“Well, its the government you know and their policies. Its the corporations, the advertisers, the schooling system, the cultural marxists, they turned women into this, they made men into that, they fractured the nuclear family, bla bla bla, etc…”

I am sure we have all come across this one time or another. It is my opinion that this is the wrong way of going about things. To explain why, I shall try to use a few examples.

Let us begin with Star Wars Revenge of The Sith. Not the movie, but the book,which is an excellent book written by Matthew Stover. If you dislike the movie, read the book. Its f~~~ing awesome. There is one part in the book and the movie where Yoda and Obi-Wan managed to sneak into the Jedi Temple after Order 66, where they attempt to fix the Jedi beacon and in the process encounter a particular holo of something.

Obi-Wan’s expression never flickered.

He opened himself to what he was about to see; he was prepared, and centered, and trusting in the Force, and yet…

Then the caped man turned to meet a cloaked figure behind him, and he was—

He was—

Obi-Wan, staring, wished that he had the strength to rip his eyes out of his head.

But even blind, he would see this forever.

He would see his friend, his student, his brother, turn and kneel in front of a black-cloaked Lord of the Sith.

His head rang with a silent scream.

“The traitors have been destroyed, Lord Sidious. And the archives are secured. Our ancient holocrons are again in the hands of the Sith.”

“Good… good… Together, we shall master every secret of the Force.” The Sith Lord purred like a contented rancor. “You have done well, my new apprentice. Do you feel your power growing?”

“Yes, my Master.”

“Lord Vader, your skills are unmatched by any Sith before you. Go forth, my boy. Go forth, and bring peace to our Empire.”

Fumbling nervelessly, Obi-Wan somehow managed to shut down the holoscan. He leaned on the console, but his arms would not support him; they buckled and he twisted to the floor.

He huddled against the console, blind with pain.

Yoda was as sympathetic as the root of a wroshyr tree.

“Warned, you were.”

Obi-Wan said, “I should have let them shoot me…”

“What?”

“No. That was already too late—it was already too late at Geonosis. The Zabrak, on Naboo—I should have died there… before I ever brought him here—”

“Stop this, you will!” Yoda gave him a stick-jab in the ribs sharp enough to straighten him up.

“Make a Jedi fall, one cannot; beyond even Lord Sidious, this is. Chose this, Skywalker did.”

Obi-Wan lowered his head. “And I’m afraid I might know why.”

Make a Jedi fall, one cannot; beyond even Lord Sidious, this is. Chose this, Skywalker did.

Chose this, Skywalker did.

Take in that sentence from Yoda and understand its meaning fully. Notice how Obi-Wan behaves exactly like the people who say “its the govt fault or its the corporations or its education or whatever” when he saw what Anakin had turned into.

Obi-Wan was trying to rationalize Anakin’s actions by removing any and all agency Anakin had. You can call this his defense mechanism.

However, Yoda correctly sees that for all the things that were going on, in the end, it was Anakin who choose to be a Sith and kill the Jedi younglings. Yoda, even in the midst of everything, had sufficient wisdom to know that adults have agency and Anakin is one. Additionally, he also told Obi-Wan off because the defense mechanism is harmful, for it blinds people to the reality that is happening.

Another analogy that I can use is Chemistry. Specifically catalysts. If you know your chemistry, you will know that catalysts do not start a chemical reaction nor does it end a reaction. It can either act as an enabler or a deterrent, meaning it can either speed up or slow down the reaction. However, it can neither start it nor end it.

The last analogy is the ancient Chinese proverb of the horse and stream. One can bring the horse to the stream all they like, but the horse will only drink if it wants to drink. The rider or the caretaker is merely a guide, an enabler, not the actor. The actor is still the horse.

The same, I think, applies to women and men in the real world. Adult men and women, whether we like it or not, have agency.

Women as a collective did just suddenly morph into a bunch of evil feminists or pretentious traditionalists or gynocentrists. Many and most women were, deep down, are a combination of feminist and traditionalist. The governments, the corporations, the court systems, the education systems, the policies, the birth control pills, social medias…The things are simply catalysts, they are mere enablers.

Similarly, the majority of men did not just become white knights and manginas. The majority of men were always white knighting manginas. We called them with different names in old times such as chivalrous or knightly or savior but that does not change the fact that they would engage in pussy begging practices such as wooing or courtship or what have you. The mainstream gynocentric media and feminist women are simply enablers and catalysts for their behaviors.

We can even say the same about MGTOWs. There are and there have been men throughout the ages that chose a path of freedom, non-reproduction and did not marry or have children. We called them by different names such as Stoics, Monks, many of the greatest male minds to have ever lived / Apex Men, etc…But it does not change the fact that MGTOWs have always existed in one shape or the other. The internet, feminism, traditionalism are simply enablers and catalysts of MGTOWs. Without the internet and feminism, we would not be growing at such a rapid rate, but we would have existed, perhaps under another name and in far fewer number. Remember, catalysts increases the rate, it does not start or stop something.

Or to put it in Yoda’s terms,

“Make women toxic, one cannot; beyond even the government and feminism, this is. Chose this, women did.”

“Make men manginas, one cannot; beyond even femt~~~s, this is. Chose this, men did.”

“Make a man GHOW, one cannot; beyond even gynocentrists, this is. Chose this, some men did.”

Now does this mean the enablers, the catalysts…the governments, the corporations, the ideologies..Do they just get a free pass ? Of course not. One should either oppose the s~~~e or walk away from it when they can.

However, when it comes to explaining the situation and ascribing the blame, if you will, I think there is a hierarchy that one can follow. At the top of the hierarchy is individual agency, followed by ideology and the state and finally technology. Technology is at the bottom because it is not motivated by any agenda and is passive. The government and ideology are both entities on their own right but they are made up of people. & people have agency.

One must remember that we are dealing with collectives of fully grown adults when we are discussing issues of men, women, and the environment. Adults have agency and/or are expected to behave like they have one. Never strip the agency away from them. That only creates a tribe of victims and only denies us the true nature of what is going on. Agency stripping is an outdated form of psychological defense that a thinking man should try to not use in their lives.

Cheers.

Similarly, the majority of men did not just become white knights and manginas. The majority of men were always white knighting manginas. We called them with different names in old times such as chivalrous or knightly or savior but that does not change the fact that they would engage in pussy begging practices such as wooing or courtship or what have you.

This would suggest that the world has allways been this way. It certainly is interesting to think about like this. Kind of kills my idea of the past though, but I guess it makes sense. Is there somebody with in depth knowledge on the olden times who would care to give their perspective?

Id be interested to know.

Similarly, the majority of men did not just become white knights and manginas. The majority of men were always white knighting manginas. We called them with different names in old times such as chivalrous or knightly or savior but that does not change the fact that they would engage in pussy begging practices such as wooing or courtship or what have you.

This would suggest that the world has allways been this way. It certainly is interesting to think about like this. Kind of kills my idea of the past though, but I guess it makes sense. Is there somebody with in depth knowledge on the olden times who would care to give their perspective? Id be interested to know.

I am a historian so I can help with that.

Technology has evolved, science has evolved, mathematics has evolved, conflicts have shaped, ideologies rise and fall…But the biological reality of the human species which correlates to fundamentals of male and female nature has not changed for a long time. In fact, I would argue that human nature did not change at all.

From a scientific perspective, human evolution has slowed down substantially since the Pleistocene Epoch. The last major evolution, which concerns our brains, happened during that time. After that, human evolution by natural selection slowed down dramatically. It does not mean we stopped evolving for there are humans who are resistant to HIV and what have you but humanity as an entire species has not experienced major evolution by natural selection. This means that for all intents and purposes, Homo Sapiens have been running on hardware that is between 12 thousand and 2.6 million years old. By hardware here I mean organ structure, brain size, etc. Which is why unconscious human nature seems or appears to be very primitive. To use an analogy, imagine a computer made in the 1970s existing right now, trying to run Google Chrome or VLC media player or what have you.

To be frank, your idea of the past probably never existed. The 1950s USA thing that people like to bring up as the pinnacle of traditionalism did not occur on a large scale. In the 1950s, the entire world was recovering from WW2, many nations were undergoing decolonization, the prelude to the Cold War was building up, Communism / Socialist Republic or Socialist Democrats were getting their swing, etc. In USA, many men died, the Africans did not have their Civil Rights yet, etc.

Humans have a very odd perspective towards the past in that we tend to look at it with a rose tinted lens. This can even be observed in historians, who are not supposed to be doing that. Where do you think the crap like Golden Ages come from. Here’s a reality check – There is no such thing as a Golden Age. Never have been. If anyone brings up Pax Romana for instance, kindly ask them how the slave population in Rome was doing at the time or how Romans had to deal with diseases and illnesses.

If you wish to talk about traditionalism, browse some old articles from AVFM, back before they went full retard. You will find some articles detailing how women were already divorcing men in 1920s. Or look at UK where women went en mass to shame men to die in the hell that is World War 1. Or take a look at the phenomena known as War Brides. Or look at how the Americans treated people with Japanese ancestry. This is the traditionalist utopia that many speak of ? The ones that groups like tradcons want to resurrect ? Really ?

When you look at history, look at it with this view :- Everyone at all periods of time has had to deal with their own brand of s~~~. That’s how you look at the past without suffering from what I like to call the Golden Age Complex.