[Leonard D Neubache]

(02-04-2018 05:55 PM)Graft Wrote:  

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

That's hardly a fair assessment since there's never been a proven case of that in all of human history.

Women have always been coerced, if not physically then economically. Historically fear of poverty or attacks from outside forces have always driven them into male protection. Our civilisation marks what is probably the first time women have been able to exist financially independently of men and their biology turns that empowerment into a train wreck that hits a proverbial garbage truck.

The nature of women does not allow them to be equal AND traditional. Traditional gender dynamics go only as far as allowing a woman some measure of choice over who her master is going to be. Beyond that? You'll end up with the clusterfuck we have today, guaranteed.

[Graft]

(02-04-2018 07:12 PM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

(02-04-2018 05:55 PM)Graft Wrote:  

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

That's hardly a fair assessment since there's never been a proven case of that in all of human history.

Women have always been coerced, if not physically then economically. Historically fear of poverty or attacks from outside forces have always driven them into male protection. Our civilisation marks what is probably the first time women have been able to exist financially independently of men and their biology turns that empowerment into a train wreck that hits a proverbial garbage truck.

The nature of women does not allow them to be equal AND traditional. Traditional gender dynamics go only as far as allowing a woman some measure of choice over who her master is going to be. Beyond that? You'll end up with the clusterfuck we have today, guaranteed.

I guess whether a society is red pill is subjective. Women have always contributed to the economy in the United States going back to the first or second world war.

Women were perfectly capable of economically surviving for at least the latter half of the 20th century. They chose to marry based on a tangible economic benefit, but women are all romantically transactional.

[Leonard D Neubache]

(02-04-2018 09:06 PM)Graft Wrote:  

...

I guess whether a society is red pill is subjective. Women have always contributed to the economy in the United States going back to the first or second world war.

Women were perfectly capable of economically surviving for at least the latter half of the 20th century. They chose to marry based on a tangible economic benefit, but women are all romantically transactional.

USA Confederation: 1781

US joins WW1: 1917
Us Joins WW2: 1941

Quote:

Women have always contributed to the economy in the United States going back to the first or second world war.

Yeah, America didn't exist before WW1. Regardless, WW2 with women entering the workforce in massive numbers is widely recognised by historians as the birthplace of modern feminism and recognised further by red-pilled historians as the beginning of the end for the West.

[Piankhi]

Not sure about Islam but the doctrines of Christianity are definitely impractical in the real world. Loving of enemies, turning the other cheek, hanging out with whores and criminals, not looking at a woman with lust, being ok with adultery, self sacrifice etc. Christianity is beta as fuck. Old school Judaism however...

[Samseau]

(02-04-2018 11:31 PM)Piankhi Wrote:  

Not sure about Islam but the doctrines of Christianity are definitely impractical in the real world. Loving of enemies, turning the other cheek, hanging out with whores and criminals, not looking at a woman with lust, being ok with adultery, self sacrifice etc. Christianity is beta as fuck. Old school Judaism however...

This is definitely the blue pill, zero thought involved, interpretation of Christianity. Sadly it is all too common.

There's 100x more nuance to all of the points you've named.

For example, Loving your Enemies - as a way to show moral purity - does not mean you love Enemies more than Neighbors. It means to show mercy even to those who do not deserve or have earned it, like how the USA treated Japan after WW2. The reason Christians do this is because Christ showed us this is actually how God is - He sends His rain down on the just and unjust alike, shines His sun on both good and evil. Thus by imitating God do we receive his blessings.

Turning of cheek - same rationale, but mainly to be applied to when you are slighted over minor things, such as insults or loss of small things, rather than fight people over nothing.

Hanging out with whores and criminals - you're supposed to cure them of sin, not hang out with them.

Not looking at a woman with lust - wrong. Jesus says, "He who looks at a woman with lust has committed adultery in his heart," but adultery cannot be committed on a woman who isn't married and if you aren't married. Likewise He who looks at an unmarried woman with purely lust has committed whoring in his heart, since all you're doing is viewing the woman just for sex. Jesus taught that our intentions matter, and is what God primarily judges us by. Pursuing a single woman as a single man because you desire her for sex but also as a wife, or primarily because you want her as a wife, is not a sin.

Being ok with adultery - no, it's not even close to okay, but if you can forgive someone who cheats on you (doesn't mean you need to stay married to that person) then God will be very merciful to you on judgement day. You will be judged as you judge others, and as you forgive you will be forgiven.

Self-sacrifice - Islam copies Christianity on this. For the right causes, self-sacrifice is one of the greatest of acts a person can commit. It is called charity and martyrdom.

[Samseau]

By the way - Islam is a bill pill religion, which is why 80% of Islamic countries are total fuckups and the 20% that are successful barely follow the blasphemy known as the Koran. Cousin-fucking savages produce no fruits.

[Super_Fire]

Islam is gamma as hell.

The secret prince, incel, "why does she like the guys with freedom", I'll blow myself up and show her of religions.

Gamma, through and through.

[EndsExpect]

This was posted by an Anonymous former Muslim on Quora regarding whether Muhammad served Allah, or Allah served Muhammad.

________________________________________________________________________________​____________________________

Allah allowed 4 wifes but Muhammad could have way more.

"O Prophet (Muhammad)! Verily, We have made lawful to you your wives, to whom you have paid their Mahr (bridal money given by the husband to his wife at the time of marriage), and those (captives or slaves) whom your right hand possesses -- whom God has given to you, and the daughters of your 'Amm (paternal uncles) and the daughters of your 'Ammah (paternal aunts) and the daughters of your Khâl (maternal uncles) and the daughters of your Khâlah (maternal aunts) who migrated (from Makkah) with you, and a believing woman if she offers herself to the Prophet, and the Prophet wishes to marry her; a privilege for you only, not for the (rest of) the believers."

Qur'an 33:50

Muslims have to be fair to all wives but not necessarily Muhammad.

"You (O Muhammad) can postpone (the turn of) whom you will of them (your wives), and you may receive whom you will. And whomsoever you desire of those whom you have set aside (her turn temporarily), it is no sin on you (to receive her again), that is better; that they may be comforted and not grieved, and may all be pleased with what you give them. God knows what is in your hearts. And God is Ever All-Knowing, Most Forbearing."

Qur'an 33:51

The curious case of Zaynab bint Jash.

“…..that which God will make manifest, you did fear the people (i.e., Muhammad married the divorced wife of his manumitted slave) whereas God had a better right that you should fear Him…”

Quran 33:37(Muhammad did fear the people, showing how he wasn’t blind how scandalous this marriage was)

Muhammad’s love triangle drama between him, Mary the copt, and his wives

O Prophet! Why do you ban (for yourself) that which God has made lawful to you.."

Qur'an 66:1

Allah told his wives to stay submitted and shut up, Allah had made Mary the copt lawful.

And to add insult to injury, Allah then chastised Aisha and Hafsa for condemning Muhammad for having sex with Mary the slave girl:

And (remember) when the Prophet disclosed a matter in confidence to one of his wives (Hafsah), so when she told it (to another i.e. 'Aishah), and God made it known to him, he informed part thereof and left a part. Then when he told her (Hafsah) thereof, she said: "Who told you this?" He said: "The All-Knower, the All-Aware (God) has told me". If you two (wives of the Prophet , namely 'Aishah and Hafsah) turn in repentance to God, (it will be better for you), your hearts are indeed so inclined (to oppose what the Prophet likes), but if you help one another against him (Muhammad), then verily, God is his Maula (Lord, or Master, or Protector, etc.), and Jibrael (Gabriel), and the righteous among the believers, and furthermore, the angels are his helpers. It may be if he divorced you (all) that his Lord will give him instead of you, wives better than you, Muslims (who submit to God), believers, obedient to God, turning to God in repentance, worshipping God sincerely, fasting or emigrants (for God's sake), previously married and virgins."

Qur'an 66:3-5

The satanic verses incident.

In an attempt to appease the Meccans, buy some time and bring relief to his followers from hostility, Muhammad one night had a revelation found in Quran 53:19-22 which originally read, "Have you thought of al-Lat and al-Uzza and Manat the third, the other; these are the exalted Gharaniq whose intercession is approved."

ibn Ishaq, p. 165-166; see also History of al-Tabari , vol VI: Muhammad at Mecca, p. 108-109

"Never did We send an apostle or a prophet before thee, but, when he framed a desire, Satan threw some (vanity) into his desire: but God will cancel anything (vain) that Satan throws in, and God will confirm (and establish) His Signs: for God is full of Knowledge and Wisdom."

Qur'an 22:52

In other words, all prophets before you, Muhammad, have done the same thing, so don't feel so bad. God will correct all anything Satan causes you to say.

To justify raiding the caravan in the holy month.

"Fighting therein is a great (transgression) but a greater (transgression) with God is to prevent mankind from following the Way of God, to disbelieve in Him, to prevent access to Al-Masjid-al-Harâm (at Makkah), and to drive out its inhabitants, and Al-Fitnah is worse than killing.

Quran 2:217

Muhammad could revise forgetful Allah.

Narrated Al-Bara:

There was revealed: 'Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and those who strive and fight in the Cause of Allah.' (4.95)

The Prophet said, "Call Zaid for me and let him bring the board, the inkpot and the scapula bone (or the scapula bone and the ink pot)."' Then he said, "Write: 'Not equal are those Believers who sit..", and at that time 'Amr bin Um Maktum, the blind man was sitting behind the Prophet . He said, "O Allah's Apostle! What is your order For me (as regards the above Verse) as I am a blind man?" So, instead of the above Verse, the following Verse was revealed:

'Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) except those who are disabled (by injury or are blind or lame etc.) and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah.' (4.95)

Sahih Bukhari 6:61:512

There are many many more. But I’ll stop here so it won’t be too long. The point has been made, that he self proclaimed his prophethood with no miracles to give as his burden of proof. He did however have so many How Convenient Just in Time Revelations that were not for humanity but rather for his perversed needs.

Let me close with none other than his favorite Aisha:

Narrated Aisha: I used to look down upon those ladies who had given themselves to Allah's Apostle and I used to say, "Can a lady give herself (to a man)?" But when Allah revealed: "You (O Muhammad) can postpone (the turn of) whom you will of them (your wives), and you may receive any of them whom you will; and there is no blame on you if you invite one whose turn you have set aside (temporarily).' (33.51) I said (to the Prophet), "I feel that your Lord hastens in fulfilling your wishes and desires."

Sahih Bukhari 6:60:311

I agree, if Allah is real He was no more than his pimp.

[Blaster]

Islam is a crude, oversimplified cult looks red pill only because it's an ancient religion that has resisted corruption by feminism.

[Aquarius]

Islam isn't just blue pill. Its omega male pill. Not even blue pill beta males would like chicks to all look like folded black patio umbrellas or garbage sacks.

Its a real shame too as underneath the garbage sacks, we have >100 million potential Latinas.

[Piankhi]

I saw a talk by Yuval Harari and he says Islam wont be that prevalent in the future. All this jihad stuff are the last kicks of a dying horse. He explains how religion is unable to deal with the complex scientific worls hence we need new stories.

[loremipsum]

(02-09-2018 10:14 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

(02-04-2018 11:31 PM)Piankhi Wrote:  

Not sure about Islam but the doctrines of Christianity are definitely impractical in the real world. Loving of enemies, turning the other cheek, hanging out with whores and criminals, not looking at a woman with lust, being ok with adultery, self sacrifice etc. Christianity is beta as fuck. Old school Judaism however...

This is definitely the blue pill, zero thought involved, interpretation of Christianity. Sadly it is all too common.

There's 100x more nuance to all of the points you've named.

Not looking at a woman with lust - wrong. Jesus says, "He who looks at a woman with lust has committed adultery in his heart," but adultery cannot be committed on a woman who isn't married and if you aren't married. Likewise He who looks at an unmarried woman with purely lust has committed whoring in his heart, since all you're doing is viewing the woman just for sex. Jesus taught that our intentions matter, and is what God primarily judges us by. Pursuing a single woman as a single man because you desire her for sex but also as a wife, or primarily because you want her as a wife, is not a sin.

This is one of the problems I have thought about a while.
Why would God create a man who after seeing a beautiful woman get's his sexual urge, and at the same time scorn man for having such feelings.

Like you said, that is indeed a common interpretation.
I'm not sure if it's a conscious effort to undermine Christianity, or just the lack of proper explanation, but even some mainstream churches and pastors teach the simple "looking at woman with is sin / male sexuality is bad/ sex is bad" , which is one of the things that will keep people from Christianity.

It's obvious that God created lust so that man would procreate, get married, and have children who praise the lord.
When they make that into lust = bad equation, it get's really twisted.

[PharaohRa]

Islam, believe it or not, is a matriarchy posing as a patriarchy, and thus could be one of the major reasons why it and feminism/leftism/communism gel together. Here are the reasons why:

The best position a woman can be is a harem for an apex alpha male. Sounds familiar? That is what feminists truly desire (Share the alpha and fuck over the betas)
A male can have 4 wives and tons of concubines. The other males have to settle for scraps, go gay or go jihad? This is what is happens in a matriarchy
Pedophilia, Bestiality and degeneracy are rampant because the excess males do not have females. Another symptom of matriarchy
The worst punishments are saved for men and there is rampant infighting between males because of a slight insight. This is caused by a matriarchal environment denying direction to men
The Quran itself is a contradictory book filled with Mohammad saying 1 thing and doing another. This is female behavior to the T.

If anyone wants to argue otherwise, prove these wrong!

[EndsExpect]

(02-25-2018 05:03 PM)loremipsum Wrote:  

This is one of the problems I have thought about a while.
Why would God create a man who after seeing a beautiful woman get's his sexual urge, and at the same time scorn man for having such feelings.
Like you said, that is indeed a common interpretation.
I'm not sure if it's a conscious effort to undermine Christianity, or just the lack of proper explanation, but even some mainstream churches and pastors teach the simple "looking at woman with is sin / male sexuality is bad/ sex is bad" , which is one of the things that will keep people from Christianity.
It's obvious that God created lust so that man would procreate, get married, and have children who praise the lord.
When they make that into lust = bad equation, it get's really twisted.

The Christian argument is that God gave man the ability to rise above his own nature. If you follow your own instincts and lust after everything... then you are a beast not a man.

Why would God create a test for men? No idea.

(03-04-2018 12:03 PM)PharaohRa Wrote:  

Islam, believe it or not, is a matriarchy posing as a patriarchy, and thus could be one of the major reasons why it and feminism/leftism/communism gel together. Here are the reasons why:
The best position a woman can be is a harem for an apex alpha male. Sounds familiar? That is what feminists truly desire (Share the alpha and fuck over the betas)
A male can have 4 wives and tons of concubines. The other males have to settle for scraps, go gay or go jihad? This is what is happens in a matriarchy
Pedophilia, Bestiality and degeneracy are rampant because the excess males do not have females. Another symptom of matriarchy
The worst punishments are saved for men and there is rampant infighting between males because of a slight insight. This is caused by a matriarchal environment denying direction to men
The Quran itself is a contradictory book filled with Mohammad saying 1 thing and doing another. This is female behavior to the T.
If anyone wants to argue otherwise, prove these wrong!

I would not call it Matriarchy. Leftists are generally speaking an anti-christian hate group. That's probably the best way to understand their core motives. They support Islam simply because the enemy of their enemy is a friend.

I promise you this. Once Islam becomes a majority in Europe... they will clash with the leftists the same way they clash with leftists in the Middle East. Leftists are used to hating on Christians who deal with them nicely and politely. When they butt heads with Islam it is always violence and Leftists always lose.

[loremipsum]

(03-04-2018 12:15 PM)EndsExpect Wrote:  

(02-25-2018 05:03 PM)loremipsum Wrote:  

This is one of the problems I have thought about a while.
Why would God create a man who after seeing a beautiful woman get's his sexual urge, and at the same time scorn man for having such feelings.
Like you said, that is indeed a common interpretation.
I'm not sure if it's a conscious effort to undermine Christianity, or just the lack of proper explanation, but even some mainstream churches and pastors teach the simple "looking at woman with is sin / male sexuality is bad/ sex is bad" , which is one of the things that will keep people from Christianity.
It's obvious that God created lust so that man would procreate, get married, and have children who praise the lord.
When they make that into lust = bad equation, it get's really twisted.

The Christian argument is that God gave man the ability to rise above his own nature. If you follow your own instincts and lust after everything... then you are a beast not a man.

Some people like R.A.Wilson say that Jews concentrated their sexuality purely on procreation to get more soldiers to defend the tribe.
I don't know, even the gnostic argument that God is evil and planted sexual urges so that humans would procreate and create off springs from which to feed their soul energy on seems more plausible than God just hating sexuality.

[godfather dust]

Harsh control of women: debatably red pill.

Doing retarded shit and running a backwards society because of a few books and a square rock in Mecca: not red pill.

[Mr_Nobody]

(03-10-2018 06:26 PM)godfather dust Wrote:  

Harsh control of women: debatably red pill.

Doing retarded shit and running a backwards society because of a few books and a square rock in Mecca: not red pill.

Keeping women from driving cars: Red Pill

Bombing people with suicide vests: not red pill.

[Piankhi]

Banning homosexuality, red pill.

Circumcision of women and boys, not red pill.

[Paracelsus]

Keeping other religions and cultures as second class citizens under your authority, red pill

The entire religion depending on exterior appearances rather than internal transformation, not red pill.

[Piankhi]

Growing beards, red pill.

Marrying little girls, not red pill.

[Barron]

(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.

You took my quote out of context by invoking all of history when I was speaking only to the present. For example, the western establishment of 100 years ago wasn't actively shaming the Christian way of life and blaming white men for its problems while importing hordes of military aged Muslim men.
The fact is that 99% of Muslim men have no game because they've never needed to develop it. When they bring their mentality of entitlement to the west, most of them end up frustrated when women refuse to submit to their advances. It's not their fault, just a consequence of their culture and belief system.
Can a Muslim man learn and apply game? Of course! Is it common? No. Reason being that they would first have to come to terms with their ego and sense of entitlement regarding women, which most Muslim men would see as absolute blasphemy.

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

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.

There are conflicting statements in the bolded part above. If there is a "war with Islam" it is because leftist governments are facilitating a Muslim invasion. I don't blame Islam or Muslim men for what is happening in the west. Islam is just doing what it does when it's radicalized and Muslim men are just doing what they do when they're given a free pass to do so. This is simply a war of information. The few in power are using misinformation to control, disrupt and destroy an increasingly defiant native population. Shipping in hordes of Muslim men is just one of their means of doing so.

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

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.

Again, you're wrong. Other than being born a male, what does a Muslim man in an Islamic country have to do to "keep his woman in line"?: Nothing but breathe.

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

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.

I understand you may gotten an implication of hatred in my post, but it was purely criticism. The only hatred I have is for the western establishment that is actively attempting to undermine and destroy my way of life (heritage American).

[Rob Banks]

(02-04-2018 11:31 PM)Piankhi Wrote:  

Not sure about Islam but the doctrines of Christianity are definitely impractical in the real world. Loving of enemies, turning the other cheek, hanging out with whores and criminals, not looking at a woman with lust, being ok with adultery, self sacrifice etc. Christianity is beta as fuck. Old school Judaism however...

Huh???????

Where in the Bible does it say adultery is okay?

The Bible says that God forgives adulterers (just like He forgives other sinners) but that does not mean adultery (or any other sin) is okay.

You are taking a modern, perverted interpretation of Christianity and assuming that historical (true) Christianity was always interpreted that way.

Let me ask you this: If historical Christianity were as cucked as you claim it is, then how did Christian civilization survive and thrive for so long (before leftism took over in the 20th century)?

[Rob Banks]

(03-12-2018 04:51 AM)NomadofEU Wrote:  

(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.

You took my quote out of context by invoking all of history when I was speaking only to the present. The fact is that 99% of Muslim men have no game because they've never needed to develop it. When they bring their mentality of entitlement to the west, most of them end up frustrated when women refuse to submit to their advances. It's not their fault, just a consequence of their culture and belief system.
Can a Muslim man learn and apply game? Of course! Is it common? No. Reason being that they would first have to come to terms with their ego and sense of entitlement regarding women, which most Muslim would see as absolute blasphemy.

Human nature has been the same througout all of history.

You are claiming that if a man has confidence because his society fosters and encourages him to be confident, this is not "true confidence," and that true confidence only comes when a man is in a society that is actively working against him and discouraging him from being confident.

You are making a broad generalization about human society and human nature, not some claim that is specific to the present time period. If you are claiming this to be true in the modern world, why would it not be true throughout the rest of history as well?

(03-12-2018 04:51 AM)NomadofEU Wrote:  

(03-12-2018 04:51 AM)NomadofEU Wrote:  

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

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.

You contradict yourself in the bolded part above. If there is a "war with Islam" it is because leftist governments are facilitating a Muslim invasion. I don't blame Islam or Muslim men for what is happening in the west. Islam is just doing what it does when it's radicalized. Muslim men are just doing what Muslim men do when they're given a free pass to do so. This is simply a war of information. The few in power are using misinformation to control, disrupt and destroy an increasingly defiant native population. Shipping in hordes of Muslim men is just one of their means of doing so.

The radical Muslims themselves consider themselved to be at war with us. I'm just going by what they themselves say.

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

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.

Again, you're wrong. Other than being born a male, what does a Muslim man in an Islamic country have to do to "keep his woman in line"?: Nothing but breathe.

This is idiotic. Are you saying Muslim men do nothing to keep their women in line? I guess the women just decide not to get out of line on their own, with no influence or imput from the men, right?

Muslim men, as a whole, keep their women in line. Yes, sometimes they use extreme measures that I do not condone, but this is, in my opinion, preferable to allowing your women to be sluts and not keeping them in line at all.

I guess you are saying that Muslim men don't individually do anything to keep their women in line because Muslim society (as a whole) already forces women not to get out of line. This may be true, but wouldn't it be nice if Western society forced (or even encouraged) women to be traditional?

Are you actually saying it is a bad thing for a society to enforce standards on female behavior because this somehow excuses men from having to individually make an effort to keep their women in line?

The reason a Muslim man doesn't have to do anything to keep his woman in line is because his woman likely won't step out of line to begin with. If she does step out of line, you can bet he will do something about it, and he won't be shamed or punished for it by his own society.

(03-12-2018 04:51 AM)NomadofEU Wrote:  

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

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.

I understand you may gotten an implication of hatred in my post, but it was purely criticism. Again, the only hatred I have is for the establishment that is actively attempting to undermine and destroy my way of life (heritage American).

[/quote]

Okay, fair enough. Maybe you don't hate Islam. My point is that you are biased against it (with good reason), and that while I am all for criticizing and disliking Islam, I don't think it's necessary to do so from a feminist point of view. I think we should be able to criticize Islam but also acknowledge what they do right.

For what it's worth, I think that the only reason Muslims are better than Westerners at keeping their women in line is because they have not been as influenced by leftism and pop culture as the West has. If the West was not influenced by all this bullshit, Western men would be just as capable (if not more capable) as Muslims in keeping their women in line. It has nothing to do with Muslims being better or stronger than us, or anything like that.

[Piankhi]

Having many wives and children, alpha and red pill.

Being shitty at hard sciences, not red pill.

[Pride male]

Has anyone read Ornament of the World Rosa Maria Menocal?