Ghost among the Ruins

“When a civilization is reaching its end, it is difficult to achieve anything by resisting it and by directly opposing the forces in motion. The current is too strong; one would be over-whelmed. The essential thing is not to let oneself be impressed by the omnipotence and apparent triumph of the forces of the epoch.
-Julius Evola

Some of the recent commentary from Cybro at Rex Patriach and others at Rational Male have led me to believe that the Ghosting form of MGTOW is really the only way as a man to maintain full dignity and your own sense of destiny in this modern phase.

First of all, a commentator provided an excellent visual representation of the current disparity in play--driven by feminists who have created a skewed situation.  

This has had numerous effects which have been well detailed in the manosphere. The value of high value women due to their unleashed hypergamy means no man is capable of pleasing them. Even for Alphas, their best outcome is to be one of many on some woman's cock carousel--but ultimately, they can never truly be in command of the situation as the female always thinks of him at a lower value.

This also forces most men to look at lower value women as their market equals if they expect any long-term relationship. Note the increase in decent Men having to settle for fat women. But rather than those women being overjoyed at their situation and working extra-hard to be good partners, they instead retain their hypergamous ways--because of the inflated market value--and the situation is even worse.

This is also leading to an increase in White Knighting, AMOGing. poaching and other undignified behavior by men who are so desperate due to the conditioning, that their dignity or any sense of ethic standard is long gone..

Which brings me to Cybro's comments on Ghosting and and current trad-MGTOWS. There are two definitions for traditionalism and the common one being used is the small 't' version which is really another form of conservatism. i.e. wanting to roll back the clock a few years or decades.

But as anyone who's investigated knows... most men have been on the wrong side of the ledger for a long time now.

On Dalrock's blog, it was pointed out that Women were given the right to vote in England for--get this--in exchange for their support for conscription prior to World War One. That's right, they sent tens of thousands of THEIR OWN MEN to die in probably the most psychologically damaging war in history. Thinning out the male population then allowed women to move into jobs and other employment traditionally set aside for men, while men that didn't die, came back likely damaged. Point is, so many men went to die for nothing at all and who profited from this?

Note: Unlike the ancient rites of War--which could at least provide some heroic and spiritual fulfillment--and were often necessary in more turbulent times... Modern, industrialized warfare is just a slaughterhouse, where men are thrown into a grinder, for causes they don't really understand (usually capitalist industry and subversive political aims). Henry Kissinger called soldiers stupid animals. Well no, they were not stupid--they were ruthlessly sold out and exploited by people they thought they could trust.

Anyway, there is another view of Traditionalism (capital 't') which is radical version, and one of it's major philosophers was Julius Evola. Evola believed in cyclical ages of Man/Civilization e.g. Golden Age, Hero Age, Iron Age etc and that we were currently in the final age, he called Kali Yuga, as it was called in Sanskrit tradition. Essentially it meant that real "Traditionalism" was no longer possible because it was a period in which all true forms of real being were dissolving... and that to compromise was a doomed task. .

Interesting enough, his proscription for Men aware of this false age was not too different to MGTOW or going Ghost--as is quoted at the top of this post. He also predicted that more and more men would recede from the progressing system.

“This kind of renunciation, in fact, has often been the strength, born of necessity, of the world's disinherited, of those who do not fit in with their surroundings or with their own body or with their own race or tradition and who hope, by means of renunciation, to assure for themselves a future world where, to use a Nietzschean expression, the inversion of all values will occur.”
― Julius Evola

In this strange irony, it is those who are Ghosts amongst the Ruins are actually the ones in tune with the grander cycles at play and are in fact acting in accordance with "Traditional" principles--while trad-MGTOWS and those who think they can re-adjust the current balance by playing politics (their game) are completely inauthentic.

Let us leave modern men to their “truths” and let us only be concerned about one thing: to keep standing [ed: ghosting] amid a world of ruins.”
― Julius Evola, Revolt Against the Modern World

One must really embrace the philosophical state of mind first--it's not easy to go ghost, especially with the current system where everything is so inter-connected and financial freedom even more difficult to achieve. Living like Caine from Kung-Fu or Clint Eastwood in The Good, Bad and the Ugly is no simple matter. It raises red flags from the people still in the Matrix and like the movie, seemingly good people will suddenly become like Agents* and see you as a threat to their reality.

*I've experienced this many times and there's no doubt in my mind, that people can come under the control of some outside "conscience" in certain situations though I've no idea how.

Overall though, if you transform the mind first, it becomes easier to drift in and out of the system--to play along with all the blue pillers as need be--and then completely disengage whenever you need to.

The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone

This phrase was used by the early Christians as a warning/threat to the power structure at the time--the Pharisees--that those whom they were rejecting, would bring their downfall. Putting aside the religious aspects and historic interpretations, we can say in general terms that they were correct.

Small groups of Men decided that the system being promoted was a joke, and by pulling out (leaving their desire for marriage), they began to cause systemic dissension  by completely denying the legitimacy of the established rulers. These actions caused so much trouble and disorder that Jerusalem was sacked and destroyed the Romans, and the Judeans (what was left of them) dispersed.

What's the relevance?

Well recently there's been somewhat of a split between MGTOW and MRA which was clearly inevitable given the varying aims. In the below video, Bar Bar welcomes the development and says adios.

Bar bar sees the situation like Pandora's Box, in that the lid has been removed so completely that to restore traditionalism in the current socio-techno-economic framework is an impossibility.

This will naturally make many angry as most people sense, the great untapped power resides with those who go MGTOW. Men who no longer buy into the illusion--in any shape or form--are denying its (the system's) legitimacy by their actions, while those who are simply trying to re balance or gain some ground (MRAs), enable the system to solidify by treating it with good faith.

The same men who are no longer captivated by the illusion, can no longer be contained or honey-trapped or guilt-tripped or shamed....

You see it's inevitable that MGTOW will grow as the countless young men who are growing up are not even being allowed into the current system in the first place... they are barred from tasting any of its fruit so they will have little sympathy for it, nor any desire to fight for men's rights--since they've never known any.

Western Society has tried to reject them and throw them to the dogs--but soon enough, they will become the capstone.

Even the patriarchal Roman Church is now controlled by women.

In a recent interview, one of the few, traditional Cardinals bemoans the rampant feminism expansion within his Church.

Cardinal Burke: The Church becomes very feminized. Women are wonderful, of course. They respond very naturally to the invitation to be active in the Church. Apart from the priest, the sanctuary has become full of women. The activities in the parish and even the liturgy have been influenced by women and have become so feminine in many places that men do not want to get involved.

Men are often reluctant to become active in the Church. The feminized environment and the lack of the Church’s effort to engage men has led many men to simply opt out. 

Well there you go. Probably the most common symbol of "Patriarchy" in the Western World is now a den of women chasing men away. Note that the feminine overload has caused more of an exodus than even the prevalence of homosexual abuse scandals.

As an example, it became politically incorrect to talk about the Knights of the Altar, an idea that is highly appealing to young men. The Knights of the Altar emphasize the idea that young men offer their chivalrous service at the altar to defend Christ in the sacred realities of the Church. This idea is not welcome in many places today.

Oh dear. Let's look at this historically. The entire Church in the West only EXISTS because of the European Knights of the middle-ages. Without the countless male warriors who died and sacrificed for their society--symbolized by the medieval Knight--Europe as we know it is probably apart of the Islamic caliphate.

But this is simply a good example of the betrayal that goes on when rampant female power is allowed to run wild. POLITICALLY INCORRECT to make any mention of the MEN WHO BUILT THE ORGANIZATION.

 ----

Later in the interview, the Cardinal tries to envisage methods to bring more men in, but I suspect even he knows how difficult this is. He hopes for some harmonized process--some assumption that women will understand the damage they have caused and pull back! Ha!

Ultimately, the truth and only hope for him is that the men 'who have gone their own way' and opted out... will return with force and take back their status. The females aren't going to like it at all... it won't be pretty... but this is what happens when men are betrayed and Big Sis decides on what is politically correct or not.

----

Once again, one sees the power of MGTOW. This Cardinal knows that they desperately need the MGTOW men to come back or his organization will continue to destroy itself.  He speaks of "chivalry" but chivalry is only special as a gift given by Men with power. Chivalry from a lowly position is the definition a beta male.

Two killers walk into a newspaper office...

This Charlie Hebdo paper (and crowd) reminds me of modern entitled women in the west. First of all, free-speech and any form of it anywhere, requires someone to enforce it... or in this case, protect you from its consequences.

If I walked into some bar (in the USA) filled with Bikers, and precede to taunt them, or speak loudly about how pathetic their life-style is... there's every chance I am going to get my head beat in. They are not in the right to do so, but what can I do?

In Paris, we have an almost schizophrenic situation where liberal/marxists have spent years trying to create their multi-racial, multi-religious utopia... which like any civilization that exists, must be propped up by Men. Usually the same kind of men that are taunted, emasculated, demonized by the same people who they are supposed to protect.

Today, all of France (and the world) it seems is expected to rally around "Free Speech"?  To fight "terror", to sacrifice themselves so Charlie Hebdo can run around acting like nihilists and antagonists and enablers.

Once again, they expect the White Knight to come in and save them but will they give anything in return?

Will any of these newspapers speak about the degradation of Men in the West?

Without any reciprocity--a healthy civilization is impossible to maintain.  Without logic and reason, we get situations like this overflowing with contradictions. This Charlie Hebdo rag is the same paper that attacks French people who think mixing Radical Islamics with their society is a bad idea.

Logical men would understand this contradiction of ideologies and how they might come into conflict... and they would certainly understand, that taunting and provoking them, is going to backfire. Logical men would not enter the debate as it is because it is built on so many falsehoods, in particular, the denial of cause and effect..

This civilization is going to burn itself if it continues on its current course.... so keep guard and stay as disengaged as possible.

The Married Man question of MGTOW?

In a recent article at A Voice for Men, the author discusses the varying definitions of MGTOW and whether any borderlines should be drawn. While I agree with much of he's saying philosophically, I believe that when it comes to the issue of "Married Men", this is one border-line that must be maintained, for several reasons.

Note: I am not one of the "elders" of MGTOW and so this is simply my own personal response. Some (if not all) of these points will already have been made by others and so I am just adding my weight to the question.

Although there is a persistent danger in restricting MGTOW, particularly what "outlook" one should have or what actions one must take to "prove" their bona fides as a true MGTOW--there is a reason why the "marriage" issue is more than just a "sub-plot" as the author puts it.

1. The current dispensation (or age). Up until the last 100 years or so, most marriages operated under the Pater familias principle, and in that system, it was perfectly possible for for married men to be MGTOW in a broader sense. e.g. the Freemasons, the Mafia and other male societies operated with ease. Women (wives) knew their place more or less. Given that we all partake in an age (whether we wish it or not), even the most traditional wives are influenced by the perception of what a marriage/relationship should (or could) be like. {see my previous post for an interesting thought experiment}

2. Furthermore, all officially sanctioned unions place men in a compromised position and a compromised man cannot be MGTOW. This is not an attack on married men's ethics, morals, commitment, masculinity etc... this is simply a consideration of the Law of the Land... MGTOW is the path to free yourself from some of these laws (and in doing so, help future laws and conditions become fairer to Men).

3. MGTOW is a situational choice; not a mindset or philosophy.  It enables the Male to become the apex-operator or apex-predator if he wishes to be so.  This is a level of power that can't be shared by one with certain responsibilities. A married man does have certain ethical responsibilities and so it would unfair to blurr these lines. To use a mafia analogy, a married man can be an associate but not a "made man".

4. A man freed from the sacred union of marriage (or serious relationships) has now appropriated a socially ostracized designation. In past ages, the Priesthood was a good compromise in that it protected the male from this stigmatization... today there is no freedom, no respite, no refuge. Your friends, your family and strangers alike will consider you deficient. In short: THIS A SERIOUS BURDEN (A CROSS IF YOU WILL) THAT MUST BE SHARED.

5.  Traditionalism does not equal Marriage. Traditionalism references an authentic way of life and community, but all through history, there have been men (for a variety of reasons) who chose not to marry. Again, we could look at the Priesthoods, or the Knights Templar for an example. I myself am a traditionalist and would happily welcome a more traditional society... but since MGTOW is largely the reaction to a non-traditionalist society, a happily married man in MGTOW makes little rational sense.

-------

In conclusion, these are some basic considerations put forward why a "line" may need to be drawn.  It is also not an attack on marriage--as I suspect many MGTOWs may one day envision themselves getting married. It is simply a necessity to maintain the power (or potential power) that is held by the MGTOW practitioner-- which is unfortunately diluted and compromised by extending the "label" to married men.

If that line is not drawn... then it is debatable whether MGTOW even exists.

Can a woman truly love her husband?

I've read numerous women who post on manosphere blogs claim they are truly devoted to their husbands and are above any kind of feminist imperatives. Some recent comments I've read at The Rational Male  (regarding the females conception of "love") got me thinking on a particular case in point.

Let's say the husband is out there working long hours (breaking his back) for the family (assume traditional Christian). In the wife's free time, while the kids are at school, she decides to write some young-adult fiction. Let's say she looks for a publisher, with the hope that it becomes popular and she might become a millionaire like Stephanie Myers? of Twilight Fame.

Ok so now she's rich, the husband is redundant; just an ordinary and overshadowed man; while she is the wealthy, gifted individual.

What is the solution (or answer to the riddle) here? If a woman was truly devoted to her marriage in a "traditional" sense of male headship... what is the way this situation should have played out?

a. She refuses to write or cash in on the novel. (impossible)
b. She does it anyway and gets rich.... Why should her genius go unnoticed?
c. ?

All your connections lock you into the system (draft)

To forge your own quest sounds good in theory and if one asks any young man (whether blue pilled or red), then they would generally agree with you. Achieving 'praxis' is then the most difficult aspect to overcome and depending on one's situation or their goals, then there are a variety of ways to approach the issue.

Achieving "independence" whilst optimal, should not always be the first goal and sometimes difficult depending on circumstance.

The first challenge to overcome is the mental one... in the sense of metaphysics.