Red Pill TheoryFeminism will actually destroy the West (self.TheRedPill)

submitted by 2johnnightx2


"How the Feminists’ “War against Boys” Paved the Way for Islam"

This is a fairly old article from 2006, so the observations are almost a decade old, but I have not seen this article referenced in the manosphere. It's very prescient in the light of the mass migration into Europe, but I want to bring this to your attention because of the redpill themes that it contains and which you should recognize immediately.

The major point here is that the issues of attraction and masculinity are meshed into politics. If politics creates laws and culture that represses masculinity, then a man can not behave masculine in his life without costs or punishment. He can't be truly redpill, as the case of effeminate male Swedes shows.

If you are "educated" that some behavior is wrong, then you will be in doubt when you need confidence to pull it off.

So here is your motivation to be misoginist/Alpha/masculine/macho/fash/whatever: it's the right & healthy way and if you don't do this, you will bring down Western civilization.

Several of my readers asked what Scandinavian men are doing about this. What happened to those Vikings, anyway? ... I doubt they would have looked the other way while their daughters were harassed by Muslims. In some ways, this makes present-day Scandinavians worse barbarians than the Vikings ever were.

If your culture said that women are your property, you would care. But culture says that women are independent agents who have control over their sexuality, so it's none of your business.

I suspect that the most important reason has to do with the extreme anti-masculine strand of feminism that has permeated Scandinavia for decades. The male protective instinct doesn’t take action because Scandinavian women have worked tirelessly to eradicate it, together with everything else that smacks of traditional masculinity. Because of this, feminism has greatly weakened Scandinavia, and perhaps Western civilization as whole.

Protecting somebody necessitates control over that person's actions. Without control, protections is hardly possible.

The only major political party in Norway that has voiced any serious opposition to the madness of Muslim immigration is the rightwing Progress Party. This is a party which receives about two thirds or even 70% male votes. At the opposite end of the scale we have the Socialist Left party, with two thirds or 70% female votes. The parties most critical of the current immigration are typically male parties, while those who praise the Multicultural society are dominated by feminists. And across the Atlantic, if only American women voted, the US President during 9/11 would be called Al Gore, not George Bush.

Women's suffrage has pulled politics hard to the left. Without it our culture would be more masculine, as it in fact is under Islam.

The standard explanation in my country for this gender gap in voting patterns is that men are more “xenophobic and selfish” than women, who are more open-minded and possess a greater ability to show solidarity with outsiders. That’s one possibility. Another one is that men traditionally have had the responsibility for protecting the “tribe” and spotting an enemy, a necessity in a dog-eat-dog world. Women are more naïve, and less willing to rationally think through the long-term consequences of avoiding confrontation or dealing with unpleasant realities now.

Xenophobia IS "spotting an enemy".

Didn’t feminists always claim that the world would be a better place with women in the driver’s seat, because they wouldn’t sacrifice their own children? Well, isn’t that exactly what they are doing now? Smiling and voting for parties that keep the doors open to Muslim immigration, the same Muslims who will be attacking their children tomorrow?

Judging from the rhetoric of many feminists, all the oppression in the world comes from Western men, who are oppressing both women and non-Western men. Muslim immigrants are “fellow victims” of this bias. At best, they may be patriarchal pigs, but no worse than Western men. Many Western universities have courses filled with hate against men that would be unthinkable the other way around. That’s why Scandinavian feminists don’t call for Scandinavian men to show a more traditional masculinity and protect them against aggression from Muslim men. Most Norwegian feminists are also passionate anti-racists who will oppose any steps to limit Muslim immigration as “racism and xenophobia.

Western feminists have cultivated a culture of victimhood in the West, where you gain political power through your status in the victim hierarchy. In many ways, this is what Political Correctness is all about. They have also demanded, and largely got, a re-writing of the history books to address an alleged historic bias; their world view has entered the school curriculum, gained a virtual hegemony in the media and managed to portray their critics as “bigots.” They have even succeeded in changing the very language we use, to make it less offensive. Radical feminists are the vanguard of PC.

When Muslims, who above all else like to present themselves as victims, enter Western nations, they find that much of their work has already been done for them. They can use a pre-established tradition of claiming to be victims, demanding state intervention and maybe quotas to address this, as well as a complete re-writing of history and public campaigns against bigotry and hate speech. Western feminists have thus paved the way for the forces that will dismantle Western feminism, and end up in bed, sometimes quite literally, with the people who want to enslave them.

Feminism wanted to make men weak, so that women would get the space to become powerful. But with weak men nobody will protect a nation from strong men from other patriarchal cultures.

Schyman’s battle cry is “Death to the nuclear family!” I have heard the same slogan repeated by young Norwegian feminists in recent years. Schyman seethed that today’s family unit is “built on a foundation of traditional gender roles in which women are subordinate to men. The hierarchy of gender, for which violence against women is the ultimate expression, has been cemented.” “Conservatives want to strengthen the family. I find this of grave concern.”

Misandry, the hatred of men, isn’t necessarily less prevalent than misogyny, the hatred of women. The difference is that the former is much more socially acceptable.

If all oppression comes from Western men, it becomes logical to try weakening them as much as possible. If you do, a paradise of peace and equality awaits us at the other side of the rainbow. Well congratulations to Western European women. You’ve succeeded in harassing and ridiculing your own sons into suppressing many of their masculine instincts. To your surprise, you didn’t enter a feminist Nirvana, but paved the way for an unfolding Islamic hell.

It is correct, as feminists claim, that a hyper-feminine society is not as destructive as a hyper-masculine society. The catch with a too soft society is that it is unsustainable. It will get squashed as soon as it is confronted by more traditional, aggressive ones. Instead of “having it all,” Western women risk losing everything. What are liberal feminists going to do when faced with aggressive gang of Muslim youngsters? Burn their bras and throw the pocket edition of the Vagina Monologues at them?

Perhaps women can succeed in turning their men into doormats, but it will be on the cost of doing so to their nation and to their civilization as well.

This right here: if you allow women to turn you into a doormat, you are destroying civilization itself. So don't.

Muslim anti-female violence in the West is a symptom of the breakdown of the feminist Utopia. Freedoms need to be enforced by violence or the credible threat of violence, or they are meaningless. Even though women can take steps to protect themselves, the primary responsibility for protection will probably always belong to men. Women will thus only have as much freedom as their men are willing and capable of guaranteeing them. It is a major flaw in many feminist theories that they fail to acknowledge this.

Writer Lars Hedegaard in Denmark does not buy into the theory that women approve of Muslim immigration out of irrational naivety or ideological conviction. He thinks they simply want it, as he writes in a column entitled “The dream of submission.” He does notice, as I do, that women are more likely than men to support parties that are open for more Muslim immigration.

Why is this, considering that there is hardly a single Muslim majority area in the world where women enjoy the same rights as men? And Hedegaard asks a provocative question: Are women more stupid and less enlightened than men, since they in such great numbers are paving the way for their own submission? He comes up with an equally provocative answer: “When women are paving the way for sharia, this is presumably because women want sharia.” They don’t want freedom because they feel attracted to subservience and subjugation.

The English author Fay Weldon has noted that “For women, there is something sexually very alluring about submission.” And as Hedegaard dryly notes, if submission is what many women seek, the feminized Danish men are boring compared to desert sheikhs who won’t allow you to go outside without permission. Muslims like to point out that there are more women than men in the West who convert to Islam, and this is in fact partly true. Islam means “submission.” Is there something about submission that is more appealing to some women than it is to most men? Do women yield more easily to power?

The nature of women is paradox, because it leads them both to rebel and to submit.

Rebel against men that are not a real danger (e.g. fathers, who would not hurt them).

Submit to men who are a real danger. "War brides".

They both want freedom and no freedom.

Are some feminists simply testing out men’s limits in the hope of finding some new balance between the sexes, or are they testing men to find our which men are strong enough to stand up to their demands, and thus which men can stand up to other men on their behalf? I heard one woman who was an ardent feminist in the 1970s later lament how many families they broke up and destroyed. She was surprised at the reaction, or lack of reaction, from men: “We were horrible. Why didn’t you stop us?”

"feminism is a society-wide shittest"

Has the West adopted some of the negative traits of the female psyche? The newly feminized West gets attacked and assaulted by the Arab and Islamic world, and continues to blame itself, while at the same time be fascinated by its abusers. It is thus behaving in the same way as a self-loathing woman towards an abusive man.

The elaborate welfare state model in Western Europe is frequently labelled as “the nanny state,” but perhaps it could also be named “the husband state.” Why? Well, in a traditional society, the role of men and husbands is to physically protect and financially provide for their women. In our modern society, part of this task has simply been “outsourced” to the state, which helps explain why women in general give a disproportionate support to high taxation and pro-welfare state parties. The state has simply become a substitute husband, upheld by taxation of their ex-husbands.

It should be mentioned that if this welfare state should for some reason cease to function, for instance due to economic and security pressures caused by Muslim immigration, Western women will suddenly discover that they are not quite as independent from men as they like to think. In this case, it is conceivable that we will se a return to the modern traditional “provide and protect” masculinity, as people, and women in particular, will need the support of the nuclear and extended family to manage.

So the role of a provider is not a bad masculine role, but in the proper economical-security context. When women are safe economically and personally, playing the provider role is useless.

To sum it up, it must be said that radical feminism has been one of the most important causes of the current weakness of Western civilization, both culturally and demographically. Feminists, often with a Marxist world view, have been a crucial component in establishing the suffocating public censorship of Political Correctness in Western nations. They have also severely weakened the Western family structure, and contributed to making the West too soft and self-loathing to deal with aggression from Muslims.

The apparent contradiction between female dominance on the micro level and male dominance on the macro level cannot be easily explained within the context of a “weaker/stronger sex”. I will postulate that being male first of all is some kind of nervous energy, something you need to prove. This will have both positive and negative results. Male numerical dominance in science and politics, as well as in crime and war, is linked to this. Women do not have this urge to prove themselves as much as men do. In some ways, this is a strength. Hence I think the terms “The Restless Sex” for men and “The Self-Contained Sex” for women are more appropriate and explain the differences better.

[–][deleted] 213 points214 points  (58 children)

See shit like this is where I fucking HATE manginas who support feminism. Even the women who take part in it, when they wise up later in life say "why didn't you stop us?". You fucking morons they're seeing what they can get away with. What rational fucking human cares about microaggressions?!!? If that's your biggest problem you are living a blessed fucking existence.

Great, prophetic article. This is what happens when you let women even dictate SOME of the course of society. They fucking destroy it. A feminine society could never work. Nature is too harsh and unforgiving. It would be wiped out immediately.

[–]MrJugsMcBulge 57 points58 points  (4 children)

What rational fucking human cares about microaggressions?!!? If that's your biggest problem you are living a blessed fucking existence.

You have to remember that despite what the feminist movement says about being "strong, independent, brave, trailblazers" or whatever, these people are essentially cowards. Being in a civilized Western nation and protesting against some made up thing like 'microaggressions' is easy and bears virtually no risk - at worst, they might get laughed at. On the other hand, going to one of the many uncivilized nations in the world and protesting against the actual atrocities going on there - FGM, honor killings, child marriage, etc - holds the very high chance of being imprisoned, tortured, raped and/or killed. Sure, they'll pay the occasional bit of lip service to praising the people in those countries who are putting their lives on the line to enact some relevant change, but the feminists aren't about to risk putting themselves in harm's way...especially not for some brown people living in a country they've never heard of. Besides, none of that stuff affects them directly so, lip service aside, they don't really care. As far as thhe average self-absorbed Western feminist is concerned, who cares if ISIS is setting up rape warehouses filled with nine-year-old girls when, at any moment in the US, a man could be taking up more than one seat on a subway? And what does it matter if thousands of women every day are forced into FGM, when some guy just turned the office air conditioning slightly too low? Shit, I'm full-on MGTOW and I care more about the plight of women in Muslim countries than the average Western feminist does.

Granted, it's not like it's uncommon for left-wing movements to cherry-pick easy battles in safe countries while not giving a crap about severe problems in nations that won't put up with their BS. It's the same reason environmentalists get wound up about what kind of light bulbs Westerners use, all while ignoring the fact that China powers their country by burning a mixture of coal, styrofoam and blue whales.

[–][deleted] 11 points11 points

[permanently deleted]

[–]Endorsed ContributorrebuildingMyself 35 points36 points  (4 children)

"why didn't you stop us?"

Typical feminist/woman behavior to hamster away any agency when shit hits the fan.

[–]firstpitchthrow 2 points3 points  (3 children)

this has to be my favorite part of the entire article. BP men, who comprise the overwhelming majority of the male population, won't say no to women out of fear of losing their affection. The more emasculated men get, the greater a percentage are BP. You are, on a society-wide level, turning men BP. Feminism is killing off the men that women are attracted to.

More for Chad, I guess.

[–]Jordoom 5 points6 points  (2 children)

Until Chad and his genes die off.

Then it's more for Mohammed.

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points  (1 child)

You mean Chad Mustafa ibn Chad Mohammed.

[–][deleted] 14 points15 points  (1 child)

Never forget that a state in turmoil needs men that can fight, not women who can vote.

This will be our generation's one and only chance to defend the Gates of Vienna. So far, we are failing, and doing our ancestors great shame.

How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity.

The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities - but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome.

  • Winston Churchill

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Hate to break it to you. The gates of Vienna were breached this time by... wait for it... a WOMAN. Thanks Merkel.

[–]getRedPill 19 points20 points  (4 children)

What rational fucking human cares about microaggressions?!!? If that's your biggest problem you are living a blessed fucking existence.

Feminists lives where their ideals are not needed anymore and avoid places where they are so needed. For instance, see Western world in comparison to places in Africa where baby girls get their clits cut or islamic societies where women are treated badly.

[–]MordorsFinest 14 points15 points  (3 children)

Maybe conquest by Islam isnt so bad, at least each of us get a few slaves and when they complain tell them its what they fought for

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points  (0 children)

And ultimately war is the father of men.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

I'll keep my head, thank you.

[–]NeoreactionSafe 28 points29 points  (39 children)

I was commenting on this same article over on Dark Enlightenment.

Basically it's the concept of Yin and Yang:


A healthy society keeps the male (Yang) in balance with the female (Yin).

The West has chosen the extremism of pure Yin... pure female imperative... "progress".

This creates a vacuum of Yang which draws masculinity from the outside. (immigration)

The root cause actually goes all the way back to the Battle of Hastings in 1066 when the Anglo-Saxons of England were enslaved by the Norman Viking French kings. This "House of Lords" (Vikings) ruled the Anglo-Saxons for 500+ years. In order to defeat these Norman kings the Anglo-Saxons exploited a flaw in the Magna Carta that limited the power of the king to rule over others. But in defeating the Normans in a cowardly way (with law) it set the feminization process into motion.

Ever since then the West has become more and more slave-like and more feminine.

Even the concept of radical individuality was invented to distract the aristocracy away from real power.


So the bottom line is the West is running a Yang masculinity deficit.

This is why Red Pill seeks to correct the problem and restore balance to the West.


Also if you go back to WWII it was a battle between the feminizing West and the masculine traditional nations such as Germany. The Germans went to the opposite masculine extreme. Once the masculine side lost the Cold War was a struggle between the Progressive and the Communist. The Progressives won. But the Communists did not become Progressives, they instead reverted to traditional cultures. So Russia and China today will reject the West. Islam also rejects the West.

The West is fucked. (and alone)


[–]GuitarHero07 33 points34 points  (29 children)

I wouldn't say that the Soviets, Nazis etc. were inherently more "masculine." The U.S. was a very masculine country for a long time. This is a country founded by people who crossed a vast ocean, leaving everything behind to establish a better life for themselves. It's a country that was founded at the barrel end of a gun. In the past, Americans, Brits, Germans, Scandinavians etc. have been a very warlike people. Just take a look back through their histories!

What has changed is that America and the West have enjoyed unprecedented levels of prosperity. This has never been seen before in human history. Our biggest health problems are now self-inflicted (poor diet, sedentary lifestyle, smoking etc.). The scale of problems that the average Westerner faces today pale in comparison to what his ancestors had to deal with. In many parts of the world, starvation, being killed in a war, dying of preventable/curable illness, death during childbirth, lawlessness and lack of basic infrastructure are very real problems.

Feminism wouldn't even exist today if things like the washing machine, supermarkets, refrigerators, vacuum cleaners etc. didn't exist. Birth control, our system of law and order, social media etc. were all invented by men. The most ardent feminists are white Western women....the most privileged group of humans on the planet. The strongest bastions of feminism are the richest cities: NYC, London, Toronto, San Francisco etc. The most expensive and elite universities are the intellectual center of feminism...Harvard, Columbia etc.

[–]2rp_valiant 24 points25 points  (27 children)

actually, these levels of prosperity were seen by Aristocratic women in the Roman Empire - Rich women with nothing to keep them busy. They then started a movement similar to today's feminism that was one of the many factors in the SPQR's downfall, including immigration of Goths and other non-Romans into the capital.

[–][deleted] 22 points23 points  (23 children)

Thankfully we will have the Trump Wall to stop immigration after this election.

[–]2rp_valiant 6 points7 points  (8 children)

you reckon the politically aware right will outvote the optimistic left? I hope you're right, but I'm not holding my breath.

[–]GuitarHero07 0 points1 point  (11 children)

I like the idea of a wall but first Trump has to get elected and I'm not sure his momentum will last. Then, he has to get approval from Congress. With both Dems and Repubs angling for the Latino vote, it won't be easy. Mexico won't be willing to pay for it and there's not much strong arming he can do because of NAFTA.

[–]blkbullmentor 3 points3 points [recovered]


Tell Canada & Mexico to go eat a bag of dicks. What the fuck they gonna do?

[–]cariboo_j 1 point2 points  (0 children)

NAFTA is pretty bad for Canada actually.

Multinational corporations extract oil from the tarsands in Alberta, then ship it to America for refining.

Canada loses out on job opportunities because it's cheaper for big multinational oil companies to use existing American infrastructure to refine oil rather than building new refineries in Canada.

Basically we eat the environmental costs (which are huge, tar sands and fracking are the dirtiest way to extract oil) and sell our raw oil for the bare minimum profit.

Same with trees and water. We ship our raw natural resources to America for processing then you guys sell them back to us at a huge markup.

Canada is pretty much America's bitch under NAFTA. Well, Canada has always been America's bitch but we're even more so under NAFTA.

[–]GuitarHero07 0 points1 point  (8 children)

And how are you going to get Congress to play along?

[–]blkbullmentor 3 points3 points [recovered]

Fuck congress. If someone had the balls to actually act for the good of the country, then I'm all for it. Let those bitches send it to the SCOTUS.

[–]nomoreusernames678 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Essentially, you want someone to come in and usurp the law and legal process and do what you want him to do. Rest assured there is already a man who does this. Obama. And even though you don't like how he's been handling things, remember that his approval rating is almost 50-50, so your blue counterparts love the job he's doing.

My question is what makes your desires more important than the desires of those he's already fulfilling?

[–]GuitarHero07 0 points1 point  (3 children)

You obviously don't understand the basics of the Constitution and how the U.S. government works.

[–][deleted] 11 points12 points  (0 children)

If you look back, a lot of social movements came about when women had less work to do in the house. The development of the washing machine, stove, refrigerator, and when they were adopted into the average household are all near major social movements, such as prohibition (Carrie A. Nation) and Women's suffrage, which are around the times the Refrigerater and the stove became popular (1930s, 1910s respectively). Too little work, and too much free time and women become experts in "social justice"

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

You cannot compare the "Aryan Übermensch" to the "Manifest Destiny Mutt". One is a homogenous icon of masculinity, the other a social reject.

[–]fakenate1 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I don't think it really distracts from your point, but king John (who signed the magna carta) was not a Norman King. And in fact King John lost the duchy of Normandy to the French before he even signed the paperwork.

That and danelaw was part of the island of Britain for a long time before the Normans invaded. King Cnut (a Viking) was King of England until about a generation before the Norman conquest.

You did point out that the Normans were Vikings, which most people don't know, they settled in Normandy on land they took from the franks.

What's even more interesting is that after the Norman conquest of England, they conquered other parts of Europe. The Normans conquered Sicily from the Muslims who ruled the island.

[–]cariboo_j 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Once the masculine side lost the Cold War was a struggle between the Progressive and the Communist

Disagree on this point. Are you familiar with Neitzsche's work?

He argues communism is a form of herd mentality. Communists fear excellence or separating one's self from the herd. They are crabs in a bucket who want to pull everyone down to the level of the lowest common denominator in the name of equality.

This runs counter to the male drive towards competition and rising above one's peers.

Plus, Marx (or Engels, can't remember which) himself was a huge proponent of gender equality. He argued that women were exploited by men in the same way the proletariat were exploited by the bourgeoisie. This sloppy projection of the class struggle dynamic onto gender relations has always been a staple of feminism.

EDIT: Nevermind, upon rereading your post you're not arguing that Communism was a "masculine" ideology.

[–]TheRedThrowAwayPill 0 points1 point  (2 children)

This is why Red Pill seeks to correct the problem and restore balance to the West.

Whaaaaaa? Since when?

No no no. This sub is NOT about that. This sub is about accepting the problem and enjoying the decline. It seeks to take advantage of the situation and maximize selfish pursuits.

However, it does seem at times like this group is about to up and start its own political party.

[–]cariboo_j 2 points3 points  (0 children)

There's always been a battle between the MGTOW/PUA side of the manosphere who seek to change themselves, and the tradcon/MRA side who seek to change society.

The former is realistic and the latter are... not based in reality.

Tradcons, MRA's and Dark Enlightenment guys are reactionary and overly ambitious. You can even tell by the guy's name, NeoreactionSafe. Traditional gender roles aren't coming back due to changes in technology.

Either way, they weren't that great for men or women imo. (Feminists had a point when they said traditional gender roles weren't that great for women, where they fucked up was concluding men were evil oppressors who were doing it for the lulz. Rigid traditional genders roles were simply a necessary adaptation to a harsh environment.) I think society needs to find a new equilibrium based on radical individualism. We are in a transition stage and progressivism/feminism was a misguided stab in the dark at finding this new equilibrium. Eventually we'll arrive at something other than traditionalism or feminism, hopefully.

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

Competition, self-improvement and masculine boldness (what this sub supports) are LITERALLY the reason for civilization.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I just realized that TheRedPill might be a foundation for 21st century Enlightenment.

[–]cariboo_j 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A feminine society could never work. Nature is too harsh and unforgiving. It would be wiped out immediately.

Actually there are some matriarchal societies. They're mostly primitive hunter gatherers or horticulturalists who live in mud huts. The patriarchal nuclear family in which husbands take ownership and responsibility over their wife's sexuality has the effect of harnessing the energy of the male sex drive and channeling it into producing excess labor which is distributed throughout society and protecting weaker individuals.

Unfortunately for feminists men need to have some ownership (whether it's being a partner in a law firm or the head of a nuclear family) to feel obligated.

Perhaps ownership is the wrong word. Men need to know there are some reciprocal duties and obligations from the other party to uphold their end of the bargain. A man won't work hard and put in his best effort at a company that pays him shit wages and doesn't value his contributions. This is because he has no stake in how well the company does. The same is true of modern marriage on the individual level and gender relations on the societal level. Men have no incentive to work hard and provide for women because (a) modern no-fault divorce laws place all the obligations and duties on the husband and none on the wife and (b) the government will protect and provide for the female collective, with their only obligation being to vote for far-left parties.

This is why marriage and birthrates are declining throughout industrialized nations, and especially in Western industrialized nations. Men have very little incentive to take on the traditional protector and provider role, so they are disengaging and either becoming players or going full on mgtow. It's disastrous for society as a whole but a rational choice for individual men.

[–]HoundDogs 20 points21 points  (3 children)

On this same topic, if you haven't seen this yet, you should.


Sarksleezian, Briana WU, and Zoe Quinn (of GamerGate fame) were INVITED TO THE FUCKING UN to speak about, of all things, freedom of speech online.

They get to go to the UN to play their professional victim card.

[–]fuckeh 7 points8 points  (2 children)

Wow this is depressing. Censor the internet? How about limit your exposure on the internet you whiny babies. People are harassing you online? Get your face and name off the internet, stupid. It's a great big sea of anonymous people and if you voice very strong and controversial opinions you have to expect some negativity will flood through.

I personally know a feminist blogger/"artist" that complains about online harassment. Obviously it's wrong for people to send her death threats as she claims to receive (I've looked for them on twitter and found none, so unless they're DM's she's lying but that's beside the point). But when I suggest she stops sharing her real name and other personal information she gets offended. No, we need other solutions. Like censoring the entire internet. You couldn't possibly dial back the amount of personal info you share, because at the root of it all you love the attention. You need people to see your face and know your name.

I can't believe people listen to these vapid attention whores and their childish ideas.

[–]HoundDogs 8 points9 points  (1 child)

One thing that remains 100% consistant is that I have never seen one single shred of evidence proving that these feminist recieve death threats. Not one screenshot, not one voicemail recording if they claim to be called. I'm not saying they don't exist but at this point they're making claims and they have ZERO evidence. It's "Shameful" to ask for proof these days though, as asinine as that sounds. It's simple to me....if they have something to gain by manipulating the truth, then if they make a claim they are lying until PROVEN truthful.

I go to extended lengths NOT to share personal information. I don't know why that concept is so hard for these idiots but, I think you're right, it's got to be attention.

I cannot even fathom how professional victimhood has thrust them this far into the limelight. People like Nancy Grace, Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, and Justin Bieber are not rare in our culture and they have ARMIES of people who insult, degrade, hate, and actively try to get the best of them. They are public figures, dealing with shitheads is part of the job.

Nancy Grace didn't get invited to the UN. She put on her big girl pants, bucked the fuck up, got back out there, and spread nonsense to the world.

[–]fuckeh 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm sure the death threats happen sometimes but some of these women fabricate it. The one that I know probably does. She's in my family so I was legitimately concerned and searched her mentions on twitter and found NOTHING.

Personally I've had my life threatened over pretty stupid shit online, I've never taken it seriously. I had an account that people wanted from me, had it for 10+ years. My moms credit card was linked to it for the first year since I was a kid when I created it. Someone somehow found her name, phone number, everything even though her address had changed twice and she had a new last name after marrying. Some freak called her late at night about my account. So yea, any sliver of personal info can open up a window to basement dwellers on the internet. You have to lock it up fairly tight if you value your privacy. People that openly share their full name, location and pictures online have to be prepared for what might happen. To suggest censoring the entire internet is infantile logic, it's like if the entire public had to adhere to a curfew because a tiny minority commit crimes late at night.

[–][deleted] 44 points45 points  (7 children)

Feminism is basically a scheme that destroys a society over the longer term.

Initially, feminism appears to marginally increase productivity for the rich classes by expanding the work force. Therefore, it appears all positive and no negative for the rich classes when it first starts.

The problems arise over the longer term. Feminism destroys the birth rate due to "career women", increases the divorce rates, allows for the development of affirmative action that pushes more qualified men out of important positions, etc.

Therefore, over the longer run the society collapses due to:

1) Inefficiency that develops due to AA women taking top positions they aren't qualified for.

2) Educational standards collapse due to single moms being unable to raise the next generation well. Also, schooling becomes "emotional" rather than standard based.

3) Birth rates collapse due to "career women" stop having children. Career women don't want to commit during their best fertility years "while developing their career" to ride the CC in an attempt to lock down a man WAY out of her league. The hypergamy is further exacerbated because the women are shooting for the few men left at the top positions (which haven't been destroyed by AA).

4) Massive third world immigration is needed to keep the socialist economy to survive. With such low birth rates, the society is unable to function without a massive immigration scheme. This leads to more "male dominated societies" that have healthy birth rates to take over the feminist societies.

Within 3 generations, the feminist society is finished and replaced by another patriarchal society.

[–]1ErasmusOrgasmus 7 points8 points  (1 child)

Within 3 generations, the feminist society is finished and replaced by another patriarchal society.

The scary thing about this is that it looks like that patriarchal society is going to be an Islamic one here in Europe given the decline in white European birth rates and the steep rise in net incoming migration from the muslim world.

[–]Rougepellet 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thus the cycle continues. Sometime will pass and people will forget the cancer known as feminism that was the downfall of a previous generation. Women will slowly request more rights and men will collectively fail shit test after shit test.

[–]Redasshole 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Within 3 generations, the feminist society is finished and replaced by another patriarchal society.

You mean I was born in the last generation of feminism and that once I die all the men will have some fun while I'm fucking dead?


[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Possibly, feminism has only really become the norm in the last generation.

The baby boomers never really experienced feminism until they changed the policies when they took over politics.

The WW2 generation never supported the feminist changes.

[–]Redasshole 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I can imagine the men thinking about feminism as a good old joke.

I hope they build fucking statues to commemorate our sacrifice.

[–]Endorsed Contributorredpillbanana 85 points86 points  (51 children)

If you want to see how feminism and political correctness can destroy a country, look at Sweden, the "Saudi Arabia of feminism" as Julian Assange calls it.

Here's a great article from the defunct website The Spearhead:



Feminism loves heavy state subsidization like mold loves moisture, so it’s no wonder that in the world’s most extreme welfare states like the Scandinavian countries Denmark, Norway, and particularly Sweden, feminism is stronger than in any other places in the world.

Economy wise: Swedish men pay on average 55% more taxes than females, but the average pay of men is NOT 55% higher. In fact, it’s statistically been proven, that all things being equal other than gender, there is no difference between male and female earnings here.

Most of the social care payouts go to females, and the general child care payout goes to females by default, not to both parents.

if you cohabit with a Swedish woman you will be lucky to get 4 or 5 years together (or even less) before she becomes bored with you and gets physically attracted to someone else and just leaves. Plus that 4 or 5 years will be one long argument because the women here are so full of themselves, full of anger too, and they always think they’re right about everything.

Remarkably, there are stories of Muslim no-go zones where bands of young men enforce Sharia law and police are barred from entering for fear of their lives.

But whether or not the reports of no-go zones are real or simply racist or xenophobic fear-mongering is difficult to tell. On one hand there is the heavily censored mainstream media. On the other there’s the unabashed bias of the radical right wing; the only ones who seem to have the balls to brave the enforced silence and highlight these issues.

One of the reasons for this lack of response is a deliberate and pervasive censorship in the mainstream media, to conceal the full scale of the problem from the general public. However, I suspect that the most important reason has to do with the extreme anti-masculine strand of feminism that has permeated Scandinavia for decades

But whatever the truth, there are likely SOME serious issues with the integration of large migrant populations there. Growing reports point to increasing lack of safety for women. Feminism might actually have worked against women’s interests in this regard because after being bullied to the point of being legally obligated to have to sit down to pee, and being made a laughing stock of in front of men around the world, Swedish men are not in the position (or perhaps not inclined) to be the white knights who will come to their countrywomen’s aid.

The male protective instinct doesn’t take action because Scandinavian women have worked tirelessly to eradicate it, together with everything else that smacks of traditional masculinity. Because of this, feminism has greatly weakened Scandinavia.

But in the feminist’s eyes giving any power whatsoever back to men forced to pee sitting down is terribly unjust.

Particularly unjust, they feel, if the gentleman is older and offering his status and privilege to underprivileged foreign wives who give him their youth, beauty, and faithfulness in return.

Anyway I'm going to end up quoting the entire article because it makes so many good points. Just go and read it.

You'll see all the hallmarks of feminism:

  • State subsidization, especially of women
  • High taxes
  • Political correctness run amok
  • Double standards
  • Trivial matters made a national priority (i.e. men standing to urinate)
  • Censorship
  • Laws to solve social problems
  • Men vs women adversarial atmosphere
  • Lack of accountability for women
  • False accusations used as a weapon (see Julian Assange)
  • Men giving up, MGTOW, going Galt

[–]103342 67 points68 points  (3 children)

It is amazing how obvious this stuff is and at the same time so controversial.

Feminism is like the wolf dressed as a sheep. It sounds so good: Everyone has the same freedom, we are all equal and no more violence, no more agression, free love, etc.

Men see in feminine behavior a chance to get complacent, live in peace and not compete with other males.

But nature was never made to be peaceful. Most societies start to thrive by winning wars. Buildings and bridges and computers and electronics and cars... All built with male blood and sweat.

Our sacrifices mean nothing anymore. Our achievements are seen has an obligation and sometimes even looked down upon.

[–]Endorsed ContributorObio1 12 points13 points  (2 children)

Along those lines, here's a truly awesome bit of parody: http://thefederalist.com/2015/09/25/were-sorry-for-producing-our-cisgendered-son/

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

Excellent read, thanks for sharing. Although it worries me that there might be parents who think like that and the line between satire and reality is blurring.

[–]fingerthemoon 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Lol, good read. I didn't realize it was satire at first and was horrified. Hahahaha

[–][deleted] 18 points19 points  (7 children)

after being bullied to the point of being legally obligated to have to sit down to pee

I hadn't heard of this before so I went in search of information to see if it was true. Apparently it's not (it's not actually illegal), but I found a quote in an article that blew my mind and I have to share:


"Despite the increasing domestication of men in this area, urinating while standing up is indeed still common practice," Hank added.

"domestication of men"

Men aren't even people in Europe anymore. I want to feel relieved - hey, at least it's not that bad over here in the US - but I'm sure it's only a matter of time.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (2 children)

Here in the Netherlands most people roll their eyes and go on with their lives whenever some feminist took over a TV discussion about any topic. Most of us are way too busy for nonsense like feminism (busy with med school in my case). Maybe Scandinavia is bad in terms of "feminism" but don't assume Europe is one country with one culture. Many southern countries are still quite traditional in terms of gender. Sure, every adult can vote but most Europeans don't give a single fuck about it and most males kind of enjoy the naked feminist protesters!

[–]trp-grasshopper 0 points1 point  (1 child)

The west is a "group think" mentality, I'm a canadian, and I don't have enough fingers on my hands to count the number of places in Europe I'd love to call home.

[–]jsalathe 7 points8 points  (0 children)

We visited my family in Hamburg this summer and our cousin (male), the father, reprimanded my son for standing while peeing in their toilet. The whole time he was trying to explain to my 6 year old why it was better to sit down to pee, my son was laughing because he thought it was a joke. I couldn't have been prouder. My son never once sat down to pee and just mocked my relatives for being girly.

[–]yuube 6 points7 points  (0 children)

It depends where in Europe I think, my family is southern Italian and many places there still have traditional men and women.

[–]pumpkinrum 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's messed up. Of course it's common practice, what the hell?

[–]americanenglishh 17 points18 points  (11 children)

Remarkably, there are stories of Muslim no-go zones where bands of young men enforce Sharia law and police are barred from entering for fear of their lives.

Again, lots of bullshit. There are no such zones in Sweden. None at all. There are ghettofied areas such as Angered and Rosengård, but to suggest that these areas are controlled by Sharia law and are so dangerous that the police dare not enter is utter madness.

Swedish ghettos are kindergarten-tier compared to the US equivalent. Sure, people commit crimes in higher rate around these areas - but Sweden is by no means a dangerous country.

Still, immigration is a problem.

And I would also like to point out, as a Swede, that I haven't heard of this "don't stand up and pee"-nonsense in ten years.

Edit: Again, I'm being downvoted for telling the truth. I'm being downvoted because the truth doesn't fit into your world view. This reeks of feminism techniques. You're no better than the people you oppose.

Sweden has definitely gone downhill since immigration shot through the roof, but to suggest that there are dangerous "no go zones" in Sweden is ridiculous. Sweden had 87 homicides 2014. That's 87 homicides in a country with a population of almost ten million. In comparison, Chicago had 460 homicides in 2014 on a population of 2.7 million.

[–]avoiceoftreason 4 points5 points  (1 child)

Sweden has definitely gone downhill since immigration shot through the roof, but to suggest that there are dangerous "no go zones" in Sweden is ridiculous. Sweden had 87 homicides 2014. That's 87 homicides in a country with a population of almost ten million. In comparison, Chicago had 460 homicides in 2014 on a population of 2.7 million.

This, together with declining murder rates, is an argument used by the mainstream media to prove that Sweden is safe. The statistics aren't wrong, but they're terribly misleading. A mere glance at crime statistics will show you that everything except murder rates has been rising significantly over the past few decades (especially violent crimes), including things like murder attempts, which have doubled since 1980 (against a population growth of 17%). The main explanation here is improved emergency health care: an injury that would have killed you twenty years ago can often be survived today.

On no-go zones: the fact that ambulances and firefighters cannot/refuse to enter certain immigrant-majority areas without police escort says a lot. I agree that the police still enters these areas, but certainly not without risk - remember the police van that was hit by a hand grenade this summer?

[–]americanenglishh 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Sweden is safe. Is it safer than before? No, definitely not. But it's still safe, and compared to a country like the US where some cities have more homicides on a single street than the entirety of Stockholm, you really can't argue that Sweden is safe. It's all relative, though, and Sweden is definitely not as safe as it was thirty years ago, let alone ten.

I'm not pro immigration. It's a massive issue and an extremely hot topic in Sweden right now. The country is divided, both politically and socially. There hasn't been a political topic this hot in Sweden before. Not in my lifetime at least.

I'm just cracking down on the myths in this thread where people paint Sweden as a country of cuckolded, spineless beta males.

[–]Endorsed Contributorredpillbanana 3 points4 points  (5 children)

Not sure why you're being downvoted - I always appreciate a person with first-hand experience. I've never been to Sweden so I can only go by articles that I've read. Sadly, first-hand articles on many of these subjects seem to be banned in Sweden.

The point of the Muslim no-go zones (in the above article) was to point out that Sweden is censoring many of these stories due to laws enforcing political correctness, so it is difficult to the real story. Would love to get your input on the PC censorship there.

In terms of murder, it seems that Sweden is much safer than the USA. However, I keep reading articles similar to this one. Again, would love your perspective on this.


Forty years after the Swedish parliament unanimously decided to change the formerly homogenous Sweden into a multicultural country, violent crime has increased by 300% and rapes by 1,472%. Sweden is now number two on the list of rape countries, surpassed only by Lesotho in Southern Africa.

Significantly, the report does not touch on the background of the rapists. One should, however, keep in mind that in statistics, second-generation immigrants are counted as Swedes.

In an astounding number of cases, the Swedish courts have demonstrated sympathy for the rapists, and have acquitted suspects who have claimed that the girl wanted to have sex with six, seven or eight men.

The internet radio station Granskning Sverige called the mainstream newspapers Aftonposten and Expressen to ask why they had described the perpetrators as "Swedish men" when they actually were Somalis without Swedish citizenship. They were hugely offended when asked if they felt any responsibility to warn Swedish women to stay away from certain men. One journalist asked why that should be their responsibility.

[–]americanenglishh 3 points4 points  (4 children)

Hey, thanks for the reply. PC censorship is strong over here, but I'm inclined to believe that it is no different from other progressive countries within the western hemisphere, where political correctness prevails and is the norm.

Regarding the rape statistics - this has got to be the most filthy way of distorting the truth to paint Sweden as the devil of Scandinavia.

To even put a shred of faith into the notion that Sweden could possibly be ranked 2nd in the world in rapes per capita is absolutely astonishing. Let's say Somalis are the ones doing the raping - wouldn't Somalia then have much higher rates of rape since there's a higher concentration of Somalis in that area? The same argument can be used for arabs and other african ethnicities.

Sure, I believe immigrants are more inclined to rape than Swedes, but that "Rape capital of Europe" is utter bullshit. This is just proof that Sweden is the most progressive and liberal country in the world, because those numbers factor in rape allegations, and not just actual raping. Women in Sweden actually REPORT these men. Rape numbers shot through the roof once they broadened its definition: for example, if you touch a girl between her legs against her consent, they add a rape charge in the statistics. Also, if you rape your wife 300 times, that counts as 300 separate cases of rape - whereas in other countries it may only count as one.

Tl;dr - Different countries have different definitions of rape and different ways of registering each case.

I would like to point out that yes, immigration is still a problem. But the Swedish Democrats, our anti-immigration party, got 26-27% of the votes in the latest survey, and that's up from 10% last election. People aren't blind anymore.

[–]avoiceoftreason 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Hey, thanks for the reply. PC censorship is strong over here, but I'm inclined to believe that it is no different from other progressive countries within the western hemisphere, where political correctness prevails and is the norm.

The main difference between media in Sweden and in other countries is that there is essentially no conservative media in Sweden. In a normal country, when a political party makes a proposal, some news outlets support it while some oppose it. This doesn't happen in Sweden, because all news outlets essentially share the same opinions (beside some small differences on economic issues, e.g. the size of the welfare state). All news outlets are pro-immigration, which means that you never get to read about its negative effects.

This creates a situation where it becomes more important for parties to please the media rather than the voters, because they have to choose between getting support from all the media outlets or none of them. This leads to policies that are popular among progressive media but unpopular among the population, such as splitting paternal leave by gender instead of letting the parents themselves decide.

Luckily, thanks to the internet, people are slowly starting to read other points of view.

[–]Endorsed Contributorredpillbanana 1 point2 points  (2 children)

Let's say Somalis are the ones doing the raping - wouldn't Somalia then have much higher rates of rape since there's a higher concentration of Somalis in that area? The same argument can be used for arabs and other african ethnicities.

What I've heard is that some of the muslim men have no problems raping a non-muslim woman since they are infidels anyway. Again, no idea if this is really true - it's just what I've heard coming from that area.

Different countries have different definitions of rape and different ways of registering each case.

So between PC censorship and inflated feminist statistics, it sounds like it is impossible to get the real story.

[–]fishysmelly 3 points4 points  (1 child)

So between PC censorship and inflated feminist statistics, it sounds like it is impossible to get the real story.

It cannot be overstated how hard the PC censorship really is. I'm from Sweden and it was in Poland I learned about some controversial rapes. Turned out the Poles were right

[–]americanenglishh 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, rape happens in Sweden. But it is utterly ridiculous to believe that Sweden has more rapes than capita than any African, South African or underdeveloped country (i.e India). Reports? Allegations? False rape charges? Maybe so. Actual rapes? Fuck no.

[–][deleted] 15 points16 points  (9 children)

Sweden aka the cuck capital of the world

[–]americanenglishh 9 points10 points  (7 children)

Have you ever been to Sweden? I can only assume you are ill-informed and, much like feminists themselves, gullible and easily tricked by such myths as the "standing while peeing" bullshit. There is no such thing in Sweden. None at all.

Edit: Am I honestly being downvoted for telling the truth? I live in Sweden you fuckwits. That standing while peeing bullshit was a proposal we had years back, and it failed to come through. You guys are fucking sad for downvoting the truth because it doesn't fit into your world view. Hmm...seems like a familiar approach to debating. Something something feminism.

[–][deleted] 20 points21 points  (5 children)

That fact that it was a proposal at all is ridiculous.

[–]americanenglishh 5 points6 points  (4 children)

Really? A proposal can come from anyone. The fact that we live in a democracy and such a proposal as "Gays should not have rights!" could, albeit not likely in Sweden, surface is just proof of that - we live in a democracy. You're being dishonest.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (3 children)

No dishonest bullshit here. I'm all for democracy, but just because I have a vote doesn't mean I should vote to subjugate people I don't like.

And I think the people who truly believe that gays shouldn't have rights and use government as a means to that end is equally ridiculous as whatever's happening in Sweden regarding wanting men to sit when they pee.

What is bullshit is the majority of people forcing the government to meddle in the affairs of private citizens in areas that don't affect the average person in any significant way.

And I couldn't give a shit about meaningless internet points.

[–]americanenglishh 1 point2 points  (2 children)

Well, again, you're making it seem like such ludicrous proposals are limited to Sweden. Because Sweden is soooo PC and men are such spineless betas, amirite?

Edit: Since you edited, why are you still on about this peeing stuff? I have literally NOT heard this proposal from anyone in the last ten years, and feminism is "stronger" than ever. This is not happening. People pee however they fucking want to pee. I vaguely remember hearing about it in school many years ago. That's it.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Oh it's definitely not limited to Sweden

[–]reigorius 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's a catchy phrase to say and sulk at the implied unfairness of how feminism are treating men. It is one of the bigger dangers of online fora and its cultural legacy. We start screaming mantras without any form of factual background check.

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

Well, our laws and public media for sure. The cultural elite or w/e are undoubtedly beta as hell, but at the same time a lot of young males are starting to hate what's happening and waking up. There's a lot of bitching on the net about immigration, gypsy beggars and now recently the refugee campaigns.

Look at it this way, there's a political party who wants to limit all immigrations by abot 90%, which are steadily rising. Sweden may have successfully forced people to be quiet or face social ridicule for criticising the far left, but votes are still anonymous and in all polls the Swedish Democrats rise

[–]recoveringdeleted 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Why look as far as sweden? I only have to look out my window

[–][deleted] 34 points35 points  (7 children)

Feminism wanted to make men weak, so that women would get the space to become powerful. But with weak men nobody will protect a nation from strong men from other patriarchal cultures.

The best irony is that women get their "powerful" jobs as doctors, lawyers, professors, etc and wonder why men don't want them any more.

[–]tomysotomayorfuxboys 46 points47 points  (5 children)

Women think that their power and career success is supposed to attract men of equal, or, better yet, higher status. First of all, men generally aren't attracted to women's power or status. Second, men with money, power, and status tend to go for women who have lower status than they do. That way the woman benefits from the relationship, because he raises her socioeconomic status.

When some "successful" woman thinks she's entitled to a man who is richer than her, it is a joke, because she's not offering him anything. If a man has more money and status than the woman, the woman isn't really bringing anything to the table, in terms of status. If women want to use their money / power / status as a selling point, they'd have to go for lower status men, the way men do with women. Except women don't want to do that, and even low status men would usually prefer young, attractive women over "powerful" women anyway.

[–][deleted] 28 points29 points  (4 children)

This comment has been overwritten by an open source script to protect this user's privacy.

If you would like to do the same, add the browser extension GreaseMonkey to Firefox and add this open source script.

Then simply click on your username on Reddit, go to the comments tab, and hit the new OVERWRITE button at the top.

[–]EnergyDrinkGut2 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I just have to put this here. Dave Chappelle and Oprah classic :) link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (2 children)

Forget status, money is the only reason I would fuck Oprah, then never call her back.

[–]McLarenX 4 points5 points  (0 children)

The thought of fucking oprah makes my dick retract into my body

[–]CuntyMcFagNuts69 15 points16 points  (1 child)

[–]McLarenX 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Holy fucking shit. I don't know what is more scary, the fact that she admits "feminism" ("equal rights" my ass) is a tool used to rectify sexual regret, or the fact that she wants a solution to consensual sex that she later regrets.

We created this. Easy student loans and the creation of shitty, useless degrees created this.

[–]Endorsed ContributorLastRevision 102 points103 points  (31 children)

A civilization can only be as successful as to the extent of which it is able to control female sexuality. This makes women our primary interest in society, just not for the glamorous reasons they would like to believe.

A controlled female sexuality allows men to remain naïve (blue pill). When more men remain naïve and are guaranteed a woman and a family, they will be at peak productivity in making that civilization optimal. They will raise the most stable children who guarantee a positive future for that civilization.

Granted the patriarchy wasn't perfect, some men were abusive or took advantage of the easy power they were given, but the system obviously worked more times than it didn't and we need to structure a society around what works for the majority of the time.

As female sexuality is unrestrained in today's world, far less men are guaranteed a woman and some reject it due to all the exposed pitfalls (the naïve man becomes the red pill man). Instead of having men working collectively to build a strong civilization for their offspring, we have men working for their own individual gain as the world burns.

This is why we say that the system cannot sustain itself and will collapse; the system runs best when female sexuality is restrained and men are naïve.

[–]lala_xyyz 52 points53 points  (26 children)

The current system in the West won't collapse, it will just be replaced with something else that does place social controls on female sexuality. It will either come through Islam, or through restoration of Marriage 1.0 rules. Feminism is fertility-negative and will weed itself out from the gene pool in the long term. The same is valid for the naive blue-pill men (who get cucked and whose work is used to subsidize fertility-positive cultures through taxes) and jaded but childless red-pill men. The only question is which side will prevail. For an amusing take on it see Michel Houellebecq's recent novel Submission where the left pushes for a Muslim president who promptly undoes a century of feminism (and the men end up loving it).

[–]drallcom3 34 points34 points [recovered]

Right-wing parties are on the rise throughout Europe. The next 10-20 years are going to be interesting. Islam is not going to take over, but the welfare states can't be sustained to full extend anymore. Expect more unemployment and ghettos.

[–]WingTune0 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Agreed. The degeneracy of blue-pilled beta liberal democracies are finally dying out, with massive support for right-wing nationalist parties on the rise, like with America's Trump and Greece's Golden Dawn Party, being more accepted by their respective populace.

[–][deleted] 13 points14 points  (7 children)

What Islam is missing is intellectual thinking on their religion and ideologies. Instead you get beheaded right the fuck away. They haven't had that unlike Europe (Enlightement) and Asia (Confucius).

[–]drallcom3 15 points15 points [recovered]

Fun fact: ISIS is actually only taking the Koran literal and doing what is says. It's just that no one likes to admit it.

[–]BigRedChewingChum 5 points6 points  (3 children)

Historically that is simply not accurate, Muslim culture such as in Baghdad circa 900 A.D. and the Levant near 1400 saw a flourishing of intellectualism. In fact, it was translated Greek and Roman documents circulating in the Muslim world that started the Renaissance in Europe by allowing these things to arrive on the Italian peninsula through trade with port cities like Venice. To say that Islam is lacking in intellectual thought is ignoring all of Islam's history before the 20th century. Iraq is fucked because of borders imposed by the British, Iran because of the imposition of the Shah by the United States, Syria because of training/arming rebels and a proxy war between Russia and Western Interests, and Saudi Arabia (repression-wise) because of King Fahd's crackdown on Westernization after the seizure of the Grand Mosque in Mecca by Juhayman in the 1970's. Like it or not, the West did a really good job at fucking up the Middle East, and now we're turning it on ourselves.

[–][deleted] 14 points15 points  (2 children)

Wahhabism has fucked up these countries at least as much as the British or French, and countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran are de facto Imperial powers doing the exact same thing that the Europeans did a hundred years ago in places like Iraq, Yemen, Syria, Palestine, Lebanon, the list goes on and on.

The whole blame the West thing is starting to get old, and I don't think people are buying it anymore. Taking responsibility for yourself and not blaming someone else for your problems is what Red pill is all about.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Wahhabism was a fairly small cult until the USA spread it across the world. A few decades ago you wouldn't get shot for drawing Muhammad, in fact many Muslims did it. Wahhabism spread the idea of death for prophet depiction.

[–]balkanthndr 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Iconography in Islam has ALWAYS been forbidden. When the Ottomans took over the Hagia Sophia, they literally stripped all of the Christian artwork and replaced it with equivalent Islamic calligraphy because of said issue of iconography.

[–]vakerr 12 points13 points  (4 children)

The current system in the West won't collapse, it will just be replaced with something else that does place social controls on female sexuality

The high-tech civilization of the West is the result of science, technology and a high-trust (European style) society. It doesn't exist because of progressivism, it exists in spite of it. A low trust, kinship focused society where Islamic dogma dominates science will not support such high level of functionality. What you'll get is sliding backwards technologically, Malthusian limits reasserting themselves, and hopes for a human future among the stars extinguished.

[–]fishysmelly 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Feminism is fertility-negative and will weed itself out from the gene pool in the long term.

I love this. Though with todays rapid spread of ideas through internet and general globalization feminism could very well spread faster than its population decline.

In the end all the world could get feminist and be fertility-negative. To be honest that is the only good thing about feminism in my opinion - that it decreases population, wich this world definately needs. That and post-feminism will be awesome, when the pendulum has swung back and hopefully we have solved the enviromental issues by then.

[–]1PrinceofSpades 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Thanks for summarizing my bleak outlook on things so perfectly. I now have a more clear way I can explain things to any who would lend an ear, few as they are in this day and age, about why I gave up on society and now live solely for my own sake.

[–]TRP Vanguard: "Dark Triad Expert"IllimitableMan 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Great post, reminiscent of my essay on Promiscuity & Civilization.


[–]LoL-Guru 59 points59 points [recovered]

This is why feminist societies have never flourished or found any sort of long term staying power on the globe. Think about how many female dominated empires you've heard of or can think in the scope of history? Not female leaders like Cleopatra, but actual female dominant societies.

The reason they don't exist is because male dominated societies would invariably come and conquer them; we are observing the social Darwinism of a feminist society. Take notes gentlemen.

[–]One_friendship_plz 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Also keep in mind men that women already have control over the development of society.

  • The vast majority of single parents are women.
  • The vast majority of stay at home parents from married households are women.
  • The vast majority of teachers (especially at younger grades) are women.

All it simply takes is for these women to switch to the feminist side for us to be screwed. Fortunately they aren't very competent.
for ages 0-15 a male is predominantly influenced by a woman.

[–]getRedPill 26 points27 points  (0 children)

It's not only feminism but the whole cultural marxism combo, in which feminism is the most visible and loud voice and attacking spear. But expect more to come, the other are just getting strong and ready to attack when feminism lose credibility which it is already losing.

For instance, there's nothing that makes man more pussified and blue pilled than Welfare State, which works in conjunction with feminism and paved it's way decades ago. In welfare states the traditional provider and bread-winner have no value because everything is given to him so there's no proud no more in working and going out to earn food so he becomes weaker and weaker in mind and body. Same for her, if she needs shelter or food she doesn't need a man anymore she goes to daddy state to a) give some stamps or b) force some man to pay for her. Daddy State is the ultimate Alpha in today western societies and we all are betas in comparison. Men lost value in the eye of women.

There's more in the mix, like Political Correctness which is only a form of hidden coward censorship, but for today I leave it there.

[–]MelodyMyst 19 points20 points  (0 children)

It's sad to say, but if you are old enough and if you were paying attention, you can see where almost every "slippery slope" argument of the last 50+ years has come to pass.

[–]2comment 10 points11 points  (1 child)

I hate blaming feminism for our woes, because in reality it's just a societal wide shit test.

The big problem is the amount of manginas and white knights that will rush forward to fail it for all of us. And it getting reinforced by the number of single parent households raising ever increasing amounts of betas, detas, zetas wtf do I know... and the courts suppressing any TRP behavior with their own blue pill judges/legislature and what not.

I've never really ever seen a feminist who really wasn't crying out for some stabilizing masculinity in her life, despite all the verbal diarrhea they routinely vomit out. These people often don't have stable lives nor an anchor and they go crazy trying to find one buried in the latest popular buzzwords and other nonsense.

[–]McLarenX 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I used to think these fucks were funny. These neutered men who willingly give up their birthright to appease the feminine initiative. It's a serious problem, however, when these poor deluded souls want to take OUR money to pay for their Marxist welfare state.

These women will never get a masculine man. He doesn't want a fat, angry, multi-colored hair single parent woman who thinks gender is a "construct". He wants a feminine, pure, submissive, caring woman who will provide for the needs of him and his offspring.

So the above mentioned feminist will instead steal our money to support Chad Jr. (whoever's kid that was from the pool party gangbang), rejecting the emasculated pussies they created. I don't think anyone really thought through the potential long-term consequences of this system.

[–]garlicextract[🍰] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Feminism wanted to make men weak, so that women would get the space to become powerful. But with weak men nobody will protect a nation from strong men from other patriarchal cultures.

Ding ding ding ding, this is why we come to TRP. Great insight.

[–]Zemataitais 6 points6 points [recovered]

I went to the theater for the first time in a couple years yesterday to see "The Intern".

It centers around a woman (Angelina Jolie) struggling to manage her startup with a family life (beta stay-at-home dad cheats on her [somehow]). Essentially it makes a statement on women being able to have the ambitious, high-profile job without having it "threaten her husband's manhood".

What bothers me most is that not a single male character was presented in a strong, positive light. Every male in the film was a bonafide pussy and/or idiot. EVERY. SINGLE. ONE.

One could argue De Niro was presented positively, but Christ he was spewing feminist "you go girl" white knight platitudes the whole movie while she treated him like dogshit.

Is this the norm nowadays? Beta men dominating cinema? No chance in hell I would let my son get poisoned by such filth.

Then again, I look around and see most men acting in the same way so its likely a reflection of real life. Depressing for society, really.

[–]Ferelden 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I think this is a flawed premise. The most powerful men in the country are only allowing feminism to work because it isn't costing them anything. As soon as it does, and it will, you'll see the media and government start pushing back.

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points  (1 child)

this is 9 years old? that man is a prophet

[–]Senior Contributordr_warlock 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Don't forget to add Aldous Huxley and George Orwell

[–]Backfist 12 points13 points  (3 children)

The funny part is going to be when the women start converting to Islam and fucking the new arrivals. This looks more to me like asymmetrical warfare than anything else, there is a window where men will have a chance to stand up and say enough is enough before the women will see it as weakness and bend the knee to the new patriarchy. Lets not forget also that Atheism and the destruction of Christianity is a part of this, deep down inside women will always be more respectful and subservient under the influence of religion and it gives the hamster plenty of room to run. These are just a few of the things I see, Islam is the new patriarchy and ~75% of the refugees flooding into Europe are male so either figure out how to get your governments in line or get ready to watch European Civilization burn. At least Putin is not fooled.

[–]TriadOmega 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Great write up. I personally believe that this is spot on, and eventually once this shit has been pushed too far a more radical and and revolutionary force will take over. I wouldn't be surprised if in 100 years women are no longer allowed to vote:

"look what happened last time we gave you that privilege"

[–]PoopSmearMoustache 7 points8 points  (8 children)

Even with the strongest of atheist leanings it seems to me that the only logical choice here is to revert back to pseudo-Christianity and segregation of the sexes during adolescence like a failed checkmate attempt against our foe - human oppression.

The sisterhood have pretty much risen to the role of policing the values and authorising status for all up and coming men. A whole class reversal of the sexes is happening in the west and men (weakened by a complete lack of authority over women in any social sphere) spoil the "magic" that was the woman's own seduction and cause for her charm (simply tougher men). We all know they offer up false virtues for men that she knows she won't be attracted to simply because she can set them not only because they are the complete opposite of what can be found attractive at the outset (for the average male).

Don't expect a beta uprising either, in the coming generations they will be neutered like dogs on their first offence.

Unless men of today stop this trend from staining the social fabric we can expect the still functioning, still magical, "exotic" cultures to swoop in and liberate western women from what they must feel is the inevitable failure of every single man to prevent society from total self-destruction.

[–]inu51kza 5 points6 points  (4 children)

Calm your tits. Being ethnic or non white is still a -3 handicap for your SMV in western society and that's not changing any time soon.

Only difference is now white men who aren't in the top 10% are treated as badly as ethnic men.

More chance of alpha men joining these oppressive religions and culture sick of CC riding sluts than women.

[–]through_a_ways 5 points6 points  (0 children)

that's not changing any time soon.

I highly doubt that. If you look at shows for small children and teens, there are loads of white female/non-white male pairings. A brief stint on any European dominated penpal website (not American) will reveal every other <20s girl as obsessed with Korean, Japanese, and even Chinese pop idols.

As you go forward in time, the power of women relative to men increases, and the power of non whites relative to whites increases.

You're speaking from an absolutist standpoint, and from that standpoint it's still quite true. But if you compare the situation for non-white males now to the situation in the 1950s, it's totally false.

As alternative media become even more popular, and poor countries acquire better nutrition and become taller, this difference will shrink significantly.

[–]1oldredder 3 points4 points  (2 children)

Nope. It's very clear being a muscular latino or black man gets you +2 SMV against a ton of white men in nearly the same age & fitness category, for most of the women around.

[–]inu51kza 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Only in lower socio economic classes imo because gangstwr types are the kings of their society. From suburbia upwards ie most of western society it's only a phase to piss off parents and get some attention or because you've heard they have massive dicks and you're thirsty.

No well off white girl wants to date an ethnic unless they jump through all sorts of hoops and are as white washed as possible. Guys like Obama - handsome light skin brown harvard law etc get non ghetto white girls. they're unicorn rare.

[–]cadetmaster 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Brilliant post.

Based in the UK at the moment and this plague has more than erupted. It's a hilarious alliance of feminists and muslims, who rather ironically believe in almost polar opposite ideologies. It would be quite amusing if they both did not infect the young with their "progressive" garbage, then again I suppose with such foolish beliefs, much like the religious, it's better to brainwash them young as nobody of age would believe such tripe.

[–]1oldredder 8 points9 points  (2 children)

Argument is invalid: muslims actually don't want to migrate but someone went in and bombed all their homes for no good reason, then invented a reason that was a lie, oh and then found it was cheaper to steal oil by guarding pipelines and wells with US soldiers instead of just paying money for it directly to those who owned it.

Muslim migration is not the problem. Military global dictatorship terrorism is actually the problem and every person in every nation is made a slave because of it, and ONE tine of the trident is people MIGRATING away from terrorism-death, and ANOTHER tine in the trident is FEMINISM, and yet another is FIAT CURRENCY, and so on.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

this is the old story we keep hearing, 'we are victims, it isn't us'. The big migration is because of the aftermath of the Arab Spring, where people attempted to overthrow dictators, but in Syria it didn't work. What we have found is that there was a good reason for there being dictators, it simply isn't the case that democracy is a good system for everybody at every stage of their development. Assad is not our doing, and actually neither is the centuries-old conflict between Sunni and Shia, which is what is behind ISIS.

Saying everything is the West's fault is just following the feminist line. It is all those nasty white men that are causing the trouble. But remember that those coming into Europe, often cast as refugees, are actually economic migrants. They have made such a piss poor job of managing their own countries and now want to invade an area that is economically better and more peaceful.

[–]billcosbyeatsbabies 2 points3 points  (0 children)

In this context, the concept of Islamic tradition is great. And I agree. It's a direct representation of a properly functional male-dominated society. The part where it goes all wrong for me is believing in the man in the sky. You know what?? Allah isn't in the sky! He didn't make the universe and all things holy. Allah, or the figure of God, is inside us all. God is the interior of every single human being ever. When the bible or torah says "God says love everyone as you would love your neighbour", it's saying that you should embrace that ideology!! It's not even demanding that you believe in the mysterious man in the sky, it's asking that you believe in yourself. That's what believing in God is. It's believing in yourself wholeheartedly to the point where you have embraced all the good messages of the bible and do them and share them with others.

[–]WoahScienceCool 2 points3 points  (1 child)

As much as I hate to see the decline of Europe and America, how anybody can read something like this and still wish to pursue White women is a complete mystery to me. As a white male, I cant possibly think of a more terrible and traitorous group of people. Hispanic women are hotter anyways- so really whats the point?

Go on, bring on the down-votes from the cuckolds who will support their precious, unique special snowflake White women no matter what. No matter how many times they stab their own men in the back.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (9 children)

Tbh though if AL gore were president the world would have been a bit better off without the war fucking everything up so that was a bad example

[–]inu51kza 7 points8 points  (8 children)

Isn't the point that these sjw types have just stolen bush's crony capitalist strategy of killing free speech, using shame tactics and increasing sexual policing/repression.

He did it for profit and pandered to ultra right nutjobs cynically but they've taken the same format and gone insane with it.

microaggressions ultra shame tactics rape culture patriarchal theory. it's terrifying what they're doing and its going to leave a neutered broken society. he pushed the kill privacy deregulate bankers and shame anyone for dare questioning the war you must hate the troops but this is just that but worse.

in bushs usa society hates you for abstractly disrespecting brave troops. in sjw America antifeminism makes you a rapist

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (7 children)

so we were fucked either way? and are getting fucked both ways since both hold true right now.

[–]inu51kza 11 points12 points  (6 children)

Honestly yeah. Alpha status isn't going to solve shit. She will never be impressed. Worth 1m? Oh but that other lawyer in your group is worth 10m. Richest in your group? yeah but Sarahs bf has an 8 inch cock.

Sluts will be sluts. Encourage sexual freedom decry slut shaming maintain the image. Fuck around in your 20s. Find religion in your 30s and marry a sheltered girl in your new community. Shell be boring but that's why you have friends. A good partner is stable and predictable and reliable above all else.

Politically dedicate your life to academia activism etc or shut up and play the game within the new rules. Ideaology is like a pendulum swinging back and forth. This generation was liberal because of conservatives in power exploiting their influence. Next will swing back seeing the left go nuts. Just like the baby boomers did when they saw socialism in power.

Powerful people don't care about ideaology they care about power. Ideaology is how they gain power. Don't fall into the trap.

Bush Clinton Bush Obama all pushed the same policies of slow erosion of privacy and rights and increased control. Big or small fed rhetoric aside theyre all happy to grow the one branch of the state which gives them more control ie defence.

[–]americanenglishh 5 points6 points  (2 children)

Or you could simply stop putting so much weight into women? What is this madness? Are you so paranoid and spineless that you must alter your entire life and become religious simply because you're afraid of hooking up with a slut? Jesus Christ.

[–]inu51kza 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Who's being paranoid and spineless. It's basic pragmatism. You could waste your life redesigning it around RP principles or just use the institutions built which for 1000s of years have on a societal level tried to solve most of the issues that come from basic hypergamy instinct.

You don't have to believe in supernatural fairies to take advantage of a club that teaches people morals once a week/month (most eastern religions don't require any sort of regular attendance or even have a supernatural component).

You're a man with dreams and things to build and achieve. You could waste years spinning plates training sluts fighting off the instincts and rhetoric feminist society/their peer group is feeding them .

Or you could take the shortcut and find someone with an acceptable entrenched value system that people around her consolidate regularly.

Worst case scenario you pay a little lip service for 2 or 3 festivals a year but is it really that big a deal having a family friend send you a Christmas/diwali/hannukah whatever card with God bless you and your family?

It keeps society in order.

Flip perspective and it's your approach that's putting way too much effort into women to uphold pointless principles when there's an easy time tested societal solution available.

[–]1oldredder 1 point2 points  (2 children)

Makes more sense to get your shit together: finances, resources, skills - and migrate to a safer part of the planet, which there are plenty of right now.

[–]skoobled 3 points4 points  (4 children)

The question is, will the shit really hit the fan during our lifetimes. The real worry is if it does when we're too old and frail to defend ourselves. I'm aware that people tend to always believe that "the end is nigh", but world wars do happen...

[–]JohnGalt316 11 points12 points  (13 children)

feminism is a shit test for white males and white males have failed

[–]inu51kza 38 points39 points  (10 children)

Don't think this has anything to do with being white. It's a power grab plain and simple.

I'm a brown man. I get racist shit thrown at me daily. I don't need some feminist bitching about catcalling lumping me in with her group to boost her numbers. I'm sure the gays feel the same way. They just want marriage rights not some massive bull dyke in a pink wig telling him we should eradicate masculinity.

I have had ti deal with a gang of neo nazis try to stab me when out clubbing. In a firy like London. I had to bill 20% more hours to get a promotion over a white guy despite being more qualified experienced and bringing in more clients. That's actual discrimination. That's actually a problem worth fighting over.

Trans friendly gender neutral bathroom signs are not.

No Chinese or Indian man is getting pussy or any benefit out of this movement. Still fucked by affirmative action like white guys still fucked by white old boys network like the black guys.

The reason antifeminism movements die is because all the rednecks come out to turn this into a race war and all the non fascists think I'd rather side with the angry bull dyke than the ku klux klan.

Don't make it a white issue. Ethnic men are just as against this.

I'm brown. I'm Hindu. We hate Islam just as much as you. We've been dealing with their bullshit longer than you and we're criticised for the same policies this sub wants.

India have been trying to send back muslim refugees to Bangladesh since the 70s. Now that Europe has to deal with them it's suddenly ok to say no to a Muslim invasion but when we do it were cruel.

[–]truthiesttruth 10 points11 points  (5 children)

Look up voting lines based on sex/ethnicity.

Women are generally more left leaning. Hispanics are generally more left leaning.

This issue is intricately connected to race. You are only doing yourself a disservice by ignoring this fact and maintaining an incomplete picture of the whole situation.

While I will not deny racism and discrimination against innocent non whites still exist (when it shouldnt), there is almost most certainly an attack on western white masculinity, while the real culprits of oppression can act against women with impunity.

Feminists largest mouthpieces have said little to nothing about the rotherham scandal... Pakis abducting/abusing 1400 little girls and forcing them into sex slavery: Feminists dont give a single fuck, infact guess who they blamed for this? You got it: white males for oppressing brown males sexuality.

Corporations set the air condition to a temperature comfortable for men: A week long outcry.

You cannot hostly tell me that this outrage is targeted at men of all color, it is predominantly for white men.

Ethnic men are just as against this.

Heres the problem, there is no more room for a political middle ground. It used to be that the system had 2 sides which kept each other in check, but now the left has moved to goal posts so far leftward that there is no where for a white male to actually stand.

You only have 3 options:

  • Submit to leftism and accelerate the decline

  • Abstain completely and just enjoy the decline

  • Go extremely far right wing. (Most likely end in in fucking jail)

Its about living in a functioning society where people share similar value systems and that is not possible under the leftist system. Europe is a prime example, the women there pushed for complete emasculation of the male populace and now muslim men are swarming in to dominate the countries, it will NOT end well.

[–]inu51kza 10 points11 points  (3 children)

When you're ethnic male or female you vote left by default because you assume right wing is a synonym for racism. Doesn't matter if I agree on free speech tax policy whatever. In my head one group irrationally hates me and thinks I'm somehow inferior because of my skin. That's why ethnics vote left.

Survival instinct will always trump abstract academic agreements on policy. This gut feeling is hard to overcome. Even now I'm looking for an excuse to vote left, just any hint of a candidate that won't pander to the SJWs and I'm back to the left. We don't have many Hispanics in England/Europe so not sure what the social dynamic is like. I imagine the influx of Mexican and central American illegals creates a new motivation for them to vote left to avoid friends relatives and vital community members being rounded up and deported. The left will buy votes by promising amnesties and to turn a blind eye. The pragmatic right wing politician would run on a platform of amnesties and heavy spending on border control if he wants to snatch that demographic. They're catholic and basically conservative in principle. Take the short term hit and you have a massive voting bloc for decades.

Again though with your white masculinity. It's an attack on masculinity period. You think a lot of Indian men are getting a feminist pat on the back for their boldness in clubs? You're getting their " man tries to show interest = creep " treatment now. Ethnics have had that label on them for decades. Chinese and Indian dudes don't have different ways of expressing masculinity. Most guys around the world like having a few drinks a few laughs and then heading out with the boys to find some girls to fuck. Muslim immigrants too - 90% of them are hypocrites who drink smoke fuck and put on a show for their parents but are basically quite westernised.

Go visit the sub asianmasculinity. In the western world if you're brown or yellow you've been neutered and emasculated for decades. There are no asian sex symbols. You're a nerd or a creep. That's it. Highest aspiration is being a beta if you're on of the good ones. Show any sign of male aggression and you're from a country that's rape culture on steroids.

Fuck that. Masculinity is under fire and we cannot afford to play into their game of divide and conquer.

Whether being targeted directly like white men are is worse or whether being treated like weak pussies who are already so feminine they can't possible be a threat like asian men are is worse is not important. Neither are acceptable.

FYI as a side note here in the UK the Pakistan rape ring got nonstop media coverage for weeks and enquiries and new policies drafted etc it was a massive issue, the air temperature story got a 2 min slot on afternoon news blew up on buzzfeed and got a cheesy breakfast show follow up. Most men and women are equally vacuous when they'd rather debate and upvote stupid non arguments like that than a serious issue that might bum them out like a paki sex trafficking ring or the countless Thai Polish and Romanian prostitution rings where girls are practically forced into it.

Islam is its own issue and excessive tolerance of it for PC reasons is something that bothers brown yellow white and black men all the same.

Feminism banning masculinity is its own issue too. They use different strategies to strip us of it but all our races are fighting the same emasculating harpies.

Finding the most centrist and inclusive argument against the SJW.movement is the only hope. Far right movements play into their hands. Grounding it in academic free speech rhetoric and gaining the legal sectors backing against their guilt until proven innocent t and then still probably a mysoginist kangaroo court justice is the best way to gain mainstream legitimacy.

Even mentioning it as a race issue for white men immediately cuts off the entire 40% of the political centre that is looking at the left and feeling uncomfortable bit needs someone reasonable to go against them that isn't just going to go on about white male rights.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (1 child)

The media called it an "Asian rape ring", despite it only having Pakistanis/Bangladeshis, and no non-Muslim Bangladeshis at that.

So basically, paedophillia and racist reporting is a-ok as long as noone says the M-word.

[–]inu51kza 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Tbh even certain types of Islam are fine. Sufi sects are some of the most liberal artistic religious people you'll meet now and historically.

It's just combination disenfranchisement, lack of assimilation, with ghetto clusters, a global climate of extremism and a lack of sufficient denouncement of extremism by local leaders - and then you have the perfect storm of problems.

And even then it's a very very fringe minority.

In saying that I'd rather that minoritys influence didn't grow. Just like I'm against crazy Christian doomsday type fringe extremist groups in America or neo nazi Christians in Europe.

Extremism of all sorts mixed with religion is going to lead to harmful societal consequences.

Islam is just the biggest threat right now but let's not turn it into a bogeyman or ignore the actual problem of extremism by getting fixated on the Islam thing.

[–]truthiesttruth 1 point2 points  (0 children)

In my head one group irrationally hates me and thinks I'm somehow inferior because of my skin. That's why ethnics vote left.

See you are no different from women, voting with your emotions for short term gain, all the while distrusting the evil white western man.

You and I might have very similar political/social values and could coexist very peacefully, I wholeheartedly believe this (which is another reason why I reject white nationalism) but the fact that you insist on dragging society to the left is actually doing your cause more harm.

Not because the white man is going to take up arms against you, but because the muslim man will once the society you are busy voting finishes castrating the western white male.

Again though with your white masculinity. It's an attack on masculinity period. You think a lot of Indian men are getting a feminist pat on the back for their boldness in clubs? You're getting their " man tries to show interest = creep " treatment now. Ethnics have had that label on them for decades. Chinese and Indian dudes don't have different ways of expressing masculinity.

I will readily admit that I view the world through an anglo saxon lens, I do not know what its like to be brown/yellow but I have a vague idea. Perhaps white western woman have always treated you like shit, but understand that my experience has changed drastically over the last decade or so, the white male hate has grown to become noticeable and fashionable.

Also understand that much of your poor experience comes from the fact that many western women want white men, the msg reply trends on dating websites indicate this and so you cannot expect to have it easy with women, but its also another indicator that race seeps into every issue.

Go visit the sub asianmasculinity. In the western world if you're brown or yellow you've been neutered and emasculated for decades.

Some of the most traditional families I know are Asian, the men accept arranged marriages and their wives come from india/china to live the life of a housewife over here, raising the kids and beating the shit out of them when they dont get good grades. I am actually envious of some some of your cultures aspects.

Chinese family outing = to the library. White trash family outing = chucky cheese.

Fuck that. Masculinity is under fire and we cannot afford to play into their game of divide and conquer.

Actually no theres nothing "we" the collective male can do, those leftist parties you are voting in have made sure of that.

Most men and women are equally vacuous when they'd rather debate and upvote stupid non arguments like that than a serious issue that might bum them out like a paki sex trafficking ring or the countless Thai Polish and Romanian prostitution rings where girls are practically forced into it.

This is not about the peanut gallery, its about the fact that the UK government KNEW of a childsex ring that involved more than 1400 girls FOR A DECADE and did nothing because "muh islamaphobia".

THAT is the issue here, I was talking about feminism because they too refuse to stand up and say anything because "MUH islamaphobia". This is the society you are helping to create. I want no part of it.

Look up Amanda Kijera, a liberal feminist who went to Haiti on a "humanitarian" mission to prove that violence against women wasnt an issue, that it was a made up story by western media to show the black haitian man in a bad light. Guess who she blamed after being raped? Whitey.

Islam is its own issue and excessive tolerance of it for PC reasons is something that bothers brown yellow white and black men all the same.

Not enough to stop voting left though apparently.

Finding the most centrist and inclusive argument against the SJW.movement is the only hope.

You still think there is hope, cute.

Far right movements play into their hands.

It does not, I can assure you of this, just wait, you will know exactly what I mean when far right rule (sharia) takes over your town.

Even mentioning it as a race issue for white men immediately cuts off the entire 40% of the political centre that is looking at the left and feeling uncomfortable bit needs someone reasonable to go against them

Nothing is stopping brown and yellow people from running/voting on the right except irrational fears played up by the left.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (1 child)

You chose a dvd for tonight

[–]inu51kza 3 points4 points  (0 children)


men are cooperative by nature. none of us are seeking a leg up or extra sympathy as the most downtrodden.

We all have a commont goal of an unintrusive society and level playing field so our hard work and creativity can speak for itself.

[–]getRedPill 2 points3 points  (1 child)

It's ironic movements like feminism were started by white people, including, yes, white man. A fenomenom named White Guilt.

By the way, who is John Galt?

[–]Criket 12 points12 points [recovered]

From my past experience with women, I'm thinking seriously to convert to Islam. I would like to be proud from being a MAN, and not to feel lower than the dog

[–]DomoDoge92 16 points16 points [recovered]

You know, I used to hate Islam for its policies towards women, but now I realize its needed to control women and their hypergamous nature. Its not perfect but its better than the shitshow we have now.

[–]Morlag 0 points0 points [recovered]

Just curious, what would make you choose Islam over Christianity, given that Christianity endorses TRP type gender views without the commands to kill the infidel?

[–]DomoDoge92 12 points12 points [recovered]

But Christianity has become too feminized and corrupted.

[–]Dildo_Saggins 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is why the founding fathers wanted to create a secular society.

I don't want to have to throw in with either religious group. They're both crazy.

[–]drallcom3 7 points7 points [recovered]

That's how they recruit weak men for their wars, real or political.

[–]PrimaxAUS 12 points13 points  (6 children)

If that's how you feel then the problem is inside of you. You're letting yourself be defined not only by others, but the perception you believe others have of you. You should reclaim your identity.

[–]Criket 20 points20 points [recovered]

Did you even get in court at a divorce case in started by a women?

Working 50 hours week as a carpenter, doing hard job nobody want to do, when her doesn't want to do a thing. (If she don't want to work, it's her right) Lose by default the custody of the two kids, the house, paid 30'000$ of avocat and to be left in your pocket only a quart of your salary. And to be treated like a criminal non stop, no resource to help you and when you finally find some help, they use that in court as you're are a shameless boneless piece of garbage who is not strong enough by himself and use the fact that you're use help to lower you even more...

I would like to be proud to be a man. To be the reliable family figure of the '50 like my Grandpa was. Not a boneless lower than the dog.

PS Sorry for my bad english!

[–]terabyter9000 3 points4 points  (1 child)

You did fine with the English. Good points. By the way that's why I'm not married and never will be.

[–]Criket 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'll seriously recommend a vasectomy. And keep that fact to yourself. Why? It will prevent paying child support.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Will there be any fight from the men or will we submit like our wild feral bitches?

[–]TheRedThrowAwayPill 1 point2 points  (0 children)

"FEMINISIM .... DESTROY ... WEST" in title? Check

"Islam" in the body? Check

Alllahauuuuuuakkbaarrrr .. .err.. I mean, this isn't really knew. YOU may be reading all this in a 2015 RP light. But remember, this was in a post-9/11 world where he's not really talking about "ISLAM"; the author is really hinting at terrorism rampaging all over Europe like 100 years, and by side-effect Islam will inherit as a trophy this newly de-masculinzed land.

(Of course it would; because Europe would be for the taking if it was only ran by feminism).

[–]1commentatorX 3 points4 points  (0 children)

" I have never been able to see how a thirty-year-old moron can vote more wisely than a fifteen-year-old genius . . . but that was the age of the "divine right of the common man." ... Never mind, they paid for their folly. "

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

If a human band was led by the weak 25,000 years ago, it would stand to reason, and it would be fairly easy to imagine how quickly that band would self-destruct by war, female poaching, or simply poor resource acquisition and management. That band's reproductive strategy failed, and the poor resilience and resourcefulness resulting from it would bring a quick ending. Others would take form and take its place.

Unfortunately, on a civilization's scale, the poison pill decline has a much longer arch and affects far many more people. We'll unfortunately have to deal with micro-aggressions, HAES, slut walks, presidents and prime ministers sharing their feelz for decades before the cleansing effects of collapse gains a critical mass.

[–]akrebsie 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I think civilizations rise and fall on such a large time scale that successful traits have not had to time to be selected for, only ideas can save us. But this one is different this time we have ridden a wave of technology that is getting bigger as it goes and it is such that it may continue even after a significant collapse.

[–]RationalistFaith1 3 points3 points [recovered]

The "Islam Invasion" rhetoric is scary, I get there's immigration happening but the over generalizations are a little too much considering a lot of my Muslim friends are unnoticeable to your run of the mill Westerner. I'm with you for any immigrant that doesn't even try to assimilate.

Also, as a side note quite hypocritical and apathetic considering the West instigated colonialism as well as Oil Wars. These are but consequences of a century long of sins.

[–]FaustoRMD 5 points6 points  (1 child)

Not only feminism. Feminism is one of the tools the elites are using to destroy the pilars of the west. Xenostrogens, banning of raw milk and steroids, keynesianism in public schools...the list go long.

[–]Nicholas_ 1 point2 points  (0 children)

it already has and I wish it would die and go away

[–]MrRexels 1 point2 points  (4 children)

That's just the natural order of things you know. Societies are born in tradition and religion, they subvert or conquer the ones around them, they reach hegemony and give up on what made them strong on the first place, thus they slowly start to decay and go to shit, and from that shit new, better societies arise.

Happened to the Romans, will happen to the Anglo-Saxon West too.

I recommend you guys learn spanish, Dominican Republic looks lovely this time of the year.

[–]1oldredder 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Might consider Mandarin or Russian. The new main language will be, or derivatives will come from, the language of the conquerors.

[–]1whatsazipper 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The demographic 'conquerors' will be Spanish speakers. They will add about 100 million to the US population by 2050.

[–]Nieben 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Actually, complacency will destroy "the West".

Complacency destroys all.

[–]TheRealBruce13 3 points4 points  (4 children)

Pseudo-intellectualism and fear mongering should have no place in this sub. No, feminists or muslims won't destroy the west. You simply heavily understimate the west's resilience and ability to quickly adapt. Most muslims countries are screwed internally and those leaving in peace are under our boot (hello Turkey, Saudi Arabia and soon Iran). There simply is no centralized power able to take advantage of the high numbers of muslims immigrants in Europe: as time goes on Islam will disapear in Europe. Don't let the media fool you into thinking we are bowing to Saudi Arabia or Qatar or whatever, in practice we have military bases in their countries not the opposite.

[–]6-_-j 0 points1 point  (10 children)

I prefer red pill posts which don't mention stupid religious bullshit.

[–]2johnnight[S] 9 points10 points  (5 children)

Because you are looking at it wrong.

Religions are a codex, a set of rules that define what is moral and how to behave. The divine aspect is there for enforcement. Usually they do it to stabilize societies and the proof is in their longevity. In this sense liberalism or feminism are quasi-religions, but I would claim that they are destabilizing and have a short life-span.

It is important to understand that the current quasi-religion deems masculinity immoral (they use the word 'toxic' instead) and it programs us to behave a certain way. That behavior is unattractive to women.

It's hard to break the life-long programming, because acting different often feels uncomfortable. Maybe pointing out the macro-scale consequences of the programming will make it easier for people to break out of its nonsense.

[–]papersheepdog 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Is femenism, as explored here, just a part of general domestication? Creating a dependence on the state? Clipping our collective beaks for our protection, or really for the protection of the system?

One [vision for the future of america] centralizes power and knowledge in a manner that tears down communities and infrastructure as it dominates wealth and shrinks freedom. The other diversifies power and knowledge to create new wealth through rebuilding infrastructure and communities and nourishing our natural resources in a way that reaffirms our ancient and deepest dream of freedom. -catherine austin fitts

If we had a more cooperative culture, people would not be a burden but rather a source of abundance. We wouldnt need to live in fear like this..... There is a bigger picture here than feminism lets take a few more red pills

[–]BramRhodesDouglas 0 points1 point  (1 child)

All that is necessary for men to have their power back is for them to take it back. That's it. Women can't stop us. We're stronger than them. That's exactly why Islam is growing in power. They don't ask for power, negotiate power, or try to play games. They just take shit.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You could say the same about people vs politicians and the rich. But in both cases any taking of power is demonized instantly so it doesn't gain any traction

[–]cariboo_j 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Women will thus only have as much freedom as their men are willing and capable of guaranteeing them. It is a major flaw in many feminist theories that they fail to acknowledge this.

So true.

  • Men wield the guns to keep society safe - police internally and soldiers externally
  • Men do hard physical labor to keep society running - construction workers, road workers, sanitation workers, oil rig workers
  • Men invent shit to help society run better - scientists, computer progammers

You see the odd woman in these jobs but the vast, vast majority are men. These are absolutely necessary jobs that women either can't or won't do. Feminists forget all the wealth and safety they enjoy is provided by men, sometimes at great personal risk to these men. Civilization would literally crumble in a matter of days if men suddenly refused to do these jobs.

For this reason I find it especially disgusting when I hear of soldiers getting divorced rape.

load more comments (55 replies)