全 110 件のコメント

[–]1RickJamesBeyach 72ポイント73ポイント  (10子コメント)

The feminist HATES her feminine nature

Great insight that explains so much. Notice that the feminist prescription for female advancement is for women to act like the very men they're supposed to hate.

Sexually, they encourage women to sow their wild oats while young, just like young men do. They promote the idea that, in ordering their lives, women should prioritize their careers over bearing children. They also tell women to be competitive, confrontational and aggressive like men.

Obviously, this advice is terrible because it's contrary to the way women are hard wired and produces shitty results. For example, there's plenty of evidence that shows that women who "sow their wild oats" when young end up emotionally scarred, unable to pair bond and have meaningful long term relationships.

Problem is, because feminists have framed their arguments in emotional terms, it's impossible to reason with them and convince them that their strategy is actually damaging women.

It's clear that so-called feminists are in awe of masculine power and resent that they can't have it for themselves

[–]UglyPrince2000 23ポイント24ポイント  (6子コメント)

From reading thousands of posts about guys having sex with girls on here and the dialogue they post. It always seem that women kind of regret sex with most guys they do it with. The dialogue just seems forced, you can feel the mechanical forced nature of their choice in how they communicate it. It's even more apparent in pua forums where they post dialogue, seems like women like sex but just hate it at the same time. It would be apparent with all the false rape acusations going on now a days. Women aren't men, sleeping with tons of guys does something to them (thousand cock eyes).

[–]DrunkorSciFi 17ポイント18ポイント  (3子コメント)

They're using sex as a means to an end trying to buy a man's commitment or just his genes. Call it buyer's remorse. They're either fulfilling their desire for good genes (I fucked an Alpha and I don't know why) or using it as a means to an end (I'm fucking this guy because I don't want him to leave me and start fucking other women, I need my beta bux).

[–]UglyPrince2000 5ポイント6ポイント  (2子コメント)

Yeah to them sex isn't some magical love shit, it's just a product they have and sell at a premium today. Men and women think completly different! Psychology most of it was taught in the way men think! Most teachings in psychology came from men, i would say nearly all of it. Get this, we basically gave women a blue print of how our minds work, unintentionally! We gave women the power to fuck us over, I swear mans desire for adventure and inovation will be the end of us. Don't get me wrong most stuff they teach does apply to women, but what they usually teach is men's psychology! You never hear feminists talk about that, because it benefits them!

[–]DrunkorSciFi 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

Depends on the number of sexual partners and how many times a man or a woman has attached to a mate. Each time either falls in love with the other its less and less attachment.

Eventually the women will have little to no attachment/fidelity and will just seek to use a man. Now when a woman has very few sexual partners (under 4) she is much more likely not to divorce if they marry. Whereas when a woman has more sexual partners than a man, the rate of divorce is 80-90%. She has abundance mentality, not the guy who is more attached and suffering oneitis.

[–]masnera 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

you got some "Revelation" going there bro.

[–]Sementeries 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

(thousand cock stare

Mary Katherine Ham comes to mind.

[–]Kathulos 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Here is a comment I posted on another thread. I copied and pasted it in because it's relevant down to the mention of the late reply.

Little late on the reply. Check out these studies (linked in this blog post) about the regret asymmetry between men and women regarding casual sex. If you want to get really mad spend some time reading the blog itself. http://www.cotwa.info/2013/12/root-cause-of-rape-and-false-rape.html

[–]tallwheel 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

It's clear that so-called feminists are in awe of masculine power and resent that they can't have it for themselves

Similarly, men sometimes resent women's sexual power and that they can't have it for themselves. You can see this in any post where men are lamenting how easy women have it in being able to get laid and get beta orbiters to do their bidding. That's part of the anger stage.

We move beyond that when we realize our own masculine power and how to use it effectively.

[–]MakeEmSayAyy 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

It's clear that so-called feminists are in awe of masculine power and resent that they can't have it for themselves

also theyve never been with an alpha male, because they're quite ugly, so they've built it up in their head to an irrational degree. they are obsessed with the idea of alpha males.

[–]hotsweetleather1 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

they have been fed lies by COMUNIST LEFT

Marcuse in particular by the 1930s is writing some very extreme stuff on the need for sexual liberation, but this runs through the whole Institute. So do most of the themes we see in Political Correctness, again in the early 30s. In Fromm’s view, masculinity and femininity were not reflections of ‘essential’ sexual differences, as the Romantics had thought.

They were derived instead from differences in life functions, which were in part socially determined.” Sex is a construct; sexual differences are a construct.

yes you are right thats why they.

Sexually, they encourage women to sow their wild oats while young, just like young men do. They promote the idea that, in ordering their lives, women should prioritize their careers over bearing children. They also tell women to be competitive, confrontational and aggressive like men.

[–]definepollution 25ポイント26ポイント  (1子コメント)

Man, you put the "cis" in concise! Excellent post. One of the best things I've ever read anywhere. Thanks.

[–]Endorsed ContributorThe_Titleist 128ポイント129ポイント  (12子コメント)

This right here is the reason I sought out this place. I just didn't get it. I never understood why my sister had to find a new group of friends every six months. I didn't get how quickly they would throw their friends under the bus for a guy. I never understood why whenever I was alone with one of my plates, they would tell me the most fucked up shit about their "friends". Why would you ever claim to like someone like that?

Then I found TRP and it has all made sense.

It's a scorched earth strategy to securing the best genes. By destroying the competition, they become the best possible choice within their chosen social groups. Feminism 2.0 to now 3.0 has since devolved into its macro form, where the ugly masculine women destroy the sexy feminine women in an effort to eliminate all desirability differences between the best possible mates and the worst, with the patriarchy to blame when it doesn't work. No amount of propaganda will make my dick want a fatty with short hair or a shriveled up hag with mileage.

But like you said, armed with knowledge of women and female nature, I am much more at peace with it. In fact, I have come to enjoy the company of women again because I understand them.

Let's face it, like you said, we love women because of their illogical and childish nature. If they were men like us, we wouldn't be attracted to them at all because our protective and nurturing nature would have no purpose.

Men loving women, women loving children, children loving dogs, its just three ways of saying the same thing. We don't need women, but we love that they need us.

[–]1Meat-on-the-table 19ポイント20ポイント  (7子コメント)

Same here. Never had the sort of trouble with women that brings most men here, but i certainly needed someone to explain to me why things were the way they were; someone to lay it out without pulling any punches and adhering to some facacta principle of polititcal correctness.

[–]sorad792 18ポイント19ポイント  (4子コメント)

You guys nailed it. My sister and my cousin both lost all their friends in high school (my sister made new friends junior year and lost them too), and I never understood why.

Both my sister and cousin are objectively very attractive (and nice) girls, much better looking than all their friends, but they were miserable. My sister's friends would spread malicious lies about her behind her back and would try to put her down in front of guys in order to make themselves look better.

Even before discovering TRP, I resented this sort of behavior. As such, I would always advise my sister to never do such things to friends, not to take advantage of her looks, and in general to be a pleasant person (i.e. the kind of girl I would like). She looks up to me, so she took my advice, but she was never rewarded for it, and in fact was eventually excommunicated from her friends due to the nonsense that was spread about her.

[–]yomo86 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I use this tactic for myself: deep down they know every female they are with are going to shit talk about each other. Whenever I need a bluff that cannot be called I basically say: I know from a very believble and credible source that..... Under this pressure a plate told me she was fucking other dudes while in a relationship with a third party.

[–][削除されました]  (1子コメント)

[deleted]

    [–]Turkerthelurker 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Exactly. The more women I grew to know personally, the more I'd see contradictions in women's behavior (in general).

    [–]UglyPrince2000 26ポイント27ポイント  (1子コメント)

    When I was younger I always envied women for how they stuck together and just how they had their shit together even in middle school etc. They always seemed to know, what was best. It didn't take long and thanks to red pill, I know most women friendships are fake, their mentally unstable, the degrees they study in college are useless! They get handed shit in life so easily! I know plenty of women that their job title is event cordinator, project manager, information tech manager-coordinator! Now I know that they basicly get coffee and just call people to keep them on schedule, "coordinator", shit! You is the office bitch!

    [–]stawek 10ポイント11ポイント  (1子コメント)

    I will never forget an episode from my primary school, when we were all about 13. Two girls from the class, best friends since they were 4 - we all went to preschool together. That day i'm talking to one of them and she says something about the other "having such a huge ass".

    Best friends, my ass.

    [–]1jb_trp 14ポイント15ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Women are the more deceitful sex. Which gender spends all the money on makeup, dying their hair, breast implants, etc just to make themselves look more sexual attractive? Women. They lie to their friends, they even lie to themselves, and consequently they make shitty friends.

    [–]hailhailhailandkill 39ポイント40ポイント  (8子コメント)

    Upon closer inspection, feminism is a great camouflage of low-SMV females to cheapen other gorgeous ones. Outshined an entire lifetime, they try to get in other minds with propaganda and literally beauty shaming.

    Imagine how a nothing-special girl reacts to a flashy girl's presence. Even if the latter just shows up and walks through the place (no interaction with her sphere), it's enough to discomfort her. Or when another girl (present or not) is being glorified in front of her. Observe the uncomfy gestures and biting words in response to glorification.

    Just as refugee harassments are collective shit tests, this one is a collective sneakiness and cheapening effort.

    [–]alexander_the_groovy 19ポイント20ポイント  (4子コメント)

    Have you ever seen an attractive feminist?

    Didn't think so.

    [–]twatbutter 12ポイント13ポイント  (1子コメント)

    Why is it that many extreme feminists are these nasty glasses-wearing, colored-hair, short-haired, tramp-stamped women most of the time? At least the more moderate ones accept the general conventions of female attraction.

    [–]MakeEmSayAyy 9ポイント10ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Read the top comments. It's a societal way to help bring down pretty women.

    [–]billcosbyeatsbabies 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

    and any attractive feminist i've met is usually actually quite feminine and conservative. i've still had them shit test me and actually flirt with me. i pass the shit tests with ease, and they end up not wanting to argue ever again because i flawlessly maneuver through the traps they set. so it's not so much that they're a feminist, it's more of a label they put on themselves to ward away beta dudes and test alphas. they believe in the core values of femininity but it's primarily a test.

    [–]tallwheel 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Attractive women are often complacent with feminism, or will say they are feminists if you ask them, without really actively practicing many/any of the ideas. They may call out feminists if they are one of the smarter ones, or after you gain their trust and they start telling you all their girlfriends' dirty secrets. They'll start telling you what they really think about ugly militant feminists then too if you press them.

    [–]CDBaller 8ポイント9ポイント  (0子コメント)

    One of Rush Limbaugh's best lines is that Feminism was invented to give ugly women an excuse to be socially involved.

    [–]masnera 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

    wow for that closer inspection of yours bro.

    [–]Endorsed Contributorleftajar 15ポイント16ポイント  (2子コメント)

    The core of Feminism is a devaluing of the Female.

    Traditional cultures glorify the feminine: they have gods of fertility, spring festivals to celebrate fertility, and even threw virgins into volcanos to appease the gods.

    They understood that the ability to bear a child is holy and sacrosanct, and needs to be celebrated and valued.

    Feminists have killed that. They took a look at history and concluded that only the masculine was valuable. Which is easy to conclude if you're a dumbass, because the things men did were obvious and unsubtle. They forget that all those men had to come from somewhere, and that somewhere was their mothers.

    If there's no value in the Feminine, then women should become Masculine. That's Feminism in a nutshell. They think that Femininity and child birth have no inherent value.

    [–]hotsweetleather1 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Radical feminism, according to Sarah Evans, a student radical, one of the first historians of the movement, and today a professor at the University of Minnesota, began as a form of Mills’s personal politics that proceeded from the civil rights movement.

    What was called “radical feminism” began as a revolt against male chauvinism within the civil rights movement. A 1964 SNCC paper noted that “this is no more a man’s world than it is a white world.”

    Feminist activists placed this oppression within a Marxist framework, applying colonial theory: “As we analyze the position of women in capitalist society and especially in the United States we find that women are in a colonial relationship to men and we recognize ourselves as part of the Third World.”

    Yes the hamster is born.

    [–]tallwheel 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

    threw virgins into volcanos to appease the gods.

    That was obviously due to misogyny, shitlord! /s

    [–]alexander_the_groovy 10ポイント11ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Feminism exists because women feel bad about themselves and don't want to take accountability for it.

    This man speaks truth. Thank you sir.

    [–]1Meat-on-the-table 20ポイント21ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Feminism is the biggest crab bucket mentality there is. A gaggle of unhappy, malcontent shrews who decided that their bile would be the burden of the rest of the world; a collection of harridans who, through sheer bullying and obnoxiousness, impressed upon the world that their needs were all-important.

    I've long held that the reason why women in general and feminists in particular hold so much disdain for the betas in their lives is that deep down, beyond the blue-haired, pseudo-philosophical, slander-anything-and-anyone-who-disagrees rhetoric, they know that they are simply not worthy of respect.

    They realise that only a desperate simp would even begin to entertain the idea of them being equal to men, which, paradoxically, means the beta is beneath them.

    [–]DrunkorSciFi 5ポイント6ポイント  (4子コメント)

    Feminists abhor the talk of motherhood or being a mother because it acknowledges a specific gender role and "hence the oppression of women" and thus the "solution" is to avoid motherhood in theory and practice. Accordingly yes feminists hate their gender and cannot acknowledge their biological differences. Thus feminists have two competing political branches they use to counter this: "Sameness feminism" (make women like men/make men like women) and "post-modern feminism" (deconstruct and destabilize gender differences; promoting transgender, what gender the person identifies with etc.). Bottom line biological differences will always trump their political motives of wanting to exact revenge for having been born a woman. aka PENIS ENVY to the Nth degree.

    TL:DR Feminists want to destroy gender because they don't want to be a mother and have kids.

    How should men react? Demanding accountability in the institutions that govern. Next alienate the sickness, identify it as a political movement rooted in both individuals and the institutions that govern. Feminism views women as an entitled class not to be held accountable. Women can lie about men with impunity, big daddy government can stop on your neck and evict you from your own home with a restraining order the moment she claims she fears you, a media campaign can get you fired over bogus "rape" allegations from a disenfranchised girl you slammed a couple times, etc. Never help a feminist but do not ignore the malignant cancer it is which seeks to form an entitled class of citizens.

    TL:DR Roosh meetings are a really good start. He admitted he did it for fame and fucks. But I'm much more concerned with political power and influence as feminism has encroached into our laws and fundamentally seek to chance our society. Like minded men need to start meeting and discussing these things across the Country. I wish someone would come up with a good name and get it out there without any feminist moles.

    [–]Sawagurumi 8ポイント9ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Something on UK TV just today. They were talking about how damaging to children a divorce was. The solution, naturally, was that Daddy Government should DO SOMETHING! Provide counseling for the children, stuff like that.

    Typically female way of thinking. Most divorces are brought about by women, because they aren't haaaappppyy. So the answer is for women to get their shit together, acknowledge that when you marry someone and have children, you honour the vow you gave and make it work - at least until the children are old enough to leave home.

    But no, that would be taking responsibility for their actions. Daddy Government should sort it out for them.

    [–]hotsweetleather1 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

    In Eros and Civilization (1955), Marxist theorist Herbert Marcuse sought to develop the emancipatory potential of Freud's theories. He argued for the possibility of "non-repressive sublimation" which would allow for new forms of work based on non-alienated labor as well as the creation of new kinds of libidinal communities. Marcuse saw the "perversions" as the champions of the pleasure principle; they upheld sexuality as an end in itself.

    He claimed that "they thus place themselves outside the domination of the performance principle and challenge its very foundation." He saw "narcissism" and "homosexuality" as examples of revolutionary sexualities which resisted the restriction of Eros to procreative sexuality.

    He championed "polymorphous perversity," a sexuality not narrowly focused on any specific object or activity.

    They were derived instead from differences in life functions, which were in part socially determined.” Sex is a construct; sexual differences are a construct.

    This the basis of modern feminist behaviour.

    [–]DrunkorSciFi 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

    Thanks I'm still wrapping my brain around it all.

    [–]hotsweetleather1 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

    glad to help.

    THE DEAD IS HERE AND ALIVE.

    [–]Endorsed ContributorNeoreactionSafe 15ポイント16ポイント  (38子コメント)

    I had written another post, but it somehow got "misplaced".

    Anyway...

    Feminism creates a kind of Synthetic Masculinity because the Blue Pill emotional indoctrination process is suppressing the rise in consciousness of boys becoming masculine men.

    Nature abhors a vacuum.

    So the Androgyny these days causes women to create their own imitation of masculinity within themselves.

    But it's a fraud.

    The only true masculinity comes from men and is part of gender polarity.

    The bottom line is that Feminism creates this bizarre "macho chick" that is a cartoon of what genuine masculinity is about.

    Feminists imagine a masculinity that is a joke... a myth... so they are unhappy and unsatisfied because the fraudulent mythology of the Blue Pill cannot satisfy them.

    It's the Yod - Hei - Vav - Hei situation. You can't get the universe to flow correctly if the masculine is not flowing from male polarity into female polarity.

    The universe wants Yin and Yang.

    When polarity is suppressed things don't work.

     

    [–][削除されました]  (12子コメント)

    [deleted]

      [–]Endorsed ContributorNeoreactionSafe 7ポイント8ポイント  (10子コメント)

      Men have masculinity which creates polarity.

      Feminism suppresses consciousness and makes boys stay Androgynous beta slaves.

      That's why it must be repeated again and again:

      We destroy the Blue Pill mythology to set men free.

      In a condition of freedom... the natural... we see polarity.

      In this artificial creation of "Man's Laws" (Blue Pill) we suppress polarity and see Androgyny.

      ...so it's more than attraction.

      A beta is attracted to women even though he is mentally Androgynous.

       

      [–][削除されました]  (9子コメント)

      [deleted]

        [–]Endorsed ContributorNeoreactionSafe 6ポイント7ポイント  (8子コメント)

        You would be surprised how after all this time people don't fully grasp these core concepts.

        There was a guy arguing that in nature the Feminist model was the norm with the Bonobo monkeys being his justification:

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo

        ...what is interesting is that this species is going extinct which should come as no surprise. However, to be fair many primates are also in decline.

        Anyway, one of the central themes here goes like this:

        "Women are attracted to the masculine Frame so they prefer the Chad Alpha types over the Beta providers... this is ingrained in women because of millions of years of history."

        So the Feminist model (we say) is flawed and does not represent the true nature of women or men.

        In other words being a provider is not natural, we were born to have masculinity and "ownership" over land, women and assets and deep down women crave being "owned" by a masculine and powerful man. We were in a sense born to be in something like the Marriage 1.0 world where men "owned" women and if the woman misbehaved she was thrown out to be forced into being an Old Maid or worse. This was when there was no such thing as "child support". (in fact though divorce was rare the man owned the kids, so women had no power)

        Which makes it funny when I get the Bonobo argument.

        It's like:

        "Hey wait a minute... Alpha Fucks / Beta Bucks... that only exists because of deep nature trying to penetrate through the Blue Pill fog of suppression. Women are not naturally Feminist, this is an unnatural situation."

        ...anyway, could go on all day on these topics.

         

        [–][削除されました]  (1子コメント)

        [deleted]

          [–]Endorsed ContributorNeoreactionSafe 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

          Religion done correctly increases consciousness.

          Religion done in alignment with the powerful reduces consciousness.

          The Blue Pill is a religion... because it's a mythology and it serves the powerful at the expense of the masses.

          The Red Pill is not a mythology... and I agree that if it started to become one (that suppressed conscious thought) then it would be in decline.

          In many cases these ideas are deep enough that a single sentence doesn't do it justice, so I'll use some mystery to indirectly point towards something deeper.

          You can't "dumb down" the Red Pill without making it Blue.

           

          [–]Kathulos 0ポイント1ポイント  (5子コメント)

          Men didn't own women until agriculture came around. A much larger portion of our history and evolution was our time in hunter gatherer groups. Once agriculture came around it was the women who started the aristocracy by only giving their sex to powerful males to ensure their survival.

          Our remote ancestors lived in groups that adhered to Dunbar's Number. Which has been proposed to lie between 100 and 250, with a commonly used value of 150.(Wikipedia).

          In these truly egalitarian groups sex was exchanged for meat(obviously it was the men who obtained the meat).

          All of the group had sex with each other as the evolutionary advantage that separated mankind from their competitors was free sex or competition free sex.

          The group was either unaware that pregnancy is a result of sexual activity or thought that a child had many fathers.

          The agricultural revolution changed this. We settled the fertile crescent because of the abundance of game and plants. Our lifestyle changed. Then it got cold. Food production dropped. Women being the transactional creatures that they are stopped having sex with everyone and only gave themselves to strong alpha men able to provide food.

          They created the aristocracy and set themselves up as a petty bourgeois to ensure their survival over that of beta males less able to provide.

          Source: The Empress Is Naked by Adam Leonas. This book was recently stickied as recommended reading by the mods. I also highly recommend it, although I am sure an endorsement by the mods carries more weight.

          The other theory regarding the start of one women for one man can be found in A Short History of Man by Hans Herman Hoppe. This book is a history of mankind from an economic standpoint and is both well written and an interesting read.

          Which can be downloaded here for free. https://mises.org/library/short-history-man-progress-and-decline

          I tried to copy and paste his explanation for the start of this phenomenon, however the version of the book I downloaded is epub and I can't seem to figure it out. I will, however attempt to summarize his explanation briefly in my own words.

          Women were forced to give themselves exclusively to one man because they required his protection. Not for themselves but for their offspring. From whom did their children require protection? Other women. Because generally tribal peoples were caught in Malthusian traps where food and resources were scarce. If a women could kill the offspring of another women, her own children would have a better chance at survival.

          Women would need a man to be certain of his paternity in order to receive his protection. A man wouldn't come to the protection of children that weren't his because that would threaten his sexual access to the aggressor. Like the saying goes: mothers baby, fathers maybe.

          I used to believe that man dominating women was nature's way as well. However what you have described is society's way. Societies benefit from the one woman for one man marriage building blocks. Marriage is the glue that holds a society together because it allows the elite to harness the production power of men.

          In ancient times all men were given sex, until women either conspired to sell their sex to one man for protection from other women.

          Or they conspired to sell their sex to powerful alpha men to ensure their survival over weak beta males during a time of scarcity. This created both inequality and the aristocracy.

          [–]Endorsed ContributorNeoreactionSafe 0ポイント1ポイント  (4子コメント)

          History going back at least the last 5,000 years suggests that masculinity has been central to the rise of every major civilization.

          The error you are making is that you are in effect studying loser cultures.

           

          Read this... it gives a better "big picture" of the rise and fall.

          http://www.returnofkings.com/77942/how-a-german-historian-predicted-western-decline-100-years-ago

           

          [–]Kathulos 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

          Yes perhaps they were 'loser' cultures. However these loser cultures make up a significantly larger portion of the history of our species then the newly established winner cultures of the last 5000 years. A society that has more people in it than Dunbar's number is an artificial construct. It requires more rules and regulations to ensure that everyone is pulling their weight. It also enforces chastity on its women (virgin brides) for at least the first couple generations. I am aware of all of this. I am not studying loser cultures. I am stating the facts about a winning evolution.

          Which brings me to my point: you have NOT addressed my argument. You claim: 'deep down women crave being "owned" by a masculine and powerful man. We were in a sense born to be in something like the Marriage 1.0 world where men "owned" women and if the woman misbehaved she was thrown out to be forced into being an Old Maid or worse.'

          And: "Women are attracted to the masculine Frame so they prefer the Chad Alpha types over the Beta providers... this is ingrained in women because of millions of years of history."

          Women have a preference for an Alpha that is true. But they did not evolve to give themselves to him exclusively. They were not born to be owned by him. They evolved in truly egalitarian groups where it really was: to each according to their needs. From each according to their ability. The men's ability was to provide meat. The woman's was to provide sex.

          While I do consider a woman's chastity to be important to a successful society, these types of non 'loser' societies only existed as you stated for the last 5000 years(give or take, you could tack another 10k on and I believe my point would still stand). Monogamous relationships are the way a culture is built. However they are not the way we evolved as a species.

          You are attaching a greater evolutionary impact to the last 5000 years than the evolution of our species as whole. I concur that the last 5000 years was of a greater cultural impact. But the timeframes impact on our evolution? Much smaller.

          Women in these tribal societies had sex with everyone, although they preferred sex with an alpha. This is thought to be the reason why there is a female orgasm. The cervix drops and it gives a man deemed superior by his current partner a better chance at impregnation then her other partners.

          If women were 'born'(I read evolved although perhaps not the meaning you want to convey) to be owned then your penis would be shaped much more like a gorilla rather than a bonobo monkey. Gorillas have tiny penises and make very little sperm in comparison to both humans and the aforementioned monkeys. The reason for this is because they are monogamous.

          The human penis is shaped the way it is to pump rivals sperm away from eggs and give its owner a greater chance of procreation.

          So women have an ingrained preference for Chad as you attested? Yes I believe that to be true. However they didn't evolve to be owned by him. They evolved having sex with everyone. Sure they had sex with Chad more. And came way harder with Chad ensuring he got to pass on more of his genes.

          The winner societies of the last 5000 years are an artificial construct. We didn't evolve to be in them and that is, in my opinion, why they fall apart.

          Edit: formatting and misspelling

          Edit 2: perhaps I misremembered(just like Roger Clemens) but upon further research it appears that gorillas are not monogamous. Perhaps it was gibbons that were the monogamous primate used as an example in The Empress is Naked. Either way the point about sperm production and penis size was made by the author contrasting polygamous and monogamous primates.

          [–]Endorsed ContributorNeoreactionSafe 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

          The winner societies of the last 5000 years are an artificial construct.

          Man really became man through murder.

          When we study these monkey species these are not how early humans behaved. I took a class in college about primates and if you study them you realize each species behaves in unique ways.

          My professor even said:

          "When I first got into this primate stuff it was when there was great idealism that we would discover something about humanity, but it has not done that."

          The bottom line:

          The human species seems best defined by it's Machiavellian nature.

          Humans murder other humans.

          We do it for power, for women, for resources.

          How far back was this violence our defining charactoristic?

          Hard to say, but it's likely that the early humans took the chimps tendencies towards murder and just expanded them with a bigger brain.

          The bigger your brain the better your murdering skills.

          It becomes like a game of Survivor where you play Game on everyone who you are forced to deal with and the best Game player wins and the losers get murdered.

          The Blue Pill is consciousness suppression.

          So we see people being programmed to be against their nature and clueless about Game.

          Murder is very low now by individuals, but state sponsored murder is rising because of the globalist elites.

          So in short...

          Violence and domination by humans against each other likely goes back 100,000 years at least and broke off from chimps who were already warlike and violent.

          Peace is not our natural condition.

          The "Garden of Eden" which you seek was ended when man discovered Game.

          Read some Rene Girard:

          http://www.iep.utm.edu/girard/

          ...the "Founding Murder" concept.

          One might even say evolution demands murder and the Blue Pill is the systematic murder of the masses being driven by the global elites who seek depopulation.

          The Blue Pill is spiritual murder.

           

          [–]Kathulos 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

          I do not seek a garden of Eden. I have no idea how you reached that conclusion. You have yet to address my argument. It seems you are being obtuse, perhaps deliberately so.

          Our evolutionary competitive advantage was competition free sex. Men and women evolved in an environment of promiscuity. Men's penises and woman's hidden ovulation are evidence of this. Women did not evolve to be 'owned' by an alpha male. They evolved having sex with everybody. Their coups d'état was no longer having sex with everyone. Instead they gave themselves to alphas and created the class society. With themselves ass a petty bourgeois. I do not seek an egalitarian garden of Eden. Please address my argument. Perhaps you should reread my earlier comments.

          [–]hotsweetleather1 1ポイント2ポイント  (24子コメント)

          Gagnon and Simon developed the view that sexual behavior was a process of learning, one that is possible, not because of instinctual drives or physiological requirements, but because it is embedded in complex social scripts that are specific to particular locations in culture and history. Their approach stressed the significance of individual agency and cultural symbols in the conduct of our sexual activities.

          They had redefined sexuality from being the combined product of biological drives and social repression into one of creative social initiative and symbolic action.

          that why modern female brag about being more experienced.

          [–]Endorsed ContributorNeoreactionSafe 2ポイント3ポイント  (23子コメント)

          You just described the Blue Pill emotional indoctrination mechanism itself.

          Superbowl

          Did you notice the commercials that celebrated "Superbowl Babies"?

          This was a direct psychological conditioning to place sexuality into the center of the event.

          It's mind control... brainwashing.

          So to say:

          ...because it is embedded in complex social scripts that are specific to particular locations in culture and history.

          That's exactly what we mean by the Blue Pill that we can stretch the limits of reality... well... into mythology actually... so that guys are so reprogrammed as betas to have lost all natural masculinity.

          What is scary is how effective the Blue Pill is in brainwashing.

          But nature fights against the Blue Pill because women cannot get "tingles" for beta males, so the mythology shows it's cracks.

          Red Pill is based on the underlying core natural truths... not the mythology.

           

          that why modern female brag about being more experienced.

          Which is why a Red Pill aware man laughs at Feminism.

          We actually understand how this horrible Game called the Blue Pill is being used to suppress consciousness.

           

          [–]hotsweetleather1 1ポイント2ポイント  (22子コメント)

          IN his writings, Reich provides an intense criticism of what he calls “compulsive morality” and the religions used by political regimes to inculcate it. For Reich, sadism—which included aggression focused back upon oneself or upon others—unfortunately had been the underpinning of all human relationships since the beginning of organized political societies.

          The very habits of civilized males, who defer chivalrously to women, he regarded as inseparable from their unconscious belief that women are inferior. Hence, the moment when men feel they have acted most honorably is precisely when they have displayed their domineering desire and carved out a realm of the “masculine.”

          Reich realized that chivalry was not conscious; it was a habit educated first in the differentiation of the sexes—a moral distinction inculcated by the patriarchal family and supported by a political culture in which men and women are given sexual roles. A scientific psychology, he believed, would make patients conscious of the nonsense of morality and its internalized guilt.

          Patients in the clinic reflected upon their moral inhibitions without discarding their reserved habits. Reich believed that they used logic, words detached from emotion, as a defense mechanism for their still-ingrained morality. The patient might talk freely about sex and morality as if he possessed no guilt or shame, but in his physical behavior, he retained a “character armor” of the same moral inhibitions.

          [–]Endorsed ContributorNeoreactionSafe 1ポイント2ポイント  (21子コメント)

          Theorists come and go and I'm not aware of this Reich guy. (sounds in the Blue Pill camp to me)

          History is largely unchanging in that masculinity can be seen as a polarity.

          When men are masculine it creates a powerful reaction in women that enhances their own polarity and drives them towards the feminine direction. This magnified condition attracts each other like magnets and this forms the basis of civilization.

          People and culture often forget what polarity is about.

          This is where you get Androgyny which is a sort of failure to achieve polarity.

          So Feminism simply plays into a mythology that fails to account for nature.

           

          [–]hotsweetleather1 -3ポイント-2ポイント  (20子コメント)

          "Androgyny"

          is a COMMUNIST LIE.

          Humanists regarded traditional sadism as unnatural and believed that violent offenders must be incarcerated.

          The most common form of sadism is the construction of the idea of two distinct genders, a social imposition that limits personal growth by confining it within traditional gender roles.

          A healthy society, said the Humanists, would then recognize the many unique manifestations of erotic desire and grant sexual rights to its citizens to explore and express their discovered gender identities.

          [–]Endorsed ContributorNeoreactionSafe 2ポイント3ポイント  (3子コメント)

          You know this is Red Pill right?

          We are all about polarity.

          Our prime objective as men is to improve ourselves to maximize our masculine polarity.

          Did you come here by accident?

          (or are you just kidding?)

           

          • The Blue Pill ---> Androgyny

          • The Red Pill ---> Masculine and feminine polarity

           

          [–]hotsweetleather1 -2ポイント-1ポイント  (2子コメント)

          We and as RED pill men. IT is vital for us to have this knowledge.

          In order to know where we are going we have to know here we came from.

          "Did you come here by accident?"

          your point?

          [–]Endorsed ContributorNeoreactionSafe 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

           

          • The Blue Pill ---> Androgyny

          • The Red Pill ---> Masculine and feminine polarity

           

          ...I added that above on editing.

          Do we agree on this?

           

          [–]RP15 1ポイント2ポイント  (13子コメント)

          Nobody is obligated to humor your cultural Marxist theory garbage outside of the ivory tower.

          [–]hotsweetleather1 1ポイント2ポイント  (12子コメント)

          lets have some more laughs.

          Mills also attacked the liberal myth of “scientific” rationalization: that greater bureaucracy leads to more rational outcomes; rather, it led to chaotic, irrational policies, such as Mutually Assured Destruction.

          College is not just for education its for self exploration.

          [–]Icaria25 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

          Some of your posts make a lot of sense to me, but elsewhere ( like here ) it seems to me you are just recurring to famous theorists to prove your point.

          But authority is not truth. You aren't making any efforts to explain your thought and your truth there, and so you get downvoted.

          Those guys you quote are gone by centuries and little remain of the societies they explored.

          Perhaps if you exposed your personal thought on the matter, people would be able to address you properly.

          I'm quite the intellectual myself and understand where you come from ( and think many of your posts make sense ), but sometimes you really need to drop the high ground. Expose things logically, not by way of intellectual authority. Then you can get good feedback.

          [–]hotsweetleather1 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

          "But authority is not truth"

          To destroy capitalism, Reich posited that the old socialists’ logical arguments about economic exploitation were insufficient; one must destroy the moral habits upon which capitalism is founded, such as self-restraint, industry, frugality, and punctuality.

          Hence the Reichian dialectic: Sexual repression was intertwined with economic exploitation, and sexual liberation would destroy the basis for capitalism.

          Communism has been transformed from economic terms to cultural terms.

          This is the basis of gay rights,LGBT,FEMINISM. etc.

          [–]RP15 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

          And dropping acid on a Monday, evidently. What the hell are you talking about?

          [–]siriusisness -1ポイント0ポイント  (8子コメント)

          "College is not just for education its for self exploration"

          is that how you justify sucking your women's studies professors cock?

          [–]hotsweetleather1 0ポイント1ポイント  (7子コメント)

          is that how you justify sucking your women's studies professors cock?

          Lok how the idea of college has been turned from getting educated to self exploration. women nowadays see the love not as a destination but as a jourbey through lots of sex.

          See my other posts and you will understand how the communist were able to achieved these remarkable things.

          [–]The_Red_Paw 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

          Two distinct genders are factual for billions of years of evolution. Dinosaurs had males and females and no 'society'. Dogs and cats have males and females and they live in our society.

          Your assertion that gender is a social construct is exactly the opposite of truth. It is the breakdown of gender norms that is a social construct.

          Take away society and every living thing (plants too!) divide into two distinct genders.

          [–]hotsweetleather1 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

          yes...exactly. "Two distinct genders are factual for billions of years of evolution" i completely agree with you. Its a communist lie. Run by Feminists.

          [–]RP_puaghow111 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

          Feminists and MRA's both try and use social justice to try and change the dating marketplace. If you can't accept the dating and sexual marketplace for what it is, you're not really in the market.

          And that's why you can never date a feminist.

          EDIT

          The same thing is true if you want to get rich. First step is accepting the economic landscape for what it is.

          [–]RP15 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

          I wonder if this concept can be applied to progressives writ large when they discover how brutal and subtly violent the world is.

          "No! Humanity can't be this bad! I can't be this bad! It must be because the rich/western culture/capitalism/racist white men have made us this way! Other cultures are lovey dovey and accepting while ours is mean and bad, so we should destroy ours! Quick, let's ruin a teenager's life so we can prove we're one of the Good Guys!"

          [–]iLLprincipLeS 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

          The Patriarchy is the alpha she's always dreamed of.

          . but she can never have, because feminist females are genetic trash. And, better than to have a beta mangina partner, they prefer to try and fuck it up for all the women that are suitable to be selected by alphas. They try to cuck all the males into betaness by hiding behind words like: equality. No masculinity = No alphas.

          In the end, feminism is a big SHIT test, not only for males but also for females. If an attractive woman wants to be the equal of a feminist whale, then we can already call it : (bad) eugenics.

          [–]TheRabbitTunnel 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

          Well put, in our society most low self worth / self hatred, and the behavior that stems from that, is mistaken to be narcissism/arrogance etc

          [–]DaphneDK 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

          Today Kathleen Reardon calls younger women who don't vote for Hillary for girls going though a "cute-and-little phase." The other day is was Madeleine Albright & Steinem who damned women to a special place in hell if they didn't vote Hillary.

          Older feminists sure do like to pile on the hatred on younger women. No wonder feminism isn't all that popular with the younger generation.

          [–]The_Red_Paw 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

          Not only that, but those two sexist hags don't even see the hypocrisy of saying 'vote for Hillary because...VAGINA'

          That's their idea of a political stance.

          [–]Metalaggeddon 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

          This goes hand in hand with women's statistically decreasing overall happiness, and the sharp decline in overall happiness prevalent in 1st world women after 30.

          There's no rational force curbing their self destructive tendencies anymore, and they're paying for it in men's blood, cash, and their own prospects and happiness.

          Poetry in motion.

          [–]FakeGuru 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

          Feminism is, for the most part, women who are angry.

          They direct their anger at men.

          [–]1max_peenor 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

          The feminist HATES her feminine nature so much that there is nothing she wouldn't do in order to distance herself from her unfortunate shortcomings.

          I sort of wonder if it is just competition culling in 6th gear. We talk a lot about how feminism is a giant shittest for men. What if we are missing the point? What if it's just a new, grand way for some women to herd other women into their cat-festooned emotional gulags, leaving the prime men for themselves? We are all used to the 2/10 hag feminists that are pretty much just bitter, but a lot of them are pretty well put together females.

          [–]a_chill_bro 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

          Let's get this to the side bar ASAP. By far one of the most succinctly worded summarization of TRP tenets I've read in a while.

          [–]untitled_redditor 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

          "Red pillers love women" This is the truth. We love and respect them as equals. But being equal doesn't mean we're the same. Nature/evolution has built us for different roles. This isn't debatable, it's science.

          In contrast, while we love them for who they are, feminists hate them for who they are. I spent a ridiculous amount of time with feminists and lesbians (I was born in Portland). It's like they truly hate their female nature and are permajelly of men.

          [–]diomedes777 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

          Men and women aren't equal. Your sentiment with this post is correct but this statement is inherently wrong.

          [–]untitled_redditor 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

          I'm a programmer. We have the concept of comparators, as the name implies they evaluate/compare things. Anyways, our most frequently used comparator (often noted "=" or "==") commonly checks to see if things have the same value. Not to determine if two things are the same "type" of thing. ...So, I think in code. To me girls are equal (in value) but we're not the same. They're women and we're men. Totally different things.

          Just my opinion. I'm not sure how that fits into red pill, but I see nothing wrong with it.

          [–][deleted] 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

          Great insight. It seems feminism and blue pill go hand in hand.

          What were seeing is an entire generation of people indoctrinated with a worldview that does not match reality.

          This results in unhappiness and dysfunction on a massive scale.

          [–]Cmbaugh 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

          Let us also not forget the amount of hypocrisy and double standards that they carp all day. If you think about it they are just as bad as we supposedly are! If what they say is to be true then they are using the same exact tactics and motives and justifications as "us". But it's different because their Women.

          [–]taoofmojo 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

          Feminism is bedfellows with Communism they go hand-in-hand.Plus feminism gives women Carte blanche to act anyway they desire. I can't think of any other movement that acts in this manner other then a cult. in a funny way its better then a cult as it has no leader so it's harder to take down. I do think feminism is great in third world countries tho.For a women that has been ignored by the opposite sex. It would be hard to resist the temptation being part of a organisation thats allows you to act in a unmoral manner.

          [–]hotsweetleather1 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

          How normal american woman has been brainwashed through the years.

          The nuclear family, wrote Mills and other sociologists such as David Riesman and William H. Whyte, was the instrument of conformity.

          Riesman wrote of the “despotic walls of the patriarchal family.”

          The father, the “organization man” who donned a “gray flannel suit,” was stripped of seriousness and hence of authority and virility as well.

          The capitalistic disruption of the family also led to a denial of feminine sexuality.

          The frigid mother, detached from the unmanly role of her husband, fled to exotic sexual escapades or alcohol to find the excitement lacking at home. Housewives were stunted humans—Mills called them “darling little slaves”—confined to the prisons of suburban homes.

          NO wonder some of the modern feminist hate the patriarchial family.

          [–]lawrencewidman 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

          Funny but the second nicest woman I've met since leaving my wife is a stripper. Well that had mutual attraction anyway. The nicest one I met already has two kids at age 22 lol. There is a damn good reason why.

          Most women don't know how to treat men unfortunately.

          It is a cultural divide. I think its from lack of male influence in upbringing.

          And a lot of ugly chicks are cock blockers first and foremost.

          [–][deleted] 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

          This attitude has to carry over from our interpersonal relationships to the workforce. Femcunts and their acolytes are always going to aspire for cheating their way to financial independence (i.e sucking TA cock to pass college classes and affirmative action to steal careers that rightfully belong to men). We need resolute determination and we must drive them out of our institutions of higher learning and out of our places of employment. Yeah we get it they don't know what's good for themselves. But that doesn't negate the fact that their disobedience can no longer be tolerated. It has severe deleterious effects on all of us when these whores play career cunt and are no longer mandated to defer to men. It's incumbent upon all of us to take the high road and guide them back to the dependent role of homemaker that they've abdicated. Humiliate the fuck out of them in your classes. The audacity that some stupid cunt would open her moronic mouth in an attempt to contribute in YOUR lecture classes, on your time when you're paying tens of thousands of dollars for an education is too much to ask of even a saint. Laugh at every word out their mouth in class and in the workplace. Make them feel the white hot burn of being held to the intellectual standards of men. They're so weak and pathetic, just making her feel awkward alone is enough to make cupcake's entitled ass turn tail. Feminists are all women. All women believe they're entitled to self discovery and an experiential existence at our expense. Let's make them rue that miscalculation with complete social ostracization. You hire a woman for anything beyond the most demeaning mindless work and you are a fucking traitor.

          [–][削除されました]  (8子コメント)

          [deleted]

            [–]DrunkorSciFi 2ポイント3ポイント  (7子コメント)

            ... and IMHO why Islam will spread across this Country and collapse it. Our descendants we'll be living in the backwaters of a Chinese slave camp praying five times a day....

            [–]RP15 1ポイント2ポイント  (6子コメント)

            Terrifying thought, and definitely applicable to Europe, but the US is geopolitically insulated by two oceans and 320 million firearms. This is not a place vulnerable to foreign enslavement on the level. Economic inferiority maybe. But enslavement camps? Fat fucking chance.

            [–]DrunkorSciFi 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

            They may not need to invade. Look no one thought the USSR would fall apart but it did when they ran out of hard foreign currency and defaulted on their debt. America's 50 states can also politically separate if their is an economic collapse. We're not going see to a bank collapse next (bail outs), but we're going to see next a Country/Union collapse (who will bail that out?). Maybe the Euro, maybe China or Japan, Saudi Arabia who knows...

            But yeah, ultimately one day the Chinese may just decide its time to exterminate all other races as they need room physically and politically.

            [–]RP15 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

            The USSR as a world superpower did break up, yes. But it broke up into Russia, which became the 2nd-4th most powerful country, and a collection of relatively prosperous Eastern European countries. That's while sharing a border with China, Europe, and the Muslim world. They still managed to hold it together.

            The US will suffer a breakdown sooner or later, but this doesn't mean that the people living within its borders will disappear. There will still be a large, powerful, prosperous, resource-rich English speaking North America that is protected by oceans and the most heavily armed population in history. We might get some defection in analogous to Ukraine joining the EU such as Hawaii allying with China, Alaska with Canada or Russia, or heavily Hispanic southern border states allying with Mexico. For the most part, things won't change much save for some decentralization of power from DC.

            [–]Sawagurumi 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

            Three steps to the end of Western society: women's suffrage, the pill, and no-fault divorce. Once you have those, there is no way back for a society. Women will never willingly give up the power they got, the 'freedom' to not have children, the power to force politicians to make more and more of a nanny state and push to the Left. Inevitably, this leads to a decline in birth-rate, and unless you hold strong borders (the Japanese are at least doing that, and will survive), then a takeover by other cultures is inevitable.

            [–]RP15 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

            Women will never willingly give up the power they got, the 'freedom' to not have children...

            Willingly.

            Additionally, an attack by foreign population is inevitable, yes. Some would argue that it's already occurring along our southern border states.

            A takeover is the farthest thing from inevitable in the history of military conflict.

            [–]Sawagurumi 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

            I'm really talking about Europe here, with its unbelievable attitude of favouring everyone except the men who build Europe. The political power of women will be lost, of course, because feminism, in one form or another, has arisen more than once in the past, and always the society then collapsed and women suddenly remembered that they depended on men after all. But it doesn't happen under peace and tranquil conditions, it happens in turmoil.

            [–]MakeEmSayAyy -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

            Great post, OP. I think you did steal the whole "women get off on the patriarchy angle" from me, but you did go in a different direction with it, so it's fine.

            [–]masnera -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

            This post really describe what a Red Pill kind of man i wanna be.

            [–]nutty_bi -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

            You should be edging many times per week (masturbating without coming). Use the endurance fleshlight and build up the duration over time. This will help you last much longer in bed. As your SMV increases, so will the quality of your lays, and it will be hard to last as long at full speed.