-
chevron_right
#MovimManosphere 5th Gen self-improvement in #MGTOW
preptorrent · pubsub.movim.eu / manosphere · Friday, 3 April, 2020 - 13:35 edit · 8 minutes
#MGTOW #MRA #Manosphere #RedPill #MovimRedPill #PrepTorrent #5thGenWarfare #DomesticViolence #Feminism #antifeminism
 |
| PrepTorrent blog |
Do you remember the film Spartacus? In the movie, Peter Ustinov plays Batiatus. Rome was the State. Do you remember the trilogy of films for "The Matrix"? In that film, Agent Smith is played by Hugo Weaving. In The Matrix, the computer system known as The Matrix is the State. Ruling over others, it is sort of like a government or Military state or a Monarchy or Religious State or Corporate/Capitalist State. I doesn't matter all too much what form of State as long as it is recognised it is the State. So the Matrix State by virtue of being a State shares that similarity with Rome in the Spartacus Film. Both also have the simlarity of being a troubled state, with its relevance weakened. The Agent Smith character and Batiatus are two different people who share an attribute. They both are people (men) who once had a role or position within the State, but now their role has either eventually gone or has been eroded, and so they evolve or find new purpose. For Agent Smith, he was a program that was essentially being surplus to requirements or possibily even deprecated. Around the time Neo visits the Oracle, Agent Smith eventually thanks Neo as Agent Smith finds new "purpose". Notice of course that Neo, flying around doing his superman impression is somewhat like a Messiah character, as is Spartacus. Batiatus is (or was) a sort of 'Broker' of gladiators and slaves. Batiatus starts to lose his role as the Slave Gladiators destabalise the Rome state. Eventually Batiatus finds a new role in helping the Senate destablise Caeser (Marcus Licinius Crassus) to whom he had previously been fawning. Do not mistake his fawning behaviour towards (Crassus) Caeser of Rome to be affection for Caeser. Batiatus just sees Caeser as a person who serves a purpose, and likewise Batiatus sees the Gladiators and Slaves that way too, in their own sense. Batiatus is capable of being charming and can even do good deeds alongside evil deeds. He even enjoys eventually helping Varinia (the slave prostitute who becomes wife of Spartacus). However he also has the capacity to allow her to be a slave prostitute to the Gladiators (and in the film it is portrayed to have an immoral or even maybe evil element to that practice). No matter the seeming kindness of Batiatus to Varinia, she too is seen by him as a person there for a purpose, valued for her utility irrespective of her value in her humanity. Take for example the view Batiatus holds of the Guards. Again they are seen as people there for their utility, to control the slave Gladiators. Batiatus is capable of having a good business relationship with a guard, but also he does not find it objectional that Spartacus hamstrung a guard by biting the guard's leg, almost certainly crippling the guard for life. An irony is that guards could once have been slave Gladators who worked their way up the ranks within the order of the day. Agent Smith once seemed to despise Neo, but in actual fact he recognises his purpose, and likewise eventually thanks Neo when Agent Smith starts realising a new purpose exists. As with Batiatus, both (Batiatus and Agent Smith) have an element of narcissism to them, and possibly machiavellianism although it is not required. What is required is an emotional detachment. Agent Smith is more prone to fits of rage (which may possibly be seen as psychopathic and cold at one point), even though he eventually controls these more upon finding his new sense of purpose. Compared to Agent Smith, Batiatus always had a better control of his jealous rage, although he always had jealousy and a sense of entitlement of a narcissist, and so his jealous rage was more a capacity to be spiteful, as he ultimately behaved in a calculating collaboration involving the Senate to erode the position of Crassus and to help Varinia escape. The ultimate spite was that in his loss of position for trading slave gladiators, he acts as though, if he cannot have it there is no reason anybody else should. That is the entitlement of the narcissist, and the latent sports-team behaviour of the machiavellian. The gladiator game is a blood sport. If either of the two characters do good things for the wrong reasons (which means irrespective of the good deed being motivated by that which is personally moral or immoral to him), they can effectivley behave as tantamount to an antihero, even momentarily. They are not, however, pure heros.
Why is all this important, and how does it affect roles and manophere and self-improvement?
The answer is that both Batiatus and agent Smith are behaving like a MGTOW man. It is absolutely important that they are men.
MGTOW in modern times is often 'described' in place of being 'defined'. The label "MGTOW" (men going their own way) is often used as a shortcut to say a man is a bachelor as a consequence of 'gynocentrism' which might be say TradCon or Feminism. However, that is a description, not a definition. Yes it is true that in practice it is either 99% or 100% of the time that a MGTOW man in the "current year" must be single in order to go his own way. However, once upon a time (as per the way MGTOW was once defined) it has been perfectly possible for a married man to go his own way. However, in the past, resources were more plentiful and the State was not so heavily set with rules and laws pertaining to feminism. It would still have been difficult, but possible. These days (probably since around the 1980s and 1990s until today), even though in theory a MGTOW could still be married, in practice the probability of that working in modern day "current year" is almost certainly zero.
So if MGTOW does not, by definition, mandatorily need to be defined as a man being a single bachelor, what is MGTOW? It can be described like an Object in computer programming defined by attributes and functions. In fact, it can be a change of role as polymorphism (and arguably, like 'multiple inheritance'). The Agent Smith change of purpose is a good example here because he is actually code. Some MGTOW have been through what is often described as an "anti-male system" such as legal disaprity (such as the Duluth Model) or even the family courts systems. Some ended up with PTSD. However, some MGTOW have never been through the family courts but have seen other men go through it, including those who have ended up with PTSD. Even some military men who have been through war described the trauma and stress of the family courts legal bias derived form the Duluth Model to be worse than that of the trauma and stress of war. Those men who have not been through that and yet still choose to go MGTOW can be defined by their functions, as in "what are they doing". What they are doing is pre-emptively recognising the coping and success mechanisms of a PTSD man (as if that man had been through the family courts or war) and they are emulating and adapting (optimising) that behaviour. It can seem to be an emotional disconnect or similar to machiavellianism. Sometimes it is that but other times it is more like how business can seen sociopathic and cold, but really, instead, to get on in life "it is just a thing you do". Their role has been eroded. Some of the most successful people (irrespective of them being MGTOW or not) can be psychopaths who manage to control their rage fits. A person with PTSD can resemble a (sociopath or) psychopath (unintentionally) when actually they are not. If rage fits are not an issue (to control) because you are not a psychopath, the emotional disconnect instead that can be controlled is empathy and so MGTOW may end up doing things they might not always wish to do, but they know it will probably succeed. They put side love, or at least some manifestations of it. People who are narcissists or psychopaths or machiavellian are often intelligent. A MGTOW can therefore mimic a person with a personality disorder. None of this is to put down MGTOW or to say they are bad people. Also it does not mean they are good people. They can be either, and so can Batiatus or Agent Smith if the circumstances reveal a path for them to follow in either manner. The psychopath (or narcissist) envies compassion as an attribute they cannot have, and so their jealously can be jealous rage, and a lack of empathy makes it harder to control that rage (so those better at it might use cognitive empathy of followinga a pattern htey derived). The weakness of the psychopath who struggles to control his rage fits through lack of empathy or love is that he cannot buy love prepackaged in a bottle. You cannot bottle love. However, you can bottle it up. And so, the MGTOW (not a psychopath, nor a narcissist) who mimics the PTSD can control his empathy in that manner. In his quest for other success in life, he improves his position and thusly he self-improves. The MGTOW have generally lost their role in, for example, being a family man (even if they never become one). Historically, most men never reproduced. Once the MGTOW could have been a husband and so on. So now they have change of purpose, such as with Agent Smith the man of changed code, and with Batiatus (who is no longer selling and trading in slaves and Gladiators). They are entities or people fighting or competing within the State, as their role has either been lost or has changed. They are not fighting against the State. The State, like the falling Rome or Matrix, is not as relevant in that context any longer either. While they may not realise it, the actions of the MGTOW and Batiatus and of Agent Smith are of 5th Generation Warfare. MGTOW is not a movement. Some define MGTOW as a philosphy, but really it is "a way of thinking". An outcome of that can be philosphy, however, it is not mandatory, and so not all MGTOW are "philosphers" nor are they required to be. As described above via the Object polymorphism mimicking the success strategies of pepole who have been through the antimale system, MGTOW is a way of thinking. As an aside, I am not a MGTOW. By doing nothing, I am doing something.
