This post is a response to Vox Day’s post here, at Alpha Game. In his relatively brief post Vox criticizes both the MGTOW and PUA movements. A small snippet that conveys the principal themes of his post:
What MGTOW and PUAs have in common is that both paths are surrenders to the dyscivilizationists. Both paths are the result of literal demoralization, the MGTOW in the emotional sense, the PUA in the spiritual sense.
While the Red Pill is necessary for any Man of the West, there is only one effective way to fight for civilization, and that is to marry a white woman, have children with her, and raise those children to value and defend the West.
Summarized, Vox is making the following arguments:
- The MGTOW and PUA movements are incompatible with a drive to save civilization
- The West must be defended to save Civilization
- The only way to fight for the West/Civilization is to marry (a white woman), have children and raise them properly
I have no fundamental objection to his first point, and so won’t address it. However, I will discuss the latter two arguments.
Give Upon on What, Exactly?
The title of Vox’s post is “They want you to give up.” Well, I get who “they” is from Vox’s post. But what exactly is it that they are giving up on? When Vox speaks of “The West”, or “Western Civilization,” what exactly does he mean? Western Civilization as it stands now? As it did in 1950? Or 1850? How about 1350?
The truth is that you will likely find as many interpretations of “Western Civilization” as you will of the Bible. How does anyone agree on what it means? What happens if we disagree?
It is easy to call for a fight to save Western Civilization. But if there is no agreement as to what it means, than it will not be one fight but many. Because those who disagree about what Western Civ means will, sooner or later (and I predict sooner), start fighting one another. There is only one “West”, and we all cannot have our own version of it for it to remain the West for very long.
Married to the Fight
This brings me to Vox’s proposed solution to “fight” for the West: marry a white woman, have children, and raise them to value the West. Now, I happen to believe that history is won by those who show up, and so see some value in what he says. All the same, further examination is warranted.
Let’s start with his advocacy that the women be white. What exactly does he even mean by that? Before 1900 the Irish weren’t considered white. Neither were the Polish. Or many other Caucasian groups, for that matter. So which nationalities count? And how pure must such a woman be? 100%? To 3 generations, or 4?
In case it isn’t clear, I think Vox is being quite the fool here. While I am not one to argue that genetics and ethnicity plays no role in human affairs, at the same time I won’t give it the almost religious credence that some do. Genes ultimately are just markers of potential. If a man were to find a woman with a ton of good, positive traits, and her ancestors also had/have them, then that should be enough. Unless there are some other reasons why ethnicity would prohibit a good marriage (some exist, but are not universal).
In addition, there is also the problem that there aren’t enough good marriageable women out there. Simple fact. Marrying a poor choice of a woman is a fool’s move. Which means that some men out there are not going to be able to marry. Again, just a simple fact.
Does that mean that they are opposing “the West?” Or that they cannot help fight for it? I would respond with an emphatic No.
I believe that even if a man doesn’t marry he can be of great assistance to this struggle. For one, there are religious vocations (the priesthood, becoming a monk). Non-married men can also contribute to keeping “Pro-Western” communities going. Financial assistance is one way to do this- easing the burden on those who are married will help them have more children- which will benefit the community in the long run. They can teach and educate the youth (I believe it has been a significant mistake to have let this field be dominated by women). And so on and so forth.
In short, there are a lot of ways that they can help- if you approach it from a community level. I think it is a mistake to look at this only at the individual level. No man is truly an island. So long as the non-married men support their community and help build it up then they can still be a force for good.
And there you have it- my thoughts on the matter. Feel free to use the comments to voice your support, or shred my ideas.