A while back I posted this article where I said feminism isn’t a threat. Many of you didn’t like that, because to many of you, feminism is the big evil monster that will destroy the world and that we men should all be afraid of.

Today I’m going to address some of the arguments some of you have made (both in comments on this blog and in my email) as well as show some evidence of my position, and perhaps make aspects of my position more clear.

The Definition of the Word “Feminist”

My position is this: Feminists are not a threat to you.

I thought this was a pretty clear position. The problem is that it gets confusing when manosphere guys screw up the definition of the word “feminist.”

When I say feminist, I mean the angry, purple haired overweight women on YouTube and on college campuses who scream at the top of their lungs about stupid shit that doesn’t exist like the 77 cents thing and rape culture.

That’s it. I’m not talking about anyone else. I’m not talking about leftists, socialists, or left-wing politicians. As I’ve been explaining in great detail for many years now, leftists are a threat to you because they have already won the culture wars and have already taken over the entire Western world. Thanks to leftists and corporate, globalist Republicans like George W. Bush, who most of your right-wingers voted for (thanks guys!), the Western world is now headed for an inevitable collapse.

Hillary Clinton has a good shot at becoming our next President. Well, duh. Of course, as I’ve been saying for about the past seven years or so. Because the left has already won. But Hillary Clinton is not a feminist. Let me say that again. Hillary Clinton is not a feminist. Hillary Clinton is a largely right-wing, neoconservative corporatist and political criminal who will say or do anything to seize power. She is not a feminist, nor could give a rat’s ass about feminism.

So if you hear the word “feminist” and instantly a picture of Hillary Clinton pops into your head, you’ve been brainwashed. Hillary Clinton is not a feminist. Laci Green is a feminist. Anita Sarkeesian is a feminist. Unlike Hillary Clinton, Sarkeesian’s silly “arguments” about important issues such as women’s butts in video games have been debunked and ridiculed so many times that I almost feel sorry for her. (Almost.) How much power does Antia Sarkessian have? None. How much power does Hillary Clinton have? Tons. And that’s my point. Feminists have no power over your personal day-to-day life.

But leftists do. So yes, if you, as a man, follow the standard Societal Programming system of going to college, getting a corporate job, getting monogamous, getting legally married, and relying on social security or your 401k to support you in your retirement, leftists (not feminists, leftists) are a HUGE threat to you. You’re essentially putting a huge bullseye on your forehead for these people.

If your argument is that there is no difference between feminists and leftists, then you’re just wrong. There is a massive difference between a feminist like Laci Green and leftist like Barack Obama. There’s literally no comparison in terms of rhetoric or power between these two people. Laci Green has no power over you and never will. Obama has massive power over you, even if you don’t live in the US.

If you agree with me that feminists are not leftists, but you then turn around and say that leftists in power listen to feminists and do their bidding, then hang on, I’ll address that point in a few minutes. Right now I just want to make it clear that leftists and feminists are two different things, and leftists are a huge problem for you while feminists are not a problem at all; they’re just angry, entertaining weirdos.

Yet More Evidence Supporting My Claim

In my first article on this, I stated that feminism is so unpopular and off-putting to people, including women, that whenever feminist messaging is strongly shoved down our throats, that movie, TV show, comic book, or whatever will flop massively and lose a mountain of money. I gave many examples in the article about this.

Case in point: How did the recent Ghostbusters movie do?

Heh. You already know the answer, but I’ll lay it out for you with real numbers.

The movie cost about $144 million to make[*], and the rule of thumb in Hollywood is that a movie must gross double its production budget to make a profit, since marketing the movie usually costs the same as to make it. That means it needed to make about $288 million just to break even, and much more than that to make a profit and justify more feminist Ghostbusters movies.

The director of the movie, Paul Feig, stated publicly that the movie had to gross at least $500 million[*]. Instead, it grossed $228 million world wide. It flopped hard, just like I said it would, and Sony lost between $50 – $70 million. Because people don’t like feminism.

The Nottingham Thing

For those of you who don’t know, back in July the UK city of Nottingham issued a new law that said “misogyny” would be added to the list of “hate crimes.” It was stated that a man could be arrested for using pickup techniques on a woman on the street there.

As you might expect, for about a week or two the manosphere went wild. “Ah HA! See?!? It finally happened! The feminists finally did it! PUA is illegal now!!!”

Just one problem. Nothing actually happened. As of September, only two men have been arrested and these guys were physically groping women on the street, which as I’ve said before is indeed sexual assault. No one has been arrested for just walking up to a girl and asking for her phone number. If I’m mistaken about this, anyone reading is more than welcome to correct me by providing a link to a credible news source in the comments below. I won’t be holding my breath though.

A few more notes on this:

1. Feminists didn’t pass this dumb law. Leftists did. Leftists (that’s leftists as defined by Americans, not leftists as defined by Europeans, which use a different scale for these things) have conquered the UK quite a while ago (Brexit notwithstanding) so I’m not surprised. (I’m in London as I type these words.)

2. Even if men were actually being arrested for walking up to a girl and telling her she’s cute or asking for her phone number (which they are not), Nottingham is just one little city (less than a million people) among thousands of cities all over the Western world. One city out of thousands, where they aren’t even arresting guys, is not a victory for feminists.

3. Will crap like this get worse? YES. Left-wing, anti-man bullshit will get much worse before it gets better (if it ever gets better in our lifetimes). That’s why you need to follow the advice I’ve been giving here for years. More on that in a minute.

But Leftists Help The Feminists!

One argument might be that feminists are a threat because the leftists in power listen to the feminists and impose their will. Women who are not feminists go along with the feminist bullshit, because…why not?More for me!

This is not wrong, but it’s also both an oversimplification and an exaggeration.

Leftists in power have to appeal to a wide range of idiots, uh, I mean, concerned citizens in order to achieve and maintain power over you and me. This includes various groups such as:

  • Communists / Marxists
  • Socialists
  • “Light” socialists and quasi-socialists who support a massive welfare state (i.e. the Bernie Sanders “democratic socialism” people, and the Europeans who think they’re “right-wing,” meaning the European version of right-wing which is still far to the left of the American political scale)
  • People who hate (or are jealous of) rich people
  • Normal people who mistake corporatism for capitalism
  • The eco / green people
  • The PETA save-the-animals people
  • The gay rights people. Oh, excuse me, I mean the LGBT rights people. Oh, excuse me, I mean the LGBTIQ rights people. (You fuckers keep adding letters. Could you stop doing that, please? It’s getting stupid. Soon it will be the LGBTIQRZTWLDAMJ rights people.)
  • Every race, racial group, and racial lobby on planet Earth except whites, including Hispanics, blacks, Indians, Asians, Native Americans, Arabs, etc, etc, etc.
  • Every major religious group on Earth except for Christianity, including Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, atheists (yes, that’s a religion), etc, etc, etc.
  • Those granola, anti-GMO people
  • The blue collar labor people (the labor union guys)
  • The stoner, pro-drug-legalization people
  • Annnnnnd finally, the women’s rights people / feminists.

As you can see, that’s a lot of different groups you need to kiss ass to if you expect to keep power. This creates three problems with the “leftists in power are slaves to feminists” argument.

1. As you can see from the above lists, feminists are just a tiny sliver of all the groups leftists need to kowtow to (or at least pretend to kowtow to, as in the case of people like Hillary Clinton). If you think the typical leftist in power is putting psycho feminist crap at the top of his/her agenda, you’re wrong. That leftist has way too many other groups on their plate to focus on this one area.

2. Refer to my original article about how damn unpopular modern day feminism really is to everyday normal people who do not live in a college campus bubble or on Tumblr. Mainstream leftist politicians know this. They know that if they go out on national TV and state, with a straight face, that watching porn is encouraging rape, or that drawing big breasts in a comic book is a hate crime, they won’t be taken as seriously. This is yet another reason why, while feminism is somewhere on their list long, it’s not at the top of the list. Not even close.

3. The above left-wing groups often have diametrically opposite opinions and go to war against each other. The mainstream media (which leans left) has done a fantastic job at not reporting these things when they happen, but they happen all the time. Here are just two examples just off the top of my head.

People forget that a few years ago California tried to eliminate legal gay marriage. It was called Prop 8. As you might imagine, the left went wild and mobilized to strike Prop 8 down. Anti-Prop 8 initiatives gained world-wide attention and support.

Prop 8 passed anyway, and gay marriage was made illegal in California in 2008. Everyone was stunned (including me). No one knew why. But later the data was leaked out to the public, and guess who the culprit was? Black people. Black people, as left-wing as they are, don’t really like gay people. The left had defeated itself. The media buried the story.

In my home state of Oregon, there is a huge legal battle raging (actually it might be over now; I have not followed up on it) between, get this, Native Americans (American Indians) and the eco-green people. The Indians want to build a casino in the Colombia River Gorge, on their own land, and the white eco-green people are furious that the horrible Indians would DARE damage the environment by building a building on it. The gall!

Politicians have no idea what to do, because to take sides means you’re either anti-environment (can’t have that!) or anti-Indian (can’t have that!). It’s hilarious, and you’ve probably never heard of it.

There are hundreds of these stories every year and you probably don’t hear about any of them. What do you think left-wing, crusty, Alpha Male 1.0, blue collar workers who love their unions think of the typical YouTube feminist’s ideas about the patriarchy? What do you think Western Muslims think about feminists’ views on feminine power?

You get the idea. And let me repeat, leftists in power are well aware these disagreements exist within their own ideology.

I’m not saying leftists in power never do anything feminists like. Of course they do occasionally, and of course they will continue to do so, but the change will be very gradual, for the reasons I just described.

Speaking of that gradual change…

Will It Get Worse?

Will this anti-man stupidity get worse in society as times goes on? YES. But this will happen irrelevant of feminists. Like it or not, left-wingers, feminists included, are on the side of history now. They have soundly defeated the right-wing in the culture wars and did so many years ago. The left-wing has been in charge of the West for many years now, and things will of course get worse, regardless of if feminists are intelligent, stupid, successful, or even exist at all.

This is why, irrelevant of what feminists do or not do, say or not say, you must do what I’ve been advising for many years. That is:

1. Learn game and nonmonogamous relationship management skills, so you can get your sexual needs met whenever you want, regardless of what happens in society.

2. Get your income up to $75,000 per year if it’s not there already, via location independent income, pay off all of your debts, and start socking money away in boring, conservative, safe financial vehicles so you’re financially covered.

3. Detach from the governmental, sexual, and financial system as much as humanly possible, as I outline here and here, so any problems created by government or society either won’t affect you as much (or at all) as compared to the typical beta or Alpha Male 1.0.

4. Optionally, make plans to move out of the Western world some time in the next 5-15 years using the five flags strategy or something close to it. This one is optional, and a little more complicated than the others, but I still recommend it if long-term masculine happiness and freedom is important to you. I’m doing it; by 2025, perhaps sooner, I’m getting the fuck outta here. I’m not saying you need to leave your country tomorrow or even next year. Anytime in the next 5-15 years is probably fine. That’s more than enough time to do your research, save the necessary funds, arrange logistics, and execute a battle plan.

My book covers all of these areas. I highly suggest you get a copy and read it if you have not yet.

Any man reading this is able to do those four things given a few years of effort. I’m not saying you have to be a millionaire or bang 19 year-old models or move out of the country next month. I am not recommending anything that is hugely difficult or impossible for the typical guy. No excuses.

Even more importantly, no other solution will work. Political movements don’t work. (Did the Occupy Wall Street movement make banks smaller? Did the Tea Party movement make governement smaller?) Brexit won’t fix it. Donald Trump won’t fix it. A revolution won’t fix it. Voting for any political party won’t fix it. Protests won’t fix it. Writing your congressman won’t fix it. We’re past the point of no return now. Improve your life, detach from the system, and/or get out of the Western world. Or angrily look around for political or societal solutions “out there” that don’t exist and suffer the consequences. The choice is yours.

58 Comments on “Feminism Isn’t A Threat – Revisited

  1. Unless you believe that every single native inhabitant in the Western world (500+ million) is going to get murdered by their own governments or third-worlders there is something to fight for. This can also very well be done without actually staying there, say spreading propaganda, hacking corrupt politicians or funding dissidents from a safe haven.

  2. I have the similar opinion regarding feminism. Yes, toxic feminists exist. But they are not worse than toxic manosphere men. I personally think feminists have won their battle by achieving what they wanted to.

    I tried to explain this to everyone(whenever the topic of feminism came up). Most of my friends are right-wing angry manosphere kinda men. I never understood why, instead of focusing on getting rich or working towards some productive goals, talk shit about feminism and left-wing whenever they can.

    As an alpha 2.0, you should be aware of what’s going on around you BUT not actively participate in politics(except casting a vote) because it doesn’t increase your happiness in any way.

    I’ve tried an experiment. Looked at all people in my life and ranked them according to their level of success. Then I analyzed how much they talk about politics everyday. RESULT: The people who are rich+ happy+ successful don’t talk about politics.

    Even after explaining everything clearly in this post, typical angry manosphere man WILL NOT AGREE with you (it looks like this post is geared towards them) mostly because he is incapable of entertaining an opinion that opposes him.

    So, is this just a random thoughts kinda post or geared towards typical manosphere men? 

    If latter is the case, you probably understand that you are not going to change them. Right?

    Typical manosphere men share the same kind of fate that crazy, hard-core feminists share. A life of sadness.

  3. Ah, but it is easier to blame a group for your personal failures than it is to take personal responsibility.

    The unfortunate thing is that many (not all) men paint all women with the same brush.

    Poke a stick at an innocent snake enough time and yes it will turn and bite you. But that does not make the statement *that all snakes bite* true.

    To stay on topic I will say that women are the easiest target – they are everywhere and are (usually) easy to identify. The other groups are scary, there just might be a man in them. And most men do not want to go toe to toe with another man.

  4. 2. Get your income up to $75,000 per year if it’s not there already, via location independent income, pay off all of your debts, and start socking money away in boring, conservative, safe financial vehicles so you’re financially covered.

    Hey BD, what are some of those “boring, conservative, safe financial vehicles” you can kindly share?

    Thanks,

  5. @thescalpmaster: Your analysis may have some truth to it but I find it kind of ironic to claim that only unsuccessful, angry men care about politics when Trump may be the next POTUS. He is THE hero of manosphere and alt-right guys. I think it would be more correct to say that focusing on such causes BEFORE you are rich and successful and have achieved something of value yourself is bad for your happiness. Then you won’t overinvest in something which has an uncertain return on investment.

  6. Modern feminism could possibly have a lot more power if they wanted to, but they are too stuck in a victim mentality. They’d rather whine than do anything about the problems they claim to have. They lack audacity, strategy, and a winning attitude. They used to have those qualities when feminism was more about civil rights, but the third wave feminist cause has become a bit lazy and frivolous since then.

  7. The harm that feminism causes is that it confuses men.  Men have to make the first move at every key point in interactions with women, period (HT Tom Torero).

    approach
    show intent
    get number
    ask for date
    kiss
    invite home
    escalate

  8. Without an authoritarian takeover, can you even have leftism without feminism? I can’t really think of a single culture where women are expected to conform to traditional gender roles where these things are a problem.

  9. No one knew why. But later the data was leaked out to the public, and guess who the culprit was? Black people. Black people, as left-wing as they are, don’t really like gay people. The left had defeated itself.

    PRO TIP: What’s the easiest way to get blacks and hispanics to vote irrationally? RELIGION.

    I was initially surprised by the result myself, but then I read some statistics that showed a significant percentage of Prop 8 financial support originated from the state of Utah. From there, it wasn’t too hard to figure out what happened.

    there is something to fight for. This can also very well be done without actually staying there, say spreading propaganda, hacking corrupt politicians or funding dissidents from a safe haven.

    And what exactly are you fighting for? Who do you think enables those corrupt politicians? The 99% and 1% thrive off of each other. Neither side wants change. Attacking one will bring the ire of the other.

    Your analysis may have some truth to it but I find it kind of ironic to claim that only unsuccessful, angry men care about politics when Trump may be the next POTUS. He is THE hero of manosphere and alt-right guys.

    How is that ironic? Manosphere/alt right is the personification of “unsuccessful and angry”. They are the male complement to the subject of this article.

    Trump is specifically targeting those people, and it’s a smart move on his part.

  10. @donnie demarco

    Survival of people of Western heritage. There has always been corrupt elites, I don’t understand how that is even an argument.

    As for your second point, I halfway agree with “angry” , though you don’t need to be angry just because you dislike how society is evolving and want to change the course.

    However I do not buy the point that Manosphere or Alt right guys in general are that “unsuccessful” without documentation. I personally live in Europe where middle class, educated guys in their 30s often vote for the nationalist parties. Actually this is just like hearing left-wing manipulators claiming that Western men who dislike their ideology are uneducated, poor losers who don’t get laid. I personally know too many exceptions to that “rule” to take such statements very seriously.

     

  11. When I say feminist, I mean the angry, purple haired overweight women on YouTube and on college campuses who scream at the top of their lungs about stupid shit that doesn’t exist like the 77 cents thingandrape culture.
    That’s it. I’m not talking about anyone else.

    …which means you’re not even talking about real feminists. Just a handful of very vocal and angry man-hating women who represent the opinions of… just about no one.
    I know you mean well BD but your definition of ‘feminist’ just makes a silly straw-man argument of this whole post.

  12. They used to have those qualities when feminism was more about civil rights

    Yeah, my mom was part of that camp. She was in NOW in the mid 70s and they actually had plans to make abortion legal and stuff. She said that the 77 cents thing was true back then but has gotten more and more evened out since. She still argues that chicks make less money than dudes but that’s really just her defending her own kind. Today’s brand of feminism has pretty much become a hate group, not unlike white nationalists and the alt-right. Its like the perfect all american marriage: Alpha 1 (or as I call them Beta 2) married to an undercover ratchet/succubus (what BD calls “dominants”). My mom doesn’t even like the term “feminism.” She doesn’t like any of those -isms. Neither do I.

    The Rape Culture thing I kind of disagree with. It still kind of exists (not as much as it did back in the day) but when a male rape victim is completely vilified and can’t get help anywhere and only faces the advice (from both sexes) of “MAN UP!!” as a response, that kind of argues the point that rape is still something that society still sees as permissible.

    Only now its drilled into our heads that if you don’t have sex with a chick properly, then you have raped her. Which is fine by me, if you have sex with a chick and you aren’t committed to making her come then you are a pretty shitty human being.

    But society still thinks that men don’t get raped and that its no big deal if a man gets raped unless he was molested as a child. Hell we make fun of prison bitches all the time but they have no one to turn to! One of my buddies got raped in prison and he killed himself weeks after getting out. No one took his pain of being raped in prison seriously. I understand that I’m coming across as an MRA here but rape culture is still a thing…only these days it affects men just as much (I’ll argue more) than women. I guess it just hits home for me.

    But because these groups only look out for their own kind, they’ll never recognize that others suffer in silence.

  13. ““atheists (yes, that’s a religion)”
    No it is not a religion
    and we got you straightened out about that the last time you said it………………”
    Religion: a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.
    Sound like anyone you know?

  14. “Unless you believe that every single native inhabitant in the Western world (500+ million) is going to get murdered by their own governments or third-worlders there is something to fight for.”

    It’s not murder by their own governments but by a small clique of 18th Bankers and the control they’ve built up over a century into every sphere of life thru corporations, hence….

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFQ2_0QNiks

    That’s why I really don’t buy into any of the Global warming bull that’s been peddled by the media, this has been going on for 10+ years in the USA and at least from 2010 in the UK.

    The war has always been, from all times, a battle between Libertarians and Collectivist Monarchs/Kings/Banking elites.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1T-62uxbMBM

    And if you really want to freak out, youtube ‘Denver International Airport’ and ‘Sinister’

     

  15. This can also very well be done without actually staying there, say spreading propaganda, hacking corrupt politicians or funding dissidents from a safe haven.

    Please list some precise examples of things like this actually changing things for the betterment of the traditional right-wing in the Western world in the last 15-20 years or so.

    Alex Jones spreads propganda. How is that working out?

    Hillary got hacked; did that slow her down?

    Etc.

    Give me facts, not wishful thinking.

    I never understood why, instead of focusing on getting rich or working towards some productive goals, talk shit about feminism and left-wing whenever they can.

    This is my issue with them as well.

    Make money. Get laid. Live life. This is all doable regardless of the bullshit left-wing world we live in (though it requires a little more strategic though than it did before).

    Even after explaining everything clearly in this post, typical angry manosphere man WILL NOT AGREE with you

    Correct, and I’ve said as much in prior posts. About 60% (my guess) of the manosphere are men who are angry and want to be angry. When you want to be angry, things like facts and stats aren’t going to sway you.

    This applies to the left too.

    So, is this just a random thoughts kinda post or geared towards typical manosphere men?

    It’s directed at angry manosphere types, but actually written for that special 10% who can be saved…those who secretly want to be happy. I’m sneaky like that.

    Hey BD, what are some of those “boring, conservative, safe financial vehicles” you can kindly share?

    Go read my other blog, since we talk a little about it over there. If you want detailed specifics, you’ll have to join my membership program.

    The harm that feminism causes is that it confuses men.  Men have to make the first move at every key point in interactions with women, period

    Men have always had to do that.

    Wait didn’t Ghostbusters gross 228 million not 288 or did I miss something? Typo?

    Typo. Corrected. Thank you.

    I can’t really think of a single culture where women are expected to conform to traditional gender roles where these things are a problem.

    In those cultures, you have other problems. Namely a little thing called lack of freedom. Read this.

    …which means you’re not even talking about real feminists.

    Uhhh…I’m not sure if you’re making a joke or not. Feminists aren’t feminists? If feminists aren’t feminists, please precisely define what a “real” feminist is so I can be educated.

    “atheists (yes, that’s a religion)”

    No it is not a religion

    and we got you straightened out about that the last time you said it

    In which comment, exactly? I looked through them all and didn’t see anyone setting me straight about anything.

  16. Just a handful of very vocal and angry man-hating women who represent the opinions of… just about no one.

    Oh give us a break. I can’t believe this is still being defended.
    If the “good” feminism is the search for equality while acknowledging that some sex differences stem from biology and not social injustice, then feminists are basically: Camille Paglia, Christina Sommers, and a handful of others, all of whom are considered antifeminists by the rest of the “feminist” community.
    I used to believe that first and second-wave feminism were the good ones but “went wrong” with the 80s and the third wave, but now I think differently. As early as the late 18thC, proto-feminism had already started on a false premise: that any psychological (sometimes even physical !) differences between men and women are due to nurture, and that “therefore” it’s society, and men being evil, that caused this, and therefore, we need to stick it to the man to bring women up.
    This belief is at the root of virtually all the faulty thinking that leads to men being so ridiculously misjudged (I prefer not to give examples because I’d go on a frenzy and I’ve got no time) so pervasively. If you’re blind enough not to see this on countless blogs and social media, read some white female OkCupid profiles and you’ll see that this is not about just a handful blue haired psychos: in France for example my estimate is that at least 30%, if not 50% of women have at least some of this madness.

    To these people, the only good man is the man who is basically a woman. Women need to be treated like children when they do something bad, and like adults when they ask for their rights; men need to have their freedom restricted like children, and be held to the responsibilities of adults. As someone said it online the other day, “I wouldn’t be surprised if they soon ask for boys to receive oestrogen injections starting age 12”, to get rid of the nasty masculinity.

  17. “atheists (yes, that’s a religion)”

    Sorry BD, but if atheism is a religion, then libertarianism is a religion too. Both would protest that their ideology is based on evidence and not dogma, but both deserve the label if you’re gonna call a religion any ideology where a significant proportion of the followers are dogmatic, vocal, proselytizing, etc.
    Tell me exactly how atheism can be called a religion without slipping into calling any system of belief really, a religion. Agnosticism has dogma, deism has dogma, traditional religion has dogma, political and economic systems are surrounded by dogma. Either we restrict the definition or we expand it, but we can’t start cherry-picking just because one has more followers/more visibility/isn’t the one you’re following. There are plenty of very calm, non-confrontational atheists, but people dislike them more than agnostics because agnostics sound like they’re not threatening the religious (while really, agnostics still think the religious are dead wrong: what they believe is “unsure”, but it is damn sure that they shouldn’t believe it).
    I suspect you think atheism is a religion because you think certitude is inevitably religious (by the way, how is an agnostic who has the “certitude” that you can’t know the answer not religious in that case ?), but there is such a thing as a rational certitude in a logical contradiction for example: “If God is almighty, then he cannot be good because evil exists; if God is good, then he cannot be almighty because evil exists; thus if God is good and almighty, he doesn’t exist”. By this narrow definition of God, it is entirely rational to be an atheist; by broader definitions, agnosticism might be more reasonable. You might say “ideology X has more conspicuous dogmatic tendencies than others”, but if you’re going to lump atheism with the monotheisms and buddhism (you didn’t even mention marxism, and atheism is decidedly lower on that ladder), you’d better give us a very strong case, and you can’t.

  18. Sorry BD, but if atheism is a religion, then libertarianism is a religion too.

    I’ve NEVER met a libertarian who threw his libertarianism in my face. Not once. And I’ve met a lot of libertarians.

    I have met MANY atheists who threw their atheism in my face without being asked.

    That’s what I mean by a “religion.”

    You really need to get your head out of your textbooks and get off these esoteric, academic arguments. You’re going crazy with them here. Relax.

  19. Then you’re throwing the label way too easily. Religion isn’t a simple word and when you repeatedly make an analogy between atheism and religion, there has to be something more robust in common than just “they throw it in your face without being asked” (because then crossfitters, vegans and female PhDs will qualify, if I may risk a sexist rant). The word becomes meaningless if you strip it down to proselytism and being vocal.

  20. I can use any labels I want as long as I explain why I use them and I’m definitionally consistent with their useage. Read this.

    When I say “religion” I mean a fervent belief that is so emotionally embraced, you can’t shut the fuck up about it, you throw it in everyone’s face during normal conversation even if you weren’t asked and it’s not the topic being discussed, and get furious and/or emotional whenever anyone attempts to refute it instead of having a rational discussion about it.

    And yes, by my definition, many vegans are part of a religion, absolutely.

  21. Alright, I give up then. Just curious: have you had any travel-related problems with your anti-cravings diet ?

  22. I’ll be discussing that over at the CJ Blog when I get back into town. There’s also a little info on that in my upcoming post here regarding Italy.

  23. @Blackdragon

    Your question is a fallacy. Just because Leftism has been on the offensive does not mean that it will go on forever or that the actions against it has been useless.

    You could have made the same point about Nazism in 1941.

  24. Your question is a fallacy.

    Let me guess, you’re not going to answer my question. I wonder why that is?

    What does that say about your argument if you can’t answer questions about it?

    What do you think people reading will think about your argument vs. mine?

    Just because Leftism has been on the offensive does not mean that it will go on forever or that the actions against it has been useless.

    You’re half right. Leftism will collapse at some point, as I’ve been saying forever, because left-wing economic policies are not sustainable.

    But at this particular point in history, the left won’t collapse because of the right. The left will collapse because of itself. The right has already been defeated.

  25. there has to be something more robust in common than just “they throw it in your face without being asked” 

    Alright, then, I’ll take a crack at it.

    What I think BD means is those who use their worldviews as a guide to life, and also as a moral compass. You see morals, just like what we call facts, are really just a bunch of opinions that are agreed on. When he talks about Atheism being a religion, he’s talking about the observation that many atheists use atheism as a code to how they live. I was like this with nihilism in my high school years (at my own expense lol): I really didn’t care about anything, walked around telling people that their beliefs don’t affect shit, and belligerently told them that they are asleep and they should wake up and read some Schopenhauer.

    Atheists attempt to “convince” others to believe what they believe, or hold that their beliefs are somehow better than the beliefs of others in similar ways. People like to argue that no one has been killed in the face of atheism. And my answer to that is just wait. Just wait until there comes a time where they are able to make money from their religion and are able to get away with murder like many western religions can (if feminists want to bitch about rape culture, they should focus more on the “murder culture” of western religions with atheism slowly becoming one lol).

    That’s what makes atheism a religion. Its also what IMO also makes Libertarian views (and pretty much anything where the modus operandi is collective thought) a religion too. Give the Libertarians (and ESPECIALLY my camp, anarchists) a platform the size of the left and right. They’ll shoot a collective propaganda load across all our faces!

    I know better. I’m an anarchist and nihilist at the core, and I kind of borrow freely from other worldviews (feminism included: I view their “anti scrub/fuckboy” agenda as a form of passive eugenics, which I’m a fan of) and irl I don’t swing my beliefs around like a big dick. Atheists have for about 15 or so years now. Libertarians are beginning to.

  26. @Blackdragon

    When you ask questions that do not make sense, the correct answer is to point out exactly that. You also dismiss a major victory like Brexit as insignificant, so giving more examples is clearly pointless.

    To continue the WW2 analogy, this is like claiming that early allied victories like sinking of the German surface navy and bombing raids were pointless as the Germans were still able to occupy continental Europe and inflict extreme losses on the mighty Red Army in 1941.

    As for you second point, all sorts of utopian ideologies like Nazism, Communism, Leftism etc will collapse. That does obviously not imply that it makes zero sense to fight them in order to limit their damage or contain them. And it clearly makes sense to educate people in order to ease the recovery after the crash.

     

  27. When you ask questions that do not make sense, the correct answer is to point out exactly that.

    My question made sense. You made an assertion. I asked you to give specific past examples of that assertion. You could not.

    You also dismiss a major victory like Brexit as insignificant

    Not only have I never said that, that’s the opposite of what I’ve said. Brexit is hugely significant and I’ve said that many times over at my other blog. What I said was that it will not prevent the UK from collapsing in the long-term. Because it won’t.

    It’s the same with a Trump victory in the US. If Trump wins (and he probably won’t), it will be hugely significant. And in the long-term, it won’t help.

    To continue the WW2 analogy

    War analogies don’t apply here. But if you want them to apply, it would be like rallying the few Nazis left in Argentina to get up and fight the US and Russia in 1950. Because they can win!!!

    That does obviously not imply that it makes zero sense to fight them in order to limit their damage or contain them.

    If your goal is to win, or turn things around, then it makes zero sense. You’ve already lost. It’s not going to happen.

    If on the other hand, your goal is to minimize the damage WHEN, not if, but WHEN the inevitable collapse occurs in a few years, then clearly state that, and I might go along with that goal. That’s actually achievable to some degree.

  28. @Blackdragon,

    No, your question still makes zero sense and I am done commenting it.

    Of course, Brexit BY ITSELF is not enough. Absolutely every dissident to the right understands that. It may however very well be a sign that the tides are turning against the Globalist Left.

    War analogies apply as they are just conflict analogies on a shorter time scale. If you want a more ideological analogy, it took the Eastern Europeans 45 years to rid themselves of Communism. That involved protests, riots, subversion, spreading of illegal newspapers, help with propaganda from Westerners, activists going in exile and fighting from abroad etc. You would probably have claimed this was pointless around 1970, when Communism was on its zenith of power. Or that it was pointless because Communism would anyway collapse by itself.

  29. I think a good gauge of feminist prevalence is seeing how they react to the taking away of “women’s right to vote”. Then you will see that it is the mainstream.

    Also how they would react to women not being allowed to have Authority over men. And the requirement that women submit to and obey their husband.

    If they react positively they are not egalitarians or feminists at least in belief.

  30. @Joelsuf: based on this:

    and pretty much anything where the modus operandi is collective thought

    …it seems we have no significant disagreement: if you expand the definition of religion to that scale, then yes, all those things are religions. Because human nature, and this.
    I don’t like to use the label atheist on myself for various reasons, and I just say “nonreligious” when asked, but when I do use it, what I mean is “I think this conception of a deity (insert specific definition) is either demonstrably unlikely, or gratuitously speculative”. I see nothing religious about such a description; but when you reframe it this way “Gil Galad has joined atheism”, then it sounds like I’m following some kind of cult.

    Sam Harris and Bill Maher put it best: we have no word in “ist” or “ism” for someone who rejects astrology, or Zeus, or goblins, and there are loads of atheists who don’t walk around all day “being atheists”, just like being a non-astrologer doesn’t define me and takes very little of my time. If it weren’t so, everyone would have to explain his non-adherence to something in terms of “why are you part of this religious movement”.
    By the way, Bill Maher, who passes for an “in-your-face” kind of atheist, is arguably no atheist at all: he stated “the only appropriate response for humans (to the god question) is doubt”. Is it agnostics now who are religious, huh ?

    There are people who are very vocal about how they don’t think 100m sprinters are gonna break 9.5 seconds, or how spanking kids is bad, or Mexico will be first world power next century, and they’re not called a religious group because the subject is less sensitive: they evaluated a claim and they delivered their assessment, that’s all. When someone says atheism is a religion, the cause is in him, not in someone a bit eager to convey his assessment that gods are unlikely: he makes atheism a bigger deal than the rest and judges it more harshly – for the same behavior – than the expression of less ‘loaded’ opinions. The other reason, of course, is that religion is harmful both to the believers and the others, so yeah, many atheists try to spread the word against it. Who was the first to make gratuitous claims about the world, life and sin, and promise damnation to whoever disagrees ? Not atheists. As I said earlier it is lower than marxism on the ‘religiosity’ scale, and definitely lower than feminism, lol.

  31. Since we are talking about feminism here… What are your thoughts on poly communities (like https://www.reddit.com/r/polyamory) or poly books (like opening up, more than two, ethical slut comes to my mind) which have a more feminist vibe?

    I think I know the answer but I would really apreciate your input.

  32. The way the American political system is set up forces there to be two major parties with diverse interests that don’t necessarily relate.  I’m a left winger who will vote for Hillary Clinton, but it does annoy me when she talks about gender issues. I just have to comfort myself by knowing that it’s very much a tactical thing in an election against Donald Trump and isn’t much of anything she will actually be able to implement in practice. And really there aren’t many gender-related political issues in the grand scheme of things, and most of them are marriage/child related so they’re pretty easy to avoid.

     

  33. What are your thoughts on poly communities (like https://www.reddit.com/r/polyamory) or poly books (like opening up, more than two, ethical slut comes to my mind) which have a more feminist vibe?

    As you said, many of these books/communities are tend to be more female-centric, with a strong Dominant dating two or three extreme betas. That’s generalization though.

  34. “Case in point: How did the recent Ghostbusters movie do?”

    This is a pretty weak argument. First of all, it’s one data point (and other ‘feminist’ media such as Aziz Ansari’s Master of None are roaring successes). But besides that, Ghostbusters flopped because of using the Ghostbusters IP, not because of feminism. The marketing campaign was a complete misfire because the Venn Diagram between “Ghostbuster fans” and “Mainstream Feminists” has only a small overlap. Had Ghostbusters been another movie with the same premise, it would’ve been just a regular ass comedy and wouldn’t have required as massive a marketing budget to get hype for the “new Ghostbusters.” It also wouldn’t alienate Ghostbuster fans and would have probably brought in more money in addition to being cheaper.

    Also if you watched the movie (sidenote: I didn’t pay dick for it, bootleg ftw) it really wasn’t that feminist (or at least not as much as the trailers made it out to be). It was just an average comedy with like one or two “omg girl power” jokes thrown in.

  35. Every race, racial group, and racial lobby on planet Earth except whites, including Hispanics, blacks, Indians, Asians, Native Americans, Arabs, etc, etc, etc.

    You claim that racism is “societal programming” yet you literally just called every nonwhite person on Earth “idiots.” How does this make any sense?

    Every major religious group on Earth except for Christianity, including Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, atheists (yes, that’s a religion), etc, etc, etc

    Atheism is not a religion. The definition of atheism literally is the lack of belief in religion. Now if you bend the term “religion” around, you could make the case that certain “Atheists” are religious. And by that I mean constantly and religiously sucking people like Richard Dawkins’ and Neil DeGrasse Tyson’s dicks until blue in the face, when nobody else gives a shit.

  36. “But later the data was leaked out to the public, and guess who the culprit was? Black people. Black people, as left-wing as they are, don’t really like gay people.”

    Uhh no. This shows your complete ignorance of Black culture. “Black people” don’t hate gay people, Christian religious fucktards hate gay people. And it turns out that Black people (along with other minorities like Mexicans and Koreans who are much more dominant in CA politics than elsewhere) are an extremely religious group and give more of a shit about the Church than some gay marriage bill.

     

  37. This is a pretty weak argument. First of all, it’s one data point

    Correct. It’s one data point.

    (and other ‘feminist’ media such as Aziz Ansari’s Master of None are roaring successes).

    They are? Why have I never heard of it then? What the fuck is Master of None?

    Also if you watched the movie (sidenote: I didn’t pay dick for it, bootleg ftw) it really wasn’t that feminist (or at least not as much as the trailers made it out to be). It was just an average comedy with like one or two “omg girl power” jokes thrown in.

    I agree the movie wasn’t feminist / girl power per se, but its marketing campaign was.

    You claim that racism is “societal programming”

    I don’t claim it. It is. More info on that here.

    yet you literally just called every nonwhite person on Earth “idiots.”

    Dude. Really? These are your arguments?

    Any clear-thinking person reading within context understands that I’m not calling all non-white people idiots. I said leftists need to appeal to a wide range of idiots. This includes non-white idiots.

    Atheism is not a religion.

    See my comments above on this.

    “Black people” don’t hate gay people

    I don’t know how many black people you know, but I know quite a few, since there are many in my family (in-laws) and if you start talking about gay people in front of black people, you’ll find out pretty fast how they feel about them. This includes left-wing black people (which are most black people)

    Christian religious fucktards hate gay people

    Yes. They hate them too.

    And it turns out that Black people (along with other minorities like Mexicans and Koreans who are much more dominant in CA politics than elsewhere) are an extremely religious group and give more of a shit about the Church than some gay marriage bill.

    Annnnnd you just proved my point. Thank you.

    Feminism is a major threat to the West. By that I mean the original first-wave Feminism and voting rights for women which is the reason why we have all this Leftism today

    Yes, but that’s not a “threat” in that it has already come and gone and is now ingrained into society, never to be removed (pre-collapse, that is).

    Once the collapse occurs, hopefully the people rebuilding society will heed the Founding Fathers’ warnings about democracy being a terrible idea. Letting everyone vote (irrelevant of race or gender) is flat out stupid.

    Most people don’t realize that at the founding of the USA, most white men couldn’t vote either. That’s a good thing (if you like freedom that is; if you like socialism, then you want everyone voting).

  38. “They are? Why have I never heard of it then? What the fuck is Master of None?”

    Master of None is a Primetime Emmy winning TV show on Netflix:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_of_None#Reception

    Aside from random feminist things sprinkled throughout the series, this show has an entire episode basically dedicated to typical feminist talking points (episode 7). I don’t know if you’re too old to use Netflix or some shit, but literally everyone and their mom uses it now. It’s one of the most popular comedies on the service.

  39. “Letting everyone vote (irrelevant of race or gender) is flat out stupid.”

    What is the alternative then? How are you going to prevent certain people from voting without pissing them off enough to the point where they force you to give them a vote? Do you know anything about history? Because that already happened and that’s why the 15th and 19th amendments exist.

  40. “Annnnnd you just proved my point. Thank you.”

    I literally proved that you don’t know what you are talking about. Black people don’t hate gays because that’s a “black thing,” they hate gays because it’s a “church thing.” As soon as you find black people who are slightly less religious than the norm or in higher income communities, the prevalence of gay acceptance skyrockets.

  41. hopefully the people rebuilding society will heed the Founding Fathers’ warnings about democracy being a terrible idea. Letting everyone vote (irrelevant of race or gender) is flat out stupid.

    Or even better, the people rebuilding society will heed the warnings that anarchists like myself, Adam Kokesh, Stefan Molyneux and Doug Casey present about government itself being a terrible idea. And if you read him closely enough, this is also what Marx wanted originally.

  42. I don’t know if you’re too old to use Netflix or some shit, but literally everyone and their mom uses it now.

    Well, yeah, I’m 44 years old and thus way too old for all that them there newfangled stuff you youngin’s use. What the hell is this “Netflix” thing? I ain’t never heard of that, you whippersnapper. (spits in spittoon)

    What is the alternative then? How are you going to prevent certain people from voting without pissing them off enough to the point where they force you to give them a vote?

    Ask Singapore (as just one example, I could give you many others). They’re doing a great job with the concept.

    As I have to often repeat on my blogs, just because you don’t see something happen in your country and in your era, doesn’t mean it’s never been done or is impossible.

    Black people don’t hate gays because that’s a “black thing,” they hate gays because it’s a “church thing.”

    Blacks hate gays, you said it again. Thanks again for proving my point.

    Man, you really are kicking my ass!

    Or even better, the people rebuilding society will heed the warnings that anarchists like myself, Adam Kokesh, Stefan Molyneux and Doug Casey present about government itself being a terrible idea.

    I love all three of those guys but it will never happen. Like it or not, human beings like government. You’ll never have anarchism. The best you can hope for is a libertarianish, minarchist nation.

  43. Of course feminism isn’t a threat to you or most of this blog’s readers. But it’s a very real danger to younger generations, it is doing damage now and has been doing it for quite some time already. It is changing the way kids are raised, it is changing not only male role-models but also rational role-models presented to them, and it is driving kids (now old enough to enter college) CRAZY. Suicide rates are soaring as a result, neuroactive prescriptions to teenagers are at an all time high, workforce participation at an all time low especially in young adults who seem to cower from leaving their parents’ home. You complain about widespread irrationality at leisure on this blog, but I think you should then recognize that the pink-haired, non-binary, otherkin brand of feminism, the very ideology denounced by Christina H. Sommers in “who stole feminism” and which is the main motive behind the “war against boys”, had been sapping the early foundations of it in an entire generation of kids.

    I bet you will add “feminism isn’t really a threat” to your next batch of ideas that you believed were true, eventually.

  44. Jesrad, you’re making the mistake I talked about in the article above: mixing up left-wing progressivism with third wave feminism. Progressivism is indeed a threat to younger generations, and I think the threat is even bigger than you do, since I argue that these generations are completely fucked no matter what happens (unless they move out of the West, and even then it’s going to be hard).

    If you simply change the word feminism in your comment to leftism, then I completely agree with you.

  45. @Blackdragon

    Yes, but that’s not a “threat” in that it has already come and gone and is now ingrained into society, never to be removed (pre-collapse, that is).

    Voting rights for any group can be revoked at the instant the Military has had enough and performs a coup. This could easily happen in both the US and some of the larger European nations.

  46. Voting rights for any group can be revoked at the instant the Military has had enough and performs a coup. This could easily happen in both the US and some of the larger European nations.

    Great, but I don’t want to live in a military junta. I want freedom. Read this.

  47. @ Blackdragon
    The comment was not about where you would want to live, rather about a less fatalistic scenario for the future of Western nations.

    However I don’t think living in a dictatorship or even under a junta is so bad. There are Westerners thriving in China, Singapore and Thailand both as tourists and inhabitants. Of course there are some restraints like drug use and restrictions on protesting/free speech. But I would personally not care as long as there is a fair degree of economic freedom and sexual freedom and society is not being suicidal like in the west.

     

  48. The comment was not about where you would want to live, rather about a less fatalistic scenario for the future of Western nations.

    You think the West becoming a military dictatorship isn’t very fatalistic?

    Um, oooookkaayyyy.

    I don’t think living in a dictatorship or even under a junta is so bad. There are Westerners thriving in China, Singapore and Thailand both as tourists and inhabitants.

    Those aren’t military dictatorships.

  49. @ Blackdragon

    With regards to Thailand this country is run by a general after a coup in 2014. And given the fact that Western tourists still go there in large numbers I don’t regard the possibility of such events in the West to be very fatalistic.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thailand#2014_to_present

    Another example is Turkey. It was an OK place to visit as long as the secular army had the last say. Now it is a fundamentalist shithole full of terrorism and extremism after becoming more democratic.

     

  50. “Ask Singapore (as just one example, I could give you many others). They’re doing a great job with the concept.
    As I have to often repeat on my blogs, just because you don’t see something happen in your country and in your era, doesn’t mean it’s never been done or is impossible.”
    OK, I guess a better question would be: who specifically do you think shouldn’t have the right to vote and why? Most of the voting limitations in Singapore exist in other countries to some extent, but what do you think disqualifies a person as a voter?

  51. “I love all three of those guys but it will never happen. Like it or not, human beings like government. You’ll never have anarchism. The best you can hope for is a libertarianish,minarchist nation.”

    Human beings don’t necessarily like government, because there wouldn’t be any anarchists if that was true. You claim that “The best you can hope for is minarchism” but you don’t provide any justification whatsoever.

  52. Ehhh – You’re getting way off topic. The questions you have for me now are more appropriate for my other blog. Next time I talk about them over there (and I do often), feel free to challenge me on them. Over there.

    Zarko – Same with you. Whether or not Thailand is a military dictatorship is not something I want to discuss nor is it relevant to the topic at hand.

    To all readers/commenters: please do your best to stick with the core topic of the presented article when commenting here. Thanks in advance.

  53. Dear Blackdragon,

    I’ve been following your blog posts closely, and I must admit that I agree with you on most topics.

    However, there is one HUGE issue that you are clearly mistaken about.

    Trump won!

    Therefore all your posts regarding the “socialization” of the US have been invalidated.

    Good Day

    Anonymous

  54. Trump won!

    Therefore all your posts regarding the “socialization” of the US have been invalidated.

    Trump just won, so America isn’t socialist anymore?

    Oh boy, are you in for a surprise over the next 5-10 years…

    (And if Trump just won and everything is great now, what does that say about me saying feminism isn’t a threat? That I was right…)

Leave a Reply

To leave a comment, enter your comment below. PLEASE make sure to read the commenting rules before commenting, since failure to follow these rules means your comment may be deleted. Also please do not use the username “Anonymous” or “Anon” or any variation thereof (makes things too confusing).

Off-topic comments are allowed, but Caleb will ignore those.

Caleb responds to comments in person, but he only does so on the two most current blog articles.

Related Posts

Begin typing your search term above and press enter to search.