The fall of feminism and the rise of islam

[Solo MAN’S WisdomParticipant]

Anonymous wrote:

Feminism started in Rome with Livia Drusilla.

Feminism started in Eden with Eve. She indulged jealousies of Adam and his capabilities, which led to her distrust in God, the taking of the fruit, then using coercive tactics to get Adam to fall.

When women lead, destruction is the destination. -- Me.

[narwhalParticipant]

I don’t care to dispute anything you’re saying specifically, but that from a general point of view, I have little faith in both predictions. When we extrapolate, forwards or backwards, we have to make assumptions regarding the future/past conditions and how unpredictable entities (like women) will react. As well, half the time, there is no real benefit to knowing the past/future anyway…so what’s the point.

But specific to the issue, one thing that is very much different then other times in history is the presence of rapid communication and game changing technology. I see those and rather unpredictable conditions. We could say that it is leading to more and more irrational behavior, but I think the rise of men choosing not to marry is highly tied to the high level of communication available today.

Ok. Then do it.

[MgtowWaveParticipant 4352]

Tradcon systems like Islam seem to rise and fall.Science and discovery weaken them.The Catholic church insisted the world was flat etc. Unrestrained religion is always a hinderance to advancement of knowledge and free exchange of ideas.Religous or otherwise.Thats why seperation of church and state exists here in the West.Nobody here goes to jail for failing to attend religous service or practice religion.

Unlike in the Middle East.

If it werent for petrodollars the entire Arab muslim Middle East would be a Third World s~~~hole.Attaturk realized this after WW1 and made reforms like banning the head covering for women attempting to keep Islam from holding Turkey back from advancement.
They produce nothing.All their tech comes from the West.Either imported,reverse engineered or stolen.I would bet even the oil rig and drilling tech is Western invention.
Without the free exchange of ideas and knowledge in the West people would still believe the sun revolves around the Earth.
There was an internet dustup last year between a Saudi mullah and a bunch of other people about just that.
In the Middle East insulting the prophet gets you prison or death sentence.
I think at some point people in the West will realize whats going on and say we wont have this s~~~ here.
Things might get real bad or even bloody but head chopping and hand chopping and forced circumsision against adult males and females just wont go over real well in the West .
Some times the only way out is through.
Sometimes things just have to get real bad before things get better.
Sometimes people just have to see just how bad things can get for themselves before they stand up and say Hell No.
I would bet Algela Merkel and her party are about to be run out of office in the next election.Or the one after.The cartonist in France who was shot for insulting mohamad got world wide support .Remember Je suis Charlie?
All it would take is enough people to stand up and tell the muslim immigrants “If you dont like how we do things here in the West GET THE F~~~ OUT.

Yea “Woman Power” has been around before.
Women have always expected men to be disposable and then resented the success it brings certain men and then desired those same men.

Forced religion too has been around since forever but neither one has had to face the internet.

frankly my dear i don't give a damn

[AttonParticipant]

A MGTOW is a man who is not a woman's bitch!

[ArturParticipant 71]

narwhal wrote:

I don’t care to dispute anything you’re saying specifically, but that from a general point of view, I have little faith in both predictions. When we extrapolate, forwards or backwards, we have to make assumptions regarding the future/past conditions and how unpredictable entities (like women) will react. As well, half the time, there is no real benefit to knowing the past/future anyway…so what’s the point.

But specific to the issue, one thing that is very much different then other times in history is the presence of rapid communication and game changing technology. I see those and rather unpredictable conditions. We could say that it is leading to more and more irrational behavior, but I think the rise of men choosing not to marry is highly tied to the high level of communication available today.

I am not looking to start an argument with you, but I would just like to say this. From what I understand you are presenting an interpretivist point of view. Basically, what you are saying is that there really is no point talking about the past or the future as it is all based on assumptions and predictions in a universe of countless variables. As everything that ever was, is or will be is either in the past, recent past or future and with even our basic understanding of nature being constantly challenged by science, what follows is that there really is no point thinking or discussing anything at all as it will inevitably amount to s~~~.

It is difficult to imagine that as a species we could achieve much more than apes by following this line of reasoning. Fortunately, virtually all science is based on the doctrine of positivism, which is all about assumptions, predictions and experiments. It is thanks to the positivist way of thinking that you can now comfortably take a s~~~ in the toilet and not in the woods, since it is based on certain hydraulic assumptions and, yes, certain predictions too (as to what is going to happen to your s~~~ when you flush it).

Ironically, you yourself made a prediction that “We could say that [the presence of rapid communication and game changing technology] is leading to more and more irrational behavior, but I think the rise of men choosing not to marry is highly tied to the high level of communication available today.”, which is based on the assumption that “(…) one thing that is very much different then other times in history is the presence of rapid communication and game changing technology”. The assumption in itself is either, from an interpretivist perspective, debatable (e.g. consider that in ancient Egypt or Mesopotamia metal-working or irrigation systems were seen as game changing technologies) or, from a positivist perspective, a truism, in which case it is by definition in itself neither new nor interesting.

[narwhalParticipant]

Artur wrote:

I am not looking to start an argument with you, but I would just like to say this. From what I understand you are presenting an interpretivist point of view. Basically, what you are saying is that there really is no point talking about the past or the future as it is all based on assumptions and predictions in a universe of countless variables. As everything that ever was, is or will be is either in the past, recent past or future and with even our basic understanding of nature being constantly challenged by science, what follows is that there really is no point thinking or discussing anything at all as it will inevitably amount to s~~~.

I don’t see it as one extreme or the other. There are some things we know and understand, while there are plenty of things we don’t know any understand. For the typical basic science experiment, you test a hypothesis by removing as many variables as possible, so that you can verify 1 specific variables impact…putting in simply. When you cannot control the variables, you are forced to make assumptions. Some assumptions are ok, but the more assumptions you make and the less reliable your assumptions are, you reach a point where your results are useless because the prove nothing.

Artur wrote:

It is difficult to imagine that as a species we could achieve much more than apes by following this line of reasoning. Fortunately, virtually all science is based on the doctrine of positivism, which is all about assumptions, predictions and experiments. It is thanks to the positivist way of thinking that you can now comfortably take a s~~~ in the toilet and not in the woods, since it is based on certain hydraulic assumptions and, yes, certain predictions too (as to what is going to happen to your s~~~ when you flush it).

But no experiment can be done regarding the social future. The first toilet ever made probably didn’t work, the same way the first airplanes didn’t work. It was through experimentation that we figured out exactly how it works. Yes, assume and predict…but test. These days, it seems like the test part is ignored.

Artur wrote:

Ironically, you yourself made a prediction that “We could say that [the presence of rapid communication and game changing technology] is leading to more and more irrational behavior, but I think the rise of men choosing not to marry is highly tied to the high level of communication available today.”, which is based on the assumption that “(…) one thing that is very much different then other times in history is the presence of rapid communication and game changing technology”. The assumption in itself is either, from an interpretivist perspective, debatable (e.g. consider that in ancient Egypt or Mesopotamia metal-working or irrigation systems were seen as game changing technologies) or, from a positivist perspective, a truism, in which case it is by definition in itself neither new nor interesting.

Not a prediction, it’s a possible explanation for what is happening today. Look, I’m not saying it’s impossible to know what happened yesterday, or predict what will happen tomorrow. As a extreme example, I’m confident that gravity will not disappear tomorrow…and that my toilet will work. But what often happens, in the quest to KNOW, is people start making more and more assumptions and count them as facts. We assume we understand what’s happening when we don’t. We assume a unpredictable entity, like women, will behave the same way even after conditions change. The assumptions for gravity and my toilet are pretty low and have shown consistent test results. The reality is, there are some things, past and future, that we cannot really know with enough level of certainty, or at least not enough certainty for me to be convinced.

Ok. Then do it.

[ArturParticipant 71]

narwhal wrote:

I don’t see it as one extreme or the other. There are some things we know and understand, while there are plenty of things we don’t know any understand.

narwhal wrote:

I don’t care to dispute anything you’re saying specifically, but that from a general point of view, I have little faith in both predictions. When we extrapolate, forwards or backwards, we have to make assumptions regarding the future/past conditions and how unpredictable entities (like women) will react. As well, half the time, there is no real benefit to knowing the past/future anyway…so what’s the point.

To reiterate, I am saying that we cannot discredit an argument on the grounds that assumptions need to be made (about the past or the future) or even on the grounds that there are no immediate benefits of having the argument. To do so would be in direct conflict with the doctrine adopted by virtually all science, to which we own everything that we are or have (including the toilet from which I am currently communicating with the world).

If you were to limit yourself to repeating truisms, then such a discussion would be, by definition of the word truism, neither interesting nor useful in any way. It would also constitute a poor intellectual exercise. On the other hand, an argument based on certain assumptions, predations, analysis and interpretations of evidence, does in my opinion warrant further debate. The evidence that I presented is, I would say, adequate for the current circumstances. After all, this is an internet forum. Clearly, I am not attempting to write here an academic article for peer review or even a popular science book. I am proposing a hypothesis and provide some evidence as well as analysis in support of it.

narwhal wrote:

But no experiment can be done regarding the social future. The first toilet ever made probably didn’t work, the same way the first airplanes didn’t work. It was through experimentation that we figured out exactly how it works. Yes, assume and predict…but test. These days, it seems like the test part is ignored.

Social sciences, as any other respectable academic disciplines, can and do perform experiments concerning our social future. The word experiment, however, should not be understood here in its traditional sense, as in the context of a physical laboratory. I am talking about methods, such as mathematical modelling, behavioural experiments or, indeed, theoretical analysis (e.g. thought experiments). For example, economics is a social science and nowadays it is mostly concerned with building mathematical models (in particular, the subfield of econometrics). Those are based on assumptions and are used for making predictions about the economic aspects of our social future. If such models had poor (or none) predictive power, then they would be of little interest to the scientific community (perhaps to a historian). There are also numerous other social sciences, such as (social) demography, politics or sociology, which are more pertinent to the issue of culture clash that I raised and those often adopt qualitative methodologies (or qualitative experiments).

[Eric LauderParticipant 12043]

A lot of good points, here.
Let’s see:

CPT Obvious wrote:

The feminist/SWJ/liberals, who preach against male rape/violence/patriarchy, are actively demanding to import the culture and people who represent the absolute epitome of the things they wail about.

Ultimately, they will be the first to perish from this course of action.

Not sure.
Feminists are using the rape/violence/patriarchy argument in order to flip the table and reaching a matriarchy.
Even most manginas know it, even if they’ll never admit, they know it in the deep: most manginas are submissive pussy-worshippers who dreams about being submitted by a dominant woman.
On the other hand feminist females knows the real rules of the game: female power isn’t obtained by dominating men through power but by asking protection of men and blaming men who fails at providing to women and giving protection to women.
Feminists females thinks they can control and submit – using such tactic – even muslims. It seems it’s working: Saudi Arabia granted the right to vote to women in 2015.

Anonymous wrote:

My take is that anti-racism is inherently racist. Danish people have no negative stereotype, while Mexicans, Black or Muslims have.
So its a recognition of the stereotype.

Exactly.
Most “anti-racism” is based on an actual racist base, because it assumes that some words are racists even if those words aren’t openly racists.
By doing so, those “anti-racists” actually reinforce stereotypes.
It’s quite similar to feminists on some matters.

Anonymous wrote:

Nah, I don’t think there is any stopping feminism.

There was that story not too long ago about that Saudi wife who refused to sleep with her new husband on her wedding night because she’d rather be on her smartphone.

I would say “I’m not sure that feminism can be stopped by muslims”.
You are a very smart man, but you missed a little detail:
I don’t think feminists will have more than 30% chances while trying subjugate muslim men.
Without warnings to muslims, feminists would have 90% chances to defeat muslims, since female nature can exploit every kind of unwarned men.
BUT
when feminists will finally confront muslims then muslims will be warned because muslims will had see the ruin of western men.

Dr. Sable wrote:

Feminism will never die off, it will simply turn into a different female/ism dependent upon what
type of society it is in. Remember, we are talking about gynocenrism here. Western society has it’s
own version just as do Muslims or Hindus do.

We all tend to put s~~~ on Muslim faith, yet it is this same religion that keeps the gynocentric dragon
in check at the expense of men. So again, men carry the burden of keeping female behavior from straying
too far from the path. But after it is all said and done, finding a balance is the key so men can continue
to carry our civilization into the future without being hobbled by needy or cheating hypergamus female nature.
Remember, it was our fine western civilization that granted women the right to vote and the f~~~ing
experiment has failed. The recovery will not be slow or without pain but may be a good lesson for future
generations of men not to allow half wits to influence men’s lives.

As for your last question/s, why should you care what we think ? Live your life for yourself as best
as you can while going your own way. None of us are perfect and all of us have different opinions about
life and society we live in. Be happy in the fact that you belong in a group of men that follow a
particular type of philosophy that does not constrain them to live like a f~~~ing drone in a bee hive.

This last part is why I think that even against warned muslims feminists will still have a 30% chances.

There’s even another force that will be very dangerous for feminists and gynocentrism: transhumanism. Fleshlights / sex robots + artificial wombs, practically. That cannot be stopped if it will begins to spread. Females will try to suffocate it while it’ll emerge.

SUPREME LEADER KIM JONG-UN'S FASHION STYLIST - if you want a new look or if you're a very beautiful trans you can call me, phone number +85079255312 / mobile 01921421211. The worth of a man isn't the usefulness that women get from him. Avoiding living with a woman, a man isn't rejecting a lot of sex: he's rejecting sexual starvation. MGTOW IS TACKLING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IN COMPLIANCE WITH CONVENTION OF ISTANBUL: http://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list/-/conventions/rms/090000168008482e --- Article 4, Section 4 "Special measures that are necessary to prevent and protect women from gender-based violence shall not be considered discrimination under the terms of this Convention". WHAT I LEARNT FROM A GENDER STUDIES CLASS IN LUND, SWEDEN: every time feminists accuses men of doing something, odds are likely either them or persons associated with them are doing the exact same thing but a lot worse. WHO I'M RIGHT NOW https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1okpAj7Fhw Basically my former life have been a conflict between this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yz_RQVkvke4 and this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFIMeyTK-sU That's, more or less, all about me.

[Author]

Posts