MGTOW, incel, supremacists and others: the roots.

The post I wrote about MGTOW men sparked some interest, judging from the readings. In this case, however, it is better to clarify that this is the tip of a kind of cultural block that is spreading in the USA, starting with some specific authors who are influencing Americans with their books, sometimes real and own best-sellers.

We must first understand the class problem that gender claims have. If we take for example the Italian elites (but it also applies to other countries, this is my blog in Italian) we discover that they are actually dominated by men. We therefore speak of male privilege, but one thing is forgotten: choosing the elite is a form of cherry picking , that is, the data that are convenient have been specifically chosen.

If we look at the data of the economic elites, we find that men have an advantage, and with this cunning it is said that there is a gender gap in favor of men at work. But if we broaden the database to ALL Italians, we discover that out of the ~ 1000 deaths at work that occur every year, about 95% (variable percentage year by year around 95%) are males. With such a statistic, is it still possible to say that there is a gender gap that is favorable to men?

And here is the problem: all gender claims always and in any case measure the state of elite social groups, but broadening the gaze to the whole society reveals different things. That men get harsher sentences for the same crime, that men get help less easily from social services, that they get punished more in divorce cases for infidelity, and so on.

This submerged part of society, neglected due to politically correct cherrypicking, obviously went into fibrillation. And as if that weren't enough, since they are muted, the silent anger increases the spreading effect of such ideas.

Not in Italy, but certainly in the USA. A culture has been born, which spreads quite quickly (even if Trump loses the next presidential elections, his electoral base will not disappear), which deals with male identity claims (I define them as such) starting from some needs, which are read as a-moral, ie the need for a group to identify with, and others.

To understand what is leading to the uprising of these groups based on male identity I recommend reading an author who has summarized and listed very well the winning instances of the submerged male world.

The author is called Jack Donovan, and he is the author of a series of books that have become real best-sellers of the submerged man-o-sphere. His first book made him famous, and then others followed, such as "Become a Barbarian", "Blood Blotherhood", "A More complete beast", "Androphilia", "A Sky without eagles" (this has little to to do with others, to be honest).

The author is very good at identifying, one by one, all the unsatisfied social needs of the modern male, and in demonstrating how his surrogates (the company instead of the herd, competition instead of brotherhood, etc.) are palliatives that only worsen the situation.

Although it is often noted that the author is anti-feminist, the problem is that this is not his purpose, because the books are ALL focused on the psychological needs of the male, to the point that there are some points, in Blood Brotherhood, that they are completely incomprehensible to a woman.

These books are not a political manifesto (the author never talks about politics, religion or morality) and they are limited to being a rather effective analysis of modern male malaise, and to propose the solution starting from the shortcomings of today's society. The author focuses on noting that:

• the male needs X
• in modern society X is absent.
• this produces malaise and anger
• you have to get X

All this is seasoned with that fascination that Americans have for Red Indians, a fascination that leads them to imagine EVERY primitive as a Red Indian, whether it is Viking, Siberian or Etruscan.

The content of this culture is present (and recognizable) in virtually every aspect of modern right-wing American culture. It brings together the Proud Boys, the white supremacists, the bugaloo men, the American fascists, and reaches the Incels, and thus the vast majority of MGTOWs.

(we leave out the Italian ones, who are pathetic and have not understood the point of what happens in the USA).

Everything comes from this movement, and you can also find it described by "feminists" who go to meet "the enemy":

It is not possible to understand any of the movements mentioned (Alt-Right, MGTOW, white suprematism, bungaloo, and other American analogues) if you do not read this author (or many of his analogues, although I believe that Donovan has the best relationship between quantity of books and clarity of the message: in short, you can read many others and understand the same, but if you read Donovan it takes less time, because it is more rational).

The first question that arises, however, is "why does the search for male identity end up creating armed and fascist groups"? The answer seems simple enough: it doesn't by itself.

Initially these movements had nothing political or "dextroid", and only aimed to organize camps for men only, where they could discuss their problems, socialize and look for friends. What actually happened: what happened was that (naively) these dates were publicly advertised, and ended badly due to a crowd of left-wing extremists, feminists and everything Trump calls "antifa". It happened around the beginning of the 2000s.

Since then these events have been held in secret, but nothing like the culture of "we gather in secret because we are persecuted" produces a group of fanatics. Of course, from the point of view of the organizers it was a success , because nothing like a group of males who feel they are victims of persecution ends up making square . The organizers, that is, immediately noticed that NOT giving publicity to the thing and the catacomb effect not only did not make things more difficult, but made the tribal and identity effect that was wanted to be obtained faster.

The less moderate groups, that is, took over because they first achieved that "blood brotherhood" that the other males of the moderate groups were also looking for. The moderate groups therefore lost their grip almost immediately, both because when they tried to meet they were opposed by the usual "counter-demonstration" that ended in complete devastation, and because the groups that had adhered to security protocols (camping in remote places, secrecy, etc.) seemed to more easily satisfy one of the male psychological needs, that is to be part of a herd they could rely on .

The second question is: how do you get to fascism?

The answer is: you can't get there. None of these groups have a fascist political agenda, because none have a political agenda . Their agenda is not political but identity, and their political preference is not due to the fact that they are attracted to the right, rather it derives from the fact that they are rejected by the left . They are two different things.

Initially these groups came together to discuss the huge suicide rate (the vast majority are men), the sense of failure for those who were not yet a billionaire, the sentences that are harder when the defendant is a man, which are social issues. The fact that the left branded them right away caused them to shift towards a social right: if you read their identitarian discourse, they continually refer to a cohesive community , which is the opposite of the competitive individualism of the American right. "Classic".

But it was very convenient to brand them as fascists, for the first 5 years after 2000, to exclude them from the political debate. In this way, however, TWO explosive ingredients were put together.

• we are persecuted and we must meet in secret, therefore we can and must trust each other, because everyone's safety depends on who we have next to us.

• we are shut up, no one will listen to us if we speak, so they will listen to us when we act.

Obviously this only led to a further stiffening, and to a crystallization of the groups into an unexpressed anger.

In fact, most of the claims revolve around the male need for a bunch of siblings in which to find their social identity. This claim is based on the fact that it was initially recognized as a need: the problem is that any Western political scientist classifies this need as "fascism", with the result that all these movements have suffered a real pygmalion effect (on the contrary) towards the far right.

These groups, that is, behave as individuals within the pack do: the moment YOUR pack calls you "tom", you ARE "tom" . And so, if all American society calls you a "fascist", you ARE a "fascist".

If we want to understand ALL the male movements that arise in the USA today, then, I suggest you read all of Donovan's work. It will be able to make you understand more about films such as Fight Club, the various bungaloos, the white supremacists, and many other groups that, in increasing numbers, are spreading in the so-called American “man-o-sphere”.