TRP.RED: Home | Blogs - Forums.RED: ALL | TheRedPill | RedPillWomen | AskTRP | thankTRP | OffTopic
Hot New Old TopControversial
Login or Register
321
- Hide Preview | 306 Comments | submitted 8 months ago by aegir98 [Post Locked]

The Welfare State & government policies that favor women through involuntary taxation of men is the root enabler of the high promiscuity among the modern western woman.

When the State takes care of women's need for financial stability & security, through the taxation of stable & secure men, women are free to indulge in their darwinian alpha fucks desires.

Prior to these male-exploiting government policies, women had to be more chaste. In a state of freedom, women have to be more chaste. Because they know, that a man is the sole protector and provider when they're disabled being pregnant and or breastfeeding. That no man is gonna want to commit, or have kids, with a courtesan who cant cross her legs. Let alone pour recourses into kids that might not be his own.

Women have evolved to choose good, stable "beta" providers. Because throughout human history, there has never been a welfare state to save them from their bad sexual desicions.

So today, in western society, we have a situation where the stable, secure betas are tax slaves for women and the state. So that Women in their prime fertility years can ride the cock carousel with the top 20% of men, only to then turn 29 about to hit the wall they and sadly settle with some boring beta provider.

This is unsustainable. And most importantly, completely immoral, mainly because it relies upon the involuntary taxation of hard working (usually) betas. Betas are gradually waking up to this scam. Hence the rise of mgtow and incels for example.

We innately know society is degenerating because of this. Hence the quote; "enjoy the decline".

What do you think about this? Sure, fucking a lot of women or men is a fun novelty. But it's not what builds societies & civilizations. The third party called "The State" distorts sexual relations in society for the worse.

I know TRP is amoral sexual strategy, but im sure many of you long for the strong sexual bonds and relationships people had prior to the sexual revolution. A nuclear family.

Casual sex gets tiring for men, and leaves womens ability to bond with a man destroyed. They get their infamous thousand cock stare. Its unsettling.

Remove the forced transfers of money through the state, and a natural, stable order between the sexes will occour. If not, we will continue to destroy the fabric of civilized society, which is the nuclear family. We will "enjoy the decline", live out our nihilstic hedonism, and leave future generations to deal with the consequenses of our selfish desires.

[-] TheRedPillMonkey 368 Points 8 months ago

Lots of men fucked lots of women well before your mom fucked your dad. In all societies, all over time.

If you think that the cock carousel exists because of taxes, you're insane. That's some real blue pill bull shit right there trying to take the responsibility of ones choices away from women. Do you even know what the state pays for?

Also, how are beta men the tax payers here? Lots of tax paying alphas out there.

Or are you saying beta men marrying women are paying the real tax? If so, how the fuck does that relate to actual government taxes?

[-] mytrillosophy 176 Points 8 months ago

Half the people here believe being alpha is like having anti social personality disorder where you live on the edge and act like a caveman and don’t work

[-] [deleted] 45 Points 8 months ago

Haha yeah that or just being a 24/7 dick head who's generally unpleasant to be around.

[-] Xombieshovel 45 Points 8 months ago

The old timers around here will remember when this community was more concerned with self-improvement and the internalities of being a man. It was about being the best person you could be, to all the people you could be, most importantly towards yourself.

These days it's shitty articles and whiny bullcrap about some terrible thing that some woman far away did to some man, not one of which you will ever know in a situation that you're unlikely to ever personally encounter.

Enough of that and it's no wonder how we went from "You can work out to help your confidence levels" to the OP. The word "Alpha" wasn't even a thing when I first started coming here.

This used to be a pro-men place. Now it's just anti-everything-else.

[-] noodlyjames 7 Points 8 months ago

Yeah, I hardly bother to show up anymore. This sub has turned into a joke, full of victims. No one cares about making themselves better.

[-] Xombieshovel 12 Points 8 months ago

Victims is a good way to put it. There's no personal responsibility here anymore. Just a bunch of angry men looking for someone to blame for their problems so they latch onto health insurance covering birth control or somebody else's messy divorce a thousand miles away.

"My life is so terrible because women (and the welfare state per OP)!"

What happened to finding your center of happiness? Finding your own place of strength? Being a man, to me, always meant standing strong in the face of adversity - avoiding the easy pitfalls of misogyny, racism, and hate; but that's all I see here these days, weak men who chose what's easy, instead of what's hard, asking what you can do to improve your life.

[-] noodlyjames 3 Points 8 months ago

And you hit the nail on the head...it’s turned into a bunch of racist incel misogynists.

[-] barb9212 5 Points 8 months ago

Honestly I have noticed how this sub has changed ever since the incel reddit got shutdown. Men blaming everything in world for there problems, What ever happened to " Don't wish it was easier, wish you were better". A lot of subcribers need to read the sidebar and the reading list before they go on some nonsensical rant.

[-] [deleted] 8 months ago
[-] BewareTheOldMan 1 Point 8 months ago

"My life is so terrible because women (and the welfare state per OP)!"

The shortest and the easiest answer (a la Occam's Razor) is NEVER offer commitment or marriage to a known slut or women who have a penchant for dirtbags and losers. Avoid Single Mothers, emotionally damaged harpies, hardcore feminists, and any other woman who will ruin your life.

When you eliminate the riff-raff and trash women, you'll find that gem of a woman you're looking for in life.

Be the better/best man who ALWAYS strives to be at the top of his game. By doing this, it's easier to vet for quality women. It comes much easier when you focus on yourself versus worrying about what women are doing.

[-] Seoul_Brother 7 Points 8 months ago

I’ve found myself writing up a reply or comment after not having been on sub for months, only to erase it and not bother. Your comment and the ones above it are literally my thoughts exactly. TRP has become a safe haven for degenerates to spout shit online about hating this and shitting on that and barely anything about self internalization. Maybe one good post here or there, but that’s also why I don’t frequent anymore. The sidebar is enough, the gilded posts are enough.

[-] barb9212 3 Points 8 months ago

Exactly my thoughts too. I hate censorship but the mods have to remove some of these posts or at least put a comment with the disclaimer *This is not TRP principles*

[-] alvichm 3 Points 8 months ago

Where did they go? the legitimate self improvement community?

[-] [deleted] 8 months ago
[-] ollie555 1 Point 8 months ago

Too many blue pillers wanting reassurance that their girl isn’t cheating

[-] dimmy666 0 Points 8 months ago

You have got to be shitting me. I've been here for five years, it's ALWAYS been about sexual strategy. In fact, it's a fucking testament to the efforts of RPS and the mods, that the focus of this community has stayed the same for so long.

This used to be a pro-men place. Now it's just anti-everything-else.

You're missing the goddamn forest for the trees.

[-] Xombieshovel 1 Point 8 months ago

I never even mentioned sexual strategy. The hell are you talking about?

[-] Skyhawk_And_Skyhead 10 Points 8 months ago

I'm going to teach everyone to be alpha without so much as having heard of the sidebar

[-] [deleted] 8 months ago
[-] CopperFox3c 77 Points 8 months ago

This is the correct response, but I'm gone add a little bit.

Yes women will always advocate for more wealth redistribution. They have done so repeatedly through history, through cultures, through civilizations. Hell even female chimpanzees do it through social persuasion. Sometimes they will fuck around more too to get male resources. It is human nature for women to act this way.

So it doesn't matter if it's the government, or the welfare state, or social persuasion, or whatever. The problem OP has is he is trying to fight human nature. The whole point of TRP is to accept reality for what it is, not demand it be what you wish it should be. There are no shoulds here. The real question for a TRP man is how to effectively navigate his environment, not bitch and moan.

Those who see reality for what it is, can bend it to their will … those who see only illusion, are bent to its will.

[-] [deleted] 8 months ago
[-] CopperFox3c 11 Points 8 months ago

If you want to move a lot of water, like a river, somewhere else, the best way to do so is to channel it, to use its own nature and momentum against it. Like Aikido or Judo. Fighting against the tide is not the smartest tactic.

I think /u/JamesSkepp and/u/KeffirLime are making similar points.

[-] pottpottpott 1 Point 7 months ago

Aikido is an absolute meme sport and anyone that mentions it can be disregarded as brainlet.

You're probably a better off as an untrained fighter than learning aikido tbh.

[-] JamesSkepp 7 Points 8 months ago

you'll have female daughters and granddaughters who become depressed and damaged whores before 16; have sons and grandsons who are video game playing wageslaves that choose to literally castrate themselves.

That's on the parents, not society. Half of TRP is here b/c of we had beta fathers or no fathers at all. IOW since it's your child you're responsible for it. Since it's you who doesn't want your daughter to become underage whore it's YOUR responsibility to raise her in certain way. If I have a dog and it barks too much, who's fault is that, other barking dogs or mine?

Or it could end up a communist/fascist dystopia.

Or we could end up in no dystopia at all.

there won't be a future.

Not exactly like that. More along the lines of: there won't be a future WE would like to see. Since it's hard to predict, we default to what we think is best b/c it was good for us. Do you think a 16th century French aristocrat would condemn or condone our 21st century future? For him, this future is bad b/c there is no aristocracy anymore.

It's not impossible to do, we did it for thousands of years, the muslims are doing it now, the hindus are still doing it; the game can be changed.

You can't have pluralistic society, in which you are free to have any opinion you want without letting all of the people make individual choices. Let's do a hard patriarchy society for example. The next (sooner or later) thing that's going to follow is YOUR rights b/c once you take away the women's voices, you also have to take away men's voices who agree with women. Then you have to take the voices of men who agree that the men supporting women have the right to an opinion. And so forth.

Historically, you can't deny people the right to speak without going into downward spiral and ending up with totalitarian regime (can be secular or religious, no difference there). If that's the case, the why don't we just implement a regime of our own, in which we, from the get go, forbid to have a dissenting opinion at all.

Now, here's the plot twist: what I described is actually already happening - to us and I just copy/pasted (to the best of my logical ability) typical alt-right's and anti-PC's and conservative's arguments that describe how they are being censored by left and MSM, more and more so. Fun times huh?

Women are too important to be allowed to have sexual freedom

If you take away women's sexual freedom, we don't need TRP, we don't need to be alpha, we don't need to lift, read, game, work, in fact we don't need to do ANYTHING other than forcing women to fuck us.

Another thing, it's not sexual freedom of people, it's how society was built upon relying on it and now it can't handle the dissonance between keeping that sexual base and the distance between that and technological progress we are making.

They cannot be allowed to damage our genetic stock

Irrelevant in next few decades, perhaps even sooner. There'll be an app for that too. No joke.

or kill off their races through their rampant solipsism and disloyalty

Right, so women choosing the African or Middle East immigrant over European white guy is to be blamed here. Not the European white guy for not being better than the African guy. IOW, it's the woman's fault for choosing the shithole born, raised, malnutricioned, no education, no skills, no deeper understanding, no gameplan dude over the Westerner who had AMPLE opportunities and resources to become the alpha she would go for? Funny how in the next paragraph you talk about what men "should" be.

[-] itiswr1tten 2 Points 8 months ago

The world is not getting worse. Everyone's information stream just improved so fast we're still processing. Ignorance was a really nice condition, but it's no longer the case.

[-] Sexquestionhelp22 2 Points 8 months ago

The very fact that we have online communities like this, or really an internet at all, could surely be viewed as either utopian or dystopian by standards of previous societies. I don't believe that discussing utopia or dystopia is particularly useful, because these words imply that some outcomes are objectively good and other outcomes are objectively bad. In reality, there is no good. There is no bad. There just is. We are in uncharted territory here, and the world is accelerating and breakneck pace. Traditional families are breaking down and it's not clear what will be the result.

[-] KeffirLime 6 Points 8 months ago

But what he's arguing is that there won't be a society in the next century if all we do is "learn to navigate" the current one and "enjoy the decline".

It's seriously uncharted waters we're heading into, and I think there is a couple ways to view it.

Enjoy the decline is misused in my view, I see it more as "navigate the changes effectively", on an individal level. Every generation seems to think the new (different) world is a decline. However, change is constant, we only see it as decline because we're not as equipped to handle it as we were to handle our time.

We're in the most peaceful, healthy time in our history. Happiness levels is where our challenge lies.

We can't go back to the old rules because the game has changed. To add onto this contraceptives has completely blown biology out of the water and with it the sexual market changes.

Marriage/societal pressure ware held together by faith. The only thing that inhibits sexual desires is the threat of my livelihood, which is what faith did so effectively. Faith or at least how close we live to scripture is fading more and more. Essentially we would need something that we truly believe endangers our well being to operate on marriages principles.

If we're looking for a direction to continue civil society there's many factors we need to look at. Logically we look at what brings us happiness, what brings down suffering and direct human behavior in that direction. Further on from this is to shame behaviors that damages happiness and increases suffering and we can only do that by voting with our dicks and wallets.

What men allow, women will follow. If we stop procreating, dating and marrying sluts perhaps that would inhibit their sexual nature somewhat, however I doubt it would happen because the betas would have to be on board and that means giving up their only source of pussy.

Perhaps the Alpha fucks Beta bucks model will settle in a few generations. Happy Alphas who get to fuck and choose the women they want. And Happy betas who get to settle(and fuck(for procreation)) the post wall ones passed up by the alphas. I think biology latches on to what system allows the most successful passing of genetic material.

The challenge society currently is that it's not directed by happiness and fulfillment, it is directed by profit. The agenda that get's pushed is the agenda that generates $$.

Or perhaps we should come to terms that life has the propensity to be finite and maybe humans can't possibly be here till end of time. We're all individuals that make up the whole and perhaps driving each of us to enjoy that individualism(that makes up the whole) to the max is best. We each play our part and if we die out at some point then so be it, the next phase goes on without us. We try so hard to hold on to life, yet change is the only constant who's to say the fate of human's isn't the same.

It's an interesting topic and the course of action(depending on our end goal) is certainly up for debate. Perhaps the world is so different 10 years from now and we have to entirely re engineer our goals once again. I think navigating the market as effectively as possible will always be relevant though.

[-] j_arbuckle2012 7 Points 8 months ago

This stinks of defeatism.

The truest words in that post are "what men allow, women will will follow."

The rest is just a giant hamster on your own nihilism.

The SMP has always been unbalanced. Women have way more "worth" than men. The problem now is they also have massive safety nets to save them from their own bad decision making. A simple return to equity in this regard would more than likely kill much of the doom n gloom we see here. Take away welfare, birth control, and hiring quotas. What happens?

[-] KeffirLime 4 Points 8 months ago

This stinks of defeatism.

I don't think understanding that there is challenges(and uncertainty) that face us and managing expectations accordingly qualifies as defeatism.

Women have way more "worth" than men

Men have engineered their own worthlessness. At the end of the day we will always need each other to keep this ship sailing. As a top 20% man you have plenty worth and can direct society/women's beavior accordingly.

Take away welfare, birth control

Logically, how would you do this?

Cant just put the genie back in the bottle, not to mention the birth control is a for profit tool.

In an increasingly automated world taking away welfare would lead to widespread poverty. An impoverished, desperate society is not exactly the path to peace and prosperity.

On top of that calculate how many women are actually surviving on welfare? You really gonna blame that for a womens hypergamy?

[-] sky_fallen 1 Point 8 months ago
  • men have *been engineered to be worthless

​

[-] KeffirLime 1 Point 8 months ago

Men invented the birth control, men were the instigators of war, men were the forces behind allowing women to enjoy the current market today.

[-] sky_fallen 2 Points 8 months ago

Two great wars to kill off the bravest and strongest. Endocrine disruptors and other poisons everywhere.

[-] Mayhzon 1 Point 8 months ago

So I read a little up about Endocrine Disruptors. This is some diabolical shit. Are there any other pointers you can give me as to what avoid in the future for my own well-being and that of relatives?

[-] LiveAFTSOV 5 Points 8 months ago

The challenge society currently is that it's not directed by happiness and fulfillment, it is directed by profit. The agenda that get's pushed is the agenda that generates $$.

Happiness is a choice. Freedom and fulfillment, however, that is definitely lacking.

[-] Sexquestionhelp22 3 Points 8 months ago

Exactly, and government decisions have real impact on decisions that women (and men) make. Imagine if the government said that it would pay single mothers a $10,000 a month. You would see a hell of a lot more single mothers! This same effect happens with even hundreds of dollars - exact same economic effect on a micro-scale. FYI - you can measure increases in single motherhood across many countries due to these types of programs

[-] xrorox_rp 2 Points 8 months ago

Sexual degenaracy destroying civilisations is just a myth. Or at least, it is too slow to destroy civilisations before other systemic problems do the job.

What's important is the ability to raise healthy children. Marriage is a broken thing that should be destroyed. Nothing stop you from keeping children and romantic love (or plates) apart.

That's the fucking issue with modern marriage. And that's also probably why we see a rise in co-parents. That could be a RedPill adaptation, as long as you are absolutely certain that the children are yours. The best case scenario would be co-parenting with a couple of lesbians.

[-] LiveAFTSOV 2 Points 8 months ago

This is true. But don't pretend like women can't be controlled and their base instincts can't be kept in check through societal measures like shaming, ostracism and even violence. It's not impossible to do, we did it for thousands of years, the muslims are doing it now, the hindus are still doing it; the game can be changed.

You've explained what I've been trying to say for months now. i'm glad someone one out there understands it.

Why play the base animal, chimpanzee rules of the sexual marketplace? Surely we have transcended beyond that. Civilization, society, consciousness is built on overriding our base urges and archetypes and creating our own, dictating our own rules for reality.

Starting to sound like new-age awakening and I believe that leads to the likes of trans-genders and fluid genders and all those other types.

Men can, have done and need to control the sexual selection process.

Everything is always about control. I value freedom above everything - wouldn't a women build resentment because of this control, leading to an implosion like the recent sexual revolution?

[-] 187oddfuture 1 Point 8 months ago

Or just take the vote from them and we solve all of these problems.

[-] Luckyluke23 14 Points 8 months ago

of come to realise a lot of stuff in TRP just is. like a square metal cube. it's just sit there does it's thing and thats that.

trying to move it or bend it into a perfect circle will not work. all atempts at it will be futile.

[-] [deleted] -1 Point 8 months ago

[deleted]

[-] Luckyluke23 1 Point 8 months ago

probs. but thats not the point i was making.

[-] BoilingBleach 6 Points 8 months ago

This looks a bit too Peterson for my taste.

He needs to make that redistribution argument to justify the Marxist tone of Feminism, not sure I agree.

In fact Marxism as wring as it obviously is at least realizes there is a hidden layer of social norms preventing the true expression of mankind.

I that sense maybe we are Marxist? (JK)

Anyway I see woman pretty feral with other women about their kids and their alphas, and many men with passion for sharing what they know through stories and what not. So smells like shit to me

[-] BackandStronger 3 Points 8 months ago

"Yes women will always advocate for more wealth redistribution. They have done so repeatedly through history, through cultures, through civilizations. Hell even female chimpanzees do it through social persuasion. Sometimes they will fuck around more too to get male resources. It is human nature for women to act this way."

Any source material on this? Thanks bro

[-] CopperFox3c 4 Points 8 months ago

Not gonna do your google searching for you, but a couple examples: look at the later era of the Roman empire after Julius Caesar and women advocating for changes to property law and divorce.

For chimps, you can look up the work of Frans de Waal for starters, e.g. his book Chimpanzee Politics: Power and Sex among Apes.

[-] BatemaninAccounting 1 Point 8 months ago

When have men not advocated for wealth redistribution? If you look at the politics and economics involved in roman, chinese, babylonian, etc. societies you see it was focused heavily on taxation for the benefit of the few.

[-] LiveAFTSOV 1 Point 8 months ago

what aspect of nature is OP fighting against? Women's natural advocation of wealth redistribution ?

[-] Fryborg 45 Points 8 months ago

He said the cock carousel behavior is enabled by taxes that get spent on welfare for single mothers. And he's right. The hypergamy instinct doesn't go away when you remove welfare, but the opportunities to put it to good use will be few and far between when one misstep consigns you to a life of poverty and misery.

Beta males pay the lions share of taxes in the male population. remember the 80/20 rule? Men pay the most taxes in general, and 1 in 5 of them are beta males. do the math. *) percent of man in western society are literally being cucked.

I'm obviously not OP, but it isn't bluepill to point out the contributing environmental factors that bring out hypergamy. I don't know why you think it would be useful to try and heap any of the responsibility for this on women anyway. they aren't having it. It really is just a matter of cause and effect.

Satisfy the beta need with the state and the only guys getting laid will be alpha's. Anyone who has read the sidebar should be picking this up easily.

[-] SasquatchMcKraken 9 Points 8 months ago

The welfare state doesn't enable hypergamy. Hypergamy can only be stopped by societal and legal pressures to limit branch swinging. You could take away the welfare state tomorrow and still not change the SMP. You'll still have the loose divorce laws, the technology-enabled thirst-fest, things like the pill (don't have to worry about pregnancy), and an anti-masculine feminist movement. I don't know where people get this notion that single mothers on food stamps are driving the current trends. Also, 80/20 is an attractiveness scale, not an Alpha/Beta scale (not the same thing). And I don't know where your tax contributions even remotely tie in to whether or not you're blue pill in your dealings with women. That is a fucked correlation. You might as well say introverts or people with brown hair pay most of the taxes; it'd be just as irrelevant.

[-] lala_xyyz 14 Points 8 months ago

The welfare state doesn't enable hypergamy.

Yes it does. The poorer the country the less "open hypergamy" there is.

[-] plenty_of_eesh 6 Points 8 months ago

I'm not sure this is true. Have you lived in a poor country? Maybe there are more consequences for sex but in my experience women still fuck whom they feel like and she (and her family, and the the community) simply live with the consequences: unwanted pregnancy, single motherhood...

I'd say that some cultures/religions reduce that via mate-guarding violence (Islam) but it's not about GDP.

[-] lala_xyyz 0 Points 8 months ago

That's a modern phenomenon, because today's "poor" are actually quite rich by the standards of one or two generations ago. Before whoring around with supicious men and bearing children out of wedlock was not tolerated.

[-] SasquatchMcKraken 1 Point 8 months ago

What does it matter if the hypergamy is open or not? That's like trying to correlate the crime rate with the conviction rate without any context? Doesn't make much difference for the victims.

[-] lala_xyyz 1 Point 8 months ago

It doesn't, but the effects are worse. Ironically during controlled hypergamy in the marriage of old men were more aware of it than they are now when it's in the open, because brainwashing is in schools and media (not to mention drugs given to children though food, water and medicine) is harsher.

[-] [deleted] 8 months ago
[-] thenewmanintown 1 Point 7 months ago

I have two questions.

1-Which country is this?

2-When this policy has started?

[-] [deleted] 8 months ago
[-] Turkerthelurker 2 Points 8 months ago

The welfare state doesn't enable hypergamy.

Women only branch swing (ie Hypergamy) when they firmly have their hand on the next branch, and can reasonably risk switching partners. The welfare state reduces the risk of a failed branch swing, making it more likely. And that's just welfare. Alimony and child support work in the same detrimental way.

[-] SasquatchMcKraken 1 Point 8 months ago

Not really. You make a tactical decision sound strategic. It isn't. It's about status and immediate tingles. Child support certainly helps in the decision making. Unemployment benefits do not.

[-] FractalNerve 1 Point 8 months ago

Haha you got him. "Insecure beta insists government doesn't help the helpless, so he can bottom feed and get back loyalty for nothing but just providing. And falsely thinks he's the only one loosing his 'hard earned' money via taxes to hot food stampers who still wanna ride chad."

This was harsh, I am sorry. It is absolutely not personal. Just putting perspective provocantly, because sometimes you need anger to think things through from all sides.

Social Security indeed does make woman more promiscuous. Yes, subjectively so, but I have no studies, nor do you. Let's face it. Blame shifting to the government in a situation where you have no chance to change things is worthless. We aren't Amish or 1800 century people anymore. Accept this and learn to love woman the shitty broken way they can be. You might find one that is totally different from the mean.

[-] TheRedPillMonkey 5 Points 8 months ago

I'm obviously not OP, but it isn't bluepill to point out the contributing environmental factors that bring out hypergamy.

No, it's blue pill to think their are contributing factors period. Hypergamy occurs naturally in women in the same way a sex drive occurs naturally in men. We'll always want to fuck light and tight 22 year olds regardless of our age, in the same way women always want the highest smv male they can find. Society or the government doesn't dictate, control, contribute, or influence that.

The government mandates seatbelts and airbags. Do you drive more recklessly because of it? Most countries have free healthcare. Do people engage in more high risk behaviour because of it? Women having access to abortion doesn't mean they want abortions. It's a pretty massive thing on their body, and them mentally. They all know it and they're not banging more dudes cuz "oh well abortion" in the same way I'm not driving recklessly because "oh well airbags".

Also, this is TRP. You really think anybody here thinks women don't mind having kids because the government will pay for them? This is the land of the divorce raped. How many guys here aren't paying child support because the government is? None. How many have exes getting money from the government? None.

The truth is the government doesn't do a shit load for single mom's. Thats because the baby dad is footing the bill. The only role the government plays is allowing the men to pay more support than the mom.

[-] Turkerthelurker 1 Point 8 months ago

No, it's blue pill to think their are contributing factors period. Hypergamy occurs naturally in women in the same way a sex drive occurs naturally in men.

By "bring out hypergamy" he means that factors, such as the welfare state, increase the likelihood of acting on their hypergamy. That actions like shame and ostracizing can curb that innate behavior.

No, it's blue pill to think their are contributing factors period.

So no, there are definitely contributing factors. Do you think the women covered in head to toe in the middle east are branch swinging when they can face death for the slightest misstep? Yes, hypergamy is a natural imperative, but it's delusional to say other factors don't play a role in it.

[-] Zanford 9 Points 8 months ago

The welfare state amplifies these things. The CC existed before, sure, but not at the same amplitude in every place and time.

[-] lastdumra 6 Points 8 months ago

It is a matter of degree. Women were more careful and discreet with their impulses when there was no daddy government. He has a point.

[-] TomSelleckPI 0 Points 8 months ago

Women were more careful and discreet when they weren't supposed to show off their ankles...

This has nothing to do with taxes.

[-] lastdumra 10 Points 8 months ago

Yes it does. You guys are being obtuse because reality is contradicting your ideology and you refuse to accept it.

Women accepted being chaste, whatever that meant in each society (like not showing ankles in some), because it was a way to increase their marriage desirability for men (or at least pretend), so they could access the protection having a man offers. When they don't need the protection of marriage that much because they have daddy government, they don't have to try (or pretend) so hard and increase their value towards marriage.

They become more fixated on getting that alpha seed since they feel safe enough already and reject more and more the rules for pleasing betas. Hence the more overt sexualization.

Is government assistance the only reason this is happening? No, but it is one of the important parts of it. Does this mean women in the past were perfect loyal wives? Hell no, but a higher percentage were, and even the ones cheating were more covert and careful about it. But yes, women were still hypergamous and men got fooled a lot too. Still, not so much as today. Are the tradcons being naive about how well behaved were women in past societies? Absolutely, but they still have a point.

And yes, I can see how this pops the bubble of a lot of people here, that's another red pill for you to swallow. Or you can ignore this part of reality. Your choice.

[-] Turkerthelurker 3 Points 8 months ago

You guys are being obtuse because reality is contradicting your ideology and you refuse to accept it.

It really does seem like a lot of commenters are either intentionally obtuse, or so unable to think critically that to call themselves "redpilled" must be hyperbole.

There's a huge cognitive dissonance issue that arises from TRP:

  • Enjoy the decline, accept things as they are.
  • But also, a man is self-reliant. The only way to get better (at anything. Gaming women, fitness, etc.) is to shoulder the blame yourself, and work on improvement.

Women and children behave as they are allowed to. They test limits in search for boundries and authority. So it would go to reason that the only way men can improve society is to first take the blame for current conditions on themselves, as a necessary first step to saving western civilization.

[-] BoilingBleach 5 Points 8 months ago

Thanks for saying this, is so annoying to see blue pills trying to weaponize TRP for right wing agenda.

I you want to give Trump or any politician head you can do it without this community

[-] xddm2653 3 Points 8 months ago

State pays for abortions and all kinds of birth control. Allowing women to fuck with no consequence at the cost of tax-payers

*Downvotes and no response?

[-] ColdIceZero 15 Points 8 months ago

Ok, I'll bite. What's the cost of an abortion (both for the taxpayer and for the patient)? Next, assuming we stop contributing to abortions, what's the cost of the state providing resources to support an unwanted child for the rest of its life?

The biggest RP truth is that women are going to have sex. If you think women are stupid for doing this, then you miss the point of TRP.

TRP isn't about being angry about your cat knocking shit off your counter tops; TRP is about realizing that it's in a cat's nature to knock shit off the counter tops and then adjust your expectations accordingly.

Similarly, thinking "women who behave like stupid whores deserve to be punished" is a beta mindset, judging women according to beta values that women should behave differently than their nature.

So women are going to have sex. That isn't going to change.

And sometimes, women are going to get pregnant. That isn't going to change either.

So we can spend resources to prevent pregnancies through birth control and sex education, and we can subsidize abortion for women who aren't prepared to support a child.

The alternative is to allow children to be born into a world where their parents don't always have the resources to support them. Then, society is on the hook for supporting that child.

Now which option do you think is the lesser expense?

And for you unempathetic savages who are thinking "fuck that, my taxes shouldn't go to support either option," go spend 35 seconds on Google researching "income inequality and crime" and "crime and social stability." These kids don't just conveniently disappear.

Some ppl want all of the benefits of living in a safe and stable society, but they want to contribute to none of the costs.

Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society.

-Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., Supreme Court Justice and overall badass who was shot multiple times during the Civil War, including through his neck, and lived to the age of 94 with 3 bullets still in his body.

[-] lala_xyyz 5 Points 8 months ago

And for you unempathetic savages who are thinking "fuck that, my taxes shouldn't go to support either option," go spend 35 seconds on Google researching "income inequality and crime" and "crime and social stability." These kids don't just conveniently disappear.

Correlation does not imply causation. You have shitload of inequality and crime in modern Western welfare countries, it's just that it's conveniently hidden as a massive taxation, inflation, inability to buy a home or save money, subsidies for corporations, MIC, gynocracy etc., instead of being openly robbed on the street or beheaded by a gang member. It's better to be "safe" and give more than half of your income for "protection" than live on your own terms heh? Pathetic.

[-] JamesSkepp 5 Points 8 months ago

Correlation does not imply causation.

In this case, the causation is clear. The unaborted foetuses that became the children of single mothers living in poor neighbourhoods are the main source of criminals for which the everyone has to pay for the second (or third, if we count in medicare for them and their victims) time when they get to prison.

[-] lala_xyyz 0 Points 8 months ago

We don't have to pay for anything. We do because it's the law, and it's a law because womyn vote for welfare and wet their pants for felons. In the developing world criminals don't get pampered and the only medical care they get is shitty food and basic life support.

[-] JamesSkepp 3 Points 8 months ago

You do realize taxes existed before "wimmz voted for left in 60's and 70's"? Furthermore you do realize that taxes existed before "wimminz were allowed to vote"? You also realize that taxes existed even in patriarchal societies before modern civilisation?

[-] lala_xyyz 0 Points 8 months ago

Of course, but they were tiny. Today in Europe you are taxed more than 100% on labor, far more than it makes economic sense. The only reason why taxes are so high is because two third of population (women, old, children and social dregs) are budgetary parasites. Even in the US what, 60% of budget is spent on social services. Women are natural socialists, and welfare is the primary enabler of open hypergamy.

[-] JamesSkepp 2 Points 8 months ago

Even in the US what, 60% of budget is spent on social services.

FYI "social services" compromises of MUCH more than single mothers. The primary source of single mothers welfare is TNFI (or something like that), total cash spent on that is around 0,5% of entire budget.

welfare is the primary enabler of open hypergamy.

Let's do some guesstimation. The number of people in US is around 330mil. Out of that, 165mil are women. Out of that, 10 million are single mothers. 15% of them receive cash welfare. IOW 1,5mil women receive welfare. Let's broaden the category, 50% of single mothers receive food stamps, that's 5 million women.

According to your theory (the better version) 5mil women (out of 165 total) is responsible for hypergamy in society. IOW we have hypergamy rampant b/c 3% of women in US receive welfare. Does that sound as a reasonable explanation?

[-] lala_xyyz 1 Point 8 months ago

Single moms don't invalidate the point. It's a wealth transfer from those who work to those who don't. Single mothers are irrelevant since even "working" women are net beneficiaries in tax terms, directly or indirectly. I put working in quotation marks since in almost every developed country approximately two thirds those working for the government are women.

Now that you mention them in your retarded stastics - it's only relevant to discuss them as a demographic in the reproductive, child bearing age. In all developed countries 50-60% percent of women in the reproductive age don't even have children, and of those who do how much are single momhood households? I've just looked up statistics, for blacks in the US where hypegamy is the most developed it's more than 75%. If those women and their children were starving they wouldn't let themselves be knocked up. That is the "endgame" of you welfare - women supported by "society" (in practice it's mostly young working men in the real sector, low on the alpha totem pole) making "mistakes" with baby daddies since they are too dumb and devolved to select for genes that are best suited for modern economies.

[-] RedHeimdall 2 Points 8 months ago

according to beta values ... women should behave differently than their nature

All great civilizations that have ever existed have forced women to behave differently than their natures. This of course includes Western Civilization, which did so up until relatively recently.

It's "in my nature," and yours, to shit in my pants and not be able to read or write. But thankfully my society forced me to learn to go against my nature in these regards.

It's vitally important that we know what nature is, but we don't have to accept that people be allowed to act however they want just because it comes naturally to them.

[-] xddm2653 -1 Point 8 months ago

So women should have no consequence to reckless sex and getting knocked up? It should simply be fixed each and every time she messes up? No accountability?

I don't care if one option is cheaper. It's the principle. The argument is akin to giving welfare to people who make poor choices. Imagine if men were given the option to pass on child support due to Not being ready, or they were young and inexperienced and the government should pay it instead. Sounds ridiculous right

[-] KeffirLime 6 Points 8 months ago

This is quite a complex issue.

So women should have no consequence to reckless sex and getting knocked up?

It should simply be fixed each and every time she messes up? No accountability?

You're not wrong in your thinking, by supposed equality standards men and women should be treated equal, but even if men were given the same it would't change anything purely based on sexual strategy, 80/20 principle. There will always be some beta to pick up the bill, and if not that worst case welfare will. And if you start taking welfare (from men and women) away then a whole host of problems arise as u/ColdIceZero said. Increasingly so as we head to a more automated Society.

The only way you would see change is if all men disassociate with these types of women. It will have a large scale impact and dis-incentivize certain behavior. If all men stopped knocking up sluts, marrying sluts, dating sluts then there would be an incentive to control certain behaviors(not: not stop sleeping with). The consequences will have to be imposed by each individual man. If each indivdual man sets his boundaries then each individual women would have to adjust her behavior accordingly.

Women will always operate to the maximum leeway they can.(Why wouldn't they?)

Men vote with their dicks and wallets, thats how they evoke change. But that's essentially asking beta's to opt out of relationships/marriage, which would be their only source of pussy(AF/BB, essentially pick up Alphas scraps), and even more so asking betas to opt out of their biological desire to stick their stick in something(procreate), which I don't see happening, so they will never join the movement and in a free market(where we are/heading) there will always be a hierarchical structure(some Alphas, more betas). And as long as women still get to fuck Alphas around with some billy beta picking up the tab it will never stop.

TRP is not exactly a global movement fighting for mens rights. It's a movement for the individual.

TRP is saying how it is, adjust your behavior accordingly to benefit you. Don't be the beta picking up the tab, rather be the be the Alpha who has a veriety of options.

[-] LiveAFTSOV 3 Points 8 months ago

Men vote with their dicks and wallets... but that's essentially asking beta's to opt out of relationships/marriage, which would be their only source of pussy(AF/BB, essentially pick up Alphas scraps), and even more so asking betas to opt out of their biological desire to stick their stick in something(procreate), which I don't see happening, so they will never join the movement

They created their own movements. Incel - MGTOW - they're already opting out. Even if all betas gave up pussy and procreation - women are still gonna slut it up with Chad. That's the reality. So MGTOW, Incel - those movements are pointless endeavours. Better to take a personal stand and become Chad in your own world.

[-] KeffirLime 1 Point 8 months ago

They’ve got their movement, however these movements need to work in tandem with the alphas.

If Alphas start abstaining from interacting with certain women, there is a hole left. Women will be left with a void to fill and in this instance will grasp at what’s available.

Most sexless incels and MGTOWS would come out of hiding in this event and sieze their opportunity to get the desperate women on offer.

A women is will go for the best of her available options and if alphas make themselves unavailable they will simply work their way down the list to what is available.

Therefore to evoke true change, alpha’s and betas would have to abstain together which is a very difficult ask.

[-] xddm2653 2 Points 8 months ago

All I know is: Trump is defunding planned parenthood and I support him completely.

[-] itiswr1tten 0 Points 8 months ago

The short version is "control is a bluepill". Why do you think there are multiple movements spawned by TRP that exist solely to try to silence it? Because it's rooted in an obsession with control.

This guy is a faggot because he wants to control women. If he could see the light and be adaptable rather than controlling, his whole life would change.

[-] xddm2653 1 Point 8 months ago

This guy is a faggot because he wants to control women

Because I don't want my taxes to fund abortions?

[-] dunedain441 3 Points 8 months ago

Its funny, your example in the second paragraph is about the guy who would get fucked over by child support because the chick couldn't get an abortion.

[-] xddm2653 2 Points 8 months ago

it's funny that I advocate personal accountability, regardless of gender?

[-] JamesSkepp 6 Points 8 months ago

It is, b/c you're demanding personal accountability from women, who decide whether to fuck someone based on the feelings they have in that moment.

[-] xddm2653 1 Point 8 months ago

That's not a legal argument though. Unless you're saying women should have leniency under the law and be given more pussy passes

[-] dunedain441 1 Point 8 months ago

Just because you can punish people doesn't mean it will change their behavior or make things better for anyone. I'd rather just deal with it and persuade people to do the right thing than be punitive and get no benefits

[-] JamesSkepp 2 Points 8 months ago

You missed the point he was making: sex and pregnancy is going to happen b/c it's impossible to control both. In principle we can predict earthquakes, volcano eruptions and hurricane paths, this means there should be ZERO deaths expected. In practical terms, shit's going to happen, shit you cannot control b/c you would have to control each and every human being on the planet. Nobody has that kind of resources and capabilities.

[-] FractalNerve -2 Point 8 months ago

Are you one of those people who want to forbid condoms, abortions and the pill? Whoa there... Some people just wanna fuck, keep yours unsealed if you insist to "carry" consequences. To me it sounds like someone in the late 20's or 30's who wants a family urgently. But I am not here to judge.

[-] xddm2653 0 Points 8 months ago

Lol idiot. Are you one of the socialists who wants to support drug addicts and all the lowlifes of society?

[-] FractalNerve 0 Points 8 months ago

When I am an idiot, then a M.Sc. Idiot. Don't open Pandora's Box, a one-liner that fixes drug addiction, cartels, low-lifeism all in one shot is not in the free meal. How can I help you? I am not mad, laughed at your response, because it was provocant, tangential and straw man in one. Clearly you can do better than waste time. Sorry, gotta pack my stuff, checking out soon from the hotel :)

[-] SasquatchMcKraken 3 Points 8 months ago

Yeah I'm always skeptical of trying to wed tax policy with sexual strategy. Divorce laws and our degenerate hookup culture have nothing to do with how much the state gives you when you're unemployed. Conservatives won that argument decades ago with welfare reform (just in case you think welfare is bad now). Hence why the Left has switched to SJWism.

[-] Lkeacentipede 1 Point 8 months ago

​

For that response, thanks

​

So he wants us to get less benefits out of our taxes, cause then Mary may fuck a few less guys and something-something-decline-donotenjoyit?

​

The fact that he wishes for higher birth rate from women that could not afford the pill, let alone raising a child without goverment assistance is beyond me

​

Do not confuse politically incorrect with dumb guys, the op did and look what the result was

​

​

[-] llcjer 1 Point 8 months ago

He isn’t disagreeing with your first paragraph. What he is saying is that women suffered negative consequences for their behavior prior to the welfare state, such as social ostracism and being a major financial burden on their families.

Today, with the welfare state, their poor decisions are bailed out by the taxpayer and they are actually hailed as heroes and martyrs instead the of burdens in society that they actually are.

[-] erthian 1 Point 8 months ago

I was just thinking about how our rejection of sjw could be seen as a nod to the far right. Looks like it has.

[-] MarquisDePaid 0 Points 8 months ago

Lots of men fucked lots of women well before your mom fucked your dad. In all societies, all over time.

If you think that the cock carousel exists because of taxes, you're insane.

I always hear neo-marxists trying to push this idea

They do it to shift the blame

It's like saying the vague, all powerful "military industrial complex" is responsible for all wars

Or that "the white capitalist oppressor" is the cause of all misery

They do it to shift the blame so that nobody notices the man behind the curtains pulling the strings, pushing hyper-sexual degeneracy "revolutions"

Neomarxism replaced old Bolshevism, and brought the sexual revolution of the 1960s. Wilhelm Reich, Herbert Marcuse and Paul Goodman replaced Marx, Trotsky and Lenin as required revolutionary reading.

Antifa Ireland advocates early managed sexualization of children to literally prevent fascism, citing Wilhelm Reich

By drawing on the work of Wilhem Reich, who examined the idea of fascism as a symptom of sexual repression, we are taking the 'Reicheann approach' by advocating for the early managed sexualisation of children so as to prevent the formation of any earlier fascist traits.

That is why sexual degeneracy, porn, etc, are promoted 24/7 and have increased so much

Something near monogamy is and has been the sexual norm for Homo sapiens even before agricultural based civilization

Another related feature, and one that appears to be unique to our speices, is the retention of the hymen or maidenhead in the female. In lower mammals it occurs as an embryonic stage in the development of the urogenital system, but as part of the naked ape's neoteny it is retained Its persistence means that the first copulation in the life of the female will meet with some difficulty. When evolution has gone to such lengths to render her as sexually responsive as possible, it is at first sight, strange she should also be equipped with what amounts to an anti-copulatory device. But the situation is not as contradictory as it may appear. By making the first copulation attempt difficult and even painful, the hymen ensures that it will not be indulged in lightly. Clearly during the adolescent phase, there is going to be a period of sexual experimentation, of delaying the field in search of a suitable partner. Young males at this time will have no good reason for stopping short of full copulation If a pair-bond does not form, they have not committed themselves in any way and can move on until they find a suitable mate. But if young females were to go so far without pair-formation, they might very well find themselves pregnant and heading straight towards a parental situation with no partner to accompany them. By putting a partial brake on this trend in the female, the hymen demands that she shall have already developed a deep emotional involvement before taking the final step, an involvement strong enough to take the initial physical discomfort in its stride.

Source for this claim is the book, pg. 82- Desmond Morris' The Naked Ape: A Zoologist's Study of the Human Animal, 1st American ed. , 1967.

Neomarxists try to break down all pre-existing social identities, whether ethnic or gender or cultural

Imagine the neomarxists experimenting on and manipulating the anti-colonial rebels in Algeria via D/C:

I would suggest that Galula’s inconclusive results stem from an obvious error that the French officer made that neither I nor Mathias noticed. I understand it now because I recently spent a lot of time among Berbers in Libya, where tensions with the Arab majority are similar to those in Algeria. Put simply, the Kabyles don’t like the Arabs very much—and the best way to get them to go over to the French side might have been to capitalize on the ethnic, religious, and linguistic tension between the two groups.

There are at least three obvious points of tension between North African Berbers/Amazigh and Arabs.

Take this sort of logic and apply it to male/female gender relations

Create some sites like "Jezebel" to glorify gynocentric mentality and hate to men, then create and support women-hating groups like "incels", then watch the gender norms crash down

[-] Hjalmbere 0 Points 8 months ago

Not before contraceptives they didn’t unless you’re talking about randy feudal lords/slave owners which were few and far between.

[-] TheRedPillMonkey 1 Point 8 months ago

You think sex wasn't a thing outside of slavery, marriage, and contraception? "The oldest profession" is prostitution. Hookers and brothels have existed in the US since its foundation. It is even widely believed that Mary Magdalene in the bible was a former prostitute.

Also, women know when they are ovulating. Ever heard of the term "a bitch in heat"? They know when they can have sex and not likely get pregnant.

Rome as an example was a very promiscuous culture.

Contraception didn't promote more sex, it helped curb the adverse affects of it. Plenty of people having plenty of sex before contraception.

[-] Hjalmbere 1 Point 8 months ago

Promiscuity did exist, but for a number of reasons there was a lot less:

1) Promiscuous women had higher mortality because pregnancies were often lethal. 2) There was no cure for STDs such as syphilis until the 20th century. 3) Before the industrial revolution most people were farmers living in small tight-knit communities with little social or geographical mobility and high levels of social control.

If you think that Roman society or the Middle Ages were like some hippie love-in, you’re way off base.

[-] blaine_freelance 60 Points 8 months ago

This sounds like a lot of over-generalizing.

[-] [deleted] 8 months ago
[-] [deleted] 8 months ago
[-] [deleted] 8 months ago
[-] [deleted] 8 months ago
[-] Ismoketomuch 2 Points 8 months ago

Yea it collapsed after 2.000 years... and his main points are all hyperbole and conjecture based on his ignorance of everything.

And yea I guess I am emotional, I feel happy and found his retarded post hilariously bad, lol.

[-] [deleted] 40 Points 8 months ago

[deleted]

[-] untitled56 15 Points 8 months ago

A safety net for women who make poor choices. Now that there are no consequences for being promiscuous, single mothers abound living off my childless dime.

[-] [deleted] 13 Points 8 months ago

[deleted]

[-] untitled56 8 Points 8 months ago

This board promotes promiscuous behavior. Maybe it is part of the problem.

[-] [deleted] 8 Points 8 months ago

[deleted]

[-] Turkerthelurker 2 Points 8 months ago

Maybe you're right, but I'm not going to use women as scapegoats for every single thing that is wrong in society. This game has two players and both play the game. Their fault is being childlike, ours is thinking with our dicks.

Bro I think you guys agree. He is suggesting that perhaps not just men, but the mindest promoted by TRP, are a part of the problem.

[-] LiveAFTSOV 4 Points 8 months ago

Never forget that while you read all about "spinning plates" and how to have sex with your latest night club raver slut, never forget all the EC's & Vanguards are either married or in long term relationships / have children.

[-] Turkerthelurker 4 Points 8 months ago

This board promotes promiscuous behavior. Maybe it is part of the problem.

I'd like to see a discussion on this. Personally, I'm thinking it is a part of the problem.

[-] halfback910 3 Points 8 months ago

Yes, it's a democracy problem, not a women problem. Democracy tends populist and leftist because of what it is.

[-] Copperstoner 3 Points 8 months ago

All of you say "without consequences " but at least in my country you loose a lot of your status if you loose your job. You might as well will loose some of your peers, so "without consequences " is utter bullshit. Just my 2cents

[-] TomSelleckPI 6 Points 8 months ago

If only the safety net was not a safety cliff. There is little to zero incentive for people that have fallen into the safety net to climb their way out. Policy is written to cut off all benefits at specific points instead of stepping down benefits as people become self sufficient.

​

It's a simple and logic change to policy, but that is exactly why conservatives won't make it... Its tough to scream "end the welfare state" after it becomes the slightest bit functional or effective.

[-] halfback910 1 Point 8 months ago

It's a simple and logic change to policy, but that is exactly why conservatives won't make it... Its tough to scream "end the welfare state" after it becomes the slightest bit functional or effective.

What the Hell is effective about redistributing wealth from earners to non-earners?

What you subsidize is what you produce. Handouts breed greed, not gratitude. Dependence, not self-sufficiency.

[-] Turkerthelurker 2 Points 8 months ago

Handouts breed greed, not gratitude. Dependence, not self-sufficiency.

They can be met with gratitude when it is a gift coming from a) an actual human and b) done out of benevolence. When someone receives aid from a small community, or perhaps a local church, they are likely to feel indebted to pay them back.

When it is a faceless government, both taking and redistributing, without the intention of EVER easing the recipient off of welfare, there will be no gratitude.

But, that is further argument for way less taxes and government-subsidized welfare. When the people are free to make their own choices, and have more resources to do so, they are way more charitable.

[-] Thunderbird93 30 Points 8 months ago

I disagree bro. It isn't the welfare state that is the contributing variable towards hyper sexualization. It is TECHNOLOGY. Think of contraceptives and the idgaf ONS mentality, how about abortion and the lack of responsibility? How about internet pornography? When we were brutes we lived more in accordance with nature, now that through capital we have subjugated nature our hedonic capacity is expressed in more extremes.

[-] R_O 11 Points 8 months ago

Subjugated nature? LOL. Human nature cannot be "subjugated". Technology is a tool and an innate force, it is not responsible for any of the misdoings of society directly. That is left to dissociative behavior, ignorance of natural law and human manipulation. Abortion is, statistically, an irrelevant factor in the big scheme of corruption within Western society. It is far more common for a female to keep their welfare babies and benefit from state sponsored welfare programs, ala WIC, tax exemptions and of course fat child support from the father ditched to the curb. This is where a lot of the "red piller" alpha wannabes on this embarrassing subreddit make their mistake, by focusing on the extreme feminists that scream abortion and LGBT rights that you see in mainstream media. The more statistically relevant and damaging group of women are the ones that quietly sap the resources of the tax payer and raise fatherless, brainwashed and quite frankly useless youths that spread throughout our society and corrupt it to the core. Of course women are not entirely at fault, seeing as how most modern men are so damaged by pornography, inherently selfish or otherwise broke and boring living in their mothers basement that they are unable to commit to any type of meaningful relationship when they do find a half decent woman. They will fuck and leave her in favor of the quest for "hotter ass" leaving her jaded and subconsciously invalidated, forcing her to fuck her self esteem back until it's too late and she is knocked up with the kid she doesn't really need from the father she didn't want, but keeps it anyway to turn her situation into a lucrative one. And the cycle continues.

[-] Thunderbird93 0 Points 8 months ago

Don't mean to sound rude but what point are you making,in a succinct fashion? How have we not subjugated nature? We domesticated wild wolves and renamed them dogs to help us hunt, the horse to allow us transportation,the cow for food,we took the atom and split it to create energy in nuclear fission. When man lived more in accordance with nature he didn't have access to abortion. He had to raise his offspring,no choice there. When porn came around,he can now self service his orgasm. Do you think early homo sapiens fapped? Probably not,they had to hold on to their nut until a nice girl came along who they dominated. From an economists point of view the welfare state is unsustainable and is self defeating. The reallocation of resources is good intentions but bad means. The state essentially coerces people out of their money and eventually the masses weighed down by ever increasing tax burden will revolt against it. The problem with the welfare state is that it is collectivism not individualism

[-] itiswr1tten 2 Points 8 months ago

Rousseau isn't the answer to the internet and neither is being a luddite. The answer is learning how to process and cope with the unbelievable access we now have to everything, thanks to technology. There's truth there somewhere, but you have to define it for yourself

[-] Thunderbird93 1 Point 8 months ago

I'm not sure I understand what you mean my bro,please expand

[-] itiswr1tten 2 Points 8 months ago

Rousseau was a big proponent of natural law. Read his Discourse On Inequality. Amour Propre is the key term -  Essentially, the opposite of self-preservation (amour de soi). Amour propre is an acute awareness of, and regard for, oneself in relation to others. Whilst the savage person cares only for his survival, civilized man also cares deeply about what others think about him. This is a deeply harmful psychological deformation, linked to the development of human reason and political societies. At its root is a difference between being and appearing. Savage man can only "be", and has no concept of pretence: civil man is forced to compare himself to others, and to lie to himself.

Replace Savage with red and civilized with blue, see what you think...

Point being the question that the Discourse sets out to answer is whether inequality is authorized by natural law: that is, whether differences between men are "natural" and useful things. Rousseau cunningly twists the question. He asks how we can have a law of nature if we do not understand the real nature of man. In doing this, he questions the common idea that only rational beings (i.e. humans) can take part in natural law or have natural rights.

This was all well and good in his current society. Philosophize your way out of political and civil disagreements by acting in rattional self interest. But there must be natural rights, if there is natural law.

Rousseau founds his idea of natural right on the principles of pity and self-preservation, which, he claims, existed before reason. One of the aims of the reconstruction of human nature that Rousseau offers is to show that an idea of natural right was possible before man became social and created political institutions, and thus he claims that the state of nature was not the terrible place that some suggest. 

The issue at hand today is a reversal - the sexual marketplace has reverted to a more primitive state. Rousseau can't save you from technology because he did not foresee this regression. Look for a new truth

[-] Thunderbird93 1 Point 8 months ago

Damn bro I read The Social Contract in highschool but ur interpretation of Rousseau strikes me as really intelligent, real talk. In terms of social stratification in the sociological sense I'd say inequality is natural. Look at it from the psychological perspective and incorporate Howard Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences into it. Kanye may be smart musically but interpersonally he is an idiot(slavery was a choice?). Yeah some blacks benefited off slavery he could have said that, some of us sold each other to the European,for some reason the mainstream media doesn't mention that, anyways. Point being, equalism is an illusion. What do you mean by look for a new truth? Whats your new truth? Mine is technoprogressivism

[-] General_Queipo 2 Points 8 months ago

The problem will more or less resolve itself, the only question is how long it will take, and how far gone our society will be by the end of it. Those who live more chastely, who marry young, who don't use contraceptives will simply outbreed those who spend their youth on the cock carousel. With contraceptives, there's no evolutionary advantage to sleeping around. Those men who end up addicted to porn are probably also less likely to reproduce.

[-] Thunderbird93 2 Points 8 months ago

I agree bro. Check out the Kardashev scale,it was devised by an astrophysicist. With Project ITER in France trying to achieve nuclear fusion I'd say the next age is the atomic age following our current information age. I'd say man remaining a biological creature will also be overcome. I think cyborgs are the future,man merging with machine. Through advanced biomechatronics the future of homo sapiens will not be natural at all

[-] DancesWithPugs 29 Points 8 months ago

Don't forget unwilling child support taken from men who actively want custody. Pay up or be thrown in debtor's prison, in 2018

[-] Shadowthrice 11 Points 8 months ago

When she wins custody, her ex pays for the privilege of having his own children kidnapped.

[-] rebuildingMyself 2 Points 8 months ago

He's also paying to have the kid brainwashed about what a deadbeat he is

[-] ColdIceZero 18 Points 8 months ago

Mods, please remove this political garbage post.

OP ignores the fact that without taxes, there can be no government. Without government, there can be no laws. Without laws, there can be no marriage. And without marriage, hypergamy operates unchecked.

Our forefathers saw the wisdom in limiting marriage to one man + one woman. The alternative is to allow the upper 20% of men have 80% of the women, leaving hordes of angry betas to literally cause mischief and mayhem, disrupting social order.

Despite popular imagery, Viking raiders were not hardcore alphas. Alphas in Viking society had homes, farms, wives, families, and responsibilities. Betas with no lands, no wives, no families, and no responsibilities had the angst and free time to become raiders, pillaging neighboring communities and raping the women they came across.

And this was not isolated to just Viking society. History has taught us that bands of irritated betas become highway robbers, thieves, and other social disrupters, inflicting violence, rape, and death in their angsty wake.

But by orchestrating one woman + one man marriages, this forces the domestication of the otherwise savage and destructive betas.

So in order to have a more stable society, we need to manage beta aggression. To manage beta aggression, we need to pacify the betas. We pacify the betas by artificially increasing the supply of women. We artificially increase the supply of women by limiting the number of women each man can marry. Then we place social and cultural pressure on men to marry.

Marriage is a law. Laws require resources to be enforced. Those resources come in the form of taxes and full time employees who see to the law's enforcement.

Taxes don't increase the incidence of hypergamy. Taxes actively work to decrease hypergamy!

Everyone is a libertarian right up until someone bigger, stronger, richer, or better organized than you wants to take something you care about. Then all of the sudden you become a socialist and cry out for someone else to help you.

[-] TheRedPike 7 Points 8 months ago

The irony being the reason I'm leaving it up is because of your comments and other ECs.

[-] itiswr1tten 1 Point 8 months ago

Free honey. Just stick your hand in the pot...

[-] JamesSkepp 5 Points 8 months ago

And without marriage, hypergamy operates unchecked

Arguably, hypergamy operates unchecked even with marriage, b/c being married doesn't turn it off, it's just makes women hide it from husbands. Marriage is not a solution to hypergamy. I don't want to go into the naturalistic fallacy that b/c hypergamy is natural it means it's good, but it's entirely possible that hypergamy is both unavoidable and biologically crucial.

Our forefathers saw the wisdom

Oh please, cut that crap out. The great, wise forefathers - to which we should bow and always talk with respect about - never really understood female nature and sexual strategies. What they understood is thet society benefits form marriage. NOT men - society.

The alternative is to allow the upper 20% of men have 80% of the women

Always happened, always will. This is built into biology.

But by orchestrating one woman + one man marriages, this forces the domestication of the otherwise savage and destructive betas.

Western males don't need more domestication. I agree with the line of thought you presented here, but let's not be inflexible. A dehydrated man needs water, but it doesn't mean he should drink 10 gallons a day.

[-] LiveAFTSOV 2 Points 8 months ago

Oh please, cut that crap out. The great, wise forefathers - to which we should bow and always talk with respect about - never really understood female nature and sexual strategies. What they understood is thet society benefits form marriage. NOT men - society.

Your ancestors roll in their graves at the thought of you living.

Who gives a fuck about the ancestors? lol

[-] FractalNerve 3 Points 8 months ago

Wow! The best post in this whole thread. Even a redneck would agree with this metaphoric and great description and depiction of the wholly false claims of Op.

[-] Random_throwaway_000 1 Point 8 months ago

Everyone is a libertarian right up until someone bigger, stronger, richer, or better organized than you wants to take something you care about. Then all of the sudden you become a socialist and cry out for someone else to help you.

Libertarians believe in having a police force. You are talking about anarchy. Please quote where OP stated he wants anarchy. The title clearly states the topic is about welfare spending, not all taxation.

[-] lala_xyyz 1 Point 8 months ago

Our forefathers saw the wisdom in limiting marriage to one man + one woman. The alternative is to allow the upper 20% of men have 80% of the women, leaving hordes of angry betas to literally cause mischief and mayhem, disrupting social order.

That has never happened in history, harems are unstable and were thus always limited to the ruler. Powerful men always made sure that average Joe has a stake in the society's future, which means marriage and kids. 20% men hoarding 80% of women is exactly what you have today with govt-sponsored welfare for women.

Everyone is a libertarian right up until someone bigger, stronger, richer, or better organized than you wants to take something you care about. Then all of the sudden you become a socialist and cry out for someone else to help you.

"God made men, but Sam Colt made them equal". You sound like some pathetic European socialist. "I'm so scarred of strong alphas, daddy govt please protect me" lol.

[-] JamesSkepp 2 Points 8 months ago

He sounds like he's been through the whole an-cap phase and know better now.

[-] [deleted] 8 months ago
[-] JamesSkepp 2 Points 8 months ago

Perhaps b/c he's a lawyer thet specializes in this type of cases, but that's just my wild guess.

[-] itiswr1tten 1 Point 8 months ago

This guy is a monster faggot. Don't waste your carpal tunnel

[-] LiveAFTSOV 0 Points 8 months ago

History has taught us that bands of irritated betas become highway robbers, thieves, and other social disrupters, inflicting violence, rape, and death in their angsty wake.

Are you trying to imply that Genghis Khan - he who had 16 million direct descendents - he is simply an angsty beta?

Vikings pillaged for the glory of valhalla. Not out of some "i'm bored, lets break some things" teenage restlessness.

I think what you witnessed was the fact that in a land of poor, burly warriors - he who has money, house, and peace is king.

In a dangerous land, women want he who has peace.

In a peaceful land, women want he who brings danger.

Edit: Ideally, one is libertarian in order to have the means of protecting themselves against those who'd try to take what we care about. Or live somewhere alone, hidden away, so you dont have to worry about it.... for a time.

[-] ColdIceZero 1 Point 8 months ago

C'mon, man. You know I wasn't talking about historically well known leaders of great armies. Creating an example with characteristics completely different from what I described, then attacking your example as though you are attacking my argument, is the definition of a strawman fallacy.

And for record, as a member of my local county's search and rescue team and wilderness survival enthusiast (if the mods want verification, I'd be happy to supply it), I'm all about supporting self sufficiency. I, in no way, advocate or promote extreme dependence on the state as ideal.

I only point out that all clans, tribes, societies, and civilizations require some modicum of cooperative effort to share resources with its members in order for that group to survive and thrive. Without social cooperation, technological progress becomes very difficult, if not impossible.

An interesting book discussing the subject is "Tribe" by Sebastian Junger.

On the other end of the spectrum, here's what I can't get past when ppl talk up Rugged Individualism^TM and complete independence from all social conventions:

First, these "you're a cuck for needing police, fire, or medical assistance from others" ppl often fail to recognize how much of an advantage they had growing up with a family (social support) instead of being left out in the wilderness immediately upon birth.

Second, they completely ignore how social resources are responsible for clean, running public water; the interstate transit system; and the development of the very internet they use as a medium to bitch about how only losers depend on others.

Finally, and this is the most important one for me, these I-don't-need-anyone's-help-defending-myself, lone-wolf-fantasy ppl often see themselves as masterless Ronin samurai who freely roam through society.

The rhetoric in the comments I've received in this very post sounds exactly the same as any fedora and trenchcoat wearing neckbeard with his katana roaming through the mall: "I don't need anyone's protection. Only a fool would need help from strangers. Every man should be able to take care of themselves. While you cucks were busy paying taxes, I was studying the blade."

[-] mc_md 18 Points 8 months ago

It is correct that women benefit from state sponsored largess of men, but this is not the root cause of sexual degeneracy. Cultural decline overall is to blame, and our welfare state is a symptom, not a cause, of an overall loss of individual responsibility and accountability within modern society.

Don’t forget that women have always benefitted by taking resources from men they aren’t committed to. This is the primary female strategy and always has been. The only difference now is that men aren’t voluntarily giving them things for nothing, but make no mistake that society has always had some kind of system for taking resources which men produced and giving them to women.

Furthermore, the highest income earners in society aren’t beta males, man. The ones getting taxed the hardest are the alphas. The top 1% of men pay about 50% of income tax revenue. Unless you think there are a lot of betas in the top 1%, it’s alphas who are being coerced into providing. To be sure, we are all getting fucked by Uncle Sam, but it’s not chiefly a beta problem.

Finally, it isn’t desirable women who are living on the dole. The government treats all women better than it treats all men, certainly, but the kind of women you want to pursue, and almost all the women riding the so called carousel, these are not the women being supported by the welfare state. Those women are gross, strung out, have many kids, live in a shit hole area of town that you wouldn’t dare drive through, let alone troll for a date. It’s not as if the aging sorority star really is going to lean back on welfare as her reason for promiscuity. That’s just a function of culture, as I said above.

[-] PhantomCowboy 4 Points 8 months ago

while it may not be a cause in the sense of being the primary instinctual motivator of degeneracy, it is disingenuous to argue that an enforced welfare state is not a primary enabler of sexual amorality

​

​

[-] mc_md 1 Point 8 months ago

Disingenuous? How about you argue the content here and not my motives. What hidden, pro-state agenda do you think this libertarian TRP poster is pushing?

[-] MarquisDePaid 1 Point 8 months ago

The "top 1%" always focuses on industrialists (AKA Kulaks), and does not include bankers

The Rothschilds/etc almost never appear in these discussions, the only prominent banker who publicly does is the frontman Soros, and he's been visible for quite a while from a variety of people

Malaysian president in 1997;

Asia: The two men, speaking at the World Bank forum, blamed each other for the region's economic woes.

September 22, 1997|MAGGIE FARLEY | TIMES STAFF WRITER HONG KONG — At the annual World Bank conference over the weekend, two men on opposite sides of the region's economic crisis--the speculator and the statesman, the accused villain and the alleged victim--had a showdown, firing off words like "moron" and "menace."

"It's 'High Noon' in Hong Kong," said a World Bank official.

George Soros, an American financier who once made $1 billion in a day betting against the British pound, has drawn the ire of Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad after his speculative attack on weak currencies in Southeast Asia. The fall of the Thai baht sparked a devaluation domino effect across Indonesia, the Philippines and Malaysia this summer.

Mahathir Mohamad acted ingeniously against these bankers, appropriately, and his efforts paid off despite being mocked as a "stupid retrograde economic idea"

Imagine for a moment, though, where Malaysia might be if Mahathir hadn’t waged a war against George Soros, and capitalism itself, decades ago at the expense of forward motion.

Yes, the capital controls and currency peg averted financial disaster. In 1998, the International Monetary Fund derided the moves as “retrograde.” By 2002, the IMF changed tack, calling them a “stability anchor.”

Who's giving Bernie Sanders and other "progressives" economic advice today?

In 2011, Sanders convened what he referred to as an “expert advisory panel” to help draft legislation for Federal Reserve reform in the wake of a damning top-to-bottom Congressional audit of the U.S. central banking system.

Sanders’ panel of experts was stacked with economists tied to Soros. One prominent member advocates a “new economic order” no longer dominated by the U.S., while another is the leading proponent of the “shock therapy” economic doctrine of radical economic transformation deployed at times to detriment in Eastern Europe.

Last July, Sanders convened another panel of economists to advise the Senate on the Greek and international debt crises. The panel consisted of many of the same Soros-tied experts.

Obviously Soros is not the only such oligarch involved, there are several others including parts of the Rothschilds family who helped mentor him and start him up as the now deleted Washingtontimes article "Geneva Gnomes Global Dread" details

The Trotskyite "permanent revolution" really means, there is NO SOCIAL END to the "social revolutions" because the new comissars want permanent power to reshape society as they see fit

Others, however, have translated the Trotskyist slogan of “permanent revolution” into the hope that every minority uprising in the world must be a sign of the long awaited world revolution – especially those that catch the approving eye of mainstream media. More often than deploring U.S. intervention, they join in reproaching Washington for not intervening sooner on behalf of the alleged revolution.

A recent article in the International Socialist Review (issue #108, March 1, 2018) entitled “Revolution and counterrevolution in Syria” indicates so thoroughly how Trotskyism goes wrong that it is worthy of a critique.

[-] GayLubeOil 18 Points 8 months ago

You're on the right track connecting sexual behavior to economic policy but the ultimate culprit isn't the welfair state. Plenty of countries have a much more robust welfair state than the US and had much less hypergamy than the US.

China Vietnam North Korea and Belarus are still full blown Communist and the women are less hypergamous than America. If your thesis was correct the opposite would be true.

Neo Liberal aka post Industrial economies grow by transforming everything into a commodity. Divorce is a commodity. Your tinder swipes are a commodity. Your girlfriend's attention is a commodity.

Boyfriends and dresses are disposable in neoliberal economies. But in Communist countries you can only afford one dress and one boyfriend...

[-] Thunderbird93 1 Point 8 months ago

Goddamn bro,excellent fookin points. Your logic is sound politically. In terms of the welfare state due to social stratification I think the elites have a breaking point where they as the business interest won't allow the politician who they funded to advertise to the people a more egalitarian society achieved through higher taxation. As the owners of capital we can't undermine their influence and even in countries like Sweden there will be a point when the rich use their money to keep their money

[-] itiswr1tten 1 Point 8 months ago

Once things are mentally fungible they can all be used and discarded without empathy. No one cried when their favorite meal was over, but they cried when they had to shoot Old Yeller. It's a very devious system that seeks to creep into the human element of things, but fuck if it's not incredibly efficient and productive

[-] Ayubdj7 -1 Point 8 months ago

Those countries you mentioned are not communist. If you don't know what communism is then please don't use it in the wrong context.

[-] GayLubeOil 2 Points 8 months ago

The North Korean government identifies as Communist

[-] rKKKselected 1 Point 8 months ago

"Gobbudism has neber been dried"

[-] VasiliyZaitzev 16 Points 8 months ago

What do you think about this?

The real problem is the Cultural Marxists and SJWs, all of whom should be shot, but that's another matter.

The Welfare State creates selfish populations who, rather than think about what they will do to earn a living think about "What do I get?" Basically, the bottom half doesn't pay any income tax and thus are happy to vote for every larger lollipops for themselves at someone else's expense.

So that is one contributing factor, together with the birth control pill (not that I'm against, per se but it did enable a lot of sluttish behavior) and the destruction of the family (by the Welfare State and the CM/SJWs).

You are correct it is unsustainable.

[-] Random_throwaway_000 3 Points 8 months ago

https://youtu.be/Y2tvHUku_U8?t=77

People screamed out at him for saying this, but he's 100% right. Eventually (if not already) it will reach over 50%, and be near impossible to stop outside of the inevitable depression that will follow.

[-] huckfinnegan 14 Points 8 months ago

What the actual fuck did I just read?

Everyone gets taxed, not just 'beta' men. I'd say the rising tide of promiscuity has more to do with society's moral shift in relation to marriage and monogamous relationships than the tax gap.

The idea that beta men are settling for marriage at 30 and all the alphas are out fucking younger babes is laughable. In fact your whole idea of what is beta and alpha and what defines a man is probably screwed up if that's the view you take.

[-] LudwigVanBlunts 13 Points 8 months ago

More Patrice O'Neal mentality type posts, less of this heavy reaching political theorizing BS

[-] Rabalaz 7 Points 8 months ago

Sadly it seems like the heavy reaching political theorizing is becoming an increasingly common topic here on this subreddit.

​

I prefer my political shitslinging on the political shitslinging subreddits where they belong.

[-] bigflame123 10 Points 8 months ago

I love how you mentioned that people are basically tax slaves, that’s exactly the situation right now, we’re forced to pay for people’s mistakes and lifestyle choices

[-] sarg1994 11 Points 8 months ago

Ok, your 18 years old in 1970. You get unwillingly drafted into the military to serve in a war you dont believe in. In the trenches you get PTSD due to intense combat. After the war you can't get a job because society dispises you. Today your 66 years old, you sleep on a bench in central park from 3 am to 6am to avoid being arrested. The only hot meal you get that week is from a state funded soup kitchen. People walk by horrified by you, horrified by the mistakes you made... Fuck taxes if we cared about others we wouldnt need governments.

[-] Random_throwaway_000 2 Points 8 months ago

Wouldn't that fall under workman's comp and veteran benefits? Holding an employer responsible for damage they did to employee's isn't a all reaching welfare system.

[-] bigflame123 1 Point 8 months ago

Hold on wait, I misinterpreted your comment, so you’re saying society can’t function without government? Don’t you realise you need a government to draft people in the first place which refutes your point?

[-] sarg1994 1 Point 8 months ago

Thats a good point actually, but without government we wouldnt be anywhere. The fact that you are on Reddit, let alone the internet, let alone a computer, let alone have electricity (haha) is ONLY possible because of a group of humans organizing themselves to form a coalition in order to discover things beyond the technology or the lifestyle they had currently? Hell even writing itself was formed as a result of civilization. Is your point that now that we have all these amazing technologies we should stop forming governments?

Though im unfamiliar with the term ancap so of you could elaborate on that I'd be interested to understand it more.

[-] Thunderbird93 1 Point 8 months ago

Well said bro. Even minarchism as a political philosophy emphasizes the need of a nightwatchman state. Police to enforce law, courts to interpret it, military for state sovereignty. Maybe the dude commenting is an Anarchist,some genuinely believe no government is the epitome of freedom. When you think of it,kind of makes sense. When man lives fully in accordance with nature he lives at its mercy but is totally free.

[-] sarg1994 1 Point 8 months ago

Im all for civil liberty but Id rather give up some rights for security. I think people should be allowed to do whatever they want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. Thats a hard system to build. In America, today , people want more freedoms then the gorvernment is willing to relinquish, and its not working.

[-] Thunderbird93 1 Point 8 months ago

Just my opinion but I see freedom as expansive of the economy & GDP. Think of the deregulation of marijuana for example. Why should the government be spending money to incarcerate people using or distributing marijuana while its running a budget deficit? Its a plant. If people were free to consume and distribute it then the government could tax it like tobacco and make millions in the short run and maybe billions in the long run. When people have more freedoms it leads greater consumption which is good economically.

[-] sarg1994 1 Point 8 months ago

Totally agree. I think most drugs should be legal instead of spending all this money on keeping people away from drugs, and inspiring organized crime, we could set up more rehab clinics to help those who actually need help. No more crack houses, ideally?

[-] Thunderbird93 2 Points 7 months ago

I agree bro. The criminal justice system is also too focused on punishment instead of rehabilitation We definitely need Corrections Officers for order but how about psychologists for counseling? I don't know why big Tobacco(e.g Phillip Morris of Marlboro) hasn't thought of marrying marijuana as a business expansion model

[-] sarg1994 1 Point 7 months ago

The alcohol companies are jumping on it id say that's more their wheelhouse. Id rather big companies and especially big pharma stay away from cannabis!

[-] bigflame123 1 Point 7 months ago

Google anarcho capitalism and have a read through is all I’ll say

[-] bigflame123 1 Point 8 months ago

Hell to the yes, I hope you’re an ancap just like myself, that would be great

[-] JamesSkepp 9 Points 8 months ago

The Welfare State & government policies that favor women through involuntary taxation of men is the root enabler of the high promiscuity among the modern western woman.

Not the "root" one. It's more akin to systemic save-a-hoe. Instead of a BP whiteknight, it's the state.

women are free to indulge in their darwinian alpha fucks desires

Women indulging in their darwinian alpha fucks desires is completely in line with how both genders evolved. On one side you're against un-natural intervention of state, on the other you're bashing women for being women.

That no man is gonna want to commit, or have kids, with a courtesan who cant cross her legs.

Unless he doesn't know about it, which is another part of female sexual strategy that women evolved with. It's not that state covers it up, women do it on individual level.

So that Women in their prime fertility years can ride the cock carousel with the top 20% of men, only to then turn 29 about to hit the wall they and sadly settle with some boring beta provider.

100% in line with their sexual strategy. If you have a problem with that, don't blame society, don't blame women, don't blame state - blame evolution.

This is unsustainable.

It was sustainable without state, civilisation and culture, it will be (is) sustainable with that 3 elements too. Civilisation doesn't rely on SMP.

And most importantly, completely immoral, mainly because it relies upon the involuntary taxation of hard working (usually) betas

First of all, there is no morality in sexual strategy. What you call immorality is actually philosophical or political accusation against the state, while in fact the focus of your post is mostly on how m-f relations evolved.

Betas are gradually waking up to this scam. Hence the rise of mgtow and incels for example.

The proper way to end the beta "slavery" is to become alpha, not incel or a MGTOW b/c both these 2 movements change nothing for the betas at large.

Hence the quote; "enjoy the decline".

Here's an argument against women relying on husbands for support. You're writing - "enjoy the decline", so let me ask you this: decline of what? Tradcon society who FORCED men to commit and provide for a women just b/c he was fucking her? Forced the man to remain in sexless marriage b/c said marriage was arranged? Forced the man to remain in a shitty marriage b/c only infidelity could allow for a divorce? The same society that elevated women to the heights of nothing short of systemic pedestalization via gentleman-ly rules, savoir-vivre, endless damsel in distress drivel, women and children first bs? You're telling me you want THAT society to come back? All in the name of "betas have less sex now"?

But it's not what builds societies & civilizations

This DID build the civilisation where physical capability of the man was the thing that built it and was thus valued. We now have enough technology behind us not to rely on men, but to put the burden of building the civilisation onto machines and automation. This process is an ongoing one, it gained momentum with the scientific progress that we made, starting from the very first agricultural evolution, perhaps even before that from the invention of fire.

the strong sexual bonds and relationships people had prior to the sexual revolution. A nuclear family.

Nuclear family is not "strong sexual bonds". Stron sexual bonds are between alpha and woman who submits to him b/c he's an alpha. Nuclear family is male oriented child conception and rearing, you know the kid is yours, so you'll stay in the marriage. Which brings me to another thing - in order to have nuclear family you HAVE to be married and monogamous. That's not male sexual strategy - we sacrifice that in the name of having nuclear family and BOTH of these things play directly into female sexual strategy (get him to commit, get him to become monogamous, get him to foot the bill). IOW while nuclear family is important for the man, it's ADVANTAGEOUS for the woman. This is an imbalance in the SMP that tradcon exacerbated.

Casual sex gets tiring for men,

No, it doesn't. Find hotter girls, find cooler girls.

and leaves womens ability to bond with a man destroyed.

Woman's ability to pairbond did not evolve to be lifelong. It's "designed" to keep her as long as the CHILD needs protection, which back in the "caveman" days were something around 6-8 years old. After that the cycle repeated. Another man, another woman, another kid. The "lifelong pairbond" is a BP myth. A romantic one, but still a myth.

They get their infamous thousand cock stare. Its unsettling.

Don't fuck high n-count women, as simple as that.

and a natural, stable order between the sexes will occour

The natural order between sexes was not stable. 80/20 rule applies b/c it's grounded in biology, not in any form of equilibrium. What you want is for "society enforced stability" to happen.

 

You're onto something, but the problem is you're mixing 3 things that don't mix: biological sexual strategies, SMP regulated by society and Stefan Molyneux.

[-] ryeprotagonist 8 Points 8 months ago

Truth. You can't truly be RedPill and have lefty political leanings.

Anyone who says different is hamstering.

[-] Random_throwaway_000 3 Points 8 months ago

I agree with you, but be careful of stating this. Mods usually don't like political talk. I'm surprised this post is allowed to live.

Yes, arguing for personal responsibility in your individual life (Ugly cuz not lifting, work harder to get paid, Go out and approach to get numbers) should translate into voting for a government that allows you to enjoy the fruits of your labour. That's as far as I go in terms of talking politics here.

[-] ryeprotagonist 2 Points 8 months ago

Appreciate the advice friend, but I try to live as unfiltered Red Pill as I'm able. I deal with the world as it is, not as I wish it ought to be. So I don't reckon I'll censor myself online behind an alias. The Nanny State drives sexual incentives. We see that and the proponents of Big State Socialism can pretend all they like that it doean't favour women while cucking men... But those are the types who need to hamster their worldview to square with reality, aren't they?

[-] MentallyWill -1 Point 8 months ago

Sounds like you either don't fully understand "RedPill" or don't fully understand "lefty political leanings." Either way I assure you plenty of us do just fine commingling the two ways of thinking.

If you think that's hamstering then you clearly don't quite understand that term either.

[-] [deleted] 8 months ago
[-] championchilli 7 Points 8 months ago

What happened to this sub. It used to be post-pickup lifestyle advice for the man navigating the world through an understanding of natural social, hierarchical power dynaimcs, wtf is this crap.

[-] digital_dreams 3 Points 8 months ago

Steering a bit into politics it sounds like. Is he saying we should go backward? I think the smart thing to do is adapt to present day conditions, rather than yearning for ye olde times.

[-] championchilli 3 Points 8 months ago

The past is gone, adapt to the current conditions and of you don't like the way the present is going work in the political sphere to advocate for the future you want.

Feels a bit incelly, like 'it's all over give up trying to better yourself' to me, which this sub has never been.

[-] Ismoketomuch 1 Point 8 months ago

This is just beta male woman bashing. Where are the Mods!

[-] monadyne 2 Points 8 months ago

What do you need mods for? If you don't like hearing political opinions being voiced here, why haven't you simply closed the window? I.e., stopped reading it?

I'm not being rhetorical, here. I'm asking seriously: why didn't you just close the window and go look at something different?

[-] [deleted] 8 months ago
[-] [deleted] 8 months ago
[-] javixm 6 Points 8 months ago

I half agree.

Half my disagreement comes from the fact that women can work. Just a little bit of effort into a college degree and a decent job can more than cover for the expenses of living however the fuck they want.

[-] Balgoth55 6 Points 8 months ago

What do I think about this? I think it's absolutely correct. Watch BPS video series on this. BPS is red pill AF and breaks this concept down perfectly. Watch these and you will have a much better understanding of the topic.

"Why Women Destroy Nations" https://youtu.be/UxpVwBzFAkw

"How Women Dismantle Nations" https://youtu.be/kOMkl3ApTK0

"Only Patriarchy Builds Nations" https://youtu.be/hN1GwOLgjVs

[-] JamesSkepp 0 Points 8 months ago

Black Pigeon is low key version of Alex Jones and Molyneux combined, he's not RP in any sense that TRP is. At best he's an entry point into anti-MSM talking points, at worst he's a borderline conspiracy theorist who panders to alt-right and MGTOWs b/c that's his target audience.

[-] Balgoth55 2 Points 8 months ago

You are nuts. He is pointing out the how hypergamy can lead to the destruction of society and backs this up with plenty of reasoning and studies. This is red pill

[-] Rabalaz -1 Point 8 months ago

Do women destroy civilizations? - A response to Black Pigeon Speaks

​

Abusing Statistics ft. Black Pigeon Speaks

​

BPS is someone who twists the facts to fit their political agenda. And that doesn't sound too Redpilled to me, bro.

[-] Wowitstheinternet 6 Points 8 months ago

You realize that rich and powerful men have been taking on harems of beautiful women since antiquity, right?

​

This has nothing to do with the welfare state.

This goes back to King Solomon, and even before him.

​

Here's something that'll trip you up: those top 20% of men **are** the providers.

The most powerful men are often the richest, have the most resources, and have the most friends. Most "chads" are actually Betas - and that comes with a heavy burden.

Make yourself look better, practice dancing, get some god damn social skills, get some female and male friends to help you out with looking sharp (fashion and exercise), and get out of your fucking house and live an interesting life.

[-] UnderFighter 6 Points 8 months ago

The bluepill in this subreddit regarding taxes is so strong. You only need police, courts and military. Every other entity can be closed. People who make mistakes should bear the consequences. It is survival of the fittest after all. I neither want to pay for the SJW welfare, nor for an unfortunate poor old guy. They both should not have made poor life choices and should suffer for their incompetence.

I left the west for this reason, even though I have a Masters in Economics and one in Comp Sci and was in the top 10% income wise. You have almost no regulation, can keep 85% of the money you earn and government does not shit on you for being an entrepreneur. Did I mention that because of the lack of government support, woman need to secure YOUR ressouces? But YOU get to decide whether you give it to them or not. If you have money and/or are skilled you can live a much better life. You pretty much get an easy six-figure salary, because of your western education. And get to keep about 75k. In Germany I only would have kept about 40k. But also the living costs are way lower. Boosting the effective salary to at least double the purchasing power.

I am very happy in estonia and very happy to have left the communist hellhole of cucked Germany.

Seriously, fuck the state and you bluepill fucktards that support it. Go vote for Hillary and feel the Bern you fucking commies. Really, to anyone living in the western world, who despises communists / sjws, move to a former soviet country. They still know the horrors of socialism first or second hand, they fought for democracy and freedom and are still willing to defend it.

I normally do not care about politics and dont discuss it, because it is a time sink and waste.

State provides a safety net. More women are unemployed (or underemployed) compared to men. An individual from which group is statistically more likely to receive benefits from the state? A woman is, generally speaking, a far less capable worker compared to a man. They can not think big and have a larger picture in mind. They are more suited for repetitive tasks, like accounting and the likes. But this is not their purpose in life. Her only purpose is to bear your children.

We got subverted by marxists in this sub. I do not frequent reddit that often anymore, because I have a lot going on in my life and only read it occasionally. But the pro state marxist propaganda gives me a stomach ache. 2 years ago this sub was mostly conservative and some libertarians. Now you have all the leftist losers of society pouring in. Fuck you lefties.

[-] re4d3 3 Points 8 months ago

Yep. As a former commie state citizen east from DDR I can second that. We thought we got rid of socialism and it creeps back from the west back, even more awful cause red commies did not pretend it is all about absolute power. Anger of wannabe redpillers against MAGA is laughable: "we want state to continue to sponsor bitches so we can fuck them without consequences."

Good choice with Estonia man. Must be some Finnish or German knights genes up there.

[-] graceful_aggression 3 Points 8 months ago

go to south-east asia dude. Singapore. Low income tax of \~15%, highest for any bracket is 22% i believe, no capital gains tax. Travel weekends to Bali, Thailand, and have a high purchasing power. Growing populations that side of the world. I'm in the UK and im dying with 40% tax and it gets worse haha

[-] suaressi 1 Point 8 months ago

i'm down. lets room together.

[-] UnderFighter 1 Point 8 months ago

Did a vacation in Bali once. But I think I am not made for the warm weather there. Always got me slackin. Thought about visiting singapore or hongkong. But truth be told, I really enjoy eastern europe. They are very “guest-friendly“.

[-] andthesilverspoon 0 Points 8 months ago

By the way, in case anyone didn’t think this guy was full of it, here’s an excerpt from the business taxation section of the government of Estonia’s website:

“Revenue from social tax is used to fund pension insurance and state health care. Social tax is to be paid by an entrepreneur (employer) for an employee.

The social tax rate is 33% of the employee’s gross earnings (for instance, in the case of 1,000 euros in gross earnings, you pay 330 euros of social tax for the employee).”

——————

So he’s either lying or a fool.

[-] UnderFighter 1 Point 8 months ago

Bad thing that I am not an employee you dimwitted leftist. I do security audits (mostly PCI DSS and also do the occasional pentest/scan. Running a little E-Commerce Business on the side, it's barely profitable but I might be able to scale. Maybe I should selling dildos, so you can fuck yourself with one you little liberal snowflake.

[-] andthesilverspoon 0 Points 8 months ago

Rofl. Someone hasn’t gotten laid since the 80s.

[-] mermella 5 Points 8 months ago

This is delusional, I'm a woman and I probably pay more in taxes than you do. Why don't you work on yourself instead of blaming the opposite sex for your shortcomings?

[-] MRPFuckMe1 5 Points 8 months ago

So where is the sexual degeneracy part? Not that it’s a bad thing. I’m a pretty big fan of sexual degeneracy myself. Part of the TRP M.O. is spinning plates, so bring it on I say. We’ll just ignore that we encourage following our ingrained male sexual strategy out of one side of our mouth and whine about “the state” and taxes so we can shame women doing the same—which is somehow connected I guess?

Let’s call this what it is... just another Ill-informed political rant on TRP, fueled by the shit-stirrers like Rush Limbaugh and Fox News, and gobbled up by Trump-loving douchebags who are just mad for some reason.

Society isn’t working 110% in my favor! I’m mad! It’s taxes! It’s those sexually degenerate women! Immigrants! Feminists! Obama! Hillary! Oh my!

I just survived a hurricane. The speed with which they turned my power back on. The sheer amount of helpers, road crews, shelters, food banks, etc that came out of the woodwork was staggering. Society works pretty damn well around here and I don’t really pay all that much for the privilege. And if young fine ladies want to gobble some cock through it all, more power to ‘em. Quit your bitching.

[-] king_of_red_alphas 2 Points 8 months ago

Winner. For all TRP’s criticism of women’s lack of self awareness and solipsism, posters here sure do engage in it a whole lot.

[-] andthesilverspoon 2 Points 8 months ago

I’ve never seen an online reply to an online post be so gotdang on point in my online life. Thank you, sir.

[-] StrongLikeBull503 5 Points 8 months ago

This reads like some Incel mass shooter masturbation material TBH.

[-] andthesilverspoon 1 Point 8 months ago

I vote this for second best comment of the thread. Kudos!

[-] danoranika 5 Points 8 months ago

The welfare state emerged as a response to the rampant inequality of capitalism causing The Great Depression. Single motherhood is a symptom of the atomization of the individual from the family, spearheaded by capital, to create more laborers and consumers, and drive down wages. Sexual degeneracy is a symptom of modernity. You're pinning the blame soley on socialism, without acknowledging that socialism is a reaction to capitalism. Its son.

[-] TheStumblingWolf 4 Points 8 months ago

Speculation upon speculation. Nothing to substantiate anything.

[-] wss5112 4 Points 8 months ago

I doubt that current state of welfare state sufficiently supports this thinking. People are still concerned with resources. Everyone now needs more money to pay for higher price housing, luxury goods etc. Welfare seems to reduce the tension but not entirely remove it. Whether the slightly alleviated burden on women leads to promiscuity perhaps is a question of degree.

A perfect example is the experiment with rats. Providing completely unlimited water and food in sandbox with rats and they turned out to be a fucking mess may support your thinking but still we are far from that.

This experiment is really interesting. Documented in 1962 called Rat Utopia Experiment studying the behavioural sink of animals in a society when they have no need of any concerns.

[-] king_of_red_alphas 4 Points 8 months ago

Why are Alt-Right, Trumpet chest beaters are so desperate to link sexual strategy and “alpha-hood” to political ideology.

The fuck out of here with that nonsense.

Far right puritans and far left SJW’s are equally unrealistic about the reality of human sexuality.

And for all the discussion about food stamps, the pill and social security encouraging slutshood, nobody is talking about capitalism’s hyper-commodification of hot ass and men’s (that’s us) worshipping of it.

You do realize that girls can make a good living in the free market being Instagram ass models and twitch cam girls right? That money isn’t coming from your taxes.

You don’t think our elevation of status of the hot chick showing off her half naked body and bragging about sucking cock like Riley Reid has more to do with this trend?

Girls emulate what’s popular and what men like. Were poodle skirts and bell bottoms caused by welfare too?

The media, corporate and cultural feedback loop that has ALWAYS existed.

The difference is commodified culture is now fed back to us (men and women) through a thousand forms of media that weren’t even conceivable 20 years ago and at a speed that can’t be calculated.

Girls want to be slutty because they see guys like slutty girls that fuck like porn stars. No market, no supply.

Welfare didn’t turn porn stars into celebrities. We did.

Welfare didn’t deify Instagram ass models, we did.

Welfare didn’t create a society in which “sex tapes” turn vapid women into multi millionaires, we did.

Live your fucking life and be the best person you can be. If some welfare queen in Georgia is even on your radar in terms of what upsets you in life, you might want to consider your part in the cause of your frustration.

Look in the mirror and take some fucking responsibility. It’a what an alpha would do.

[-] MentORPHEUS 4 Points 8 months ago

True, much as the Fed Government making student loans nondischargable even in bankruptcy has served to drive college costs through the roof, acting as a backstop for men who impregnate and disappear has exploded hypergamy and single motherhood.

Mind you, the state does not WANT this. They do everything they can to get the biological father to pay for their child, so "everyone else" doesn't have to. Some states will bill "deadbeat dads" for years of welfare payments made to the Mom.

People here like to attribute it to a grand top-down scheme to destroy the nuclear family. I see it as an easy way to build and expand a bureaucracy, which large numbers of voters would readily approve of because of (annoying falsetto voice) the Children.

[-] BiggusDickus- 10 Points 8 months ago

Mind you, the state does not WANT this. They do everything they can to get the biological father to pay for their child, so "everyone else" doesn't have to. Some states will bill "deadbeat dads" for years of welfare payments made to the Mom.

"The State" is an awful big institution, and there are definitely parts of it that do want this. All of the government agencies that support poor single moms work hard to ensure that single moms never go away. There are also all sorts of influences (i.e. bribes and lobbying) that come from institutions that profit from the welfare state.

For example, sugar and soda interests working hard to prevent food stamp reform.

https://civileats.com/2017/08/28/congress-could-cut-soda-and-candy-from-snap-but-big-sugar-is-pushing-back/

[-] MentORPHEUS 2 Points 8 months ago

Bureaucracies become self-serving and find ways to expand even when their original mission is fulfilled.

As for special interest money corrupting politics, we all agree it has to go. Long ago I cut junk food out of my diet so I'm not supporting big sugar that way. Also, many stores proudly hang "We accept EBT" signs. I make it a point to go in person and say, "I am a taxpayer and resent you encouraging nonessential purchases using welfare money, so you'll never see a penny of my hard earned, disposable CASH from now on."

[-] Sexquestionhelp22 1 Point 8 months ago

Offering money to single mothers is a financial incentive in itself that leads to more single mothers, even though it is "compassionate support." That's just economics. If you offered $10,000 a month to every single mother, you would essentially destroy marriage. Offering $100 a month is the exact same economic effect on a smaller scale. Imagine a graph where the X-axis is monthly payment and Y-axis is the percent of single mothers.

[-] [deleted] 3 Points 8 months ago

[deleted]

[-] Thunderbird93 1 Point 8 months ago

Insightful. I think it is a problem of job creation too. I'm fiscally conservative but socially liberal therefore I'd say tax cuts stimulate business by creating saving which leads to investment(Solow Growth Modeling). Politically speaking different parties have their own agendas so the welfare state is a child of the liberals whereas the libertarians oppose it, it is not adhered to by the entire population. Your point about men being on it too is sound

[-] Butt_Man_69 3 Points 8 months ago

“Enjoy the decline”? You just got done reading some of Aaron Clarey’s books I’m betting. He has some insightful thoughts and opinions, but they are just his take. They’re not backed up by much. He also calls himself “Captain Capitalism” and has mentioned he was picked on for being poor growing up. Such obvious contradictions. Sure they exist in everything, but he can’t even admit others’ opinions to see his own contradictions.

[-] PhantomCowboy 3 Points 8 months ago

100% spot on aegir98, it blows my mind to see so many comments in a "red pill" sub from posters who are so deeply in denial

​

​

[-] untonyto 2 Points 8 months ago

"Enjoy the decline" to a conscious man is actually an oxymoron. First, decline enjoyment further exacerbates said decline. Second, when the decline is over, there will not be much enjoyment left to be had if any. Third, the decline itself is cause to weep and mourn for our future and for our children's future, so that anyone who can enjoy the licentiousness afforded by collapsed moral order is only happy now and for a short period to come, at least until the disorder takes a big dump on them. Fact is, we are at the end of the ages, and "enjoy the decline" sounds like just the kind of catchphrase to lure the unwise to abandon principle and sink down to the level of the prevailing filth. Enjoy what part, competing with other men for the privilege of tumbling in bed with a litany of STD-infested banged-out heartbreak survivors, rinse and repeat? Someone explain this to me.

[-] HeadingRed 2 Points 8 months ago

This feels like if The Onion wanted to do a satire piece of TRP they might write this as a mock editorial. Governments collecting revenue = promiscuity and no taxes = monogamous bliss?

The nuclear family ideal of the 1950's is a bit of nostalgia. Much of what we call the decline was going on- it's just that no one talked about it. Divorce rates went up, spouses cheated, we drank did much of what we did now. Back then nobody talked about it.

I'm in my 50's. I have\had boomer friends. When women\sex came up they all pretty much summed it up this way "everybody was fucking back then - it's just that nobody talked about it".

Look at ancient Greece, China and Rome. All ahead of other cultures around them. All have boatloads of sex not occurring between a married couple in the sanctity of the holy bedroom.

Every generation thinks they invented sex, drugs and rock-n-roll. Everyone things they just missed "the best of times" and if we could only go back to just a little while ago all of our problems would be solved.

You're not living in the worst of times - your not living in the best of times - you're just living. Don't get yourself depressed wishing for a past that never was and a future you can't predict. Just live in the now - which is the best\worst ever with the most\least of amazing things and the most\least awful time ever in the history of human civilization.

[-] ELMasTurbo 2 Points 8 months ago

This sounds like some Jordan Peterson grade spiel.

[-] warwolverinewarrior 2 Points 8 months ago

So you're saying that chicks have better chances at mating with higher quality guys "alphas" and you're blaming society for this new evolutionary strategy of mating muscular "alpha" guys like this sub is guiding you to be?

[-] Aktiv8r 2 Points 8 months ago

You're making a mistake if you think people here want a civilization that is fair. I mean shit, there is a constant smattering of guys proud to fuck another mans wife and laugh at him when he unknowingly raises their seed. That should be your first clue.

Many dont want more people unplugged because that increases their competition sexually. Your pleas will fall on deaf ears.

[-] propranolol22 2 Points 8 months ago

I don't know how such a politicized post got so many upvotes...

Your trying to draw a false equivalence to push your political ideals. Hypergamy has existed long before the "welfare state", something which even cursory reading of TRP material makes clear.

[-] theSoothSlayerCoC 3 Points 8 months ago

Imagine thinking that because a woman with children qualifies for some canned beans and childcare expenses she suddenly has all the freedom to fuck whomever she wants all the time without consequences. Its like OP has never been around poverty before.
This kind of shit belongs on The_Donald.

[-] shelteringloon 2 Points 8 months ago

I think your confusing the welfare state with laws that favor women.

Edit: I also think your post is mostly claims with little evidence, even ancedotal.

[-] [deleted] 1 Point 8 months ago

To an extent, yeah, but you could also blame birth control, condoms, and abortion. None of those are really the cause though.

Society is changing. Values are changing. Children out of wedlock used to be shameful, now it's normal. Divorce used to be unthinkable, now the average time to divorce is seven years (not counting those who don't divorce, of course)

In the grand scheme of things, this is all a very new trend. I imagine the pendulum will swing back. Europeans were pretty skanky during the Renaissance and that was followed up by prude Victorianism.

[-] Viking_RnP 1 Point 8 months ago

Expect nothing and you'll never be disappointed.

[-] [deleted] 8 months ago
[-] reluctantly_red 1 Point 8 months ago

And most importantly, completely immoral, mainly because it relies upon the involuntary taxation of hard working (usually) betas.

At least in the United States the pittance paid to single women on welfare is not what distorts the sexual marketplace. What really distorts the market is millions of Beta guys who willingly and voluntarily transfer untold billions of dollars worth of cash, goods, and services to women they fall in love with.

My ex is getting remarried next month. Her new guy is Beta AF! He paid for her to go on a bachelorette cruise without him last week. He's paying for a honeymoon in Italy. And, this is the kicker, instead of a prenup he's transferring title to half his separate property to her (he's already had his lawyer draw up the paperwork).

[-] [deleted] 8 months ago
[-] [deleted] 1 Point 8 months ago

You're basically just talking about the feminine imperative with a weird emphasis on taxes.

[-] abudun79 1 Point 8 months ago

The root enabler, that's interesting. What are you going to to about it - other than complaining in an online echo chamber?

[-] _typhoid_mary 1 Point 8 months ago

Not to mention if a woman has a child she gets more benefits**** pisses me the fuck off

[-] Rmyguy 1 Point 8 months ago

Meh civilization should fail at this point. I'd hate to see it keep going in its current direction. A large cull and a dash of instability would do wonders on getting traditional roles sorted out.

[-] [deleted] 1 Point 8 months ago

I would argue not taxes in general, but child support and alimony are the specific tools the government uses to destroy the nuclear family

[-] andthesilverspoon 1 Point 8 months ago

I would express my laughter at this in LOLs, but I would end up breaking those keys on my keyboard and I have stuff to do next week.

[-] [deleted] 8 months ago
[-] [deleted] 8 months ago
[-] GorgeousGamer99 1 Point 8 months ago

Can we stop upvoting posts that are clearly soyboys bitter that their oneitis fucked someone else, just looking for something external to blame

[-] IRunYourRiver 1 Point 8 months ago

Ah, but you have the red pill. So the playing field is level once again. Evolution is selecting for a broader set of characteristics than it was in the past. Physical fitness is important, but so are a set of behaviors and communication that indicate a level of intellectualism and flexibility that is greater than in the past. This way, fewer people starve (welfare) and evolution can still meet its relentless demands.

[-] mult1versum 1 Point 8 months ago

Excellent post. I would like to add that the spread of the birth control pill also plays a major role in the increasing sexual degeneration of society. Colttaine made a great video about it.

[-] saargrin 1 Point 8 months ago

sounds like some kind of atavistic rant

[-] [deleted] 1 Point 8 months ago

First comes the decline. Then chaos. Then the new world order.

[-] Luckyluke23 1 Point 8 months ago

mainly because it relies upon the involuntary taxation of hard working (usually) betas.

I think this goes beyond that and it's ALL man are tax slaves. it just comes with the burden of performance. women can find some guy to give her money. men cannot find a woman to give him money ( generally speaking there could be some arrangement made or something but yeah.)

the problem I have with this is alphas need to work too and they do get taxed. however, they won't support the women if that's what you mean by " taxation"

[-] VanityKings 1 Point 8 months ago

The issue is literally going to fuck up or at least drastically alter civilized societies.
Personally, I think VR and sex bots are going to be the death and rebirth (hopefully) of women. So many women nowadays offer literally no real-world value other than sex, and even that is only if you are Chad or a beta that is able to jump through her hoops or wait long enough for her smv to drop to less than yours. The pool of beta providers are going to dry up faster than their vaginas during sex with them as more and more men withdraw from the dating scene and satisfy their urges with VR/bots. The decline is real and it is a scary thought that we are all leading to a giant social and political catastrophe in the years to come. What a time to be alive

[-] genuine_destructive 1 Point 8 months ago

Technology (sometimes made accessible by government funds like contraception, parental control, etc) has made sexual promiscuity possible for women.

It used to be that only men could be promiscuous because we faced the least biological repercussions.

Now we are increasingly on an even playing field.

Fucking deal with it.

You’re the carpenter complaining about IKEA.

Personally, as a hard working male this world has opened up a much larger pool of women to sleep with.

And I’m so down. Evolve or die friend.

[-] STALUC 1 Point 8 months ago

The ascertain that the legislative branch of the US government is systematically sexist against men is preposterous. Fiscal policy in the US is written by congress, which is historically male dominated. Currently, 22 of 100 US senators are female and 84 of the 435 House of Representatives are female (19%). Why would a parliament of ~80% men write tax code to explicitly oppress men? They wouldn’t.

[-] kiwifx 1 Point 8 months ago

// strong sexual bonds and relationships people had prior to the sexual revolution.

Did they, though? Just because women couldn't fuck around and swing branches as easily doesn't mean they weren't thinking about it. Women were women before the sexual revolution.

[-] ledbymorpheus 1 Point 8 months ago

Is this what happens when you monk mode too long?

[-] MattyAnon 1 Point 8 months ago

This is unsustainable. And most importantly, completely immoral, mainly because it relies upon the involuntary taxation of hard working (usually) betas. Betas are gradually waking up to this scam. Hence the rise of mgtow and incels for example.

The problem is that "waking up to this scam" makes no difference. Pay your taxes or go to jail.

The third party called "The State" distorts sexual relations in society for the worse.

It distorts sexual relations for the better, so long as you're not a beta provider who has to rely on female financial need to get sex. If women fuck you because they want to, not transactionally, the more secure and happy and non-commitment-demanding the better.

Remove the forced transfers of money through the state, and a natural, stable order between the sexes will occour

There is no stable order between the sexes. Even when women need beta bucks from specific men they still cheat and still get their alpha fucks.

Personally I'm rather enjoying being freed from the obligation to provide for the women I fuck.

We will "enjoy the decline", live out our nihilstic hedonism, and leave future generations to deal with the consequenses of our selfish desires

I'm not making any future generations any worse by fucking women.

[-] Hjalmbere 1 Point 8 months ago

”many of you long for the strong sexual bonds and relationships people had before the sexual revolution” - Well boo-fucking-hoo: There’s no going back. Tradcon marriage was a very fragile institution and it’s impossible to restore it. Get used to it. If you want loyalty, buy a dog.

[-] hva92 1 Point 8 months ago

No, it's not the welfare state, it's chemtrails and galactic waves!

[-] Rian_Stone 1 Point 8 months ago

Stepping on one's own dick, then analyzing the footprint.

[-] graceful_aggression 1 Point 8 months ago

Reading too much between the lines.

[-] Acerp321 1 Point 8 months ago

Same game. New referees with some new rules.

Each player searching for way to exploit the rules for power.

Women are winning.

Blue pills are batting .000.

Red pill guys are all over the map. Life still isn’t fair. Might get fucked anyway. Accept it.

[-] [deleted] 8 months ago
[-] re4d3 1 Point 8 months ago

Totally true. Remove the excessive state and most of the modern society diseases will vanish.

Since women pine for 20% top men, it is obvious that in the past, most of the women had to agree with marriage with "substandard" men. Funny enough, they were more happy than today, being busy with kids and household. Also beta men being the primary breadwinners had in their eyes higher status.

Result of state-sponsored unchecked hypergamy is unsustainably low birth rate, messed up kids from divorced or single moms and state burdening working class by taxes, needed for providing for unproductive society members.

If you want to do something against the decline, teach your daughters to capitalize on their youth wisely, vote for change of unfair welfare, alimony and no fault divorce laws. Alternative is Zimbabwe or South Africa: whites wiped out because "their men wanted just blow jobs", basically being unable to handle their own bitches. Wannabe redpill weaklings.

[-] [deleted] 1 Point 8 months ago

Anger phase is fun isnt it, also quit trying to apply mortality to hypergammy ya weirdo, it doesnt care and neither should we :) As for building a future, I'm doing my part while doing my part.

[-] whatplanetrufrom 1 Point 8 months ago

I agree for the most part. It isn't just men being taxed to death though. It's responsible women too. We are paying nonproductive imbeciles to mass produce more imbeciles who then grow up, and most of them don't contribute to society in any meaningful way, except crime. So it isn't just sexual degeneracy that's being produced, it's generation after generation of criminals and burdens to the taxpayers also.

[-] [deleted] 1 Point 8 months ago

The sexual revolution enabled the welfare state. Not the other way around.

[-] JamesSkepp 4 Points 8 months ago

The beginnings of welfare state go as far as middle 19th century, both in UK and in US.

[-] [deleted] 0 Points 8 months ago

So does the sexual revolution.

[-] [deleted] 8 months ago
[-] awoke11 1 Point 8 months ago

You have some good points but its not this simple really.

[-] confusedguy911911 1 Point 8 months ago

I’m astonished how a lot of you people just don’t seem to understand the simplest concept of supply and demand .Ive seen endless posts about how woman should be this and that,it’s their fault for our modern society ,and betas enable this ..... all wrong.Everything you see that’s working so poorly my brothers comes down to simple supply and demand.Woman want sexual freedom and their is ample supply alpha or beta to give it to them, betas want to care for a woman and a child (even if it’s not theirs) so they can feel they are fulfilling their genetic role as a provider, and their are plenty of save a hoes for that role to.

Nobody cares anymore about the evident decline of society because frankly it doesn’t suit their agenda,what’s their agenda you ask ? Looking out for number 1# themselves .They don’t or won’t look at statistics and ask themselves “hey I wonder why more and more people are miserable,depressed or have epic anxiety”why? Because they don’t care , you can’t play the perpetual victim and have a clear view of how the world works at the same time ,those two ideas don’t ever meet on the same street.

With that said as a fellow Redpiller , my personal position on this great society of ours is accept the good parts for what they are and what we have (modern medicine,capitalism where you get back what you put in meaning no limits to growth,the easy availability of information take this site alone as an example ,the easy availability of literature and education).The second part and less glorious is to accept and be aware of the bad parts which when done properly can be advantageous ( the decline of the nuclear family,pandemic of personality disorders, future generations of useless contributors to society caused by piss poor parenting, the shift in wealth and slow death of the middle class )which you can easily avoid if you aren’t retarded, and this list goes on and on.

So in final just being aware of your surroundings doesn’t mean it becomes your role to change everything to your liking “good luck with that”. We are all part of this game it doesn’t matter if you like it or not ,just be smarter than the guy beside you and near the end game you won’t be a victim or byproduct .All one can do is have forward momentum no matter how bad these times are or will be .

One way to keep momentum going is to have constantly greater goals.

[-] BurnoutRS 1 Point 8 months ago

Women have figured out a way to get their betabux at a societal level. Used to be you had to show some skin in front of a rich simp and get him to move you into his estate. Now youre practically born into the estate and all you have to do to cash in is raise awareness of your "predicament" to the man with all the money.

Whats really happening is that we have become entirely disconnected from all that which would instill us with a sense of what humanity truly is. Men, being the more powerful sex, must be aware of both their own nature and women's, to maintain balance within a society. Women, to gain power over men, must strip them of this awareness.

The idea is that neither hypergamy nor polygamy provide the most suitable environment for raising the kind of child that might go on to be one of the top 20%. These are the people from which, according to the pareto distribution, 80% of the collective wealth of humanity (resources, goods, services, etc) come from

Another thing you have to consider is the role the unwashed masses have been playing thus far. Bigger picture what are we working towards as a society? Whenever I want to get an idea of what might be happening on a macroscale, I look to a microscale example. When you start a business like, lets say, a warehouse, you might pay a bunch of guys to help set up your shelving, rennovate the building you'll be using. Then when the job is done, the guys collect their pay and leave. The difference when you scaleit back up is that a job is temporary whereas life is permanent. The middle class, serving their purpose as the workforce on whose back society is borne intothe future, cannot collect their pay and leave once the work is done.

With the coming of artificial intelligience, are we encroaching on the final hour of the middle class in the workplace? Fuck if I know.

As a final point, the best videgames are ones that get progressively harder while still keeping you in a place where you feel competant, yet challenged. You are constantly pushing for new heights of acchievement. Achievement, is a senze of reward and validation. Heroin can give you a sense of reward and validation but theres no upward growth. The best career an opiate user could have would be starting at the bottom with codeine and working up the ranks gradually, through to fentanyl. Experience the highs of lesser opiates and gradually move on to stronger ones. the idea here is time. If you go right to heroin you screw yourself out of being able to enjoy the effects of lesser opiates because your tolerance is through the roof.

Chad dick has a similar effect on women as heroin. Same effect pussy has on guys who slay. We become desensitized. When youre desensitized you have only two options. Short term you find something with a bigger kick. move from codeine to tramadol, move from last weeks boring old chad to this weeks exciting new chad. Or the long term option which is to abstain. Absence makes the heart grow fonder. This is why heroin users often overdose upon relapse. When your tolerance was so high that you had to bang a big old chunk of tar to get off, its really damn hard to figure out what a proper dose is when youre getting back into the game after a couple months being clean. Those big rocks that barely did anything with your high tolerancd, are now a lethal dose with the low.

Anyways the whole point is that hypergamy, left unchecked, legitimately restructures a chicks ability to derive reward and satisfaction from just one dick. shes had so many, so much variety, that its all kind of boring now. Men, being the more powerful sex, have a better chance at corraling the female biological imperative. If a man is more powerful than a woman, then a man who can control himself should have no problem controlling a woman

added todays human can get their fill of sex, drugs, television, food, and get sick of it in a fraction of the time our ancestors could. Small town Sally of 100 years back only stopped at fucking everybody in town because she didnt have as easy of a time contacting a guy in the next town and getting him to pay her way there. The average time it takes for a girl to go from entering the SMV to becoming damaged goods is getting smaller and smaller. If you want my opinion on it, thats progress baby. We, collectively, have gotten so fucking good at meeting peoples needs that there are people who are having their needs met to the point that it destroys them psychologically and eventually kills them. People born into this decadence are like lottery winners. they dont know what to do with it, they didnt earn it and they dont know how to keep it. Im one of them and here's hoping I can see these pitfalls well enough to avoid them

[-] [deleted] 8 months ago
[-] dragonite12 0 Points 8 months ago

Ok we get it you’re an incel

[-] Skiffbug 0 Points 8 months ago

Leave politics out of redpill. There are subs for this sort of discussion, and this isn’t one of them.

[-] GayLubeOil 12 Points 8 months ago

Hur Durr I'm a retard who don't understand how economic incentives can drive sexual behavior

[-] Skiffbug 2 Points 8 months ago

I can understand how one thing influences the other, but what are YOU going to do about it? How will it help anyone deal with the world any better?

[-] GayLubeOil 8 Points 8 months ago

If your not interested in rabid hypergamy move to a country with a less developed economy. That's your practical application.

[-] rKKKselected 9 Points 8 months ago

"Look here m8, this radical antifeminist antiegalitarian antiliberal subreddit is totally APOLITICAL—leave your drumpfy wumpfy politics out of this!!"

[-] [deleted] 4 Points 8 months ago

You don't get to choose whether or not to play the game of politics.

To decide to be blind, or to decide to silence discussions because they don't fit into your neat little box of what you think "the red pill" should be isn't wise.

[-] Skiffbug 2 Points 8 months ago

So, are you going to be a candidate for the Red Pill party? You know, to make the change happen, acta non verba?

Or are you just full of shit and only talking about politics?

Because everything else that is discussed here is with the intent to go out and apply. Go lift, go practice your game, go Machiavellian at work. If it’s just bitching or waxing philosophical, check it out at the door.

[-] SasquatchMcKraken 1 Point 8 months ago

That'd make more sense if this sub was more open to actually changing the culture and defeating the current incarnation of feminism. But any time that happens you get an avalanche of "can't change it bro, enjoy the decline!" Surface-level anti-tax screeds and racial redpilling aren't very useful if that's all the politics we're going to do here. So either make it comprehensive or stay away from it entirely, IMHO.

[-] Fulltilt_Ronny 0 Points 8 months ago

So you basically want to remove welfare just so women take your dick in exchange for your money?

I would not be happy with that. Welfare isnt just for women, at least not in my country. And paying women for sex is called prostitution here. not really a good start for a serious LTR. Also, having a beta provider doesnt stop some women from chasing after other mens dick.

I am pretty happy with having welfare in my country. you lose your job? no problem, state got your basic needs covered until you find another one.

what i am not hapy with are parasitic people just sucking out the benefits of the system and never providing anything into it.

[-] [deleted] 8 months ago
[-] longduckdongger 0 Points 8 months ago

This is the most autistic thing I’ve read in a while

[-] mattizie 0 Points 8 months ago

Fucking spot on, mate.

Socialism or leftism in general is the root cause behind almost everything. From obesity to negative relations between the two sexes.

And you're right, it is fucking unsustainable. Men will only work into the system if they can be placated by purpose: family, career, sex. Take that away, and young men especially will just say to hell with it and flip the system on its head, they don't have anything to lose, and everything to gain.

[-] [deleted] 0 Points 8 months ago

Truthful text. Solution is to be alpha male all the time and to move to healthy society. If not possible, never to jump into society's trap.

[-] chances_are_ur_a_fag 0 Points 8 months ago

the slaves are defending their godverment hard in this thread. the state is a helluva drug

[-] [deleted] 8 months ago
[-] AriesAsF 0 Points 8 months ago

I agree with you. Basic economics. People will always respond predictably to financial incentives and social pressures. If having children out of wedlock means social rejection and financial ruin, women will make very different choices than if it is socially accepted and they are guaranteed financial support ( via government sanctioned theft).

[-] edargham -1 Point 8 months ago

So, what’s the point?

Here’s the bitter truth:

“Nothing is true, and everything is permitted. ”

There is no such thing as immoral. What you believe is good/bad applies solely to you and not to others.

Instead of complaining, start bettering yourself and seek perfection, become the Alpha Fucks that woman desire.

[-] dezwatz 2 Points 8 months ago

Except the statement "Nothing is true, and everything is permitted" isn't logically coherent.

[-] [deleted] 8 months ago
[-] aegir98 1 Point 8 months ago

Lol you are utterly contradicting yourself.

"Here's the bitter truth: Nothing is true."

If nothing is true, then you claiming that "nothing is true" contradicts your original statement. You are claiming something to be the "bitter truth" yet at the same time you say nothing is true.

Pure insanity. Probably the result of years of government indoctrination.

[-] edargham 1 Point 8 months ago

Nice Cherrypicking! I cannot help you if you cannot make sense of figurative interpretation, continue seeing without observing and hearing without listening.

[-] [deleted] -2 Point 8 months ago

[deleted]

[-] Saberinbed 9 Points 8 months ago

MGTOW is made up of mostly incels

[-] Thunderbird93 2 Points 8 months ago

To some men pussy is a mystery inside a riddle wrapped in an enigma. Shits sad bruh

[-] Saberinbed 2 Points 8 months ago

I dont blame some men though. Right now everything is heavily favoured towards women. Its just the reality we live in and its only going to get harder now that women on average will be making more money than men. You can still slam some nice poon, but you will never have those hotties stick around for anything long term unless you make more money than them.

[-] Thunderbird93 1 Point 8 months ago

True bruh but thats why I have a rule called 5S. Seek Skrilla Screen Screw & Scarper. Fuck having chicks for the long run , she's never yours, its just your turn bro.

[-] Fryborg 3 Points 8 months ago

As single mothers on welfare continue to squirt out daughters that will statistically most likely also end up as single mothers, and squirt out sons that will either turn out a basement neet, not generating little if any tax revenue, or worse, is on welfare himself or end up a criminal that will need to be dealt with via tax funded law enforcement and trials, this cancerous boil of a population will grow and become an ever increasing financial weight on society.

There is no voting this away, because women are the biggest block of voters. the ones who are not a tax burden want to keep the welfare state so they can satisfy their hypergamous instinct, and the ones already on welfare don't want to give it up for obvious reasons, so as the problem becomes more expensive, the only option is eventual outright collapse or an uprooting of democracy entirely.

[-] PsychedelicDentist 2 Points 8 months ago

22 trillion dollars in depth says it is unsustainable. Read 'bachelor pad economics' or 'enjoy the decline'

[-] Meowmixez98 -3 Point 8 months ago

There needs to be a politician who regularly makes these arguments on television.

[-] Thunderbird93 3 Points 8 months ago

Read William Graham Sumner-What The Social Classes Owe Each Other. Shit should be in the sidebar imo

[-] Haste- 2 Points 8 months ago

Shit should be taught at schools. Instead we have gender fluid 4th grade classes and how white privilege is why everyone else is failing. Sad af

[-] Thunderbird93 2 Points 8 months ago

I'm black but I hate when people talk of white privilege. Yeah colonialism occurred, yeah racism still exists but this victim mentality bullshit really pisses me off. In the political narrative nowadays its like a competition to see who is most aggrieved and therefore has claims on the labor of others.

[-] Big_Homie_Mozi -4 Point 8 months ago

The red pill isn’t about misogyny, or about issues like this. it’s about sexual strategy rooted in masculinity. I’m tired of seeing these shit posts. Keep this garbage off this subreddit.

[-] [deleted] -4 Point 8 months ago

[deleted]

[-] Skiffbug 1 Point 8 months ago

Always hard to tell, but I’m reading this as sarcasm.