Dark Theme
SFW Mode


278,660 posts archived

784
785

Red Pill Theory

What happens when women are given absolute power? Find out in the ancient Greek comedy “Assemblywomen”

(self.TheRedPill)

submitted by [deleted]

“Assemblywomen” is a play written by the Greek play-wright Aristophanes. In this dark comedy, the women of Athens (who have taken to wearing their husbands’ clothes and stopped shaving their armpits) convince the men of the city to hand power over to them. According to Wikipedia “The play invents a scenario where the women of Athens assume control of the government and instate pseudo-communist reforms that ban private wealth and enforce sexual equality for the old and unattractive.“

The predictive power of this play is almost unbelievable. Among other things, the women abolish private wealth, shut down the courts (since they assume there will be no theft without private property), knock down all the walls (fences) between homes to make more of a communal atmosphere, and outlaw prostitution. Any man and woman can have sex, but only if the man first has sex with an ugly woman. Because men no longer know who their children are, women give responsibility for parenting to the state. With no more family or civic responsibility, the men start sleeping in late. I assume if Greek mothers had basements they would stay there.

This mirrors pretty much exactly what women have done given the partial control they now have in reality, and it’s not that hard to imagine them actually trying to implement the more outlandish parts if they had full control. It’s pretty incredible to see just how obvious it was to pre-modern people that women were unsuited for power. We may laugh at their lack of scientific knowledge and primitive nature in many areas, but they would be absolutely dumbfounded by our naivety over such simple matters as the differences between men and women.

As funny as the play is, it’s also pretty horrifying when you realize that this guy imagined a dystopia that seemed so outlandish and ridiculous that it could be the subject of a comedy, and you’re living in it.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assemblywomen


[–]Ramp_Up_Then_Dump 232 points233 points  (36 children)

I came here to say "dont use fiction here". But Damn! This is as funny as it is accurate!

[–]MEpicLevelCheater[M] 205 points206 points  (0 children)

This is more of an historical perspective on gender issues than a direct example from fiction. It describes how ancient peoples made similar observations about how women are not suited for positions of authority.

I am allowing it.

[–]Troll_Name 42 points43 points  (20 children)

I know I'll encounter hurt feelings for saying this, but I'd never report the following as long as the other-following:

1) Assemblywomen. Women make communism and don't give a rat's ass how many times it has failed before. Probably wasn't a remotely new idea when this play was written. Satire isn't original content; you literally "can't make this up" - it's just an adjustment of something which is already out there and known to the audience. Somewhere out there, communism was practiced in ancient Greece. Probably the big reason why they were willing to die for democracy.

2) Orwell. This guy didn't write fiction; he called it fiction and manipulated a few identifying details to protect his life. Stalin might kill you but the British kingmakers don't believe in maybes. The only problem with Orwell is that none of his works need to be mentioned. I'd trust Orwell before I'd trust a public school history book.

3) Dickens. Not for the sake of bashing men / capitalism / whatever, but rather so you will read history and find what was happening BEFORE the workhouses went up. To avoid expecting readers to go elsewhere: women tossed their newborns into graveyard apartments and quietly forgot about them. Before that? A new mother could point at any single man and force him to marry her - if he was a virgin and she was a married man's mistress then neither could be proven.

4) The Mark Twain books that revolve around normal life in the mid 1800s. A Connecticut Yankee is a cool story, but useless as a discussion piece. (Time flip to the 6th century.)

5) Any famous story from before the industrial revolution, which also survived to the present day without being "remastered" by 20th century leftovers.

Conditions:

A) Stories in books are not admissible as evidence, same as anecdotes. In fact, if you're expecting things like unchanging truths and logical continuity then you probably don't belong on the internet.

B) Don't tell people to be-like-<character> unless this character also has an extensive biography. You cannot expect to "be like" a storybook character at their peak of miracles.

C) Signal to noise! This board isn't nearly as shat-up as the Reddit norm (100% noise 0% signal) it is still not as good as many would wish. If you're going to say something, try to say something the community gives a damn about. People everywhere tend to miss that part 24/7/365/eternal. Rules could be a lot simpler if we could just say "if it isn't for us then don't bring it to us."

D) As always, have a little respect for the others in the room. If this is a difficult challenge then you're probably only here to cause trouble, which is the entire reason why leaders write vague rules and enforce them selectively. Everything wrong with civilization is ultimately your fault.

[–]natman2939 18 points19 points  (10 children)

You went a little out there friend. I have no idea what you're actually saying about Orwell by the end.

It's as if you're just assuming most of us know what the heck you're talking about already.

[–]Troll_Name 10 points11 points  (9 children)

It's as if you're just assuming most of us know what the heck you're talking about already.

That's because the works of George Orwell are so popular that it's better to point newcomers to web-searching than to explain anew each time. Long story short, Orwell (pen name) wrote dystopian fiction about the likely future of various places if they continued to advance the ideas of authoritarianism. As an authoritarian-right myself, I deeply respect this author and as I've said I would trust his writing above the contents of a typical school history book.

Nineteen Eighty-Four cliff notes (story spoilers:)

1) A guy lives in a world where the TV screens watch you back (ignoring modern parallels to continue smoothly.)

2) This society has intense pressure to be normal; effectively the only crime in this land is non-conformity. All other wrongdoing is considered a symptom.

3) The worst possible thing you can do in this place is rebel against the establishment - basically that's what the unhero does.

4) He gets caught, and locked into a dungeon with sci-fi technology and dark age ethos. He already understands everyone who comes to this place is doomed, but will be released back into society to be killed at a date of the government's choosing.

5) While being tortured, his captors monitor his every reaction to the subtlest detail with high tech instruments. They do not stop until he believes in the system inside and out, and that's when they release him reformed. End of story.

Etc.) For those who read the book once and then mostly forgot about it, the inner party is just the outer party but with wine instead of gin and houses instead of apartments. To paraphrase Leon Trotsky: the inner party defers to a bureau which defers to a committee which defers to a dictator.

[–]WillMeatLover 4 points5 points  (1 child)

I don't understand what the hell that guy didn't understand. It's like, if you don't know who Orwell is then google him, otherwise wtf is there not to understand?

[–]natman2939 5 points6 points  (2 children)

What is the "inner party" ? And what is the "outer party"? That last paragraph was a perfect example of what I meant by you saying something as if I'm supposed to already know what that means. I don't know what you mean by inner/outer party or what it has to do with the type of alcohol they drink.

Also off topic but

..of various places if they continued to advance the ideas of authoritarianism. As an authoritarian-right myself, I deeply respect this author and as I've said I would trust his writing

I'm so confused. You said you liked that this guy wrote about how authoritarianism can be bad and then in the very next sentence said "I'm an authoritarian"

That's sounds to me like saying "this book explains why communism is bad but fyi I'm a communist"

[–]donkeydodo 3 points4 points  (1 child)

Read the book and you'll find answers.

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

Your authoritarian despite knowing what will come from an authoritarian Society? Why?

[–]Chaddeus_Rex 2 points3 points  (2 children)

Because every society is authoritarian. In true democracy you have the rule of a dumb, uneducated mob and even "educated" voters cannot put away their biases as they have no experience with ruling and have no training in it either.

In our democracy, you have the rule of a dumb mob conducted and gently guided into what is good for those in power - but since the mob is dumb and has no training in how to rule, they dont see it.

The best rule of government occurs by leaders especially trained to rule, that rule because they beat their competition and thus the weak rulers have been outcompeted leaving only the strong/good ones. It is a form of natural selection except for states.

Think about it like this, do you let an untrained mob decide how you are going to get your cancer treated that knows nothing of medicine or do you let a trained doctor decide by himself with experience treat other cancers? What makes people think that letting untrained people decide which way a country should go is a good idea?

[–]halfback910 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Or or or… why don’t we have a system based on voluntary exchanges? That way all power is earned and meritocratic.

[–]Chaddeus_Rex 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Or or or… why don’t we have a system based on voluntary exchanges? That way all power is earned and meritocratic.

Or or or...some men will convince other men to support their bid to power, through voluntary exchanges leading to an authoritarian system.

Hence authoritarian systems are most meritocratic.

[–]redpilledcuck 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I don't think the Greek idea of democracy is the same as the Amerifat one. You're projecting into the past by comparing communism to it.

[–]GodOfDinosaurs 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Orwell was a socialist, FYI

[–]halfback910 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I honestly have no idea if you're for or against Capitalism from this.

[–]Butt_Man_69 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Yea but democracy equals communism to all these ultra conservative fascists. I can’t count the ones people have told me that “Chavez was democratically elected so democracy is bad!” Yea they have Madura now and are collapsing, but Trump is knocking America down the same amount of pegs overall. Chavez let the next guy in when he didn’t win the next time.

[–]dgwrites 1 point2 points  (3 children)

Why the fuck can’t someone use fiction here?

[–]whatnololyea 15 points16 points  (0 children)

Quoting u/Troll_name:

You cannot expect to "be like" a storybook character at their peak of miracles.

Probably because of this.

[–]MEpicLevelCheater 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The rules explain why. You have read them, haven't you?

[–]Nergaal 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I wonder if there DID exist feminist societies in Ancient Greece, but they failed so miserably they got forgotten in history, their lessons appearing only in such comedy plays.

[–]EastData 1 points1 points [recovered]

yeah coz you're the fucking rulemaker cunt

[–]wayneinthegame 1 points1 points [recovered]

EastData reads ALOT of classic literature. You can just tell.

[–]modTheRedPike[M] 10 points11 points  (2 children)

No, I am. Knock it the fuck off.

[–]Troll_Name -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Thanks for letting us smell that. Ninja removals create an unsettling illusion that everyone is the same. Also redacting the poop from all history deprives people of the knowledge that their ideas are not new and not going to impress.

[–]KimJongUghhh 1 points1 points [recovered]

Woah there edge lord there’s a real reason why fiction should not be implemented in anything cause at the end of the day it’s a fucking fairytale.

[–]Ramp_Up_Then_Dump 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Not putting fiction is a rule in sidebar.

[–]2comment 146 points147 points  (44 children)

Wikipedia is interesting on this one point:

Reading the play as a genuine exploration of communism and female power is incorrect. It follows Aristophanes’ conflict structure of the republic in trouble, a solution suggested and that solution ultimately failing. Aristophanes’ plays mostly derive their narratives on absurd political and social innovations derived from the evolution of the state towards empowering effeminate men while displacing traditionally strong and masculine leadership. The ascent of women in political power in Assemblywomen is yet another commentary on what Aristophanes saw as the shameful femininity of the men currently in power in Athens. The fact that women in this instance could enter the assembly and successfully pass as men was a commentary on politicians being indistinguishable from women in costume, and adds to the absurdity that real women are the only solution for saving an effeminate government from itself.[6]

Aka Justin Trudeau and the entire west.

[–]1scissor_me_timbers00 124 points125 points  (27 children)

Lol Cuckipedia somehow twists it at the end to say women are actually the heroes.

[–]every_minute_louder 68 points69 points  (1 child)

Every. Fucking. Time.

It's as if they are programmed to take the most cucked path in any given scenario it's presented.

[–]Satou4 26 points27 points  (20 children)

Cuckipedia has been infiltrated by Cucks for a long time now. The amount of [citation needed] and [how?] in the most random articles, at the most opportune lefty bullshit times, is really quite something.

The left thinks that the effort to manipulate the mainstream view for their benefit is the only effort worth undertaking. It's the only way they're able to survive.

[–][deleted] 28 points29 points  (6 children)

Feminists and other SJWs literally do Wikipedia "edit-a-thons" where they get together and put their spin on everything.

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

Holy shit really?

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (1 child)

Look on their works and despair.

[–]Endorsed ContributorMetalgear222 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Studies have shown that content on Wikipedia suffers from the bias of its editors -- mainly technically inclined, English-speaking, white-collar men living in majority-Christian, developed countries in the Northern hemisphere. According to one oft-cited study, over 90 percent of Wikipedia's largely volunteer editors are male.

those sexist pigs...

[–]1scissor_me_timbers00 9 points10 points  (2 children)

Good fuck these people are a plague. You know I’m actually starting to seriously believe the Alexander Solzhenitsyn quote regarding the communist disaster: “People have forgotten God. That’s why all this has happened.”

I’m almost convinced this is also what’s going on in America today with these cultist leftists.

[–]Chaddeus_Rex 0 points1 point  (1 child)

LOL at taking Solzhenitsyn seriously.

[–]1scissor_me_timbers00 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah that’s why I said “almost”

[–]Troll_Name 16 points17 points  (1 child)

They're not "infiltrated." They are the infiltrators and this is their base. Their property, their dominion, their private publication hidden behind a thin veneer of egalitarianism (which is pretty much what commies always use.)

They're a small group of old school McJournalists pretending to have invented a new and incorruptible form of journalism. Really they just type whatever they want and ban anyone who questions them. If you so much as veer off the course mainstream establishment sets for you, Wikipedia will be one of the first attack dogs to bite into you.

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

Wikipedia will be one of the first attack dogs to bite into you.

Also don't forget about Snopes and the SPLC, more commies in drag.

[–][deleted] 17 points18 points  (7 children)

Classic lefty tactic is to make grandiose sweeping statements with little to no evidence while demanding scientific or statistical evidence for anything that doesn’t support them even if it’s common sense.

“Diversity is good DUH!!!!!”

[–]gruntmods 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Citation needed

[–]Orbiter45 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The left thinks that the effort to manipulate the mainstream view for their benefit is the only effort worth undertaking. It's the only way they're able to survive.

That is so true. They are on a time limit.

[–]MAWL_SC 10 points11 points  (3 children)

Reading comprehension seems to be lacking in this thread. The analysis shows that the point was that men should not have feminine qualities if they want to lead.

This is still redpill, but the nuance seems to be evading many readers. People here need to reign-in their anger-phase antics, being swept up by the very emotions and sentimentally this play attempts to warn us against.

[–]1scissor_me_timbers00 1 point2 points  (2 children)

Eh yes but it also at the bottom says he’s trying to say women save it.

real women are the only solution for saving an effeminate government from itself.

Don’t know what you make of that part.

[–]MAWL_SC 0 points1 point  (1 child)

It's to show how absurd they have become, to hold up a mirror in essence. The playwright outlines a dissaterous situation should women actually take power.

[–]Kinbaku_enthusiast 3 points4 points  (0 children)

And the wikipedia writer contextualizes it somehow as women being necessary to save a government from itself rather than having feminine men as leaders.

[–]Dyskord01 19 points20 points  (6 children)

Wikipedia is heavily converged. It's a blue pill distributor. More likely this is the approved narrative. If Aristophenes himself were to call bullshit the Intellectuals would prove they know better than him by claiming his work is subjective and open to interpretation by the society or culture reading it. Like Bradbury was told by a college audience he couldn't tell people what his books meant because the audience already decided how to interpret it and disagreeing with them made him wrong. I'm pretty sure college professors are twisting the meanings and words of authors to further their own beliefs So take wikipedia with a crate of salt.

[–]Troll_Name 7 points8 points  (5 children)

Intellectuals

"Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it."

-Thomas Sowell

[–]Chaddeus_Rex -1 points0 points  (4 children)

But what about capitalism? Its existed in almost every civilization since the dawn of civilization and none of those civilization exist. Doesnt that imply a greater rate of failure?

[–]TlMPPA 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Until recently, there has not been any civilizations, that you could call capitalist. In all the times of history, you didn’t have property rights, and there was no legal system that prevented you from the state ordering you to go to war or putting you to jail for opposing the rulers.

Most countries today are mixed economies, even the USA. Only countries, that you can call capitalist, are Singapore, Hong Kong, Switzerland, New Zealand, Australia and Ireland.

[–]Chaddeus_Rex 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Until recently, there has not been any civilizations, that you could call capitalist.

All you need for a civilization to be called 'capitalist' is the ability to accumulate wealth and own the means of production. Everything else is details.

you didn’t have property rights,

In the classical era, property rights existed given that Patricians owned the land on which their estates where located and in the times of the Early Republic (before the advent of Caesar), veterans would be given land at the end of their service.

there was no legal system

The oldest legal system dates back to the time of the Code of Hammurabi in Mesopotamia. Also, Rome had a well-developed legal system that is the basis for just about every legal system around the entire world.

there was no legal system that prevented you from the state ordering you to go to war or putting you to jail for opposing the rulers.

That is a very basic view and not true view of how life was back in the day. Also, what makes you think you can oppose the rulers or prevent the state from sending you to war now?

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

But what about capitalism? Its existed in almost every civilization since the dawn of civilization and none of those civilization exist.

No. They went from strong to weak and were superseded by stronger civilizations.

[–]Chaddeus_Rex 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The same thing can be said for 'communist' civilizations.

So either, the civilization was weak and its fall had nothing to do with Communism and go superseded by stronger civilizations - or it had everything to do with communism, but then we can say that earlier civilizations failed because they had a capitalist system(because most did). So if every civilization that had capitalism failed, then it doesn't work.

[–]Troll_Name 1 points1 points [recovered]

Reading the play as a genuine exploration of communism and female power is incorrect.

Low-effort fake lies, this is just the same old communist tactic of blaming every single thing that goes wrong on other ideologies.

If you're an American, just look at Detroit. They've had their one-sided way over their own town for 50 years, and still haven't stopped blaming everyone else for their condition.

[–]Chaddeus_Rex 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Exactly. The problem is mob rule. The mobs are weak, irrational, dumb and untrained. A smart dictator would give any "democracy" a run for their money, just look at how fast China is developing. If they need to fix something, they dont need to go through endless committees and "debates" they just order it done and thats that.

[–]modTheRedPike[M] 3 points4 points  (2 children)

You triggered a Canadian. He earned a full ride scholarship to Banzville. I have ZERO tolerance for racism and race baiting. Don't even return fire.

[–]Randy_Dream_Weaver 3 points4 points  (1 child)

Good. He "debated" like a woman.

[–]Troll_Name 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I've heard some remarkably level and persuasive women; I'd say it was more debating like a soy imp.

Pigs chew, he eats more like a duck.

[–]DragonSh1t 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Thank you for basically saying that it is most men's fault. Here the problem lies. It is up to real men to fix the situation again as it will always be.

[–]Cypher211 34 points35 points  (0 children)

Human nature doesn't change.

[–]1Zanford 75 points76 points  (28 children)

What we call 'esoteric and controversial ev psych theories', our ancestors called 'common sense'.

And Aristophanes was god-tier prescient, he basically predicted communism (and its crushing level of impracticality and evil) ~2000 years before it was seriously tried...

...and he predicted who would be its main proponents.

[–]uebermacht 23 points24 points  (11 children)

Indeed he was.
If you think.. there has been such awesome minds back in the days.
Diogenes with his attitude; „I don’t give a fuck who you are. You stand in the sun bitch“.
Or Marcus Aurelius..
Damm it would be a pleasure to live in that time period despite potentially dying by war or diseases, without all the bullshit we have today.

[–][deleted] 18 points19 points  (1 child)

If I could take my modern medical care with me I would go back and live in almost any other era except this one.

[–]domitius420 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Futuristic eras, please. No reddit in the past

[–]Troll_Name 9 points10 points  (0 children)

And Aristophanes was god-tier prescient, he basically predicted communism

"There is nothing new under the sun."

[–]Dyskord01 13 points14 points  (6 children)

It's no mystery why the west cant rid itself of socialism or communism. Women naturally desire to be taken care of by a strong leadership. When women are told they are equal, and must work. The strong leader becomes the State.

As long as we live in a matriarchy, which we do, socialism and eventually communism will be realities we cannot be rid of

[–]1scissor_me_timbers00 6 points7 points  (5 children)

We don’t quite live in a matriarchy. We live in a schizoid non system.

[–]Dyskord01 12 points13 points  (1 child)

Our society is currently dominated by women's wants,need and view points. Masculinity is shunned. The State is no longer a tool of governance but a Nanny/ paternal entity believed to exist to care for people.

The traditional Male environment, space and behaviours are neglected or considered wrong while the feminine is promoted.

Credentialism is feminine. Socialism is feminine. The obsession with psychotherapy is feminine

[–]1scissor_me_timbers00 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I fully agree we live in a highly feminized society and that women are controlling more, but that’s still not exactly the same thing as a matriarchy. Again we live in a schizoid, feminized non system. Much as I love Rollo, I think he oversells the feminine imperative idea. It’s like a manosphere version of the feminist “blame the patriarchy” paranoia. But there’s definitely a lot of truth to what he’s saying with the feminine imperative idea. I just don’t quite see it as systematically and firmly established as that. It’s one motive among many in our deteriorating society.

[–]Troll_Name 0 points1 point  (2 children)

We are decisively ruled by men. Women are just the foot soldiers now.

There's normal men, then there's normal women, then petty gentry, then the actual power structure. If you're XY in this decade then it's not time to fight it's time to run. Get what you can peacefully and survive until the tides change (someday.)

[–]wanderer779 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Men may rule the state but women rule the family. Your woman can kick you out of your own house and take your kids and wealth from you. Sounds pretty matriarchal to me.

[–]1scissor_me_timbers00 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not sure what you mean, can you elaborate?

[–]Dyskord01 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's no mystery why the west cant rid itself of socialism or communism. Women naturally desire to be taken care of by a strong leader. When women are told they are equal, and must work. The strong leader becomes the State.

As long as we live in a matriarchy, which we do, socialism and eventually communism will be realities we cannot be rid of

[–]dark_dragoon10 2 points3 points  (2 children)

Uhh the Spartans practiced communism.

Are you male and want to do something other than be a soldier turned farmer the rest of your life? TOO FUCKING BAD, the state needs soldiers because there's slaves (helots) to keep in line and enemies to fight. Maybe when your crusty retired ass turns 60 you can think about doing something else..

Do you like eating good tasting food? Well too fucking bad, we have melas zomos, good for you nutritionally but tastes like shit and death mixed together. THE STATE DOESNT NEED FUCKING COOKS. EAT THAT SHIT.

Are you a female who wants to be fat, lazy, and uneducated? FUCK THAT. NOT ALLOWED. YOU HAVE TO MANAGE THE FARMS BITCH... AND BE HOT ENOUGH TO BE FUCKED AND PUMP BABIES FOR THE STATE.

Yeah... we like to idolize the spartans because they were badass warriors (and they were...) but their (both men and women) whole lives were for the state and the continued existence of it. Basically nationalist communist before it was cool.

[–]THOT_Analytica 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Spartans practiced eugenics.

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

What's the polite way of saying 'go learn your history' ?

[–]I_BET_UR_MAD 0 points1 point  (3 children)

Ironic you should mention communism because Pythagoras was a communist.

[–]Troll_Name 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Heads: Marx wasn't alive yet; the form of government built from his manual was not possible and therefore parallels to governments utilizing his work are also impossible.

Tails: The pre-fake-egalitarianism practiced by the assemblywomen cannot possibly include Pythagoras; he could only have possibly seen all the way through it to the conclusion because he already had abundant experience with pointless complicated machines. Also I heard Pythagoras was a dude which means he wouldn't make the woman government.

No response without the coin toss please.

[–]I_BET_UR_MAD 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Communism has been around a hell of a lot longer than Marx so you're creating a false dichotomy.

Marx just wrote a lot about it

[–]uebermacht 83 points84 points  (44 children)

We don't need an ancient greek comedy fiction to see what happens when women are given power.
Look in the politics of today.
Meme of the day about this topic: https://i.imgur.com/uRrYWKH.jpg
By whom do you want to be defended?

[–]NewHerePlsDontBully 63 points64 points  (5 children)

alternate version

[–]Eap123RP 7 points8 points  (1 child)

Dang, you can tell those male defense leaders have an almost natural alpha look to them...and they're not even in proper physical fitness.

[–]3LiveAFTSOV 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Poland has had enough of this shit

[–]chrisname 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Idk what you're complaining about. I'm not usually into MILFs but I'd invade every single one of those countries.

Edit: Except Norway

[–]tempolaca 41 points42 points  (33 children)

To be honest Germany is doing quite great having a woman prime minister.

Except for the turks invading and raping their women, Germany is doing great and it's clearly the leader of Europe again.

[–]uebermacht 35 points36 points  (9 children)

Not sure if serious or not.

[–]tempolaca 30 points31 points  (8 children)

Germans are fucking all other countries, economically at least.

[–]Troll_Name 45 points46 points  (4 children)

Technically, so is California.

If you are a common man of either location then that money is only used to bludgeon you.

[–]tempolaca 7 points8 points  (3 children)

This is sadly a trend all over the world.

[–]Troll_Name 5 points6 points  (2 children)

What I meant was, Germany looks good on paper but so does California. If your life is on the line then pick a better defense than print on paper.

California has a massive amount of money. Extremely concentrated money in the hands of virtuesignals who act out the role of Sally Struthers from that season-one episode of South Park with the adopted Ethiopian. California also has poop in the streets, public bankruptcies, city governments establishing then dispersing not five years later, Scientology headquarters (s/o Riverside county) and most of the country's legal stereotype which colors the entire nation in shades of hollow suit.

If I wanted to pick what US state modern Germany most resembles, hands down it's California. Never gave up on experimenting with socialism, but can also be the stingiest motherfucker in the galaxy depending on who you are. Makes a giant industry out of scapegoating one person for the misdeeds of another. If you've never visited California before (don't) then let's just say it is more responsible than any other location for TheRedPill needing to exist.

[–]Troll_Name 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Just a self-continuation for the curious:

What is law? Lawyers.

What are lawyers? America.

What are American lawyers? California.

What are Californian lawyers? Family Law.

What is Family Law? That's where rich women with high power lawyers work their neediness into zero-bank-balancing everyone in a ten mile radius. Lawyer wiped out, legal assistant wiped out, paralegal wiped out, single mother client with a bio-daughter in the custody of hard criminals (of all the worst kinds) wiped out. Inheritance rightfuls fighting an estate fraudster wiped out; this meant the fraudster won in court and took several hundred real estate properties from probably dozens of people meant to inherit them. That guy is probably a billionaire now after his former friends and family were pounded into dust. That's what law means folks, if you're in California then sell your best stuff for a ticket out.

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

True. Why? Because of this: https://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/images/2014/11/blogs/graphic-detail/20141122_gdc316.png

The average dude didn't have a real increase in living standards for essentially 2-3 decades. If you are a bottom-dweller, you lost up to 10-20% in real wages.

If you are selling your work force for a penny while everyone else expects a normal pay, you will dominate the business. As a result, your work force will decline into poverty though: https://www.ft.com/__origami/service/image/v2/images/raw/https%3A%2F%2Fftalphaville-cdn.ft.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2017%2F07%2F10212722%2FGermany-poverty-rate-590x468.png?source=Alphaville

[–]Troll_Name 23 points24 points  (3 children)

Except for the turks invading and raping their women, Germany is doing great and it's clearly the leader of Europe again.

It's illegal to be German.

Your maximum salary does not afford you the minimum things you must buy; this is assuming the employer cares at all about hiring a qualified candidate instead of scoring more political correctness points. If you are unemployed then you are marked as intentionally job-shy because you're not a foreigner illiterate in his own language; jobshyness has been considered an offense against public decency ever since Hitler started practicing socialism. Germany for German men is like a remarkably unpleasant dominatrix lounge.

[–]SeventhDurandal 6 points7 points  (2 children)

Are you German? I don't disbelieve you, I would like to know where this information comes from.

[–]Troll_Name 15 points16 points  (1 child)

Are you German?

This detail is entirely unimportant. However, in the coming years you will probably be told there is no such thing as German blood. It's already happening to England.

I would like to know where this information comes from.

The same places any information comes from, when one is conducting independent research to verify or rule-out a claim. If I hand you something myself then it isn't really proof; it's just me (and my favorite websites) telling you the same thing twice. Guaranteed some portion came from casual conversation (and must be taken with a grain of salt) but that's why search engines exist. I suggest DuckDuckGo because Google openly stickies its favorite voices to the top of searches (usually Wikipedia, or if it's a topic they hate they'll just find another hater or a strawman-immitation of the hated thing itself.)

[–]SKRedPill 7 points8 points  (17 children)

The future of Europe is Islam if things go like this. When one of our relatives had their first child, we went to the hospital to see them and it turns out their next room neighbour was a Muslim whose 3rd wife was having her 3rd kid. Hope you see where it's going.

[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points  (12 children)

The amount of Muslims in Europe is massively over exaggerated by American media. It's really not a problem at all

[–]SKRedPill 2 points3 points  (3 children)

This incident was not in Europe, but you get the idea as to which demographic and religion could dominate in the long run if this goes on.

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

Depends what you mean by dominate. They may out populate everyone else but dominance isn't dictated by population. For example there are a lot more poor people than rich people and yet the rich hold all the power.

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

You haven't been a minority or an immigrant in an Islamic Republic then...

[–]punis1 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Mohammed has been the most popular baby name in Brussels for a few years now

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

You're only backing up my point by bringing up intentionally misleading statistics. That's only true because Muslims are less than imaginative when it comes to baby names. The majority of Muslim boys are named Mohammad

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (5 children)

Or the extent of the problem is being actively ignored and covered up by European media. This seems more likely as America has independent media with strong free speech protection, while European media is basicslly an extension of the state.

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points  (4 children)

American media is some of the most blatantly biassed in the world. And the anti Muslim narrative suits fox news and sites like that very well, so they exaggerated it massively. We europeans don't need media to tell us how many Muslims are here when we can see by looking around.

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

Any problems of bias in American media are twice as bad in Europe, and again, your media is controlled by your government and stifled by hate speech laws. The Fox news boogeyman thing is just bizarre. The left controls 90% of the media yet they can’t tolerate a single conservative voice.

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

Well I've watched fox news clips about Muslims in Europe that bear no resemblance to the truth, so I know that they like to exaggerate or just straight up lie about what's happening.

Americans like yourselves like to paint a picture of other countries struggling to essentially bloat their own patriotic pride. And that's fine. Just don't present it as truth.

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

Hmm. Well I’ve seen clips where American journalists go into Muslim neighborhoods and they literally get attacked by masked men. I guess they staged that. I’ll take my country’s independent media with strong first amendment speech protection over your media that is shackled by hate speech laws and does the bidding of your governments.

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

Honestly is that such a bad thing at this point though. I think it's just nature correcting an imbalance.

[–]Troll_Name 3 points4 points  (2 children)

Europe is obsessed with its own destruction. Westerners have no clue how the middle east is ever doing but right this moment it's actually doing incredibly good. (Europe thinks they are doing incredibly bad and thus they must all come to Europe for their own survival.) Arabia already reformed since Trump took office, Iran is next, Iraq is now winning all its battles against IS instead of losing all, Afghanistan isn't being conquered constantly anymore (Taliban were only in power a few years) and Pakistan is finally on the verge of coming back from its Cuba-like dictatorship spiral (remember the Benazir Bhutto assassination? If so then pat yourself on the back.) Syria has been pacified and Assad is doing his marionette dance of victory over terrorists, problem solved. Arabians are now capable of shooting a bomb out of a charging truck and then interrogating the driver - that's a microscopic portion of their new toys. Trump sold them hardware then house Saud upgraded it with their own advanced tech.

Caveat: places meaning places' aristocratic governments who make all the impactful decisions, not their farmers and service sector workers who swallow all the consequences.

[–][deleted] -4 points-3 points  (1 child)

Yeah honestly I'd join Islam myself at this point or at least be willing to live alongside it. I'm atheist but the West is sick at the moment. I want to move.

[–]1scissor_me_timbers00 -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

I’m reading the Quran at the moment. It’s worth reading, even as an atheist. Especially as an atheist. It’s such a world historical document. I’m agnostic towards it but I recognize the fruits of Islam. Although it’s mostly been a mess for the last century.

[–]mattizie 1 point2 points  (0 children)

To be honest Germany Russia is doing quite great having a woman prime minister communist dictator.

Except for the turks invading threat of Gulag and the socially friendly elements raping their women, Germany Russia is doing great and it's clearly the leader of Europe again if it keeps expanding at its current rate, will soon control the whole world.

[–]curiouslyengaged 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Who could eat whom for breakfast? Thoughts?

[–]triavatar -2 points-1 points  (2 children)

If all the defense ministers were women, there would be no need for defense ministers.

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

I think you made a wrong turn. This isn’t the sub you’re looking for.

[–]triavatar 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's coz we'd all be too feminized to fight each other any way.

[–]1scissor_me_timbers00 38 points39 points  (0 children)

Holy cow that’s red pill as fuck. What’s crazy is he predicted very similar types of reforms as women are always screeching about today. Jesus that’s spooky.

[–]sirZofSwagger 19 points20 points  (7 children)

Hate to say I could totally bang an ugly chick to nail a hottie, would just think of the hot chick the first time around. Pretty sure that's not the point at all though....

[–]miserablesisyphus 11 points12 points  (1 child)

Think about how genius this is though. The fact you would have to sleep with an ugly woman before you sleep with a pretty woman is a criticism that works against today's post-modern/cultural marxist philosophy.

Today, ugly women shame beautiful women for being too thin, too feminine, too beautiful, etc. These ugly women are trying to prevent women from being beautiful so that men will find them attractive or sleep with them because of the social stigma. Look at the SJWs who claim that they are persecuted or discriminated against because they are fat, hairy, ugly, etc. Instead of trying to play the game (try to make themselves attractive) these SJWs blame some imaginary "system" and claim injustice. In reality, a lot of these things they are complaining about are biological factors, but they can't simply just make a law the men have to sleep with ugly women first and so they resort to "social justice".

[–]sirZofSwagger 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This. Just bang it right outta them. But that being said I wouldn't start some crusade to start banging ugly sjws

[–]Dyskord01 2 points3 points  (2 children)

So you would bang Rosie O Donnell in first before you could bang Taylor Swift. Tough but fair

But what if you had to bang Nancy Pelosi

[–]sirZofSwagger 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Imagine how popular the hottest ugly girl would be

[–]Dyskord01 4 points5 points  (0 children)

True between Pelosi, O'donell and Amy Schummer I suppose Schummer will feel like the prized pig.

[–]halfback910 1 point2 points  (1 child)

To be completely clear, I BELIEVE (if I recall correctly) that the man actually had to fuck ALL the chicks who were UGLIER than the one they wanted to fuck first. But I mean, presumably a lot of the chicks uglier than a 10 are still pretty hot, right?

[–]sirZofSwagger 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In that case I sound start with the ones nearly as hot as the hottest, and never finish.

[–]TzarVivec 34 points35 points  (3 children)

Ancient comedies were all either dark and brutal or based on fart jokes. In fact, in Rome many comedies would act as a form of capital penalty. The criminal would play a character that dies in the play and the only proper way to play out a death scene is to kill the actor.

[–][deleted] 16 points17 points  (1 child)

Apparently this one has some poop jokes in it too. I guess we can add the female nature and fart jokes to death and taxes in the list of things that will never change.

[–]jimmyjoejimbob 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Apparently this one has some poop jokes in it too.

Poop jokes or shit jokes? There's a big difference between them.

[–]Troll_Name 6 points7 points  (0 children)

The fart jokes were primitive creativity. Painfully limited because we can steal their ideas from the past but they cannot steal ours from the future.

The gritty shit was just a reflection of what life was like for people without much technology. If you took the difference in time from them to us, and went that much further back from them, you would find an era in which injury accounts for nearly all human death.

[–]its_meKnightSwolaire 6 points7 points  (0 children)

It took 1000 years for men to build the West

It only took 100 years for women to destroy it

[–]Matacks607 13 points14 points  (2 children)

Yea, but the play isn't actually about women. The women are suppose to symbolize effeminate men in a shameful way.

[–]SKRedPill 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Women and manginas are not so different you know.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Well they seem to behave pretty similarly in reality. And the criticism of effeminate men pretty closely mirrors our disdain for white knights.

[–]becefoot 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Aristophanes "The Original Orwell"

[–]SKRedPill 12 points13 points  (3 children)

Women's brains work in a communist way. Men's brains are capitalist.

[–]Troll_Name 6 points7 points  (0 children)

A woman's brain is robber baron for the self and Stalin for the community.

[–]Chaddeus_Rex 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Mens brains are capitalistic. But a smart man will have an authoritarian mind if he acquires power. Why share the power (democracy) if you can have it for yourself?

[–]Dyskord01 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Except soyboys their brains are socialist because they are effeminate

[–]redpilledprince 1 points1 points [recovered]

women of Athens (who have taken to wearing their husbands’ clothes and stopped shaving their armpits) convince the men of the city to hand power over to them

so pretty much our current reality

[–]JohnnySixguns 1 points1 points [recovered]

This mirrors pretty much exactly what women have done...

Before I get downvoted to hell, I just want to point out that there is MUCH wisdom on this board but you have to occasionally filter through some things that are purely misogynistic.

There are literally millions of American women with conservative political views who inherently know that the “reforms” in The Assemblywomen would be disastrous.

What the play describes are not the dangers of giving “women” power, but the dangers of giving feminists, socialists and communists power.

This board is smart enough and experienced enough to recognize that it doesn’t matter what kind of plumbing you have between your legs - you can still be a blue-pilled, pro-feminist white knight who thinks socialism will solve the worlds peoblems.

In short, I reject OP’s post as an example of why women shouldn’t have political power. That is pure misogyny when in fact any person regardless of gender is capable of harboring such flawed values.

[–]magx01 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Individual women are aware of the folly in thee things, sure; but the problem is they operate via goupthink when it comes time to actually do things.

[–]Trytosurvive 1 point2 points  (2 children)

What is going on - a play that you haven’t read and just pulled a portion of your argument out of Wikipedia and somehow try to state it’s happening now - that its a tragic comedy? I don’t see any women stating you can have free sex with any of them as long as you bang the ugly chick first. I have never heard a feminist group wanting to abolish courts. With child rearing being outsourced (child care centres, schools ect) was implemented by businesses so women could enter the labor force and have money to consume (and fuelled by man made wars that destroyed the male work force causing a shortage of workers) - business owned males and male board members. What women wants to tear down fences and get rid of private wealth ? What are you talking about? What is this we can laugh at females lack of scientific knowledge? Women were not allowed to be doctors, scientists, engineers just a generation ago and now are now in these fields making our lives better- I know plenty of males and females smarter than me, I’m happy that a female studied ten years to be a specialist and save my life. Fuck, men in power have fucked other men over longer than women with wars, bullying, slavery, working poor, despots, isis, terrorists blah blah

[–]monadyne 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Women were not allowed to be doctors, scientists, engineers just a generation ago

There were female doctors, scientists and engineers a generation ago and beyond. There just weren't very many of them. Why not? Because -having other priorities- not that many women chose to strive toward such careers as goals. There was no secret tribunal of men rubbing their hands together and preventing women from applying to STEM colleges, i.e., "not allowing" them to do so. Let's be factually accurate here.

[–]Trytosurvive 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My mum was in the A class and wanted to be a doctor but the teacher told her she could not do it as not physically able to and told she should work in a bank as good at maths (bank teller) - women were not encouraged to become these things and unless you had family/friends to get you into university you were actively discourage.

[–]Fedor_Gavnyukov 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Lysistrata is another good one by him

[–]Palikan27 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you for sharing, it would help my MA project.

[–]Synist0r 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It proves how brilliant Greeks were. Awesome find.

[–]NikolaGeorgiev 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I know that politics are not discussed here, but leftist ideas work well with a lot of feminist ideas.

[–]FreshDumbledoreMC 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yikes. TIL women shaved their armpits in ancient Greek. TrippleYikes a Dystopia were women won't shave their armpits. This is so absurd...

[–]halfback910 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It was absolutely a display of the failures of communism even if that was not his intent. In the play it's not just the attractive men who were screwed over. It was the attractive women as well.

There was a pair of pretty lovers who couldn't unite until the pretty guy had fucked all the ugly chicks. The pretty girl was upset as well. The ugly women and ugly men were thrilled. Sucked for the attractive people of both genders.

Anyone with a high market value is fucked by communism.

[–]TheLaughingRhino 1 points1 points [recovered]

Want to see the destruction from a woman with absolute power?

Find a single mother.

"Mother is the name of God from the lips of all children." Eric Draven, The Crow

It's something no one here wants to really talk about. Some guys here had great moms. Some had OK moms. I'd wager most, their moms were basically shitty human beings and much of the unplugging was trying to reboot from the damage inflicted from youth.

I keep seeing the sidebar statement - She's the most responsible teenager in the house. I disagree. Not all teenagers are to that degree of being a selfish asshole.

The "Oneitis" most men will never cure is their natural drive to excuse the actions of their mothers. It's just something no one wants to really talk about here. And I understand why.

Motherhood is just another strategy for them for attention, validation, status and power. Most of them never gave a shit about most of you. Not even on the day you were born.

[–]RPInjectionToTheVein 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Heard of it before when some college professor bitched about the play.

[–]Ferocious245 0 points1 point  (0 children)

On a broad scale, it is men vs women. Its a war. Every time your girl shit tests you, she is waging war against the entire male race, and its your duty as a soldier of the male race to defuse that shit and make her submit to you. Because if you dont, she will make you submit to her. It is a battle, a power battle. And you'd better fucking believe it, because it doesnt matter what you think about it. It is true.

[–]Whitified 0 points1 point  (0 children)

but only if the man first has sex with an ugly woman

This isn't entirely accurate. The actual script says this:

so long as they first sleep with the uglier members of the opposite sex.

Women will always pretend to be for "equality" when pushing their agenda. Aristophanes got this spot on

[–]omega_fat 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Us not understanding the difference between men and women is not because of naivety, but a long deliberate brainwash campaign starting 60 years ago (if not earlier). Successfull brainwash requires generations, but the results are beautiful

[–]Revenant221 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Lmao this is gold! Damn those Greeks really had some pretty good heads on their shoulders

[–]MrQinDang 1 points1 points [recovered]

Same thing could be (rightfully) applied to race.

1 or 2 black politicians, you're most likely fine. An entire government made up of mixed or black people?

Well let's see, you have Africa, Mexico, Brazil, you have places like Detroit and Dearborn.. democrat Black leaders have turned those cities into absolute borderline 3rd world ghetto hell holes.

Women shouldn't be allowed to vote, initiate divorce or own property. Men who divorce should be condemned to a divorce tax, women who remain married (and stay at home w/ the kids) should be given economic incentives to continue to do so.

Women shouldn't be allowed to get an education, maybe comm. college for the enlightened but even that is something i'm opposed to.

I'm not trolling, i'm just saying a successful and prosperous people need boundaries and restrictions. At one time we had all-men spaces.. colleges were for men to be men, same with church, same with the workplace, same with the bars...

Not anymore.

[–]mattizie 6 points7 points  (0 children)

If you remove the welfare state, the rest takes care of itself. Women won't divorce unless there's someone else to take care of them. Branch swinging, or the state. Branch swinging is less likely as she gets older, the state has no standards.

All it takes is for women to trade sex for political power (as was done in the US), and the system falls down again. If you have a small state, with no welfare whatsoever, it's much harder to your enemies to use it once they get in. Imagine if you took everything you wrote down, and swapped black and white; and men and women, pretty scary yeah?

Shrink the state, cut off all welfare, and leave it to individual people and families to negotiate and run their own lives.

[–]Randy_Dream_Weaver 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The first domino is putting women back in their place, everything follows after that.

[–]aesu 1 points1 points [recovered]

I thought this place was a sort of counterpoint to overzealous feminism... I din't realize we were actively misogynistic and wanted to discriminate based on gender?

[–]modTheRedPike[M] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

First, I removed the post because it's going to get reported into oblivion and I'm tired of seeing them in the queue. Second, I'm not going to ban you, but you do need to ask yourself if you are ready now or if you will ever be ready for the pill. You seem to have gotten your answer below, so I'll leave it for you to work out on your own.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (14 children)

Do you believe children should vote? What about felons? If you answer no to either, why? Isn’t that discrimination?

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

I've seen this play before but it is only fiction and not anyone's time except as entertainment. It is not a valid source for insights into women.

Want to download the post?
×
Download PDF Download TXT