On MGTOW and Race Suicide
...But the man or woman who deliberately avoids marriage, and has a heart so cold as to know no passion and a brain so shallow and selfish as to dislike having children, is in effect a criminal against the race, and should be an object of contemptuous abhorrence by all healthy people. —President Theodore Roosevelt, from his famous "Race Suicide" letter of 1902
Sometimes I am confronted by people (usually in Internet comments sections) who assume that, as a Buddhist monk, I should always be endorsing Buddhist ethics in my politically incorrect social commentaries. In fact many people are evidently of the opinion that I should never utter a statement that is not 100% in accordance with orthodox Theravada Buddhist doctrine, not even theoretically, not even while playing devil’s advocate. It may be that whenever I am not in a state of total mental quiescence I should be thinking holy and orthodox thoughts. It does seem to make sense, doesn’t it—after all, I am an ordained bhikkhu.
But the situation isn’t so simple, because the reality is that the phenomenal world is unthinkably complicated, and most people, including most Buddhists, just don’t follow Buddhist ethics very well. For instance to say that “everybody should follow five precepts” is dandy fine, and it would be lovely if we all did; but the reality is that most people don’t and won’t follow them. So to base one’s perspective towards the world on a utopian dream, with everyone being “nice,” is just unrealistic. One must take messy empirical reality into account.
In a sense the world is even more unthinkably complicated now that postmodernist philosophy has been unleashed upon mainstream western culture. Postmodernism has opened a huge metaphorical can of worms in this world by undermining and invalidating, ironically, the foundational, stabilizing metanarrative on which modern “progressive” globalism was supposed to rest. Now people speak of truth being nothing more than a social construct, and of different people having different truths—which of course plays hob with any attempts to bring populations together into a socialized globalist utopia. On one hand it seems to me that truth isn’t only a cultural construct; there is some empirical bedrock that cannot be conveniently dismissed. (Let some academics invent a new set of laws of physics based on subjective wishful thinking and see how sturdy of a bridge they can build with it, or how efficient of a communications satellite they can launch into orbit.) On the other hand I must admit that postmodernism is not total bullshit. When dealing with social or political issues, or also with ethical issues in a real world inhabited by ordinary, unenlightened people and not Buddhist saints, all sorts of complications have to be taken into consideration—or rather, different people will inevitably consider different complications. Thus history and politics, for example, will almost certainly never become settled science.
A case in point is the social issue I intend to discuss here. The problem stated, very simply and crudely, is that the world population of the white or European race is in decline due to low birth rates, whereas most other major ethnicities are increasing, thereby threatening the white race with extinction, and threatening western civilization, the creation of the white race, with the danger of catastrophic collapse; yet (again, stated crudely) most modern western women aren’t worth a man’s trouble, so it is in most western men’s best interests not to marry and have children. Even some of the women that are worth the trouble are unwilling or unable to bear children. Stating it even more simply, the white race is in decline, and most white women nowadays aren’t worth the gamble of marriage. So: What to do? Should men just go their own way, giving the finger to the more or less slutty misandrist feminists so many western women have become, and let the European race die out, or not?
From the perspective of Buddhist ethics, which supposedly I should uncompromisingly endorse, the best thing that the European race (and all other races as well) could do is for everyone to become celibate pacifist vegetarians (that last not because the act of eating meat is wrong, but because everyone should refrain from killing animals)…which would result in the extinction of the human species within about a hundred years. Gotama Buddha advised, according to the ancient Pali texts, that if you can renounce the world and dedicate your life to yogic restraint and contemplation, then by all means you should do so. If you are unable to go that far, then at least you should avoid sexual intercourse as though avoiding falling into a deep pit half-full of glowing coals. But if even that is too much renunciation for your tastes, then at the very, very least you should avoid consorting with the wives of other men. This dim view of sexuality is because sexual relationships are conducive to increased attachment and suffering, and greater entanglement in illusion and Samsara. Consequently, the total extinction of humanity is the pure, hard-nosed solution to the dilemma, according to ruthless, uncompromising Buddhist ethics.
But of course, we are dealing almost entirely with ordinary human beings who aren’t going to become Buddhist saints just because they ought to. Most of them won’t keep five precepts, or willingly be celibate.
Adding to the ethical complications is the fact that the situation for western men is considerably worse than it was for men in Iron Age northern India when the Buddha warned them to stay away from women and their vaginas. Now women in the west are empowered, which too often means that they are indoctrinated with the feminist idea that men, especially white ones, are the enemy—but that, nevertheless, it is “feminine” for women to imitate them rather than live in accordance with primordial human female nature. Rather than be faithful to one man, maintain a home, be the emotional center of a family, and raise children to become the next generation, women are told (and believe) that sexual promiscuity and pursuing a professional career and money is somehow more appropriate. The “men are the cause of all badness” idea is largely responsible for women in the west filing for most of the divorces, with the most common excuse in the USA being simple dissatisfaction—the woman just feels like she can do better. After the divorce she may ruin the man financially, and there’s about a 90% chance that she’ll get custody of any children she managed to fit into her schedule. If she decides to get really nasty she can even prevent the father from seeing his own kids. Why would a man take such a terrible risk? The whole institution of marriage is now rigged against him. At least women in premodern times were likely to be faithful, and to take wifehood and motherhood seriously, as a kind of deep purpose in life. Modern western females are the most spoiled, pampered, privileged class of human being to walk this planet, yet they nevertheless blame men (especially white ones) for any dissatisfaction they still feel, and they feel plenty—more in fact than did their grandmothers 70 years ago. Even if such a woman decides, after years of so-called empowerment, that she really does want to settle down with a man and have a family with him, old habits—of sluttiness as well as anything else—die hard, and she’s probably been around the block too many times to manage such a virtue as fidelity. It makes her more of a basket case too.
Women are not entirely to blame for this mess. The predominant social paradigm of the new left—known as social justice, progressivism, cultural Marxism, intersectionality, emancipatory politics, etc.—was designed in large part to destabilize western civilization for the sake of rebuilding it later, which includes destabilizing male/female relationships and the nuclear family. Western women have been conditioned to believe that bearing and raising children, being mothers, is somehow degrading; it is supposedly much better, and more “feminine,” somehow, to imitate men. Being a mother, especially a good one, is possibly the most important job a person could have, but the neo-Marxists decree otherwise, and they are profoundly influencing the culture’s world view nowadays, including of course the beliefs and attitudes of young women. Other factors also contribute to negative population growth among westerners, including general moral decline and hedonism, causing young people to postpone settling down, or to avoid it altogether as a troublesome inconvenience. Also there is the burden of student loan debts causing young people to postpone marriage, and thus to have fewer children. Many others in the west are reluctant to have children because they are pessimistic about what the future will bring—possibly nuclear war, possibly a ruined environment, possibly grinding overpopulation, and possibly even a west in which whites are a persecuted minority in their own homeland. With regard to such worries I would point out that it’s mainly the people most concerned with such dangers that are disappearing through lack of fertility; the people who don’t give a damn about saving the environment may someday be the only ones left. Then there’s the situation of millennial men being less masculine, and less inclined to “be the man” inside a relationship or anywhere else. It’s not all women’s fault, certainly, although the fact remains that marriage has become a very risky raw deal for western men. It would seem to be worth the risk mainly just for guys totally addicted to female flesh, or strongly driven to have a family and children, or just fortunate enough to find a really good woman.
So, what is a reasonable course of action to take with regard to this existential dilemma which confronts western civilization? What will prevent the European race from dying out, and civilization from going to hell in the proverbial hand basket? Should western men accept the high risks involved in marriage, for the sake of the race? Should they become more r-selective, using biological jargon, and just inseminate as many women as possible, without bothering with responsibility towards their own offspring? Should they just shrug their shoulders and say “The future of my race is not my problem”?
Although from the aforementioned perspective of ruthless Buddhist ethics the solution is straightforward, I consider this to be a real moral dilemma. I for one do not want western civilization to collapse, and the brown- and black-skinned people poised to replace the Europeans are very unlikely to have the cognitive skills, or the cultural roots, to maintain the miracle created and maintained for millennia by white men—they certainly have done a piss poor job of it in the countries from which they are fleeing. I also do not want my own ethnicity to become extinct any sooner than necessary. The white race is an excellent race, with more accomplishments to be proud of than the relatively low-IQ, high-fecundity “barbarians” who are threatening to replace them.
One obvious solution to the dilemma, for those men who aren’t inclined to be celibate, is to mate with a conservative girl. Church-going Christian girls are probably much less of a risk to a man’s well-being, and the same goes for eastern European girls in general. I think there would be plenty of young Russian, Ukrainian, and Polish women, for example, who would be very glad to have an American guy wanting to marry and start a family with them. And not all Slavic women fit the stereotype of having pasty white skin, thick ankles, and a nose like a potato.
Another option is to marry an East Asian girl. Although a purist might object to creating “mud bloods,” East Asians are not so different genetically from whites, and the women are MUCH better behaved on average—they tend to be more modest, virtuous, faithful, and maybe even obedient, which can be a real blessing to a man wanting a family. And some East Asian women are really lovely.
One possibility that could be feasible in the near future, as it would be politically correct to please Muslims, would be to legalize polygamy. This way a relatively small number of rich chads could keep the race going while inferior beta types masturbate to pornography or resort to sex robots or each other. This would actually be more eugenic than the prevailing system in the west; and many species of animal have evolved this type of mating strategy, especially among us mammals. Some of our closest primate relatives have social systems in which alpha males keep harems of females. A lot of women would go for it too—it’s female human nature to prefer being the fifth junior wife of a rock star than to be the one and only true love of Homer Simpson.
As the saying goes, hope is not a strategy; still, it does look like the white race is heading towards a crucible of sorts, complete with a purificatory fire of interracial struggle and probable civil wars, especially in the homeland of Europe itself. With almost every democratic election in the west, the European race is swerving towards the political right and nationalism in reaction to cultural Marxism, unrestrained immigration amounting to invasion, and Islam, among other things. Thus more women in the near future are likely to be conservative and non-feministic, and willing to be genuinely feminine, preferring motherhood and family life to being a sexually promiscuous careerist and feminist. After that happens, birth rates will go up, and society will regain some stability and equilibrium. That does appear to be the European race’s best chance at survival at this point. Already studies have shown that conservative women in the west have around 30% more children than liberal ones—postmodern ultraliberalism is an evolutionary dead end.
I may as well add that in addition to appearing as an ethno-nationalist white supremacist (which really I am not), I may also appear as an outrageous hypocrite, considering that I have been physically celibate and essentially MGTOW for most of my life, and have fathered a total of zero children, white or otherwise. If I knew then what I know now, then there’s a good chance that I would have followed a more traditionally western path in life, including having a family…although the reason why I know what I know now is because I did what I did in the first place. (In other words, I know what I know now because I’ve lived the life of a celibate monk, and I have no regrets with regard to that.) I know that this universe is an infinite sea of suffering, and that family life can be a mess, full of attachments and worries and stress, and it can be a great sacrifice, but it is necessary after all in order to sustain the race, and the species. Also, family life is the closest that the ordinary person comes to experiencing real, genuine love, and that’s the only thing that makes life worth living.
This is the question
Children—(if it Please God)—Constant companion (& friend in old age) who will feel interested in one—object to be beloved and played with—better than a dog anyhow. Home, & someone to take care of house—Charms of music and female chit-chat.—These things good for one’s health.—but terrible loss of time.—
My God, it is Intolerable to think of spending ones whole life, like a neuter bee, working, working—& nothing after all.—No, no, won’t do. Imagine living all one’s day solitary in smoky dirty London House.—Only picture to yourself a nice soft wife on a sofa with good fire, & books & music perhaps-—Compare this vision with the dingy reality of Grt. Marlbro’ Street.
Freedom to go where one liked—choice of Society and little of it. —Conversation of clever men at clubs—Not forced to visit relatives, & to bend in every trifle. —to have the expense and anxiety of children—perhaps quarreling—Loss of time. —cannot read in the Evenings—fatness & idleness—Anxiety & responsibility—less money for books &c—if many children forced to gain one’s bread. —(but then it is very bad for ones health to work too much)
Perhaps my wife won’t like London; then the sentence is banishment & degradation into indolent, idle fool.
It being proved necessary to Marry When? Soon or late?
—from the diary of a young Charles Darwin