There is nothing of greater importance in a just world than holding oneself to the same standards as one expects from others. In the case of the MRM the hypocrisy is rife, in this sense. They understand the dangerous generalisations that come with feminist philosophy regarding male nature, but are far less inclined to see it right under their noses in the case of a cult within the MRM, known as Men Going Their Own Way, shortened to the acronym, 'MGTOW'.

Most in the MRM understand that feminists are enablers of misandric policies and theories, used as a justification to label all men as either direct or indirect beneficiaries of male power. This leads to consequentialist values that deem all men as deserving of punishment, regardless of how complicit they are. Either they are directly involved in oppressing women, or they are indirectly benefiting. Why make a distinction between the two given that both are living off the suffering of women? To some feminists this behaviour is inherent to male nature, while those claiming to be moderates feel they are tolerant because they see this behaviour as something that hurts men too, though still define masculinity as the root problem.

th century totalitarianism. Whether it was Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia, both worked to foster such demagoguery, and inevitably a strong man later emerged to take charge and lead the group to utopia. The useful idiots then got more than they bargained for. This thinking is driven from a leftist interpretation of struggle. Marx called it class consciousness. The theory is that an entire class suffers due to the tyrannical rule of the oppressive class. The consciousness of the oppressed class will eventually unite them, leading to the overthrowing of the oppressive class. Like everything Marx postulated, this is highly simplistic, and a theory that appeals to the ego of the victim class, while dehumanising the oppressive class. This is called ‘othering’ in psychological circles, which perpetuates different standards for those in the group, to those outside it. Those in the group are subject to conditioning that fosters supremacy over anyone that doesn’t belong in the circle, and those outside the circle are deemed inferior, and deserving of scorn due to the shortcomings of their oppressive nature and values. This entire process is called 'groupthink'. It was endemic in 20century totalitarianism. Whether it was Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia, both worked to foster such demagoguery, and inevitably a strong man later emerged to take charge and lead the group to utopia. The useful idiots then got more than they bargained for.

MGTOW are a carbon copy of feminism. This fit is so snug that leftists are flocking to the MGTOW banner, already accustomed to reinterpreting class struggle to different groups, be it race, sex, sexuality, or economic class. MGTOW believe that men have historically been kept down by women through obligations to protect and provide for them, and the entire system has been shaped for their benefit. By appealing to the ego of MGTOW, painting them as a victim class, this sets up the climate for groupthink. Pseudo-intellectual theories, backed by nothing but conjecture, are rife within MGTOW circles, deeming women as parasitic and incapable of virtue. Any exceptions to this rule are somehow dismissed through talking points, as either a statistical anomaly or a case where the woman has not yet taken advantage of the man in her life. Chief among MGTOW pseudo- intellectualism is Briffault’s law, created a communist, no less. It’s therefore unsurprising that class consciousness is central to his thesis, and has thus become endemic within MGTOW circles.

MGTOW constantly redefine terminology and facts to suit their outlook, thus gradually building up the mythology of oppressive female nature. The acronym ‘NAWALT’ (not all women are like that) was originally created to counter the deflection that women are not all like that, when it is used by feminist apologists to sideline any arguments that oppose feminist hegemony. It was supposed to indicate that while all women are not like that, this does not excuse the fact that many women can and will take advantage of men. This runs counter to the feminist notion that masculinity is the problem. Even when feminists acknowledge that some women are part of the problem, somehow the ‘problem’ always comes back to masculine nature or values. MGTOW have appropriated this term to suggest that ‘all women are like that’, using this as a deflection against anyone that challenges their fatalistic interpretation of female nature and intent.



Even the acronym MGTOW has been appropriated in this fashion. It was originally a term that had nothing to do with fatalistic female nature and class consciousness, and certainly not the marriage and relationship strike now compulsory to the participation in the MGTOW cult. This website here shows that MGTOW was originally an outline to encourage masculinity in men, femininity in women, limited government, and personal responsibility. None of those things are acceptable to the leftist interpretation of MGTOW, however.



Today MGTOW is centred on a denial of objective morality, and a total fixation on self-gratification. This is called egotism (a form of narcissism) and is why I often call MGTOW nihilists. Many MGTOW will openly acknowledge their adoration of Nietzsche, who is the quintessential nihilist, no matter what some philosophers might say - anyone that rejects values in nature, deeming all worth to be centred on individual perspective and desire is, by definition, a nihilist. It’s for this reason that leftists are all nihilists. They act as though nothing matters when shaping their reality, whether it’s socially engineering a utopia, or living like nothing matters except personal desire.

Such moral primitives care nothing for reason, like a gorilla moving around in the undergrowth, relying on instincts being fired within its limbic system, and occasionally making use of its barely developed neocortex. MGTOW do not feel that reason can be used to extrapolate objective values, such as the need to conceptualise reality and adhere to rational self-interest. Essential values for life do not factor into their reality, be it eating, sleeping, or reproduction. MGTOW act as though these things are not values, even though they are essential to virtue, for without reason, life as we know it will cease to exist. In this state humanity will be reduced to other primitive life. This is the biggest irony of all, since MGTOW consider themselves free of obligation, yet they stumble around like beasts in the wilderness, claiming that the world they exist in is subject merely to their hedonistic desires. Only animals lack reason in this manner. Conversely, human beings are creatures of reason, capable of discerning objective values from their superior minds. Without this human beings are nothing more than animals.

Thus these morally primitive MGTOW rail against nature. They call it ‘traditionalism’ (just like feminists and leftists) and attempt to conflate religion with rational values. While religion is an attempt to explain natural values through divine intervention it does not follow that these values are created by religion itself. This is akin to believing that the conceptualisation of an apple creates the apple, although the apple existed long before the act of naming it. Religion has always been a mystical attempt to explain reality. This is not the process of reason, but one based on superstition. When one steps back and examines nature rationally it’s clear that the relationship of the sexes is one based on complementation.



It is this relationship that has allowed men and women to traverse through the ages, men acting as protectors and providers, and women as nurturers. Without this survival and progress would have been impossible. It was essential that men and women accepted their strengths during periods where divergence from this could have resulted in great risk in a very hostile environment. To deny this is to deny reason. There is no war of the sexes, only survival and human progress. Those that attempt to frame this as a class struggle are like gorillas moving around in the undergrowth.

I do not use the word cult to describe MGTOW purely for dramatic effect, since the word is entirely applicable. As already demonstrated, groupthink is inherent to MGTOW, but this is also a critical part of cult behaviour. It is essential that cults perceive themselves as superior, be it morally or biologically. This is the justification to alienate those outside the group, while also alienating those inside the group from anyone that isn’t a part of the collective. Cults are also renowned for making participants feel there are stages of awareness that must be reached before enlightenment can be achieved.



Here we can see that this is also applicable, there being five levels of MGTOW awareness and participation. Level 0 is considered an awareness of the problems men face. These men, however, do not feel the need to drop out of the system. Level 1 is a rejection of all long-term relationships with women. Level 2 is a rejection of all personal relationships with women. This includes friendships. Level 3 denotes the refusal to produce anything more than is absolutely necessary for survival. Level 4 is the total drop-out of society, often called “going ghost”, and involves bare minimum contact with the “blue-pill” world (in contrast to the red-pill world, who are ‘aware’ of the truth).

It is worth noting that it is claimed on the site that these levels are not a necessary progression, although anyone with any contact with MGTOW will realise very quickly that the parroting of the risks of involvement with women are forced down everyone’s throats through hyperbole and conjecture, and that the only acceptable way to defeat the misandric system is to starve the beast through non-participation. Stoicism is rejected, and Epicureanism is at the forefront of MGTOW philosophy. Thus a realistic standard of expectation in life (the stoic approach) is vehemently opposed, and the Epicurean philosophy of doing as little as possible in life is elevated as virtuous. All these values are fiercely promoted through harassment of anyone that disagrees with this belief system. This becomes very vindictive indeed if anyone has the strength of character and integrity to refute these blatant logical shortcomings.

It is also interesting to note that according to mgtow.com “conservatives” of all stripes are not considered acceptable candidates for the MGTOW cult. How could they be, considering that they do not base their values on egotism, and respect the reality of nature and personal responsibility when upholding rights? At the same time no mention of the fact that feminism is a socialist ideology can be found on the site, or the fact feminism is entirely based on leftist thinking, through the very class consciousness already set out here. So it seems that the very left-wing ideologues that alienate men as an oppressive class are not considered out of bounds to MGTOW, while true conservatism (the belief that individuals have unalienable rights and responsibilities) are not welcome in a cult that bases all its assertions on class consciousness.

The men considering themselves MGTOW overwhelmingly give the impression of suffering with post-traumatic stress disorder, almost certainly originating in childhood. Indeed, everywhere that I encounter them online they are highly confrontational and vitriolic, repeating arguments that divorce is 50% probable, even though this is not initiated by women in every instance. The Critical G made a video explaining that, while divorce is at 50% in many places, this is not randomly assigned, and it is perfectly possible to screen potential females by maintaining standards of virtue. I have essentially been saying this for well over a year, and I would add that this can be further enforced by understanding how personality disorders operate, and generally being well informed on human psychology.



Alas, already Critical G quickly received a typically ignorant response from your common MGTOW egotist, believing that morals are subjective, and that even though divorce is not randomly assigned it is still more likely to be enacted by women. This does nothing to prove that a man has no control over the woman he associates with, much like the manner in which feminists deny agency to women. It merely denotes that where divorce occurs women initiate it more. This does not invalidate any of the arguments based on personal choice.

It is common for MGTOW to deflect in this manner, inventing acronyms like SATF (same as the feminist) to dismiss anyone that exposes the similarities between MGTOW and feminism, and reverting to the same type of apologism for extremism as feminism. MGTOW often state that people do not understand the MGTOW philosophy if they criticise it. We therefore have a situation where NAFALT (not all feminists are like that) becomes ‘Not all MGTOW are like that’. Meanwhile MGTOW, just as with feminists, do not connect the dots between theory and practice, and realise it has become exactly what it is fighting against. Feminism is supposed to be about ‘equality’ for example, but in practice it is a platform for extremely divisive class warfare. Yet MGTOW supporters seem to think that they are immune from such pitfalls.

Above all, it’s very easy to see how vindictive and hypocritical MGTOW are by dissecting this comment below, wherein I was accused of being a ‘traditionalist’ by those claiming to be supporting the adaptation of men away from traditional expectations:

"The only tradition you've﻿ broken with your wife is that you've managed to become the stay at home parasite, and she picks up your slack. I'd expect women to frame that as an equitable exchange but coming from a man it just sounds pathetic. You're a failed rocker housewife with no marketable skills, of course you'll support the traditionalist lifestyle when you dont [sic] have to actually do any of the work involved other than "homemaking" of course." This vile person is a YouTube user called ‘Tom Odd’ , and the comment can be found on my video “Men’s Rights & the “Traditionalist” Smear”. The user has no activity on the channel page, which leaves me to question whether this is a sock account. I suspect this account belongs to one of the more popular MGTOW YouTubers. The account is regularly used to harass me in video comment sections, accusing me of being a parasite for looking after my daughter in the day, while my wife works. This is a common type of hostility I’ve received from MGTOW, who blatantly despise any attempt to make relationships work with women.



As it happens I do work, and run my own business in instrumental tuition, which suits my family for financial and parental reasons. However, this is unacceptable to MGTOW thugs, shedding light on the claim of MGTOW being 'whatever you want it to be'. Only by rejecting relationships with women altogether, and buying into the mythology surrounding corrupt female nature, are you allowed to be a part of the cult. If you try to point out the similarities with this attitude and feminism, or even just explain that it is perfectly possible to wisely associate with women without being exploited, then you will be increasingly attacked, until this is reduced to the type of ferocity that feminists are infamous for.