Post: #1

People sometimes ask, "Isn't it weird that leftists end up on the same side as Islam, which is homophobic and anti-feminist? Do they not see the contradiction?"

One theory is that the leftists will use feminism to weaken and depopulate the western world, while simultaneously opening the borders for Muslims, Mexicans, and other third worlders to come in, until we are overrun and our culture and politics are taken over by barbarians. But this raises the question: Who benefits from this? How would this serve the ruling elites?

That kind of strategy for undermining America might make sense for the globalists, if the U.S. were a beacon of patriarchy, nationalism, and tradition, and third world countries had ideologies and tendencies more conducive to leftism, feminism, globalism, etc. But in many ways, it's actually the opposite; that's part of why so many Americans want to go abroad to pussy paradises, whether for sex tourism or for wife-hunting.

These third world countries tend to have more patriarchal cultures. Why would feminists, after having secured so many victories in the western world, want to weaken their own American and European feminist strongholds, and let dominant men and submissive women from other countries come in and restore the patriarchy? Are feminists just useful idiots for someone with an agenda that actually is unrelated to feminism and maybe even would ultimately work counter to feminism? Or have they not thought through the long-term consequences of their ideas?

Here's what I think is the plan. Feminists are all about subverting every institution they can for their own purposes. So, for example, marriage has become about serving women's AF/BB goals. Likewise, Christianity has become a way of excusing rather than shaming women's sluttiness, because women stepping off the carousel can always join a church and say, "God forgives me! Judge not, lest ye be judged!" Colleges, once places where men learned useful knowledge that would help them be breadwinners for the families and leaders in their communities, became propaganda outlets for women's studies professors and places for normal men to be shamed as rapists, etc.

So, why not subvert Islam too? I see Wikipedia has articles about LGBT movements within Islam and Islamic feminism. The Rise of the Islamic Feminists notes, "Four years ago, a global movement called Musawah—'equality' in Arabic—began to make the case that women can fight for justice and equality from within Islamic tradition. . . . At its core, Musawah operates on the belief that Islam is not inherently biased toward men: patriarchy within Muslim countries is a result of the way male interpreters have read Islamic texts."

People point to the Muslim veils and headscarves as a way in which women are subjugated, since it prevents them from showing off their bodies in a slutty way. But isn't that similar to how feminists will get fat or cut their hair short? It's a way of saying, "Fuck you, I don't care about being aesthetically pleasing." Who knows, maybe if you marry a Muslim, you find out on your wedding night that she's not only a feminist, but even has blue hair.

What about how Islam lets men have four wives? Feminists could probably figure out some way to subvert that for their own purposes too. Maybe three of the wives will say, "We can go out and be career women now, since there's still one wife available to stay home with the kids." If they all divorce their husband, maybe they can take four times as much money from him as one wife could've taken. It'll be like being drawn and quartered.

Patriarchy is a double-edged sword, in that it includes both male rights and male responsibilities. This can work against us if Scripture is cited selectively. We can expect that, similarly to Christian pastors, Islamic feminist imams will be telling men to "man up" and fulfill their duties to women, while letting the women get away with being unfeminine or slutty.

Whatever parts of Islam feminists can't subvert, they'll just figure out a creative Quranic interpretation to explain away. It'll be like how Christian feminists said, "Oh, when Paul said that women should be silent in church, he just meant that people shouldn't be chatting in the middle of the service." Paul and the other writers are not here to answer any questions about what they meant, so people are free to reinterpret the Bible as they wish.

I think the goal is not so much to Islamify the U.S., but rather to Americanize the Muslims. Globalists have wanted to open the markets to build McDonald's restaurants in every country (including in the Arab world), and offer student visas so that Muslims can attend our universities and then go back to spread those ideas in their own countries. They've established UN agencies and NGOs, and handed out foreign aid, to influence Muslim countries to accept feminism. To the extent that they encourage the U.S. to be tolerant toward Muslims, how do we know that isn't to lure them to the U.S. so their kids can be brought up in American ways; or so that Muslims will be more accepting of American influence over their culture and politics?

It doesn't serve the globalist cause much if Muslims are coming to the U.S. and raising their children to be traditional Muslims. It's much better if their kids become westernized, as they probably will, once they get the freedom to do so. Then they can become consumers and skilled workers, designing and buying iPads, smartphones, etc.

Likewise, globalists would love if the Muslim countries would get their fertility rate down to about the same level (~1.5 children per woman) as the western world. That serves the feminist cause, since women who delay childbearing till their 30s and then only have one or two kids can devote themselves more fully to their careers. It also serves the globalist cause, because countries with slower population growth can build up their capital, since they don't have to spend so much of their resources on supporting the next generation of kids. Their per capita wealth goes up, since it's not spread out among an increasingly large population of people. That means they can afford to buy all the stuff we buy in America (high speed Internet, wireless data plan, Netflix subscription, etc.) The career women, lacking many (if any) kids, will seek fulfillment in consumerism.

The ultimate goal of globalists would be to create a worldwide Schengen-style area without any border controls whatsoever. Making that politically acceptable to the masses would be greatly facilitated by getting the countries that currently are third world countries up to a similar standard of living as the U.S., and getting them to adopt a similar culture as America's before they even get here. But even those who do come here with traditional ideas will send their kids to American universities, where they'll get their feminist indoctrination.

I don't think the goal is to use immigrants to destroy traditional American values. The feminists already accomplished that from within; they have no need for help from outsiders. Now their task is to use the western world as a home base from which to spread their ideas globally, and in that way conform all of humanity to a feminist monoculture.

Once that has been done, we will have no basis of comparison by which to judge our culture as bad or good, other than the biased historical accounts the government will put forth in school textbooks, Hollywood will present in films, media oligarchs will put on Google News, and Wikipedians will put in wiki articles.

Once everyone can travel freely, and the whole world shares the same culture, and the economy is well-developed everywhere, there will be nothing particularly special about Americans. It's going to put a damper on sex tourism, which of course is part of feminists' objective. They're socialists; they want everyone to be equal.

Once borders are abolished, the next step is to establish a global political union. We can expect that, as in the U.S., Jews will probably punch above their weight (in terms of what they can achieve even though they're only a small percentage of the population) and find a way to finagle their way into a lot of the high and influential positions. A world government would enable them to remove Arab countries from posing any kind of threat to Israel, through the threat of attack by a global army. But a cucked version of Islam would probably already have taught Muslims (similarly to what Christians have been taught) that Jews are the chosen people and worthy of high respect and preference.

(Of course, creating a world government could backfire for the Jews, if a Hitler-style politician were to become world president. But what could possibly provoke that sort of backlash on the part of the people, that would make them want to put someone like that in power...)

Something along those lines seems to me like the most logical explanation for the feminist-Islamic-globalist alliance. I still think, though, that once the demographic transition has occurred, it could be hard to reverse. Therefore, it seems likely that in the long term, we're doomed, unless we somehow adapt to a world in which birth control exists.

Maybe it's time to ditch the Abrahamic religions and go back to the good old days of pagan religions that worshiped and celebrated fertility.

Post: #2

Let islam take them, we don't want them.

Post: #3

Chateau Heartiste has analysed, and written much on the subject.


Welcome the invaders

Post: #4

There is a counter for (((feminism))) and the uppity snarkiness of single white women, it is called White Sharia. That, and disavow the corruption called Abrahmaic religion and go back to our Aryan roots.

Post: #5

MGTOW is also a sure fire way to destroy feminism and the blue pill landscape.

Imagine all those productive thirsty beta males laying down tools and stop working. Society would collapse in a few months.

It would be a scorched earth method.

Post: #6

This is the way to fight feminism.

Post: #7

Sherman digging his hole deeper, as usual, trying to figure out just how ridiculous he can get before he gets shitcanned.

The way to fight feminism isn't some faggoty MGTOW nonsense (the vast majority of which are herbivorous low T quitters) or to convert to the backward religion of islam.

It's simply to regrow our balls and re-assert our presence, accepting no more bullshit and tearing down any and all facets of the system that seek to bind us.

Post: #8

(05-20-2017 11:21 PM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  Sherman digging his hole deeper, as usual, trying to figure out just how ridiculous he can get before he gets shitcanned.

The way to fight feminism isn't some faggoty MGTOW nonsense (the vast majority of which are herbivorous low T quitters) or to convert to the backward religion of islam.

It's simply to regrow our balls and re-assert our presence, accepting no more bullshit and tearing down any and all facets of the system that seek to bind us.

The thing about MGTOW, though, is that it's a "solution" that one man can choose on his own, if he decides it's the lesser of two evils.

Tearing down the system requires that men work together toward that goal. Feminists and SJWs have successfully deterred us from organizing openly, though. Those few like Robert Fisher who have been unmasked have suffered the consequences.

By the way, doesn't MGTOW sometimes involve banging chicks while refusing to commit to them? That could be considered pretty dominant, in a way.

(05-20-2017 09:33 PM)RatInTheWoods Wrote:  MGTOW is also a sure fire way to destroy feminism and the blue pill landscape.

Imagine all those productive thirsty beta males laying down tools and stop working. Society would collapse in a few months.

It would be a scorched earth method.

Would that work? Or would women just become more masculine to make up for the absence of men? Couldn't they start doing those jobs, the way they did during World War II when the men were gone?

Post: #9

(05-20-2017 11:21 PM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  Sherman digging his hole deeper, as usual, trying to figure out just how ridiculous he can get before he gets shitcanned.

The way to fight feminism isn't some faggoty MGTOW nonsense (the vast majority of which are herbivorous low T quitters) or to convert to the backward religion of islam.

It's simply to regrow our balls and re-assert our presence, accepting no more bullshit and tearing down any and all facets of the system that seek to bind us.

Give us an example of where you saved a woman from feminism. We are eager to learn how you did it.

Post: #10

(05-20-2017 11:59 PM)Sherman Wrote:  

(05-20-2017 11:21 PM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  Sherman digging his hole deeper, as usual, trying to figure out just how ridiculous he can get before he gets shitcanned.

The way to fight feminism isn't some faggoty MGTOW nonsense (the vast majority of which are herbivorous low T quitters) or to convert to the backward religion of islam.

It's simply to regrow our balls and re-assert our presence, accepting no more bullshit and tearing down any and all facets of the system that seek to bind us.

Give us an example of where you saved a woman from feminism. We are eager to learn how you did it.

You're a troll, Sherman. No dice.

And I'm not interested in playing captain save-a-ho. Men need to take back the system from feminists, not save the feminists from the system.

That white-knight bullshit will fall on deaf ears here.

Post: #11

(05-21-2017 12:52 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

(05-20-2017 11:59 PM)Sherman Wrote:  

(05-20-2017 11:21 PM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  Sherman digging his hole deeper, as usual, trying to figure out just how ridiculous he can get before he gets shitcanned.

The way to fight feminism isn't some faggoty MGTOW nonsense (the vast majority of which are herbivorous low T quitters) or to convert to the backward religion of islam.

It's simply to regrow our balls and re-assert our presence, accepting no more bullshit and tearing down any and all facets of the system that seek to bind us.

Give us an example of where you saved a woman from feminism. We are eager to learn how you did it.

You're a troll, Sherman. No dice.

And I'm not interested in playing captain save-a-ho. Men need to take back the system from feminists, not save the feminists from the system.

That white-knight bullshit will fall on deaf ears here.

Well, you criticized men who actually saved a woman from feminism so we want to know what you have done. That is a fair question. But we get it. You are still playing with your keyboard.

Post: #12

Keep cucking to North Korea and islam, you ridiculous little man. I come from stock that doesn't require a violent ideology to enslave women to the will of men, and I don't need a priest to tell my wife that Mohammed wants her to submit to me.

Just being a man will do that for you. Give it a try.

Post: #13

Islam is not going to be feminized and will accept the globalist propaganda. Even in the 1950s to 70s where the Muslim societies changed it did not happen. It was forcibly pressed back by the local governments and blasted out on all media to become more secular.

Obviously the globalists are running a double Game here.

Yes - the end goal is a united globohomo empire without any borders, but that is not achieved by blasting propaganda their way and making the Muslim world accept it. They obviously don't do that. It is obviously clear that they support Islam and want it to be as radical as possible.

Feminism are useful idiots.
And Muslims are useful idiots.

I predict a major conflict coming with Islam where Islam will be wiped out and banned afterwards, the Western Islamic terror may likely make the chipping of the population necessary - something which the globalists would love to do and have in their plans for a long time. So this would fuflill all roles. They will not merge Islam and feminism, this would not be controllable.

Their plans make perfect plans if you think it through.

Your theories make no sense. If they wanted the Muslim world and the Western Muslims to secularize, then there would be a myriad ways of doing it - telling the truth about Islam, truth about Mohammed, directing propaganda them, not cucking for Islam, putting pressure on Muslim countries to become liberal, buying up their entire media and then blasting propaganda, buying off thousands of Imams. Nothing of that sort is happening - they even import Saudi preachers and let them finance mosques, they tell them that Mohammed is great, that Islam is wonderful and that they should keep their culture. Also a side-note - the new generations of Muslims in the West who are Western born are more radical than their parents - that is also a sign that it goes the other way not towards secularism.

Feminists are just moronic assholes who are also anti-White and anti-Western and that is why they are cucking for Islam because it wins in their oppression olympics and not because they want to subvert Islam.

Also Sherman is a Muslim propagandist who thinks that the perfect system is a 100% sharia world. Can be disregarded with his bullshit.

Post: #14

(05-21-2017 11:25 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  Feminists are just moronic assholes who are also anti-White and anti-Western and that is why they are cucking for Islam because it wins in their oppression olympics and not because they want to subvert Islam.

If feminists place highest priority on whoever wins the oppression olympics, shouldn't they care more about black women living in the ghetto than about middle class white college girls getting pseudo-raped? Historically, though, black women have regarded white feminists as competitors in the oppression olympics. (Another reason for the animosity and distrust between the two groups is that a lot of white feminists take government jobs as, e.g., social workers, where they wreak a lot of havoc upon the black community by ripping apart their families and so on.)

Also, in the oppression olympics, the women living under Islamic patriarchy should win the contest against the men who are the Islamic patriarchs, unless feminists are cultural relativists.

To some extent, feminists like to go where the government money is, since they need to put their women's studies degrees to use somewhere. There's a certain amount of money to be made studying Islamic patriarchy and traveling to the third world to talk to Muslim women about feminism. However, there's a divide between the secular feminists who want to appeal more to the human rights conventions, and the Islamic feminists who actually have a Muslim background and are wanting to make more immediate changes by working within Islam.

Post: #15

< You are basing it on some kind of your own logic - stop it!

Go to their logic and their theories on why they ignore the plight of Muslim women and focus instead on white college boys. It makes sense in their convoluted brains that mixes race (brown more oppressed), culture is equal (the browner the more equal), etc.

Also feminists hate to help other women unless the globalists co-opt some cause (bring back our girls). They are also pudding in the hands of Islamic propagandists (like Linda Sarsour). No one will work with Islam. In a meeting of feminism/SJW with Islam, Islam will simply rape and kill the feminists and there will be only Islam left. Their ideology simply will prefer to always cuck for Islam even as they are killing gays and selling women into slavery. Their mental system is so utterly anti-White, anti-white male, that they cannot jump over the mental hurdle - they prefer to be killed before admitting to be wrong:



You should listen more to what the social justice crowd says - their mental bending will only change when the globalists want them to think differently (since they finance the marxist courses and big feminists organizations - the globalists could probably wipe out feminism and social justice within 2-3 years if they wanted). The globalists cannot do such a thing with Islam, because the core texts are ISIS/Salafis/Saudis-like (seriously if you study Islam then you realize that the Saudis/Salafis are the true Muslims and there will always be extremists since Mohammed was an extremist by current-day standards). They cannot be changed. Best option is to ban it and replace it with something Muslim sounding like Baha'i which strangely enough gets supported by the UN en masse. They simply say that Mohammed was great and don't reference the violent texts, then concoct a new-age ideology around Mohammed and other religious leaders. Muslims can then still venerate Allah, go to prayers, just have zero violent texts anymore. That kind of "new Islam" could work - looks like Islam, being celebrated like Islam, but has no legal and historical Islam left in it.

Of course - what the globalists are planning exactly is only something we can speculate about. Your idea of secularization is not in effect as of now - quite the opposite.

Post: #16

Valjean says:

"I think the goal is not so much to Islamify the U.S., but rather to Americanize the Muslims."

I think this is a valid point. Islam is now where Christianity use to be in the 1950s. The globalists are materialists and convinced that materialism will change Islam like it changed Christianity if they expose enough Muslims to Western comfortable living. They could be right.

I am still old enough to remember when people from the World War II generation widely believed that the Japanese were barbaric and cruel, and less than human. Now, they are on par with all the other developed nations.