>
 |
| A “Wacky Package by Tom Bunk. |
We have spoken here before about the imminent threat to civilization posed by misogynistic douchebags “going Galt,” shrugging like Atlas and depriving society of their hard work and staggering genius. Indeed, in the comments of this very blog, one of our own resident MGTOWers, Cold, explained how he was sticking it to The Man — er, The Woman — by not paying taxes on some of his earnings, thus becoming what economists call a “free rider”on government services, and what the rest of us taxpayers call a “tax cheat.”
He’s not the only manosphere dude who has concluded that the best way to screw over all those evil wimminz who are leeching off the government tit is to, er, leech off the government tit themselves. The guy calling himself AfOR — a prolific commenter and one-time contributor to the False Rape Society blog — explained his similar strategy in a comment on angry-dude megasite The Spearhead:
The wimminz are always directly dependent upon āno questions askedā money, usually from the public purse, and even those in industry only get away with it because the way is lead by the public purse.
Starve them of cash and you starve them of oxygen, they will literally die of starvation, and raise blue murder screaming to their last breath.
The only way to starve them of cash is to starve the State of cash, fuck the State, it canāt be fixed any other way and is now the enemy.
So how does one go about starving the state (metaphorically) and hopefully some actual women (literally)? With some slackery and/or tax fraud!
The only way to starve the State of cash is either live off welfare or work self employed and keep two sets of books, run the black / cash economy for what you can, and good accounting for what you canāt where everything is a deductible expense.
If you pay into the State, you are paying into the wimminz defence fund.
Since AfOR only rarely gets to see his kids, he figures it doesn’t matter if his brand of slacktivism destroys the economy — and possibly leads to them getting killed.
I couldnāt have less contact with my kids if we had had TOTAL economic meltdown and they had died in the ensuing chaos, so frankly speaking total economic meltdown holds nothing very scary for me, I have a set of skills that will always be in demand (a brain, two hands and a mechanical aptitude)
Nope! He’s footloose and fancy free!
Freed from needing to cater to the ex bitch and freed (prevented by force of Law actually) from any obligation towards my kids I can go live in my fucking car, it provides 12 VDC to power my laptop and charge my smartphone, and I can tether my smartphone to my laptop and get internet access anywhere I can get a phone signal.
In siding with the wimminz the State has made me the very thing it fears the most, the worker who can go anywhere on a whim, the worker who can work in the black (cash) economy, the worker who is very hard to track and profile … the worker who has no interest in taking on a debt burden or otherwise āboostingā the economy, the worker who canāt be bribed to vote appropriately because he doesnāt have a McMansion, corporate job, mortgage, etc etc. …
I guess Ayn Rand would be … proud?
—
If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly* use the “Share This” or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.
*Yes, that was a Bioshock reference.
>Hilarious. He's a deadbeat living in his car and he's convinced that the state "fears" him. Talk about delusions of grandeur.
>Considering that this man hates his children so much that he hopes (or at least does not give a shit) that they die or starve, it seems to me that denying him any access to them whatsoever is a wonderful move.Besides, my father is a crackhead, he has been living in cars and filthy motels while not paying taxes or child support for over a decade and the world has not fallen apart. Does anyone see a difference between Afor's Galtness and being a junkie? Because those are a dime a dozen.
>"…freed (prevented by force of Law actually) from any obligation towards my kids…"His readers realize this means his parental rights were terminated, most likely due to child abuse, right? Clearly he's a man with great ideas.
>I hate to tell you guys, but for a lot of people, living on the road is a great fantacy. I have a vw camper bus and am building a cute tear drop camper. I would love to indulge in wander lust, taking the dark back roads and seeing people I've never seen, having lived in New York City, Los Angeles, and San Francisco all my life. Anyway, quoting the crazies does not implicate the MRM.
>If you remove the children from the man you take away two things. First is ability to parent, guide, and nurture them. This is privilege part of the equation. The second is the (hold onto your panties ladies its the word you fear more than patriarchy) RESPONSIBILITY. Yep, if you steal my car there is no reason morally or otherwise I should keep making the payments. In fact by doing so I only encourage *more theft*. Destroying families is of course immensely profitable for women and they engage in this on a daily basis. Of course if you remove the incentives of child support, alimony, lawyer fees, a free house, car, and all the other amenities these "empowered" parasitic beasts claim is their due you stop the behavior. What does it profit a woman to kill her family if she has to *gulp!* PAY FOR THE DECISION. My GOD can you just imagine it? A woman unilaterally ending her marriage actually having to PAY for her own stupid decision? No man to continue to provide her with a continuous river of unearned succor for her to squander at the starbucks while HER kids (her kids unless we are talking child support then of course their HIS children…) rot at the local daycare? Such would end modern parasitic civilization as we know it. After all a modern "empowered" woman can only be empowered when she plugs herself into a mans wallet. And we certainly can't have the dear sweet little trollups actually earning their OWN money to do this, oh no. It's the MAN'S responsibility to raise (i.e. pay money to the woman) HIS children…. but he doesn't get to ever see them as she got a restraining order based on false evidence and perjured testimony. YOU GO GIRL! That's right š go right out and get a JOB and work while the rest of us jump ship to safer havens. The only advice i'd give this guy is he didn't go far enough! He should expat and get the f*** out of the U.S. altogether. Let those sweet innocent darlings pick up their OWN tabs and achieve the fine example of civilization that their little feminist minds can conjure (look to rural Africa to see what that looks like by the way). Have fun ladies! You've killed the host and you can make own buildings, electricity, sanitation, roads, etc. Have fun!!! š
>Magdelyn, I do not think he is referring to the same thing as your decision to use a cute little camper to travel upon the road. I think he is trying to say that he would rather live in a car then be a father.
>@CraigChildren aren't possessions. To regard them as such is indicative of a frightening mentality. Outside of Hollywood women don't end their relationships because they want money, believe it or not. They end it because they realize that 1) they have grown distant from the man they once loved or 2) that nice guy they fell in love with turned out to be a complete asshole. Furthermore, as the child of a single mother who grew up knowing other single mothers (I'm working class, you see), I was able to see that my dad's child support payments were necessary for us to enjoy anything more than basic survival. And believe me, my mother has worked in life (as has my father, I won't deny it). Such wasn't the case for the kids who never knew their fathers. Their mothers worked tirelessly just to survive. You're insulting some of the most hard-working individuals on the planet with your caricature. Go fuck yourself.The thing about the MRA fantasy is that it doesn't exist in real life, just like we don't have welfare queens in Cadillacs so much as we have poor individuals who NEED the social security net in order to survive. I have observed in my life that women work harder than men. There aren't really any housewives anymore unless you import them from Asia.So go ahead and be a deadbeat. I'm sure your conscience rests easy knowing that you've cursed the lazy bitch to not only work hard but work far harder than you are and earn far less. I mean, what do those kids need money for anyways? You, as a single childless man, will put it to good use. The resentment he feels because you lack custody is understandable, of course, but I'm pretty sure it's that selfish mentality that led to the restraining order in the first place.
>Ugh, confusing in my last paragraph as to who I am targeting with my critique. It's directed at Craig when it should be directed at AfOR.
>@Elizabeth:Yes, I know that is what he is saying. And for that, he is a shitbag.
>Divorce is a great eater of wealth. Statistically, it's the man's standard of living which increases after the divorce, and the woman's decreases (it's the one-two punch of she probably made less anyway + kids cost more than a straight child support check will provide). Oddly enough, the man's standard of living doesn't increase as much as the woman's tends to decrease, and he is still more likely to want to remarry than she is. Still, dismantling the home is going to cost them both. There's a reasonably good book called Wifework that tries to make sense of it all.This may not apply to the angrier divorced MRAs, as acting like a douche in court tends to act in your opponent's favor.
>@Craig, which is it? Are children solely the responsibility of women, who therefore should have total right to deny acess, or do fathers have rights and responsibilities as well? You MRAs love to call for all of the rights but none of the responsibilities. Besides, child support is just that-support for your children. Children are not cars, they are human beings. Anyone who wishes ill on their children because they feel punished by being denied access has displayed precisely why they should be denied access. I definitely understand why someone who actually cared about their kids would be hurt to not be able to see them. However, such a parent, one who actually loved their children, would not begrudge trying to help their kids have food, housing, heat, etc. or wish terrible things to happen to them. For example, I would be hurt if I never got to see my family again, but I would not wish terrible things on them and I would still give what help I could, because I actually love them. Afor's statements make it clear that he does not love these children and does not care about their safety. Someone who wishes for (or is indifferent to) the death and suffering of any innocent children, let alone their own, in order punish their mother is a fucked up person who should not be the caretaker for a goldfish, let alone a kid.
>A woman unilaterally ending her marriage actually having to PAY for her own stupid decision?Yeah, let's bring back the days when only men could unilaterally end the marriage and leave the woman penniless and out on the street! Those were good days.
>Such a target rich environment… lets see whose first…"Yeah, let's bring back the days when only men could unilaterally end the marriage and leave the woman penniless and out on the street! Those were good days."yes those were good days – the days that built the civilization you stand upon and contribute nothing too. Civilization can survive and thrive if women have to be nice to their husbands or be kicked out rather than being the vicious self centered harpies they have become. Civilization cannot and will not survive if women are allowed to enslave their husbands and use them and lose them which is what happens today. It isn't even questionable you realize little lady… the West IS dying. What you see around you IS collapsing and it won't last. Get used to the Burqa baby cause that's where the world is headed! A civilization based on women who hate and use men (and can use them because other men toe the line and apply violence to make sure they are little obedient surfs) is NOT sustainable. Sooner or later the men just say… "No" and walk away. Do you think the other members of your coven will somehow make and maintain the hyper complex glitzy sex in the city world you feed upon so you can continue to be a parasite? Guess again! Stand on a street corner and point to a single building or accomplishment by a feminist. Good luck. A world full of nothing by feminists is at best a well decorated cave and at worst a cess pool of cholera, plague, famine, and all those other things you take for granted as not being your problem… yet. So yes by all means lets get back to the good ol' days and give civilization a chance again. Or we can continue with matriarchy backed by socialism which will lead to the REALLY good ol' days of plunder, murder, famine, etc.
>Alex said: "Children aren't possessions." Funny women sure treat them that way especially if there is a child support check to be gained out of it. They deny 50/50 custody to get to that magic 80% to maximize the amount. Is this group really so retarded that you can't see that you get more of what you pay for? If you pay women to divorce and keep kids away from dad you will get more women doing this for better or for worse (and its completely for the worse). DUH! Darksidecat actually makes a semi-valid point so I will respond as politely as I can. The answer is both parents *should* have rights and responsibilities. That being said what is practiced today is the mother has the rights and the man the responsibilities. That is the truth. Women get custody and have the power to make up any story they like to limit the mans right to see his children. This is the truth. As for the point about Afor, what he is doing is starving the beast. He doesn't wish "harm" upon his children so much as harm upon the system that took them. You said you would continue to send money to support your kids even if you couldn't see them. Great. Tell you what I will go ahead and arrange for them to be kidnapped and you can pay the kidnappers a monthly wage for your children's care. You will no right to see them of course but you would at least have that warm feeling that tells you that you are doing something good for them. Now unfortunately you are not doing something good for society at large. Other kidnappers would emerge if such a system were permitted. Many others would soon be snatching children from their parents if it was seen that such was profitable. Get the picture now? The more fathers (and it is mostly fathers who are victimized by the child support system) continue to support the evil the more evil will grow. At some point you have to say "enough" and starve the beast. Only when it is no longer profitable for the woman to snatch the children will they stop doing it. Right now women are literally *paid* to do this and lo and behold we have millions of cases of it. As men the only good choice is just to walk away. Maybe our grandchildren won't have to go through with this nonsense as we had too. Maybe when the money is no longer dependable the evil won't be as attractive. That is what he is doing and no it is not an easy decision. It is not an easy decision for anyone to fight evil if it will mean harm to their kids but it must be done if there is to be any good in this world. At the end of the day if you pay for evil deeds you'll get them and that is what has happened. I will leave the rest of the bra burning harpies (not you darkside cat you asked a real question) to shriek about how every child snatching and father excommunication since the dawn of time is completely justified because of course women are not capable of EVER doing ANYTHING remotely wrong in this world.
>Paragraphs, people, paragraphs! Some of us have middle aged eyes here.
>Who cares if Ayn Rand would be proud? Yeah I know, I know, SOME people treat her philosophy like a religion and therefore would care about that question, but I sure as hell don't.One major weakness in Atlas Shrugged, as well as other works by Ayn Rand, is that she was so obsessed with the apex innovators that she largely ignored or at least greatly understated the contributions of the people working for them. Economic collapse brought about by socialist/feminist policies won't come from a small number of apex innovators dropping out; it will come from a massive sea change in the attitudes of a huge segment of society. That sea change doesn't happen overnight, but it has been happening gradually over the course of the last few decades and it is starting to accelerate. The ONLY thing you can do to stop it is to change the policies that push it; NOTHING else will work, including your pathetic attempts to shame us back to being fully productive citizens.As for "leeching off the government tit", anyone who is not a net taxpayer is doing that whether they intend to or not. Even with my involvement in the underground economy, I'm still a net taxpayer on an annual basis through my above-ground job, so as much as I'd LIKE to "leech off the government tit" it's not happening at the moment since my lack of a vagina prevents me from qualifying for the most generous government programs.
>Dammit, you feminist perfect princesses, Craig hunted the mammoth for you! And this is the thanks he gets? Sheesh!Seriously, though, Craig, what's your solution? No more divorce? No more child support? Rebuttable presumption of equally shared parenting? Come on, imagine you're dictator for a day: what would you do? Enlighten us. And, please, use some paragraphs next time.Oh, and by the way, triplanetary is a dude, not a "little lady." Or, I suppose, in your world, a "mangina." Please be accurate with your condescending little insults–not that he cares.
>CraigEven in the midst of your angry rants I will give you this. Your kidnapper analogy is pretty spot on in certain situations. The court system does have a bias towards the mother in most custody issues. Unfortunately though, if youre too pissed off when you speak most people will miss your good points.
>Difference between a kidnapper and the mother of my children being…Generally speaking, most mothers won't kill their children just because you miss a payment. I know you'd argue otherwise. Don't. That kind of ranting is the reason we don't take you seriously.No, women don't see children as a way to profit. Actually, if profit was a motive they would be better off just not having children in the first place. Turns out that keeping one or several human beings alive is a tremendously expensive occupation, even if you've got a father's salary to sponge off of like the parasite you are. Paying women for divorce? Hardly. The career-conscious woman would chose not to reproduce in the first place, as many do. Now, I should concede that if I were to lose custody of my children I would continue fighting the mother in court in order to get them back. That's fair. That's love. But I would continue to make payments, because I'd direct my anger against the individual (my ex-wife) and not anyone else (my children, the "system"). Also, lol@ your belief in good and evil. Keep thinking that way, bro. You are good, you are pure. The enemy is evil, and must be purged.
>Destroying families is of course immensely profitable for women and they engage in this on a daily basis.Dangit, I missed this memo. I could be rich right now if only I'd had a family to destroy! WTF is wrong with me!
>Also, lol@ your belief in good and evil. Keep thinking that way, bro. You are good, you are pure. The enemy is evil, and must be purged.Um, isn't that how most feminists think? I've lost count of how many times I've been called "evil" for disagreeing with them or for not living as an obedient little pawn.
>Now, I should concede that if I were to lose custody of my children I would continue fighting the mother in court in order to get them back. Were you to do so, odds are about 50-50 you'd get custody. Part of the reason women are more prone to get custody in divorce cases is that men are much less likely to seek custody in the first place. Why are they less likely? Could be they just don't care, like Craig or the OP here. Or perhaps it's because they've been taught that wanting to care for children is a wussy, un-manly sort of thing to do. Or perhaps they've been told that they'll never get custody anyway so why bother? Either way, education and deconstruction of gender roles could do a lot to equalize the situation vis-a-vis child custody cases.
>@CraigThe reason women contributed so little to civilization is because THE SYSTEM WOULDN'T LET US! They didn't let women vote, they didn't let women fight, they rarely allowed women into higher education. Basically, what you're doing is the equivalent of complaining that someone on crutches can't keep up with your normal walking pace.As for women and child support, seriously, do you really believe that the majority of women are like that? That we all care so little for the children we gave birth to (or adopted) and for the man the kids call their father?In the past few years, I've known three women personally that have gotten a divorce. Two were escaping abusive relationships, one couldn't cope with her husband's severe social phobias. The first two were worried for their children, so they limit the interaction with the father as much as possible. The last one has custody of their son, but by no means keeps them apart.All three women have jobs and are working hard to support their children. If they didn't have to, I'm sure they'd prefer not to rely on child support, but kids are expensive, especially once the college years come around.Of course, I'm not saying that women are always right. Just that whether we're right or wrong, we tend to get the short end of the stick. And thus, I will conclude my ramble.
>Well with twi children with different mothers–I'm up to 2000 in support a month.Gladly paid by the way.Craig–speak for yourself buddy. I haven't got the full scoop on the situation but based on my experieince–if you are banned from seeing your kids you either have the worst lawyer in the world or you are a threat.Having said that–2 grand remains a bargain to get the fuck out of that bullshit institution called marriage.Working mayu ass off to service her debt, buld a home inn which i cannot make a single decision regarding the disposition of and throug it all being told that I'm a bad father and a disappointment as a husband is more than enough for me.My kids however–are not part of that equation. SO forgive me if i actually behave like a MAN. I accept my responsibilities and carry the fuck on. I do not let my problems with my exes ever impact my realtionships with them. In fact–one the major reasons I am not in relationships with them anymore is because I have the right to parent my kids the way I feel is best for them. And i can only do that functionally when spearate from my ex.you know–actually getting them vaccinated. Believing that delaying gratificvation and not supplyingt them with a constant stream of junk food is a proper behavioural set. That not crying your way out of every descision is actually a beneficial thing to learn.To love reason over faith and relying upon yourself –taking the ocassional measured risk leads to a more full life than the scotchguarded consideration otherwise.But here's the thing. I'vehad enough of lving with or being in any kind of relationship with a woman that goes any deeper than some recreational sex or conversation over a cup of joe. Happy to live the second half of my life in that fashion. And yet it's alway the women I know who are the first to assure me that I will change my mind. That i will meet someone…and the more I protest the more strident that statements become. It's like they have something personal at stake. And that is the problem. Nobody owns me. I never owned them. I never made any demands on them to that effect. I never claimed a chunk of their paycheck or told them how to live their lives and yet–I'm supposed to listen chastely while this was done to me?Equality to the end of self determination is as it shoudl be…but don't get all bent out of shape if I deside to forgoe that pairbonding crap to benefit a gender that has …frankly…given me nothing of worth.
>Um, isn't that how most feminists think? I've lost count of how many times I've been called "evil" for disagreeing with them or for not living as an obedient little pawn. Who wants Cold as her obedient little pawn? Hold on now, no shoving. Line up orderly please.