One of the horrible things about the Red Pill is the recognition that women are not the sinless creatures that Victorian mythology might lead us to believe. If you come from a TradCon background, recognizing that your faith has not prepared you to see that women are as subject to original sin as you are (but that these effects work differently in different sexes) can become quite the shock. The first reaction, and it is a natural one, is to condemn the sinner. I found just such a reaction over at Dalrock’s place, from commenter Gottlieb’s Pins:
Men are the providers and protectors. Women are the nurturers and the glue that hold the family together. When society or feminists dictate that the roles should be reversed or shared equally then everyone is equally miserable. When women provide for themselves and their children on their own or through wealth distribution then men have no purpose. When women put career ahead of family the family collapses and women are bitter and angry all the time. I’ve wrapped a crap load of gifts over the years. I wash clothes. I clean house when I feel like it. It’s my house after all. I don’t need a woman to do those things or to nag me to do them. Women are bitter that men can live without them and be happy. They obviously can’t live without us or the govt forcing us to pay for them. We men are the sensitive caring ones. It’s our only weakness. Women don’t have this weakness. It’s all about them and their needs. They play the victim and when that doesn’t work they try to shame us because they know we are sensitive and it works. But many of us have become hardened from years of combat and their tricks don’t work on us anymore. When all men are equally hardened the games over. Women can bitch and moan to each other but none us us will listen. I’d like to see women work in some of the shitholes I worked in. The coal fields of WV and KY. Filthy dangerous places. Be in the wrong place at the wrong time and you’re dead. Blasting all around, trucks as big as houses. You’re like a bug to them. Women have it hard? LOL.
This is not to pick on Gottlieb’s Pins, whom I do not know. But let’s analyze a few lines to see bad theory that leads him astray. First:
Men are the providers and protectors. Women are the nurturers and the glue that hold the family together.
Note that in hunter-gatherer societies, women provide a significant portion of the food, just as a Proverbs 31 wife provides plenty of material support to her family. So to say that men are “THE providers” is to ignore evidence both empirical and Biblical. Not a good way to start, and it undermines the very significant competitive advantage that women have in society, which he gets right: they are nurturers. But turning men into THE providers violates women’s nature and God’s plan, and invites divorce theft. It also leaves no reason for men to be around; the state can surely provide AND protect better than an individual man.
When society or feminists dictate that the roles should be reversed or shared equally then everyone is equally miserable
No, actually, women are made more miserable by the lie of “equality.” Recall: 80% of women and only 40% of men who’ve ever lived have left behind descendants.So when a society changes the rules on women such that they cannot successfully pursue their normal expectation to have children, it will create more misery on the female rather than the male side of the equation.
The next few sentences are correct,and then we get:
Women are bitter that men can live without them and be happy.
No, you had it right before: when society tells women to take on roles that they can do, but for which they are not ideal, they get angry. Justifiably so. I’m living in a society that defines MY role as a “provider and protector,” rather than a leader of women; it doesn’t make ME happy.
A few lines about men being sensitive and caring (well, sure, about some things, but you want enough caring to have it appear nurturing? Find a woman, well-raised, for that.), and about men being manipulable by women (they try to shame us because they know we are sensitive and it works), and then the most horrible line: many of us have become hardened from years of combat and their tricks don’t work on us anymore. When all men are equally hardened the games over. Women can bitch and moan to each other but none us us will listen.
Ugh. That we should use metaphors of “war” and “battle” between men and women is an indication of how far down a very bad road we have gone. I know who is behind it, too: he who spied on Adam and Eve in the Garden and driven by envy set about bringing them to the same miserable existence that he had caused himself to suffer under. This is not to say that women have not acted horribly, initiating frivolous divorce (70% of divorces), accusing men falsely of horrible crimes, killing over 1 Million fetuses per year for the last 40 years in the USA. I choose not to link any of those; you can, as they say, look them up.
The writer goes on to talk about how many difficult, dangerous jobs men do to earn their daily bread. Not, of course, that this interferes with God’s commandment in the Garden as a result of the Fall: “Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat food from it all the days of your life.” Women, by contrast, are commanded by God “I will multiply thy sorrows, and thy conceptions: in sorrow shalt thou bring forth children, and thou shalt be under thy husband’s power, and he shall have dominion over thee.”
Women do, indeed, have it hard, maybe harder, in this society. As Mary McCarthy once said of Cultural Marxist Lillian Hellman: “every word she writes is a lie, including ‘and’ and ‘the’.” The entire society is set up to lie to them about what will make them happy. We have in fact created a dystopia for women, and done so in the name of improving things. It’s made it near impossible for a man to find a faithful spouse to have his children, but then, so what? Most men never had children. A woman needs male investment, and not just checks, and cannot secure it under the terms allowed to most women by society. Certainly, chaste and sainted women will ignore Satan’s lures, but if the continuation of a society is going to depend on saints, and not sinners, that society is headed for collapse.
The original writer troubled me, as he struck me as a man very early in the 5 stages of grief, as I once was. I hope that he will be able to move past the anger stage, and when he comes to acceptance realize: women are the way they are, with the ability to follow whatever man leads most strongly. It’s not a bug, it’s a feature.
In our society, that’s whoever controls the State, all of which Satan claimed to be under his control, and which control he would offer Our Lord after 40 days’ fast in the desert. Under a Patriarchal system that accounts for a complementary but not equal nature of the sexes, it can be put to good use. I had a whole explanation planned, but then Roissy posted the following:
“the RED PILL, in contrast, is the deeper understanding that women are not sugar and spice and everything nice, that they in fact have a strong need to be sexually overwhelmed and dominated, that they are fundamentally emotional and childlike, that their concept of truth is not the same as that of men, and that their core nature is not to be loyal. the red pill teaches men to love and appreciate women as they are, not as we want them to be.”
When you look at sin, you see horror. Look beyond the horror to the being God originally created, and decided was Good. See the Path from debased to Divine, and follow the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No other way do we get out of the muck that the tempter has caused us to wander into.
Patriactionary 
Will S.
December 26, 2014 at 11:41 pm
The Red Pill is hard to swallow, but to only swallow it partway is even worse.
Will S.
December 26, 2014 at 11:42 pm
“That we should use metaphors of “war” and “battle” between men and women is an indication of how far down a very bad road we have gone.”
Another Patriaphorism!
infowarrior1
December 27, 2014 at 12:49 am
The problem is the aura of holiness we assign to women in the 1st place. Which pedestalizing idiots cooked up.
infowarrior1
December 27, 2014 at 1:07 am
@electricangel
Men may not have started this war. But they must be the ones to finish it. And women held accountable.
Putting up no resistance while the other side pummels you is not a way to live,
Exfernal
December 27, 2014 at 4:21 am
I am to learn to love the millstone around my neck? No, thanks.
electricangel
December 27, 2014 at 3:50 pm
@Will,
We haven’t had a Patriaphorism for a while. Been doing a lot of thinking, and am glad it came out in a way pleasing to you.
electricangel
December 27, 2014 at 4:02 pm
@infowarrior:
Men may not have started this war. But they must be the ones to finish it. And women held accountable.
Putting up no resistance while the other side pummels you is not a way to live,
If you believe there’s a war, then you must believe women, with their little girly arms and their 1/6th male upper body strength, can actually fight one. That is a lie, pushed by the people pushing women into the military and foisting egalitarianism on us. If women are capable of fighting a war (note: by this I do NOT mean using a joystick controller and unemotionally blowing away people they don’t know; at that, I am sure, they’d do fine), then I am capable of gestating a child (I am, actually; there have been cases of extreme ectopic pregnancies where the placenta attached somewhere on the intestinal wall). Encouraging men that silly little girls, who would probably prefer pink tanks, are fighting a war against them is dangerous, because if men DO decide to go to “war” against women, the slaughter will be widespread and societally catastrophous.
There is a war against some men, by other men, of that you should have no doubt. Women side with the winners; always have, always will. Resist your conqueror and you will tear your lady bits, get a fistula (see: Congo), and be unable to pass on your mothering to another generation. It is a feature, not a bug.
When we recognize not just that there is a war, but who the opponent is, and who got them to start it, we are at least at the end of the beginning. Evil is not fertile, and like a cancer requires support from the behaving parts of society to propagate. For those not made for the fight, simply refusing to support the other side will be enough.
electricangel
December 27, 2014 at 4:13 pm
@Exfernal,
Welcome.
I am to learn to love the millstone around my neck? No, thanks.
I wouldn’t ask, nor did I suggest that. Though women have been lied to by society for a long time, they have still sinned, and for a lot of them there is no fixing their inability to serve as good wives in this society. As we noted here, you cannot turn a whore into a housewife.
If you do have a wife who is a “millstone” around your neck, there are a number of links I’d send you to. First, of course, is “Relationship Game Week: A Reader’s Journey.” If you do NOT, well, you are better off than most men who never knew of the fallen nature of women. Understanding what their burden is, in this society and under the edict of Eden, does not require you to serve as their beast of burden.
What I would ask you to focus on is a worthy enemy. Silly little girls (i.e., most women) do not rise to the level of worthy opponent for a man. That is, at a minimum, other men, and frankly in this case, the tempter in chief.
infowarrior1
December 27, 2014 at 7:41 pm
@electronicangel
”If you believe there’s a war, then you must believe women, with their little girly arms and their 1/6th male upper body strength, can actually fight one. ”
That’s true. But consider the advent of firearms and the equalizing effect it has on the killing power of the sexes. And if you give such women training in such weapons.
For example Kurdish Women fighters fighting the war in Syria against Assad:
http://www.timesofisrael.com/kurdish-women-fighting-in-syria/
And documentary on this subject
Apparently they seem to be doing quite well. And violence via proxy is also another method evil women use.
”Encouraging men that silly little girls, who would probably prefer pink tanks, are fighting a war against them is dangerous, because if men DO decide to go to “war” against women, the slaughter will be widespread and societally catastrophous.”
That’s true. But I am not talking about physical war which will be disastrous but more like starving the beast and countering the tricks of feminine wiles. Bloodless conflict is preferable. Unless extremist feminists use guns to attack men then its game on against those extremist feminists.
Anonymous Reader
December 27, 2014 at 7:59 pm
If you believe there’s a war, then you must believe women, with their little girly arms and their 1/6th male upper body strength, can actually fight one.
“If you believe there was a war in 1914, then you must believe that crippled Kaiser Wilhelm with his barely working arm actually was fighting Tzar Nicholas”. This would be a foolish statement, yes? Because the Caesar of a country in 1914 did not do his own fighting, he had armies of men to do that for him, just as women in 2014 have armies of men at their beck and call. She just picks up the phone and breathlessly exclaims to the police dispatcher– “I’m afraid!” and the rest will be done for her. No need to risk even breaking a decorative fingernail. Since I’m sure you doubt, an example follows.
When Jane Averagefeminist, mother of 1.5 children and married for 3 to 5 years, decides that she’s not haaaaapy anymore with Joe AFC Betaguy, she may resort to actual physical violence – say, hitting him with kitchen tools, or with a hammer – but when the cops arrive we know who will be arrested. Joe will be going to jail, thanks to the Duluth protocols and VAWA. The cops may be male or female, but they’ll just be doing their job, and if they don’t take him to jail, they’ll be in danger of losing that job. The anti family court judge, either the greying Boomer White Knight Traditional Defender of Women, the hachet faced feminist, or some other form, will also just be doing his or her job. The process servers, the government clerks, the anger counsellors, the divorce attornies and all the rest of the divorce machine that will be grinding Joe up – all will just be doing their job.
The coroner’s men who come out to his 1-bedroom dwelling later on to take his body away, leaving the gun he shot himself with for the police, they’ll just be doing their job as well.
It’s never personal. It’s impersonal and just doing the job.
But the effect on a large scale, of course, is a state policy designed to extract resources from men to be given to women with no strings attached, upon pain of violence. If not war, then institutionalized robbery, perhaps? What would you call it?
In any event, only someone ignorant of women’s nature, whether created in 6 days of 24 hours each, or evolved over the ages, and their age-old game of “Let’s you and him fight” would reduce the ongoing campaign to grind men into powder and mischaracterize it. Women rarely fight their own battles, they almost always have men to do that for them. Just as Nicky and Willy in Russia and Germany in 1914 did. Yet World War I was, in fact, a war.
Consider a red pill some time. Or a pair of glasses. But do put away that pedestal, eh? Women do not belong on it.
Eric
December 27, 2014 at 9:44 pm
Electricangel:
There are a lot of people in the Manosphere who, just like the feminists, are eager to keep the gender wars going.
The best way for men to defeat feminism is by attrition. Don’t reward feminist women with male attention.
sfcton
December 28, 2014 at 8:23 am
I think war is an appropriate term; women get to take lot of stuff my force, like alimony, child support, children, the martial home and assets etc. All legally with the full support of the state. Taking stuff by force is part of war. She can ruin your life legally and have the state commit violence on her behalf with a phone call and a few lies and do so knowing the legal repercussions will be minimal. Wives etc don’t need physical power themselves because the state will don the robbing, imprisoning etc on her behalf
To be sure it more of a 4th generation warfare thing then the big battles of attrition the West is good at but it is still combative in nature
Von Clausewitz says war is a continuation of politics by other means. I happen to think that politics is a continuation of war by other means.
It is pretty much a war of the jew ( & in the usa, yankee because yankees were all fired up for this kind of stuff way before jews showed up to the usa in any numbers) vs the Christian White man, but women and non Whites are fully supporting the war efforts of the jew
The way to win is give women what they want; treat them like men.
As for women not being worthy of
sfcton
December 28, 2014 at 8:25 am
* as for women not being worthy whatever the hell electic angel was trying to say, you win wars by killing privates and you kill a lot more privates then generals.
electricangel
December 28, 2014 at 2:04 pm
@Infowarrior,
That’s true. But consider the advent of firearms and the equalizing effect it has on the killing power of the sexes. And if you give such women training in such weapons.
Oh, no doubt. I recall one story about female drone pilots being far less affected by the remote killing than the men. For the same reason, women could probably be pretty good snipers, maybe even better than men. But when combat becomes personal, which honorable warfare (not bombing people from planes, as in Hiroshima) is, they balk. Watch them in a crisis; their better multitasking makes them worse at the existential-threat-answering single focus they need. As economic collapse removes the technical underpinning from the war machine, women will become less and less able to take part.
But I am not talking about physical war which will be disastrous but more like starving the beast and countering the tricks of feminine wiles. Bloodless conflict is preferable. Unless extremist feminists use guns to attack men then its game on against those extremist feminists.
There really aren’t any tricks of feminine wiles once the red pill has gone through. They are much simpler, more amoral creatures than we are, and that’s driven by biology. They follow male leaders, with VERY few exceptions. The problem is that the male leaders in our society have found a way, in the inimitable phrase by Solomon II, to use feminism to control “beta” men by proxy. We don’t teach men how to deal with women any more, and I think that that was also by design.
Starving the beast is the simplest, lowest-conflict way of winning the way. Alphas who’ve set the war in motion don’t want betas DEAD, they want them neutered. They want to access creativity and the economic surplus they create without paying them any of the benefits of reproduction or female company. Women have sided with the Alphas because that is what they do, and how they are, and that is dictated by the need to secure resources to grow their offspring. You will not change that about women, and it should no more make one angry (like the original commenter I was responding to in the post) than the fact that an abject dropped accelerates towards earth at 32f/s/s.
electricangel
December 28, 2014 at 2:26 pm
@Anonymous Read,
I guess I have been unclear. I don’t deny there’s a war on. The nature of the war is different. Women are neither Willy nor Nicky (I guess you read that book based on the correspondence between the two emperors before the full outbreak of war where they called each other by those names); they don’t control armies on either side. I think they also don’t really care who wins the war; they will sidle up to whichever side DOES win and secure resources from it. That’s what they do, and its what evolutionary biology (atheists) or God (Genesis, see OP) say they must do. It is a fact as certain as the speed of light in a vacuum.
All that infrastructure designed to mulct men for the supposed benefit of women is there. It was built BY men, for a purpose. Think of the profits in divorce, in prisons, in police (a NYC police officer costs $212K per year each), and the losses suffered by the people mulcted. It is a wealth-extraction engine built by SOME men, targeted at the wealth created by most men, to the detriment of most men and almost all women.
Consider a red pill some time. Or a pair of glasses. But do put away that pedestal, eh? Women do not belong on it.
I think I have gone all the way through the red pill now. My OP was about someone who was just adapting to the new things he was seeing. In Kubler-ross terms, he was at the anger stage, having given up denial. Anger is the natural next step, and if it doesn’t make you mad then you’re not really a man, with an innate sense of justice. The quote from Roissy at the end is the “Acceptance” phase; oh, that’s how women ARE. The original commenter is on this journey; he has at least passed the denial phase. (I wonder if it’s even wise to comment on, as perhaps he needs to journey through bargaining and depression anyway?)
I think you’ve mischaracterized me as far as a pedestal goes. I have become more and more of an overt sexist, in a way I could not have imagined 5 years ago when I stumbled on the ‘sphere. I remember reading comments by people I thought were trying to excuse women to the effect of “feminism has been so damaging to women’s interests that it is not possible that they came up with it on their own.” Now, I understand. Women are really not society’s motive force; they are reactive. They don’t fight; they wait for the fight to end and consort with the winner. It’s not that I think that women don’t fight the war because they morally cannot, it’s that I think they’re simply not competent: I do not respect them as enemies.
The men who use them, I hate but I have to respect. The tempter who gives those men their ideas I hate most of all, and it is a just and righteous hate.
electricangel
December 28, 2014 at 2:33 pm
@Eric,
The best way for men to defeat feminism is by attrition. Don’t reward feminist women with male attention.
That’s the simplest and safest way. The surest way not to get killed by a bomb is get the hell away from it.
Once you’ve learned enough of the Red Pill, you become a sort of bomb disposal expert. At that point, you gain an obligation to confront feminism directly, because it is a neutron bomb killing off the people of our society and leaving the buildings intact.
The great thing about it is, it’s a LOT of fun. I have bent feminists to my frame, and there is NO greater pleasure than earning submission from them. They follow the strongest leader (and they’re HAPPIER doing so!). You start slowly, try, snip wires carefully, and avoid fatal errors.
When you’re ready to reenter the fray, find a man who has disarmed feminist bombs, learn from him, and then get in there with a few wirecutters.
electricangel
December 28, 2014 at 2:43 pm
@SFCton,
To be sure it more of a 4th generation warfare thing then the big battles of attrition the West is good at but it is still combative in nature
Von Clausewitz says war is a continuation of politics by other means. I happen to think that politics is a continuation of war by other means.
I assume you’ve read The Transformation of War, by (Jewish, but, whatever) Martin Van Creveld, one of the canon of books cited by 4GW expert William Lind? He takes Clausewitz to task. War, for men, really is the ultimate game, the ultimate form of play, with the highest stakes.
Van Creveld mentions one way to take all the fun out of war for men: have women fight. Because a man who defeats a woman has not defeated a worthy opponent, and a man who LOSES to a woman might as well just shoot himself right now.
If you’ve not read the book, it’s worth the 5 hours.
you win wars by killing privates and you kill a lot more privates then generals.
Well, at least you’re not advocating killing civilians!
How did we defeat Japan in WW2? Did we kill most of their soldiers, or did we do what needed to be done, cut off their supply of oil that they needed to run their war machine? The battle of Leyte Gulf was shooting fish in a barrel, since the Japs lost the ability to maneuver.
I’d argue we don’t need to kill the privates (ow! just got that one.) on the other side. The men posting here advocating withdrawal are correct: what feeds the other side’s war machine is the “oil” of the age, the easily-seizable wealth that they require to live on. Cut that supply off and we will win eventually. Recognizing who the other side is, who their general is (and his mental weakness), and focusing on how to defeat them more quickly is even better.
sfcton
December 28, 2014 at 4:39 pm
Japan, like Germany gave in because we killed so many civilians and destroyed (mostly) Germany’s ability to produce war material also very methodically killed their war fighters.
I’m going to stick with Von Claus because we use to win wars when we followed his advice. US grunts are simple like that.
Eric
December 29, 2014 at 1:54 am
Electric Angel:
“That’s the simplest and safest way.”
It’s the most logical way. Feminism is a suicidal philosophy and if people are intent on blowing themselves up, you don’t have to sacrifice yourself in the process.
“Once you’ve learned enough of the Red Pill, you become sort of a bomb disposal expert.”
No—you learn to recognize bombs and keep away from them.
“You gain an obligation to confront feminism directly because it is a neutron bomb killing off the people of our society.”
Agreed—but why…
“I have bent feminists to my frame and there is no greater pleasure than earning submission from them.”
…would any sane man care about bending feminists or getting them to submit? There are plenty of women better than that.
“They follow the strongest leader.”
No—they follow the herd. What changes feminist minds is when good men ignore THEM and pursue women who aren’t feminists instead. Then they see what works and what doesn’t.
Bruce Lee once said that success in martial arts has come when you never have to use it. Feminism would fall of its own accord if men stopped giving it support.
infowarrior1
December 29, 2014 at 5:59 am
@electricangel
Why do you think the mixed kurdish units(From their own quotes they support sexual equality) are so successful against ISIS where women make up 1 in 5 of the squadron?
bluebird of bitterness
December 29, 2014 at 1:10 pm
Excellent post.
sfcton
December 29, 2014 at 1:56 pm
If you stay away from feminst you will end up shunning all women and almost all men
I don’t buy into the kurdish fighting women none sense
electricangel
December 29, 2014 at 11:52 pm
@SFCTON,
Japan, like Germany gave in because we killed so many civilians and destroyed (mostly) Germany’s ability to produce war material also very methodically killed their war fighters.
We bombed Japan for a LONG time. When we dropped the demand for “unconditional surrender” and allowed them to keep their emperor, they surrendered. I think we could have kept murdering civilians for months or years. They’re hung up on honor that way.
Q. Would it have been OK for individual soldiers to have individually killed each of the civilians we killed in air raids in Japan/Germany?
I’m going to stick with Von Claus because we use to win wars when we followed his advice. US grunts are simple like that.
No! You are already down with the 4GW! Go the next step. Von C is looking at and treating the world of 2nd Gen, and preparing Germany to deal with that sort of threat. That 2nd gen crap did not do a lot of good when the Schlieffen plan stalled in 1914. It was the 3rd-gen that worked well, and the Germans were developing that but ran out of time and troops to effect it in WWI. You could read some of the theorists behind those ideas, so well applied by Israel in the 6-day war.
The Transformation of War deals with the world of post-3rd-gen warfare, and the world of nuclear weapons. You cannot win wars when your enemies learn that standing and fighting the world’s best supplied military is doomed to failure. You just don’t luck upon enemies as stupid as Saddam often enough (really, had Saddam not stopped at Kuwait but also swept in SA and grabbed Ghawar, there would have been no coalition attack.)
electricangel
December 30, 2014 at 12:06 am
@Eric,
It’s the most logical way. Feminism is a suicidal philosophy and if people are intent on blowing themselves up, you don’t have to sacrifice yourself in the process.
Yes, you certainly don’t want to disarm bombs without knowing what you are doing. But if feminism were only suicidal, for the feminists, not a problem. It’s genocidal. And that’s why…
“I have bent feminists to my frame and there is no greater pleasure than earning submission from them.”
Agreed—but why…would any sane man care about bending feminists or getting them to submit? There are plenty of women better than that.
Men come up with weird sports, amigo. The bigger danger is this. As you said:
they follow the herd
Typically, there’s a small dog yipping at the herd (I prefer flock), driving them forward. Control the dog, you control the flock. People spend time watching border collie contests on BBC. Taking on and bending feminists to ones will serves both to amuse, and also to get the rest of the flock to go along. It’s definitely not a sport for everyone.
I have a basic supposition: evil is not fertile. Like a mushroom, it depends on living things to propagate itself, by killing them first. Feminism cannot grow without converting women to its cause, and when a man with confidence opposes it, three baby feminists are aborted that day. Not literally, of course; we wouldn’t ever want that.
Bruce Lee once said that success in martial arts has come when you never have to use it. Feminism would fall of its own accord if men stopped giving it support.
I’d forgotten that idea, and re-learned it elsewhere. I think the confidence of having done martial arts is part of the projection of a “don’t mess with me” persona that obviates much use of it.
I think feminism has about run its course as a mechanism for sociopathic alphas to transfer assets from most of society to themselves. Our goal isn’t ending feminism, but upending the vampire squid that seeks any tool (war, feminism, fiat currency) to set up a transmission belt from the many to the top. If we defeat feminism but not the hydra that shoots out a new head or two when we lop an old one off, we’re going to fight for a long time.
electricangel
December 30, 2014 at 12:06 am
@BoB,
Thanks for the kind words.
infowarrior1
December 30, 2014 at 12:29 am
@electricangel
You think feminism is the return of gnosticism? There are some Christians that suggest that.
sfcton
December 30, 2014 at 7:48 am
Thats lot of words that mean nothing EA
Full spectrum domaince wins wars when you have the will power to employe it. Otherwise things drag out forever and one side walks away. What played out in Iraq and the A-stan is the perfect example. The usa failed at the will power level, got feed up our pretty lies didn’t work and left.
Eric
December 30, 2014 at 1:10 pm
Electric Angel:
I disagree that evil is not fertile; but more accurately, it isn’t self-sustaining. The point here is that there is no reason to feed the evil by supporting it, viz;
“Men come up with weird sports.”
That’s a feminist position. Gender relations are NEITHER a war nor a sport. Women who treat it this way should simply be avoided. (And conversely, women should avoid men who do, but that’s another topic).
To interact with feminist women in a relationship sense is to reward them for their behavior. By the same token, interacting with non-feminist women is also to reward them for their behavior. The higher-value men gravitate towards the latter—that will change women’s opinions faster than male confrontation or manipulation will. Men can’t change the current trends, except by opting out of them.
The only marriage demographic going up in North America now are American men marrying foreign (i.e. non-feminist) women. American women are seeing first-hand their non-feminist foreign sisters taking the best men away from them and that they’ll either have to change or end up left with cats.
“The confidence of having done martial arts is part of the projection of a ‘don’t mess with me’ persona that obviates the use of it.”
Yes, and real men don’t fight with girls; and also part of the confidence is the ability to win a high-value woman worthy of oneself. Feminist women don’t value high-value men; hence someone imbued with the martial spirit doesn’t waste time with them; but seeks someone of his own level of value.
Eric
December 30, 2014 at 1:14 pm
Sfcton:
“If you stay away from feminists you will end up shunning all women and most men.”
That’s also a feminist position. Women are not born feminists, they are made so against their natures by the culture. Obviously, it’s unnatural for men, too—but many men accept feminism because it offers better opportunities for easy sex.
sfcton
December 30, 2014 at 5:01 pm
Eric that #1 isn’t true. Eve was the first femisinst and they are all daughter a of Eve. Some few, like one out of a million women will try to keep their rebellion in check but very few. Your plan about avoiding them is flawed as flawed gets.
We are told to take dominion over the world, that includes women. To rule over your woman is how you address the feminist issue one on one but th a requires valuing your masculinty as God’s second greatest gift and blessing. Which Christian men in particular and men in general do not do
Eric
December 31, 2014 at 12:07 am
Sfcton:
All women are daughters of Adam Eve was created from Adam’s side. If all women are born feminists, it follows from that logic that God created them that way. Eve was not the first feminist any more than Adam was the first Cultural Marxist.
“Some will try to keep their rebellion in check but very few.”
Women are not naturally inclined to rebel against men; society teaches them to rebel and they can only rebel when they behave more like men—which is what feminism teaches.
If avoiding them is a flawed strategy, how do you account for the fact that 5/6 of marriages to foreign women stay intact while only 1/3 to Anglo women do?
“We are told to take dominion over the world, that includes women.”
Yes, they are to be our ‘helpmeets’ in this dominion, and it takes women who value your masculinity to accomplish this. Like attracts like.
electricangel
December 31, 2014 at 4:51 am
@SFCTON,
Do you understand 4GW at all, and the focus on war moving to the moral level? In a world where any number of countries have nuclear weapons, it is desperately hard to find the sorts of set pieces where you can USE full spectrum dominance. Especially when there are any number of places that might initiate nuclear war in response to an attack on their client states. Are you completely oblivious to this so you can focus on Clausewitz who did not have to consider it?
Afghanistan is a very large country located at a very large distance from the USA. We have a huge logistical problem in controlling the local people, and we are a nominal democracy, unlike the former Soviet Union that was next door and could attack with little attention paid to public opinion. You can control Kabul pretty easily, but to control the whole country means either a LOT of money (more than we have) to pay for soldiers and multimillion dollar missiles to kill people with (the Afghans have access to a fighter-creation technology that is quite pleasant to deploy, in my experience, and they’re not afraid to use it, unlike decadent Western countries), or the transformation of the Afghans into people who welcome our rule. Thus, again, the focus on the moral level of war, where using missiles against goat herders makes you appear a bully, and so you lose, and also appear weak. It’s not Sri Lanka, where you can corner and eventually kill all the Tamil Tigers.
electricangel
December 31, 2014 at 5:08 am
@Eric,
“To interact with feminist women in a relationship sense is to reward them for their behavior.”
Oh, I see the problem. No, relationships with a feminist woman are not bound for success, as their submission to proper male authority is what will make them happy, and right now they’re submitting to improper male authority.
My struggle is not in relationships of a romantic nature, but in a leadership position in an organization where any accusation from a woman can bring down the wrath of the SJWs. You can either roll over in that situation and kiss the hand that could oppress you, or you can engage. Engaging in battle serves both the women who submit, and the women who do NOT become feminist when they see that doing so earns the opprobrium of a dominant man.
I think you recognize that, at some point, there is no redeeming a woman who has followed the feminist program. It is best if they do not begin. Simply ignoring feminist women, when you do not control ANY of the organs of reproduction of the Progressive state, means that bully pulpit can be used to sway more women to it. That I cannot allow, not if I want to emulate my Savior; I recall him using physical violence only once, and verbal and logical battle many times.
electricangel
December 31, 2014 at 5:12 am
@Sfcton,
To rule over your woman is how you address the feminist issue one on one but th a requires valuing your masculinty as God’s second greatest gift and blessing. Which Christian men in particular and men in general do not do
You’ve got the general idea. Have you ever read Athol’s Dominance and Submission in Marriage? You want to lead them, not rule them: you are the ship’s captain, while she is the first officer. If you haven’t read it, I will post a link to the Wayback machine’s archived copy of it.
electricangel
December 31, 2014 at 5:19 am
@Eric,
Women are not naturally inclined to rebel against men; society teaches them to rebel and they can only rebel when they behave more like men—which is what feminism teaches.
It’s not religious, but evo psych is a great explanation for the shit test. Women ARE naturally inclined to continually seek assurance that the man they are associated with is the best they can get. That is what we talk about when describing hypergamy, the woman’s default mating strategy (for men it’s polygyny.) where we have failed is in teaching men how to deal with shit tests.
It was years ago when I first read that “feminism is the ultimate shit test.” Now I see it. Backing down in the face of it is not a proper response to a shit test, or you’ll spend a lifetime saying “yes, dear.”
electricangel
December 31, 2014 at 1:16 pm
@infowarrior:
Of that I am uncertain. I think of it as just another form of Cultural Marxism. Defeating it is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for restoration of proper social order.
Eric
December 31, 2014 at 1:55 pm
Electric Angel:
Yes—now I see where the misunderstanding came in. Feminist women should be avoided in terms of romantic relationships, but as a social movement Feminism needs to be resolutely opposed.
But that said, men choosing non-feminist women for romantic relationships is one way of fighting it.