

“Every war when it comes, or before it comes, is represented not as a war but as an act of self-defence against a homicidal maniac.” – George Orwell

Contents:

1.) Introduction

2.) Controlling The Social Narrative

3.) Cultural Marxism – Men as the Bourgeoisie, Women as the Proletariat

4.) The Problem With Third/Fourth Wave Feminism

5.) Feminism & Parallels With Rome

6.) Society, Single Parents & The Alpha Widow

7.) Critical Thinking & Dogma

8.) The Importance of The Internet

9.) Relevant Reading

1.) Introduction:

Asking “why do people hate the red pill?” is like asking “why do feminists hate anti-feminists?” it is simple, we are viewed as “the opposing team.” By reading red pill content you become aware of the masculine’s unfiltered societal viewpoint. By agreeing with it, you accept a system of thought which undermines the status quo of feminine primacy. Thus it is so that through mere act of association with the manosphere, devoutly feminist society deems you sinfully tainted.

The church of feminism will tolerate no blasphemous dissent, for anything that disagrees with feminism is by its own interpretation, misogynistic. By asserting the masculine viewpoint as primary, or even, a valid counterpoint to the feminist viewpoint, you are immediately identified as a misogynist. This means the rabid social justice horde that currently passes for “society” is out to hang your head on a pike merely for having a different set of beliefs. Expressions of thought incongruent with the feminist narrative are so socially unacceptable at present, that they are deemed invalid merely by merit of being non-feminist, let alone anti-feminist.

2.) Controlling The Social Narrative:

It is the job of both feminists and their enablers to prevent unfiltered masculine ideas about gender from “polluting” the mainstream consciousness. The societal hive mind therefore rationalises away anti-feminist argument as “backwardly patriarchal,” meaning: irrelevant, bigoted and outdated. You will then hear at some point among the verbal cacophony that will invariably occur “that people like you are the reason feminism exists.” In reality, the reason young boys and men seek out the manosphere and its wealth of knowledge to begin with is because of the gross negative impact that feminism has had on them, as well as those around them.

Despite the damage feminism has wrought across the developed civilizations of Earth; many an individual has become personally invested in the ideology due to psychiatric problems. Feminism is like any ideological dogma; it creates codependency in the individual as they live by the tenets of the ideology. When a sense of identity is built upon a belief system, removing the ideology the self is built upon causes inordinate psychological problems for the individual. The most radicalised segments of feminism are perverse relationships between an ideology that commands blind obedience, and a mentally unwell individual who needs a platform to grant their hysterical ramblings legitimacy. However, not all believers of the feminist religion are so staunch, dedicated, or ideologically self-aware. There are many who do not self-identify as feminist, but buy into much of the ideology’s belief system due to its cultural ubiquity.

The institutional embodiment of feminism throughout society’s key social infrastructure (education, the workplace, the media, etc) is to blame for the surreptitious invasion of the societal value system. Those of you with a bachelor’s degree or higher in particular have been absolutely drowned in feminist propaganda. The more educated people are, the further from reality they tend to be. This is not because they are stupid or spectacularly unintelligent in any way, but merely because they have spent many years in an institution which unabashedly peddles feminist rhetoric. Effectively, most of the population whether they consciously realise it or not agrees with the idea that the genders are equal. To feminists, all people are equal, but some people are more equal than others. It is with the veneer of equality, that they in somewhat hypocritical fashion, implement laws and social practice which artificially elevate women by giving them special treatment. A privilege that we do not likewise extend to men.

3.) Cultural Marxism – Men as the Bourgeoisie, Women as the Proletariat:

So what’s the reasoning for this unjust disparity in “why some people are more equal than others” you wonder? To be concise; the idea in play is much similar to that of the concept of white guilt. Except we’re dealing with gender, not race, so it’s not exclusively reserved to white men, but rather men as a collective bloc irrespective of race. When it comes to feminism, the race card does not trump the gender card.

The way institutions are biased towards women today stems from the popularised feminist idea that men owe women due to man’s supposed barbarism in the time before feminism. In essence, it’s the falsification and fabrication of the modern historical narrative to give the construction of “male guilt” an air of legitimacy. It is by avenue of said guilt that women get an easy ride in today’s society, with such social inequality justified as a reparation owed to women due to the conduct of our forefathers. This is how feminist society justifies benevolent sexism. That and of course, maintaining the pretence that one of the most privileged class of human beings to ever live is constantly oppressed. This victim narrative is maintained in spite of reality so that the ideology can continue to finance itself and acquire power.

This is why myths such as the pay gap and rape culture are continuously perpetuated and will not go away. It’s not about protecting women; it’s about socially engineering the destruction of the family unit to consolidate power and money for the movement. Essentially, feminism only continues to exist so it can feed itself, segregate the population, and profit various industries eg: divorce lawyers, big business consumerism etc.

To surmise, feminism in its current form is about maintaining double standards stemming from tradition that benefited women; whilst remaining antithetically intent on the destruction of double standards from our past which benefited men. It is ultimately the restriction of male freedoms, expression and sexuality in order to make way for the unrestricted social freedoms of women. This is anti-civilizational in nature.

4.) The Problem With Third/Fourth Wave Feminism:

Instead of helping men and women understand each other better in spite of our differences, feminism encourages and thrives off facilitating decadence. It uses newspeak such as “liberation” to define the decadence it encourages when said “liberty” is really nothing more than a farcical spin on “anarchy.” To these people, the feminist viewpoint must be hegemonic; they don’t care how many young men, girls with “daddy issues” and grown men that feminine primacy run amok adversely effects. As far as they are concerned, the masculine viewpoint is backward, barbaric, misogynistic and unworthy of listening to.

They are bigoted, close-minded, and oft have a vested interest in maintaining the narrative of contemporary feminism despite it’s falsifiability. Some are this way through product of having invested so much personal time into the ideology, others due to prevailing business interests. Unfortunately the generations feminism has infected are irreversibly so. Once someone has been indoctrinated into an ideology it’s very hard if not almost entirely inconceivable for all but the most Socratic of thinkers to regain lucidity.

5.) Feminism & Parallels With Rome:

Ancient feminism served as an omen of decline in Roman civilization past its peak and until it’s fall. It wasn’t the sole reason for the fall (notably, that was due to the Romans hiring a mercenary army they could no longer afford to pay due to tax avoidance.) However, ancient feminism did nevertheless aid in the acceleration of social decay prior to the total disintegration of the civilization. As women were given the right to own property and practice law among other things, divorce became commonplace and the social fabric of the society splintered.

Feminism promoted (and continues to promote today) individualism over collectivism, much to the detriment of the empire then, and likewise the Anglo and European civilizations of today. And so it seems that there appears to be a cycle in which a civilization becomes so prosperous that it can afford to begin to entertain notions such as women’s rights. Notions that in a more primitive civilization, are simply so unworkable that they cannot function for even a brief period of time. This is similar to how in pre-civilization, only patriarchal tribes innovate enough to develop into fully fledged civilizations.

Feminism is built upon the success of patriarchy; it needs it to exist. Not just so it has a bogeyman to scapegoat, but so that society is even prosperous enough to seriously consider the profitability of “empowering women.” Without even a hint of irony however, the precedent of women’s rights has unintended consequences. It gets so out of hand that no amount of “awarded rights” is ever enough, and the excess of freedom awarded to women corrupts their natural deferential femininity. Before you know it, you get the behemoth of radical feminism that we have today pecking at the pillars of civilization.

The sexes begin losing interest in each other as the perversity of women masculinising and men feminising takes hold. Only within the grandiosity of irony do we see the same ideas and sentimental notions that contributed to the downfall of Roman civilization happening to us again today. History does indeed repeat itself.

6.) Society, Single Parents & The Alpha Widow:

One way in which said downfall is characterised is by the lowering of the birth rate. Another is the lack of incentive afforded the typical man to produce a taxable surplus due to a lack of sexual opportunity; as well as a legal and social disincentive to start a family in youth. In its stead, what we see is a return to primitive sexual behaviours; a return to harems. Many men fail to secure regular sexual access in a long-term relationship with a suitably stable female, and thus by extension of that, a chance to ensure their lineage. Concurrently, swathes of women flock to compete over and share the phallus of society’s highest value men. And so they overlook their social equals for the ever aloof apex males they pine for, only to be cast aside, broken, unable to appreciate their sexual equivalents.

Women who have been in this situation, and that is the majority nowadays, harbour resentment toward the sexual equal they are forced to settle with – for he is of lower value than men they have previously slept with. This goes some way in explaining why female infidelity has become as rampant as it is. A relationship with a lesser male is a safety net for a woman to fall back on whilst she explores her true desires elsewhere. In this aspect, copious mating partners before long-term cohabitation/marriage spoils women. It makes their propensity to commit infidelity a near certainty.

Contemporary women, in their egotism, are prone to mistake the capacity to sleep with a top-tier man with the ability to secure the commitment of such a man. When they fail to do so, being physically and mentally diminished at such a time, they are forced to re-evaluate their value and make a realistic choice out of the options available to them. As such, women are dissatisfied with the irreconcilable difference between the tier of man they are able to sleep with, and the tier of man they are able to secure the commitment of. It is the hubris of women to believe these metrics are identical, when indeed, they are distinct.

As such, our women develop an appetite for higher tier men via frivolous sex in youth, but are unable to ascertain such a man emotionally when they’re “ready to settle down.” If it’s a choice of being independently miserable, or miserable with a man who cannot match up to her spoiled tastes, women oft opt to settle. Misery loves company, and thus the spoiled woman resigned to the idea she cannot acquire the man she truly desires will seek an inadequate male to impart her parasitic misery upon. Once Chad has been tasted, Billy can never hope to satiate her hypergamy.

In healthy civilizations, sexuality is policed for the betterment of the nation-state. Female hypergamy is subdued rather than encouraged. People date and pair off within their league; starting a family with a person of correlating social worth. As an effect of such quelled hypergamy, you get the monogamous nuclear family unit that was quintessential to tradtionally Christian Europe and North America.

In healthy societies, women prioritise the needs of the family before their own immediate needs. They are encouraged to have children so that their innate solipsistic selfishness can be channelled into the growth of the child, and subsequently, the caretaking of the family. Men lead these families, women maintain them. In decadent societies such as the contemporary west, men and women prioritise their individualist desires above the collectivist needs of the family. Often this is because they have not come from, or are not members of, intact family units.

7.) Critical Thinking & Dogma:

Feminism is very much concerned with controlling and policing speech. Since its inception as a simple civil rights movement it has metamorphosed into an incredibly Orwellian ideology. By circumventing the feminist monopoly on gender relations, the manosphere is an affront to the dogmatic nature of the politically correct society we live in. You see, it is our discussion of gender differences outside the tightly controlled feminist paradigm that threatens the dogma’s narrative. Dogma is like religion, anything that brings its validity under scrutiny is not tolerated. Scrutiny is not something contemporary feminism fares well under, too much of it exposes its core for the insanity that it is. Contemporary feminism requires blind faith and groupthink, and so like many ideologies is intolerant of having its underlying premise brought into question. Being dogmatic, it is emotion based, not reason based.

To be clear, when I say “the manosphere circumvents the feminist monopoly on gender relations” I don’t just mean through discussion, but likewise through behavioural choices designed to limit our exposure to feminism. We go about this by claiming our masculinity and autonomy through hyper-independence. With social independence and clarity of mind, it is difficult to be controlled. Thus by employing ourselves, improving ourselves and interacting with women on our own terms; we can live our lives sovereign outside the purview of haranguing, henpecking feminist oversight. We are not a movement, we are a personal philosophy. We do not “fight for change” through political activism or a coup d’etat, we don’t try to “change society to fit our needs,” but instead we introspect and make improvements to ourselves so that we may thrive in spite of society’s support (or lack thereof.)

Feminism, like many a social ideology, is narcissistic and irrationally arrogant. It is devoid of introspection. It will not allow itself to be undermined at any cost. Of course, like many ideologies which started with a seemingly noble ideal but later morphed into faith-based dogma; if you don’t toe the feminist line you will be ostracised from society. People will say horrendous things about you because they don’t like you or what you stand for. They don’t like you because you are “one of them” and not “one of us.” You are not a person to them. You are an “other.” And as history has taught us, if you are considered “an other” (witch burnings) then you are not welcome in society.

If you tried to build a church in Saudi Arabia, they’d in all likelihood chop your head off or demolish the church. Well being a red pill man in a feminist country is the equivalent of being a Greek Christian in Ottoman-Muslim controlled Constantinople. Witch hunting and doxxing abound, reasons for which I never answer questions about my age or what I do for a living. For your own sake, adherents of this philosophy should not post any of their personal information online. Without the internet, a platform such as this wouldn’t even be possible. Your anti-feminist thoughts would be treated like church construction projects in Saudi; they would never see the light of the desert’s day.

8.) The Importance of The Internet:

Whilst the internet has been effective at spreading feminism, particularly to poorer countries, it has likewise served as a medium for fighting against it. The internet my friends is truly beautiful, and we should all be thankful that we got to live through its prominence first hand; to see what it can do for us as a species. The internet is the best source of free information, and likewise serves as the most superior platform for ridding one’s self of dogma and expressing one’s self. This entire blog is testament to that; such a publication would never have gotten off the ground on any other medium. That is the beauty of the internet.

It is only because of the internet you have the opportunity to read things that fall outside the realm of “political correctness” as fed to you by your corporate media and government schools. The internet gives you the opportunity to question your beliefs and refine them in privacy without demonisation or social ostracisation. With the internet, you are exposed to thinking outside the dogmatic stringently moderated bubble of political correctness that society enforces. You can be free if you so choose, presuming you are strong enough to handle the burdensome consequences that freedom brings.

This essay is probably hate speech in post-modernist Sweden on the sole principle of daring to defy feminist tenets (which in case you didn’t know, has an almost religious ideological status within Nordic nations.)

Political correctness appears to be a euphemism for “views, opinions, beliefs and language use which fall within a spectrum of pre-determined institutional acceptability.” The recent changes to the language, such as calling normal people “cis,” is perverse ominous nonsense with emphatically Orwellian undertones. Like the fictional language of newspeak, it is what happens when ideology attempts to hijack language in order to make it comply with its narrative. In light of this, one should endeavour to read Nineteen Eighty Four as well as another of Orwell’s texts, Animal Farm. If you read either text before discovering the red pill, read them again for an enhanced perspective.

Orwell’s dystopian fiction warned us that the cultural calamities of today would come to pass; a cursory glance at the moral decay of the Roman empire would likewise have informed us feminism is symptomatic, if not a cause of decline. Orwell’s writings were, and are, incredibly prophetic; which is why as a man who rarely reads fiction, Orwell is one of the few fiction authors I ever recommend to anyone in good faith. As much of the theme of this article is Orwellian in nature, it seems only right to end with another succinct pearl of wisdom from the man himself.

“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” – George Orwell



9.) Relevant Reading:

Buy “Nineteen Eighty Four” in the USA

Buy “Nineteen Eighty Four” in the UK

Buy “Nineteen Eighty Four” in Canada

Buy “Animal Farm” in the USA

Buy “Animal Farm” in the UK

Buy “Animal Farm” in Canada



Also, as it is out of print and impossible to buy, check out the PDF of “The Fate of Empires and Search for Survival” by Sir John Glubb – a brief, but nevertheless compelling read on the life cycle of civilization.