[MMX2010]

http://www.anonymousconservative.com/blo...look-like/

The following article is pasted directly from the AnonymousConservative.com blog.

I especially liked it in light of Roosh's announcement of NeoMasculinity, and hope you find it useful.


--------------

Vox highlights a comment on Alpha Game on how men are winning the battle against feminism with indifference.

I disagree. Men turning their backs on women is not a loss for the feminists – it is a win. A loss for the feminists would be a world filled with Sarah Palins – with pretty, cheerful women happily raising five loving kids, and growing old together with a loyal man in marital happiness. If that happened, the bitter feminist hags would look on, overcome with the narcissist’s rage, jealousy, and spite at the effortless success of their feminine betters.

This site focuses on narcissists, because the narcissist is the single best example of the greater battle which rages within mankind. I went through life oblivious to the battle, but once I saw it within the narcissist paradigm, I began to see it everywhere. It is Normal vs. Narcissist, it is Conservative vs. Liberal, and it is also Good vs Evil. However it is, at its most fundamental, the unhappy people who have to intrude into the lives of others vs the happy people who just want to be left alone to be happy.

Any feminist who minded her own business would be quite harmless in the bigger picture – she could easily be ignored when she decided she wanted a career before love, or that her immediate happiness was more important than any potential child’s. Thus to be a real feminist, and create all this harm we see, a feminist must also find a way to ruin the lives of the pretty, potentially marry-able women. In truth, that is feminism’s true goal – to render every woman as much of an enraged bitter spinster as the average feminist is destined to become.

At this battle’s core is the narcissist – a miserable wretch, made powerless to improve their own lot by a constant overwhelming envy of others, and left livid at what they see as the unfairness of other’s bliss in the face of their misery. However their real overwhelming motivation is a desire to remove the happiness of others which so irritates them. This is the narcissist, just as it is the liberal, just as it is the SJW, just as it is the feminist. The “cause” ostensibly pursued by each is merely the excuse they use to justify their intrusion upon, and their attacks on, the happy.

When viewed through this paradigm, feminism is not a war on men, it is a war on women – specifically it is a war on the pretty, sweet, happy women, waged by unhappy, ugly, bitter women. As with liberalism, it is cowardly rabbits trying to stir dissension and conflict between people who, left to their own devices, would otherwise be happy and successful, and make the rabbit envious.

Feminism, like all destructive lies, is collapsing under it’s own weight. Combined with the K-selected economic reality that approaches, it will once again come to be viewed as the bitter ravings of worthless women who only a fool would marry. But the measure of its ultimate defeat will not be the measure of men’s indifference to the feminists. It will be the degree to which the good women of society reject the entreaties of the feminists to throw away their chance at love and marriage while they are young and able to have children.

When beautiful women ignore feminist lore, and strive to find happiness in loyal marriage and the love of family while they are young and able, feminism will have been truly and completely defeated. When feminists look out to see the nice pretty girls gleefully enjoying the fruits of love, marriage, and family that are denied to the feminist hags, then the feminists will suffer the enraging defeat they most fear experiencing.

[StrikeBack]

Quote:

When viewed through this paradigm, feminism is not a war on men, it is a war on women – specifically it is a war on the pretty, sweet, happy women, waged by unhappy, ugly, bitter women.

Sounds good, but I don't see any of those pretty sweet happy whatever women fighting back. They're rather enjoying all this too.

[MMX2010]

(05-25-2015 07:22 PM)StrikeBack Wrote:  

Quote:

When viewed through this paradigm, feminism is not a war on men, it is a war on women – specifically it is a war on the pretty, sweet, happy women, waged by unhappy, ugly, bitter women.

Sounds good, but I don't see any of those pretty sweet happy whatever women fighting back. They're rather enjoying all this too.

I agree with you, but how do you expect them to fight back?

[StrikeBack]

• Not following the script set by the hags
• Speaking up against it
• Supporting men when they fight back
• Seriously consider marriage and family when they're young, beautiful and fertile
• Actually dating and having relationships with men who want to give them something like this "pretty, cheerful women happily raising five loving kids, and growing old together with a loyal man in marital happiness."
  

I could barely type that list with a straight face...

Do you see an abundance of women (pretty, conservative or whatever type) seriously considering any of the above?

I'm 32 now, I've even been to many church communities since I was a teenager, and I haven't met ONE.

If you want the 30+ year old born again conservative virgin though, there are heaps of them!

[Eskhander]

It's not just against pretty women but it is anti-happiness.
I think even Jessica Valenti told women to deal with it amid criticism that feminism made women unhappy.

[samsamsam]

Sarah Pailin as an example? No fucking way. Terrible example, the article almost lost any credibility. Her life is a train wreck and she runs the house not her husband. She is pretty for her age until she opens her mouth. A complete idiot and overly ambitious. No thanks.

[Dusty]

I've long said feminism is institutionalized cock-blocking. It's crabs in a bucket.

It was created by ugly and fat and high T women who were miserable being women and wished they were like men. They are envious of other women who were blessed with better genes and who get all that positive attention from men. They were also envious of men who could rise above their looks and be something special using their brains and leadership abilities.

So they nagged society into shaming happy stay-at-home moms with intact families. They agitated for women to get degrees and careers so they wouldn't feel so alone finding meaning in life through careers. They sought to shame normal male heterosexual behavior and define it as sexual assault, so that men will be too scared shitless to chase the pretty girls that they are envious of.

[extracube]

(05-25-2015 09:17 PM)samsamsam Wrote:  

Sarah Pailin as an example? No fucking way. Terrible example

exactly what I thought -- wasn't sure I read it correctly. I thought Palin is a careerist grandma disguised by makeup, with f'ed up kids to boot.

[Nightwing]

It's also a war against real mothers who spend the day taking care of their family, holding the house together, only to be rejected by the modern scum that is feminism. Shaming them for not being lesbians, and sellouts to the modern day genocide on children, MAN, and the Woman.

This is why our kids are becoming increasingly immoral, there's nobody at home to guide them.

It's turning women into men.

Feminism is making women feel ashamed of having children, raising them properly, being feminine, and learning the basic skills of cooking and cleaning for self-sufficiency. It's an attempt on humanity at its finest.

Later the women (who aren't man-hating lesbos) realize they were sold a lie, but then it's too late, they're in their 40s and infertile.

This is responsible for the decline in population, and the convenient 'need' for outside influence.

Women are 'empowered' by the number of cocks they guzzle up, they empowered by the number of abortions they get, they are empowered by the slut clothing they wear.

Western women have turned into glorified sluts/whores, rewarded for slutty behavior. This is sick, but their minds are small if they buy into this.

Take of this what you will.

[Captainstabbin]

(05-25-2015 07:39 PM)StrikeBack Wrote:  

• Not following the script set by the hags
• Speaking up against it
• Supporting men when they fight back
• Seriously consider marriage and family when they're young, beautiful and fertile
• Actually dating and having relationships with men who want to give them something like this "pretty, cheerful women happily raising five loving kids, and growing old together with a loyal man in marital happiness."
  

I could barely type that list with a straight face...

Do you see an abundance of women (pretty, conservative or whatever type) seriously considering any of the above?

I'm 32 now, I've even been to many church communities since I was a teenager, and I haven't met ONE.

If you want the 30+ year old born again conservative virgin though, there are heaps of them!

I've met a few - if you're willing to ignore the "beautiful" part. And that's the whole problem, beauty has value and what do they purchase with that value? Family? Strong supporter? Stable environment for children?

No, they indulge their narcissism and ride the carousel. Like their mothers probably...

[MrLemon]

Here's the way I look at it:

--20% of women are born "strong" feminine (or alpha feminine), love men, love being mothers, naturally and flawlessly embody feminine gifts

--60% of women are born "normal" feminine, normally love men and motherhood *IF THEY ARE ENCOURAGED*. These women tend to follow the pack, they don't think for themselves.

--20% of women are born "non" feminine. They hate men, hate their own feminininty, are narcissistic and neurotic.

The history of women's society can be seen as a battle between the 20% "Strong" feminine women, and their enemies the 20% "anti" feminine women, to control the 60% of average women.

Up until the year 1900 (or thereabouts) the "strong" feminine women were firmly in control, always and everywhere. They were masterful at getting and managing the alpha man, the providers of wealth and food, and were therefore richer, better fed, and healthier than other women. Remember that before 1900 everybody in the world was starving on a regular basis, disease killed 1/3 of children routinely. It was a horrible and harsh life in ways we spoiled modern humans can barely comprehend. Everything people did...EVERYTHING...was focused on not starving and not seeing children starve.

In the small villages where most of humanity lived for most of history, these strong feminine women ruled with an iron fist in a velvet glove. They set the tone for the entire town. The "anti" feminine women were routinely shunned, thrown out of the village, ignored, or forced to live in the wilderness, OR they were the "spinsters" or the wise-women who we supporting other women, but they were NEVER in charge. They were never allowed to "poison the minds" of the 60% of average, easily-swayed women. The anti-feminine world view "I don't need men, I can do it on my own" and "I'll have sex with whoever I want" was a death sentence for any small town and any woman promoting such ideas would have her eyes scratched out and her clothes shredded by the married women. She would be called "a witch". Women are vicious beyond imagination, at repressing other women who threaten disorder. When they "burned witches" I guarantee you, it was mostly in response to some anti-feminist women pissing off the local wives.

Men were always bystanders to this. They were busy out in the wilderness hunting or farming (backbreaking work) or fighting wars against other men (other men = trying to steal food/slaves to feed THEIR OWN wives and children).

Women ran the daily operation of the village or tribe. Men were gone, or recuperating from wounds, or dead. Unless the women called upon them to provide muscle in running the town.

After 1900, the human race changed utterly. Railroads, communication, huge food increases, yada yada. Literally, we became a new race.

Now with those changes, the strong feminine women have lose their influence. Their deadly historic enemies, the anti-feminine women, have taken control of the media and the governments -- areas where more feminine women don't have skills. The anti-feminine women, the neurotics and the lesbians and the uglies...are now in charge, and they are wreaking vengeance for thousands of years of oppression by the pretty women and their husbands. .

They say "women have been oppressed by men for thousands of years" but we must translate that into" "Ugly, angry women have been oppressed for thousands of years by pretty, clever women (and their husbands)."

The anti-fem women have now gained control of the "average 60% of women" and that gives them unstoppable power. Men cannot resist any demand by women.

This is the battle of our age. I predict that communism, fascism, will never be as brutal ultimately as Feminism will be. These anti-feminine women in charge have no honor and no vision. They just want to destroy, and they are gathering power to do just that.

A dictatorship of Hags, backed by nuclear weapons and flocks of kill-on-a-whim drones remotely controlled by the military and police.

Good luck all you straight hetero families, you are going to need it.

[magicone]

[Foolsgo1d]

^

But does she believe that and not out for likes on social media?

[Samseau]

(05-27-2015 07:50 AM)Foolsgo1d Wrote:  

^

But does she believe that and not out for likes on social media?

Who cares if she's doing it for fake reasons or real reasons?

Women are herd animals and most of them don't care one way or the other.

But it works in advantage of us men and society at large if they push the conformity of being thin and getting married young.

[AntiTrace]

We talk a lot about "being thin and getting married young" for women. I fully support both. But how many of us would be ready for that? How many of us would readily settle down and have babies and start a family with a young, thin, feminine woman?

We know she will eventually gain some weight.
We know she will eventually age.
We know she will eventually hit the wall.
We know the perfect ass will eventually sag and be riddled by cellulite.
We know the sex is going to slow down, then be occasional, then be almost non existent.
We know it will the be only pussy we will get for the rest of our lives.

How many of us would take that ticket. Would you settle down and happily start a family with a younger, (lets say 5-10 years difference) feminine, beautiful woman? Not a fling, not a side girl, but a wife and children.

It's a damn hard decision for me to make. However I know myself well enough to know that I will never be happy with a single woman. It is a damn shame, because I've had some amazing women cross my path in my time. I have settled down in the past, and I am sure I will settle down a bit in the future. But I always get that itch when I see a beautiful girl (not that same itch that I sometimes get after I bang the beautiful girl).

Would you settle down, get married, and have a family with a thin beautiful women in her early twenties? And be faithful to her, love and support her? It's a double edged sword that I think about a lot. I realize that I am hunter, a carnivore by sport. Its not so much as the meal at the end the hunt, as it is the hunt itself.

[Samseau]

(05-27-2015 11:06 PM)AntiTrace Wrote:  

We talk a lot about "being thin and getting married young" for women. I fully support both. But how many of us would be ready for that? How many of us would readily settle down and have babies and start a family with a young, thin, feminine woman?

We know she will eventually gain some weight.
We know she will eventually age.
We know she will eventually hit the wall.
We know the perfect ass will eventually sag and be riddled by cellulite.
We know the sex is going to slow down, then be occasional, then be almost non existent.
We know it will the be only pussy we will get for the rest of our lives.

How many of us would take that ticket. Would you settle down and happily start a family with a younger, (lets say 5-10 years difference) feminine, beautiful woman? Not a fling, not a side girl, but a wife and children.

It's a damn hard decision for me to make. However I know myself well enough to know that I will never be happy with a single woman. It is a damn shame, because I've had some amazing women cross my path in my time. I have settled down in the past, and I am sure I will settle down a bit in the future. But I always get that itch when I see a beautiful girl (not that same itch that I sometimes get after I bang the beautiful girl).

Would you settle down, get married, and have a family with a thin beautiful women in her early twenties? And be faithful to her, love and support her? It's a double edged sword that I think about a lot. I realize that I am hunter, a carnivore by sport. Its not so much as the meal at the end the hunt, as it is the hunt itself.

But here's the thing Anti. You're not seeing the big picture. A traditional society works in favor of players as well.

Real simple:

- High birthrates = lots of young women.
- Not all women will go for mother and wife role - every society throughout time has had its share of sluts.

Even if the percentage of women who become sluts falls to a low - say, around 10% of total women (as opposed to our current 60-80% of women who slut it up while young today), if birthrates are strong enough that's still plenty of sluts for players to go around. And there are still the cheating housewives for players to feast upon (although - don't blame me if you go to hell ).

A traditional society gives more for everyone. Sure, there may be a few less super hot women who get married and refuse to cheat for players to have, but that's really a small price to pay for a functional, healthy society.

[StrikeBack]

(05-27-2015 11:06 PM)AntiTrace Wrote:  

We talk a lot about "being thin and getting married young" for women. I fully support both. But how many of us would be ready for that? How many of us would readily settle down and have babies and start a family with a young, thin, feminine woman?
.....
Would you settle down, get married, and have a family with a thin beautiful women in her early twenties? And be faithful to her, love and support her? It's a double edged sword that I think about a lot. I realize that I am hunter, a carnivore by sport. Its not so much as the meal at the end the hunt, as it is the hunt itself.

I would, but early twenties is too old. 18 is better, like that Chinese guy with the hot Ukranian wife.

Who says anything about being faithful though?

My great-grandfather had 2 wives. The first wife found him a young wife when she got too old to take care of his needs, so she could focus on the family business instead.

My grandfather had a wife and a mistress on the side, as were very common for men of his wealth, looks and social status.

I'd take either of those deals. I'd much rather be a patriarch than a player / hunter.

[Samseau]

(05-28-2015 08:37 AM)StrikeBack Wrote:  

(05-27-2015 11:06 PM)AntiTrace Wrote:  

We talk a lot about "being thin and getting married young" for women. I fully support both. But how many of us would be ready for that? How many of us would readily settle down and have babies and start a family with a young, thin, feminine woman?
.....
Would you settle down, get married, and have a family with a thin beautiful women in her early twenties? And be faithful to her, love and support her? It's a double edged sword that I think about a lot. I realize that I am hunter, a carnivore by sport. Its not so much as the meal at the end the hunt, as it is the hunt itself.

I would, but early twenties is too old. 18 is better, like that Chinese guy with the hot Ukranian wife.

Who says anything about being faithful though?

My great-grandfather had 2 wives. The first wife found him a young wife when she got too old to take care of his needs, so she could focus on the family business instead.

My grandfather had a wife and a mistress on the side, as were very common for men of his wealth, looks and social status.

I'd take either of those deals. I'd much rather be a patriarch than a player / hunter.

In a traditional society, there would need to be heavy restrictions on divorce and strong punishments to discourage adultery.

Of course, evil alphas will still find ways around these laws and that's okay because no law will be perfect. The laws aren't there to stop everyone, just 95% of people from doing dumb shit. You can't have people fucking each others wives behind each other's backs all the time, no one would love or trust anyone in such an environment.

[Socrates]

I got married at 21 to a girl who had turned 18 four days earlier. We cranked out three kids by the time I turned 27. It's weird because I look back and don't really regret those decisions, but I wouldn't say it was easy nor would I necessarily say that they were the right decisions at the time. I was immature and we struggled mightily to make ends meet. But we did it. And my wife didn't really work other than a few part time hustles here and there. Selling Avon to some friends, stuff like that. But we were and are fully committed to each other, so even when times are tough, we stick together and pull through.

After reading some of the posts in the "Turning 40" thread, I'm working on not living with regret. But I do have regrets. I wish I had been more red pill over the years. I'm now stuck trying to undo 20+ years of blue pill beta actions, and it is a tough slog. I gave in to my wife's whims and opinions wayyyy too much over the years. I subscribed to that bullshit "happy wife, happy life" saying. The problem with that saying, though, is that your wife has NO IDEA what will make her happy. She thinks she does! Oh yes, she definitely thinks she knows. But the reality is that she has not the faintest idea. She only knows what she feels right now, today. Tomorrow doesn't exist. It took me far, far too long to figure that out and quit caring what she thought about everything I said or did. In fact, I'll be honest, i'm not fully cured of that now. And i'm 23 years into this thing and see full evidence of red pill truth every day and yet I feel like I'm fighting tooth and nail against my inner nature. I'm definitely no Alpha, but I'm actively working on adding more alpha traits (or red pill traits, however you'd like to say it) each day and quit beating myself up over the past.

Went on a bit of a ramble there. But at the end of the day, we each have to do what we think is best. I don't know if getting married young is what's best. It (so far) has worked out for me. But it isn't easy. And society has changed so much recently, I'm not sure a guy turning 21 today is in the same universe that I was back then. So, to summarize my unhelpful addition to this thread: I have no idea if I'd do it again today. But I'm glad I did it when I did. I have a good family and kids that I love and a faithful wife.

[philosophical_recovery]

Feminist think that girls need to stop being likeable:

Quote:

If there’s a Smart Girl we’d most like to take a master class in life from, it might just be author Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie. The Nigerian-born author of Americanah — though even if you haven’t read the novel, you may recall her TED Talk being utilized in the Beyoncé song, “Flawless” — has been a commanding feminist presence in her home country, building up the confidence of the girls there as much as her words have done so around the globe. And she’s putting her foot down in the name of empowering us all.

On May 19th, Adichie was a recipient of one of the 2015 Girls Write Now Awards (a non-profit that mentors underserved young women writers) and made a claim that might strike fear into the hearts of some: that us gals need to stop trying to be liked.

“What I say to my students and mostly the female students is ‘forget about likeability,'” Adichie explained. “I think that what our society teaches young girls — and I think that it’s something that’s quite difficult for even older women, self-confessed feminists, to shrug off — is this idea that likeability is an essential part of the space you occupy in the world.”

Adichie is not wrong. It is without question that the idea of being liked is strongly attached to gender stereotypes and ideals as to how women “should” behave and navigate the world: making things easier for others (often men) and trying not to rock the boat. But really all that leads us to is more confusion, frustration, and anger than anything else. And it definitely mucks with authenticity and being true to one’s self and story. Definitely a big no-no if you’re a writer, but it certainly applies to any human being.

Adichie went on to reprimand the idea that as women, “you’re supposed to twist yourself into shapes to make yourself likeable. That you’re supposed to kind of hold back sometimes, pull back. Don’t quite say, don’t be too pushy because you have to be likeable.”

“What I want to say to the young girls is forget about likeability — if you start off thinking about being likeable you’re not going to tell your story honestly. Because you’re going to be so concerned with not offending and that’s going to ruin your story. … The world is such a wonderful, diverse, multi-faceted place that there’s somebody that’s going to like you — you don’t need to twist yourself into shapes.”

What do you think about the idea of being likeable, Smart Girls? Do you, too, feel empowered by Adichie’s words? Did you ever experience a time where you chose to be yourself over being liked? We want to hear it all in the comments!"

On the phone, so don't have an archive link to keep them from getting page views.

[MMX2010]

(05-25-2015 07:39 PM)StrikeBack Wrote:  

Do you see an abundance of women (pretty, conservative or whatever type) seriously considering any of the above?

No, but that's what strikes me about NeoMasculinity. By advocating for traditional sex roles, NeoMasculinity implies that women aren't capable of fighting against feminists, so we must fight against feminists on their behalf.

Does anyone else feel this way?

[N°6]

(05-28-2015 10:58 PM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

(05-25-2015 07:39 PM)StrikeBack Wrote:  

Do you see an abundance of women (pretty, conservative or whatever type) seriously considering any of the above?

No, but that's what strikes me about NeoMasculinity. By advocating for traditional sex roles, NeoMasculinity implies that women aren't capable of fighting against feminists, so we must fight against feminists on their behalf.

Does anyone else feel this way?

I feel this way but then again, I don't think most men are capable of standing up against the Feminist establishment either. Then there is male thirst that has been cultivated through the saturation of the promise of free love, which in reality, is for everyone except the heterosexual man of normal status.

It has now become a religion in the West. One can paint 'Piss Christ' as art, draw a cartoon of the Trinity in an obscene position for the front page of a magazine (Charlie Hebdo), mock Mohammed with cartoons - but don't dare say anything negative about observable female behaviour. In the age of humanist materialism, this is where the blasphemy laws are.