From my understanding, MGTOW, MRA, alt-right and neomasculinists have one overlap - they are all a result of unchecked female hypergamy and rights that used to be regulated prior to the 1900's.

Neomasculinists improve themselves through game/money/fitness/circumstances to elevate themselves to men in the top 20% of desired female sexual selection, get laid (and tend to have offspring). MGTOW's that are in the bottom 80% so they simply check out of society that does not give them a stake (progeny) to work towards. Alt-right resulted from cucked political decision that came from women voting in socialist and pro-immigration laws. MRA's want laws to be fair toward men but it just falls of deaf ears.

There is no way any of these groups will see eye to eye on anything or so I thought. What if these groups can commit themselves to end female suffrage?

Surely this is something actionable all groups can agree with. This idea is not as fringe as I used to believe. Samseau mentioned in another thread that 80% of alt-right already agree to it and with the internet I think the political landscape can change very quickly despite how unrealistic many may believe it to be. This is an issue that ought to brought up and discussed.

Conquer the globe and enslave all who oppose us?

I don't think it's as far fetched as you might believe. Do you think the bottom 80% guys in the West are happy with what they have? Pretty soon it'll be the bottom 85% not having a stake to contribute towards. At some point ending female suffrage will look like a sane, agreeable option to soberly consider.

(02-28-2017 02:17 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  Conquer the globe and enslave all who oppose us?

No, man, Islam's already doing that.

We can do it better.

For a start the will be mead halls, and the busty serving wenches will not be wearing God-damned black body bags.

(02-28-2017 03:20 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  

(02-28-2017 02:17 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  Conquer the globe and enslave all who oppose us?

No, man, Islam's already doing that.

Pretty much.

Let's be brutally honest with ourselves. The only way anything like traditional patriarchy is coming back is through Islam. And that's a situation which is disagreeable to most on this forum.

We just have to live with what we've got.

In the words of Aaron Clarey, enjoy that fucking decline!

I think to some extent there already is a forming up of a front from these factions to fight the common enemy.

While allies not agree on all principles (like Russia and the US in WW2) thats no reason that they can not fight against a common enemy.

I am seeing green shoots across all fronts. All damage to the enemy is good, no matter who causes it.

The problem is that our opponent has a lifetime's head start on this generation, and is firmly entrenched in the education and medias.

Neomasculinity and the alt-right are very much compatible movements, but you won't find common ground with the MRA and MGTOW. The former is a state-worshiping cult which victimizes men, and the latter is a collection of men who simply give up and refuse to do anything.

Muslims will completely overwhelm the aforementioned groups through differential reproduction. I agree that they are the strongest contender to end female suffrage in the West. Once they take control over a country with their numbers the country will cease to be a Western one which will have many problems I won't even get into.

From what ive heard from in the UK, it seems likely that western men will fall in line with Islamic laws if it is the alternative to a misandric one. There has been a trend of western men getting married in sharia courts to avoid the legal penalties that come with western divorce. Being able to have up to 4 wives and male friendly Sharia family courts are a better deal than what Western men are getting now and when they figure it out there will a shift that changes everything.

The various imams will probably toss a few white-boy recruits a couple of nice wives for propaganda purposes but after that the rest of the western converts are going to get nothing special. Maybe the second-hand fat 4 of a dead jihadi if they're lucky, and that bitter bitch will not be submissive.

Let's not pretend that islam transcends race. Whitey is not going to be welcome in a mosque by any means, and any imam who starts handing out multiple prize pigs to Johnny-come-lately is not exactly going to be popular with his flock.

(03-01-2017 08:47 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  The various imams will probably toss a few white-boy recruits a couple of nice wives for propaganda purposes but after that the rest of the western converts are going to get nothing special. Maybe the second-hand fat 4 of a dead jihadi if they're lucky, and that bitter bitch will not be submissive.

Let's not pretend that islam transcends race. Whitey is not going to be welcome in a mosque by any means, and any imam who starts handing out multiple prize pigs to Johnny-come-lately is not exactly going to be popular with his flock.

When it comes to betrayal, the Muslims will have to try hard compared to what our own people have already done.

Islam doesn't need to win over white men. So as long as they can regulate the sexuality of their women and produce more offspring (with the help of tax payer funded welfare and medicare) the conditions for takeover are met. Their religion doesn't grow by winning converts it is by breeding out the rest of us with offspring. For a while, Christianity regulated female sexuality but that's been progressively phased out.

While the rest of us continually devote our time to self improvement and game competency to stand out these Muslim guys are pairing off effortlessly with their women. These guys may not be scoring top shelf women but they are getting women as pretty as they are handsome, having kids and getting to keep them after a divorce. Meanwhile the rest of us patting ourselves on the back for notches and gaming our own wives to keep them happy - not a great look.

The way I see it, Western men are going to be forced to regulate their women to stay competitive as a civilization. The alternative will be replacement, destitution and eventual slavery.

(03-01-2017 12:16 PM)[email protected] Wrote:  The way I see it, Western men are going to be forced to regulate their women to stay competitive as a civilization. The alternative will be replacement, destitution and eventual slavery.

That's basically the two options they have, there is no third way.
Either a complete rollback [abolisihing feminism, drop all 'equality' stuff, change culture to diss cat-women/tinder hos and reinstall tradiitonal family as #1 goal for both men and women]
or
... get overrun. And the slavery part is actually more than just possible.
To be honest, I believe that parts of Europe will be in the latter group.
This year's presidential election in France might be the last shot for France, for example.
The UK is already a lost cause, and Germany will get lots of new 'citizens' in the next time.
The US I'm not sure of, for I don't know middle America and Trump's effect.
Either way, I don't see a major cultural shift towards #1.

Have you read Buchanan's "The death of the west", it's 15 years old and it pretty much explains what is happening today.

It's possible - we already did so with everyone for Trump. Though thinking about it as a "single cause" is not entirely correct.

Encompassed within voting for Trump was many issues - pro-nationalism, anti-(low skilled, mass and illegal) immigration, anti-political correctness, etc.

Now we just have to decide on more of these unified front causes that everyone can believe in and decide on what's the most plausible.

Focusing on big Trump policies:
- Minimising foreign hiring
- Eliminating gun control laws across all of USA (pushing it in Europe like Czech Republic too)
- Auditing the Fed
- Destroying the Old Media
- Eliminating Islamic radicalisation

And championing some possible new ones:
- Anti-Affirmative Action
- Promoting Christianity
- Fair divorce and child support laws
- Eliminating suffrage
etc

This would entail media strategies, meme campaigns, new web properties, alliances etc all focused on promoting these causes. Specifically seeking out help from these other factions in order to promote these causes.

After achieving all items on the list of what everyone can agree on the unified front will naturally split again, but hopefully enough people from within this huge mix of alt-right/men's movements will have joined the more reasonable factions like ours during the unified process.

(03-01-2017 12:16 PM)[email protected] Wrote:  ...
The way I see it, Western men are going to be forced to regulate their women to stay competitive as a civilization. The alternative will be replacement, destitution and eventual slavery.

Europeans didn't drive Islam out of Christendom by regulating women.

They did it by by the sword and the spear.

There is a third option but it involves getting our hands dirty. Demographics are only destiny for pacifists who worship the god of democracy.

(03-01-2017 12:16 PM)[email protected] Wrote:  Islam doesn't need to win over white men. So as long as they can regulate the sexuality of their women and produce more offspring (with the help of tax payer funded welfare and medicare) the conditions for takeover are met. Their religion doesn't grow by winning converts it is by breeding out the rest of us with offspring. For a while, Christianity regulated female sexuality but that's been progressively phased out.

While the rest of us continually devote our time to self improvement and game competency to stand out these Muslim guys are pairing off effortlessly with their women. These guys may not be scoring top shelf women but they are getting women as pretty as they are handsome, having kids and getting to keep them after a divorce. Meanwhile the rest of us patting ourselves on the back for notches and gaming our own wives to keep them happy - not a great look.

The way I see it, Western men are going to be forced to regulate their women to stay competitive as a civilization. The alternative will be replacement, destitution and eventual slavery.

If you take ether viewpoint that this is a cultural war and all is fair, then the other solution is to regulate their women.

Leftists want "diversity for thee, but not for me?" Respond with "traditional values for me, but not for thee."

(I'm going to look at this form an unpopular point of view, so bear with me.)

-IUD's and implantable birth control for populations with the highest birth rates, and encourage voluntary sterilization.
-Promote feminism in the Middle East and within the ethnic migrant populations.

Four wives won't make a difference if none of them can give birth, or prefer to get two degrees and work in an office til they hit the Wall.

In other words, let the Gates Foundation do whatever it will, so long as it is outside North America and Europe.

I don't understand the difference besides a bunch of stupid labels.

As far as I'm concerned, I'm all three, and I don't see why anyone in this forum wouldn't consider themselves a part of all three.

I'm an MRA because I support pro-male marriage and workplace policies.

I'm MGTOW because I could care less about marriage, LTRs, general female opinion of me, avoiding cohabitation.

I'm a neomasclinist because I strive for self-improvement across all spectrums, including female success.

Dividing the red-pill 'sphere into different factions is counterproductive and does nothing to achieve long term goals. Each group of men play their part. Sure, you might not want to be the MRA loudly protesting the unfairness of marriage and workplace laws, but they are still fighting for our cause. You may not be a MGTOW who never wants contact with women, but they are still starving the beast by not playing into the thirst trap. You may be a neomasculinist who strives to sleep with women, but it doesn't mean you'll jump through millions of stupid hoops for used pussy.

The more red pill, the better for society, no matter what "label" you claim.

I'm sure all the respective groups can criticise all others and claim to be the path of light but it's important to realise men are getting shafted and that's the reason your group exists to begin with.

If ending female suffrage is too small a hoop we'll to introduce bigger ones. Like another poster mentioned, the culture and politics has to change before anything happens and this might be something all these groups can work towards together or separately.

In a perfect world it would be glorious to unite under one banner, even temporarily, and push for things like that. However, I don't think it can happen, at least any time soon. I especially have insights into MGTOWs and how they feel towards us and the other groups, because I accidentally joined up in a few of their groups (basically I had no idea what it was and the name sounded interesting, so I joined some of their online groups). First and foremost, MGTOWs absolutely loathe neomasculinists. They see us as 'slaves' to the pussy and view pursuing those carnal desires as obstructive to a true purpose. They might even hate us more than manjawed blue haired university feminists do, though not as openly. MRAs aren't a huge fan of us either, because they keep getting lumped in with us even though we're completely different. Why that makes them hate us instead of only just hating the media is beyond me, but they seem to have bought into the 'They're all horrible people' story about us, with many I've interacted with directing similar ire towards Roosh, RoK, and so on as the mainstream does. MRAs also aren't very good at getting their way, which makes them questionable allies. A man crying out for help with the sort of problems that they do is viewed radically differently than when a female does it, as many on here would be familiar with. In a way they're fighting instinct themselves, and while I agree with many of their positions, their movement just generally seems very ineffectual and toothless.

MGTOWs are also unlikely to really want to get involved in politics. The whole idea is sort of like throwing yourself into a shell, focusing on your own pursuits. While focusing on yourself isn't bad, the way they do it just comes off as unhealthy and being defeatist. They're not focusing on their drives because they see that goal as the most important thing in their life, but because they've given up on other areas like the dating market entirely. They don't see a reason to get involved in politics, instead just sort of taking things as they come. They'd rather just stay outside it as much as they can. That's also where part of that loathing comes from: they see us having at least some modicum of success in the dating market and other areas they cannot, and despise us for it.

We should get along well with the alt right at least, though I think there's already a ton of overlap between the alt right and neomasculinity anyway. By the way, I don't disagree with your sentiment OP, I just don't think it's realistic right now.

One advantage of the MRAs and MGTOWs is that they're perhaps the only part of the manosphere that doesn't shit on divorced men.

Divorced guys go through the wringer thrice. First they have to deal with the shock of the divorce itself (a situation that their blue pill conditioning did not prepare them for). Then they deal with the fact that feminist-influenced society blames it all on them and sides with the woman (which usually severely fucks with their heads, because they reason, based on what everyone is telling them, (1) this was a good woman; (2) a good woman doesn't dump her husband and break up the family without good reason; (3) therefore, since she dumped me and broke up the family, I must have done something very wrong). Then when they finally do come into a knowledge of the truth, they find the manosphere too thinks that they're beta, whiny, and at fault for the breakup.* ** ***

Well, we know this much -- women who hit the wall and then go looking for a beta know damn well that he's beta. That's the whole point of choosing him. They're looking for a guy who's bluepilled enough to accept a post-carousel, post-wall woman. Then they marry him, and dump him and take the kids; and with the help of society and his own bluepill conditioning, also mindfuck him into getting distraught about what happened, so he can be further manipulated.

How is she in the right, though, if she picks him for being beta (because that's what makes him willing to make a life commitment to her), and then dumps him for being beta? How is society in the right for supporting her decision in doing that? How are red pillers in the right for saying, "You should've taken your cues on how to act from this obscure Internet community of men who are regarded as misogynists by most of those who have even heard of them; rather than from what family, friends, church, school, and countless other cultural influences etc. taught you about what was the proper way to deal with women"?

How are men supposed to know not to be bluepill? Everything they see around them is explained away by the blue pill. Oh, the divorce rate is high? To the blue piller, that's just because those husbands were assholes, or because those women weren't SPECIAL women, like the woman who has just declared her love for him and is ready to walk down the aisle with him. The blue piller's mom probably told him, "I left your father because he wasn't kind and respectful enough. Yeah, some young women go for assholes who try to act dominant, but they're going to leave those men once they get older and smarter. QUALITY women know a good man when they see one, so just be your sweet and loving self and you'll eventually meet The One and have a happy marriage!"

Why wouldn't he believe her? It sounds totally logical. If you want wisdom about what women want, why wouldn't you ask the female friends, relatives, etc. in your life? Plus there are plenty of men out there who say stuff like, "Hey man, my philosophy is happy wife, happy life!" So from the perspective of the average guy, society seems to be unanimously bluepill, aside from a few Internet shitlords who get written off as being rapists, virgins, abusers, cads, etc.

How could this grand civilization, including one's own social and familial circle, propagate a lie without being corrected somehow? It seems nonsensical. There are too many checks and balances for that to happen. We have the press, we have NGOs, we have the universities. If feminism were wrong, someone would've sounded the alarm, right? Don't the authors at AskMen.com practice blue pill principles in their relationships and verify that the results are good? HOW COULD THEY BE WRONG??!! WHAT DO YOU MEAN, THAT WAS JUST TO ATTRACT CLICKS AND SELL MAGAZINES??!!

The fairy tales, the movies, the schools, the media, etc. drum into our heads from a very early age, "Don't listen to the bad boys who will lead you to astray. Listen to authority figures, like your mom, teachers, major newspapers, the President, etc. Unless of course the President is a shitlord who only got elected because Hillary didn't run an effective campaign; then don't listen to him."

The result is that men don't discover the truth except through experimentation. The bad boys who refuse to patiently wait for women their age to hit the wall and want to marry them, and instead become "players," learn firsthand about the nature of women. The men who pat themselves on the back throughout their 20s about what good boys they're being by remaining virginal, and then wife up a post-carousel woman thinking they've just mated for life and set up their kids to grow up in a stable household, learn the hard way, and are left to wonder, "Hey wait, I thought my piano teacher said that Every Good Boy Does Fine? What happened??"

If you were a bad boy and didn't do what society told you, and therefore avoided getting played, does that make you superior? Only because we're in degenerate times.

I guess people say, "Oh, you can be an alpha provider and thereby get a woman to stick by you, and have a successful marriage." That's probably true. Society isn't really set up in a way that makes it all that easy to become alpha, though. This is mostly an Internet-based community; most of us don't have red pill friends we can hang out with in real life, who would say, "Okay, let me teach you more specifically how to be a man." For many of us, there's a lack of good male role models to follow.

___
* The manosphere doesn't seem to have reached consensus on whether betas are to be considered the hard-working backbone of society who need to be accommodated and protected by pro-monogamy laws and cultural expectations; or pathetic losers who deserve their fate.

** The manosphere also doesn't seem to have reached consensus on whether EVERY man can become alpha, or whether some betas are that way because it's just part of their personality that isn't very susceptible to a dramatic change.

*** The manosphere also doesn't seem to have reached consensus on whether (1) individual men are at fault for what the women in their lives do; (2) women are at fault for what they do to their husbands and children; or (3) society is at fault for what it lets women get away with.

Has anyone ever noticed what happens when women who don't know each other meet? They hug and kiss and act nice to each other. They do this because they want to get off to a good start and create a good feeling (which will make them feel guilty if there's conflict later). Why is Laci Green so confident that she's going to be able to have discussions with anti feminists? Because she's going to have these discussions with women.

Women have no convictions. They only have the herd. This is why they're able to switch so easily. They are empty vessels.

Men have convictions. Opinions mean something. Men stand for things. Men even respect other men who disagree with them, because at least they stand for something.

The problem is that men start to identify with their opinions way too much. It becomes almost like a religion. That's why these different groups have a hard time getting along.

Men are too obsessed with forming factions and then looking for reasons to criticize each other. Women are only interested in feeling like they're part of a group. If only men would get their heads out of their asses, they'd see that it's not that hard to put aside a few differences (in some cases they're just different perspectives or priorities), and it's not that hard to get bitches in line. Women have no power, contrary to popular opinion. None at all. All they do is exploit mens' weaknesses.

@JV: Blue pilled guys that fuck up, marry a bitch, act beta and get divorced are treated perfectly well in the manosphere if they admit their mistakes and seek to avoid making them again.

What a masculine circle doesn't do is that feminine bullshit where they pat the "victim" on the back and tell them that none of it is their fault.

They say "you made mistakes, buddy. Tough outcome, but now you can learn from your screwups and do better." And then they offer help to do just that.

Also, today's betas are the omegas of yesteryear. Arguably a lot of alphas these days would be beta in comparison to the men of 50 years ago. A sinking tide lowers all boats. Our task is to raise the tide. It doesn't matter if not everyone can be an alpha. If every man is acting more masculine then society wins. It doesn't have to be a race between individuals.

Do you really expect to get right wing women to vote to take away their right to vote?

(06-02-2017 08:27 AM)Repo Wrote:  Do you really expect to get right wing women to vote to take away their right to vote?

It would be interesting. And what a way to know who's genuine.