because the situation feels hopeless and I don’t know what I can do to change the system.
Let’s pretend that I do have the power to change the West. What would I do? I would create a moderate immigration policy. Potentially dangerous immigrants would be kept out. Peaceful immigrants who pass the citizenship test would be allowed in. That being said, there would be fewer immigrants if neoconservative imperialism ended.
All of this may sound very left-wing. I don’t blame you if you think that. I was involved with the political left in the past and I still have some left leanings.
That being said, left-wing internationalism could have disastrous consequences. The ultimate goal of the left is to dismantle the global neocon military/economic network … and replace it with a global feminist utopia. What is a utopia for some people may be a dystopia for others. If you are a MGTOW, the emerging international feminist network won’t be fun.
The UN isn’t very powerful right now but it may be within this century. The 21st century may be the century in which the UN becomes truly powerful. I think that countries should avoid associating with the UN due to its feminist tendencies.
The UN was created in the wake of World War 2. Its goal was preventing World War 3. It has succeeded. It is also pandering to feminists who are having trouble with mean comments on Twitter.
If we really want to create a stable world then we need some sort of MRA “alter-internationalism”. We need a new organization that is similar to the UN … but doesn’t cave into feminist bulls~~~. I think that international cooperation is good … but not when a feminist organization is in charge of it all.
We need something that I call “alternative internationalism”. The feminists are developing a global feminist network and so we need a global network that will spread MRA principles far and wide.
This all sounds fanciful right now … but we’ll just have to see. I predict that the neoconservative empire will collapse within the next fifty years. In the wake of the collapse, the UN will try to unite humanity under a common goal. In response, other organizations will try to unite the world under much different goals.
If alter-internationalism does become a thing, I will be remembered as one of the first proponents of it.
MGTOW: because you can (and should) say anything about a woman as long as she isn't within earshot
I see the point in doing away with trade agreements like NAFTA and TPP but for those of us old enough to remember
while there were more manufacturing jobs,unions kept wages high so the goods in turn sold for more.I think we do need to slow down immigration and focus on getting jobs for our own people first,stop trying to police the world (or force our culture on) in the name of oil.
I think the UN is a balless organization,China,Russia and others constantly thumb their noses at it and what does it do,impose a few sanctions,OH NO!
The world is still largely male dominated,I doubt the femnazis will have much luck in places like Russia,China,Africa,Mid East ect. Hell even most South American countries still reek of machismo!
It’s mainly confined to North America,Europe,Scandinavia
Australia/NZ and Japan.The countries with the most progressive democracies are the ones who also pay the price for all this nonsense.
So not so much a MGTOW foreign policy but a domestic one
would be most beneficial I think.Lifes a bitch,but you don't have to marry one!
‘Commerce with all nations, alliances with none’ is, to me, the optimal foreign policy. Stolen from Thomas Jefferson.
What does this mean? No aid to Israel. No paying for South Korea’s defense. No footing the bill for NATO. No adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan. No 9/11. No Yugoslavia. No first Iraq War (making the world safe for Kingdoms?). No ‘coalitions of the willing’. No paying for Europe’s defense. No payoffs to Iran not to develop nuclear weapons. No payoffs to North Korea.
But this still means a strong DEFENSE, including nuclear warheads.
Terrorism? I believe the best response is the families (survivors), to take matters into their own hands. On the family of the perpetrator(s). This provides a disincentive for future terrorism.
I like immigrants. America’s economy grew in a time of MASSIVE immigration. How? Because more people = more demand. However, you can’t have more immigration with a Welfare State, so you would have to eliminate the Welfare State. I don’t like most Muslim immigrants, because MOST do not integrate well into the West. Some are fine, but many are political refugees who do not acclimate to Western culture.
Keep in mind, some rich first world countries can STILL export. Take Germany. Much of this has to do with their skilled labor force.
After 9/11, we should have disengaged internationally with Israel, Egypt, everybody. And declared all out war on petroleum prices. i.e. zero taxes on all domestic production, refining of domestically produced or Canadian or North American crude, liquefied our coal, and exported gasoline. i.e. we should have dropped the non-violent Petroleum Price Bomb on the Middle East. Said bomb obliterates regiemes when they run out of oil export revenue and collapse.
Of course, we should get out of the UN.
Most wars in my lifetime have NOT been about promoting international outsourcing. They were (supposedly) about containing communism (Vietnam, Korea), or (supposedly) about oil/terrorism/keeping ‘our’ dictators in power (Iran and Afghanistan).
It is telling that, prior to World War II, the Republican Party, back when it had principles, was isolationist. They didn’t want to get involved in WWII.
I’m over simplifying this but:
US = Men
N. Korea, Iran etc = Women
UN = The system (US)Isolationism = MGTOW
Anonymous24As a Libertarian I am for no foreign aid, and no foreign entanglements. I am for reducing our military presence around the world, and reducing the spending on it as well. We are overstretched as is. Also, foreign aid and the military aggression we display seems to be in just one region for one countries well being. Let them handle it, they already have plenty of money… I do not like my tax dollars going to killing people who did neither their neighbors nor me harm. In fact, if I had it my way, I would impose SANCTIONS against Israel until they treated Palestinians and their neighboring countries well. But no, they have so much influence in the U.S. we just do their dirty work for them…All paid for by the best goys in the world… They have been the number one recipient of foreign aid since 76. A country of only 9 million people, 2 million who will eternally not have citizenship and will eternally have their lands taken from them and killed until they are all gone, gets the most money from the U.S. year in year out, not countries filled with starving people, but this little country filled with rich people gets the most money. Biggest scam of all time.
As someone who stands for all men around the world I see no other way. War is bulls~~~. Official story of 9/11 is bulls~~~. It’s all bulls~~~.
As a Libertarian I am for no foreign aid, and no foreign entanglements. I am for reducing our military presence around the world, and reducing the spending on it as well. We are overstretched as is.
Absolutely. We also DON’T NEED TO GET IN WARS OVER OIL. The dictators will sell it to whoever pays the price. Buy from Sadam, buy from the Imir’s regieme, buy from King Salman’s regieme, Canada, Mexico, etc. It’s a COMMODITY.
There would have BEEN NO OIL EMBARGO in the 1970’s if the US had not been supporting Israel through foreign aid. In other words, much of the stagflation of the 1970’s was a INDIRECT result of US foreign aid.
The direct cost of the foreign aid is tiny in terms of total federal outlays; while I object to it for its ‘book’ cost, this cost, is rather insignificant.
The REAL cost is many, many times the direct foreign and military aid cost. This is the indirect blowback cost. The economic malaise of the 1970’s. You can never get that growth that the US economy didn’t have, BACK. And that, is but one example, I’m not even talking about 9/11, which cost lives in Iraq, and expanded the Federal Government.
Also, bear in mind, AFGHANISTAN was the top aid recipient in the most recent tabulation of foreign aid. So Israel hasn’t been at top since 1976. But in aggregate they’ve received more US foreign aid than any other country since their founding around 1948. Also, if you add up positions 3, 4, and 5 (Egypt, Jordan, West Bank/Gaza) in this Hall of Shame aid ranking list, they add up to MORE than what Israel receives each year.
In other words, we pay Israel’s enemies more foreign aid than Israel, with the sole purpose they NOT go to war with Israel. This is insanity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_foreign_aid
Regardless of what you think of the official 9/11 story, let’s look at the motivations of the FIRST world trade center Islama-bomber in the 1990’s: Ramzi Yousef. He clearly indicated his reasons [for terrorism] in a letter to a major US newspaper, as being US aid to Israel and ALSO interestingly, US aid to other dictatorial regiemes in the region (i.e. Arab monarchies). It turns out if you give money to ruthless dictators, men like Pakistan’s General Zia, some citizens of these Arab countries don’t like it! Go figure! Some of them prefer a theocracy; others actually advocate democratic government. The [1979] revolution in Iran, could actually have gone either way… the clerics won, though, not the democrats, obviously. And the Arab world suffered for it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramzi_Yousef — these are the typical Islama-bomber motivations. OOPS, that wasn’t politically correct, I should have said ‘terrorist’. Because of course, there are just as many Buddhist, Christian, and Atheist terrorists as there are Muslim terrorists.
Anonymous24https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramzi_Yousef — these are the typical Islama-bomber motivations. OOPS, that wasn’t politically correct, I should have said ‘terrorist’. Because of course, there are just as many Buddhist, Christian, and Atheist terrorists as there are Muslim terrorists.
Good post, I get your points, but would like to chime in on this one- I see U.S./Israeli aggressions/invasions as bigger acts of terrorism than any of the blowback terrorism it has caused.
We should just stay out of all the messes and try to be friends with everyone. And impose sanctions on whoever is being the biggest asshats. And we should do it neutrally, play no favorites.
The world would be a better place for everyone is we did this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramzi_Yousef — these are the typical Islama-bomber motivations. OOPS, that wasn’t politically correct, I should have said ‘terrorist’. Because of course, there are just as many Buddhist, Christian, and Atheist terrorists as there are Muslim terrorists.
Good post, I get your points, but would like to chime in on this one- I see U.S./Israeli aggressions/invasions as bigger acts of terrorism than any of the blowback terrorism it has caused.
We should just stay out of all the messes and try to be friends with everyone. And impose sanctions on whoever is being the biggest asshats. And we should do it neutrally, play no favorites.
The world would be a better place for everyone is we did this.
You are right. Our wars have displaced people, creating refugees, and caused revolutions and instability, and internal terrorism in countries we have invaded. Many, many unintended consequences. Our efforts at ‘nation-building’, have proved failures.
I am being somewhat myopic by focusing on my/US economic interests — the foreign aid and military intervention have had terrible consequences outside of America.
The ’73 Arab oil embargo wasn’t terrorism, but, in my opinion, it WAS a massive hit on the US economy and its economic growth and manufacturing sector. The price of oil quadrupled almost overnight. I remember the lines at gas stations in the late 70’s that resulted, even though I was not even yet in my teens. And that can be tied to US aid to Israel, which in my opinion, is what united the OPEC cartel where it was never united before to set prices effectively before then. Nobody died because of high oil prices, but it was very, very bad for the US economy for many years.
Taking just one example of aid causing death: US aid to Iraq early in the Iran-Iraq war 34 years ago. That war, killed by various estimates, hundreds of thousands of men. While I wouldn’t classify it as ‘terrorism’, since it was a war between States, it was certainly devastating. And US aid helped support this carnage. Incidentally, that aid was only revealed a decade after the fact to the public, a.k.a. the schlebs that pay for it.
There is actually a formal list of authoritarian regimes supported by US foreign aid now and in the past. It makes for interesting reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_authoritarian_regimes_supported_by_the_United_States
I am skeptical of economic sanctions overall, because I feel they have a history of NOT working. I guess I’m just a very pessimistic individual.
Anonymous24Yea, arms salesman get rich, and bloodshed is fueled over and over and over. Men build empires from war, not just those at war, but those who supply and service war. Well said Frankone.
And you may be right about sanctions not doing much. But I have seen enough war. I would be fine with trying something different for, oh, say 50 years or so to see how that plays out, because for the last 50 or so all we have been doing is f~~~ing around everywhere, and things are becoming less stable, not more stable… I mean even if things seemed about the same human suffering wise, at least we would not have the financial costs of it all that we could use for other things.
JoeBauers: Yes, it would be interesting to try something different. Maybe threaten to cut off ALL aid to Israel, the West Bank, Egypt, AND Jordan in 6 months unless they agree to a final peace agreement?
In my opinion, paying aid out to BOTH sides in a conflict, as we do in the Arab-Israeli conflict, actually encourages them to NEVER make peace! I think cutting ALL foreign aid, ESPECIALLY military, is the best path.
The aid money to authoritarian regimes (see previous message) is against our supposed values, and rightfully, antagonizes the oppressed citizens in said countries. How would you feel as a citizen of Saudi Arabia who wanted democracy, and as a Muslim, about the US foreign aid to the KingDUMB AND to Israel? Foreign aid to authoritarians discourages democracy.
And I approve of some aid — e.g. an earthquake, tsunami, etc hits a country, I think sending rescue personnel, doctors, etc is good, and will not antagonize other countries, and indeed builds good will. I’d prefer it be done without government (e.g. by charitable organizations), but that sort of aid is ok by me compared to the military aid in particular.
The US defense industry is a collaborator in this, to the extent they lobby to be allowed to sell high-tech aircraft to Israel, Suadi Arabia, etc, and obviously directly benefit by aid money spent on arms by these countries.
From a MGTOW perspective, these foreign adventures have killed thousands of men. And these soliders are brainwashed into believing they are ‘protecting us’ or our freedom. Don’t get me wrong, they are valiant soldiers. I’ve worked with men who served in the Gulf and the personal stories they tell make my hair cringe. But the war in Iraq, didn’t protect US citizens from anything. Iraq was not going to invade the US. And it certainly didn’t stop terrorism. If anything, it ADVANCED the cause of radical Islam.
George W. Bush could have proposed ending the foreign aid and not invading Iraq. He would then likely have been a one-term president and lost that political battle (the aid would have continued), but at least we wouldn’t have invaded Iraq, and he wouldn’t be a war criminal, and the public would at least be divided over the aid and it would be much more controvertial to do it.
There is truth to that bumper sticker, ‘When Clinton lied, nobody died.’. When Bush lied, many people died. Bush developed Weapons of Mass Propaganda, and used them against the idiotic American public. It is a testament to collective American stupidity that that guy could convince ANYBODY of ANYTHING. W has a charisma of zero. I guess that’s why he had to use his puppets to do the convincing.
I should have been more precise about sanctions. Uniliteral sanctions are typically ineffective. Multilateral sanctions, are sometimes effective — but it’s hard to get every nation to agree to something, and smuggling still occurs.
I hope this thread doesn’t turn into a 9/11 conspiracy thread.
Here’s the truth about 9/11: It was done by Islamic terrorists … who were also mad at Americans for being Zionists. The hijackers also hated globalization (which is why they attacked the World Trade Centre) and their leader was trained by the CIA.
The official 9/11 story isn’t wrong. The real problem is that the official story is oversimplified so that the braindead masses can easily remember it. Osama Bin Laden was driven by complex motives because most people are driven by complex motives every single day. Unfortunately, some people pretend that Islam was the only factor at work.
MGTOW: because you can (and should) say anything about a woman as long as she isn't within earshot
- AuthorPosts
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
921526
921524
919244
916783
915526
915524
915354
915129
914037
909862
908811
908810
908500
908465
908464
908300
907963
907895
907477
902002
901301
901106
901105
901104
901024
901017
900393
900392
900391
900390
899038
898980
896844
896798
896797
895983
895850
895848
893740
893036
891671
891670
891336
891017
890865
889894
889741
889058
888157
887960
887768
886321
886306
885519
884948
883951
881340
881339
880491
878671
878351
877678
