Post: #1

I have 2 daughters and a son, and all I can do is fear for their future. Because Britain is falling, and Canada, US, and Australia and most of Europe are next.

The #Metoo movement is the latest outbreak of a disease whose inevitable outcome is Gender Civil War.

Half of our society -- women -- are now totally brainwashed by the evil hatred and self-destruction of feminism. Normally in history the married, virtuous women made sure to drive the sluts, the spinsters, and the feminist haters out of the city. They take torches and rope and drive the witches out.

Thus the hatred of the spinster Feminist mind is not allowed to infect young women and grow virally. Thus, open war between men and women, and the inevitable collapse of society, war, death, and misery unimaginable, is avoided.

But in the past 40 years the virtuous women have not driven the witches out of town. The witches won. Now the bad, bad times begin.

Of course Feminism and it's hate will be crushed eventually. We will all live to see the day when 10,000 feminists and lesbians will swing from the gallows lining every street. The US is already swinging back to a puritan mind with astonishing speed.

The dykes and the moron feminists, with the even-stupider legions of cat-loving spinsters, are now attacking and infuriating men at an astonishing rate. Using #Metoo to attack men and destroy their careers is like Japan attacking Pearl Harbor -- a short term win followed by fury and utter obliteration.

Human males are the most highly evolved killers in the animal kingdom and women are now intentionally infuriating them. Wow. How much longer until the infinitely savage counter attack? Not long.

All women will pay dearly for #Metoo. My daughters, so carefully raised to NOT be that stupid, will pay. It will burn them so badly, no matter how I try to shield them. My daughters and their female peers will pay the price and they will turn their own fury on the ugly troll scumbag feminists who caused it

It's always the pretty, married women vs. the ugly, unmarried women. Men are merely the pawns, the champions, the soldiers-for-hire, but women are the queens directing the battlefield in any society. The married women and the pretty women and the clever women have let go of their control and the dykes and hating women have taken over the wheel, driving everybody off a cliff like those morons in Thelma and Louise (I mean, what a fucking stupid movie).

And when all this collapses, and the killing starts in earnest, the riots or the wars or whatever the result, after that, the Feminists will pay. And their names will be remembered only as the hissing of snakes in the darkness. Their corpses will hang, pecked by crows, then cut down and thrown in the gutter.

Religious dictatorship? Gilead? Yes but not by men. By women. That's the truth the Feminists never want to face.

And after the Gender Wars and the Sexbot Wars and all the rest, after the millions killed by war or famine, then hopefully our children will again be able to relax and just live a normal lives as normal men and women.

Thanks for reading this rant if you made it this far!

Post: #2

Damn dude lift a weight, go for a walk, see friends.

When my mind gets this dark it's time to tune out from society and do something that will ease my mind (the above, prayer, Bible study.)

If you as an individual can do little to influence society as a whole (I sure as hell can't) stop focusing on society so much.

Post: #3

Mr. Lemon, you need to make some Lemonade.

Aloha!

Post: #4

(03-24-2018 11:01 PM)godfather dust Wrote:  Damn dude lift a weight, go for a walk, see friends.

When my mind gets this dark it's time to tune out from society and do something that will ease my mind (the above, prayer, Bible study.)

If you as an individual can do little to influence society as a whole (I sure as hell can't) stop focusing on society so much.

I need a really nice dark gif to accompany this rant, but I"m no good at all with gifs.

Post: #5

Don't go Elliot Rodger on us dude. Get some help.

Post: #6

You're freaking the fuck out, man. Instead of being reacting dependently to the current trends, be independent. Seek out home schooling, rural living, subsistence farming, and absolute freedom from society by any means. Like minded people will eventually come into your life.

Post: #7

(03-24-2018 11:25 PM)MrLemon Wrote:  I need a really nice dark gif

Cheer up, buddy.

Post: #8

Meltdown thread!

Post: #9

Post: #10

OP - I too have a son and a daughter, and the red pill does have a way of making you think about what is coming down the line for them. I too fear for their future, but I fear for my daughter far more then for my son. (This has appeared elsewhere but it might help provide a bit of perspective - in the near term things will get worse before they get better, but beyond that things are no-where near as bad as you seem to think.)

I suspect you see a social environment so far 'gone' down the female empowerment road that only a huge event will correct it, and that we are a long way from that happening, whereas my feel is that the event, when it comes, will not be as dramatic as you perhaps imagine and that it is a lot closer than most people might think. To be fair, I suspect you have the balance of manosphere opinion on your side but this doom laden scenario doesn't gel with my sense of what's unfolding.

I base my position on a number of observations which seem to me to intersect to create the dynamic in play;
1) Women's inability to do cause and effect. Women, far more than men, live in the here and now. They have little understanding of how choices made in the past brought them to the present, nor where the choices they make now will take them in the future. Which leads to....
2) The nature of fear in women compared to men. Both men and women experience fear, but due to women's lack of ability to do cause and effect the way men do, they don't see shit coming. Things just 'happen' to them - listen to how they describe such incidents. They don't 'just happen' of course - these bad things happen mostly (obviously not always) as a result of decisions they have previously made. Decisions for which they had been mostly unable to see the consequences. Some men are like this too - weak men - but most men give at least some consideration and thought to the likely consequences of their actions before taking them. Which means....
3) That there is less of a gradual build up to fear in women than in men. Men can generally sense when things are going south way before women can. The escalation may not be linear but men can often sense things early enough to take steps to avoid, mitigate or prepare for the approaching danger. Women rarely display such pre-cognition. For them it is much more a case of 'fine-fine-fine-ohshit!' I have seen this happen many times.

These dynamics are happening in an environment of male disengagement; not so much from women, but from all the roles that men traditionally fulfilled; husband, father, provider, protector, guide, mentor. Men have stepped away from these roles as the State has pushed them out and then replaced them, mostly imperfectly, with state substitutes.

Right now women take all these substitutions for granted; for most women they have been there all their lives. They can't conceive that they will ever NOT be there.

And this is, I think, the tripwire for the change. For the State has run out of money to pay for these substitute services. And when the serious cuts happen (as they must) they will mostly happen all at once. Women will not be faced with just a cut or reduction in one or two areas, but on multiple fronts. Government cutbacks will likely occur alongside private sector layoffs, alongside social unrest, alongside the broken family structures that in the past they could have fallen back on.

I'm not talking about a complete social / economic collapse - another recession will be all it takes (we haven't really recovered from the last one - we're just limping along on a faux recovery paid for by - you guessed it - more debt). I'm not cheer-leading this - this is obviously going to be horrible for everyone, men, women and children. But in the context of the overall dynamic we are talking about here the negative effects will be disproportionately felt by women (just as women have disproportionately benefited from the introduction of these services and freedoms over the last few decades - it's really nothing more than a re-balancing).

The state that feminism has left men in will act as a force multiplier to women's misery. As the government stops being able to support and subsidize women's choices and freedoms, and jobs become easier to loose and harder to find, women will look to men for help. And whilst they will find many men willing to help them, the only men they are truly interested in - those both willing and ABLE to help - will be in short supply.

The key thing to understand is how small the number of women affected needs to be to effect change in the mass of women. It has been found that only 10% of a general population needs to hold an unshakable belief before it is inevitably adopted by the whole population. Given that women are extremely sensitive to changes in the herd I wouldn't be surprised if this figure is reduced when it comes to an all female population. My point is that it will likely only take around 8 to 10% of the cohort of single / uncommitted young women to believe that they are screwed without a decent man, for the belief to propagate to the overwhelming majority of the female population. Note - it won't need 8 to 10% of such women to actually BE screwed, just for 8 to 10% to BELIEVE they are screwed, for this to take effect. Only a small number of women actually have to suffer before the belief take on it's own reality. And women will tend to believe it because this new, uncertain, unsafe situation will have just 'happened' to them out of 'no-where' - at least that is how it will seem to the mass of women.

Women's natural response, I think, will be to latch on to men, even if they are just willing to help (rather than willing and able to help) as even this will likely be an better strategy for most women than going it alone in a world without much social, government or family help. And women instinctively know how to play nice when they want something from a man.

As for the globalist narrative slipping, well, broadly Brexit, Trump and the rise of nationalism across Europe are antithetical to feminism and speak to it's declining power. And they are but the first practical manifestations of a change in the zeitgeist; I have been closely watching the comment sections of MSM articles for over a decade with my red pill glasses on. Ten years ago a red pill comment was rare and uniformly mocked and attacked. Now they are sometimes in the majority, often well articulated and clearly thought through. I may be seeing what I want to see, but to my eyes at least, there is now an undercurrent of red-pill understanding out there and if it has one characteristic it is the unshakable belief of the red pill men and women in the truth of their position. I'd say we're not far from that 10% already.

Post: #11

When the government can no longer provide for women, you will see them do a complete 180 in a day. Unfortunately for them a lot of these women have disfigured themselves in various ways (tattoos, manly haircuts, etc) or are single mothers which will leave a lot of them undesirable to most men who will then have some serious leverage. Sure many of them could still find men but their standards will have to fall a long long way. Further than what I think most of them can handle mentally, because of the buffet of cock they currently have access to and the various delusions that creates in their minds. The historical anomaly won't be what comes post-nanny state, it is what we currently see today.

Post: #12

There will be no gender civil war. When it comes to survival women need men more than men need women. If men don't create the society for women to exist within they are left defenseless and vulnerable without a provider. If those traditional providers and society supporting men drop out, society will crumble in time and traditional gender roles will once again assert themselves. Women will trade their youth for stable, respectable, and established men who can provide for their future family and ensure their safety. You cannot socially engineer a population like they have with feminism indefinitely. It's impossible. Whether it's a violent uprising or men collectively dropping out it will have the same effect in the end of creating a natural reversion to traditional gender roles. Only difference is it will take varying amounts of time.

Post: #13

(03-24-2018 10:50 PM)MrLemon Wrote:  Of course Feminism and it's hate will be crushed eventually. We will all live to see the day when 10,000 feminists and lesbians will swing from the gallows lining every street. The US is already swinging back to a puritan mind with astonishing speed.

Who will lead this movement that crushes feminism? The top 20% of men are getting pussy like the kings of old. As the #MeToo movement crushes a few of them... the rest move blindly forward thinking it won't happen to them.

The Feminists won. They won years ago, probably before you were born... and you need to come to terms with it. Within a few generations they will usher in a Feminst version of North Korea. You ever wonder why North Koreans don't rise up and fight their government? They can't! They don't have weapons. Plus the propaganda is too strong... they actually believe their dictator is GOD for fucks sake.

I know you want to believe otherwise, but the West is lost. Europe will eventually be overrun by Muslims and once they become a voting majority... they will persecute all those who fail to conform to their way of life.

Look, if we were willing to take some draconian measures right now... I mean convince Republicans to pass laws prohibiting discrimination against conservatives, and a form of affirmative action for conservatives in Academia, Media, and Hollywood... Things may begin to reverse, but that isn't going to happen... ever.

Post: #14

Post: #15

(03-25-2018 02:28 AM)EndsExpect Wrote:  

(03-24-2018 10:50 PM)MrLemon Wrote:  Of course Feminism and it's hate will be crushed eventually. We will all live to see the day when 10,000 feminists and lesbians will swing from the gallows lining every street. The US is already swinging back to a puritan mind with astonishing speed.

I know you want to believe otherwise, but the West is lost. Europe will eventually be overrun by Muslims and once they become a voting majority... they will persecute all those who fail to conform to their way of life.

Look, if we were willing to take some draconian measures right now... I mean convince Republicans to pass laws prohibiting discrimination against conservatives, and a form of affirmative action for conservatives in Academia, Media, and Hollywood... Things may begin to reverse, but that isn't going to happen... ever.

The west is already lost financially speaking makes no difference if it goes down the tubes socially as well like it has been. It's like pouring gasoline on a bonfire. A reset is inevitable either way. The reset will be which reverts things back to how they were pre-feminism. Until then yes, I don't believe women will collectively reject feminism. It is cancer.

Post: #16

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #17

I can see caged and leashed women in basements before any of this scorched Earth hanging stuff. Women, even feminist ones are broodmaid commodities that have intrinsic value. Outside of a world war or a sustained resource crisis I just don't see it happening.

Besides I don't think feminists (useful idiots) are the problem. The issue stems from women being able to vote, work, and have options in modern society. This inevitably lead to drastic increases in standards that don't tolerate conventional beta men.

Post: #18

Quote:Women's natural response, I think, will be to latch on to men, even if they are just willing to help (rather than willing and able to help) as even this will likely be an better strategy for most women than going it alone in a world without much social, government or family help. And women instinctively know how to play nice when they want something from a man.

This is already happening in a feminist-style way with sugar dating.

Post: #19

(03-25-2018 02:38 AM)Razor Beast Wrote:  The west is already lost financially speaking makes no difference if it goes down the tubes socially as well like it has been. It's like pouring gasoline on a bonfire. A reset is inevitable either way. The reset will be which reverts things back to how they were pre-feminism. Until then yes, I don't believe women will collectively reject feminism. It is cancer.

Understand that in the past several things were true that will not be true moving forward. The first is that the majority of the population was Christian and demanded that the ruling class conform to Christian modes of behavior. The ruling class has ALWAYS hated this... because they are rich and powerful and want to live life however they see fit. They hate having morals imposed on them... and with Christians out of the way they are free to do so. Islam is much more forgiving of decadence.... atheists don't agree about anything.

The second and perhaps most important thing is that technology has advanced. In the past it was difficult to monitor all the communications of the population you rule. Today technology has made this easy. Slavery will again be financially worthwhile because you will be able to use machines to monitor slaves. In the 1800's they quickly found that putting slaves in factories was a bad idea because they would sabotage the machinery and do anything to work slow.

I have always believed that feminism is a product of wealth and privilege in a society. However, in the future I don't see those being required anymore because we will be much easier to brainwash and control.

Post: #20

Also regarding Christianity and history not always repeating (vaguely related)

In the Bible there is a beginning and an end. If we are approaching the end, the cycle of history has stopped and the world will become a far worse place (the only hope is turning to Christ and if you fully repent you need not fear the end.)

Post: #21

Delete

Post: #22

(03-25-2018 03:46 AM)Razor Beast Wrote:  So are you saying a universal basic income will pacify people enough to not rebel because of all their freedoms being stripped away? Maybe in a futuristic society, definitely not existing western society. At least in USA I can't see people giving up all their rights without a fight.

I have news for you: there already is a universal basic income in the United States, it's (a) it takes slightly different forms, (b) people don't choose to call it by that name and © it's a lot lower than you'd expect. And people will give up every right they have if it's in support of their identity. See the current crop of young idiots wandering down a street in Washington believing that they're going to change things any more than the combined forces of Michael Moore and the pussyhat parade did over the past, oh, 12 years or so.

The reason this is so, dating back to well before Trump got in:

Quote:So start with an interesting hypothetical: does everybody need to work anymore? I understand work from an ethical/character perspective, this is not here my point. Since we no longer need e.g. manufacturing jobs-- cheaper elsewhere or with robots-- since those labor costs have evaporated, could that surplus go towards paying people simply to stay out of trouble? Is there a natural economic equilibrium price where, say, a U Chicago grad can do no economically productive work at all but still be paid to use Instagram? Let me be explicit: my question is not should we do this, my question is that since this is precisely what's happening already, is it sustainable? What is the cost? I don't have to run the numbers, someone already has: it's $150/mo for a college grads, i.e. the price of food stamps. Other correct responses would be $700/mo for "some high school" (SSI) or $1500/mo for "previous work experience" (unemployment). I would have accepted $2000/mo for "minorities" (jail) for partial credit.

While all those monies have different names and different "requirements" they are all exactly the same thing: paying people who are off the grid, whether by choice or circumstance, indefinitely. i.e. Living Wages. However, they can never be called that. They have to pretend to be something else: this is for food, this is because of a medical problem we just made up, this is because you were caught with weed so we'll leave you in here for 6 months until we sentence you to probation. And they have to have these fake reasons to give taxpayers a little emotional distance, deniability, otherwise they'd go John Galt, after all, they have all the guns. If they can invade Iraq, how hard is it going to be to take the Whole Foods on 3rd?

That "emotional distance" is not hyperbole, it's not me being a lefty deconstructicon, it is an absolute requirement of a psychic defense of identity, of self-worth. The point is not to get you to accept that hipsters deserve food stamps, the point is the opposite: to enrage you, infuriate you, so that you will resist-- because then and only then will you pay for it.

If this seems implausible to you, which it must-- that's exactly the point of it-- consider the following extreme analogy, which surprisingly will be easier to understand, which is also the whole point: Say your father raped you repeatedly for a decade. Hold on, slow down, it gets worse: now you're 40, and he shows up asking you for $2400 because, and I quote, "you have a responsibility to take care of me." There he is in your living room, eyeballing the nice things in your home. If it is a fact that you will inevitably give him the money, is it easier to for you to pair it with your venom or your sympathy? Though it's enraging, there is a perverse pleasure in giving that bastard the money. It tells you that you showed him that you are better than him.

That's how America works. The system needs you to be willing, not wanting, to pay for this, and getting the existing (narcissistic) society to believe that it is their "responsibility" (Left's word) to pay for "laziness" (Right's word)-- to WANT to pay for this-- is absolutely impossible. Why can't we just all agree on what a fair share might be, take care of each other? Didn't you major in English Lit? "Homo economicus" is not reality, envy is an immutable characteristic of our consciousness, it is practically Kantian, some of you will get a minor hold of it but even your priests are chock full o' it. If the porn isn't high res you can't get horny, but you can hate a guy at 1000 paces without a scope. That's human nature. Envy, rage. It's not all we are, but you cannot discount it.

The only way to get them to agree to pay is to give them a way of rationalizing the "responsibility" as, in some way, for them: you'll get a tax break, you'll be rewarded in heaven, you are a better person for it, thanks, this means a lot. Can you imagine a hipster looking at a salesman and saying thanks for your service? So that's out, use the default: rage. Just like how you get people motivated to go to war. No, no, no, no, not the people already waving flags, I mean the people who don't want war. Said every liberal in Congress one magical day in 2003: "I'm not going to let those oil bastards Cheney and Bush get away with their racist imperialist plan, which is why I'm going to scream obscenities at them as I vote Attack."

The system isn't thinking short term, it needs this to work long term, those hipsters are going to be getting food stamps forever, or do you think if the economy rebounds, old liberal arts majors will suddenly become appealing? Like a woman who squandered her youth on fun but disreputable men, she will find herself at 45 wanting to marry, but alone. "That is such a disgusting, sexist, archaic thing to say." I feel your rage, and you are right. Alone nevertheless.


VII.

You might retort that there's no money to pay for 25 more years of hipster apathy. Admittedly, this is a compelling argument. But the total cost of food stamps is $80B. The annual budget deficit is over ten times that. America's economy is one big gigantic retail sales event. Is the economy back to like it never happened?



The underemployed econ majors will recognize that this isn't "real", inflation adjusted sales and the last few years are based on overpriced high-end goods that only Aspirational 14% can afford, and that for the other 85% of America purchasing power has dropped to 1997 levels, but as Whole Foods says, whatever.

$80B is a lot, but how much is actually going to hipsters, how many hipsters are there, really? 73? 74? What purpose does this rage serve? If you Rage Against The Hipsters, you will be that much more likely to "allow" food stamps for everyone else. The hipsters are diversions. They are sacrifices. How much hate have you focused on Gerry since you heard about him? All of it.

To clarify, this is not some kind of socialist ploy, it is a function of the way America (read: narcissism) works, it doesn't need to be centralized, it is the sum of individual vectors pointing in different directions. Here's the other side's example: when they talk about raising taxes on the rich, why do they pick a "low" point and push it higher? Should the highest rates be at $250k/yr? $300k? Another way of doing it, which is precisely why they cannot do it, is start at the top and move down. "We need $1T. Ok, top five guys pay 90%. Not enough? How about top ten guys pay 90%. Not enough? Top...." I'm not advocating this or any other policy, not my place, I am pointing out that doing it the way it's done protects the 1% by letting the Aspirational 14%-- who crave recognition and are easily identifiable and hatable because they are poseurs, just of a different kind-- act as human shields. They take the bullets, the unknown mega-rich take tinted window rides to the Hamptons. During those tumultuous 80 seconds of OWS-- and BTW, those people gave up hanging out after only a trimester, do you really think they're ready for 40 hour work weeks?-- the majority of the personal attacks were against people who made <$300k, not >$50M. It's easy to hate, and so the media nudges you in the wrong direction.

VIII.

You might think that the rage is the spark for a transformation of America, a full scale Dagny Taggart meltdown or Bolshevik revolution, depending on your hat. That's not how it works. If this is narcissism, then its purpose is protecting identity, defending against change. Doesn't matter what side you think you're on, unless you are unplugged you are for the status quo.

Here's an example: in the "radical left" (their words) magazine Jacobin, the editor writes a defense of Gerry and Sarah as a way of arguing for the abolishment of, well, everything Randian. He's against the "work ethic", he wants a paradigm shift away from American producerism-- the idea that your value is based only on what you can produce for the economy-- towards social rights, e.g. Living Wages. I disagree with everything in it, so what? but it is very well written and reasoned, and if I played the same game as him I'd want him on my team.

The point here is that he wants CHANGE. Here is the last paragraph of the article, tell me if you can find anything supporting the status quo:

Rather than the "deserving" or "working" poor, with its connotations of moral judgment and authoritarian social control, it is time to begin speaking the language of economic and social rights. For instance, the right to a Universal Basic Income, a means of living at a basic level that would be provided to everyone, no questions asked. Against the invidious politics of the work ethic, it's time to argue that some things should be granted to everyone, simply by virtue of their humanity. Even hipsters.

Sounds sublime. But Gerry already had a living wage-- he spent it on the University of Chicago, 41 years of food stamps in 4 years. If everybody knew in advance the outcome was going to be unemployment and living wages, then why doesn't Frase challenge the capitalist assumption that college is money well spent-- could have been used differently? He can't. This thought cannot occur to him, not because he is dumb, he clearly isn't, or because he is paid by a college-- money is irrelevant to him. He can't because his entire identity is built on college, academia. He is college. Take that away, he disintegrates. So in the utopia he imagines, college still exists AND people get living wages. Call me a Marxist, that's what we have now.

Second, and more importantly, he thinks he's a radical progressive, that he wants a paradigm shift away from capitalism towards social rights-- but he wants to keep everything else about capitalism completely intact. He is explicitly against producerism, but he wants to replace it with consumerism. He wants to make sure people can get what they want, not teach them how to want. In his utopia of no questions asked Universal Basic Income, do retail sales go up or down? The system has won.

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #23

Not sure if this would improve your mood but your prediction of feminists swinging from the gallows is a no go and the musical chairs game will keep playing.

Post: #24

Ain't nobody gonna hang 10,000 perfectly good pusses.

The male feminists, though?



Take a deep breath, OP.

Post: #25

Closing this thread. Advocating for violence makes the forum look bad.