Women Will Not Save Japan

Comments (118)
  1. Darth Sin says:

    You have to hand it to the Herbivore Men. They are affecting powerful change by doing, well, nothing.

    Of course Japan can solve its problems by opening their country up for immigration like what the West have been doing but they don’t want to really do that because they don’t like outsiders, or ghaijins, that much.

    1. Nils Dacke says:

      Sure, still what governments neglect to take i to consideration is that immigration never works if it’s a government program. Sweden is a perfect example of how an egalitarian feminist state decided to be social justice warriors on a governmental level. Immigration based on free markets and labour needs is one thing, we used to have that in sweden to. The greeks who came in the 60ies integrated well. So did smaller groups from earlier times. The recent havoc started when the state decided it was a good thing to give people who cannot read or write from the third world the right to housing, swedish pensions (yes, a 65 year old from africa can enter and have the same right as a 65 year old who have paid to the system his hole life) also, retroactive childsupport (a form of wellfare called ‘barnbidrag’) and yes, the third world children all go to the same schools since we are all equal. Forced integration occurs by quotas in public housing apartments. In gothenburg i think its something like one foreign family per main entrance in such a houses. Private entreprenures buy public property cheap and then rent it out for millions to the migration office to host asylum seekers. Wellwell, you get the idea.. A swedish smörgåsbord of total insanity.

      1. Nils Dacke says:

        For anyone interested to read further on this subject, please see Swedish-Kurdish economist Tino Sanandaji with his forthcoming book “Moral Superpower” which will be avalible in English.

        1. Nils Dacke says:

          Im not promoting his kickstarter, it’s already funded.
          Just posted the link if anyone wants to check out his links and info.

          Also, Sandman, yes the soo talked about sandman, had a video about the gender neutral snowplowing in Sweden which is actually in place right now in many provinces and communities. The one where snow outside female workplaces are removed first, and the traditionally male workplaces are plowed last.

  2. Jimmy says:

    “Such is the fate of Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, who is watching his society collapse both economically and demographically.”

    This is not true.

    There are some facts which so many ignore about Japan which put the decline “narrative into perspective”

    -3rd largest-est Economy in the world
    -World’s largest creditor nation
    -3.4% unemployment
    -extremely low tax rates

    Japan has debt to GDP of 230%. Government “borrowing” 10Y note yields 0.5% to this day. Much lower than anything in the supposedly advanced west.

    The 2yr government bond has a negative yield at -0.01%. All this points to the fact that Japan is on the right track economically but are around 10Y ahead of the US/UK and EU in economic policy terms.

    The population decline relative to other countries is more to do with lack of immigration in comparison to other countries. Germany has a lower birthrate than Japan despite being open to immigration.

    1. Darth Sin says:

      White Knight Alert.

      1. joe says:

        If his facts are right then he is not a white knight. Not everything supports mgtow narrative. Follow the truth wherever it leads. That’s real mgtow.

      2. Jack says:

        This reflexive urge to label everyone that disagrees with you as a “white knight” is beyond retarded. It’s no different than a feminist crying “fuckboy”, “shitlord” or “misogynist” when challenged on their bullshit instead of making a coherent and logical response.

        If you can’t add something contructive to a discussion and just spew emotional bullshit perhaps you should be silent. As the saying goes “Better to remain silent and thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.”

    2. If we got rid of the minimum wage, the US economy would be able to respond to recessions by cutting wages too, but we can’t , so we can’t. In Japan, wages fluctuate with the economy, so as the economy falls, so do wages and the standard of living. It’s a different system than we’re used to in the US, and it’s very misleading to tout unemployment as a sign of a positive economy when Japan was in an official recession last year, and earlier this year.

      Also, the taxes aren’t “extremely low”. Japan has a corporate tax rate of 37%, barely less than the US at 39.1%

      Japan also has a national sales tax (currently 8%), which is rising to 10% in October:
      Japan’s income taxes are also comparable with the US ranging from 8%-40% (while the US ranges from 15%-35%).
      When you add up the national sales tax to the income tax, saying taxes are “extremely low” is absurd.

      As far as them being the 3rd biggest economy, that’s not saying much when they’re SO FAR behind numbers 1 and 2 (the US and China).

      As far as Japan being a creditor nation, that’s a complicated topic that’s equal parts culture, history, and a few other things that have absolutely nothing to do with the Japanese economy being healthy.

      1. Jimmy says:

        -There is a minimum wage system in Japan. Getting rid of the minimum wage in USA is stupid. The reason we had such a large recession was because greedy people earning millions per year committed fraud on a global scale, so your solution is to punish people who at the bottom of society. High minimum wage is not the reason for economic malaise in the USA but wage deflation is.

        The usa has more wealth and access to wealth and power than any other nation, and much more room to maneuver economically as it has the reserve currency. Despite these huge advantages unemployment remains high.

        -US taxes personal are low are Japan’s. 8% sales tax is low relative to economies of scale.

        -That’s obvious, i’m asking you to take into account productive output relative to the country. I would make the same point about Germany.

        The final point was I wrote to refute your statement: “Such is the fate of Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, who is watching his society collapse both economically and demographically.”

        There is no data to suggest Japan is “collapsing economically” That’s my point. That Bloomberg article is dumb, I the first paragraph and didn’t waste any further time. It was written in 2012 they (and idiots like Aaron Clarey who think governments need to “pay back” a deficit) think “government deficits” need to be “financed” by the public.

        From 2012 to 2014 Japan “debt” has increased significantly, but bond “debt” interest rate have fallen, which is why I included the bond yield data. Japan’s 10Yr borrowing costs have halved since 2012.

        The data for “economic collapse” in Japan is not there, it’s just false or “whiteknighting” as some other guy said.

        -Unemploment low – check
        -debt yields low- check
        -High foreign currency reserves (what I mean by creditor nation)

        1. The recession was caused by government. They mandated banks make bad “subprime” loans, and the banks had to find a way to turn lemons into lemonade, and so “bundled” them with (presumed) good loans. Yes, it was a house of cards, and there was greed and corruption, but blaming “greedy people” and not the government policy behind everything is disingenuous.

          Also, you clearly don’t understand how basic economics (i.e. supply and demand) works, or you would know why the minimum wage is counterproductive to economic growth and employment. I’d link some sources for you, but based on your previous response it would be a waste of time.

          As far as taxes and “economies of scale”, you clearly don’t know what you’re talking about. Tax rates are percentages, and thus self-adjust to any size or scale. a 50% tax rate (40% top income plus a 10% national sales tax) is not “lower” than 35% because the country is smaller. That’s madness.

          Lastly, when I say Japan is collapsing economically, I’m not saying this year or even this decade. Hell, Greece might still be kicking around for another few years. Without a barbarian invasion, societal collapses take years. My point is that Japan is passed the point of no return either way. Whether Japan collapses in 20 years, 50 years, or 100 years, it’s going to happen because of the political and demographic realities.

          1. Tim says:

            Twas the perfect storm of collusion and greed. For the benefit of whom? For the benefit of the already wealthy government and Wall Street sociopaths. Who will pay for the greed and life destruction wrought upon the average Joe? The average Joe will pay, for many decades to come. To wit:

            Wall Street wanted to get rid of Glass Steagall – which was put in place after the Great Depression to prevent another. Oh – That pesky Glass Steagall Act! Always blocking sociopaths from destroying the economy and hard working folk with new and improved fraudulent forms of investments!

            Democrats wanted to strengthen the Community Reinvestment Act, which gives not so well off people the means to buy high end ticket items – like houses – that they can’t really afford. That’s right! Democrats opened a whole in the earth in which millions of their own supporters lives would be permanently flushed. Democrats agreed to let Glass-Steagall be removed and replaced with the Financial Services Modernization Act (Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act). Why? For increasing the number of Democratic votes in future elections. Promising people free stuff is a guaranteed way of getting Democrat voters to the polls. Democrats didn’t really care about anything beyond themselves being re-elected – which included the life destruction of a good portion of their voter base.

            This drove Wall Street, newly freed from the shackles of the Glass Steagall Act (the protection put in place to prevent another great depression), to create a new and nation destroying instrument of investment. What was this new investment called? Ironically, it was named the “Credit Default Swap”. You know – “They’re going to default on their credit – wanna bet?” Democrats traded the Glass Steagall Act – the legislation that prevented Wall Street from financially raping the American public – for the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act – which guaranteed the future destruction for tens of millions of lives in the US alone.

            It was the Fed and the Republicans that wanted the Financial Services Modernization Act, which makes Republicans equally guilty of destroying the economy and countless millions of people’s lives.

            Executives from the Fed, the Democratic and Republican leadership all hailed these changes as a “grand bargain” and a wonderful renewal for the American economy. Bill Clinton jubilantly signed it all into law.

            Still think your government and financial leaders have your best interests at heart and/or are the least bit competent? If you do, you’re a bigger fool than a feminist.

          2. jimmy says:

            So the government made wall street commit fraud, in the same way that when women commit domestic violence it;s always a man’s fault. Financial Institution like women have no agency, only men and “the government have agency”

          3. Unless you natioanlize the means of production, governments are not the driving force behind business cycles. On the contrary often only governments can mediate the effects of the cyclic nature of capitalism. Until we developed a futuristic trading and production system with supercomputers this is the only mode that works: Market cum Government.

          4. Harold says:

            The recession was caused by a housing boom which was caused by banks lending money to people who couldn’t pay it back. The debt increased until the market busted which had ripple affects throughout the economy.

            The banks did that because the Federal Government guaranteed the bank loans; if the people banks loaned money to didn’t pay back then the Government would acquire the debt.

            This lead to banks getting the ability to generate revenue by loaning money to everyone. Without the government guaranteeing the money, which they did in order for banks to loan money to low income people, then the recession would not have happened.

          5. Jacquelope says:

            The recession was caused by de-regulation. Remember the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act? That law is named after the 3 Republicans who created it. The Gramm-Leach-bliley Act allowed the banks and investment companies to merge. This caused the Zombie Apocalypse effect. The loan companies got tied with investment companies, creating Mortgage Backed Securities – the PERFECT bridge/vector for the zombie disease of failed loans to spread across the entire economic system.

            Without the GLB Act, the loan defaults would have been of the Savings and Loan scandal (another Republican snafu) magnitude. With GLB’s de-regulatory effect, the defaults spread from the home loan companies to the retail and investment banking industry, business credit companies, credit card issuers, and the insurance industry, too (AIG, etc.) – infecting the entire economy.

            Thank Gramm-Leach-Bliley and de-regulation. Blame the government for FAILING to keep its regulations up, not overburdening the system.

      2. Just look at Greece, Spain or Portugal how “cutting wages” has worked out. It never has and it never will. Empirical evidence suggests that praying to the gods of supply and demand does not do anything.

      3. Jacquelope says:

        “the US economy would be able to respond to recessions by cutting wages too”

        But wage cuts would not cause any decrease in the cost of living, because corporations never cut prices just because their input costs decrease. Wages have stagnated for 30 years but food prices have always gone up. Although iPads have gotten cheaper, but who can eat or wear that? And rents also always go up – so wage cuts also create more homelessness. Guess who represents most homeless? Men – more than women and kids combined. Cut wages, but fail to cut rents, great way to make more homeless men.

        So basically when you cut wages, people will spend less, which will make a recession even worse. Plus here’s one other huge problem that anti minimum wage people ignore: many will try to take up an extra job to make ends meet. Ultimately this means you’ll have less jobs in the job market than before you cut wages. And who will this hurt the most? Men.

    3. CS MGTOW says:

      Jimmy your stats are a surface truth and deliberately portray the Japanese economy in better health than it is actually in. The current rate on a US 10y bond is 1.8%, would you using the same logic declare that the U.S. economy is in good shape? A combination of Paul Krugmans economic ideas and hardcore feminist social policies has turned Japan into a modern day cesspit. Since 2012 the yen has fallen 23% against the US dollar, is that what you consider a positive economic indicator Jimmy? Their economy has since these reforms started in the 1990’s been in a permanant recession, their manufacturing has fallen off. In economies you can have low unemployment and depression, as long as wages are allowed to fall, which Japan has allowed, this allows people to stay in jobs, however decreases their take home pay and makes it harder for them to plan for retirement or to even retire at all, as we see in Japan where the majority of low paying jobs go to the elderly and the young never get their start in life, they are literally forced to stay at home as ther are simply no entry level jobs available. Jimmy, is that what you consider a buoyant economy? Or is it the fact that the majority of Japanese retirees have to enter the labour force after retirement or face starvation and eviction?

      Jimmy looking under the surface tells us hard truths, excellent article as always TFM

      1. Jimmy says:

        In terms of the economic data for the US suggests that that there is no problem with inflation. There is a problem with low wages, weak wage growth, private debt and unemployment. This is why the Fed wants more government money creation into the economy.

        I don’t think the Japanese economy is “in good shape” , but relative to the US I think they are doing better. I this argument you need to also consider the fact that asain gas prices at least 2x as expensive as the US and Japan requires more imports, unlike the USA which a huge natural resource base.

        I agree with Krugman on government deficits, but not much else but most economists do anyway, apart from Austrians.

        Japan is an export economy, a rising yen exports such as after the 2011 earthquake. The Bank of Japan regularly intervenes to weaken or cap the Yen.

        I agree that Japan has an ageing population and this is a problem. Elderly people continuing in the workforce is a problem, my solution to that would be to increase retirement pensions.

      2. Compare Japan’s or Germany’s manufacturing sector to that of the US…then lets talk again about the economic health issues.

        Germany went almost unaffected through the credit crunch thanks to clever government Intervention. In meantime Germany’s debt has decreased by almost 10% of the GDP, down to 74 from over 80% in 2009.
        Companies like Volkswagen or Mitsubishi are heavily regulated and unionized, the first even having the state of Lower Saxony as a 25% shareholder.

        Lets talk again about “busting unions”, deregulation and economic non-interventionalism, while seeing that the only relevant industry left in the US is the entirely state-dependent weapons industry.

        1. jimmy says:

          Another thing is rising house prices is considered “bad” in Germany, whereas in Us/UK retarded neo liberals think it’s good to let property prices float ad-infinitum, you know free markets and all that jazz. Of course, they know damn well in the real world that property supply is constricted and wealthy people will buy houses and horde them or just speculate with them. Developers will buy prime land and not develop on it to restrict supply to ensure ever higher prices.

          It’s no use talking to US libertardians about this though. They think Germany is a la la land communist make believe country which makes fancy beer, rather than the most successful economy in modern history.

          1. Yes…so communist that this middle European Country with a mere 80 Million is exporting almost as much as China…and is the prime one-stop-shop for all sorts of industrial machinery and solutions.

            In fact we did our fair share of deregulating (ironically under a socialist.environmentalist government in the early 2000s) while teh conservative Christian Democrats under Merkel expanded the state again.

            We also have, god forbid, now daycare and try to put women to work. O tempora, o mores…Marx is secretly rubbing his Jewish hands in his tomb.

    4. Harold says:

      You point out that Japan has a debt to GDP ratio of 230% rather casually.

      That is well over double that of the U.S. and something else to notice is that the reason Japan’s unemployment rate doesn’t drop too low is because when the economy gets bad the cost of hiring people goes down as well.

      Essentially Japan could have the worst economy in the world, but it will let it’s workers be paid next to nothing before it will let the unemployment rate rise.

      In essence the thing that will ultimately save/kill the Japanese economy will be it’s ability to be paid back all/most of what it has lent out in terms of credit.

      If Japan can be paid back then it will be fine, but as this article has pointed out Japan is not built to sustain what it would lose if it’s debts were ignored. The men aren’t motivated and the women are not motivated/capable.

  3. Cary Harris says:

    I will leave the economic debate alone, but as much as 70% of men in their 20’s-30’s identify as grass eating men, thus not embracing traditional roles in the economy or in the family. Men are a smaller percentage of the Japanese population. This will have a long term impact on the country and certainly is something that needs to be addressed.
    Mat leave, daycare and tax breaks will be of no use if men are still not willing to participate in a family.

    1. The question is to redefine “Family” or rather drop the concept altogether.
      Parental leave benefits men, if they take (and they do so in growing numbers if given the opportunity).
      So this is the way to go…other countries such as Sweden and Germany are already on the way.

      1. Nils Dacke says:

        Yes you are right, i know some dads who actually have working relations with the kids moms and share them every other week. The system seems perfect if you disregard the nightmare stories of how state intervention in family life.
        Living here and seeing what is happening with the state apparatus as a hole makes one very sceptical about the utopia of the perfect state in the long term. It is a constant downward spiral, If you and you will be locked into one system to depend upon.

        1. Nils Dacke says:

          You will be locked into one system to depend upon. (im on cellphone)

          1. the state is only a tool…the issue why dads lose their Kids is not the state but the Society that holds motherhood in high regards and fatherhood in low regards.

          2. Nils Dacke says:

            I know what you are saying, and i get it. But one has to ask the question of how this works out in the presence for individuals.
            If we have a society which works as an organism and the men in that society is filled with mostly manginas, then the few MGTOWS and others who want to go their own way can in theory do that if they wanted to. Without such a state apparatus they would not suffer from having their kids taken away, their resources taken and their lives destroyed. That is what happens when you put a state on top of it.

            Should we accept the state and call everyone who righfully point out the wrong in its machinery “cultists” and stay in that paradigm for another hundred years working with slow changes, perhaps try to take over mainstream media and mass communications to change society and in the end the state, or should we at least try to work from different angles.
            That is the question, and to my best ability i have tried to explain my viewpoint here regarding that.

          3. What you miss is that we are currently in a social Transformation from late patriarchy to equality. One of the biggest teething troubles is the biologism and lack of historical plasticity of human nature. Men have not always been this way and will not always be this way.

          4. Nils Dacke says:

            So we should conduct activism within the current framework, the state, and try to stair a
            huge ship with leakage and holes in it, let alone all the demographic groups packed together in one box, that are baited by populism and mass media, work and wait for slow changes in our favour
            to get us to “not always be like this” ?

            And this absolutely will happen if we just man up and demand our rights?

            I can tell you it will not, and i will give you a first hand example.

            I was with the pirateparty when it started in Sweden,
            it spread to the world, and got seats in the european parliament. People even demonstrated in the streets of sweden and different groups from left to right came together and tried to make changes. It lasted a few years.

            It was the most masculine political party in modern history, driven mostly by engineers and mostly rational men. Still, despite that original drive internet freedom is still threatened and new laws comming out every day. Lobbyism against freedom of speech is just as active if not even more then before. That is because after a spike in activism and some battles won by the pirateparty, the system, with it’s endless resources ignored the battles won and still came out with more and more things to counter the political battles the pirate party won.

            This tired most of the original people, mostly men who had lives to live aside from politics and the
            movement diluted into a social justice warrior thing, at least in Sweden it is now led by a lesbian feminist and.. men walked away.

            So how do you achive freedom of speech and an open internet? work OUTSIDE the state with new
            technology such as mesh networks, blockchains, etc

            You see, im not starting in the wrong end, i have learned and i see this same approach as natural for MGTOW. Bypass rather then fight in the colosseum.

          5. All MRMs so far were just reactionary. Reaction cannot define the future. This is why they fail.

          6. Nils Dacke says:

            I agree, but what you advocate is to rearrange the deck chairs on titanic.

          7. there is no place to run or hide…so that kinda narrows it down; the artificial womb is at least one or two generations away, spacetravel even further, there are no habitable empty continents to escape to…so we do not really have lots of choices

  4. tamerlame says:

    This is right wring derailment, and right wing free market fantasy bullshit.

    Privatization is a proven failure, it is a repeated proven failure. Look at the history of the IMF enforcing it on other countries.

    How is cutting welfare going to help poor low status men?

    How about taking spending away from women and spending it on men instead?

    1. Nils Dacke says:

      Dont you mean corporativism? Because usually that is what the IMF promotes amd tries to install. Public-Private partnerships are indeed a parasitical way of fake free markets and a type of wellfare for special selected corporations while the state holds back small businesses run by individuals with rules and regulations. The formula is always the same, a private corporation is given tax money to function, to offer schools with the state curriculum, hospitals or public transportation etc.. Then except for the tax money, they charge the people a second time as customers when they use the service. To me that is not free markets, it is a parasitic form of private tax funded state institutitions.

      1. tamerlame says:

        The free market idea is never practiced by the powerful people who advocate it. The powerful do not believe in free markets.

        The people who believe in it are useful idiots to the corporations.

        1. Nils Dacke says:

          I agee that rich and powerful people do not want competition.
          But how is wanting a peer to peer free market, that is a direct trade between people being a useful idiot? Corporations are incorporated under state law and draw their power from the monopoly of violence which they have bribed themself into using. I do not like corporations like that, but i dont like being locked inside a state system which prenteds to fix this problem with more control, the right control, control as told to politicians by corporate lobbyists.

          1. jimmy says:

            “monopoly on violence” – Molyneux cult right here

            You cannot have a law without giving institutions power to enforce it where necessary, most people prefer it that way. Perhaps you should try a libertarian paradise like Somalia.

            It’s like the NRA after mass school shooting, the solution to school shootings is more guns.

          2. Nils Dacke says:

            Pointing out a fact is being in a cult, and if then there is somalia.
            In addition to that, this cultist, who do not listen to molyneux because he finds him to be a bit.. cultish, also agree that school shooting always happen in texas and never in other states with less guns. That is why breivik in norway was so successful, they all had guns!

          3. I feel so helpless in evil Germany without my machine gun lol…so unmanly

          4. Nils Dacke says:

            I know what you argue for, that men should go to the doctor and not try to be “manly” or try to hide the fact that they are of wellfare. I agree with that, but i come from a province in Sweden where you have ONE policecar patrolling the entire provice sometimes. And there are violent crimes comitted in peoples homes, recently a homocide where a couple where killed with an ax. We are not an abba singing paradise anymore. It’s not a macho machinegun thing a la alex jones, or a way to protect females. But i guess that is just rightwing bullshit since the state can solve any problem and we can all live happily and in equality.

          5. then hire more policemen

          6. Nils Dacke says:

            Oh yeah, sure, there is that change the system from within thing again. I’ll report back in ten years when the different institutions had it’s say about it and taxes are adjusted.

          7. jimmy says:

            It’s a fact all right but calling it ” a monopoly on violence” and repeating it continually is a cynical rhetorical device to suck you into the cult.

            Having any government with the ability to enforce the law would be “a monopoly on violence” by design at this point in history. The device wants you to focus on one aspect of government (violence to enforcement of a law) and bring that to the forefront of every discussion, sort of like poisoning the well. He does this a lot in his “The Truth about…” series too, but he thinks people are too stupid to understand his intentions.

            Some of his other tents and conclusions are equally stupid, but i’m sure his cult lap it up, he also assumes all violence and coercion from “The State” is worse than any violence or coercion from a private entity or persons(s). The rest of his philosophy is dogshit.

            I could equally describe his Anarcho-capitalism system as a “Darwinian distributed violence” system rather than his more benign “mutual co-operation” description.

            “One of the advantages of a Darwinian distributed violence and coercion system ( Anarcho-capitalism) is you have many entities rather than one with the ability to inflict violence legitimately in order to preserve their rights.”

            Doesn’t sound so attractive.

          8. Ask yourself this: how many of you could just get up the next morning and do what they want, i.e. not going to labour? how many could get up tomorrow and go on a world tour or Safari or 3 month long holiday unless they have money on their accounts? Very few indeed. In the 2nd or 3rd semester of property law you learn that money and property is freedom. Then ask yourself tomorrow morning what the absence of money and property means while you get ready for work lol

          9. Mgtow Sovereign says:

            If governments and corporations werent around people would be free to trade how they see fit.. Property would be respected cause everybody would own themselves, actions and effects of there actions. This sick BELEIF in AUTHORITY is the cause of many of humanity’s problems. This belief system and its ardherents is the true CULT AND CULTISTS. There is a reason why CULT is in CULTture…take the centralize power away, you wont have any of this misandric bs cause men n women would have to deal with each other on equal terms. Also the would be no centralize power to appease the Female Nature to the point of destruction of civilization.

          10. the past isn’t coming back lol

        2. Free market is an abstraction and has no possible resemblance in reality since most markets are governed by more than just supply and demand, but also by institutions. A pointless debate that will only lead to small government platitudes that have zero value for men as well.

          1. jimmy says:

            “Free market is an abstraction and has no possible resemblance in reality since most markets are governed by more than just supply and demand”

            Indeed. They don’t get it. It’s not worth debating the “free market or nothing”

            You have guys on here whining about “women in science” but they can’t even understand the concept of a model or abstraction. They think the “free market” actually exists in a complex economy.

            They can’t understand that things are required to preserve the wealth of a nation which markets cannot account for e.g. scientific research- Almost every technology breakthrough was made in the government sector.

            They attribute ills to the government sector by saying that Wall street committed fraud because of Government regulations (so they have malicious intent with Government regulations) but somehow believe that these mega corps will just place nice if they are unregulated, like Enron/Worldcom did.

            This alone should tell you for these guys “small government” Gold Standard Policies people are just pure ideologues.

            They think that it’s a conspiracy that every advanced economy in the World has rejected the “fixed exchange /hard money” system because it is conspiracy rather than it being archaic and not conducive to the public good.

          2. If the Gold Standard and small governmen was so great then why did we drop it? Ah…yes…the communists and the capitalists have consipred against men and crafted feminism in a secret hideout!

            Fact is: we men are in trouble as a demographic category and that is because we as a category fucked up with women by giving them everything in exchange for nothing.

          3. Nils Dacke says:

            buzzwords like “abstraction” and “complex economy” are firewalls for any honest debate.

          4. Not if you actually understand what it means.

          5. jimmy says:

            Yes our modern economies are mixed, there is no such thing as “private sector” and “public sector”. The free market as you think portray does not describe modern economies.

            Even the NSA uses private companies. Get it? The NSA, the most secretive government agency uses private companies to buy products from to conduct surveillance. The military is armed from the aircraft, and weapons from private US and foreign companies.

            Every dollar in existence in came from the US Treasury, it came from government spending.

            Go and look at a chart

            Government Spending = private savings to a single dollar.

            You guys don’t even know how your own economy functions.

          6. Nils Dacke says:

            Well, Lo and behold i knew it all the time!
            What you describe is called corporativism, and im against it.

          7. Nils Dacke says:

            But i guess it’s easy to hide that fact when you see it as “abstractions” and “complex modern financialized economy with many powerful entities” instead of what it is.

          8. So actually in order to combat big Business you Need big government Regulation, like the anti trust laws of the early 1900s in America. Funny Thing was it gave the corporations more power. So you want to fight corporatism with corporatism. Then what’s the Point?

          9. Nils Dacke says:

            Have i ever said that? Why do you think i want to fight corporativism with more state regulation. You are the one calling people wingnuts for not wanting more rule and lobbying by corporations.

          10. The thing is that I cannot even understand what you want, not because it is complicated but because you have no tangible solution either other than leaving planet earth.

          11. Nils Dacke says:

            I have the same trouble understanding you, even though i get your points. My point is that i think western and other states are doomed in the long term, short term you might change them but do not put your trust in the system.
            I’ll just leave it to that.

          12. jimmy says:

            No, any government even a small one has requirements.

            The government would require certain products to function. So the only other option would be to have the government produce what it requires to function, otherwise be accused of “corporatism”. If the government did this you would then accuse it of being communist for owning the means of production.

            So your argument is ridiculous unless you believe in zero government and no military.

          13. in the long run we are all doomed…that is not an argument…in the long run we may or may not go extinct; in the long run we may build huge starships and my guess is that a society that will build such large machines will rather resemble a hive and less a 19th century US pioneer prairy wagon community

          14. Nils Dacke says:

            To get back on point concerning MGTOW.

            This is why i support the attempts of secession right now because i want systems to compete against each other with the best system and not stagnate.

            The thing is as states decline we get compartmentalised, just look at the echo chambers of the internet. They will have a physical effect and manifistation eventually.Both libertarian and socialists and socialliberals are trying to work in their desired direction. This means that from whatever angle, inserting MGTOW ideas are important. I know that your position is to work to change the current system but i dont see that as realistic as the current state systems are about to decline.

            As you put it
            “If men as a category would stop being Boys and finally grow a pair and openly adress their issues and demands we would not have this Situation in the first place. ”

            Well, MGTOW exist because this is not happening within the current framework of the nationstate and men want to go their own way and grow a pair somewhere else.

          15. If one has read Schumpeter, an Austrian Economist BTW, one understands that Joint stock corporations/publicly listed firms are actually completely detached from the traditional concept of private property…this is why we call them “public” companies, yet they are the ones that create most innovations and the best products. Or do you get your next I-phone or car from a middle sized Family owned firm?

            The only exception where this form of ownership still prevails is in market niches, such as the German Mittelstand companies. Here the markets are global, demand is small and stable and the niche is clearly defined. And even here we see more and more transnational corporations and Investment funds going in and taking them over.

        3. Tamerlane got it right! Focus on diverting Money to male issues instead of dreaming about getting back to the 19th century.

          1. Nils Dacke says:

            I dont dream of the 19th century, but the future with technology that might set us free or to the very least free-er. Blockchain technology can already bypass some of the state apparatus and i see no point in neglect that opportunity. Also, the question arise of how do you “change the system from within” and grab some of those state resources, how long will it take and is it still dreaming to put mew technology to practise while at it?

          2. If men do not demand it and make their voices heard they will get nothing…Dogs that do not bark don’t get fed!

            If we would treat women this way they would set whole countries on fire while men are obsessed with retaining their approval.

          3. Nils Dacke says:

            Please read my other comment below. Personaly, the desire to operate outside the state and break free from the system i was born into feels like a natural part of going my own way. Its like biting a hole in the rat utopia experiment box given to me and seek the green grass outside. But as i said, i dont look down on men who depend on the current system, i have been there too and believe me when i say that ive been poor in Sweden to to afford healthcare sometimes. Seeing the state as it is, i ask myself if perhaps a new frontier is needed for men instead, like in the wild west. A goal with a better end then to slowly change a dying state.

          4. Nils Dacke says:

            To not afford healthcare that is..

          5. so how is that supposed to help us? nonsense

          6. Nils Dacke says:

            Well, you have an idealism for the state which i personaly lack. Good luck trying to change the system. I suggest you download Rick Falkvinge -Swarmwise , it a blueprint for his organisational theory of how to achieve political change that he gathered from starting the pirateparty which spread to many nations. Good luck.

          7. So you expect men’s Problems to magically go away without any effort?

          8. Nils Dacke says:

            Im talking about diversification, both of means and ends. You seem to advocate that changing the state is the only viable option. I dont agree with that position, but then again i dont understand abstractions and complexity so you have to excuse my ignorance on the matter.

          9. well…we all live in states….at least last time I looked

          10. Nils Dacke says:

            Which is the reason why having goals and dreams outside of that frame, and not exclusively want to work within that frame for future alternatives is nothing else then tunnel vision autism.

          11. I don’t believe we can “sneak” our way out or come up with some hidden formula

          12. if you want to get shit done you work with what you got…if you do not want get shit done, then do not complain

          13. Nils Dacke says:

            I agree, and with the two existing alternatives i choose both. I do work on some blockchain based projects which will allow men to hedge their freedom against state systems for independance. I also provide information for people who want to change the system like the aforementioned book by falkvinge, which is not some irony on my part, but an honest suggestion. The irony is that if you are not in the either or fallacy people call you an autist.

          14. I don’t believe we can “sneak” our way out or come up with some hidden formula

        4. jimmy says:

          Exactly, “useful idiots” being the best way to describe them.

          It’s like the whole “failed trickle down economics” or Reaganomics, a group of rich people say ” Rich people getting richer will benefit you guys” and they never even question it. We know know from actual studies of inequality the whole thing is bullshit, yet free market fundamentalist still defend it.

          Apparently, if the Richest 1% own half the worlds wealth we can have a “free market” LOL – It won’t be “influenced” or gamed by the people who own half the fucking wealth in the world. These people are delusional. The higher ups don’t believe in these “free market” polices (they believe in racketeering / monopoly/fraud) but the libertarians still believe in the ideological “free market” will save us.

          The free market does not exist in the simplistic way in a complex modern financialized economy with many powerful entities – unfortunately Asperger’s Molyenux nerds don’t understand this so they continually act against their own interests.

          1. Because you know, filling out a form for benefits or just showing your insurance card in a Hospital is so unmanly, it deflates our dicks and squashes our balls.

            A real man lives either in a mansion or under the bridge!

            What would women think of us if they knew!

            So lets better support the small government and complain about women instead of understanding the institutional Framework and how it interacts with an advanced economic Basis.

    2. Jimmy says:

      The main problem I have is that mgtow nowadays, it didn’t used to have this political economic ideology. All movements tend to degrade as they get larger, recently mgtow has become essentially don’t get married + Stephen Moleyneux.

      1. Nils Dacke says:

        Trying to change the state from within feels like MRAs trying to talk sense into women. Im not saying this to promote libertarianism it is just so damn obvious. When i was on wellfare and went to the social office in sweden the majority of people working there where females. Men cannot talk to such a female dinosaur about mens issues, that you are still a good father and that you should have custody etc..

      2. True! In fact men are the ones who need more assistance from the state, starting with early education, via parental rights (secured by paidand guaranteed parental leave) all the way to researching male-speficic diseases such as prostate cancer.
        Also we men do lose our jobs as well, get old, sick, discriminated and disabled. So promoting vulgar libertarian economics is not helping men, unless they are millionaires.
        How about having women working and paying their share of the public burden and thus allowing men to get more resources.

        1. Nils Dacke says:

          Good in theory, but i doubt it will work in real life to favour men. Females are prone to seek out nurturing jobs and men usually, with exeptions offcourse go into more STEM field related jobs. The female hivemind then take over social care, and pretty much all state resources and direct them to females.

          1. Actually more and more men are now going into these “nurturing” fields as well while more and more women actually enter STEM fields and actually have careers in the industrial world.

        2. jimmy says:

          Awareness for some male issues has increased over the years particularity prostate caner, suicide etc. It will never reach levels that women enjoy but somethings can be achieved.

          The problem is the right wing nut jobs who joined mgtow last thursday (who are Molyneux drones) don’t want to help men if it involves a larger state, that’s how nutty they are.

          They want to lower state benefits, when it’s men who need those benefits the most as men are most destitute in society or will be in the future.

          For some reason they think we should go back to some archaic 19th century money system, and go back to a dog eat dog world which thankfully never happen despite their delusions.

          Some people preferred horse carriages for transport, they polluted less than automobiles but if someone kept arguing to go back the a mass transport system based on horses and carts I would think they were insane.

          1. And this is why most men prefer feminsm over MRM/manosphere because they do not buy the rightwing nonsense. BTW what has the right done for men recently? Sent them to pointless wars, introducing no-fault-divorce with alimony (courtesy of Ronald Reagan!).
            Either we get to a rational approach or we will get the shorter end of the stick until the sun will turn into a red giant.

          2. jimmy says:

            It’s because ultimately these people are right wing nuts jobs first, and mgtow second. So anything that involves something to do with the dreaded state even if it helps men it’s flagged as bad. All solutions, have to be small government solutions.

            They also like military/war because they associate that with strong masculinity, like small children who like playing with toys, again useful idiots for the people (unlike them) who benefit from conflicts. This is also why they also love the idea of market competition (they like to appear tough) also known as “racing to the bottom”. Keep “competing” for your wages guys, compete with child labour in China, and computer programmers in farmrooms in India.

            Note they hate government but whatever private huge co-orperations do like Banks, oil companies are all legit, all their negative externalities such as (fraud/predatory behavior/market rigging/monopoly/pollution/exploitation) is attributed to “big government”, very much like the feminist “Patriarchy Theory”

            For some reason despite all the evidence, they believe a government which is elected by people, with public representation, has a degree of transparency and can be voted out is always malicious. A large private entity with zero transparency or accountability with GDP approaching the size of nation states will always be benign or good. The cognitive dissonance is amazing to behold from these “free thinkers”

          3. Big government and evil natured women did it all to unsuspecting men. It has nothing to do with prolonging outdated gender roles, venerating motherhood and utilizing fatherhood as a cash cow. And this in a time where we could easily maintain a comprehensive Support System for reconciling parenthood and career.

            Nope, none of that! Reagan was manipulated by Marxist women when he implemented no-fault divorce cum alimony, and if we just introduce a 10% flat tax women will get back into the kitchen, become virgins again and make sandwhiches and blowjobs until Jesus returns.

            While we will start again wearing grey suits and combing our hair backwards with lots of vaseline in our safe male Offices.

          4. the funny thing is: this “government light” already exists…for men only

          5. Nils Dacke says:

            who joined mgtow last thursday (who are Molyneux drones)

            I take it you mean me since i believe i posted my first comment on this site last thursday. I have been a MGTOW my entire life and followed the movement at least two years since i heard barbarossa and stardusk (thinking-ape). But still no true scotsman according to the self proclaimed master, which reminds me of some podcast run by a bald guy.

    3. Nils Dacke says:

      Having the state start spend money on men instead of women will happen when pigs can fly.

      1. I haven’t seen men demanding it other than screaming “not my taxes, not my money”. Women and feminists are way smarter here and much more pragmatic while some men still dream about “reducing the state” and “fixing marriage” when women will not have welfare or courts to turn to and thus be “incentivized”/trapped in a marriage. As if some men want to be trapped with a woman for lifetime.

        1. Nils Dacke says:

          I have no personal objection against state support for men if it’s provided. Im not saying we should not demand it either as im not a right wing robot, but it’s decline and fall is inevitable, so lets not put any trust into that system or see that as a one stop solution.

          1. If men as a category would stop being Boys and finally grow a pair and openly adress their issues and demands we would not have this Situation in the first place. The best Thing you see from most men is ridiculing each other in order to impress women, instead of putting their foot down. My best guess is that the gynocentric man is literally incapable of doing this since it goes against his near religious veneration of women. The emerging non-gynocentric and self-acutalized man now has the burden of starting with -100% thanks to his gynocentric forefathers.

  5. Tim says:

    All around the globe, marriage rates are tanking and out of wedlock births are rising. Japan is doomed without mass immigration or the state paying women to have children out of wedlock. This is how Sweden maintains a decent birth rate – it pays women in several ways, both obvious and not so obvious ways, to have kids out of wedlock. Sweden is also going down the tubes. Why? Socialism does not work for very long. It’s great on paper – but fails in reality. People need incentives and rewards. Socialism kills both.

    When women walked away from their traditional roles, men had no choice but to do the same. What does that mean? Low marriage rate (Sweden being amongst the lowest), high out of wedlock birth rate (Sweden being near the top of the list) and mass welfare for women. Women value men for what they can provide to women. If men don’t provide for women, women have no use for men. At the same time, women don’t want to care for men, children or the home anymore (the feminist affect). If a woman is independently wealthy, she’s going to go after a younger, poorer guy just like old men do. If she has kids, they’ll be cared for by nannies and the house by housekeepers. My mother left my father to be with my stepfather because my stepfather was far wealthier. My mother didn’t work, had three kids and still had a live in housekeeper/nanny. Paid maternity leave and free childcare will amount to the same – but removes any need for men other than their forced wealth redistribution through sky high taxes. This is why the majority of a male Swedes income goes to the state.

    Feminism is Marxism in panties. Feminism is about hypergynocentrism. Feminism is about destroying the patriarchy (destroying men and transferring their power and wealth to women). Feminism is about women’s sexual liberation – allowing women to sleep with whomever they want – regardless of what men think. Feminism is about freeing women from the “slavery” of marriage, motherhood, being a “wife” and caring for the family. Feminism is the face of Marxism and federally enforced redistribution of wealth and power (legalized theft) from men to women. If you’re not a disposable utility, you have no use in society as a man. Just ask any white knight.

    In the not too distant future, the countries from which the US draws immigrants en masse will themselves be infected with feminism. You can already see this transition happening. Why does that mean? At some point, the pool of immigrants we use to replace labor and technology positions with low wage workers in the US will diminish greatly. Along with feminism comes a drastic decline in birth rates, which is why the US uses mass immigration. See the problem here? US corps use low wage foreign born workers to displace higher wage jobs typically done by male US citizens. As feminism spreads, it’s going to cut off the crack (mass immigration) on which the US and many other nations now depend. Populations the globe over will get older and older with fewer and fewer new wage and tax slaves.

    What’s really funny is that everything you see around you was invented by and built by men – yet men are being denigrated into extinction and/or slave labor. As everyone knows, socialism (on which feminism is based) brings with it the complete removal of incentive and innovation. In socialist systems, people work and improve themselves as little as possible because there’s no incentive to do otherwise. One simply lives off the redistributed wealth of another. The government ensures the wealth is redistributed.

    To me, the point of MGTOW is to protect yourself from what can easily be considered the greatest threat to male existence. What’s that? Women. I’ve personally been falsely accused of assault with a deadly weapon, domestic violence and was stalked by a woman packing a .38. Why? Hades hath no wrath like that of a woman scorned. Jilted women would rather your life be destroyed that you go on to live a happy life without them. Feminists and anti-feminists look at men in one and only way and that’s in terms of what men can provide to women.

    Women are no longer ‘helpmeets’. They’re your competitors. They’re your adversaries. Piss them off and they will use their state given power to ruin your life. They don’t have to hit you – they’ll have the white knights or the government annihilate you instead. With the MGOW mindset, you can learn to survive and thrive in a new and very real threat environment – one in which you are the target of the hunt.

    1. Actually Marx was against internventionalism and supported the free Traders since he believed that capitalism must mature and then give birth to a new (socialist) Society.

      What you are talking about is the welfare state. An Institution which replaced the support system of the extended Family when the latter was torn apart and outcompeted by industrialization and capitalism. This is why we see the first welfare laws emerging in Europe in the 1860s, while still being largely monarchies.

      Feminism is just women expressing themselves and looking after their interests and their interests only. Believe me, very few Marxist-Feminist women get married and live off of alimony, but many “chicks on the right” do that.

  6. Cary Harris says:

    Tim, absolutely. Women have now placed themselves in direct competition with and at odds with the interests of men. If they walk away from their breeding utility, there is no reason to accommodate them with any of the unique benefits of the gynocracy. Whether it be the benefits they received under traditionalism or the current hypergynocracy

    They are a labor utility, just like men. But less effective because their skills have not been challenged, for example in a job market that demands they be employed, simply based on their sex alone and not on aptitude for the job. So yes, they are the mans competitor, but without the same qualifications needed for the job, giving them the edge. Similar mechanisms take place if an employer wants to terminate the female. They always have to consider the discrimination angle, making me wonder how many incompetent females get to hang on to their jobs? The white heterosexual men, they would be quite easy to fire.

    On a positive note, yes men created the civilization that gave women the free time to dwell on their so called oppression. They were freed up from domestic chores, while the state stepped in as a proxy father to allow them to enter the workforce. Men created the technologies and the structures for feminism to flourish. But that same intellect will give men the ability to thrive in the post-gynocentric environment, which will be inevitable when the contradictions of the system will no longer be able to sustain itself. Those same male skills will be required to survive and rebuild in that world. And who knows, by then even the reproductive utility of biological women may prove to be extremely inefficient and redundant.

  7. The truth is that men can only shed the burden of carrying women by integrating women into the workforce. If women are not working either husbands/partners or taxapayers will have to pick up the check, especially if those women do become mothers eventually. And in fact this is what we still do.
    Putting women to work and incentivizing men to do their 50% share in upbringing the children is going to work much better, create more income, demand and taxes. It can also result in men, finally, having more free time, i.e. more time to spend with their Kids.
    All this required public Money (paid parental leave, daycare) but the price is worth it since it lowers the overall cost of maintaining women over a lifetime. Ideally you give both parents something along the line of 6-12 months paid leave and then get them back on their career track. This will also help men to change the public Notion of exclusive maternal custody of children and result in a more equal influence and access to their progeny for both Partners and more equal access and influence in the labour market. The only way out is to replace the stereotypes of maternal primary caregivers and paternal primary providers with an equal parental stake, thus allowing to cancel alimony and childsupport.
    Tertium non datur, or we just keep on sticking to the old system.

    1. jimmy says:

      The problem is that women want men to pay for kids and “look after them” during pregnancy. This is essentially what all this is about, marriage laws are the way they are in order to lock men into financing this charade.

      If the state steps up paying for childcare and women can use IVF/ then fewer women will need a financial father/sugar daddy to have children (which is currently most women and 90% of women over 30) this a good thing because they will not need to be so predatory if they can have children without enslaving individual men’s and stealing their resources for 20 years.

      These free market anti-mgtow whack jobs are so zealous with their dumb beliefs they would rather roll back the state childcare benefits and support for women and have men be forced to stump up all the cash for raising children they didn’t want. These whack jobs are not just dumb, they are also anti-mgtow right wing tradcons/manurespherians.

      The reason the misandric marriage laws were made in the first place was because there wasn’t state support for single women. More state support for child bearing child care is good.

      These fundamentalist morons invaded mgtow and are completely trashing it. They should go back to listening to their high priest Molyneux.

      1. People fuck, People pairbond…even most MGTOWs date or at least do not push the casual encounter off the bed. Even with IVF and spermbanks People will have Kids the old fashioned way which leaves us with two Options:

        a) continue current tradcon protocol with one primary caregiver (mother) and one primary Provider (father)

        b) mediate childrearing and career for BOTH parents (regardless of relationship status) by implementing daycare and fulltime schooling

        there is no other way…and honestly I see more and more we are headed towards Option b) anyways…we only need to embrace it and see it as a Chance to actually have a relevant relationship with our Kids and get off the Transfer hook once the misses can (and must) go and work

      2. jay says:

        ”These free market anti-mgtow whack jobs are so zealous with their dumb beliefs they would rather roll back the state childcare benefits and support for women and have men be forced to stump up all the cash for raising children they didn’t want. These whack jobs are not just dumb, they are also anti-mgtow right wing tradcons/manurespherians.”

        As a MGTOW I subscribe to the free market. You telling me that MGTOW must subscribe to subscribe to your economic ideologies?

        1. jay says:

          In addition daycare is a poor replacement for real parenting.

          1. Then pay alimony, spousal Support, child Support and all sorts of taxes for women until you drop dead.

            Also, daycare is not worse than most mothers. In fact we learn stuff in daycare and Schools that most homemakers will never be able to teach.

            The only solution for men is to have women work. The only way to have women work like men is to reconcile their parenthood and career. Thus also opening the road for men to reconcile their career and parenthood.

            Tertium non datur

  8. Anonymous says:


  9. The Plague Doctor (Bitcoin cultist) says:

    LOL @ jimmy and Alexander FEMTOW,

    God has chosen an exact date for the Keynesian Apocalypse.

    The Global Economic Collapse will start on:

    September 13, 2015.

    It will be the worst economic collapse in history.

    Stock markets will crash, banks will fail, currencies will collapse.

    There will be massive riots, strikes, demonstrations, looting, and shortages.

    Prepare yourself accordingly:…

    You have been warned!
    You have been warned!
    You have been warned!

  10. thisguyhere says:

    For some time (emphasis on SOME), I’d say that Japan’s population decline will be beneficial, to a certain degree. Japan is roughly the size of California (just a hair smaller), yet it has more than 3 times the population. People are literally being crammed into subway trains in Tokyo, with average capacity being around 164%. Japan would become less densely populated, and be beneficial.
    The catch is in maintaining the current GDP. If Japan can keep a stable, or even higher GDP, then it will be beneficial as GDP per capita will be higher, leading to a higher standard of living. Japan is in the midst of its 3rd longest postwar economic expansion, despite a falling population (

  11. отличное крео для донора отличное крео для донора отличное крео для донора отличное крео для донора отличное крео для донора отличное крео says:

    Awesome! Its genuinely awesome paragraph, I have got much clear idea regarding from this article.

  12. отличное крео для донора отличное крео для донора отличное крео для донора отличное крео для донора отличное крео для донора отличное крео says:

    Hi children, you all should watch comic video lessons, but remember that first study then enjoyment okay.

  13. Zonia says:

    The information given above is highly relevant.

  14. I must get across my love for your generosity supporting all those that actually need assistance with this one situation. Your real commitment to getting the message throughout has been exceptionally powerful and have usually helped workers just like me to reach their targets. The interesting publication can mean a whole lot a person like me and a whole lot more to my peers. Thanks a ton; from each one of us.

  15. отличное крео для донора отличное крео для донора отличное крео для донора отличное крео для донора отличное крео для донора отличное крео says:

    Okay you are true, YouTube is most excellent video distribution site, since YouTube is a lightly no much streaming time rather than other websites.

  16. отличное крео для донора отличное крео для донора отличное крео для донора отличное крео для донора отличное крео для донора отличное крео says:

    It’s enormous that you are getting ideas from this piece of writing as well as from our discussion made at this place.

  17. отличное крео для донора отличное крео для донора отличное крео для донора отличное крео для донора отличное крео для донора отличное крео says:

    Hello, I also wish for to share my view here, when i don’t know even about a simple thing related to Personal home pages, I always go to search that from web.

  18. отличное крео для донора отличное крео для донора отличное крео для донора отличное крео для донора отличное крео для донора отличное крео says:

    These all YouTube gaming video clips are truly in pleasant quality, I watched out all these along by my friends.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *