Post: #1

National Post article on Men's Rights uses the term "Red Pill".

This is the same paper that has run some rather Red Pill editorials.

Post: #2

Awesome. For whatever reason, it looks like the opening salvo in the mainstream fight against feminism is going to happen in Canada.

Quote:“There are genuine women’s issues that are far more profound, that affect all women, not just small numbers of women. The same can’t be said of men,” said Michael Laxer, a frequent political candidate for the NDP, and now the Socialist Party of Ontario.

Man the NDP sure has become a cancer.

Post: #3

Conditions needed for feminism to thrive:

Huge excess wealth
Men with no knowledge of Game or even biological reality
Buy in to the mentality promoted by cultural Marxism
Affordable university system that processes most of the middle class

All the above parameters no longer apply.

It's over harridans.

Post: #4

The cat is out of the bag. While I won't say our sphere will explode in growth, it won't get smaller. Our ideology has reached a critical mass that ensures fresh minds will continue to develop it for years to come. In essence we've already won, because we aim not for political power or cultural change, but helping individual men with their lives and seeing the truth. Our bar for success is quite modest, but it is being reached.

Post: #5

I'd urge you all to check out Robyn Urback's columns in this paper. Solid stuff that you won't find in any other MSM publication.

Post: #6

The problem for any movement is that when it gets big enough is that it starts to attract a lot of bottom feeders. We see this to a certain extent in the manosphere already and I predict there will be more blow ups between different factions as the manosphere gets bigger.

That said, our ideology is different from other movements since as Roosh mentioned above we aren't looking to cause mass social up upheaval or to take control of society in the same feminist or communist movements have. Instead it's going to more like guerrilla warfare. You can destroy the headquarters but there's still thousands of sleeper cells scattered all over. The US was able to take over Iraq in a few months but to this day it's still fighting Al-Qaeda - even after the head honcho got iced. It is easy for us to come online, learn the information we need, and then go back to our normal lives. This doesn't require large amounts of organization or active communication - it's very much a "take what you need and give what you are able to" sort of thing.

And as we all know, the biggest sign that you've made it is that you get haters and I believe that 2013 has seen more haters crawl out of the wood works then any other time. I started lurking on the forums and reading Roosh back in 2011 and I can't recall the page attracting large amounts of negative attention from the mainstream until this year with the hundreds of angry comments left on articles or people writing full out essays to criticize this or that. Hell's there's an entire subreddit dedicated to nothing but mocking the movement now. There's people out there getting spooked.

Post: #7

On a tangential note(and maybe this should be a separate thread), do any of you feel that the red pill has made you unhappier? On one hand, I'm glad that I see things for what they are. But I also find myself more cynical than ever, more angry at shit. To the point where it does interfere with my overall happiness. Does anyone else feel this way?

Post: #8

(10-05-2013 03:54 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  On a tangential note(and maybe this should be a separate thread), do any of you feel that the red pill has made you unhappier? On one hand, I'm glad that I see things for what they are. But I also find myself more cynical than ever, more angry at shit. To the point where it does interfere with my overall happiness. Does anyone else feel this way?

I'm happier than ever. I used to think stuff mattered, that I mattered, that what I did mattered. Now I don't care. I do the best I can and when it's not good enough, whatever. I tolerate other people's issues much more. No more road rage. I look at other people's weakness through the same lens I look at kids.

Go farther with the cynicism.

Post: #9

(10-05-2013 04:02 PM)JimNortonFan Wrote:  

(10-05-2013 03:54 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  On a tangential note(and maybe this should be a separate thread), do any of you feel that the red pill has made you unhappier? On one hand, I'm glad that I see things for what they are. But I also find myself more cynical than ever, more angry at shit. To the point where it does interfere with my overall happiness. Does anyone else feel this way?

I'm happier than ever. I used to think stuff mattered, that I mattered, that what I did mattered. Now I don't care. I do the best I can and when it's not good enough, whatever. I tolerate other people's issues much more. No more road rage. I look at other people's weakness through the same lens I look at kids.

Go farther with the cynicism.

"I look at other people's weakness through the same lens I look at kids."

Ding Ding!! I used to get pissed because i held mofos to a higher standard and now seeing women as grown ass kids.....

Post: #10

(10-05-2013 03:54 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  On a tangential note(and maybe this should be a separate thread), do any of you feel that the red pill has made you unhappier? On one hand, I'm glad that I see things for what they are. But I also find myself more cynical than ever, more angry at shit. To the point where it does interfere with my overall happiness. Does anyone else feel this way?

Same here. While I do see the truth I get more pissed and agitated. Shit, I even threw a prickly pear at someone an hour ago....and that's something I haven't done in years.

Hopefully that doesn't mean I'll end up acting like those old xenophobic baby boomers .

Post: #11

(10-05-2013 03:54 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  On a tangential note(and maybe this should be a separate thread), do any of you feel that the red pill has made you unhappier? On one hand, I'm glad that I see things for what they are. But I also find myself more cynical than ever, more angry at shit. To the point where it does interfere with my overall happiness. Does anyone else feel this way?

You want me to plug you back into the matrix?

Post: #12

(10-05-2013 06:28 PM)Roosh Wrote:  

(10-05-2013 03:54 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  On a tangential note(and maybe this should be a separate thread), do any of you feel that the red pill has made you unhappier? On one hand, I'm glad that I see things for what they are. But I also find myself more cynical than ever, more angry at shit. To the point where it does interfere with my overall happiness. Does anyone else feel this way?

You want me to plug you back into the matrix?

Post: #13

I hate the term red pill. Especially because it was coined by the formerly Wachowski brothers now siblings. Basically the one became a tranny.

Post: #14

(10-05-2013 02:37 PM)Roosh Wrote:  

The cat is out of the bag. While I won't say our sphere will explode in growth, it won't get smaller. Our ideology has reached a critical mass that ensures fresh minds will continue to develop it for years to come. In essence we've already won, because we aim not for political power or cultural change, but helping individual men with their lives and seeing the truth. Our bar for success is quite modest, but it is being reached.

This post would have been so apropos for your 10,000th post.

Post: #15

(10-05-2013 07:58 PM)kbell Wrote:  I hate the term red pill. Especially because it was coined by the formerly Wachowski brothers now siblings. Basically the one became a tranny.

"Red Pill" means very different things to different people, and can fall into the same jingoism and lack of clarity I call reification.

Abtract terms like that get co-opted by the exact forces you are trying to combat, because all powerful forces by definition have money.

What I mean is:

Real Issues where men are treated unfairly which you can intelligently debate:

1) Lifetime alimony when it is almost always paid by men to women out of proportion to their incomes and potential.

2) The fact that 90%+ of workplace deaths are men, and there are no specific programs to combat that.

3) If women get custody more than half the time ( as well as child support despite the men being objectively equally good at parenting and willing.

These are issues that you can discuss in objective terms, for instance the court papers are physically real and list whether the man or woman got custody.

Ambiguous Abstract Issues no one will ever stop arguing about because there is no solution to an abstraction:

1) Feminist philiosophy is bad.

2) We need Red Pill laws.

3) Cultural Marxism is bad.

These are not issues you can discuss objectively. You can argue about what is "red pill" for just as long as you can argue what is "God".

Post: #16

The differences of meaning are confusing I think. Sort of like Game is used in too many different aspects.

The Red Pill idea coming from a man who is not comfortable with his masculinity. The guy basically believes in blank slate which is NOT popular in the manosphere. The pill aspect indicates a simple fix or a quick fix. Have a cold, take this pill. Have a std take this pill. Being able to see sexual dynamics is a bit more involved and tends to shake your core values. At least it did mine. I don't have an idea what would be a better though in terminology. However with everything being described as Red Pill eventually what does it mean?

Post: #17

Post: #18

the guys who did the counter posters at U of Alberta have my respect

Post: #19

(10-06-2013 07:43 PM)wiscanada Wrote:  the guys who did the counter posters at U of Alberta have my respect

I wrote a thread on that a couple of months ago: /thread-26075.html

The National Post is the basically the only Canadian newspaper I can read without wanting to punch a hole in the wall, I like the owner Conrod Black, great writer and high rolling ex-con.

Post: #20

Just a reminder to people: As red pill as this was, National Post is by no means a bastion of anti-feminist thinking. This is the same newspaper (Kyla Garvey) that got those two Toronto firefighters fired over their tweets and complained about women being underrepresented in the fire department.

I think it's great that as many had predicted red-pill ideas and thinking will go mainstream but I think this was just an attempt on their part to drive some traffic.

Post: #21

(10-05-2013 09:43 PM)iknowexactly Wrote:  

(10-05-2013 07:58 PM)kbell Wrote:  I hate the term red pill. Especially because it was coined by the formerly Wachowski brothers now siblings. Basically the one became a tranny.

"Red Pill" means very different things to different people, and can fall into the same jingoism and lack of clarity I call reification.

Abtract terms like that get co-opted by the exact forces you are trying to combat, because all powerful forces by definition have money.

What I mean is:

Real Issues where men are treated unfairly which you can intelligently debate:

1) Lifetime alimony when it is almost always paid by men to women out of proportion to their incomes and potential.

2) The fact that 90%+ of workplace deaths are men, and there are no specific programs to combat that.

3) If women get custody more than half the time ( as well as child support despite the men being objectively equally good at parenting and willing.

These are issues that you can discuss in objective terms, for instance the court papers are physically real and list whether the man or woman got custody.

Ambiguous Abstract Issues no one will ever stop arguing about because there is no solution to an abstraction:

1) Feminist philiosophy is bad.

2) We need Red Pill laws.

3) Cultural Marxism is bad.

These are not issues you can discuss objectively. You can argue about what is "red pill" for just as long as you can argue what is "God".

If I ever get in legal trouble, I want you as my lawyer

Post: #22

The term "red pill" sees its first cited, verifiable use in a mainstream publication...wow.
Just think: fifty years from now, when you look at the entry for "red pill" in the Oxford English Dictionary, the first quotation will date from the year 2013...

Post: #23

(10-05-2013 01:55 PM)Wadsworth Wrote:  Awesome. For whatever reason, it looks like the opening salvo in the mainstream fight against feminism is going to happen in Canada.

Quote:“There are genuine women’s issues that are far more profound, that affect all women, not just small numbers of women. The same can’t be said of men,” said Michael Laxer, a frequent political candidate for the NDP, and now the Socialist Party of Ontario.

Man the NDP sure has become a cancer.

The NDP should stick to labour and working class issues, which is their strength, and forget about gender-bating.

It's obvious they are trying a strategy that has worked for the Democratic Party in the US for the last short while. i.e. Manipulate fake gender issues in order to weight your vote with lower class women voters. Problem for the NDP is that the Democrats have only been successful with this strategy because, in addition to women, they also "race-bait", and have a decent number of black people who will, for some strange reason, vote for them whether it is in their interest or not (and IMO it usually is not).

I don't believe this strategy will succeed in Canada. While it is indeed very easy to "gender-bait" in Canada, "race-baiting" is different and will not go down well. This strategy will not give the NDP a sufficient edge to make up for how much it will ostracise many other voters. Men, older women, non single mother mothers etc.

Post: #24

(10-07-2013 08:27 AM)Bad Hussar Wrote:  

(10-05-2013 01:55 PM)Wadsworth Wrote:  Awesome. For whatever reason, it looks like the opening salvo in the mainstream fight against feminism is going to happen in Canada.

Quote:“There are genuine women’s issues that are far more profound, that affect all women, not just small numbers of women. The same can’t be said of men,” said Michael Laxer, a frequent political candidate for the NDP, and now the Socialist Party of Ontario.

Man the NDP sure has become a cancer.

The NDP should stick to labour and working class issues, which is their strength, and forget about gender-bating.

It's obvious they are trying a strategy that has worked for the Democratic Party in the US for the last short while. i.e. Manipulate fake gender issues in order to weight your vote with lower class women voters. Problem for the NDP is that the Democrats have only been successful with this strategy because, in addition to women, they also "race-bait", and have a decent number of black people who will, for some strange reason, vote for them whether it is in their interest or not (and IMO it usually is not).

I don't believe this strategy will succeed in Canada. While it is indeed very easy to "gender-bait" in Canada, "race-baiting" is different and will not go down well. This strategy will not give the NDP a sufficient edge to make up for how much it will ostracise many other voters. Men, older women, non single mother mothers etc.

The NDP have abandoned their old base, working class blue collar union meat heads like me and fully embraced their new base which consists of recent immigrants who want a hand out and not a hand up, environmental whack jobs, the LGBT community and the old hippy socialists. Thankfully, the NDP don't have a snow ball's chance in hell of getting elected federally, especially under that bone head Mulcair.

Post: #25

(10-07-2013 09:20 AM)scotian Wrote:  

(10-07-2013 08:27 AM)Bad Hussar Wrote:  

(10-05-2013 01:55 PM)Wadsworth Wrote:  Awesome. For whatever reason, it looks like the opening salvo in the mainstream fight against feminism is going to happen in Canada.

Quote:“There are genuine women’s issues that are far more profound, that affect all women, not just small numbers of women. The same can’t be said of men,” said Michael Laxer, a frequent political candidate for the NDP, and now the Socialist Party of Ontario.

Man the NDP sure has become a cancer.

The NDP should stick to labour and working class issues, which is their strength, and forget about gender-bating.

It's obvious they are trying a strategy that has worked for the Democratic Party in the US for the last short while. i.e. Manipulate fake gender issues in order to weight your vote with lower class women voters. Problem for the NDP is that the Democrats have only been successful with this strategy because, in addition to women, they also "race-bait", and have a decent number of black people who will, for some strange reason, vote for them whether it is in their interest or not (and IMO it usually is not).

I don't believe this strategy will succeed in Canada. While it is indeed very easy to "gender-bait" in Canada, "race-baiting" is different and will not go down well. This strategy will not give the NDP a sufficient edge to make up for how much it will ostracise many other voters. Men, older women, non single mother mothers etc.

The NDP have abandoned their old base, working class blue collar union meat heads like me and fully embraced their new base which consists of recent immigrants who want a hand out and not a hand up, environmental whack jobs, the LGBT community and the old hippy socialists. Thankfully, the NDP don't have a snow ball's chance in hell of getting elected federally, especially under that bone head Mulcair.

That's interesting. They're idiots then. I'd say Canada has a fairly strong labour movement. Which party is going to protect these interests then?