317
318
319

CultureThe Welfare State the root enabler of the rampant sexual degeneracy of western society. (self.TheRedPill)

submitted by aegir98

The Welfare State & government policies that favor women through involuntary taxation of men is the root enabler of the high promiscuity among the modern western woman.

When the State takes care of women's need for financial stability & security, through the taxation of stable & secure men, women are free to indulge in their darwinian alpha fucks desires.

Prior to these male-exploiting government policies, women had to be more chaste. In a state of freedom, women have to be more chaste. Because they know, that a man is the sole protector and provider when they're disabled being pregnant and or breastfeeding. That no man is gonna want to commit, or have kids, with a courtesan who cant cross her legs. Let alone pour recourses into kids that might not be his own.

Women have evolved to choose good, stable "beta" providers. Because throughout human history, there has never been a welfare state to save them from their bad sexual desicions.

So today, in western society, we have a situation where the stable, secure betas are tax slaves for women and the state. So that Women in their prime fertility years can ride the cock carousel with the top 20% of men, only to then turn 29 about to hit the wall they and sadly settle with some boring beta provider.

This is unsustainable. And most importantly, completely immoral, mainly because it relies upon the involuntary taxation of hard working (usually) betas. Betas are gradually waking up to this scam. Hence the rise of mgtow and incels for example.

We innately know society is degenerating because of this. Hence the quote; "enjoy the decline".

What do you think about this? Sure, fucking a lot of women or men is a fun novelty. But it's not what builds societies & civilizations. The third party called "The State" distorts sexual relations in society for the worse.

I know TRP is amoral sexual strategy, but im sure many of you long for the strong sexual bonds and relationships people had prior to the sexual revolution. A nuclear family.

Casual sex gets tiring for men, and leaves womens ability to bond with a man destroyed. They get their infamous thousand cock stare. Its unsettling.

Remove the forced transfers of money through the state, and a natural, stable order between the sexes will occour. If not, we will continue to destroy the fabric of civilized society, which is the nuclear family. We will "enjoy the decline", live out our nihilstic hedonism, and leave future generations to deal with the consequenses of our selfish desires.


[–]TheRedPillMonkey 365 points366 points  (109 children)

Lots of men fucked lots of women well before your mom fucked your dad. In all societies, all over time.

If you think that the cock carousel exists because of taxes, you're insane. That's some real blue pill bull shit right there trying to take the responsibility of ones choices away from women. Do you even know what the state pays for?

Also, how are beta men the tax payers here? Lots of tax paying alphas out there.

Or are you saying beta men marrying women are paying the real tax? If so, how the fuck does that relate to actual government taxes?

[–]mytrillosophy 179 points180 points  (17 children)

Half the people here believe being alpha is like having anti social personality disorder where you live on the edge and act like a caveman and don’t work

[–]CMajorThe3rd 43 points44 points  (14 children)

Haha yeah that or just being a 24/7 dick head who's generally unpleasant to be around.

[–]Xombieshovel 42 points43 points  (13 children)

The old timers around here will remember when this community was more concerned with self-improvement and the internalities of being a man. It was about being the best person you could be, to all the people you could be, most importantly towards yourself.

These days it's shitty articles and whiny bullcrap about some terrible thing that some woman far away did to some man, not one of which you will ever know in a situation that you're unlikely to ever personally encounter.

Enough of that and it's no wonder how we went from "You can work out to help your confidence levels" to the OP. The word "Alpha" wasn't even a thing when I first started coming here.

This used to be a pro-men place. Now it's just anti-everything-else.

[–]Seoul_Brother 7 points8 points  (1 child)

I’ve found myself writing up a reply or comment after not having been on sub for months, only to erase it and not bother. Your comment and the ones above it are literally my thoughts exactly. TRP has become a safe haven for degenerates to spout shit online about hating this and shitting on that and barely anything about self internalization. Maybe one good post here or there, but that’s also why I don’t frequent anymore. The sidebar is enough, the gilded posts are enough.

[–]barb9212 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Exactly my thoughts too. I hate censorship but the mods have to remove some of these posts or at least put a comment with the disclaimer *This is not TRP principles*

[–]noodlyjames 9 points10 points  (5 children)

Yeah, I hardly bother to show up anymore. This sub has turned into a joke, full of victims. No one cares about making themselves better.

[–]Xombieshovel 12 points13 points  (4 children)

Victims is a good way to put it. There's no personal responsibility here anymore. Just a bunch of angry men looking for someone to blame for their problems so they latch onto health insurance covering birth control or somebody else's messy divorce a thousand miles away.

"My life is so terrible because women (and the welfare state per OP)!"

What happened to finding your center of happiness? Finding your own place of strength? Being a man, to me, always meant standing strong in the face of adversity - avoiding the easy pitfalls of misogyny, racism, and hate; but that's all I see here these days, weak men who chose what's easy, instead of what's hard, asking what you can do to improve your life.

[–]noodlyjames 2 points3 points  (2 children)

And you hit the nail on the head...it’s turned into a bunch of racist incel misogynists.

[–]barb9212 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Honestly I have noticed how this sub has changed ever since the incel reddit got shutdown. Men blaming everything in world for there problems, What ever happened to " Don't wish it was easier, wish you were better". A lot of subcribers need to read the sidebar and the reading list before they go on some nonsensical rant.

[–]alvichm 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Where did they go? the legitimate self improvement community?

[–]ollie555 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Too many blue pillers wanting reassurance that their girl isn’t cheating

[–]Skyhawk_And_Skyhead 11 points12 points  (0 children)

I'm going to teach everyone to be alpha without so much as having heard of the sidebar

[–]Senior Endorsed ContributorCopperFox3c 76 points77 points  (29 children)

This is the correct response, but I'm gone add a little bit.

Yes women will always advocate for more wealth redistribution. They have done so repeatedly through history, through cultures, through civilizations. Hell even female chimpanzees do it through social persuasion. Sometimes they will fuck around more too to get male resources. It is human nature for women to act this way.

So it doesn't matter if it's the government, or the welfare state, or social persuasion, or whatever. The problem OP has is he is trying to fight human nature. The whole point of TRP is to accept reality for what it is, not demand it be what you wish it should be. There are no shoulds here. The real question for a TRP man is how to effectively navigate his environment, not bitch and moan.

Those who see reality for what it is, can bend it to their will … those who see only illusion, are bent to its will.

[–]Luckyluke23 13 points14 points  (3 children)

of come to realise a lot of stuff in TRP just is. like a square metal cube. it's just sit there does it's thing and thats that.

trying to move it or bend it into a perfect circle will not work. all atempts at it will be futile.

[–]Endorsed ContributorHeathcliff-- 27 points28 points  (18 children)

But what he's arguing is that there won't be a society in the next century if all we do is "learn to navigate" the current one and "enjoy the decline".

There won't be anywhere for your progeny to live healthy and happy lives: you'll have female daughters and granddaughters who become depressed and damaged whores before 16; have sons and grandsons who are video game playing wageslaves that choose to literally castrate themselves. Or it could end up a communist/fascist dystopia. Who knows; but if we allow it to continue degenerating as it is now, and just enjoy ourselves like hedonists fucking all the women and and creating no meaning... there won't be a future.

It's not enough to "just accept" it. Men in all of history have learnt how to exert their will to try and fix, purify and idealise the societies they are in. Why accept playing the game at it's base rules, when a better, "more fair" game can be overplayed on top?

"You can't change it" is the claim, "women will be women in any society".

This is true. But don't pretend like women can't be controlled and their base instincts can't be kept in check through societal measures like shaming, ostracism and even violence. It's not impossible to do, we did it for thousands of years, the muslims are doing it now, the hindus are still doing it; the game can be changed.

If all the asian women in the world had it their way, they would all marry a white man and the asian race would die off within a generation. Is it enough to just "accept" this for the asian men?

Women are too important to be allowed to have sexual freedom; they have the breeding machinery and dictate the eugenic course of our species. They cannot be allowed to damage our genetic stock or kill off their races through their rampant solipsism and disloyalty. Men can, have done and need to control the sexual selection process.

Why play the base animal, chimpanzee rules of the sexual marketplace? Surely we have transcended beyond that. Civilization, society, consciousness is built on overriding our base urges and archetypes and creating our own, dictating our own rules for reality.

The whole point of TRP is to accept reality for what it is, not demand it be what you wish it should be. There are no shoulds here.

There always should be "shoulds". Transcendence and perfection is what makes us men, what makes us human. Doesn't matter what your should is; but there should be a "should", we all have "shoulds". The best men can make their "shoulds" into realities (with the help of the men who agree on the "shoulds").

Those who see reality for what it is, can bend it to their will … those who see only illusion, are bent to its will.

Then bend it. Don't just accept it.

[–]Senior Endorsed ContributorCopperFox3c 10 points11 points  (1 child)

If you want to move a lot of water, like a river, somewhere else, the best way to do so is to channel it, to use its own nature and momentum against it. Like Aikido or Judo. Fighting against the tide is not the smartest tactic.

I think /u/JamesSkepp and/u/KeffirLime are making similar points.

[–]Sexquestionhelp22 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Exactly, and government decisions have real impact on decisions that women (and men) make. Imagine if the government said that it would pay single mothers a $10,000 a month. You would see a hell of a lot more single mothers! This same effect happens with even hundreds of dollars - exact same economic effect on a micro-scale. FYI - you can measure increases in single motherhood across many countries due to these types of programs

[–]Endorsed ContributorKeffirLime 7 points8 points  (8 children)

But what he's arguing is that there won't be a society in the next century if all we do is "learn to navigate" the current one and "enjoy the decline".

It's seriously uncharted waters we're heading into, and I think there is a couple ways to view it.

Enjoy the decline is misused in my view, I see it more as "navigate the changes effectively", on an individal level. Every generation seems to think the new (different) world is a decline. However, change is constant, we only see it as decline because we're not as equipped to handle it as we were to handle our time.

We're in the most peaceful, healthy time in our history. Happiness levels is where our challenge lies.

We can't go back to the old rules because the game has changed. To add onto this contraceptives has completely blown biology out of the water and with it the sexual market changes.

Marriage/societal pressure ware held together by faith. The only thing that inhibits sexual desires is the threat of my livelihood, which is what faith did so effectively. Faith or at least how close we live to scripture is fading more and more. Essentially we would need something that we truly believe endangers our well being to operate on marriages principles.

If we're looking for a direction to continue civil society there's many factors we need to look at. Logically we look at what brings us happiness, what brings down suffering and direct human behavior in that direction. Further on from this is to shame behaviors that damages happiness and increases suffering and we can only do that by voting with our dicks and wallets.

What men allow, women will follow. If we stop procreating, dating and marrying sluts perhaps that would inhibit their sexual nature somewhat, however I doubt it would happen because the betas would have to be on board and that means giving up their only source of pussy.

Perhaps the Alpha fucks Beta bucks model will settle in a few generations. Happy Alphas who get to fuck and choose the women they want. And Happy betas who get to settle(and fuck(for procreation)) the post wall ones passed up by the alphas. I think biology latches on to what system allows the most successful passing of genetic material.

The challenge society currently is that it's not directed by happiness and fulfillment, it is directed by profit. The agenda that get's pushed is the agenda that generates $$.

Or perhaps we should come to terms that life has the propensity to be finite and maybe humans can't possibly be here till end of time. We're all individuals that make up the whole and perhaps driving each of us to enjoy that individualism(that makes up the whole) to the max is best. We each play our part and if we die out at some point then so be it, the next phase goes on without us. We try so hard to hold on to life, yet change is the only constant who's to say the fate of human's isn't the same.

It's an interesting topic and the course of action(depending on our end goal) is certainly up for debate. Perhaps the world is so different 10 years from now and we have to entirely re engineer our goals once again. I think navigating the market as effectively as possible will always be relevant though.

[–]3LiveAFTSOV 3 points4 points  (0 children)

The challenge society currently is that it's not directed by happiness and fulfillment, it is directed by profit. The agenda that get's pushed is the agenda that generates $$.

Happiness is a choice. Freedom and fulfillment, however, that is definitely lacking.

[–]j_arbuckle2012 5 points6 points  (6 children)

This stinks of defeatism.

The truest words in that post are "what men allow, women will will follow."

The rest is just a giant hamster on your own nihilism.

The SMP has always been unbalanced. Women have way more "worth" than men. The problem now is they also have massive safety nets to save them from their own bad decision making. A simple return to equity in this regard would more than likely kill much of the doom n gloom we see here. Take away welfare, birth control, and hiring quotas. What happens?

[–]Endorsed ContributorKeffirLime 5 points6 points  (5 children)

This stinks of defeatism.

I don't think understanding that there is challenges(and uncertainty) that face us and managing expectations accordingly qualifies as defeatism.

Women have way more "worth" than men

Men have engineered their own worthlessness. At the end of the day we will always need each other to keep this ship sailing. As a top 20% man you have plenty worth and can direct society/women's beavior accordingly.

Take away welfare, birth control

Logically, how would you do this?

Cant just put the genie back in the bottle, not to mention the birth control is a for profit tool.

In an increasingly automated world taking away welfare would lead to widespread poverty. An impoverished, desperate society is not exactly the path to peace and prosperity.

On top of that calculate how many women are actually surviving on welfare? You really gonna blame that for a womens hypergamy?

[–]Endorsed ContributorJamesSkepp 5 points6 points  (2 children)

you'll have female daughters and granddaughters who become depressed and damaged whores before 16; have sons and grandsons who are video game playing wageslaves that choose to literally castrate themselves.

That's on the parents, not society. Half of TRP is here b/c of we had beta fathers or no fathers at all. IOW since it's your child you're responsible for it. Since it's you who doesn't want your daughter to become underage whore it's YOUR responsibility to raise her in certain way. If I have a dog and it barks too much, who's fault is that, other barking dogs or mine?

Or it could end up a communist/fascist dystopia.

Or we could end up in no dystopia at all.

there won't be a future.

Not exactly like that. More along the lines of: there won't be a future WE would like to see. Since it's hard to predict, we default to what we think is best b/c it was good for us. Do you think a 16th century French aristocrat would condemn or condone our 21st century future? For him, this future is bad b/c there is no aristocracy anymore.

It's not impossible to do, we did it for thousands of years, the muslims are doing it now, the hindus are still doing it; the game can be changed.

You can't have pluralistic society, in which you are free to have any opinion you want without letting all of the people make individual choices. Let's do a hard patriarchy society for example. The next (sooner or later) thing that's going to follow is YOUR rights b/c once you take away the women's voices, you also have to take away men's voices who agree with women. Then you have to take the voices of men who agree that the men supporting women have the right to an opinion. And so forth.

Historically, you can't deny people the right to speak without going into downward spiral and ending up with totalitarian regime (can be secular or religious, no difference there). If that's the case, the why don't we just implement a regime of our own, in which we, from the get go, forbid to have a dissenting opinion at all.

Now, here's the plot twist: what I described is actually already happening - to us and I just copy/pasted (to the best of my logical ability) typical alt-right's and anti-PC's and conservative's arguments that describe how they are being censored by left and MSM, more and more so. Fun times huh?

Women are too important to be allowed to have sexual freedom

If you take away women's sexual freedom, we don't need TRP, we don't need to be alpha, we don't need to lift, read, game, work, in fact we don't need to do ANYTHING other than forcing women to fuck us.

Another thing, it's not sexual freedom of people, it's how society was built upon relying on it and now it can't handle the dissonance between keeping that sexual base and the distance between that and technological progress we are making.

They cannot be allowed to damage our genetic stock

Irrelevant in next few decades, perhaps even sooner. There'll be an app for that too. No joke.

or kill off their races through their rampant solipsism and disloyalty

Right, so women choosing the African or Middle East immigrant over European white guy is to be blamed here. Not the European white guy for not being better than the African guy. IOW, it's the woman's fault for choosing the shithole born, raised, malnutricioned, no education, no skills, no deeper understanding, no gameplan dude over the Westerner who had AMPLE opportunities and resources to become the alpha she would go for? Funny how in the next paragraph you talk about what men "should" be.

[–]Sexquestionhelp22 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The very fact that we have online communities like this, or really an internet at all, could surely be viewed as either utopian or dystopian by standards of previous societies. I don't believe that discussing utopia or dystopia is particularly useful, because these words imply that some outcomes are objectively good and other outcomes are objectively bad. In reality, there is no good. There is no bad. There just is. We are in uncharted territory here, and the world is accelerating and breakneck pace. Traditional families are breaking down and it's not clear what will be the result.

[–]3itiswr1tten 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The world is not getting worse. Everyone's information stream just improved so fast we're still processing. Ignorance was a really nice condition, but it's no longer the case.

[–]3LiveAFTSOV 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is true. But don't pretend like women can't be controlled and their base instincts can't be kept in check through societal measures like shaming, ostracism and even violence. It's not impossible to do, we did it for thousands of years, the muslims are doing it now, the hindus are still doing it; the game can be changed.

You've explained what I've been trying to say for months now. i'm glad someone one out there understands it.

Why play the base animal, chimpanzee rules of the sexual marketplace? Surely we have transcended beyond that. Civilization, society, consciousness is built on overriding our base urges and archetypes and creating our own, dictating our own rules for reality.

Starting to sound like new-age awakening and I believe that leads to the likes of trans-genders and fluid genders and all those other types.

Men can, have done and need to control the sexual selection process.

Everything is always about control. I value freedom above everything - wouldn't a women build resentment because of this control, leading to an implosion like the recent sexual revolution?

[–]xrorox_rp 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Sexual degenaracy destroying civilisations is just a myth. Or at least, it is too slow to destroy civilisations before other systemic problems do the job.

What's important is the ability to raise healthy children. Marriage is a broken thing that should be destroyed. Nothing stop you from keeping children and romantic love (or plates) apart.

That's the fucking issue with modern marriage. And that's also probably why we see a rise in co-parents. That could be a RedPill adaptation, as long as you are absolutely certain that the children are yours. The best case scenario would be co-parenting with a couple of lesbians.

[–]187oddfuture 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Or just take the vote from them and we solve all of these problems.

[–]BoilingBleach 3 points4 points  (0 children)

This looks a bit too Peterson for my taste.

He needs to make that redistribution argument to justify the Marxist tone of Feminism, not sure I agree.

In fact Marxism as wring as it obviously is at least realizes there is a hidden layer of social norms preventing the true expression of mankind.

I that sense maybe we are Marxist? (JK)

Anyway I see woman pretty feral with other women about their kids and their alphas, and many men with passion for sharing what they know through stories and what not. So smells like shit to me

[–]BackandStronger 2 points3 points  (1 child)

"Yes women will always advocate for more wealth redistribution. They have done so repeatedly through history, through cultures, through civilizations. Hell even female chimpanzees do it through social persuasion. Sometimes they will fuck around more too to get male resources. It is human nature for women to act this way."

Any source material on this? Thanks bro

[–]Senior Endorsed ContributorCopperFox3c 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Not gonna do your google searching for you, but a couple examples: look at the later era of the Roman empire after Julius Caesar and women advocating for changes to property law and divorce.

For chimps, you can look up the work of Frans de Waal for starters, e.g. his book Chimpanzee Politics: Power and Sex among Apes.

[–]3LiveAFTSOV 0 points1 point  (0 children)

what aspect of nature is OP fighting against? Women's natural advocation of wealth redistribution ?

[–]Fryborg 44 points45 points  (13 children)

He said the cock carousel behavior is enabled by taxes that get spent on welfare for single mothers. And he's right. The hypergamy instinct doesn't go away when you remove welfare, but the opportunities to put it to good use will be few and far between when one misstep consigns you to a life of poverty and misery.

Beta males pay the lions share of taxes in the male population. remember the 80/20 rule? Men pay the most taxes in general, and 1 in 5 of them are beta males. do the math. *) percent of man in western society are literally being cucked.

I'm obviously not OP, but it isn't bluepill to point out the contributing environmental factors that bring out hypergamy. I don't know why you think it would be useful to try and heap any of the responsibility for this on women anyway. they aren't having it. It really is just a matter of cause and effect.

Satisfy the beta need with the state and the only guys getting laid will be alpha's. Anyone who has read the sidebar should be picking this up easily.

[–]TheRedPillMonkey 3 points4 points  (1 child)

I'm obviously not OP, but it isn't bluepill to point out the contributing environmental factors that bring out hypergamy.

No, it's blue pill to think their are contributing factors period. Hypergamy occurs naturally in women in the same way a sex drive occurs naturally in men. We'll always want to fuck light and tight 22 year olds regardless of our age, in the same way women always want the highest smv male they can find. Society or the government doesn't dictate, control, contribute, or influence that.

The government mandates seatbelts and airbags. Do you drive more recklessly because of it? Most countries have free healthcare. Do people engage in more high risk behaviour because of it? Women having access to abortion doesn't mean they want abortions. It's a pretty massive thing on their body, and them mentally. They all know it and they're not banging more dudes cuz "oh well abortion" in the same way I'm not driving recklessly because "oh well airbags".

Also, this is TRP. You really think anybody here thinks women don't mind having kids because the government will pay for them? This is the land of the divorce raped. How many guys here aren't paying child support because the government is? None. How many have exes getting money from the government? None.

The truth is the government doesn't do a shit load for single mom's. Thats because the baby dad is footing the bill. The only role the government plays is allowing the men to pay more support than the mom.

[–]SasquatchMcKraken 8 points9 points  (10 children)

The welfare state doesn't enable hypergamy. Hypergamy can only be stopped by societal and legal pressures to limit branch swinging. You could take away the welfare state tomorrow and still not change the SMP. You'll still have the loose divorce laws, the technology-enabled thirst-fest, things like the pill (don't have to worry about pregnancy), and an anti-masculine feminist movement. I don't know where people get this notion that single mothers on food stamps are driving the current trends. Also, 80/20 is an attractiveness scale, not an Alpha/Beta scale (not the same thing). And I don't know where your tax contributions even remotely tie in to whether or not you're blue pill in your dealings with women. That is a fucked correlation. You might as well say introverts or people with brown hair pay most of the taxes; it'd be just as irrelevant.

[–]lala_xyyz 15 points16 points  (4 children)

The welfare state doesn't enable hypergamy.

Yes it does. The poorer the country the less "open hypergamy" there is.

[–]plenty_of_eesh 4 points5 points  (1 child)

I'm not sure this is true. Have you lived in a poor country? Maybe there are more consequences for sex but in my experience women still fuck whom they feel like and she (and her family, and the the community) simply live with the consequences: unwanted pregnancy, single motherhood...

I'd say that some cultures/religions reduce that via mate-guarding violence (Islam) but it's not about GDP.

[–]Endorsed ContributorHeathcliff-- 8 points9 points  (1 child)

In my country, an abortion is free, especially for teenage girls.

Having this backup option in case she gets pregnant, a woman is able to to be more risky in her sexual choices. She knows that if she fucks around and gets hit with a pregnancy, she can just terminate it.

If this option was taken away from her, for example abortions were banned, or were very steeply costed; she would think twice before fucking that guy condomless, or at all.

And even if she doesn't have the abortion, she knows she will be able to raise the kid easily herself with government financial support. If there was no government support, she would have to give up her life to raise the kid or watch it starve to death.

All these things contribute to her being more openly promiscuous and hypergamous. The welfare state softens the consequences of the bad side of hypergamy, it reduces the risk.

This enables and encourages it.

[–]Turkerthelurker 1 point2 points  (1 child)

The welfare state doesn't enable hypergamy.

Women only branch swing (ie Hypergamy) when they firmly have their hand on the next branch, and can reasonably risk switching partners. The welfare state reduces the risk of a failed branch swing, making it more likely. And that's just welfare. Alimony and child support work in the same detrimental way.

[–]1Zanford 10 points11 points  (0 children)

The welfare state amplifies these things. The CC existed before, sure, but not at the same amplitude in every place and time.

[–]CongenialYi 13 points14 points  (0 children)

You're really good at seeming really smart and critical but ur clearly a moron Where did he say that the cock carousel exists BECAUSE of Taxes? Where did he say that Beta men are the ONLY tax payers?

Maybe if u learnt to fucking read you would be able to understand what hes saying, instead of just instantly disregarding his points due to ur autism.

[–]lastdumra 5 points6 points  (3 children)

It is a matter of degree. Women were more careful and discreet with their impulses when there was no daddy government. He has a point.

[–]BoilingBleach 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Thanks for saying this, is so annoying to see blue pills trying to weaponize TRP for right wing agenda.

I you want to give Trump or any politician head you can do it without this community

[–]SasquatchMcKraken 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah I'm always skeptical of trying to wed tax policy with sexual strategy. Divorce laws and our degenerate hookup culture have nothing to do with how much the state gives you when you're unemployed. Conservatives won that argument decades ago with welfare reform (just in case you think welfare is bad now). Hence why the Left has switched to SJWism.

[–]xddm2653 5 points6 points  (31 children)

State pays for abortions and all kinds of birth control. Allowing women to fuck with no consequence at the cost of tax-payers

*Downvotes and no response?

[–]TRP Legal ExpertColdIceZero 14 points15 points  (29 children)

Ok, I'll bite. What's the cost of an abortion (both for the taxpayer and for the patient)? Next, assuming we stop contributing to abortions, what's the cost of the state providing resources to support an unwanted child for the rest of its life?

The biggest RP truth is that women are going to have sex. If you think women are stupid for doing this, then you miss the point of TRP.

TRP isn't about being angry about your cat knocking shit off your counter tops; TRP is about realizing that it's in a cat's nature to knock shit off the counter tops and then adjust your expectations accordingly.

Similarly, thinking "women who behave like stupid whores deserve to be punished" is a beta mindset, judging women according to beta values that women should behave differently than their nature.

So women are going to have sex. That isn't going to change.

And sometimes, women are going to get pregnant. That isn't going to change either.

So we can spend resources to prevent pregnancies through birth control and sex education, and we can subsidize abortion for women who aren't prepared to support a child.

The alternative is to allow children to be born into a world where their parents don't always have the resources to support them. Then, society is on the hook for supporting that child.

Now which option do you think is the lesser expense?

And for you unempathetic savages who are thinking "fuck that, my taxes shouldn't go to support either option," go spend 35 seconds on Google researching "income inequality and crime" and "crime and social stability." These kids don't just conveniently disappear.

Some ppl want all of the benefits of living in a safe and stable society, but they want to contribute to none of the costs.

Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society.

-Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., Supreme Court Justice and overall badass who was shot multiple times during the Civil War, including through his neck, and lived to the age of 94 with 3 bullets still in his body.

[–]RedHeimdall 1 point2 points  (0 children)

according to beta values ... women should behave differently than their nature

All great civilizations that have ever existed have forced women to behave differently than their natures. This of course includes Western Civilization, which did so up until relatively recently.

It's "in my nature," and yours, to shit in my pants and not be able to read or write. But thankfully my society forced me to learn to go against my nature in these regards.

It's vitally important that we know what nature is, but we don't have to accept that people be allowed to act however they want just because it comes naturally to them.

[–]lala_xyyz 2 points3 points  (11 children)

And for you unempathetic savages who are thinking "fuck that, my taxes shouldn't go to support either option," go spend 35 seconds on Google researching "income inequality and crime" and "crime and social stability." These kids don't just conveniently disappear.

Correlation does not imply causation. You have shitload of inequality and crime in modern Western welfare countries, it's just that it's conveniently hidden as a massive taxation, inflation, inability to buy a home or save money, subsidies for corporations, MIC, gynocracy etc., instead of being openly robbed on the street or beheaded by a gang member. It's better to be "safe" and give more than half of your income for "protection" than live on your own terms heh? Pathetic.

[–]Endorsed ContributorJamesSkepp 2 points3 points  (9 children)

Correlation does not imply causation.

In this case, the causation is clear. The unaborted foetuses that became the children of single mothers living in poor neighbourhoods are the main source of criminals for which the everyone has to pay for the second (or third, if we count in medicare for them and their victims) time when they get to prison.

[–]erthian 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I was just thinking about how our rejection of sjw could be seen as a nod to the far right. Looks like it has.

[–]llcjer 0 points1 point  (0 children)

He isn’t disagreeing with your first paragraph. What he is saying is that women suffered negative consequences for their behavior prior to the welfare state, such as social ostracism and being a major financial burden on their families.

Today, with the welfare state, their poor decisions are bailed out by the taxpayer and they are actually hailed as heroes and martyrs instead the of burdens in society that they actually are.

[–]DancesWithPugs 27 points28 points  (2 children)

Don't forget unwilling child support taken from men who actively want custody. Pay up or be thrown in debtor's prison, in 2018

[–]Shadowthrice 13 points14 points  (1 child)

When she wins custody, her ex pays for the privilege of having his own children kidnapped.

[–]Endorsed ContributorrebuildingMyself 1 point2 points  (0 children)

He's also paying to have the kid brainwashed about what a deadbeat he is

[–]Endorsed ContributorJamesSkepp 9 points10 points  (0 children)

The Welfare State & government policies that favor women through involuntary taxation of men is the root enabler of the high promiscuity among the modern western woman.

Not the "root" one. It's more akin to systemic save-a-hoe. Instead of a BP whiteknight, it's the state.

women are free to indulge in their darwinian alpha fucks desires

Women indulging in their darwinian alpha fucks desires is completely in line with how both genders evolved. On one side you're against un-natural intervention of state, on the other you're bashing women for being women.

That no man is gonna want to commit, or have kids, with a courtesan who cant cross her legs.

Unless he doesn't know about it, which is another part of female sexual strategy that women evolved with. It's not that state covers it up, women do it on individual level.

So that Women in their prime fertility years can ride the cock carousel with the top 20% of men, only to then turn 29 about to hit the wall they and sadly settle with some boring beta provider.

100% in line with their sexual strategy. If you have a problem with that, don't blame society, don't blame women, don't blame state - blame evolution.

This is unsustainable.

It was sustainable without state, civilisation and culture, it will be (is) sustainable with that 3 elements too. Civilisation doesn't rely on SMP.

And most importantly, completely immoral, mainly because it relies upon the involuntary taxation of hard working (usually) betas

First of all, there is no morality in sexual strategy. What you call immorality is actually philosophical or political accusation against the state, while in fact the focus of your post is mostly on how m-f relations evolved.

Betas are gradually waking up to this scam. Hence the rise of mgtow and incels for example.

The proper way to end the beta "slavery" is to become alpha, not incel or a MGTOW b/c both these 2 movements change nothing for the betas at large.

Hence the quote; "enjoy the decline".

Here's an argument against women relying on husbands for support. You're writing - "enjoy the decline", so let me ask you this: decline of what? Tradcon society who FORCED men to commit and provide for a women just b/c he was fucking her? Forced the man to remain in sexless marriage b/c said marriage was arranged? Forced the man to remain in a shitty marriage b/c only infidelity could allow for a divorce? The same society that elevated women to the heights of nothing short of systemic pedestalization via gentleman-ly rules, savoir-vivre, endless damsel in distress drivel, women and children first bs? You're telling me you want THAT society to come back? All in the name of "betas have less sex now"?

But it's not what builds societies & civilizations

This DID build the civilisation where physical capability of the man was the thing that built it and was thus valued. We now have enough technology behind us not to rely on men, but to put the burden of building the civilisation onto machines and automation. This process is an ongoing one, it gained momentum with the scientific progress that we made, starting from the very first agricultural evolution, perhaps even before that from the invention of fire.

the strong sexual bonds and relationships people had prior to the sexual revolution. A nuclear family.

Nuclear family is not "strong sexual bonds". Stron sexual bonds are between alpha and woman who submits to him b/c he's an alpha. Nuclear family is male oriented child conception and rearing, you know the kid is yours, so you'll stay in the marriage. Which brings me to another thing - in order to have nuclear family you HAVE to be married and monogamous. That's not male sexual strategy - we sacrifice that in the name of having nuclear family and BOTH of these things play directly into female sexual strategy (get him to commit, get him to become monogamous, get him to foot the bill). IOW while nuclear family is important for the man, it's ADVANTAGEOUS for the woman. This is an imbalance in the SMP that tradcon exacerbated.

Casual sex gets tiring for men,

No, it doesn't. Find hotter girls, find cooler girls.

and leaves womens ability to bond with a man destroyed.

Woman's ability to pairbond did not evolve to be lifelong. It's "designed" to keep her as long as the CHILD needs protection, which back in the "caveman" days were something around 6-8 years old. After that the cycle repeated. Another man, another woman, another kid. The "lifelong pairbond" is a BP myth. A romantic one, but still a myth.

They get their infamous thousand cock stare. Its unsettling.

Don't fuck high n-count women, as simple as that.

and a natural, stable order between the sexes will occour

The natural order between sexes was not stable. 80/20 rule applies b/c it's grounded in biology, not in any form of equilibrium. What you want is for "society enforced stability" to happen.

 

You're onto something, but the problem is you're mixing 3 things that don't mix: biological sexual strategies, SMP regulated by society and Stefan Molyneux.

[–]Senior Endorsed ContributorVasiliyZaitzev 12 points13 points  (1 child)

What do you think about this?

The real problem is the Cultural Marxists and SJWs, all of whom should be shot, but that's another matter.

The Welfare State creates selfish populations who, rather than think about what they will do to earn a living think about "What do I get?" Basically, the bottom half doesn't pay any income tax and thus are happy to vote for every larger lollipops for themselves at someone else's expense.

So that is one contributing factor, together with the birth control pill (not that I'm against, per se but it did enable a lot of sluttish behavior) and the destruction of the family (by the Welfare State and the CM/SJWs).

You are correct it is unsustainable.

[–]Random_throwaway_000 2 points3 points  (0 children)

https://youtu.be/Y2tvHUku_U8?t=77

People screamed out at him for saying this, but he's 100% right. Eventually (if not already) it will reach over 50%, and be near impossible to stop outside of the inevitable depression that will follow.

[–]huckfinnegan 15 points16 points  (0 children)

What the actual fuck did I just read?

Everyone gets taxed, not just 'beta' men. I'd say the rising tide of promiscuity has more to do with society's moral shift in relation to marriage and monogamous relationships than the tax gap.

The idea that beta men are settling for marriage at 30 and all the alphas are out fucking younger babes is laughable. In fact your whole idea of what is beta and alpha and what defines a man is probably screwed up if that's the view you take.

[–]mc_md 17 points18 points  (3 children)

It is correct that women benefit from state sponsored largess of men, but this is not the root cause of sexual degeneracy. Cultural decline overall is to blame, and our welfare state is a symptom, not a cause, of an overall loss of individual responsibility and accountability within modern society.

Don’t forget that women have always benefitted by taking resources from men they aren’t committed to. This is the primary female strategy and always has been. The only difference now is that men aren’t voluntarily giving them things for nothing, but make no mistake that society has always had some kind of system for taking resources which men produced and giving them to women.

Furthermore, the highest income earners in society aren’t beta males, man. The ones getting taxed the hardest are the alphas. The top 1% of men pay about 50% of income tax revenue. Unless you think there are a lot of betas in the top 1%, it’s alphas who are being coerced into providing. To be sure, we are all getting fucked by Uncle Sam, but it’s not chiefly a beta problem.

Finally, it isn’t desirable women who are living on the dole. The government treats all women better than it treats all men, certainly, but the kind of women you want to pursue, and almost all the women riding the so called carousel, these are not the women being supported by the welfare state. Those women are gross, strung out, have many kids, live in a shit hole area of town that you wouldn’t dare drive through, let alone troll for a date. It’s not as if the aging sorority star really is going to lean back on welfare as her reason for promiscuity. That’s just a function of culture, as I said above.

[–]PhantomCowboy 5 points6 points  (2 children)

while it may not be a cause in the sense of being the primary instinctual motivator of degeneracy, it is disingenuous to argue that an enforced welfare state is not a primary enabler of sexual amorality

[–]mc_md 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Disingenuous? How about you argue the content here and not my motives. What hidden, pro-state agenda do you think this libertarian TRP poster is pushing?

[–]MarquisDePaid 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The "top 1%" always focuses on industrialists (AKA Kulaks), and does not include bankers

The Rothschilds/etc almost never appear in these discussions, the only prominent banker who publicly does is the frontman Soros, and he's been visible for quite a while from a variety of people

Malaysian president in 1997;

Asia: The two men, speaking at the World Bank forum, blamed each other for the region's economic woes.

September 22, 1997|MAGGIE FARLEY | TIMES STAFF WRITER HONG KONG — At the annual World Bank conference over the weekend, two men on opposite sides of the region's economic crisis--the speculator and the statesman, the accused villain and the alleged victim--had a showdown, firing off words like "moron" and "menace."

"It's 'High Noon' in Hong Kong," said a World Bank official.

George Soros, an American financier who once made $1 billion in a day betting against the British pound, has drawn the ire of Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad after his speculative attack on weak currencies in Southeast Asia. The fall of the Thai baht sparked a devaluation domino effect across Indonesia, the Philippines and Malaysia this summer.

Mahathir Mohamad acted ingeniously against these bankers, appropriately, and his efforts paid off despite being mocked as a "stupid retrograde economic idea"

Imagine for a moment, though, where Malaysia might be if Mahathir hadn’t waged a war against George Soros, and capitalism itself, decades ago at the expense of forward motion.

Yes, the capital controls and currency peg averted financial disaster. In 1998, the International Monetary Fund derided the moves as “retrograde.” By 2002, the IMF changed tack, calling them a “stability anchor.”

Who's giving Bernie Sanders and other "progressives" economic advice today?

In 2011, Sanders convened what he referred to as an “expert advisory panel” to help draft legislation for Federal Reserve reform in the wake of a damning top-to-bottom Congressional audit of the U.S. central banking system.

Sanders’ panel of experts was stacked with economists tied to Soros. One prominent member advocates a “new economic order” no longer dominated by the U.S., while another is the leading proponent of the “shock therapy” economic doctrine of radical economic transformation deployed at times to detriment in Eastern Europe.

Last July, Sanders convened another panel of economists to advise the Senate on the Greek and international debt crises. The panel consisted of many of the same Soros-tied experts.

Obviously Soros is not the only such oligarch involved, there are several others including parts of the Rothschilds family who helped mentor him and start him up as the now deleted Washingtontimes article "Geneva Gnomes Global Dread" details

The Trotskyite "permanent revolution" really means, there is NO SOCIAL END to the "social revolutions" because the new comissars want permanent power to reshape society as they see fit

Others, however, have translated the Trotskyist slogan of “permanent revolution” into the hope that every minority uprising in the world must be a sign of the long awaited world revolution – especially those that catch the approving eye of mainstream media. More often than deploring U.S. intervention, they join in reproaching Washington for not intervening sooner on behalf of the alleged revolution.

A recent article in the International Socialist Review (issue #108, March 1, 2018) entitled “Revolution and counterrevolution in Syria” indicates so thoroughly how Trotskyism goes wrong that it is worthy of a critique.

[–]blaine_freelance 63 points64 points  (6 children)

This sounds like a lot of over-generalizing.

[–][deleted]  (5 children)

[removed]

    [–][deleted]  (3 children)

    [removed]

      [–]mrBatata 42 points43 points  (14 children)

      Well I don't know what you mean by

      involuntary taxation of men

      But I'm assuming this is it:

      When the State takes care of women's need for financial stability & security, through the taxation of stable & secure men, women are free to indulge in their darwinian alpha fucks desires.

      I don't want to get involved in politics because we all think x is better than y and vice versa when both have flaws. One thing I notice is that Americans have a hard time understanding welfare state often associating it to Marxism. Well yes and no, it's not socialism / communism but it isn't capitalistic either. Welfare is more like a safety net for citizens and this is where imo the problem lies. People abuse the system and the government does not move a finger in fear of repercussions.

      The abuse will be found in any type of government that tolerates that shit. It's not just women that abuse it men do it too.

      In my country for instance the gypsies abuse it without giving a fuck while they steal, rape, threaten, beat, kill, have sexual intercourse with minors, disrupt the community, refuse integration, list continues ad nauseum...

      But when you look at their interactions, they are as redpilled as can be if you are a woman you aren't allowed to do shit. But then again they still abuse the system and if they were any other race they would have been picking up soap from the prison bathroom halls for a long time by now.

      So what gives?

      In my opinion it is the "cuckning" of countries mostly because of "muh FEELZ" and "Daz razist" but also because there is no intolerance for the intolerant. And then we enter into a spiral of degradation. "why should I do x if h doesn't do it? And gets away with it. "

      That for me is the problem, and you also see that shit in America. So yes although women found a way to break (from and) the system. This is not caused by them, at least directly. But by a fucking bunch of uneducated voter base and a excessive amount of thirsty beta cucks.

      [–]TomSelleckPI 6 points7 points  (2 children)

      If only the safety net was not a safety cliff. There is little to zero incentive for people that have fallen into the safety net to climb their way out. Policy is written to cut off all benefits at specific points instead of stepping down benefits as people become self sufficient.

      It's a simple and logic change to policy, but that is exactly why conservatives won't make it... Its tough to scream "end the welfare state" after it becomes the slightest bit functional or effective.

      [–]untitled56 11 points12 points  (10 children)

      A safety net for women who make poor choices. Now that there are no consequences for being promiscuous, single mothers abound living off my childless dime.

      [–]mrBatata 12 points13 points  (7 children)

      You're missing the point, it's not just women, it's men as well. There are no consequences for both.

      We all know women do whatever the fuck they want but we can't blame them for everything, when our cuck peers are way more guilty of perpetuating this shit.

      [–]halfback910 2 points3 points  (0 children)

      Yes, it's a democracy problem, not a women problem. Democracy tends populist and leftist because of what it is.

      [–]untitled56 8 points9 points  (5 children)

      This board promotes promiscuous behavior. Maybe it is part of the problem.

      [–]Turkerthelurker 3 points4 points  (0 children)

      This board promotes promiscuous behavior. Maybe it is part of the problem.

      I'd like to see a discussion on this. Personally, I'm thinking it is a part of the problem.

      [–]mrBatata 8 points9 points  (3 children)

      I can only speak for myself, and

      promiscuous behavior

      Isn't that the defenition of plates?

      I don't give a fuck either way I'm not debating morality, but I care to own up to my mistakes and what (as far as I understand from your response) is that women are to blame for everything, but we're calling the kettle black when we were the ones to put them in charge.

      Maybe you're right, but I'm not going to use women as scapegoats for every single thing that is wrong in society. This game has two players and both play the game. Their fault is being childlike, ours is thinking with our dicks.

      Am I being clear? [this sounded like an offense] Can you understand what I'm trying to convey?

      [–]Turkerthelurker 1 point2 points  (2 children)

      Maybe you're right, but I'm not going to use women as scapegoats for every single thing that is wrong in society. This game has two players and both play the game. Their fault is being childlike, ours is thinking with our dicks.

      Bro I think you guys agree. He is suggesting that perhaps not just men, but the mindest promoted by TRP, are a part of the problem.

      [–]3LiveAFTSOV 3 points4 points  (0 children)

      Never forget that while you read all about "spinning plates" and how to have sex with your latest night club raver slut, never forget all the EC's & Vanguards are either married or in long term relationships / have children.

      [–]mrBatata 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      Oh shit, I didn't read it carefully enough.

      [–]Copperstoner 1 point2 points  (1 child)

      All of you say "without consequences " but at least in my country you loose a lot of your status if you loose your job. You might as well will loose some of your peers, so "without consequences " is utter bullshit. Just my 2cents

      [–]mrBatata 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      Well unfortunately that doesn't happen, there is no social stigma of being unemployed. Comunists destroyed every single thing that made our country great. Including relying on only yourself.

      [–]Senior Contributor: "The Court Jester"GayLubeOil 17 points18 points  (5 children)

      You're on the right track connecting sexual behavior to economic policy but the ultimate culprit isn't the welfair state. Plenty of countries have a much more robust welfair state than the US and had much less hypergamy than the US.

      China Vietnam North Korea and Belarus are still full blown Communist and the women are less hypergamous than America. If your thesis was correct the opposite would be true.

      Neo Liberal aka post Industrial economies grow by transforming everything into a commodity. Divorce is a commodity. Your tinder swipes are a commodity. Your girlfriend's attention is a commodity.

      Boyfriends and dresses are disposable in neoliberal economies. But in Communist countries you can only afford one dress and one boyfriend...

      [–]3itiswr1tten 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      Once things are mentally fungible they can all be used and discarded without empathy. No one cried when their favorite meal was over, but they cried when they had to shoot Old Yeller. It's a very devious system that seeks to creep into the human element of things, but fuck if it's not incredibly efficient and productive

      [–]Thunderbird93 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      Goddamn bro,excellent fookin points. Your logic is sound politically. In terms of the welfare state due to social stratification I think the elites have a breaking point where they as the business interest won't allow the politician who they funded to advertise to the people a more egalitarian society achieved through higher taxation. As the owners of capital we can't undermine their influence and even in countries like Sweden there will be a point when the rich use their money to keep their money

      [–]wss5112 6 points7 points  (0 children)

      I doubt that current state of welfare state sufficiently supports this thinking. People are still concerned with resources. Everyone now needs more money to pay for higher price housing, luxury goods etc. Welfare seems to reduce the tension but not entirely remove it. Whether the slightly alleviated burden on women leads to promiscuity perhaps is a question of degree.

      A perfect example is the experiment with rats. Providing completely unlimited water and food in sandbox with rats and they turned out to be a fucking mess may support your thinking but still we are far from that.

      This experiment is really interesting. Documented in 1962 called Rat Utopia Experiment studying the behavioural sink of animals in a society when they have no need of any concerns.

      [–]Thunderbird93 33 points34 points  (8 children)

      I disagree bro. It isn't the welfare state that is the contributing variable towards hyper sexualization. It is TECHNOLOGY. Think of contraceptives and the idgaf ONS mentality, how about abortion and the lack of responsibility? How about internet pornography? When we were brutes we lived more in accordance with nature, now that through capital we have subjugated nature our hedonic capacity is expressed in more extremes.

      [–]General_Queipo 2 points3 points  (1 child)

      The problem will more or less resolve itself, the only question is how long it will take, and how far gone our society will be by the end of it. Those who live more chastely, who marry young, who don't use contraceptives will simply outbreed those who spend their youth on the cock carousel. With contraceptives, there's no evolutionary advantage to sleeping around. Those men who end up addicted to porn are probably also less likely to reproduce.

      [–]Thunderbird93 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      I agree bro. Check out the Kardashev scale,it was devised by an astrophysicist. With Project ITER in France trying to achieve nuclear fusion I'd say the next age is the atomic age following our current information age. I'd say man remaining a biological creature will also be overcome. I think cyborgs are the future,man merging with machine. Through advanced biomechatronics the future of homo sapiens will not be natural at all

      [–]R_O 7 points8 points  (1 child)

      Subjugated nature? LOL. Human nature cannot be "subjugated". Technology is a tool and an innate force, it is not responsible for any of the misdoings of society directly. That is left to dissociative behavior, ignorance of natural law and human manipulation. Abortion is, statistically, an irrelevant factor in the big scheme of corruption within Western society. It is far more common for a female to keep their welfare babies and benefit from state sponsored welfare programs, ala WIC, tax exemptions and of course fat child support from the father ditched to the curb. This is where a lot of the "red piller" alpha wannabes on this embarrassing subreddit make their mistake, by focusing on the extreme feminists that scream abortion and LGBT rights that you see in mainstream media. The more statistically relevant and damaging group of women are the ones that quietly sap the resources of the tax payer and raise fatherless, brainwashed and quite frankly useless youths that spread throughout our society and corrupt it to the core. Of course women are not entirely at fault, seeing as how most modern men are so damaged by pornography, inherently selfish or otherwise broke and boring living in their mothers basement that they are unable to commit to any type of meaningful relationship when they do find a half decent woman. They will fuck and leave her in favor of the quest for "hotter ass" leaving her jaded and subconsciously invalidated, forcing her to fuck her self esteem back until it's too late and she is knocked up with the kid she doesn't really need from the father she didn't want, but keeps it anyway to turn her situation into a lucrative one. And the cycle continues.

      [–]3itiswr1tten 1 point2 points  (3 children)

      Rousseau isn't the answer to the internet and neither is being a luddite. The answer is learning how to process and cope with the unbelievable access we now have to everything, thanks to technology. There's truth there somewhere, but you have to define it for yourself

      [–]Thunderbird93 0 points1 point  (2 children)

      I'm not sure I understand what you mean my bro,please expand

      [–]3itiswr1tten 1 point2 points  (1 child)

      Rousseau was a big proponent of natural law. Read his Discourse On Inequality. Amour Propre is the key term -  Essentially, the opposite of self-preservation (amour de soi). Amour propre is an acute awareness of, and regard for, oneself in relation to others. Whilst the savage person cares only for his survival, civilized man also cares deeply about what others think about him. This is a deeply harmful psychological deformation, linked to the development of human reason and political societies. At its root is a difference between being and appearing. Savage man can only "be", and has no concept of pretence: civil man is forced to compare himself to others, and to lie to himself.

      Replace Savage with red and civilized with blue, see what you think...

      Point being the question that the Discourse sets out to answer is whether inequality is authorized by natural law: that is, whether differences between men are "natural" and useful things. Rousseau cunningly twists the question. He asks how we can have a law of nature if we do not understand the real nature of man. In doing this, he questions the common idea that only rational beings (i.e. humans) can take part in natural law or have natural rights.

      This was all well and good in his current society. Philosophize your way out of political and civil disagreements by acting in rattional self interest. But there must be natural rights, if there is natural law.

      Rousseau founds his idea of natural right on the principles of pity and self-preservation, which, he claims, existed before reason. One of the aims of the reconstruction of human nature that Rousseau offers is to show that an idea of natural right was possible before man became social and created political institutions, and thus he claims that the state of nature was not the terrible place that some suggest. 

      The issue at hand today is a reversal - the sexual marketplace has reverted to a more primitive state. Rousseau can't save you from technology because he did not foresee this regression. Look for a new truth

      [–]PhantomCowboy 4 points5 points  (0 children)

      100% spot on aegir98, it blows my mind to see so many comments in a "red pill" sub from posters who are so deeply in denial

      [–]TheStumblingWolf 2 points3 points  (0 children)

      Speculation upon speculation. Nothing to substantiate anything.

      [–][deleted]  (1 child)

      [deleted]

      [–]Thunderbird93 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      Insightful. I think it is a problem of job creation too. I'm fiscally conservative but socially liberal therefore I'd say tax cuts stimulate business by creating saving which leads to investment(Solow Growth Modeling). Politically speaking different parties have their own agendas so the welfare state is a child of the liberals whereas the libertarians oppose it, it is not adhered to by the entire population. Your point about men being on it too is sound

      [–]javixm 6 points7 points  (0 children)

      I half agree.

      Half my disagreement comes from the fact that women can work. Just a little bit of effort into a college degree and a decent job can more than cover for the expenses of living however the fuck they want.

      [–]Butt_Man_69 2 points3 points  (0 children)

      “Enjoy the decline”? You just got done reading some of Aaron Clarey’s books I’m betting. He has some insightful thoughts and opinions, but they are just his take. They’re not backed up by much. He also calls himself “Captain Capitalism” and has mentioned he was picked on for being poor growing up. Such obvious contradictions. Sure they exist in everything, but he can’t even admit others’ opinions to see his own contradictions.

      [–]bigflame123 7 points8 points  (12 children)

      I love how you mentioned that people are basically tax slaves, that’s exactly the situation right now, we’re forced to pay for people’s mistakes and lifestyle choices

      [–]sarg1994 7 points8 points  (11 children)

      Ok, your 18 years old in 1970. You get unwillingly drafted into the military to serve in a war you dont believe in. In the trenches you get PTSD due to intense combat. After the war you can't get a job because society dispises you. Today your 66 years old, you sleep on a bench in central park from 3 am to 6am to avoid being arrested. The only hot meal you get that week is from a state funded soup kitchen. People walk by horrified by you, horrified by the mistakes you made... Fuck taxes if we cared about others we wouldnt need governments.

      [–]Random_throwaway_000 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      Wouldn't that fall under workman's comp and veteran benefits? Holding an employer responsible for damage they did to employee's isn't a all reaching welfare system.

      [–]bigflame123 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      Hell to the yes, I hope you’re an ancap just like myself, that would be great

      [–]bigflame123 0 points1 point  (8 children)

      Hold on wait, I misinterpreted your comment, so you’re saying society can’t function without government? Don’t you realise you need a government to draft people in the first place which refutes your point?

      [–]sarg1994 0 points1 point  (7 children)

      Thats a good point actually, but without government we wouldnt be anywhere. The fact that you are on Reddit, let alone the internet, let alone a computer, let alone have electricity (haha) is ONLY possible because of a group of humans organizing themselves to form a coalition in order to discover things beyond the technology or the lifestyle they had currently? Hell even writing itself was formed as a result of civilization. Is your point that now that we have all these amazing technologies we should stop forming governments?

      Though im unfamiliar with the term ancap so of you could elaborate on that I'd be interested to understand it more.

      [–]Thunderbird93 0 points1 point  (5 children)

      Well said bro. Even minarchism as a political philosophy emphasizes the need of a nightwatchman state. Police to enforce law, courts to interpret it, military for state sovereignty. Maybe the dude commenting is an Anarchist,some genuinely believe no government is the epitome of freedom. When you think of it,kind of makes sense. When man lives fully in accordance with nature he lives at its mercy but is totally free.

      [–]sarg1994 0 points1 point  (4 children)

      Im all for civil liberty but Id rather give up some rights for security. I think people should be allowed to do whatever they want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. Thats a hard system to build. In America, today , people want more freedoms then the gorvernment is willing to relinquish, and its not working.

      [–]TRP Legal ExpertColdIceZero 17 points18 points  (13 children)

      Mods, please remove this political garbage post.

      OP ignores the fact that without taxes, there can be no government. Without government, there can be no laws. Without laws, there can be no marriage. And without marriage, hypergamy operates unchecked.

      Our forefathers saw the wisdom in limiting marriage to one man + one woman. The alternative is to allow the upper 20% of men have 80% of the women, leaving hordes of angry betas to literally cause mischief and mayhem, disrupting social order.

      Despite popular imagery, Viking raiders were not hardcore alphas. Alphas in Viking society had homes, farms, wives, families, and responsibilities. Betas with no lands, no wives, no families, and no responsibilities had the angst and free time to become raiders, pillaging neighboring communities and raping the women they came across.

      And this was not isolated to just Viking society. History has taught us that bands of irritated betas become highway robbers, thieves, and other social disrupters, inflicting violence, rape, and death in their angsty wake.

      But by orchestrating one woman + one man marriages, this forces the domestication of the otherwise savage and destructive betas.

      So in order to have a more stable society, we need to manage beta aggression. To manage beta aggression, we need to pacify the betas. We pacify the betas by artificially increasing the supply of women. We artificially increase the supply of women by limiting the number of women each man can marry. Then we place social and cultural pressure on men to marry.

      Marriage is a law. Laws require resources to be enforced. Those resources come in the form of taxes and full time employees who see to the law's enforcement.

      Taxes don't increase the incidence of hypergamy. Taxes actively work to decrease hypergamy!

      Everyone is a libertarian right up until someone bigger, stronger, richer, or better organized than you wants to take something you care about. Then all of the sudden you become a socialist and cry out for someone else to help you.

      [–]modTheRedPike[M] 5 points6 points  (1 child)

      The irony being the reason I'm leaving it up is because of your comments and other ECs.

      [–]3itiswr1tten 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      Free honey. Just stick your hand in the pot...

      [–]Endorsed ContributorJamesSkepp 3 points4 points  (1 child)

      And without marriage, hypergamy operates unchecked

      Arguably, hypergamy operates unchecked even with marriage, b/c being married doesn't turn it off, it's just makes women hide it from husbands. Marriage is not a solution to hypergamy. I don't want to go into the naturalistic fallacy that b/c hypergamy is natural it means it's good, but it's entirely possible that hypergamy is both unavoidable and biologically crucial.

      Our forefathers saw the wisdom

      Oh please, cut that crap out. The great, wise forefathers - to which we should bow and always talk with respect about - never really understood female nature and sexual strategies. What they understood is thet society benefits form marriage. NOT men - society.

      The alternative is to allow the upper 20% of men have 80% of the women

      Always happened, always will. This is built into biology.

      But by orchestrating one woman + one man marriages, this forces the domestication of the otherwise savage and destructive betas.

      Western males don't need more domestication. I agree with the line of thought you presented here, but let's not be inflexible. A dehydrated man needs water, but it doesn't mean he should drink 10 gallons a day.

      [–]3LiveAFTSOV 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      Oh please, cut that crap out. The great, wise forefathers - to which we should bow and always talk with respect about - never really understood female nature and sexual strategies. What they understood is thet society benefits form marriage. NOT men - society.

      Your ancestors roll in their graves at the thought of you living.

      Who gives a fuck about the ancestors? lol

      [–]FractalNerve -1 points0 points  (0 children)

      Wow! The best post in this whole thread. Even a redneck would agree with this metaphoric and great description and depiction of the wholly false claims of Op.

      [–]Random_throwaway_000 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      Everyone is a libertarian right up until someone bigger, stronger, richer, or better organized than you wants to take something you care about. Then all of the sudden you become a socialist and cry out for someone else to help you.

      Libertarians believe in having a police force. You are talking about anarchy. Please quote where OP stated he wants anarchy. The title clearly states the topic is about welfare spending, not all taxation.

      [–]LudwigVanBlunts 10 points11 points  (1 child)

      More Patrice O'Neal mentality type posts, less of this heavy reaching political theorizing BS

      [–]Rabalaz 7 points8 points  (0 children)

      Sadly it seems like the heavy reaching political theorizing is becoming an increasingly common topic here on this subreddit.

      I prefer my political shitslinging on the political shitslinging subreddits where they belong.

      [–]Wowitstheinternet 2 points3 points  (0 children)

      You realize that rich and powerful men have been taking on harems of beautiful women since antiquity, right?

      This has nothing to do with the welfare state.

      This goes back to King Solomon, and even before him.

      Here's something that'll trip you up: those top 20% of men **are** the providers.

      The most powerful men are often the richest, have the most resources, and have the most friends. Most "chads" are actually Betas - and that comes with a heavy burden.

      Make yourself look better, practice dancing, get some god damn social skills, get some female and male friends to help you out with looking sharp (fashion and exercise), and get out of your fucking house and live an interesting life.

      [–]StrongLikeBull503 5 points6 points  (1 child)

      This reads like some Incel mass shooter masturbation material TBH.

      [–]andthesilverspoon 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      I vote this for second best comment of the thread. Kudos!

      [–]MRPFuckMe1 3 points4 points  (2 children)

      So where is the sexual degeneracy part? Not that it’s a bad thing. I’m a pretty big fan of sexual degeneracy myself. Part of the TRP M.O. is spinning plates, so bring it on I say. We’ll just ignore that we encourage following our ingrained male sexual strategy out of one side of our mouth and whine about “the state” and taxes so we can shame women doing the same—which is somehow connected I guess?

      Let’s call this what it is... just another Ill-informed political rant on TRP, fueled by the shit-stirrers like Rush Limbaugh and Fox News, and gobbled up by Trump-loving douchebags who are just mad for some reason.

      Society isn’t working 110% in my favor! I’m mad! It’s taxes! It’s those sexually degenerate women! Immigrants! Feminists! Obama! Hillary! Oh my!

      I just survived a hurricane. The speed with which they turned my power back on. The sheer amount of helpers, road crews, shelters, food banks, etc that came out of the woodwork was staggering. Society works pretty damn well around here and I don’t really pay all that much for the privilege. And if young fine ladies want to gobble some cock through it all, more power to ‘em. Quit your bitching.

      [–]andthesilverspoon 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      I’ve never seen an online reply to an online post be so gotdang on point in my online life. Thank you, sir.

      [–]king_of_red_alphas 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      Winner. For all TRP’s criticism of women’s lack of self awareness and solipsism, posters here sure do engage in it a whole lot.

      [–]championchilli 7 points8 points  (6 children)

      What happened to this sub. It used to be post-pickup lifestyle advice for the man navigating the world through an understanding of natural social, hierarchical power dynaimcs, wtf is this crap.

      [–]digital_dreams 5 points6 points  (1 child)

      Steering a bit into politics it sounds like. Is he saying we should go backward? I think the smart thing to do is adapt to present day conditions, rather than yearning for ye olde times.

      [–]championchilli 2 points3 points  (0 children)

      The past is gone, adapt to the current conditions and of you don't like the way the present is going work in the political sphere to advocate for the future you want.

      Feels a bit incelly, like 'it's all over give up trying to better yourself' to me, which this sub has never been.

      [–]shelteringloon 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      I think your confusing the welfare state with laws that favor women.

      Edit: I also think your post is mostly claims with little evidence, even ancedotal.

      [–]Aktiv8r 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      You're making a mistake if you think people here want a civilization that is fair. I mean shit, there is a constant smattering of guys proud to fuck another mans wife and laugh at him when he unknowingly raises their seed. That should be your first clue.

      Many dont want more people unplugged because that increases their competition sexually. Your pleas will fall on deaf ears.

      [–]ELMasTurbo 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      This sounds like some Jordan Peterson grade spiel.

      [–]untonyto 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      "Enjoy the decline" to a conscious man is actually an oxymoron. First, decline enjoyment further exacerbates said decline. Second, when the decline is over, there will not be much enjoyment left to be had if any. Third, the decline itself is cause to weep and mourn for our future and for our children's future, so that anyone who can enjoy the licentiousness afforded by collapsed moral order is only happy now and for a short period to come, at least until the disorder takes a big dump on them. Fact is, we are at the end of the ages, and "enjoy the decline" sounds like just the kind of catchphrase to lure the unwise to abandon principle and sink down to the level of the prevailing filth. Enjoy what part, competing with other men for the privilege of tumbling in bed with a litany of STD-infested banged-out heartbreak survivors, rinse and repeat? Someone explain this to me.

      [–]Endorsed ContributorMentORPHEUS 3 points4 points  (3 children)

      True, much as the Fed Government making student loans nondischargable even in bankruptcy has served to drive college costs through the roof, acting as a backstop for men who impregnate and disappear has exploded hypergamy and single motherhood.

      Mind you, the state does not WANT this. They do everything they can to get the biological father to pay for their child, so "everyone else" doesn't have to. Some states will bill "deadbeat dads" for years of welfare payments made to the Mom.

      People here like to attribute it to a grand top-down scheme to destroy the nuclear family. I see it as an easy way to build and expand a bureaucracy, which large numbers of voters would readily approve of because of (annoying falsetto voice) the Children.

      [–]BiggusDickus- 6 points7 points  (2 children)

      Mind you, the state does not WANT this. They do everything they can to get the biological father to pay for their child, so "everyone else" doesn't have to. Some states will bill "deadbeat dads" for years of welfare payments made to the Mom.

      "The State" is an awful big institution, and there are definitely parts of it that do want this. All of the government agencies that support poor single moms work hard to ensure that single moms never go away. There are also all sorts of influences (i.e. bribes and lobbying) that come from institutions that profit from the welfare state.

      For example, sugar and soda interests working hard to prevent food stamp reform.

      https://civileats.com/2017/08/28/congress-could-cut-soda-and-candy-from-snap-but-big-sugar-is-pushing-back/

      [–]Endorsed ContributorMentORPHEUS 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      Bureaucracies become self-serving and find ways to expand even when their original mission is fulfilled.

      As for special interest money corrupting politics, we all agree it has to go. Long ago I cut junk food out of my diet so I'm not supporting big sugar that way. Also, many stores proudly hang "We accept EBT" signs. I make it a point to go in person and say, "I am a taxpayer and resent you encouraging nonessential purchases using welfare money, so you'll never see a penny of my hard earned, disposable CASH from now on."

      [–]Sexquestionhelp22 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      Offering money to single mothers is a financial incentive in itself that leads to more single mothers, even though it is "compassionate support." That's just economics. If you offered $10,000 a month to every single mother, you would essentially destroy marriage. Offering $100 a month is the exact same economic effect on a smaller scale. Imagine a graph where the X-axis is monthly payment and Y-axis is the percent of single mothers.

      [–]UnderFighter 1 point2 points  (7 children)

      The bluepill in this subreddit regarding taxes is so strong. You only need police, courts and military. Every other entity can be closed. People who make mistakes should bear the consequences. It is survival of the fittest after all. I neither want to pay for the SJW welfare, nor for an unfortunate poor old guy. They both should not have made poor life choices and should suffer for their incompetence.

      I left the west for this reason, even though I have a Masters in Economics and one in Comp Sci and was in the top 10% income wise. You have almost no regulation, can keep 85% of the money you earn and government does not shit on you for being an entrepreneur. Did I mention that because of the lack of government support, woman need to secure YOUR ressouces? But YOU get to decide whether you give it to them or not. If you have money and/or are skilled you can live a much better life. You pretty much get an easy six-figure salary, because of your western education. And get to keep about 75k. In Germany I only would have kept about 40k. But also the living costs are way lower. Boosting the effective salary to at least double the purchasing power.

      I am very happy in estonia and very happy to have left the communist hellhole of cucked Germany.

      Seriously, fuck the state and you bluepill fucktards that support it. Go vote for Hillary and feel the Bern you fucking commies. Really, to anyone living in the western world, who despises communists / sjws, move to a former soviet country. They still know the horrors of socialism first or second hand, they fought for democracy and freedom and are still willing to defend it.

      I normally do not care about politics and dont discuss it, because it is a time sink and waste.

      State provides a safety net. More women are unemployed (or underemployed) compared to men. An individual from which group is statistically more likely to receive benefits from the state? A woman is, generally speaking, a far less capable worker compared to a man. They can not think big and have a larger picture in mind. They are more suited for repetitive tasks, like accounting and the likes. But this is not their purpose in life. Her only purpose is to bear your children.

      We got subverted by marxists in this sub. I do not frequent reddit that often anymore, because I have a lot going on in my life and only read it occasionally. But the pro state marxist propaganda gives me a stomach ache. 2 years ago this sub was mostly conservative and some libertarians. Now you have all the leftist losers of society pouring in. Fuck you lefties.

      [–]re4d3 2 points3 points  (0 children)

      Yep. As a former commie state citizen east from DDR I can second that. We thought we got rid of socialism and it creeps back from the west back, even more awful cause red commies did not pretend it is all about absolute power. Anger of wannabe redpillers against MAGA is laughable: "we want state to continue to sponsor bitches so we can fuck them without consequences."

      Good choice with Estonia man. Must be some Finnish or German knights genes up there.

      [–]graceful_aggression 1 point2 points  (2 children)

      go to south-east asia dude. Singapore. Low income tax of ~15%, highest for any bracket is 22% i believe, no capital gains tax. Travel weekends to Bali, Thailand, and have a high purchasing power. Growing populations that side of the world. I'm in the UK and im dying with 40% tax and it gets worse haha

      [–]UnderFighter 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      Did a vacation in Bali once. But I think I am not made for the warm weather there. Always got me slackin. Thought about visiting singapore or hongkong. But truth be told, I really enjoy eastern europe. They are very “guest-friendly“.

      [–]genuine_destructive 3 points4 points  (0 children)

      Technology (sometimes made accessible by government funds like contraception, parental control, etc) has made sexual promiscuity possible for women.

      It used to be that only men could be promiscuous because we faced the least biological repercussions.

      Now we are increasingly on an even playing field.

      Fucking deal with it.

      You’re the carpenter complaining about IKEA.

      Personally, as a hard working male this world has opened up a much larger pool of women to sleep with.

      And I’m so down. Evolve or die friend.

      [–]king_of_red_alphas 3 points4 points  (0 children)

      Why are Alt-Right, Trumpet chest beaters are so desperate to link sexual strategy and “alpha-hood” to political ideology.

      The fuck out of here with that nonsense.

      Far right puritans and far left SJW’s are equally unrealistic about the reality of human sexuality.

      And for all the discussion about food stamps, the pill and social security encouraging slutshood, nobody is talking about capitalism’s hyper-commodification of hot ass and men’s (that’s us) worshipping of it.

      You do realize that girls can make a good living in the free market being Instagram ass models and twitch cam girls right? That money isn’t coming from your taxes.

      You don’t think our elevation of status of the hot chick showing off her half naked body and bragging about sucking cock like Riley Reid has more to do with this trend?

      Girls emulate what’s popular and what men like. Were poodle skirts and bell bottoms caused by welfare too?

      The media, corporate and cultural feedback loop that has ALWAYS existed.

      The difference is commodified culture is now fed back to us (men and women) through a thousand forms of media that weren’t even conceivable 20 years ago and at a speed that can’t be calculated.

      Girls want to be slutty because they see guys like slutty girls that fuck like porn stars. No market, no supply.

      Welfare didn’t turn porn stars into celebrities. We did.

      Welfare didn’t deify Instagram ass models, we did.

      Welfare didn’t create a society in which “sex tapes” turn vapid women into multi millionaires, we did.

      Live your fucking life and be the best person you can be. If some welfare queen in Georgia is even on your radar in terms of what upsets you in life, you might want to consider your part in the cause of your frustration.

      Look in the mirror and take some fucking responsibility. It’a what an alpha would do.

      [–]mermella 2 points3 points  (0 children)

      This is delusional, I'm a woman and I probably pay more in taxes than you do. Why don't you work on yourself instead of blaming the opposite sex for your shortcomings?

      [–]ryeprotagonist 7 points8 points  (4 children)

      Truth. You can't truly be RedPill and have lefty political leanings.

      Anyone who says different is hamstering.

      [–]Random_throwaway_000 2 points3 points  (1 child)

      I agree with you, but be careful of stating this. Mods usually don't like political talk. I'm surprised this post is allowed to live.

      Yes, arguing for personal responsibility in your individual life (Ugly cuz not lifting, work harder to get paid, Go out and approach to get numbers) should translate into voting for a government that allows you to enjoy the fruits of your labour. That's as far as I go in terms of talking politics here.

      [–]ryeprotagonist 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      Appreciate the advice friend, but I try to live as unfiltered Red Pill as I'm able. I deal with the world as it is, not as I wish it ought to be. So I don't reckon I'll censor myself online behind an alias. The Nanny State drives sexual incentives. We see that and the proponents of Big State Socialism can pretend all they like that it doean't favour women while cucking men... But those are the types who need to hamster their worldview to square with reality, aren't they?

      [–]Balgoth55 4 points5 points  (3 children)

      What do I think about this? I think it's absolutely correct. Watch BPS video series on this. BPS is red pill AF and breaks this concept down perfectly. Watch these and you will have a much better understanding of the topic.

      "Why Women Destroy Nations" https://youtu.be/UxpVwBzFAkw

      "How Women Dismantle Nations" https://youtu.be/kOMkl3ApTK0

      "Only Patriarchy Builds Nations" https://youtu.be/hN1GwOLgjVs

      [–]danoranika 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      The welfare state emerged as a response to the rampant inequality of capitalism causing The Great Depression. Single motherhood is a symptom of the atomization of the individual from the family, spearheaded by capital, to create more laborers and consumers, and drive down wages. Sexual degeneracy is a symptom of modernity. You're pinning the blame soley on socialism, without acknowledging that socialism is a reaction to capitalism. Its son.

      [–]warwolverinewarrior 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      So you're saying that chicks have better chances at mating with higher quality guys "alphas" and you're blaming society for this new evolutionary strategy of mating muscular "alpha" guys like this sub is guiding you to be?

      [–]propranolol22 1 point2 points  (1 child)

      I don't know how such a politicized post got so many upvotes...

      Your trying to draw a false equivalence to push your political ideals. Hypergamy has existed long before the "welfare state", something which even cursory reading of TRP material makes clear.

      [–]theSoothSlayerCoC 2 points3 points  (0 children)

      Imagine thinking that because a woman with children qualifies for some canned beans and childcare expenses she suddenly has all the freedom to fuck whomever she wants all the time without consequences. Its like OP has never been around poverty before.
      This kind of shit belongs on The_Donald.

      [–]HeadingRed 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      This feels like if The Onion wanted to do a satire piece of TRP they might write this as a mock editorial. Governments collecting revenue = promiscuity and no taxes = monogamous bliss?

      The nuclear family ideal of the 1950's is a bit of nostalgia. Much of what we call the decline was going on- it's just that no one talked about it. Divorce rates went up, spouses cheated, we drank did much of what we did now. Back then nobody talked about it.

      I'm in my 50's. I havehad boomer friends. When womensex came up they all pretty much summed it up this way "everybody was fucking back then - it's just that nobody talked about it".

      Look at ancient Greece, China and Rome. All ahead of other cultures around them. All have boatloads of sex not occurring between a married couple in the sanctity of the holy bedroom.

      Every generation thinks they invented sex, drugs and rock-n-roll. Everyone things they just missed "the best of times" and if we could only go back to just a little while ago all of our problems would be solved.

      You're not living in the worst of times - your not living in the best of times - you're just living. Don't get yourself depressed wishing for a past that never was and a future you can't predict. Just live in the now - which is the bestworst ever with the mostleast of amazing things and the mostleast awful time ever in the history of human civilization.

      [–]Skiffbug 0 points1 point  (8 children)

      Leave politics out of redpill. There are subs for this sort of discussion, and this isn’t one of them.

      [–]rKKKselected 7 points8 points  (0 children)

      "Look here m8, this radical antifeminist antiegalitarian antiliberal subreddit is totally APOLITICAL—leave your drumpfy wumpfy politics out of this!!"

      [–]Senior Contributor: "The Court Jester"GayLubeOil 10 points11 points  (2 children)

      Hur Durr I'm a retard who don't understand how economic incentives can drive sexual behavior

      [–]Skiffbug -1 points0 points  (1 child)

      I can understand how one thing influences the other, but what are YOU going to do about it? How will it help anyone deal with the world any better?

      [–]Senior Contributor: "The Court Jester"GayLubeOil 9 points10 points  (0 children)

      If your not interested in rabid hypergamy move to a country with a less developed economy. That's your practical application.

      [–]thirdincomestream 1 point2 points  (2 children)

      You don't get to choose whether or not to play the game of politics.

      To decide to be blind, or to decide to silence discussions because they don't fit into your neat little box of what you think "the red pill" should be isn't wise.

      [–]Skiffbug 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      So, are you going to be a candidate for the Red Pill party? You know, to make the change happen, acta non verba?

      Or are you just full of shit and only talking about politics?

      Because everything else that is discussed here is with the intent to go out and apply. Go lift, go practice your game, go Machiavellian at work. If it’s just bitching or waxing philosophical, check it out at the door.

      [–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (3 children)

      The sexual revolution enabled the welfare state. Not the other way around.

      [–]Endorsed ContributorJamesSkepp 3 points4 points  (2 children)

      The beginnings of welfare state go as far as middle 19th century, both in UK and in US.

      [–]Luckyluke23 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      mainly because it relies upon the involuntary taxation of hard working (usually) betas.

      I think this goes beyond that and it's ALL man are tax slaves. it just comes with the burden of performance. women can find some guy to give her money. men cannot find a woman to give him money ( generally speaking there could be some arrangement made or something but yeah.)

      the problem I have with this is alphas need to work too and they do get taxed. however, they won't support the women if that's what you mean by " taxation"

      [–]IRunYourRiver 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      Ah, but you have the red pill. So the playing field is level once again. Evolution is selecting for a broader set of characteristics than it was in the past. Physical fitness is important, but so are a set of behaviors and communication that indicate a level of intellectualism and flexibility that is greater than in the past. This way, fewer people starve (welfare) and evolution can still meet its relentless demands.

      [–]graceful_aggression 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      Reading too much between the lines.

      [–]awoke11 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      You have some good points but its not this simple really.

      [–]Rmyguy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      Meh civilization should fail at this point. I'd hate to see it keep going in its current direction. A large cull and a dash of instability would do wonders on getting traditional roles sorted out.

      [–]kiwifx 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      // strong sexual bonds and relationships people had prior to the sexual revolution.

      Did they, though? Just because women couldn't fuck around and swing branches as easily doesn't mean they weren't thinking about it. Women were women before the sexual revolution.

      [–]ledbymorpheus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      Is this what happens when you monk mode too long?

      [–]_typhoid_mary 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      Not to mention if a woman has a child she gets more benefits**** pisses me the fuck off

      [–]Infernowarp 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      I would argue not taxes in general, but child support and alimony are the specific tools the government uses to destroy the nuclear family

      [–]whatplanetrufrom 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      I agree for the most part. It isn't just men being taxed to death though. It's responsible women too. We are paying nonproductive imbeciles to mass produce more imbeciles who then grow up, and most of them don't contribute to society in any meaningful way, except crime. So it isn't just sexual degeneracy that's being produced, it's generation after generation of criminals and burdens to the taxpayers also.

      [–]mult1versum 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      Excellent post. I would like to add that the spread of the birth control pill also plays a major role in the increasing sexual degeneration of society. Colttaine made a great video about it.

      [–]Acerp321 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      Same game. New referees with some new rules.

      Each player searching for way to exploit the rules for power.

      Women are winning.

      Blue pills are batting .000.

      Red pill guys are all over the map. Life still isn’t fair. Might get fucked anyway. Accept it.

      [–]a_crapybara 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      You're basically just talking about the feminine imperative with a weird emphasis on taxes.

      [–]confusedguy911911 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      I’m astonished how a lot of you people just don’t seem to understand the simplest concept of supply and demand .Ive seen endless posts about how woman should be this and that,it’s their fault for our modern society ,and betas enable this ..... all wrong.Everything you see that’s working so poorly my brothers comes down to simple supply and demand.Woman want sexual freedom and their is ample supply alpha or beta to give it to them, betas want to care for a woman and a child (even if it’s not theirs) so they can feel they are fulfilling their genetic role as a provider, and their are plenty of save a hoes for that role to.

      Nobody cares anymore about the evident decline of society because frankly it doesn’t suit their agenda,what’s their agenda you ask ? Looking out for number 1# themselves .They don’t or won’t look at statistics and ask themselves “hey I wonder why more and more people are miserable,depressed or have epic anxiety”why? Because they don’t care , you can’t play the perpetual victim and have a clear view of how the world works at the same time ,those two ideas don’t ever meet on the same street.

      With that said as a fellow Redpiller , my personal position on this great society of ours is accept the good parts for what they are and what we have (modern medicine,capitalism where you get back what you put in meaning no limits to growth,the easy availability of information take this site alone as an example ,the easy availability of literature and education).The second part and less glorious is to accept and be aware of the bad parts which when done properly can be advantageous ( the decline of the nuclear family,pandemic of personality disorders, future generations of useless contributors to society caused by piss poor parenting, the shift in wealth and slow death of the middle class )which you can easily avoid if you aren’t retarded, and this list goes on and on.

      So in final just being aware of your surroundings doesn’t mean it becomes your role to change everything to your liking “good luck with that”. We are all part of this game it doesn’t matter if you like it or not ,just be smarter than the guy beside you and near the end game you won’t be a victim or byproduct .All one can do is have forward momentum no matter how bad these times are or will be .

      One way to keep momentum going is to have constantly greater goals.

      [–]Shuttlekilla 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      First comes the decline. Then chaos. Then the new world order.

      [–]Senior EndorsedMattyAnon 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      This is unsustainable. And most importantly, completely immoral, mainly because it relies upon the involuntary taxation of hard working (usually) betas. Betas are gradually waking up to this scam. Hence the rise of mgtow and incels for example.

      The problem is that "waking up to this scam" makes no difference. Pay your taxes or go to jail.

      The third party called "The State" distorts sexual relations in society for the worse.

      It distorts sexual relations for the better, so long as you're not a beta provider who has to rely on female financial need to get sex. If women fuck you because they want to, not transactionally, the more secure and happy and non-commitment-demanding the better.

      Remove the forced transfers of money through the state, and a natural, stable order between the sexes will occour

      There is no stable order between the sexes. Even when women need beta bucks from specific men they still cheat and still get their alpha fucks.

      Personally I'm rather enjoying being freed from the obligation to provide for the women I fuck.

      We will "enjoy the decline", live out our nihilstic hedonism, and leave future generations to deal with the consequenses of our selfish desires

      I'm not making any future generations any worse by fucking women.

      [–]saargrin 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      sounds like some kind of atavistic rant

      [–]No-Steppe-on-Pepe 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      To an extent, yeah, but you could also blame birth control, condoms, and abortion. None of those are really the cause though.

      Society is changing. Values are changing. Children out of wedlock used to be shameful, now it's normal. Divorce used to be unthinkable, now the average time to divorce is seven years (not counting those who don't divorce, of course)

      In the grand scheme of things, this is all a very new trend. I imagine the pendulum will swing back. Europeans were pretty skanky during the Renaissance and that was followed up by prude Victorianism.

      [–]STALUC 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      The ascertain that the legislative branch of the US government is systematically sexist against men is preposterous. Fiscal policy in the US is written by congress, which is historically male dominated. Currently, 22 of 100 US senators are female and 84 of the 435 House of Representatives are female (19%). Why would a parliament of ~80% men write tax code to explicitly oppress men? They wouldn’t.

      [–]Senior Endorsed ContributorRian_Stone 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      Stepping on one's own dick, then analyzing the footprint.

      [–]reluctantly_red 0 points1 point  (1 child)

      And most importantly, completely immoral, mainly because it relies upon the involuntary taxation of hard working (usually) betas.

      At least in the United States the pittance paid to single women on welfare is not what distorts the sexual marketplace. What really distorts the market is millions of Beta guys who willingly and voluntarily transfer untold billions of dollars worth of cash, goods, and services to women they fall in love with.

      My ex is getting remarried next month. Her new guy is Beta AF! He paid for her to go on a bachelorette cruise without him last week. He's paying for a honeymoon in Italy. And, this is the kicker, instead of a prenup he's transferring title to half his separate property to her (he's already had his lawyer draw up the paperwork).

      [–]VanityKings 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      The issue is literally going to fuck up or at least drastically alter civilized societies.
      Personally, I think VR and sex bots are going to be the death and rebirth (hopefully) of women. So many women nowadays offer literally no real-world value other than sex, and even that is only if you are Chad or a beta that is able to jump through her hoops or wait long enough for her smv to drop to less than yours. The pool of beta providers are going to dry up faster than their vaginas during sex with them as more and more men withdraw from the dating scene and satisfy their urges with VR/bots. The decline is real and it is a scary thought that we are all leading to a giant social and political catastrophe in the years to come. What a time to be alive

      [–]re4d3 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      Totally true. Remove the excessive state and most of the modern society diseases will vanish.

      Since women pine for 20% top men, it is obvious that in the past, most of the women had to agree with marriage with "substandard" men. Funny enough, they were more happy than today, being busy with kids and household. Also beta men being the primary breadwinners had in their eyes higher status.

      Result of state-sponsored unchecked hypergamy is unsustainably low birth rate, messed up kids from divorced or single moms and state burdening working class by taxes, needed for providing for unproductive society members.

      If you want to do something against the decline, teach your daughters to capitalize on their youth wisely, vote for change of unfair welfare, alimony and no fault divorce laws. Alternative is Zimbabwe or South Africa: whites wiped out because "their men wanted just blow jobs", basically being unable to handle their own bitches. Wannabe redpill weaklings.

      [–]abudun79 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      The root enabler, that's interesting. What are you going to to about it - other than complaining in an online echo chamber?

      [–]BurnoutRS 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      Women have figured out a way to get their betabux at a societal level. Used to be you had to show some skin in front of a rich simp and get him to move you into his estate. Now youre practically born into the estate and all you have to do to cash in is raise awareness of your "predicament" to the man with all the money.

      Whats really happening is that we have become entirely disconnected from all that which would instill us with a sense of what humanity truly is. Men, being the more powerful sex, must be aware of both their own nature and women's, to maintain balance within a society. Women, to gain power over men, must strip them of this awareness.

      The idea is that neither hypergamy nor polygamy provide the most suitable environment for raising the kind of child that might go on to be one of the top 20%. These are the people from which, according to the pareto distribution, 80% of the collective wealth of humanity (resources, goods, services, etc) come from

      Another thing you have to consider is the role the unwashed masses have been playing thus far. Bigger picture what are we working towards as a society? Whenever I want to get an idea of what might be happening on a macroscale, I look to a microscale example. When you start a business like, lets say, a warehouse, you might pay a bunch of guys to help set up your shelving, rennovate the building you'll be using. Then when the job is done, the guys collect their pay and leave. The difference when you scaleit back up is that a job is temporary whereas life is permanent. The middle class, serving their purpose as the workforce on whose back society is borne intothe future, cannot collect their pay and leave once the work is done.

      With the coming of artificial intelligience, are we encroaching on the final hour of the middle class in the workplace? Fuck if I know.

      As a final point, the best videgames are ones that get progressively harder while still keeping you in a place where you feel competant, yet challenged. You are constantly pushing for new heights of acchievement. Achievement, is a senze of reward and validation. Heroin can give you a sense of reward and validation but theres no upward growth. The best career an opiate user could have would be starting at the bottom with codeine and working up the ranks gradually, through to fentanyl. Experience the highs of lesser opiates and gradually move on to stronger ones. the idea here is time. If you go right to heroin you screw yourself out of being able to enjoy the effects of lesser opiates because your tolerance is through the roof.

      Chad dick has a similar effect on women as heroin. Same effect pussy has on guys who slay. We become desensitized. When youre desensitized you have only two options. Short term you find something with a bigger kick. move from codeine to tramadol, move from last weeks boring old chad to this weeks exciting new chad. Or the long term option which is to abstain. Absence makes the heart grow fonder. This is why heroin users often overdose upon relapse. When your tolerance was so high that you had to bang a big old chunk of tar to get off, its really damn hard to figure out what a proper dose is when youre getting back into the game after a couple months being clean. Those big rocks that barely did anything with your high tolerancd, are now a lethal dose with the low.

      Anyways the whole point is that hypergamy, left unchecked, legitimately restructures a chicks ability to derive reward and satisfaction from just one dick. shes had so many, so much variety, that its all kind of boring now. Men, being the more powerful sex, have a better chance at corraling the female biological imperative. If a man is more powerful than a woman, then a man who can control himself should have no problem controlling a woman

      added todays human can get their fill of sex, drugs, television, food, and get sick of it in a fraction of the time our ancestors could. Small town Sally of 100 years back only stopped at fucking everybody in town because she didnt have as easy of a time contacting a guy in the next town and getting him to pay her way there. The average time it takes for a girl to go from entering the SMV to becoming damaged goods is getting smaller and smaller. If you want my opinion on it, thats progress baby. We, collectively, have gotten so fucking good at meeting peoples needs that there are people who are having their needs met to the point that it destroys them psychologically and eventually kills them. People born into this decadence are like lottery winners. they dont know what to do with it, they didnt earn it and they dont know how to keep it. Im one of them and here's hoping I can see these pitfalls well enough to avoid them

      load more comments (36 replies)