This essay originates, in part, from an AVfM article by Jewel Eldora and a discussion in its comment section . The theme of Eldora’s article is that men do not have a mechanism for “in-group bias” and, as such, men as a group are “idiots”.
You may have realised yourself, for example, that whereas women have no compunction about using the word “we” to refer to all women or women in general, men only ever refer to other men as “men”, and never “we”. This seems to be as true in the MRM as it is in the wider world.
While I appreciated that men do not self-identify as a group, I originally took issue with Eldora’s assertion that men are idiots. For me, however, the focus of interest was not just the article itself but a discussion in the comments section with two posters, “JackABond” and “Factsseeker”, on the wider question of what it all means for guys like us — men who regard themselves as MGTOW or Zeta Male . I began by disagreeing somewhat with JackABond, but later came to appreciate his comments. In fact, both Eldora and JackABond caused me to re-evaluate my own beliefs and this essay is the result. I’d like to thank them both.
Jewel Eldora was dead right, of course.
We, as a group, are fools who are partly to blame for the sea of prejudice we now find ourselves swimming in. This article is not going to be a form of self-flagellation however, but an exercise in self-empowerment.
A Question of Sanity
For some time, I’ve been pondering a question. It is this:
If we accept that the cultural changes we are witnessing with regard the family and our place in society are not, as some may assume, a straightforward result of feminism, but are in fact part of some natural process of creative destruction and are unstoppable, then what is there to prevent us from succumbing to nihilism when we face what this may mean?
Why on earth would I suggest that the cultural changes of recent decades are part of some natural process or cycle? This seems a strange thing to say. Why can’t we simply attribute the changes to a bunch of crackpot feminists who had a lucky break somewhere between the 1960s and 1980s? Surely, this would be the simpler and more logical explanation of events?
Perhaps many of us thought, as I once did, that once all the prejudices and disadvantages faced by men are explained in a rational way, people will wake up and realise the truth. Sanity must return.
In the end, I had to realise the truth myself — that no one cares and no matter how earnestly the case is presented, the majority of people never ever will.
Something much deeper has always been at play behind the scenes.
A Natural Process
The Industrial Revolution of the 1800s was never simply about manufacturing. It had massive social implications, not only because it took people out of the countryside and put them into the city, but because it took men out of the family and put us into the factory.
The way of life for many craftsfolk were wiped out over a generation or so. The things in their lives which held value for them were lost.
Few, indeed, would have foresaw the true implications ushered in by the industrial age for what they were at the time. And just what could anyone have done at the time to hold back such a tide? Moreover, assuming you agree that the quality of human life in the developed world today is, on balance, better than that of medieval times, should anyone have tried?
The rise of feminism would never have been possible without the Industrial Revolution and the dividends it brought to women during the 20th century, namely the availability of food, labour saving devices in the home, healthcare and the pill. For us, however, it brought mechanical slaughter on the battlefield as well as our increased productivity in the factory without actually granting us the freedom from it. Is it any wonder that as women became free to cast off traditional perspectives of womanhood, we were still shackled to outdated notions of chivalry?
In working class communities — notably in steel-making and coal mining areas — the husband handed over his pay packet to his wife for her to have full control over. Steve Moxon.
With hindsight, profound social upheaval with regard to traditional gender roles was always inevitable. What’s more, I posit that technological development is a natural and unstoppable process rather than anything we can actually control. Human beings are part of the Universe, not separate from it, and what we do and build is part of its nature.
Rather than the driver of change, feminism is a disease of affluence — a parasite — which has infected other movements and domains of influence by exploiting our biological instincts. The areas of domestic violence , the gay rights movement  and academia  have all succumbed to and been re-purposed to serve a feminist agenda. Feminism is currently sweeping into politics and business while chivalrous men cannot step aside quickly enough. Today, feminist ideologues walk the corridors of power while the media obsesses over false rape panics.
Nevertheless, feminism was never the true harbinger of change. It does not deserve such credit.
I was raised in a working class traditionalist culture. As such, I was crippled with an extremely naive perspective on gender and my place in society, namely: a. chivalry was synonymous with virtue, b. that women, at least those of sexual interest to me, were somehow purer in nature than men, and c. women must be taken care of no matter what. That was about the sum total of such things.
It was what just felt right.
No wonder, years later, I felt so dirty and ashamed to find myself looking at deplorable websites such as A Voice for Men. I felt like I was addicted to porn — I was so afraid that I would be found out but just couldn’t stop myself from reading the stuff. Looking back, it was if what I need was a woman’s permission to think for myself. Karen Straughan, aka Girl Writes What, gave me that permission .
My reading list of the time included Steve Moxon’s The Woman Racket and Esther Villar’s The Manipulated Man. Such cultural shockers as these can be just too much to take for us poor fools still anchored in traditionalism. Moreover, I was also dealing with an awful lot of tragedy and trauma back then. In fact, I would suspect this is what typically brings most of us into the MRM.
As my value system and emotional framework collapsed, everything that I held true, righteous and worthwhile became a sickening lie. It made me ill in the end, and there seemed nothing left to do except to watch, with a strange detachment, as my soul seemed to leak away into the vacuum of space.
Nietzsche wrote, “if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss also gazes into you.” 
He knew what he was talking about.
It is not surprising that so many of us cling so forlornly to the mental image of a pendulum swinging back and forth through time. At some point, the pendulum must surely swing back to a time, the 1950s perhaps, of traditional bliss prior to mainstream feminism. Such times were hard in ways, yes perhaps, but at least it could be said that life was “real” in the past.
I’m not the only one to romanticise about the 1950s. Shelagh Delaney, the British playwright, focused extensively on 1950s working class culture in her work. She knew it was dying back then , before the age of mainstream feminism. So what killed it?
And there begs a question: why the 1950s? Why this time?
Well, if it were any later we’d be into the era of mainstream feminism. But, as it was pointed out to me recently, why don’t we romanticise about, say, 1939? Or perhaps 1914? Or perhaps earlier? How about the mid-1600s, the English Civil War, in which one in ten of the adult male population died?
While feminism may one day fall out of fashion, we must come to terms with the realisation that the world will have been irrevocably changed, and we can be certain that children growing up in 2050 will have profoundly different social perspectives than those of one hundred years earlier.
Given that biological reality, not patriarchy, dictated the gender roles of the past, it is tempting to argue that out of sheer necessity, at some point, the pendulum must swing back to some form of traditionalism nevertheless. If birth rates continue to fall, we may say, surely it would mean the end of human society?
The problem of falling birth rates in western nations has been “solved” in the short term, at least as far as capitalism is concerned, with migration from underdeveloped countries. In the longer term, technological solutions to the problem of reproduction can be employed when such things become necessary. This may not bode well for human happiness and well-being, but that in itself will not prevent such things.
There is not a shred of scientific evidence that the Universe operates on the principle of a swinging pendulum. There is no sanctuary in the past.
I had known in my heart that, for me, there would be no going back in any case. I had known this from quite early on and I can pinpoint the hour. It was the moment I internalised the fact that politically powerful women, such as Harriet Harman, had deemed men like my father were no longer to have a valid place in the family . This was when I grasped that, despite all my chivalrous virtue, society revered a subset of ideologically motivated women who actively sought my subjugation and, ultimately, the destruction of my kind.
For me, everything changed that day.
I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig. Andrea Dworkin
If life is to survive on this planet, there must be a decontamination of the Earth. I think this will be accompanied by an evolutionary process that will result in a drastic reduction of the population of males. Mary Daly
Such things are not forgivable. There should be no going back.
A Cupful of Meaning
Just what is it that makes life meaningful? And, conversely, what makes it meaningless? I’ve been thinking a lot about this lately. I know that I’m not the first to ponder on such things.
I recall an episode of The Twilight Zone which was loosely based, I suspect, on the 1950 film Sunset Boulevard. Both feature an ageing has-been movie star who desperately longs to return to the golden era of film and that of her youth. In the movie version she fails in her quest, but in the The Twilight Zone, by force of will and an adequate supply of gin, she somehow succeeds .
In recent years, I too have yearned over mementos of my youth — a paw print left in the cement by the dog of my childhood, the bar where I first saw the girl whom I loved for so long, and the working club I used to frequent with my dad as a young man. Like the faded film star, I have so longed to go back to, relive and stay in the past.
Unfortunately, my own reality was closer to the movie version of things rather than that of The Twilight Zone. Force of will proved insufficient to truly relive the past in any meaningful way, but why was this so?
Why couldn’t I extract some essence of the past simply by revisiting and touching the very same walls, cement, ground and furniture that were present in youth? Why, when I reached back to touch these things, nothing remained of the past save the ghost of a memory?
I knew, of course, the answer. It was because the people were gone.
In a metaphysical sense, interaction is necessary to derive meaning from existence. This Universe ascribes meaning, on all scales, from the interaction of things rather than the stuff of things. On an atomic scale, it is difficult to detect particles when they interact only weakly with other particles and, consequently, it is hard for us to know they are there. In the limiting case, something which does not interact in anyway with anything, simply put as a statement of the obvious, can have no existence.
On the human scale, a man who retreats from the world by ceasing to engage with others will become invisible. As his domain of influence shrinks to that of his living room, his life will lose meaning as he fails to create new interactions. Many men “exist” like this and, as far as much of the world is concerned, they do not. In fact, when men like this die, their corpses often remain undiscovered for months and no one cares.
Now, bear with me here as I switch gear and ask that you engage in a thought experiment for a moment. As I type, I am reaching for a mug of coffee. What I am holding in my left hand is a mug — a cup — a drinking vessel. Surely a ridiculously banal statement! But what if, we suppose for a moment, all humans are to be wiped out later today due to some biological weapon or dreadful disease? What then?
With an empty planet, with no human left to drink from any kind of vessel ever again, what would the object left on my desk actually be? Would it still have any existence as a cup? Or would it lose all such meaning and become something else? Something less?
Would my desk still be a desk, or would it be no more than a pile of wood? Likewise, with all humanity dead and gone, would a painting left hanging in my local art gallery still have any aesthetic value? Would the paint on it still depict a face? Or would it be no more than a meaningless smear on a canvas?
Is not the action of drinking necessary to define the purpose of a cup? Is not the action of sitting at a desk necessary to define its very essence? Does not a work of art require a beholder for it to be a work of art?
These objects will continue to exist physically in a world suddenly deprived of people because they will continue to interact on other levels in the Universe. However, they will lose the meaning that was generated through our interaction with them — they will exist but as something less than they were.
So what of us disposable men who are no longer deemed to have a valid role in society?
What meaning is left for us? Do we need women to behold us in order to retain the very essence of what it means to be a man? Are we still men or are we to become something less?
Or perhaps, through a new reality, could we become something more?
God is Dead?
Zeta males are not men who refuse all relations with women. Rather, we refuse to be anchored in the dominance hierarchy and, thus, we reject the traditional roles of alpha, beta and omega. To be anchored in the traditionalist value system is to look to women to ascribe meaning and purpose for us which, in the modern age, no longer serves us or humanity.
But if we do not anchor ourselves in the prevailing culture, just what do we anchor ourselves to? In a world without any solid ground, how can we not be overwhelmed by the sense of being lost at sea?
Such a question brings us back to where we started — the question of nihilism.
Writing in the 1800s, Friedrich Nietzsche recognised that science and enlightenment were profoundly transforming humanity’s understanding of the Universe. Without a universal perspective in the form traditional belief system, without an anchor, he believed social collapse inevitable.
“God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him,” he proclaimed in The Gay Science in 1882. In Thus Spoke Zarathustra, he offers us an alternative to the nihilistic abandonment of all moral values in a vision he referred to as the Übermensch, or the “Beyond-Man”.
During the mid-twentieth century, the ideological left smeared Nietzsche as a fascist. They were aided in this, undoubtedly, by Nietzsche’s delinquent sister who, living into the 1930s, falsified parts of his work to suit the aims of the early Nazi party. Nietzsche, however, was no nationalist and his vision of the Übermensch, originating in the 1880s, had nothing to do with race.
Put simply, the Übermensch were human beings who would have the ability to go beyond nihilism and find new meaning in existence after the collapse of religious belief. They were a vision of humanity’s grown up descendants and, as such, were to be anchored in concepts of this Universe rather than in notions of divine miracles and holy supernaturalism.
If you are noticing that I seem to use the word “Universe” a lot, I can assure you that it’s quite deliberate. The reason is that I do not entirely subscribe to Nietzsche’s nineteenth century assertion that God is dead.
Perhaps, just perhaps, there is another way to look at things.
Some years ago, I faced the realisation that I would be destroyed if I refused to be anchored in some form of axiomatic belief system that was not centred on myself. So I chose to believe in one that made sense to me and, being a student of physics, it was this:
Modern science offers the prospect that the Universe not only creates order from chaos, but has a built-in propensity to bring into being novel and dynamic — the word is living — things . Now, I’m not claiming any absolute or revolutionary truth here. Rather, it was necessary to anchor myself in a belief that there is rhyme and reason to the process of creation and destruction that this Universe exhibits, and of which we are all part.
We are a way for the Cosmos to know itself. Carl Sagan
For Nietzsche, the science of his age killed God. For me, the science of my own time does not kill God, but re-invents it. The terms “God” and “Universe” are synonymous ! I need neither proof nor a holy miracle for this to work because, at this axiomatic level, it simply makes sense to choose to believe. I once never thought I would say such a thing, but I guess this is what it means to have faith.
Now, I’ve been somewhat careful here to explain what it is that I believe, and not what you should believe. I have no wish to be some kind of preacher on this. Nevertheless, I am trying communicate an important point — it is vital for our psychological health to be anchored somewhere and somehow, so that in times of strife, we do not lose ourselves at sea. We cannot anchor ourselves in human affairs because such things are shifting sands and human beings are fallible. At some point, our trust will always be betrayed and the rug pulled from under our feet.
That is why I choose an axiomatic interpretation of God, one in which I accept the Universe as it is, and not as the way I think it should be.
With such a definition, and by definition, the Universe can never let me down.
I propose that we take inspiration from Nietzsche’s work and seek to go beyond the prevailing culture using whatever tools we have available to us. We should not go back even if we could. We should push through into new territory and discover new realms.
Isn’t this what men are made to do?
For too long, we have languished in a culture that has shamed and denigrated us. It is time now to find affirmation in ourselves. In the industrial age, we surrendered our independence and ability to think for ourselves to women. In this modern age, we must take these things back.
In rejecting the prevailing culture, however, we must never accept isolation as an alternative. When we isolate, we cease engaging with the world, and the world simply discards us because we no longer exist for it.
Therefore, we must prioritise making connections and friends amongst ourselves and we must do so without regard to women. If we keep women on their pedestal by continuing to look to them for meaning in life, we allow women to continue to make everything about themselves. In the new age, women must get off their pedestal and embrace equality, not in terms of rights, but in terms of responsibility.
For traditionalist men to deny women responsibility was always to deny them their full humanity. Feminists, in this way at least, actually had a point.
It is possibly true that, for reasons of biology, men have throughout history competed with each other for access to women. We should not surrender ourselves to such dogmatic notions of biology, however, but we should seek to go beyond it.
Whereas nature allows women to readily find solidarity amongst themselves, we have qualities they typically lack — the capacity for abstract thought, outward looking perspectives, resourcefulness and adaptability. Our working assumption must be that we are biologically adaptable, and not that biology means our nature is fixed.
Now, women readily use the word “we” to refer to each other in their use of language and this is something we can take for ourselves. I propose that in order to foster a culture of self-identification, we men should intentionally adopt the word “we” to refer to all men and to men in general. We should make a deliberate effort to begin to use this language in all walks of life!
White knights who object be damned!
Feminists destroyed meaning in life for so many through their selfishly cruel attempts to deconstruct the family and wider culture. We should create new meaning by building our own culture. This Universe brought us into existence because it has purpose for us. We are creatures of this Universe and we belong to it. We should embrace its cycle of destructive creation in order to go beyond and become something more than we currently are.
This should be our purpose.
 Jewel Eldora. Scott Adams, Tucker Carlson, and the automatic out-group derogation of men. Link: https://www.avoiceformen.com/men/mens-issues/scott-adams-tucker-carlson-and-the-automatic-outgroup-derogation-of-men/
[2a] Peter Wright. Bye bye Alpha Male, and hello Zeta Male! Link: https://www.avoiceformen.com/sexual-politics/bye-bye-alpha-male-and-hello-zeta-male/
[2b] I am a Zeta Male. Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=040K1lolcIs
 Erin Pizzey. This Way to the Revolution.
 Mathew Lye. The New Gay Liberation: Escaping the Fag End of Feminism.
 Christina Hoff Sommers. The War Against Boys: How Misguided Feminism Is Harming Our Young Men.
 I am Girl Writes What. Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h97RsyEAPk0
 Friedrich Nietzsche. Beyond Good and Evil.
 Shelagh Delaney’s Salford. Ken Russell, BBC. From The Monitor No. 56, 25th September 1960. Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXmMsOBrx9g
 Harriet Harman, Anna Coote and Patricia Hewitt. The Family Way, The Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR). 1990. Link: https://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2014/04/why-ideas-matter.html
 The Sixteen Millimeter Shrine, The Twilight Zone, S01E04.
 I am referring to chaos theory and, in particular, the mathematical concept of complexity. For introduction, Wikipedia is as good as a place as any. See also: Emergence: from Chaos to Order, John H. Holland.
 I believe the word for this is “pantheism”. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism