What I haven’t found here is the history behind feminism (how major players in the 50s-70s were CIA agents pushing a movement to conquer the family unit and were just the first part of a plan for the destruction of it). From previous research I’ve done, I know this to be the truth. Why haven’t I seen this discussed here? Is it to appeal to people who might think that too conspiratorial in nature? I get the whole dropping out and going your own way thing, but there’s a war on both men and women designed to weaken the entire population to make them more easily managed by the powers that rule us. Feminists don’t control the universities. Feminism is something pushed by the universities as part of a larger agenda set by the establishment.

Thoughts?

I don’t care. I’m MGTOW.

Did you even read what I wrote? no

But governments do not produce much of anything of value. Anything of any value that any government has available to itself or to give away must first have been confiscated from someone who created it. Historically, and throughout the world, the most well motivated producer has been a man producing for a wife and children he could feel certain were his own. This is the most reliable tax base of any government. Without that certainty, or when producing only for themselves, men will still produce, but it will be at a far lower rate, and thus result in a far lower base of production to tax.

If this really was some kind of government conspiracy to break up the family, it seems as though that part of it was perhaps not a very well thought out plan…

Of course, that wouldn’t be the first time the government screwed something up.

From my biological view, the family unit was necessary for the survival of the species for so many centuries that it didn’t matter who liked it or who didn’t. It was a survival necessity in a random, often hostile environment. With the industrial, agricultural and technological revolutions, the risk for extinction posed by the environment has been greatly lessened and so has created room for experiments like feminism to occur without putting the entire species at risk.

Given the chance to experiment with an unknown theory, however bizarre and dubious it may seem, sooner or later, someone is going to take the chance…

I think I understand the theory: that without families, people will be required to depend more on the government for what families previously provided, thus increasing the government’s power over people. It’s hard to prove a conspiracy theory, even when it’s really true. That’s not to say this theory can’t be true. Governments have done all sorts of unsavory things in history to maintain and increase their power, so you can’t put anything past the present ones. But governments do not produce much of anything of value. Anything of any value that any government has available to itself or to give away must first have been confiscated from someone who created it. Historically, and throughout the world, the most well motivated producer has been a man producing for a wife and children he could feel certain were his own. This is the most reliable tax base of any government. Without that certainty, or when producing only for themselves, men will still produce, but it will be at a far lower rate, and thus result in a far lower be of production to tax. If this really was some kind of government conspiracy to break up the family, it seems as though that part of it was perhaps not a very well thought out plan… Of course, that wouldn’t be the first time the government screwed something up. From my biological view, the family unit for necessary for the survival of the species for so many centuries that it didn’t matter who liked it or who didn’t. It was a survival necessity in a random, often hostile environment. With the industrial, agricultural and technological revolutions, the risk for extinction pose by the environment has been greatly lessened and so has created room for experiments like feminism to occur without putting the entire species at risk. Given the chance to experiment with an unknown theory, however bizarre and dubious it may seem, sooner or later, someone is going to take the chance…

Yes, the government doesn’t give any more than it takes from the people in the first place. The thing is, we’re on the cusp of full automation of so many things historically done by men, so men in the numbers they exist are no longer required. If you look at the economy right now, so many people are out of work and on assistance, and still, somehow, mostly everyone is getting by (not starving to death). The elites truly view the majority of society as wastes of resources; a drain on the planet. What’s a better way to reduce the world population than to create a war between the sexes? Study human psychology, confuse gender roles. Chaos ensues.

edit: originally, women were brought into the workforce to increase taxable income – edit2: while at the same time have the state play a larger role in the upbringing of children

MGTOW is not a political movement, it is a natural state of being, the path of a free man.

It is not up to MGTOW to “FIX” Society, it is up to society to recognize, that what is in a man’s best interest is also what is in society’s best interest, and the corruption and manipulation including feminism needs to be eradicated.

You need to distinguish between an INDIVIDUAL MAN’S best interest and SOCIETY as a whole’s best interest, MGTOW doesn’t give the first f~~~ about society’s interest, you think I want to live in a society that devalues me, where I can be locked up because a woman changes her mind the morning after, or I can’t afford the onerous child support?

NO, MGTOW is individual men identifying a hostile environment and adapting to survive, not a political movement trying to save society and all the week brainwashed White knites, manginas and feminists.

But by going MGTOW, you help create a support network for other men to come to this understanding, and help society come closer to either changing or self destructing, that is up to society, not MGTOW.