MGTOW vs Alt-right debate

About the recent debate between MGTOW and Alt-right. I haven't been keeping up with it too much, haven't even watched the video yet ( ) but I read the comments in my free time and these are my thoughts so far, mostly from the comments I left on the video.

Two comments I made in response to the MGTOW argument that goes along the lines of 'If white nationalists claim to value high IQ, then they should let Asians immigrate into their countries and breed with them'. This was an interesting argument to me because it is something I have been thinking about for a while.

Comment 1:

I think that ultimately there are 2 reasons for our preferences:

1) subjective reasons - an emotional/instinctive preference we have little to no control over. This is because it was present in humans for much longer through our evolutionary history, back when humans were animals. Essentially, it is unconditional self-love and, by implication, a love of everything that reminds us of self to the extent it does remind us of self. It had to evolve because an organism that doesn't love self despite objective reasons, will by necessity do worse and be less likely to reproduce self, than an organism that does love self despite objective reasons.

2) objective reasons - this is a more rational preference formed due to our more recently developed parts of the brain dealing with higher mental faculties such as the capacity for abstract thought. This is a preference based on some objective facts regardless of our self - IQ, strength, beauty, to name three.

This is not an absolute distinction, since with regards to 2) it is again the subject who is doing the judging and valuing, but I think it will do.

One of Colttaine's point is that since white nationalists claim to value high IQ, then why not prefer other groups, like Ashkenazi Jews or Asians, who embody that high IQ even more so than white people?

And I do think it is true that ultimately, every race's preference for itself is primarily based on subjective reasons - unconditional self-love. If my race is among the highest IQ ones, or the more beautiful, stronger ones, these objective reasons surely add to why I prefer my race, but they are not the foundation of the preference. They act more as an ideal that I strive to drive my race towards without changing my race on a subjective level too much (basically making it less of my race by diluting it with genes of other races).

Honestly, I think that NOBODY is capable of having their life choices based purely or even mostly on objective reasons. Following the idea that objective reasons should overcome subjective reasons to its end, it means that Colttaine, if he was attacked by somebody with a higher IQ, who is stronger than him, and more beautiful, wouldn't defend himself but would let himself be killed instead, since that person embodies his favored values more than he does himself. Of course, that's absurd.

In conclusion, I agree that ultimately our preference for our own race is primarily based more on subjective reasons, but so what? Again, I highly doubt that Colttaine himself would follow the logic of 2) to its end.


Comment 2 (addressing Colttaine)

When white nationalists claim they value IQ, I doubt that they mean that they value IQ above all. I do agree that ultimately, my preference for my race is subjective in the sense that it is based on unconditional self-love. But don't we all function according to that principle in the end?

For example, I presume you too value high IQ Colttaine, right? So if a person with a higher IQ than you attacked you, and your options were to die or to kill in self-defense, what would you do? If your ultimate value is high IQ, then you ought to let yourself get killed, since that person has a higher IQ than you. If your ultimate value is unconditional self-love, then you ought to defend yourself.

So yes, I would agree that ultimately the preference for one's own race is based more on a subjective (particular to each individual) unconditional self-love, but... so what? Does it take away from it in some relevant way? As I said, and I believe I proved this point with my example above, ultimately 99.99% of humanity (and I'm not even shy using such a statistic in this circumstance) acts in accordance with the principle of self-preservation first, value-preservation second. So there may be somebody who embodies some things we value more successfully than we do ourselves, but that usually means we strive to improve ourselves to the extent we can so that we (or our offspring) can eventually overcome them, not that we just decide to self-destruct by race-mixing and/or assisted suicide.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Aside from that, there are 2 additional problems I can perceive with allowing the immigration of other races:

Since we have established that every race works in its own interest, if we import another race, they would necessarily also work in their own interest, which can sometimes conflict with the interest of our own race. For example, Asians might earn money in our countries, then give it to their families in their countries instead of spending it in the country they work in. Also, they might simply begin advocating for the kind of ideals that benefit them over whites. It would create all kinds of unnecessary problems and tensions that can be simply avoided.

1 - We are attracted to what remind us of ourselves if we appreciate ourselves highly
If not, we value what is different form ourselves, hoping it will compensate for our weaknesses, and produce a high appreciation of self.

2- Race is about potential.
Order = probability, pattern consistency.
Therefore a high probability or potential for particular traits (patterns) to be attainable.
When we mix with other races, we are diluting this past/nature, the stresses, the suffering, that was part of the development/cultivation of those traits and their potentials.
You are, in fact, gradually erasing this past, or merging it with a lower potential, forever loving its upper limit.

3- True, intelligence is not enough....spirit, is about how the mind relates to world.
A tall strong coward will be abused by a smaller brave spirit...I've seen it happen.
Creativity, of the pragmatic kind, is the product of intelligence engaging reality, courageously.

AutSider wrote:

1) subjective reasons - an emotional/instinctive preference we have little to no control over. This is because it was present in humans for much longer through our evolutionary history, back when humans were animals. Essentially, it is unconditional self-love and, by implication, a love of everything that reminds us of self to the extent it does remind us of self. It had to evolve because an organism that doesn't love self despite objective reasons, will by necessity do worse and be less likely to reproduce self, than an organism that does love self despite objective reasons.

All actions are a response to pain/discomfort. Concerning the more immediate self-preservation, one has more direct access to one self than others, and that's enough to to orient oneself towards acts that seem to signify self-love. Concerning breeding, one simply is attracted to potential mates by instinctual reactions to what it senses.

Quote :

Honestly, I think that NOBODY is capable of having their life choices based purely or even mostly on objective reasons. Following the idea that objective reasons should overcome subjective reasons to its end, it means that Colttaine, if he was attacked by somebody with a higher IQ, who is stronger than him, and more beautiful, wouldn't defend himself but would let himself be killed instead, since that person embodies his favored values more than he does himself. Of course, that's absurd.

Quote :

For example, I presume you too value high IQ Colttaine, right? So if a person with a higher IQ than you attacked you, and your options were to die or to kill in self-defense, what would you do? If your ultimate value is high IQ, then you ought to let yourself get killed, since that person has a higher IQ than you. If your ultimate value is unconditional self-love, then you ought to defend yourself.

So yes, I would agree that ultimately the preference for one's own race is based more on a subjective (particular to each individual) unconditional self-love, but... so what? Does it take away from it in some relevant way? As I said, and I believe I proved this point with my example above, ultimately 99.99% of humanity (and I'm not even shy using such a statistic in this circumstance) acts in accordance with the principle of self-preservation first, value-preservation second. So there may be somebody who embodies some things we value more successfully than we do ourselves, but that usually means we strive to improve ourselves to the extent we can so that we (or our offspring) can eventually overcome them, not that we just decide to self-destruct by race-mixing and/or assisted suicide.

On an instinctual level, when concerning procreation, animals will bypass the more immediate self-preservation. Humans, which can conceptualize their instincts - make them into conscious values, often bypass their more immediate self-preservation for reasons differing, or at least less directly related, to procreation. For one to act in any other way than that which he estimates would make him live the longest, is to suggest that he might have values that extend beyond the more immediate self. What a person's conscious values are depends on many factors, but his actions reveal those value to the extent that he can consciously will his actions. But, not to forget that instincts suggest values, whether one is conscious of them or not. So one can simply be said to reveal his values by his actions, with no consideration to what extent he can consciously control them.

As an extreme example to illustrate the point; if attacked by an identical twin, a simple animal might, but not as a rule, fight less vigorously. Why this is so, is beyond the scope of this argument, but we can guess that it simply finds the twin almost as familiar to it as it finds itself familiar, and so instinctively finds that to hurt it's twin would be to cause itself pain. So it acts against it's immediate self by not fighting as vigorously.

----------

It's useful to understand what it means to act based on a conscious value. The rule, that all actions are a response to pain/discomfort never changes. One has competing needs, that create discomfort. One will act accordingly to the greatest discomfort. When one creates a conscious value he creates a shame barrier. When one ties his sense of empowerment to certain ways of being, then when he's compelled by a need to act in a way against his sense of empowerment, his need for pride will compete with that need, and if strong enough will stop him from acting.

Moderns feel threatened by the "Alt-Right" but not by the MGTOW movements for rather obvious and simple reasons.

Moderns don't care if (western/white) males become disenfranchised or sexless as this is an already a socializing (feminizing/emasculation) trend inherent within civilization. Thus males who "drop-out" of the system are not a threat, non-threatening. Because most (Modern) males are already feminized and indoctrinated. Therefore MGTOW males, leaders, and individuals have no voice, no ideal worth speaking about, or not anything that contradicts the current status-quo or offers solutions. What "threat" is there to one male, or a few, or even 1/4 of the male population "giving up"? There is none; it only boosts and expedites the other males who do give in and contribute to the system. Thus MGTOW is about males "buying into" or "dropping out" of western society. For every male that drops-out (MGTOW) another male buys-in at better rates, picking-up the slack.

This is also one of the reasons that liberals and non-whites are boosting their social status throughout western society by "picking-up" what white societies have left behind.


Now the Alt-Right is a different matter. Moderns and Liberals are indoctrinated to associate the "Alt-Right" with Fascism, Nazism, White Nationalism, and Racism. Therefore moderns immediately respond to "Alt-Right" individuals or social presence with a typical, sometimes violent response. Even whites/europeans are trained to (publicly) speak against their own interests. For example "only whites can be racist" or "Africa for Africans, Asia for Asians, but white countries for everybody".

The conclusion to either MGTOW or Alt-right is easy to predict: further disenfranchisement of white, european, males, who are the primary target of Modernity, Liberalism, and Leftism. As long as white-male-european culture reigns supreme (so indefinitely), Modernity will always be playing "catch-up" in terms of cultural and social progress. Liberalism and Modernity is focused on achievements like "multi-culturalism" where non-whites and females are posed as "Equals" to white-european-males, when, they're clearly not. And Modernity eggs and goads white females to fuck and create Mischlings with non-white, non-european males, at every opportunity. This is pervasive throughout 'western' (degenerate) countries. Again this is the Modus Operandi of Modernity, Humanitarianism, Post-Colonialism, Socialism, and simply a major process of "Civilizing" (emasculating) populations.

As white-european-males are further constrained, and supressed, a more violent reaction accumulates in potential, as when Nazi-Germany exploded in the 20th Century, something like that could very well happen again, and most probably will, as Modernity forces it to, as all social efforts become more and more pointed at the "Evil" white-european-male.

The typical response to MGTOW:

"Can't get laid."
"Losers, Pathetic."
"Virgins, no game."
"Whiners, complainers."

I noticed this reaction on ILP a few years ago before I left, that almost everything I said is met with "whining" accusations, that merely describing these processes as objectively and non-biased as possible, still met with "Well you're just complaining, suck it up!" responses. So Modernity discounts the MGTOW movement completely, until someday, it may become violent, as more and more males are funneled into male-only groupings. What happens in nature when males are funneled into groups and forced into cooperation?

They go to war, of course.

Another thought for now on MGTOW:

I like the idea of it, because like many other (western) males out there, the romantic idealism of "getting away from" society and civilization, or "dropping out" seems like a great option. To escape from modernity, run away, or move somewhere, emigrate to another country. But this forum is too smart for this idealism. There is no where to go. Or, no where that won't eventually have Modernity spread to it and invade. This is not a battle that can be fled from, ultimately. There is nowhere on Earth to go. And this is why MGTOW will fail. Because males literally have "nowhere to go".

There is no "going your own way" when humanism and modernity are so pervasive as to spread across the globe: Globalism. Thus MGTOW can be reduced to a petulant, naive, romantic idealism. Similar to the Anarchist crowds who dream of "resetting" civilization. Neither will happen. You can't run. And you can't reset.

So you better come up with a different tactic and solution for any long-term relief.

Nuff said. Alt right is the new left. The same fashion faggots.

Colttaine makes the argument that one should treat every person as an individual - even strangers - and make no pre-judgments based on their racial characteristics. He is effectively arguing against prejudice when it comes to racial distinctions only. I suppose he might not see the potential irony if he pre-judges females based on the fact that they're female.

In practice, he asserts that IQ is the only criteria which a collective is justified in using as a distinction - but refuses the 'dirtier' but more-effective-than-nothing method of racially discriminating against immigrants.

Alt-Hyp asserts that homogeneity of the populace must be taken into account to have an effective state. Without it, your society will not hold itself together without a repressive superstate.

The MGTOW movement is predictably neutered. Not preferring self, rejecting self - that is why they do not wish to reproduce or gave up on it. The point of racialism is to pay respects to and love the mother that made you possible - the females. It's not surprising that MGTOW would be anti-racist, being a movement that is misogynist.

I don't bother arguing about homogeneity being preferable. One cannot fully express themselves with a person from another race. It will result an inevitable dumbing down - until, at least, they're all adequately racially mixed. Then, those racially mixed have their own set of issues. A lot of them end up confused about their own history and place in the world.

--

I engaged in a different discussion with a person named OriginLinear. Currently, I do not have an answer to him that is satisfactory. Here is the last bits of the conversation:

History:

OriginLinear wrote:

Yesterday 8:56 PM

+Slaughtz Christian mores are not what I am talking about, specifically. Universalist principles are what I am talking about. The only reason I bring Christianity into this is because it is what brought these principles into the modern era. However, universalist ideals were around well before Christianity arose, and before Judaism was any sort of major player in Europe. The foundational principles of modern ethics go as far back as ancient Greece, at least. When they were still praying to Zeus and what not.

The point is, you are undermining thousands of years of western moral tradition. This is, like I said above, the very foundation on which the values of western civilization are based.

There are examples of European states which did not have a humanist/purely meritocratic conception. Does not a child merit the fruits his parents give him? This type of 'universalism' appears to imply a tabula-rasa conception of the human being, where a child does not deserve their inheritance, ignores that a child is also the effect and production, creation, of the parents - which they are to some degree molding and nurturing.

He is correct there were universalist conceptions of ethics/values upon which civilizations in Europe rose and fell. Alexander The Great had said he cared not for ethnicity, but for who is strongest. Strength of every aspect of the individual (not just muscles). A person denying their history by rejecting their ancestors through anti-racialism.. or ignorance-of-self.. is not a sign of strength - but the taking for granted of a 'higher nature' like that of a state.

Perhaps it is an attitude of ignorance-of-past, until science proves that past is there. Only then will they try to deal with it.

MGTOWs are defined by male-disenfranchisement and failure to integrate into western society, which they correctly associate with the failure to 'relationship' with western women. Because the two are essentially the same. However, over time, the "power of pussy" is too much and MGTOW males do capitulate. They do get into a relationship and contradict all of their previous claims.

A MGTOW is a young "Cuck-servative" who has yet to capitulate to western society, but will eventually do so almost guaranteed. Because again, the MGTOW movement does not offer any real solutions or outlets for western male disenfranchisement. Rather these groups and movements are symptoms of an underlying disease (Nihilism) that is not yet addressed. And because the true illness is ignored or only treated with drugs, it remains intact and pervasive.

The proper solution to MGTOWs, particularly white/european males, would be to honor your heritage, past, and respect family in that regard. However the MGTOW complaint is valid on this point. There are no, or very few, western-white-european females who have the same (conservative) values as them, and so disenfranchised western males have no (political) allies when it comes to mating, females, and family building.

This is because liberals/leftists have carefully constructed a miscegnating and multi-cultural society, particularly aimed at white/european males, and females.

Autsider wrote:

'If white nationalists claim to value high IQ, then they should let Asians immigrate into their countries and breed with them'.

Why breed with Asians if they have a higher IQ and you value a high IQ? Why not hand over the West to East Asians (the higher IQ ones) and let them breed among themselves in the West?

Why not start a bear breeding program if you value strength?

It's all about individuals and not all women are like that....

Haven't watched the video though.

Here is what MGTOW is - Shit is not working out for you? Well, here's a new way of life for you where shit is still not working out for you but you have now new ideals and one of them is that it's okay that shit is not working out for you, it's part of your new 'way'. Neat.

Anfang wrote:

Here is what MGTOW is - Shit is not working out for you? Well, here's a new way of life for you where shit is still not working out for you but you have now new ideals and one of them is that it's okay that shit is not working out for you, it's part of your new 'way'. Neat.

Basically this. Although on goingyourownway forum they do do a decent of job deconstructing the negative behavior of women. Their main point I think is, no matter how good you are at landing a woman, you're still stuck in a system with gynocentric laws, and given the behavior of women, it's naive to think you'll be any different than all the other guys who have been fucked over by the system, thus a sense of futility sets in and a calm acceptance to "the way things are." So how do you fight this? I think men sort of hope for some big massive overhaul in the future. No one wants to become a lawyer and slowly chip away at the problem.

Yes, they have potential and are interested to see what's happening without looking at it through the modern standard (((psychology))) lens (not as much anyway) but they can't take the step beyond the ideal of equality and of holy individualism.
The game is rigged; the game is rules in the minds of the participants; those rules are holy and are never to be changed. Instead we shall dwell and complain about women and people in general exploiting those rules.
We can't do anything about it because rules are sacred in themselves and rules are in place for their own sake and not for a certain objective.

In that sense, modern man is more the good girl and modern woman is more the bad girl in their relationship with society.

Objectives will have to come first.

MGTOW is a self-defeating ideology both in long-term and short-term. In the long-term because they advocate low-fertility (more precisely, NO fertility), meaning that they will be replaced by whatever group which advocates for higher fertility. In the short-term they are self-defeating because the more men become MGTOW and distance themselves from the women, the more the sexual dynamics shift into the favor of the men, increasing the value of the remaining men in the game, and by doing so they disincentivize the non-MGTOW men from becoming MGTOW. Essentially, the more MGTOW there are, the less incentive other men have to go MGTOW.

The only way a MGTOW movement would work is if 100% of men were intelligent enough to comprehend the basic ideas of MGTOW, and if 100% of men had sufficient control of their sexual urges. In reality I think 30% of men can fulfill the first requirement, and 10% at best the second.

Slaughtz, about your exchange with OriginLinear, that is one of the reasons why I had always been reluctant when it came to calling myself a traditionalist, and why I've ultimately rejected the label. I care only about what is true and what makes sense according to my own estimation and judgment of the world. If traditions advocate things that are outright false (as Christian tradition does), or if they advocate absurd oughts, a true traditionalist would be obliged to overlook these lies and absurdities in favor of tradition. I refuse to do that, my criticism extends to everything, I don't turn a blind eye to anything. Some traditions may generally be true and sensible, fine, then preserve what is true and sensible in them, reject what is not. But the very fact that it is a tradition should not be a reason to preserve it, as being a traditionalist would imply.

Just saw somebody, presumably from the alt-right, post that MGTOW = BGWTT (Boys Going Where They're Told), definitely some truth to that but I'd rephrase it to MGTOW = BRAWTC (Boys Running Away Where They Can). The "going where they're told" is an allusion to a Jewish conspiracy, that Jews are the driving force behind MGTOW. In a sense they indirectly are to an extent because they are partially behind the kind of ideologies (feminism) the consequences of which are the cause of MGTOW, but I think MGTOW for the most part isn't manufactured by some elite layer of society but a natural male response to gynocentrism combining mostly a realistic view of gender relations based largely on direct engagement with reality (first hand experiences) as well as science and a fightflight response to the situation.

The greatest value of MGTOW is the red pill knowledge about gender relations. Though there are undoubtedly a few truly misogynistic or even insane men in the movement (AngryMGTOW immediately comes to mind), generally the information they spread is very accurate and to the point. So, its greatest value is describing how the world "is". Its greatest shortcoming is the kind of "oughts" it promotes, which is usually the flight response of running away. Though I can't blame them too much taking into consideration the current environment and how unlikely it is for them to achieve anything positive even if they did try. When it comes to the type of the flight response, MGTOW are separated into 2 groups:
1) Those who run away (go their own way) due to unfavorable circumstances, but would come back and perhaps accept the costs if the system was more "fair" aka the costs weren't so huge for so little in return,
and
2) Those who run away regardless of the circumstances and essentially either want nothing to do with society or even outright desire its destruction.

If more men were redpilled about the nature of women it would be easier to get the society back on the Right course. The redpilling of men would have costs (-) and benefits (+) both for men and women but ultimately it would result in a more functional society:

Men:
- Emotional discomfort, at least in the first stages of being redpilled
- The possibility of weaker males becoming inwardly/outwardly destructive due to the inability to accept the true nature of women (2nd type of MGTOW listed above)
+ Greater insight into female nature and lesser chance of being swayed by their sexual appeal into becoming pathetic hopeless romantics resulting in more masculine minded men
+ More success when it comes to relationships (especially long-term) with women

Women:
- Less beta male orbiters around ready to do their bidding
+ The pool of "real men" to pick from would be increased resulting in possibly greater female satisfaction and better likelihood for long-term commitments such as family, which is the foundation for society, so that's a good thing

*to be fair though, PUA and MGTOW are both redpilling men in different ways so PUA deserves some credit too in that regard, but in terms of oughts the PUAs also argue a flight, but a different kind of flight, a fruitless fucking of women while avoiding procreation, which is what fucking evolved for.

And just like the Alt-right is a bit too soft on women, arguing for the existence of NAWALTS and romantic love and such nonsense because since it is traditionalist and has to adapt to the current gynocentric system it must appeal to women too, MGTOW is a bit too soft on the race issue and since it is first and foremost a movement of men it must preserve the unity of men and so it is forced to tiptoe around the harsher truths about race to avoid disenfranchising the portion of men who might get offended by them.

MGTOW became instantly famous, launching Stardusk (Stardusky) and Barbarossa (Barbie), into internet stardom, when it told men-children what Evolutionary Psychologists had been saying for decades.
Revelations like hypergamy, and male expendability, introduced to boys already feeling victimized by the feminine sexual role, with a tone that was shaming and accusatory.
Describing the feminine, and its natural part in evolution, its reproductive genetic role outside all memetic influences, was big news among the males that were discovering its harsh reality, beyond their naive, romantic idealism. Boys raised to believe in humanity as a benevolent entity, self-regulating, where freedom would bring balance and contentment to one and all.
The opposite was the case. Unable to accept their responsibility, being not fully male - stunted, feminized in a way that sought excuses and the unburdening of culpability, the cultivation of their own "innocence" - MGTOW introduces the harshness of natural selection, through the natural agency of the feminine as genetic/memetic filtering system, in a way that implies it to be a conscious choice - some vast conspiracy played upon unsuspecting boys.
They were given the source of their misery, a reason for their pain.
This did not sit well with feminists, or women in general, raised on the myth of feminine mystique, motherly kindness, altruism, innocence, feminine benevolence, and healing.
The majority could understand masculine violence, and cruel discrimination, but that the feminine was even more vicious and discriminating, than any average male could ever imagine, in a discreet and subtle way was transformed into an insult, directed against all woman-mind.
Feminists could not accept it either, especially when it described a phenomenon that did not require awareness of it, and females as no more than unaware instinctively controlled actors - going on, as it always had been, following its own secret agenda, judging and choosing with no conscious engagement required.
This described a feminine spirit active on a subconscious level, contradicting its own consciousness.
The old ideal versus real conflict, based on the gene/meme relationship.

MGTOW wanted to hold women accountable for being women; accountable for the contradiction of the nihilistic ideal, they professed with conscious words, and the inescapable real, they acted-out with intuitive predictability. They wanted to hold women accountable for their own disillusionment, their own cold awakening.  
Their own naivete became their identity as another group of victims that would avenge itself against nature and all its agencies, and demand to be protected from it.
Feminism "liberated" females from man's nature, and these new brand of social warriors would liberate men from female nature.
All would be equal victims of the other's romantic idealism.
All would refuse to see nature, the forest, insisting on focusing on the manifestation of nature, as solitary tree.
If there was injustice and cruelty occurring, then it was due to a willful plan, some conspiracy of intentions.
If men were being excluded, by the millions, when feminine sexual power was restored and raised on a pedestal, and when Paternalism was defeated, then it was because of some conscious decision.
Women were as perplexed as men-children are.
They could not process their intuitive role in all of this.
They only knew of love, and chemistry, and how men had taken advantage of them for centuries, and of equal opportunities and equal rights.
Surely, if all were free to act and to choose all would come to a mutually beneficial conclusion, because nature, and man, were good at heart. Each would be included, finding their own soul mate, and if they were not sexually greedy would enjoy a happy ever after.
A dream comparable to the 'American one'.
It's the same myth Communism used to sell its Utopia to ignorant, desperate, imbeciles. Capitalists cast as the representations of nature's injustices to those who could not compete.