[Geeza]

The fact that Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world (Pew Research Center) especially amongst women (outnumber men 4 to 1 apparently).

All this despite the amount of negative press it gets is interesting. Even more interesting is that in the west especially, it seems to be well off educated middle class turning to Islam for answers. And if it's making them better people - then good on them.

Personally I think travelling in Muslim counties and making an effort to understand the principles have changed my perception.

[hydrogonian]

Blue Pill/Red Pill is to simplistic for the question of Islam.

Red Pill/Blue Pill generally assumes the context of western culture, which Islam is not.

To illustrate:

Is anti-feminism Red Pill? Perhaps.
Is prostrating yourself five times per day with mostly 90 IQ zealots Red Pill? I'd argue "no".

[Burt Gummer]

Islam is not Red Pill. It is a competing control grid. Being Red Pill means being awake to the TRUTH about anyhting.

Islam is right about the nature of women but it is evil, dis-civic, and dysgenic.

Marrying cousins generation after generation destroys IQ for example. Thats not Red Pill

[greekgod]

All religions are red pill in the nature of male/female dynamics. Men lead, women follow.

I can't speak for judaism but Christianity underwent a big reformation and with modern westernization the culture it found itself predominantly in demanded changes. It now goes by the "intent of the law" as opposed to the letter of the law.

Islam has no tolerance, no leniency, or context. Its by the book or punishment. Its actually quite retarded.

Islam is autistic in its thought processes, can't read cultural clues. There are some thought provoking ideas there but the execution is so off putting that the oxygen will run out. On a grand scale, the cool kids at the party have tolerated the anti socialness for sometime but soon they will call the offensive linemen to escort the aspies out of the party. You can do your shit, you just can't do it here.

[Pride male]

There are two thing I like about Islam.

Women dress modestly.
No alcohol.

[pharao]

[Khan]

(05-04-2016 05:28 AM)Pride male Wrote:  

There are two thing I like about Islam.

Women dress modestly.
No alcohol.

Women dressing modestly isn't something intrinsic to Islam. Women have been dressing modestly in the West as well, up until the 1960s. It's just that Islam's tribal culture makes it almost immune against intrusion of foreign culture, and caveman-style patriarchy helps as well.

[Orion]

Not to mention that this fashion of dressing in all black face to feet was virtually non-existent in much of middle-east and is a modern Wahhabi invention from Saudi Arabia, that sick sectarian shithole without any culture or tradition

Folk dress in Syria



In Ottoman Empire



Iraq

[Alexandrian]

It assigns roles to men and women according to what is most natural. Nothing in between. Also a man is obliged to fight when he, his community or family is under attack, no "turning the other cheek". Besides that people need to know their place in the universe and bow to God five times per day.

I think it's red pill, especially compared to western culture. Why else would millions of muslims in the west stick to their own religion in stead of giving it up and westernize?

[ssvle]

What innovations have been brought to us by islamic states, since, mh, ever?
None that I know off.
I'm currently reading Ann Coulter's book - Adios America. She mentions: the natural state of the world is not America - it's Darfur.
I agree. If Islam spreads more, so will its "innovations" as well.

Would the internet exist in an Islamic world? Would it even have been invented? ... But hey, at least they forbid alcohol.

Oh I forgot Saudi princes are the ones who invented the Dubai porta potties. And the bottle parties on yachts.

[Alexandrian]

(05-11-2016 02:10 PM)ssvle Wrote:  

What innovations have been brought to us by islamic states, since, mh, ever?
None that I know off.
I'm currently reading Ann Coulter's book - Adios America. She mentions: the natural state of the world is not America - it's Darfur.
I agree. If Islam spreads more, so will its "innovations" as well.

Would the internet exist in an Islamic world? Would it even have been invented? ... But hey, at least they forbid alcohol.

Oh I forgot Saudi princes are the ones who invented the Dubai porta potties. And the bottle parties on yachts.

You're reading the wrong books lol

[Easy_C]

(05-11-2016 01:43 PM)Alexandrian Wrote:  

It assigns roles to men and women according to what is most natural. Nothing in between. Also a man is obliged to fight when he, his community or family is under attack, no "turning the other cheek". Besides that people need to know their place in the universe and bow to God five times per day.

I think it's red pill, especially compared to western culture. Why else would millions of muslims in the west stick to their own religion in stead of giving it up and westernize?

Only if "assigning roles to men and women" is the extent of redpill. I think there's a natural tendency to think of Islam as "redpill" because it orders women to submit on here.....but if you think "redpill" is being aware and awake to the world Islam as a whole is anything but.

As do many people on here, I have extensive first hand experience with Islamic culture and it is anything but redpill. Islam is not about "natural roles", it's about heirarchy and agression. They don't assign women inferior roles because it's "natural"(although they might claim that), but because it's another aspect of control over the society. That combined with polygamy doesn't result in what you guys think of as a "pussy paradise". It results in a small number of men with wealth marrying all the women and the remainder fighting over the scraps with nothing to do but fight and work.

It's been fairly extensively studied: polygamous societies are almost always less prosperous, less stable, and less educated(basic math/science/reading abilities, NOT the "degree" crap most westerners mistake for education). The reason is that men in polygamous societies generally do not invest in their families but continue to devote their resources to acquiring additional females for their harem. This was consistent with my own observations seeing large numbers of unattended children.



Other aspects of their society are not anything redpill. They demand unquestioning obedience to authority, are heavily ritualized, and have a militant mindset.

My observations is that it tends to produce extremely feminized, frustrated men. They're not "redpill". They were typically socially awkward, had little muscle mass, and were very untrustworthy and easily frustrateable. It's almost a scavenger mindset where you figure the world sucks so you might as well do whatever you can for yourself and fuck everybody else.In that regard they're almost closer to Elliot Roger types: they're well aware that their lives are governed by agendas outside their control, but they a submissive, subordinate mindset that prevents them from organizing enough to do anything about it....and even if they did what's the point? They only thing they see changing is the name of the strongman in charge.

[Chris Brown]

Slightly tangent. Why were the Muslims and Turks able to conquer Spain, the Sassanids, the Balkans and Constantinople? Were they simply better warriors than everybody else? And why did their empire last so long without people rebelling?

[Montrose]

You are mixing many different things. ‘The Muslim and the Turks’ cover dozens of different political entities who often fought each other and rebelled against each other.

The initial Arab success against Byzantium and the Sassanid (8th century AD) is due to the fact that both Empires were exhausted fighting each other, and the Semitic populations of the South of the Med were fed up of those Indo-European Empires (Byzantium = Greek, Sassanid = Iranian) so they welcomed the Arabs and the new religion with enthusiasm. The Orthodox Church had always been distrusted in Egypt which favored simpler theology (Monophysitism). Byzantium administration considered Egyptians to be heretics and treated them heavy handed.

[Montrose]

The Turks is a completely different story. The Turks chose Islam almost by chance. They arrived late in the region (around 1000 AD). The Seldjukids took some territory from Byzantium after MentziKert (1071) but it took 4 more centuries for another Turkish tribe (the Ottomans) to capture Constantinople. Turkish success imo is mostly due to their fighting abilities.

The Turks, like the Mongols (who also embraced Islam to a large extent) had extraordinarily efficient military organization for the time. They crushed the various Arab kingdoms, converted to Islam and ruled over them. They made some progress over the Christians but relatively little compared to against the Muslims.

[Montrose]

The Muslims were much more tolerant than the Christians. They accepted Jews and Christians in the Califate. By contrast, the Christian Crusaders just killed everyone.

[Barron]

Any confidence a Muslim man has is based in entitlement. His society gave it to him and he has done nothing to earn it.

Any confidence a Christian man has is based in his ability. His society does everything to take it from him and any amount of confidence he has was earned through overcoming adversity.

[Syberpunk]

(01-26-2018 06:38 AM)Montrose Wrote:  

The Muslims were much more tolerant than the Christians. They accepted Jews and Christians in the Califate. By contrast, the Christian Crusaders just killed everyone.

They sure accepted them.........into the slavery of Islam through the jizya for centuries until the Christians pulled their finger out and decided Europe could be liberated, but the damage was done.

I've never disagreed with a post so much on this forum.

I'll restrain myself from flinging this at you:

[Super_Fire]

(01-26-2018 08:03 AM)NomadofEU Wrote:  

Any confidence a Muslim man has is based in entitlement. His society gave it to him and he has done nothing to earn it.

Any confidence a Christian man has is based in his ability. His society does everything to take it from him and any amount of confidence he has was earned through overcoming adversity.

I.E. Islam is Gamma.

[Rob Banks]

Quote:

Any confidence a Muslim man has is based in entitlement. His society gave it to him and he has done nothing to earn it.

Any confidence a Christian man has is based in his ability. His society does everything to take it from him and any amount of confidence he has was earned through overcoming adversity.

So by this logic, men from the patriarchal European societies of the past were really losers because their confidence was "given" to them by virtue of living in a patriarchal society, and only men who live in blue-pill feminist or communist societies can truly be strong and confident.

There is a lot of Islam-hating on the forum, on ROK, etc. Most of it is justified. After all, we are at war with Islam and our leftist governments are doing nothing to stop the Muslims from invading.

However, when I start reading comments about how Muslim men are the "true misogynists," and how they "oppress" women and "repress women's sexuality" by forcing them to cover up, it's hard for me take seriously.

Acknowledging that Muslim men are red pill and know how to keep their women in line does not mean we have to love them or tolerate their presence in our countries. Likewise, being at war with Muslims doesn't mean we have to adopt a leftist/feminist point of view in order to justify our hatred and criticism of them.

First of all, if Islam is causing all these problems in the world, then the Muslim women are just as responsible as the Muslim men. After all, these women support their men and tolerate and encourag their behavior. If Muslim women refused to have sex with terrorists, Islamic terrorism would end tomorrow. The women are just as guilty as the men. They are not "oppressed victims."

I'm sorry to keep ranting about this, but it's really starting to get on my nerves that whenever right-wingers talk about Muslims, they always talk about the women as if they were poor little oppressed victims. Whether it's Sean Hannity on Fox News bitching about how horrible it is that "marital rape" (an oxymoron IMO) is legal in Muslim countries, or that women aren't (weren't?) allowed to drive in Saudi Arabia, European nationalists supporting a burka ban because they believe burkas are "oppressive to women" and "run counter to our values of freedom and openness," or commeters on here or on ROK talking about how barbaric the Muslims are for their treatment of women.

I once posted in the ROK comments section that I didn't like how supposedly anti-feminist guys would claim that Muslim men were "true misogynists" and "oppressors of women" and some guy responded to me and (unironically) said to me "What do you mean? Muslim men are true misogynists and they do oppress women." And then a bunch of people agreed with him.

With so many legitimate reasons to criticize/hate Islam, is it really necessary to resort to using feminist talking points?

In the modern West, there seems to be this concept that all war is bad an evil, and should be avoided at all costs. The only time war is acceptable is when the enemy is so evil and so totally barbaric, backwards, and incapable of reason that war is the only option. This is culturally ingrained so deeply in us that even so-called red pill men tend to think like this. In my opinion, this is why right wingers are so quick to define every aspect of Islam as evil, even if it means adopting a feminist point of view

If we were to admit that Muslims have some level of virtue, that they are unafraid to fight to defend their religion, that they know how to keept their women in line, that they love their families, etc, then all of a sudden it is no longer justified for us to be at war with them (according to our bogus anti-war cultural standards). So we define Muslims as 100% evil. Their willingness to fight gets redefined as "barbarism." Their patriarchal control over their women gets redefined as "misogyny" and "oppression." Their love for their family and their religion gets redefined as "conformism" and "brainwashing."

This is not necessary. In the past, it was possible to be at war with someone and not see them as totally evil. Just because I am being honest about Islam's stregnths and weaknesses doesn't mean I'm "sympathizing" with them or declaring that we shoudn't be at war with them.

PS: I have not read through all the comments on this thread. My comment is referencing other threads and discussions on ROK from the past, not necessarily comments from this thread.

[Durango]

Like any large belief system, some of the tenants are red pill and some are not. But don't underestimate the impact Islam will have on the West.

On this page alone, three positive responses about Islam came from users in the UK, France, and Germany, places that I would define as spiritually dead and are growing in Islamic influence. Having real-world interactions with Muslims who just want a better life, and actually take their religion seriously has appeal to those living in a society that continues to regress into degeneracy.

If you are either from the Middle East, spent more than 2 years there, or have close relationships with Muslims with were raised in Muslim-dominant countries, then you have a perspective on Islam more in line with reality, and not from agenda-driven media. Some red pill truths are the power of family/societal shaming via religion to keep behaviors in line, and others that are not depend on the country you reside in. Saudi is very different than Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, etc. I wouldn't call Judaism, Christianity, or Islam more red pill than the other, but Islam is the only major religion that plays a very large role in nations today regarding law and behavior. Israel and Western countries have norms derived from their religion, but the laws and governance are mostly secular.

Expect to see some Western nations adopt Islamic mores going forward to stabilize their cultural decline, and also for current extreme societies in the Middle East (Saudi, Iran) to become a lot more liberal, but still conservative by Western standards. Whether this is good or bad depends on the individual.

[Durango]

(02-04-2018 01:33 AM)Rob Banks Wrote:  

Quote:

Any confidence a Muslim man has is based in entitlement. His society gave it to him and he has done nothing to earn it.

Any confidence a Christian man has is based in his ability. His society does everything to take it from him and any amount of confidence he has was earned through overcoming adversity.

So by this logic, men from the patriarchal European societies of the past were really losers because their confidence was "given" to them by virtue of living in a patriarchal society, and only men who live in blue-pill feminist or communist societies can truly be strong and confident.

There is a lot of Islam-hating on the forum, on ROK, etc. Most of it is justified. After all, we are at war with Islam and our leftist governments are doing nothing to stop the Muslims from invading.

However, when I start reading comments about how Muslim men are the "true misogynists," and how they "oppress" women and "repress women's sexuality" by forcing them to cover up, it's hard for me take seriously.

Acknowledging that Muslim men are red pill and know how to keep their women in line does not mean we have to love them or tolerate their presence in our countries. Likewise, being at war with Muslims doesn't mean we have to adopt a leftist/feminist point of view in order to justify our hatred and criticism of them.

First of all, if Islam is causing all these problems in the world, then the Muslim women are just as responsible as the Muslim men. After all, these women support their men and tolerate and encourag their behavior. If Muslim women refused to have sex with terrorists, Islamic terrorism would end tomorrow. The women are just as guilty as the men. They are not "oppressed victims."

I'm sorry to keep ranting about this, but it's really starting to get on my nerves that whenever right-wingers talk about Muslims, they always talk about the women as if they were poor little oppressed victims. Whether it's Sean Hannity on Fox News bitching about how horrible it is that "marital rape" (an oxymoron IMO) is legal in Muslim countries, or that women aren't (weren't?) allowed to drive in Saudi Arabia, European nationalists supporting a burka ban because they believe burkas are "oppressive to women" and "run counter to our values of freedom and openness," or commeters on here or on ROK talking about how barbaric the Muslims are for their treatment of women.

I once posted in the ROK comments section that I didn't like how supposedly anti-feminist guys would claim that Muslim men were "true misogynists" and "oppressors of women" and some guy responded to me and (unironically) said to me "What do you mean? Muslim men are true misogynists and they do oppress women." And then a bunch of people agreed with him.

With so many legitimate reasons to criticize/hate Islam, is it really necessary to resort to using feminist talking points?

In the modern West, there seems to be this concept that all war is bad an evil, and should be avoided at all costs. The only time war is acceptable is when the enemy is so evil and so totally barbaric, backwards, and incapable of reason that war is the only option. This is culturally ingrained so deeply in us that even so-called red pill men tend to think like this. In my opinion, this is why right wingers are so quick to define every aspect of Islam as evil, even if it means adopting a feminist point of view

If we were to admit that Muslims have some level of virtue, that they are unafraid to fight to defend their religion, that they know how to keept their women in line, that they love their families, etc, then all of a sudden it is no longer justified for us to be at war with them (according to our bogus anti-war cultural standards). So we define Muslims as 100% evil. Their willingness to fight gets redefined as "barbarism." Their patriarchal control over their women gets redefined as "misogyny" and "oppression." Their love for their family and their religion gets redefined as "conformism" and "brainwashing."

This is not necessary. In the past, it was possible to be at war with someone and not see them as totally evil. Just because I am being honest about Islam's stregnths and weaknesses doesn't mean I'm "sympathizing" with them or declaring that we shoudn't be at war with them.

PS: I have not read through all the comments on this thread. My comment is referencing other threads and discussions on ROK from the past, not necessarily comments from this thread.

When your argument for resisting Islam is to protect feminism and gay marriage, you have already lost. Western men are going to need real reasons to fight in order for their countries to survive. Expect many to numb themselves with cheap entertainment and porn when the battle is between Islam and "freedom," which nowadays is synonymous with gay marriage, drug abuse, and hookup culture.

And kind of like you said regarding right-wingers and Islam, a fact that would surprise them is that women fight tooth and nail to keep extreme sects of Islam intact. In Yemen, where there is no minimum age of marriage and girls as young as 12 get married (14% before 15 from a 2006 study), it was mostly WOMEN protesting in the streets when laws were proposed to make 17 or 18 the minimum age. While Islam in and of itself is not red pill, a Westerner living in multiple countries in the Middle East will get one of the largest red pill experiences on human nature, and a big dose of cognitive dissonance if he was never introduced to the red pill before.

[PUSSYPOUNDER]

I don't know I don't personally care. But I have been with a few Muslim girls Somalian..tajiks..yemenis..Iranian..and their pretty red pill to the max. One even told me to be a man and fuck her during her period. I didn't however she stopped ringing my celly

[Graft]

A red pill society is one where women, by choice, choose to be traditional, and collectively shame otherwise.

[911]

Most women don't "choose", they comply with to the prevailing cultural norms. That choice is made for them.