all 169 comments

[–]moodymela 378 points379 points  (18 children)

One of my favourite quotes has always been:

"Man's greatest weakness is his facade of strength. Woman's greatest strength is her facade of weakness."

[–]17 Endorsed ContributorHumanSockPuppet 53 points54 points  (8 children)

Interesting quote. What's the source?

One thing we come to realize as we study TRP is that men are evolved to interact with the world - to carve their survival out of the raw wilderness through strength, ingenuity, and adaptability - and women are evolved to interact with men - to cunningly carve off a portion of the earnings of whatever man she can attach herself to.

So in nature's arena, men really are strong and women really are weak.

But change the setting and you change the scale. In the arena of "civilized politics", where strength matters less than cunning, suddenly the apparent strength of the sexes changes.

Women don't have to be strong, or fast, or creative, or adaptable to be successful in the genetic game. They need only be attractive and persuasive.

[–]agumonkey 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Nice way to summarize my internal feeling about differences between boys and girls. We were always seeking action, building stuff. Girls not as much. They can try (we were 80% boys, so some girls next door did try to play sports or hunt games with us, didn't last), they very rarely enjoy it as naturally as most boys do.

[–]16 Endorsed Contributorzyk0s 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Quote is from Warren Farell IIRC.

[–]Endorsed Contributor2comment 3 points4 points  (0 children)

That's sidebar worthy material right there.

[–]raredare359 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Wow, this response just blew my mind. It was short, sweet, and right to the point. For people who believe in evolution, reading something like that would make red pill concepts much easier for them to understand.

[–]100 Modbsutansalt 1 point2 points  (1 child)

"Man's greatest weakness is his facade of strength. Woman's greatest strength is her facade of weakness."

Warren Farrell. It's from his book The Myth of Male Power

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Myth_of_Male_Power#Defining_male_power_and_powerlessness

[–]Freiling 1 point2 points  (0 children)

What if I have a facade of charisma and dexterity

[–]JackGetsIt 57 points58 points  (6 children)

To go further I think women expect men of high value to know this intrinsically.

[–]HerculestheRed 38 points39 points  (4 children)

Of course they do. A man who understands at an unspoken level is not only viewed as normal, it's a kind of "I've done this before" in regards to implying you've had sex before. Implication that another woman in the past has wanted you is good, and understanding the mating dance implies that.

Women want to be able to say "Jack gets it."

[–]dennislang 2 points3 points  (3 children)

Feminism is actually useful in that sense then. Some talk about it being just yet another shit test that most men fail.

The pool of men who "get it" has shrunk so your relative value is higher than it would have been, with no actual effort from you.

Couple that with the mission to make progress every single day and it's no wonder RP theory gets you laid.

[–]Ulquiorra_Schiffer 15 points16 points  (2 children)

Maybe from a perspective of getting as much pussy as possible, but from a much wider, forward thinking perspective sees the brainwashing of more and more men each generation as an exceedingly bad thing, for many different reasons.

[–]rpkarma 7 points8 points  (1 child)

Yeah. Selfishly, feminism is great as it removes tonnes of would be competitors from my dating pool. However as a whole it's a terrible thing for the continuation of society as I would prefer it to be.

[–]RealRational 0 points1 point  (0 children)

it also reduces the size of the dating pool by baiting tons of females into slutty behavior that makes them undesirable for an LTR.

[–]2 Endorsed ContributorFLFTW16 22 points23 points  (2 children)

Everyone has the same rights to life, liberty, and property. In Western culture those rights are said to be from a Creator, God. Men created the very concept of rights (but gave credit to God) and believed in the inherent dignity of humans that they made it a universal value, not just men, not just Europeans, everyone.

Women, as a group, are incapable of performing the duties necessary for the formation and sustenance of civilization. It's 'creator' and 'builder' males that construct institutions and guard them (with their lives) against self-destructive and 'watch the world burn' males.

In non-Western cultures there doesn't exist this preoccupation with "rights." Western "rights" are a fiction. A man-made fiction attributed to God. Here is a good quote by Robert Heinlein from Starship Troopers:

Ah, yes, the 'unalienable rights.' Each year someone quotes that magnificent poetry. Life? What 'right' to life has a man who is drowning in the Pacific? The ocean will not hearken to his cries. What 'right' to life has a man who must die if he is to save his children? If he chooses to save his own life, does he do so as a matter of 'right'? If two men are starving and cannibalism is the only alternative to death, which man's right is 'unalienable'? And is it 'right'? As to liberty, the heroes who signed that great document pledged themselves to buy liberty with their lives. Liberty is always unalienable; it must be redeemed regularly with the blood of patriots or it is always vanquished. Of all the so-called 'natural human rights' that have ever been invented, liberty is least likely to be cheap and is never free of cost.

Civilization is the result of an abundance of male strength and the desire for a system of patriarchy--which is male investment in the future. It is a group of men floating in the Pacific who decide not to tread water until they drown, but to work together to gather flotsam and jetsam and fashion a raft, and later add an oar, and then a sail, and pick up other men and women who are just treading water and make them into a crew.

Enough time has gone by that people have forgotten what it's like to exist outside of civilization. We have disaster and "collapse porn" and "preppers" who try to learn how to survive if institutions rapidly collapse. Our once humble raft is now a gargantuan aircraft carrier and the bridge has been given over to women and men who think like women. They have slowly but surely transformed the aircraft carrier of Western Civ into a prison barge of high taxation and regulation, while other civilizations (Islam, China, Russia) who don't even acknowledge the Western ideas of human rights are steadily building their rafts into aircraft carriers.

Things are going badly for us. Western Civilization is being transformed for the worse. Europe especially is being inundated with Muslim immigrants that care nothing for Western values or philosophy. They are easily radicalized and become the 'watch the world burn' males that can tear down civilization. At the same time Europe is so emasculated that they are afraid to see reality for what it is, choosing instead the feminine value of 'no hate speech' and 'make everyone feel welcome', but they sow the seeds of their own destruction.

If men are too stupid or too emasculated to take control back, Western Civ will simply go away, like the Roman Empire. Political ties will dissolve, the machine will grind to a halt, things that break will go unfixed, and waves of barbarians will reclaim territory, or it will be absorbed by civilizations that are still sane. In a state of nature, survival of the fittest is the gold standard for what the future looks like. The future doesn't look Western one bit.

[–]harkrank 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Islam and Chinese culture are highly civilized. China is ethnocentric and cannot become a conquering empire unless that part of their culture is done away with. Which I doubt because it is such a core value. Russia is equally ethnocentric although she would be a candidate for integrating the population of at least western Europe.

Latin American cultures are modern, red pill and multi-ethnic. They could integrate the population of America.

[–]RickJamesBond 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I disagree. In China they lock people up for religious beliefs. That's not particularly civilized. They're too much of a control state to qualify.

[–]NakedAndBehindYou 94 points95 points  (28 children)

Their survival toolkit has a lot less capability for physical violence in it, and yet it still has to be at least as dangerous as the male one. That's how serious theirs needs to be.

This is a great way to put it. For all of human history, men have survived by using brute strength. And women have survived by manipulating men into using brute strength... for the benefit of the woman.

[–]Dark triad expert: - http://illimitablemen.com/ - [3 Points]IllimitableMan 70 points71 points  (13 children)

Feminists frame men as violent neanderthals blah blah blah. But women on average are far more emotionally violent. It is they and their more pronounced cunning who have used men for proxy violence like pawns throughout history. Nothing is black and white. Kids think women are wonderful and men are evil, then as you get older you begin to see the reality is something closer to the complete opposite of that.

[–]Gradutedskillender 48 points49 points  (6 children)

Can't even count the number of girls I know who believe whole heartedly that their "best guy friends" (men who want to fuck them but haven't) would kill some other guy at her say so for "hurting her". Like a man is her personal goon squad

[–]M_rafay 33 points34 points  (1 child)

I cringe now because I've actually been the dumb fucking goon squad.

[–]Dark triad expert: - http://illimitablemen.com/ - [3 Points]IllimitableMan 19 points20 points  (0 children)

You got played, many men have, such is the power of women.

[–]brotherjustincrowe 16 points17 points  (3 children)

Had the displeasure of meeting a loudmouth bitch at a bar once who let one of her beta orbiters get shot because she couldn't act like a civilized human being. She learned nothing from the experience.

Never. Supplicate.

[–]Movonnow 1 point2 points  (1 child)

The fuck?

Could you give more details?

[–]brotherjustincrowe 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Basically, the gist of it was she couldn't keep her mouth shut, got into a fight, called on her white knights and one got shot. One of the other beta guys was outright crying about it. She, clearly, didn't give a fraction of a fuck and kept drunkenly picking fights since the message she got was "no matter how far in over your head you get, one of your orbiters will bail you out even at the cost of his own life, because of what a special snowflake you are."

She wouldn't have lived long enough to see her twentieth birthday if she'd been born with a penis.

[–]agumonkey 12 points13 points  (3 children)

boys fuck things up, girls are fucked up -- Louis CK

Could you define 'older' ? after puberty ? later ?

[–]CSMastermind 16 points17 points  (2 children)

My little girl broke her toy then she demanded I break her sister's toy so that it would be "fair"

That about sums up feminism in one line.

[–]tetsugakusei 6 points7 points  (0 children)

My sister did exactly that.

It makes sense when you understand women have an entirely separate ethical framework for life. Of course, men have a name for this alternative ethical framework: immorality.

[–]PlanB_pedofile 6 points7 points  (0 children)

From the shit I've seen on Facebook and just reading through history, women don't trust each other, destroy each other, steal from one another, and probably plot to kill or ruin each other.

Men will at least let shit go.

[–]Purecorrupt 3 points4 points  (4 children)

If let's say the average man display and utilize their masculinity typically through sports, weightlifting, and generally staying in shape - do you think there may just be a lack of I guess emotional outlets for women? To where they are emotionally destructive similar to pent-up child that results in the child having an urge to scream or break something.

[–]CUNTASAURUS_REX 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Is this why soap operas exist?

[–]brotherjustincrowe 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Cheating, and ready trashy porn "romance novels" about cheating.

[–]cocoguard 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Women who are doing it right play sports too.

[–]morphite65 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

But what about SHOPPING!!1!

[–]eBanker 4 points5 points  (7 children)

Troy... millions died over some women.

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

a made-up story. not the first, and not the last, example of feminist propaganda. message: "killing and horrible things are GOOD as long as it's pointless, irrational, and all centered around pedestalizing a woman"

movies today are the same: going on a rampage because of ONE-itis? Great! any other reason? evil (or at best perhaps slightly pathetic, in the case of Rambo I)

edit: the rambo sequels got a dose of ONE-itis. if i remember correctly.

[–]pl231 7 points8 points  (1 child)

Except they didn't actually attack troy over a woman, it just gave them an excuse to because they wanted one all along. I'm all for TRP but plating up BS to support it is doing it a disservice.

[–]a_scourge 0 points1 point  (0 children)

you're totally right but:

  1. it's probably totally made up. the geography (in the supposed anatolian location) doesn't make any sense at all. if it happened at all, it happened in north cambridgeshire and the gog magog hills, but whatever. i'm just saying that this is an old example of fairy tale and surprise surprise the fairy tale is feminist slant.

  2. regardless of it the whole thing was made up or not, the movie certainly shows a huge case of ONEitis. And while it had the decency to show hector and priam scold paris for being a total beta, but then goes on to glorify it as "true love"

baaarf

[–]PlanB_pedofile 1 point2 points  (1 child)

The bible has stories throughout of women causing conflict and fucking things up. Mostly through her bitchyness and nagging.

Shit the story of Joseph in Genesis is the earliest form of false rape accusation.

[–]a_scourge 0 points1 point  (0 children)

yes there were a few places where it was not patriarchal enough. speaking of joseph, he was alpha as fuck. it's for good reason that the wife he ended up getting is given some mention. i know PUAs will say he should have gone for potiphar's wife but thats stupid. a real alpha doesn't hide and cower and cheat and get manipulated by hypergamous sluts like potiphars wife. a man keeps his honour intact as much as possible.

p.s. i think he might have been an INTJ sigma to be a little more precise

[–]Endorsed Contributordeepthrill 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I disagree. Humans in general are not as strong as other animals. But why are we on top of the food chain? Our brains. Our cunningness. Women exemplify that trait. History has shown that cunningness overpowers physical strength. Within classes of humans in general, and between species. All except for one on one combat. And even then, cunningness can get others' assistance.

[–]colombianguy 12 points13 points  (7 children)

There's a reason "the female of the species is more deadly than the male." Our fathers and grandfathers were taught Kipling's version of this in grade school, but it's been effectively banned as sexist since the 1990s.

I don't understand why a poem that illustrates an unromanticised truth about female nature would be banned in an educational system where the majority of teachers and even administrators are female.

[–]Subtletorious 28 points29 points  (1 child)

Because it clashes with the feminist ideology that gender is a social construct and both sexes are identical if it wasn't for those social constructs.

[–]6of1halfdozenofother 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That whooshing sound over your head was not an airplane.

[–]jsw13 14 points15 points  (1 child)

I don't understand why a poem that illustrates an unromanticised truth about female nature would be banned in an educational system where the majority of teachers and even administrators are female.

To ask the question is to answer it.

[–]Endorsed Contributorcocaine_face 4 points5 points  (2 children)

You should have added an /s

[–]colombianguy 0 points1 point  (1 child)

I thought my phrasing made the sarcastic tone obvious. Guess I was wrong.

[–]Endorsed Contributorcocaine_face 2 points3 points  (0 children)

A lot of guys here are used to only straight talk, so any sort of covert communication style is going to be missed. One time I saw a post where a man made a sarcastic joke to his wife, and people went on and on about how he was abusing her. Don't let it bother you.

[–]redyup 33 points34 points  (2 children)

The Red Pill is the radical notion that biological differences between the sexes are real and that there is no split between mind and body so these differences extend to our senses of life and motivations.

[–][deleted]  (1 child)

[deleted]

    [–]redyup 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    You don't have to go completely philosophical to notice that our behavior is influenced by hormones - deeply.

    [–]JayViceroy 17 points18 points  (5 children)

    That should be the new slogan of the sub:

    "The Red Pill is the radical notion that men are people."

    Then sit back and watch the 2XC wheel spin at a million RPMs lol

    [–]Transmigratory 9 points10 points  (3 children)

    Strange how a lot of 2XCers visit this sub to moan about the content in their sub.

    Women liking things which make them feel! XD

    [–]RectalRagnarok 9 points10 points  (2 children)

    That's actually funny in a way. A sub full of women's main content is talking about the content on other subs.

    [–]Transmigratory 4 points5 points  (0 children)

    Women love to gossip about things in their out-group. It is just the way they are.

    [–]Ausrp 16 points17 points  (7 children)

    Good way to look at it I reckon OP. Succinctly put: A mans capacity for violence + manipulation = A woman's capacity for violence + manipulation.
    Women just have less capacity for violence.

    [–]Dark triad expert: - http://illimitablemen.com/ - [3 Points]IllimitableMan 20 points21 points  (6 children)

    This is why DT men do so well. She can't outmatch him. He can beat her at a game she can't play, as well as the game she does play. Superiority = tingles. Women love psychopaths.

    [–]Johnny10toes 2 points3 points  (5 children)

    Which is why try works so well. It puts the clueless into the clued in category. But this still isn't enough. A man must then act. Put into practice what he has learned. Even that isn't enough to match the natural, the learned isn't intuitive and must learn from his inevitable mistakes.

    [–]Dark triad expert: - http://illimitablemen.com/ - [3 Points]IllimitableMan 7 points8 points  (4 children)

    A man must then act. Put into practice what he has learned. Even that isn't enough to match the natural, the learned isn't intuitive and must learn from his inevitable mistakes.

    You can reach the skill of a natural once you reach a level of "conscious competence" however, and I must stress this emphatically it will take many years and prolonged exposure to naturals to effectively emulate the relevant behaviours, to see a shift in your brain chemistry/way of thinking that is conducive to gaining the same kind of abilities that the natural has. That is to say, internalising certain ways of being akin to the DT so it is a natural effortlessly executed instinct (despite not being born with the ability) takes a long time. It is possible, it's just not probable. Most people will thus not "become DT" but be "pseudo-DT" or simply borrow certain abstract ideas/strategies that DTs use, eg: the 48 laws of power.

    One must also realise there's a lot of nuance within the spectrum of DT traits and any two different psychopaths can manifest their traits very differently. There are "different psychopathic styles." You have the highly impulsive dysfunctional, the unintelligent, the near uncontrollably violent, the mentally violent but physical pacifist, the instrumentally violent, the hyper-intelligent, the BPDs (I personally consider them to be low-functioning DTs due to high impulsivity, histrionics and low self-control,) and then there are the non-impulsive thrill seekers who utilise impulse only to be unpredictable for tactical reasons.

    So you see, there's a fuck ton of nuance in the psychopathic basket case. The DT can be generalised, but unlike TRP those generalisations miss out a lot of important, relevant data. Simply, DTs are more complex and nuanced than women, so they are harder to generalise. No amount of reading will emulate/replace interactions/relationships with natural DTs. Reading gives you awareness these people even exist, and allows you to identify particular elements/understand certain behaviours, but it gives you no behavioural mastery akin to what you're reading. A book can't make you DT, only experience can. A book can just give you a shove in the right direction and help you make sense out of what you've experienced when dealing with these kinds of people. Books assign labels, instructions/methods for mastery as well as reasons for phenomenon/behaviour, they won't "make you the object of your study." Books are supplementary, but they're not enough in and of themselves.

    The most important bit of information anyone should internalise about DTs is that DTs will shit test the fuck out of you. You need to be able to hold frame like a boss to not have them ruin you/discard you. Which is why, like I say, despite it being possible, it's largely improbable that most will reach that level of conscious competence. DTs have a low fear response so they push boundaries and will press all your buttons, if you can't hold frame/pass their bluffs (eg: show indifference to threats or faux demonstrations of physical violence - depends on their "psychopathic type") then they will disrespect you/not cooperate with you. Most people aren't cut out for learning from/cooperating with DTs. Though if you meet what Prof. Kevin Dutton calls a "benevolent psychopath" you may be in luck, albeit, they are probably the rarest psychopathic archetype of them all. If you meet one and they like you, you're lucky, you can learn a lot from them. Probably some of the most effective and talented people in the world. Not to mention they won't violate your mental sovereignty unless you pose a threat (unlike other psychopathic types who are far more needlessly predatory and thus a bigger risk to your self-preservation.)

    [–]acorn_dick 1 point2 points  (3 children)

    Sorry, but what is DT?

    [–]Dark triad expert: - http://illimitablemen.com/ - [3 Points]IllimitableMan 1 point2 points  (1 child)

    [–]onenifty 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    Dark Triad

    [–]porkmaster 21 points22 points  (1 child)

    I'm totally for the definition of feminism that women are people and deserve the same rights and responsibilities as men.

    Unfortunately, the current definition of feminism demands the rights with little of the responsibility and expects men to conform to female norms. That's bad for everyone involved.

    [–]darthcamronius 8 points9 points  (0 children)

    This is the problem with my peers at school. Some of them understand that I want true equality and call myself a gender egalitarian, but what they don't realise is that feminism doesn't advocate for the rights of all humans; just women.

    [–]katabn 5 points6 points  (1 child)

    Feminislm is the radical notion that women are people*

    (*) and that men are not

    [–]16 Endorsed ContributorCyralea 5 points6 points  (0 children)

    There is no organization that furthers the idea that women are irresponsible children more than feminists. Every one of their demands requires men to do something for them.

    Denying women special privileges is sexist, apparently.

    [–]redbaronn 2 points3 points  (0 children)

    From what I remember in elementary school (I'm in college right now so the memory is still somewhat fresh), boys have always been reprimanded for instinctive male behaviour, (being physical, horsing around, being competitive) and girls praised for their natural behaviour (being not as active, following instructions, etc).

    How many times do you remember girls getting into trouble with the teachers? Personally, I can recall more times that I've been in trouble than the number of times girls, in general, have. Girls at that age are rarely held accountable for anything. This is also partly due to the fact that teachers at this stage of education were mostly female.

    The result is generations of boys believing that their natural tendencies are inherently bad and must suppress them in order to integrate well into society; as well as generations of girls who believe nothing is ever their fault. So naturally, boys grow up believing they are morally below their female counterparts and place them on a pedestal, while girls grow up not able to handle responsibility for their actions and blame their problems on boys.

    This is extremely evident in the current wave of feminism that we see in social media and education, which is women constantly identifying themselves as the victims and claiming society, men, media to be responsible.

    While feminism's slogan might have once been "feminism is the radical notion that women are people," it has far deviated from that. Although the current movement claims to be about equality, their pursuits now are mostly just trivial matters that give females even more privilege and deniability of responsibility. Largely because the actual noble causes like right to vote, issues about real discrimination and sexism were already fought for and won.

    The phrase "women are people," interestingly, is a more suitable slogan for the red pill now because we acknowledge that women are just people like you and me.

    I realize this is not revolutionary new information for the red pill. It really was just a way for me to organize my thoughts externally. Plus it might help some new comers

    edit: spelling

    [–]NeoreactionSafe 9 points10 points  (7 children)

    "So it comes that Man, the coward, when he gathers to confer

    With his fellow-braves in council, dare not leave a place for her

    Where, at war with Life and Conscience, he uplifts his erring hands

    To some God of Abstract Justice—which no woman understands."


    Men are the Romantics that need to learn to be Realists.

    Red Pill helps us become Realists.

    I agree 100%... Beta is a "new creation" ("Last Man") that came from Feminism.

    If your father was Beta that's the wrong yardstick of history to compare against. Beta was already growing strong 50 years ago.

    [–]moodymela 13 points14 points  (1 child)

    I'd say we simply buried our biological imperatives under abstractions and pursuits of more noble nature as someone like Plato might put it. The problem is Women never did. Women have always been very very aware of their biological imperative. Look at all of mythology. Women are always connected to the Earth and the animal world.

    [–]NeoreactionSafe 13 points14 points  (0 children)

    A woman's nature works to undermine the family.

    Hypergamy undermines the family concept.

    So throughout history all civilizations have been more successful by repressing Hypergamy and supporting the family. Those that allow women to be free to act out their Hypergamy tend to fail.

    Natural Selection chooses the stronger over the weaker.

    But prosperity invites degenerate habits, so the cycle of rise and fall goes on and on forever repeating the same mistakes. But those mistakes always skip generations. The mistake made by one is not the same as the mistake in the next.

    Progress around the cycle is unstoppable... linear progress is false.

    The Misandry Bubble is all about this phase of the cyle ending, the collapse.

    Red Pill is ready to watch the collapse and be adaptive after as well as enjoy before.

    [–]Luke666808g 8 points9 points  (4 children)

    I love my father dearly, and so does my mother, she never tests him or complains, but he is a high beta, for the longest time I considered him the best possible example of a man I could follow in the footsteps of, but I have come to the realization that with the upending of the SMP, that isn't true anymore.

    So it feels a bit like betrayal to think this way.

    [–]NeoreactionSafe 4 points5 points  (3 children)

    Don't forget that there are still some down to earth decent people here and there that are still doing things the old way. If they are over 50 and grew up in a small town with good backgrounds they might just be good people.

    The fact your mother doesn't shit test makes me think she's old school.

    In the old way women used Charm instead of shit tests.

    Charm is just as effective a technique. (women get what they want)

    ...granted Charm in women is a lost art, so you have to go Red Pill in our current world.


    What we call a "Unicorn" today is what the old Charming woman was long ago. (they no longer exist)

    Female quality has steadily declined for the last 100 years, less Charm.

    So your dad might have been lucky.


    Up until my father died in 1976 my mother was Charming. After he died she became less Charming and more Feminist, but she's still mostly old school.

    We're talking an 80 year old so very, very old.

    [–]Luke666808g 3 points4 points  (2 children)

    It's not like that, my mum's side came to Western Australia from Holland when there was barely anything here, and was the oldest of 5 kids and so she had to develop a thick skin, so it's not charm, it's just having an aversion to nonsense, at the same my granddad on my dads side was a cleaner at a hotel and my dad and uncle's bedroom was a converted bathroom, my dad would help my granddad clean the hotel he worked at, he has a very strong work ethic, so my mother never had to nag for anything, my father did the work that needed to be done without ever having to be asked, so my mum respected him.

    Charm is for upper class folks, working class people who worked their way up from nothing just have a low tolerance for bullshit, and that's why there wasn't any testing or complaining.

    [–]NeoreactionSafe 1 point2 points  (1 child)

    Very true.

    Charm is for the upper class folks.

    It's my Upper Middle Class upbringing I guess.

    The hard working people don't have time for it.

    [–]Luke666808g 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    I'm not claiming to be that awesome though, by the time the mid 70's rolled around the place was pretty well developed, schools, houses, hospitals, the whole lot, so people could afford to raise spoiled kids, I wouldn't call myself spoiled, but I can definitely appreciate how (extremely) easy I had it, most of the migrants who came to WA from Europe in the 40's and 50's were living in tents, as all the houses were yet to be built.

    [–]OffroadDawg 24 points25 points  (15 children)

    I grew up in western Massachusetts... Home of ultra liberal womens colleges and the town of Northampton which has a large lesbian population. It wasn't a bad place to grow up but I definitely felt I was at a disadvantage for being a white male.

    The entire area has been overdosing on the blue pill.

    [–]0xdada[S] 21 points22 points  (1 child)

    Don't complain, win.

    [–]OffroadDawg 9 points10 points  (0 children)

    Yes sir, I longer live in that area and have a better job.

    [–]newzenhabits 1 point2 points  (1 child)

    My friend works at Ahmerst high school and every year there is an exercise where they go around the room and see who is the most privileged. I don't know if the exercise only contains faculty or students too, but I don't know how I would deal with that situation myself if I had to sit down and do it in an institutionalized environment.

    [–]cocoguard 2 points3 points  (0 children)

    Because that sounds like a great idea that won't make any students feel bad.

    [–]arbyq5000 -1 points0 points  (8 children)

    disadvantage for being a white male

    http://i.imgur.com/WAQ73xR.jpg

    [–]Dark triad expert: - http://illimitablemen.com/ - [3 Points]IllimitableMan 45 points46 points  (6 children)

    Black guy move is to play the race card when spinning the victim angle. When women hate you for being a man and racist minorities hate you for being white, what SJW card you gonna pull out of your ass? Diddly squat, because everyone is convinced you're the cause of their problems and that you're so evil/bad/wrong that you can't possibly be a victim, even if you are unfairly treated because everyone around you hates white men (he's racist! he's a misogynist! etc.)

    May be white men running the country, but the average white man has fuck all power in the game. White man at the top and average trailer trash eminem level white man are worlds apart. White man aint got no card he can pull outta his ass that will get him support. White man better just stfu or walk away. Apologising only ever make things worse. Ever seen a white man apologise for men to women or apologise to blacks for "what them whites did in slavery?" they get fucking laughed at. It's a sick game. People hate white men so much, because they jealous, got an inferiority complex etc, but they can't be openly racist so they veil their hatred through accusations. If they black and they hate whites, they call you a racist, because they racist. If they female and they hate men, they call you a misogynist, because they're misandrists. It's fucking projection. A lot of blacks I met are some racist ass motherfuckers. Same goes for whites. Nobody got the moral high ground with that shit. You know what I find funny is how african immigrant blacks hate african americans for constantly playing the victim. Same colour, same genetics, different mentality. Them lesbians would have hated any man, esp. blacks because "he's a thug!" but white men? "patriarchy!" they ain't got love for men period.

    Ah, gotta love modern day segregation. Personally I think black men and white men have more similarities between them than women of any race, but that's just me. Some people are pretty damn racist. Most of us are only slightly racist. In my opinion everyone is racist, because everyone favours their own race the most. When someone says "I'm not racist" I know them to be a fucking liar straightaway. Don't tell me you don't feel more comfortable around your own, or favour your own, everyone does. It's part of our animal instinct. To be tribal/preserve genes/be suspicious of people who look so differently from you. As long as you don't go all KKK and start hating on others/fucking them up because of that instinct, then shit's cool.

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

    May be white men running the country, but the average white man has fuck all power in the game. White man at the top and average trailer trash eminem level white man are worlds apart.

    I agree with that. I'm more concerned about people with power than "White Men". The dude in the trailer park has more in common with me than someone who is a corporate CEO or some high-ranking politician.

    [–]1trplurker 1 point2 points  (4 children)

    In my opinion everyone is racist, because everyone favours their own race the most. When someone says "I'm not racist" I know them to be a fucking liar straightaway. Don't tell me you don't feel more comfortable around your own, or favour your own, everyone does. It's part of our animal instinct. To be tribal/preserve genes/be suspicious of people who look so differently from you. As long as you don't go all KKK and start hating on others/fucking them up because of that instinct, then shit's cool.

    True for the vast majority of the population. Having said that, it is possible to remove your racial filter through deep meditation, introspection and modifying the rules and perceptions that were built into your brain during your formative years. It's not easy nor quick and thus isn't something many will ever attempt.

    [–]Dark triad expert: - http://illimitablemen.com/ - [3 Points]IllimitableMan 4 points5 points  (3 children)

    I'd welcome a good meditation post on TRP.

    [–]1trplurker 5 points6 points  (2 children)

    I might on day do it but I'm no where near as good a writer as yourself, GLO or HSP. The concepts and thoughts are all there, but it's really hard for me to put them down in words that others can recognize and recreate inside their own minds.

    For myself, it all started when I was young. I was always an extremely inquisitive kid, always asking "why" until I got an acceptable answer. This led me to doing tons of my own college level research as a grade schooler (current level material wasn't nearly satisfactory for my questions). It also made me start asking "why" whenever I would feel a specific emotion. Once I learned how to meditate, reflect and introspect, I could start tracing those emotions to the various parts of my mind. It was able to learn the framework that makes up our minds and the immense amount of core programming we have inside our subconscious. Our minds are heuristical in nature, they absorb experiences and our subconscious writes rules based on that absorption with the goal of furthering it's own agenda (often based on biological imperatives). Once I learned to connect to it and communicate with my subconscious I could start to rewrite and alter those rules. It's extremely difficult to find the words to describe this process. The best way I can describe it is to say that all our emotions are just our subconscious attempting to manipulate our conscious into doing what it wants us to do.

    [–]Dark triad expert: - http://illimitablemen.com/ - [3 Points]IllimitableMan 3 points4 points  (1 child)

    The best way I can describe it is to say that all our emotions are just our subconscious attempting to manipulate our conscious into doing what it wants us to do.

    Immensely interesting.

    I might on day do it but I'm no where near as good a writer as yourself, GLO or HSP.

    I could help you write it, if you like.

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

    Emotions are a crude, dirty bomb - they can get the job done quickly, but are very messy. They're basically action signals from the primitive brain designed to drive decisions. And though their potency is impressive, they lack precision.

    [–]DarkSayed 3 points4 points  (0 children)

    Indeed. Red Pill is "post-feminist" in that it doesn't question the notion that women should have equal rights in society, but in fact, their are judged upon their behaviour.

    Maybe this is why women hate it, because it forces them to face up to the responsibilities part in the with-rights-come-responsibilities package.

    [–]100 Modbsutansalt 3 points4 points  (0 children)

    This is my personal take on what TRP is based on years in this community:

    http://i.imgur.com/FnurWTA.png

    [–]nzgs 26 points27 points  (24 children)

    "Feminism is the radical notion that women are people" is just typical of the Orwellian doublethink favoured by the Left. Obfuscating the true meanings of words behind political correctness.

    [–]paracog 6 points7 points  (0 children)

    The insult in it is the implication that patriarchal society hasn't historically considered women as people. Passive slander, from masters.

    [–]whatever1914 6 points7 points  (22 children)

    I don't really want to get into a political discussion, but to say that doublethink is a tactic inherent to the left shows either a complete misunderstanding of Orwell or of what leftism is. Orwell was very much a leftist. Feminism, in its modern incarnations, is centrist neoliberal bullshit not leftism.

    [–]1SelfishStoic 7 points8 points  (12 children)

    Orwell was absolutely against leftism. He despised communism and pointed out all the inequities that necessarily exist because of it. Double think as he described it is a necessary tool of leftism in order to seem like a means of freedom and justice despite the curtailing of.
    In addition the whole concept of double thing is rooted in leftism, because it impossible to say freedom and regulation in the same breath without twisting the meanings.

    Edit: Orwell was a socialist, you guys are right. I accept that fact. However in his intellectual struggle against Totalitarianism, he unwittingly pointed out the problem with leftism and its ultimate end which is Totalitarianism.

    [–]whatever1914 4 points5 points  (0 children)

    Orwell was a socialist and a supporter of the anarchist revolutionaries in Spain. He wrote a book called Homage to Catalonia where he talked about his experiences in anarchist Catalonia which was one of the most defining experiences in his life when it came to his political beliefs. Here's a quote from his essay "Why I Write":

    "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism, as I understand it."

    [–]SweetiePieJonas 2 points3 points  (7 children)

    Orwell was absolutely against leftism.

    No, absolutely not. Here's Orwell, writing in 1946:

    The Spanish war and other events in 1936-37 turned the scale and thereafter I knew where I stood. Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism, as I understand it.

    Quit trying to steal our people, rightists. Martin Luther King isn't yours, either.

    [–]1SelfishStoic 1 point2 points  (6 children)

    Perhaps you are right. But within the space he describes, between Democratic Socialism and Totalitarianism he sides with the right.
    Right to left belief systems are:

    Libertarian(Far right)> Conservative>Socialism>Totalitarian (Far left).

    So while he takes the left position over all; His writings in the narrow space of Socialism vs Totalitarianism side with the right(Socialism, in this narrow space). He ultimately unwittingly describes the slippery slope which is leftism in an effort to curb its absolute end: Totalitarianism.

    [–]SweetiePieJonas 9 points10 points  (0 children)

    The libertarian/totalitarian scale is orthogonal to the left/right scale. Totalitarian systems can be rightist, like Fascism or Islamism, or leftist, like Stalinism or Maoism.

    [–]6of1halfdozenofother 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    This is also wrong. Totalitarianism is not on the Left/Right spectrum at all. Neither is Libertarianism either. Those are on a state control spectrum which is totally separate from the economic or social freedom spectrum (which is what Left/Right refers to).

    You really need to read an actual political science book before posting.

    [–]Jimmy_Big_Nuts 1 point2 points  (3 children)

    You discredited yourself son. No rightwing totalitarianism? No lefty libitarians? Even though that was the original type before Americans hijacked the meaning and made the term synonymous with the right. Conservatives weren't always neolib. There are more than one axis used to plot political/economic stances for a good reason.

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

    I tend to disagree. I think there is only one axis. I use to think myself a "lefty libertarian", but really that's just me drawing an arbitrary line in the sand where I feel comfortable, which is really just leftism (in the sense that it should all appease me).

    As for totalitarianism on the right, I agree conservatives believes in a level of totalitarianism (not as much as socialists). That's why they aren't libertarian. However it is libertarian beliefs that give rise to the conservative morals and guide their arbitrary rules. In the same way, socialists have some strand of belief in the right which prevents them from totalitarianism, but they are much closer to it than the right.

    This idea of multiple axis makes a false assumption that economic principal and philosophy are on different wavelengths when they are actually both intertwined. Economics is tethered to time and value and so are philosophical issues. They cannot be untied.

    [–]Jimmy_Big_Nuts -2 points-1 points  (1 child)

    Poor comprehension skills.

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

    Lol if you need to resort to ad hominem attacks you are clearly at a loss. My comprehension skills are anything but. You assume that because my analysis results in such a basic structure it must then be wrong and ignore my position. I merely simplified all the variations you experience, think system of equations and how complicated Einstein's formulas were before he got down to E=mc2. The proof you need to get to that point is massive, but his answer is simple and correct. If you can't simplify complex concepts by finding connections, your comprehension skills or lacking. Being able to see all the deviations and not sort them out is an inability to understand.

    [–]6of1halfdozenofother 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    Just wrong. Orwell despised the Soviets. Most British and American socialists and communists did after Stalin signed the treaty with Hitler. But they didn't stop being leftists.

    [–]rpkarma 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    The way I see it, totalitarianism is something that can come from any political side, so we must be on guard at all times. Currently, leftism holds sway over the modern culture, so that's where we must look for it now. But the pendulum will swing, as it always does, and a new threat will emerge.

    [–]ALargeBicep 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    Socially left, yes. Economically left, no.

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

    Shut up you Muslim loving socialist! The fact that you think the right can obfuscate the true meaning of words too just shows your sense of entitlement!

    [–]federalfarmer7 3 points4 points  (1 child)

    history shows that people are generally pretty fucking awful.

    You should read more history. I've found that leftists-- particularly feminists-- have a very pessimistic view of human nature and it usually stems from historical ignorance and/or historical revisionism. Humans made their way to the top of the food chain because they are incredible.

    [–]sealteamaus 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    which race of humans civilized the world?

    [–]astheworldfaps 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    Recently I came to pretty much the same realization: It's TRP that finally took women off the pedestal for me.

    [–][deleted]  (2 children)

    [deleted]

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

      My cousin made a fake meetme account of a woman, pretending to be a lesbian.

      This is very interesting. Can you ask him to write about it?

      [–]bitterbut_true 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      I tend to think that we place females in "character" so we can cope. If we really dealt with them as they are, as people, we would be horrified in MANY cases (not all, of course) of the sheer vanity, sociopathology and self serving 'logic". We'd conclude they're "insane", like a nutter who believes their delusions, and we'd move on. BUT...we're lazy with an innate 'female perception disability' and many still want to enjoy those 'good bits' (sex, nurturing, eye candy etc)...so we put them into character. Of course our sociological female 'nutter' helps this process along by appearing "in character" (i.e make up/role play etc). In conclusion if we want to avoid women, such as the MGTOW's, then that's easy when you REALLY see them as "people"...but if you want sex, or a relationship, I think it helps to put them in character. A sense of denial really, otherwise we'd never get through it.

      [–]brotherjustincrowe 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      One of the most pernicious spins the blue-pill MSM puts on our message is the idea that AWALT is somehow said from a position of hate, like an angry virgin screaming "all women are bitches and whores!" rather than a statement made with shoulder-shrugging neutrality.

      Could you imagine if this logic were extended to other situations? Like if I were called a dog-hater because I heard someone didn't earn their dog's respect and got bit, and my response was "it's a dog, what did you expect?"

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

      I was raised in probably one of the most extreme feminist cultures of the 1990s, and we were taught that slogan, "feminism is the radical notion that women are people."

      The slogan should rather have been "feminism is the radical notion that women are better people" because that's a hell of a lot more accurate.

      [–]eatingonthetoilet 4 points5 points  (2 children)

      They are people. Weaker, less intelligent, emotionally volatile people.

      [–]makethemsayayy 6 points7 points  (1 child)

      Can the feminists at least fucking admit they're weaker and less coordinated though? I mean come on, high school soccer players would destroy Women's Team USA. I've actually argued with people on reddit that men are physically stronger and superior. Like what the fuck, how delusion ARE YOU?!

      [–]beta_cunt 2 points3 points  (0 children)

      Lol. I have too. I even pointed out that the best female fighter in the UFC was a million times inferior to folks like Jon Jones or Weidman or Cain Velasquez. The females fear fighting even Shemales like Fallon Fox. These are facts not opinions. All I got in response was that I was wrong and old fashioned to think women were weaker. And some white knight cunts telling me I was wrong 'because women are more flexible'.

      [–]Gradutedskillender 2 points3 points  (2 children)

      Yeah feminism claims to be so pro-strength but has this victim mentality. All I want from feminism is for politics to stay out of my vagina/uterus. Aside from that, I work in health research and am constantly hearing shit about women being under represented in STEM fields (my major was chemistry) and that we make less money... My department (pharmacology) is almost exactly 1/2 and 1/2 and I've seen the payroll paperwork, we all make the same based on our experience and education. I just don't see the value in most facets of feminism in the developed world Edit to add - feminism has also become fat activism by association. Also I don't want to be a feminist if it means an alliance with trans women who aren't biologically women. I have a bunch of conditions including precancerous cervical cells that means a hysterectomy by 35. A trans "woman" won't have that issue, or need an abortion, or birth control, so I fail to see where our interests align

      [–]makethemsayayy 1 point2 points  (1 child)

      you shouldn't be a feminist because their actions are disgusting and not in anyone's best interests. But im probably asking too much, far too much, for you to be a little altruistic.

      [–]Gradutedskillender 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      I care about humanity as a whole and conduct myself accordingly. I couldn't care less abou individual welfare. I think if everyone gave up the women's rights, gay rights, racial rights and just abided by basic human rights we wouldn't have a problem.

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

      Wasn't one of the highest rated top posts in the last week or two literally saying all women are children?

      [–]beta_cunt 11 points12 points  (0 children)

      They're also a form of handicap that need their own division in sports. Doesn't change the fact that they're people.

      [–]jsw13 3 points4 points  (0 children)

      There have been a number of highly rated posts comparing women to children and recommending training women like dogs. Both of those are more or less good ideas.

      Not sure where you're going with this.

      [–]JoeFarmer 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      anarcho punk? the slogan sounds like some anti-product lyrics

      [–]0xdada[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      this may have made the front page on a throwaway account. just in case: 1df8600ec7a7e49c0261a694c2661628

      [–]EurasianAesthetics 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      Anyone else see all the discussion regarding AI recently? This world will be here another 4 billion years. And we're not gonna be a part of that future. Humans are obsolete biological organisms - stupid chimps aka homo sapiens (hominids). Our universal role (looking at the big picture) was to build AI. The next evolutionary rung on the ladder will be artificial.

      What many don't realise here is that we're entering an event horizon. Skynet doesn't have to kill us off. We'll kill ourselves off via Virtual reality addictions. As the global standard of living for the 99% begins to collapse, as well as society with it (feminism, racial mixing) people will begin to tune out by escaping into their simulated alternate reality addictions. Think world of warcraft addictions on steroids. It's impossible to convince people of this with just a comment, it's like TRP. It takes some time to swallow and understand, but all this RP knowledge leads to more. Try and see the big picture.

      [–]alfred_e_nooman 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      Saying that women are people implies that they are capable of having basic morals and empathy. They are biologically driven to serve themselves and any perception of empathy is easily proven to be ultimately self-serving.

      [–]WeCantHaveFun 0 points1 point  (1 child)

      They're servants if used properly.

      [–]LifeAtPeace 4 points5 points  (0 children)

      This is the truth. Although you don't say it directly, they are servants to serve you and they will be happy to do that.

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

      Their survival toolkit has a lot less capability for physical violence in it

      Based on experience, I'm going to have to respectfully disagree.

      I think it's important to consider in these perspectives the Beautiful Ones experiment - a society of excess and unrestriction on the worst part of the feminine nature leads to an exasperated level of their tendencies i.e. single motherhood and mistreatment of their young

      [–]sealteamaus 2 points3 points  (0 children)

      the operative word was capacity, not intent

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

      It's been used for thousands of years abd it's still use in some of the greatest countries we now have on earth...Saudi Arabia, drc, Afghanistan...where women still know their place, it's why they are the counties progressing the world

      [–]Stopher -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

      When you think about it, TRP is totally femminist. It's saying womeb are just like men and have as much power. Oh the horror!