A measure of sadness washes over me when I reflect upon the changed meaning of M

GTOW, which now seems to stand for the marriage strike and curtailing any influe
nce a woman may have over a man's life. It's not that I disagree with men on the
marriage strike (I myself am not married and have zero intention of ending my b
achelor status) nor do I disagree that men ought to have their spidey-senses tin
gling at all times to limit the harm women can inflict in our gynocentric societ
y. No, the sadness is over the lost meaning behind MGTOW, which was and still is
the most beautiful "solution" to men's problems within our culture. The key to
MGTOW's philosophy is in its simplicity, which can be evidenced in The Men Going
Their Own Way Manifesto.
The goal is to instill masculinity in men, femininity in women, and work toward
limited government!
By instilling masculinity in men, we make men self-reliant, proud, and independe
nt.
By instilling femininity in women, we make them nurturing, supporting, and respo
nsible.
By working for a limited government, we are working for freedom and justice.
Women having "other qualities" is not interesting to men because we don't need t
hem! Femininity will be the price women pay for enjoying masculinity in men!
This is the aim of "Men Going Their Own Way".
By holding this point of view, we are helping other men and, more importantly, w
e are helping boys grow up to become men.
This goal is to take away everyone's "right" to vote on other people's affairs t
hus rendering it impossible for political organisms and ideologies to impose the
ir personal will on everyone else. It is not about reinstalling patriarchy or re
voking female voting rights or making socialism illegal. It might have this as a
side effect - but not directly and not as a political ideology. Only the future
will show what happens and by going our own way we are preparing men and boys f
or that future.
It really is pretty simple, isn't it?
It is not concerned with "ending gender roles" if it is about instilling masculi
nity in men and femininity in women. Just the opposite. This plays beautifully i
nto the whole bio-mechanics and social-dynamics sphere that many refer to as "ga
me," a term I hate, but a subject that is key to understanding the issues with a
ny real clarity. As Pook tells us, women are attracted to masculine qualities, n
ot feminine ones, just as the reverse is true of men being attracted to feminine
qualities. In our culture, propaganda has been force-fed down boys throats almo
st since birth that for boys to emulate feminine qualities is "good" while their
masculine qualities are "bad." This carries on further into relationships and m
arriage, where men have been brainwashed into believing that if they "embraced t
heir feminine side" that it would make them more endearing to women, and thus be
able to get along with them better.
Of course, this is the exact opposite of what actually works. If men embrace the
ir masculinity and wear it proudly, their relationships with women will improve
as well. The same goes the other way, that if women embrace their feminine stren
gths, rather than competing to see if she can be a better man than her husband,
many other problems will begin to solve themselves. As many in the game communit
y will attest to, it is not the masculine alpha male that gets charged with dome
stic violence, but rather it is usually the SNAGS (Sensitive New Age Guys) who'v
e embraced their feminine side and in doing so repulsed their woman to such a de

gree that she begins to hate him, and then starts leveling domestic violence cha
rges against them as she enters into a destructive spiral, intent on destroying
her family. Instilling masculinity in men and femininity in women may not be the
solution to everything, but it is the lubrication which makes the solutions wor
k better.
Working for limited government is, I believe, the ultimate solution. The less th
e government is involved in our personal lives, the more we will be forced to ma
ke our personal lives work for ourselves.
Think of two people, a man and a woman, alone out in the woods. They will soon c
ome to depend upon each other willingly and along with willing dependence, so wi
ll come the effort to make the relationship itself work. A cabin will be built a
nd they will both enter into the roles they are best suited for just out of nece
ssity, as was always the case in the history of the world. If one betrays the ot
her and leaves, they will both suffer. I firmly believe that if relationships ar
e to work over the long run, a certain level of co-dependency will do more good
than a gajillion psychologists giving more of their sage advice. The closer we c
an get to that idea of a man and a woman alone in the woods depending on each ot
her for their given talents, the better off everyone's relationships will be.
MGTOW is not about raising money to fund lobby groups. Lobby groups exist to pre
ssure the government to create more laws, and to force others to do that which t
hey would not choose to do of their own accord. That is growing government, not
limiting it.
I love watching Ron Paul in debates because of his simplicity. Whenever someone
tries to challenge the guy, he stops and says, "Well, what would the Constitutio
n say?" and then he goes with that, and his answer is pretty much bang-on every
time. The same idea can be applied to the issues of relationships simply by aski
ng, "Is there a way to do this with less government rather than more? And if so,
is it simpler?" If the answer to those questions are yes then it is almost assu
redly the better solution.
For example, much of the Men's Rights Movement (MRM) is focused on the plight of
divorced fathers and the shrieks for shared-parenting are deafening. Shared-par
enting though, is pretty much asking for the government courts to take 100% cust
ody of the child and then dole out baby-sitting duties to the parents on this da
y and that day. If one parent loses a job and needs to move across the country t
o find employment, he will have to beg the court for permission to relinquish hi
s duties to shared-parenting. Such a person has thus surrendered their right to
move freely about the country. What if the two parents decide to follow vastly d
ifferent religions? Well, the court will decide whether the child is to be Jewis
h or Muslim, not the parents.
Furthermore, when shared-parenting becomes the norm, a woman's only way to get o
n the current alimony/child-support gravy train will be to claim abuse as the re
ason for her getting sole custody, and the amount of men falsely accused of abus
e will rise. While I don't have statistical evidence of this (yet), I have had a
phone conversation about shared-parenting with someone involved in the movement
a year or so ago, and he did admit to me that in places where shared-parenting
was becoming the norm, false accusations of abuse are also rising. It only makes
sense that if you offer financial incentives - windfalls, actually - for making
false accusations, that false accusations will increase and men will pay the pr
ice. Whatever the government touches, it turns to shit, just like Midas - minus
the gold.
So, is there an easier solution than shared-parenting?
Yup! There sure is! It is called marriage 1.0, or patriarchy. Although, it doesn

't need to be called that in order for it to work. It could be called the "Tooth
Fairy Surrogacy Contract" for all I care, so long as it resembles the character
istics of marriage 1.0. In other words, the children of a marriage (or a Tooth F
airy Surrogacy Contract) are the property, or are under the custody, of the husb
and. No ifs, ands or buts. If the woman wants to leave, nobody will stop her, bu
t the children stay with the husband. If women don't like that idea, then they a
re more than welcome to revel in their single-motherhood, and get knocked up by
a thug at the local biker bar. In marriage 1.0, children of a marriage were the
property of the husband, and children born out of wedlock were the property of t
he woman. No government mandated child-support, no nothing. Just basic, simple p
roperty/custody rights. Were they married? The kids are his. They weren't marrie
d, the kids are hers. The "owner" assumes all liability and expenses. End of sto
ry. No need for much of government at all except for a court to determine whethe
r they were married or not, and thus deciding upon "property" or custody rights.
(Hey, that's just how the Founding Fathers wanted things!).
And do we know that this minimal government system of child custody will work? Y
up again! In fact, there are thousands of years of evidence for it right in our
very own culture, up until around the 1860's when the divorce rate was less than
2%. (Custody laws changed in favour of women in the 1870's and by the 1920's, t
he divorce rate had sky-rocketed 700% to around 15% of marriages ending in divor
ce. It has only risen about 300% since then - think about that.) In this situati
on, both men and women have the ability to meaningfully have children, and also,
it would do wonders to lower the divorce rates, as the discussion about who has
presumed custody (what kind of "marriage" you want to have with princess) will
reveal a lot to both parties before, not after. And if a man goes ahead and sign
s up for being a Kitchen Bitch in Marriage 2.0, I have little sympathy for him.
He knew the risks, took them, and if he loses I will cry about as hard for him a
s for those who lost at the casino. They weren't robbed, just willfully stupid.
The best solution is always the one with the least amount of "government touch."
I'd like to discuss MGTOW more in the future, as well as touching upon how the "
philosophy" of MGTOW is also the perfect solution to stopping the Marxist Dialec
tic. There is so much "good" about MGTOW that it is a shame that its meaning has
changed and these other aspects have been forgotten.
In the meantime, here is the rest of the MGTOW Manifesto for you to read. I chal
lenge you to find even the word marriage in there, let alone "marriage strike."
I can find no fault with the philosophy in it. It truly embodies what I believe.
It is important for men to have a practical approach to implementing our strateg
ies.
PRIME STRATEGIES FOR ACHIEVING OUR GOALS
We have 3 main strategies:
1. Instilling masculinity in men by:
-

Demanding respect for men

Serving as good male role models
Living independent lives
Fighting chivalry

2. Instilling femininity in women

- We will hold women equally accountable to men and ignore and shun those who re

fuse to take any responsibility for their own circumstances. Thus we induce wome
n to take a complementary position with men instead of a competitive position, a
s is now the case.
Feminine qualities we want from women:
- Nurturing
- Supportive
- Responsibility
- Respectfulness
- Honesty
3. Limited government
In order to be independent of society, and live within it, while at the same tim
e work for limiting governmental influence upon our daily lives, men will:
- Go Their Own Way
- Support other men
- Legally reduce any taxpaying
- Truthfully act out any duties in accordance with their conscience
- Use any rights to the benefit of other men as well as themselves
It is those 3 strategies that come together in one.
MEN GOING THEIR OWN WAY
This is the logo:
Every man supporting this idea is welcome to use the logo in this or similar con
texts.
What we do as activism or the way we behave personally are the main tactics.
-

Use of a logo which symbolizes the strategy.

Run one or many web-sites and fora that promotes this.
Run one or more web-sites which tells the truth about feminism.
Provide stickers, T-shirts, etc., with various statements such as "Chivalry is
dead!".
- Writing articles supporting our product.
- Producing music promoting our product.
- Hold international events and local meetings.
- Establishing men's clubs.
- Boycotting certain products.
You will basically be alone doing this. There is no organization supporting you.
You just go your own way and do what you believe is right. You are never obliga
ted beyond your own conscience. True masculinity is also about accepting the rig
hts of other men and not letting them down for any short term personal benefits.
The men's movement does actually cover a much larger picture. By instilling masc
ulinity in others, as well as yourself, you will actually be improving the lives
of everyone, including women and children.
IF IT S NOT RIGHT, GO YOUR OWN WAY!
Take care brother!

A leading philosophy rather than a leader

Lots of men are anxiously waiting around for some great leader to arise and lead
others in their fight for rights. And, lots of men have now waited for decades
for "Spartacus" to appear.
But he never will.
There are a variety of reasons for this, of which I will not go into great detai
l here, but let's just say that there are aspects of the male psyche which make
such a scenario highly unlikely.
A philosophy, however, with contributors to it
men could follow that! A philosop
hy based upon Truth (with a capital T) could be a unifier. All people like to ad
here to Truth. And between Christians and non-Christians, there is no conflict in s
eeking Truth. Seculars value Truth. And, in the Bible, whenever God refers to himse
lf it is usually in a riddle:
- I am who I am
- I am the beginning and the end/the Alpha and the Omega
- I am THE TRUTH!
Every riddle God gives in the Bible to his identity
e Truth.
God

is also synonymous with

Absolut

is Absolute Truth.

Absolute Truth existed before we were here, and it will exist after we are gone.
The Absolute Truth just is
It is what it is (I am who I am)
the Absolute Truth do
esn t need to explain nor justify
it just IS. The Absolute Truth exists on a diffe
rent plane than we do whether we figure out the true nature of Absolute Truth or
not, does not in anyway refute the existence of said Truth.
If there is one principle to unify us, it must be Absolute Truth. It is somethin
g both seculars and Christians can agree are of the utmost importance in seeking
. A unifying principle, based upon seeking Truth.
The idea of a leading philosophy rather than a human-leader has enormous advantage
s. One must keep in mind the two pictures (small and big) of everyday life (fighti
ng for our immediate rights and quality of life) vs. the philosophy of life/guid
ing principles upon which the justification for our demands lie.
You can t really have one without the other. That s why we have to go back to guidin
g principles. I like the pyramid of Truth idea of John Locke/Founding Fathers:
1
2
3

God s Law/Absolute Truth

Natural Law/Apparent/Objective Truth
Civil Law/Relative/Subjective Truth

It works like one of those Russian matryoshka dolls, where the one fits inside o
f the other, in order to contain the wild malleability of the human mind (we can
justify anything if we really want to, ie. Relative Truth
Jail is full of innoc
ent people). If a Civil Law/Relative Truth contradicts a Natural Law/Apparent Tr
uth, then the Civil Law/Relative Truth is a false one, and so forth. In this way
, the lower truths are contained by the higher truths, and thus we are provided with
a philosophical framework that anchors us to reality.
Now, some things that were true yesterday are no longer true today. Changes to m
edicine and technology can indeed change what is True. (200 years ago, I would h
ave said it is absolutely true that man does not have the ability to fly, let al

one propel himself faster than the speed of sound but today, the Truth is differe
nt the Truth evolved). Also, sometimes things we assumed were true (earth is fla
t) are also illustrated to have been false. We need something higher than apparent
truth.
Absolute Truth is purity. It controls all other truths. It is without fault. It
is never wrong. It is enduring, it never changes. It couldn t give a rip if we und
erstand it or not. It is eternal, and it exists on an entirely different plane t
han us, and often, our understanding. That we thought the earth was flat had no
affect on the physics that ruled the earth and the solar system. On that level,
our understanding is irrelevant. Absolute Truth trumps all, no matter what we co
njure up in our brains.
I think, after a while of studying this whole malaise we are in, eventually one
gets exposed to the changing philosophies of mankind such as how a change of think
ing about fraternity and equality arose out of the French Revolution and this le
d to a philosophical change in the way society in general viewed reality. It is
often pointed out that this philosophical change is what led to the birth of Mar
xism and feminism (Relative Truth Uber Alles).
Therefore, if one stands back and looks at the big picture, I think that there has
to be an underlying philosophy that has to win out over the other. We need a ne
w philosophy. We need a new change in philosophical thought. A new Age of Reason;
a new Renaissance of Thought; we need to philosophically defeat the ideology which
has gripped our society to our detriment.
And dammit, why the hell shouldn t it be us that sparks its creation?

I am pleased to see more and more men starting to put the pieces together and un
derstand how civilization works as a machine, that there is cause and effect; that
certain things need to be in place in order for other things to occur. I think
many men are beginning to understand that there are some unpleasant Truths (and
pretty lies), but the unpleasant Truth rules over the pretty lies. This in itsel
f is a turn back to the Absolute Truth. Lying/Ideology doesn t change the way the
world actually is. When confronted with a higher truth, lower truths must be adj
usted to accommodate it.
A way to think of building a philosophy is to think of something like the Martia
l Arts. There really isn t a leader, but there is a right way and a wrong way, even tho
gh sometimes there are variations upon the right way. And, the Martial Arts acknow
ledges certain Truths (both physical and philosophical), and puts them together
into a discipline, or a framework, that over-all creates something very powerful
and useful.
We should forget about a leader and rather look for leading principles, of which it
is of the utmost importance that Absolute Truth be the base of it all. Our ultim
ate goal should be to seek Absolute Truth, for it trumps all else. (Even ***gasp
*** equality is trumped!)
Once we have philosophical principles, then we can build.
I like building stuff, don t you?
We should build ourselves a philosophical ladder, so men can get themselves out
of this sewer. Just like we understand how marriage puts sex to work by harnessing
the sex drive of men and attaching it to children through women, if we look at
the mechanics of these things and understand the Truths of them, we can identify
the base elements of what keeps that machine running and cut off the unnecessar
y riff-raff.
We have to have philosophical principles underlying us, otherwise right and wrong
will be forever malleable and that is just continuing to live in the wicked grip

of Feminism and Marxism. No thanks!

Many things can be integrated into such a

philosophical machine.

For example: Many things in the Bible can be shown to have a mechanical purpose
like how its laws and morals have resulted in a civilization creator by the way it
structures society. These are truths that exist both within, and outside of the
religion itself. There is quite an easy over-lap here.
I also suspect that Buddhist thought might be able to integrate in, for it also
seeks Truth, and just as how we can recognize the Christian model for creating c
ivilization, I believe there are certain Truths that can be illustrated through
Buddhism s disciplines which do the same. An example of what I mean is how both re
ligions offer a path to personal peace through either meditation or prayer, and
further, how both meditation and prayer can be explained psychologically/scienti
fically without the aspect of religion in it. All three of these things are abou
t mentally acknowledging the limit of being able to control everything about you
, and submitting to a higher power so you don t go cuckoo. In no way does acknowle
dging these mecahnical truths discredit the idea of God, but it doesn t demand you b
elieve in God either. And, it also allows that both Buddhists and Biblical Wisdo
m tap into the Absolute Mechanical Truths that make up the Universe.
In this way, the Truth has not been compromised, nor the religious beliefs of Bu
ddhists, Christians, Seculars, or even Jedi Knights such as myself. Christians,
Buddhists and Seculars can all three hold black-belts in the same martial art wi
thout compromising their religious beliefs, can t they?
Anyway, this line of thought comes because I ve been dialing it back, and dialing
it back aaaaaand dialing it back to see at what point there is a common-denomina
tor where all of us can co-operate together on something. When I realized that e
ven as internet writers who use words as weapons, we cannot even convince 15 or
30 writers to make an agreement to start introducing simple words and phrases wi
thin their articles, so that over time we may start to manipulate the English la
nguage to our advantage in the same way that others have done in the recent past
(like when the name of husband or wife was changed to the uni-sexual "partner"
to allow for the integration of the gay marriage debate into society) Lol! Well,
that is something pretty simple, I think. But it is just not achievable in that wa
y. So, until such a simple thing can be accomplished, all construction on the To
wer of Babel should cease and desist!
This is why I keep thinking that perhaps the only thing we can truly build is a phi
losophy to pass on to other men
and since men won t co-operate on a damn thing, any
philosophy has to start on a personal basis. It has to serve the individual on
a personal level first. It can build itself further from there if it so chooses,
I don t know. But I have come to the conclusion that the only thing we can build is
a philosophy to help ourselves first to navigate this world.
For example There is a maxim that seems to run all the way from the personal/mic
ro-level, right to the macro-level, which is that promiscuity leads to clashing
with the law. The more sexually loose you are, directly increases the amount of ex
posure to the steel fist of the law.
I wish I had kept it, but I once seen a comparison between sexual freedom vs. all o
ther freedom. And it was quite amazing. If one practices sexual restraint, hosts
of other freedoms become possible. However, the more sexual, the more laws are n
eeded to keep things going. Highly sexual people vastly expose themselves to ris
ks of totalitarianism, and all the way to the top, a highly sexual society neces
sarily becomes totalitarian to survive.(Divorce Laws, Child-support, Welfare, et
c.)

However, if you limit your exposure to these dangers, even on a personal level,
our society still provides a pretty good and free place to live in. Government can t
come after you for child support if you have no kids. (Sex). And on it goes Ali
mony, TRO bullshit, DV Charges, VAWA/IMBRA on and on it goes but the one thing tha
t is a constant
they all ultimately derive from sex. Limit your exposure, and al
l of those things are not really much of a problem for you.
It seems like a truism to me
a principle. That doesn t mean a philosophy based upon th
at truism has to demand 100% sexual restraint but it could demand that one ackno
wledges the Truth of it, and therefore is not blind to it, and thus becomes resp
onsible for his own actions. (Which is surviving in this world, rather than just
being tossed about by it).
I suspect that this is the only thing we will truly be able
to help guide men through life with truisms such as these,
rt on the personal level first to provide that benefit to
he outset. Maybe after that, the collective consciousness
slowly retake the culture.

to build. Philosophies
but they have to sta
each man directly at t
of like-minded men will

Bonecrker #35 - You Mean NOTHING To A Woman Until You Have Sex
My views on "chicks" are based on observation and experience and are very reliab
le. A man can expect a woman to act as if nothing is going on, fade on him, flak
e on him, play rapo and other games, string him along, and forget his name and a
million other things that say he just doesn't matter. All that goes away (excep
t for psycho chicks) after the first time you have sex. Until that happens, a ma
n should take every single thing about a woman with a grain of salt. Also, there
is a huge ass gap between what a woman says and what a woman does. Waiting arou
nd, trying to get "close" to a girl, developing friendships and dating etc. are
all highly counterproductive for a man, because of this. A woman decides within
seconds if she wants a man or not and then immediately tests him to see if he is
important enough and in demand enough to not have to chase her. Almost anything
he does to pursue her, please her or tries to get close to her, makes his value
drop. It sucks that women are so fucked up. But it is what is.
A lot of men don't know this.
They assume because they have put significant time and effort
and she is responding, that he is important to her.
Nothing could be further from the truth. You will rarely find
dmit this.
But their behavior shows this very clearly. [It] is the rule,
Until you put your penis in a woman, you mean nothing to her,
en after that, many will still flake on you soon after.

into wooing a girl

a woman who will a
not the exception.
no matter what. Ev

No matter how hot and heavy and interested in you she seems, no matter how much
she grinds against you on the dance floor or whispers dirty promises in your ear
, no matter how much she said she wants you to call her, no matter what love let
ters she writes you professing her undying love, until you put your penis in her
, from her point of view, it is as if none of that ever happened and you are a s

tranger being met for the first time. That first sexual contact is the very begi
nning of your relating to her. Before then, you don't exist.
Men assume they are building up a relationship and getting to know her with the
eventual goal of making her close enough to you and trusting enough of you to ha
ve sex. This is completely erroneous. Women lie about this all the time which is
the source of the misunderstanding. What women actually do is keep a bunch of p
otentials in the wings and have sex with one of them (or some complete stranger)
quite at random when they want to initiate courtship with them. The less you ar
e willing to wait around for her to decide to fuck you, the higher your status.
Also, since it is mostly random, it is a much better strategy for men to look fo
r the woman who wants him right now, rather than to invest time and energy on a
woman. However, women are completely neurotic, so you have to disguise it as som
ething innocuos (hey, want to come over to my place and watch this new DVD I got
....hehehe). You both know the real reason she is coming over to your place but
you both must pretend it just sort of happened. It is very important that, if a
woman ever says no to you, during the course of you seducing her, that you wande
r off, preferably with someone else. Hey, want to come over to my place and see
the new DVD I got? No? Well, look, I"m busy right now and I gotta go, but I'll c
all you later in the week. Don't call her. And if she doesn't call you, forget a
ll about her.
Some women are psychotic and prone to random slutty stuff like going to a club,
doing a bunch of ecstasy and then blowing some random guy in the bathroom. Look,
but don't touch. There is nothing you can do about women being neurotic except
work around it and prevent it from impacting your life. But psychotic women are
a whole different story. They are rare (thankfully) but extremely toxic. Keep th
em out of your life at all costs.