This is a continuation of Part I of the new MGTOW Monday series I have started.

Men are still promoting marriage after so much of recent history demonstrates the entire vocation to be totally against them; men rarely benefit from it, if at all, nor do they stand a chance at being successful at it. Gynocentrism, as discussed in Part I, is at the core of the concept of marriage and traditionalism, for it is an unconscious drive of both men and women.

Gynocentrism is the precursor for inherent female behavior, the legal oppression that female nature relies on and have leveraged against men, and what the oppressive traditional male gender role is derived from —male disposability. Gynocentrism—that which is inherent to both men and women—is an organic processes being mitigated and canceled out only by other organic processes.

Even at first glance, it appears to be a screaming testament of man fighting against nature—fighting against what is organic—similar to a water dam holding back millions of gallons of water from going where it naturally wants to go. It only does so, because the engineers who built it spent years designing and implementing what can only be defined as a careful exploitation of an organic process, specifically the laws of physics. Traditionalism (Patriarchy), despite its recent technologically induced devolution, only succeeded for so long, because it directed the energies of the gynocentric engine propelling human behavior in a certain direction. That direction was the opening up of the sexual and reproductive commodity inherent to women, to a larger pool of men previously unsuitable for mating privileges and reproduction. Unsuitable at least according to women. We have a sprawling, technologically advanced, modern civilization that is relatively and comparatively superlative and safe as a testimony to this accomplishment.

Even still, this clear and obvious observation begs the question, or, rather crystallizes the realization that at one point in history, men, all those millenia ago, had to look at the then male-female dynamics preceding traditionalism. They took a look at what was unfolding in front of them and said to themselves, “this may be the way nature intended it—a violent orgy of men killing each other and women sitting back prostrate, watching and waiting, then selecting sexually the winners from the entire bloody ordeal—but, what is natural isn’t always good, or ideal.” They then set out to create a system by which organic forces—the male reproductive drive and the female need to consume male resources—were harnessed in such a way to combat another organic force—the reproductive default that revolves around a process of a perpetual rutting season by the human male, which is the preferred hypergamous, unconscious breeding set up that arises when women have complete control over reproduction.

(If you need proof of this, simply look at any modern ghetto where fatherlessness is rampant and tell me what you see. You will see an entropic, violent male vs. male competition for women. That, my readers, is the type of reproductive arrangement that women overwhelmingly prefer, which is exactly why men should seek as much control over reproduction as they possibly can. This, of course, without depriving women of any fundamental human rights. This includes inventing new means of human reproduction, which I opine, is part of the destiny of any sentient, intelligent being. For if the purpose of all organisms is to reproduce, it is a certainty that intelligent organisms will devise as many means of reproduction as their intellect allows them. So, it should be noted that my opposition to marriage and traditionalism isn’t derived from an agenda to disrupt efficient human reproductive behavior, but out of a desire to point out the fact that this current iteration of exploitation of the gynocentric engine that drives society has lost its efficacy.)

Men began doing the selecting and choosing of women. Large breasts and a specific hip to waist ratio was preferred, she had to be young, fertile and chaste, demure and submissive and just about everything women are not by nature. However, as is the case with women, anything popular they quickly adhere to, just as long as they believe they stand to ultimately benefit from it all, which they did, for the most part.

For this, traditionalism should be lauded as the first major male-inspired innovation toward the human species’ method of reproduction. It should be lauded as a milestone of male ingenuity and invention that started out as an attempt to curb and harness gynocentrism. It was the Model T of its kind that stands as a herald of things to come, but can no longer compete with the 12 cylinder Lamborghini engine block that men are tasked with inventing and assembling, now that traditionalism can no longer maintain its checks on female sexual power. There are leaks in the engine of traditionalism and it has lost critical amounts of efficiency. The cause of the leaks derive from traditionalism’s dependency on the behavior of women, specifically, the shaming of female sexuality and the implementation of taboos on female sexuality in order to keep their sexuality at bay.

MGTOW innovation does away with this approach altogether and seeks to change male minds, only. Persuading men in a way that maximizes their effect—educating them about female nature as well as their own biological predilections—while simultaneously minimizing their “energy debt”—keep your monies in your pockets and reject this “Leave It To Beaver” traditionalist provider bullshit.

That’s right, women. MGTOW, as antagonistic as you view us to be, for all your claims of misogyny, we place ZERO (count them), ZERO constraints on your sexuality, whatsoever. None. You can be a virgin, or you can be what comes naturally to you—a promiscuous whore. You are now dealing with a new breed of man that isn’t some sexually repressed little boy, wetting himself every time we picture some woman we are involved with having sex with another man. We truly take you off the pedestal. We will tell you to do as you wish, but prepare for a war of siege and attrition if you dare try to control us or steal our wealth and vitality in any way. We are tired of carrying you, whether the load is hoisted onto our backs through outdated cultural norms, or forced onto us via the halls of congress. Now you are free to do as you please and the only thing MGTOW is going to attempt to force on you are the natural consequences of your actions that everyone else has shielded you from. If it turns out as I suspect it will, that once the forces of cause and effect are forced onto you; if it turns out that you’ll be begging for your sexual taboos and for your supposedly demeaning roles as “helpmeets” back, then society will see for once, in an undeniable fashion, just who has been oppressing whom.

The men who defend the criminal contract of marriage, pose a direct threat to male freedom and sovereignty, because they frame marriage—a contract that can legally enslave any man—as some acceptable risk to be encouraged, as though some benefit can be garnered that could possibly balance out a man’s potential legal enslavement upon divorce. Isn’t it strange that the budgetary political wing of the most powerful country in the western world is named after a sex act? Congress. Why is it that the prefix “matri” (mother or maternity), along with the suffix “mony” (status), is combined to form the very definition of the word “marriage”? One can pretty up this exploitative, criminal contract of misandry all he wants, but language; always in the syntax the unconscious truth makes itself apparent. The word “matrimony”, indeed, translates to “mother status”. Notice, men, you are not even mentioned and that isn’t by accident, neither is it on purpose. It just so happens to be inherent to us as human beings that it is embedded within our language.

Do not be led back onto the plantation.